From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/07/2025 09:33, Mark Goodge wrote:

No; the maximum sentence is seven years, but she was given 31 months. So the sentence was in the lower half of the scale. Taking the sentencing
guidelines into account, the minimum sentence, had she been found guilty at
a trial, would have been three and a half years. She was entitled to an automatic 25% discount on that due to pleading guilty, which brought it down to 31 months, of which she will serve 40% - that is, just over a year - and the remainder will be on licence.

In this case I am glad for her being let out so soon.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/07/2025 19:38, GB wrote:

There was an appeal, which makes interesting reading: https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/ Crim/2025/657.html

I disagree with the judge's decision in point 56. The woman's words were emotional and I don't believe that any reasonable person would take them seriously.

Furthermore by the time she wrote, the violence was already underway (or possibly even peaked), so there is no evidence that anyone took her
words seriously or that her words caused violence.

That said, I see little excuse for vulgar language (except that it shows
her emotional state, perhaps) and calling for violence against anyone is
not a good thing to do.

The other messages cited in the appeal merely show that she is concerned
about the unchecked illegal immigration that is being permitted by
successive governments, a concern that is shared by me and by many others.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 02/07/2025 20:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 02/07/2025 19:38, GB wrote:

There was an appeal, which makes interesting reading:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/
Crim/2025/657.html

I disagree with the judge's decision in point 56. The woman's words were emotional and I don't believe that any reasonable person would take them seriously.

People say things without thinking on social media (perhaps thinking
they are more anonymous than they actually are). In her case:

"Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the
bastards for all I care. ... If that makes me racist, so be it."

That didn't read well in court. It certainly seems to be incitement to
burn down hotels *with people inside* - which very nearly happened.

She may not have intended her words to be taken literally, but then she
could have added something corny like "Don't take me literally. I'm just venting."

Furthermore by the time she wrote, the violence was already underway (or possibly even peaked), so there is no evidence that anyone took her
words seriously or that her words caused violence.

Or, she was trying to stoke things up again, perhaps?






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 03/07/2025 20:34, GB wrote:

On 02/07/2025 20:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 02/07/2025 19:38, GB wrote:

There was an appeal, which makes interesting reading:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/
Crim/2025/657.html

I disagree with the judge's decision in point 56. The woman's words
were emotional and I don't believe that any reasonable person would
take them seriously.

People say things without thinking on social media (perhaps thinking
they are more anonymous than they actually are). In her case:

"Mass deportation now. Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care. ... If that makes me racist, so be it."

That didn't read well in court. It certainly seems to be incitement to
burn down hotels *with people inside* - which very nearly happened.

She may not have intended her words to be taken literally, but then she could have added something corny like "Don't take me literally. I'm just venting."

Furthermore by the time she wrote, the violence was already underway
(or possibly even peaked), so there is no evidence that anyone took
her words seriously or that her words caused violence.

Or, she was trying to stoke things up again, perhaps?

Sorry, to clarify, I'm not accusing her of that. I'm just saying that we
can't really know what she intended.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2