| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:24:59 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,611 |
Is it wrong to steal?-a The obvious answer is yes of course, but lots of people do it.-a I'm thinking in particular of stealing from the state.
The most obvious is fiddling your welfare benefits or cheating the tax man.
As an accountant I'm more than aware of those who will try to evade
paying tax on their profit, but is it acceptable for them to not declare that small job they did for -u50 cash, for example?
Nowadays it seems to be more acceptable to defraud the taxman, but that
also deprives the Government of much needed revenue, even if it is just
to squander it on putting illegal immigrants in luxury hotels!
So is there a line, are-a some forms of evading tax acceptable, eg a taxi driver who doesn't declare his cash tips? Or is theft theft, especially
for those who are Christian?
One can of course construct scenarios where stealing might be
justified, such as to save a life or something. But what gets me is
that in our society there are double standards. Remember when several
MPs, (I think, from all Parties) were caught fiddling their expenses? Sometimes for thousands of pounds. AFAIK, not one of them served a
jail sentence for it.
Not an MP but Lord Paul had to resign as Deputy Speaker. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Paul#ControversyThanks, Madhu. I don't know whether he was innocent or guilty, but as
The MPs should be the ones setting the moral standards for the nation,
and therefore they should face severe punishments for diddling the tax- payers.
Is it wrong to steal?-a The obvious answer is yes of course, but lots of people do it.-a I'm thinking in particular of stealing from the state.
The most obvious is fiddling your welfare benefits or cheating the tax man.
Nowadays it seems to be more acceptable to defraud the taxman, but that
also deprives the Government of much needed revenue, even if it is just
to squander it on putting illegal immigrants in luxury hotels!
So is there a line, are-a some forms of evading tax acceptable, eg a taxi driver who doesn't declare his cash tips? Or is theft theft, especiallyHe he.
for those who are Christian?
On 17/08/2025 16:36, Timreason wrote:
The MPs should be the ones setting the moral standards for the nation,
and therefore they should face severe punishments for diddling the
tax- payers.
I totally agree.
And on the subject of double-standards, what about the case of that Tory councilwoman who is currently in prison for an incautious post, compared with the Labour councilman who urged a raving mob to "cut the throats"
of those protesting against unrestrained immigration but was found not guilty of promoting violence?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 17/08/2025 16:36, Timreason wrote:
The MPs should be the ones setting the moral standards for the nation,
and therefore they should face severe punishments for diddling the
tax- payers.
I totally agree.
And on the subject of double-standards, what about the case of that Tory councilwoman who is currently in prison for an incautious post, compared with the Labour councilman who urged a raving mob to "cut the throats"
of those protesting against unrestrained immigration but was found not guilty of promoting violence?
On 17/08/2025 16:36, Timreason wrote:
The MPs should be the ones setting the moral standards for the nation,
and therefore they should face severe punishments for diddling the
tax- payers.
I totally agree.
And on the subject of double-standards, what about the case of that Tory councilwoman who is currently in prison for an incautious post, compared with the Labour councilman who urged a raving mob to "cut the throats"
of those protesting against unrestrained immigration but was found not guilty of promoting violence?
On 17/08/2025 15:20, John wrote:
Is it wrong to steal?-a The obvious answer is yes of course, but lots
of people do it.-a I'm thinking in particular of stealing from the
state. The most obvious is fiddling your welfare benefits or cheating
the tax man.
Given that tax, particularly under this Labour government, is far too
close to theft for comfort, is seeking to hide your assets from thieves either theft or cheating?
Nowadays it seems to be more acceptable to defraud the taxman, but
that also deprives the Government of much needed revenue, even if it
is just to squander it on putting illegal immigrants in luxury hotels!
Precisely. So it is not "much needed" but "much wanted" revenue.
So is there a line, are-a some forms of evading tax acceptable, eg aHe he.
taxi driver who doesn't declare his cash tips? Or is theft theft,
especially for those who are Christian?
Preparing a sermon on divorce recently, I dealt with the radically
different interpretations of Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel. It is well- known that Shammai interpreted the "uncleanness" of Deuteronomy 24:1 as
only referring to adultery, whereas Hillil claimed that even spoiling
her husband's food (burning his breakfast toast?) was grounds for divorce.
However it appears that the two men also differed on the subject of
white lies. Is it permissable to tell an ugly bride that she looks beautiful? Rabbi Shammai said that you must never tell a lie; Rabbi
Hillel declared that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day!
Shammai, I am sure, would have insisted that all tips must be declared. Hillel, I suspect, would have adopted a more generous interpretation. My instinct is to prefer Hillel, despite Jesus apparently siding with
Shammai over the question of divorce.
He, as he was innocent, obviously didn't get any jail time.
And as for the raving mob, have you watched the video?-a I have and there was no sign of a raving mob, the crowd looked quite calm to me.
The Secret Barrister has done a long piece about the differences between
the two cases.
Is cheating acceptable.
So, if the tax the Govt raises not to your liking, it's ok to evade that taz?-a If everyone adopted that attitude we'd be in a right mess financially.-a Surely for a Christian, the attitude should be that of
your Lord?-a Didn't he say render unto Caeser what's due unto Caeser, or words to that effect.
I really can't see how it's acceptable for a Christian to defraud theHe he. As a general rule, I would agree with you, though I might
taxman but hey, YMMV.
On 19/08/2025 12:43, GB wrote:
The Secret Barrister has done a long piece about the differences
between the two cases.
So the lady was honest and admitted her offence,
the politician was - as
one might expect - dishonest and claimed he was innocent and pleaded
some bogus "neurodivergence" to excuse himself.
Bah.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 19/08/2025 12:43, GB wrote:
The Secret Barrister has done a long piece about the differences
between the two cases.
So the lady was honest and admitted her offence, the politician was - as
one might expect - dishonest and claimed he was innocent and pleaded
some bogus "neurodivergence" to excuse himself.
On 19/08/2025 13:58, John wrote:
Is cheating acceptable.
One can cite a couple of instances from Scripture in which God condoned what, by a strict interpretation, was a "little white lie". I suspect
that very few things are as black and white as you would like.
So, if the tax the Govt raises not to your liking, it's ok to evade
that taz?-a If everyone adopted that attitude we'd be in a right mess
financially.-a Surely for a Christian, the attitude should be that of
your Lord?-a Didn't he say render unto Caeser what's due unto Caeser,
or words to that effect.
And who judges whether a particular tax is "due unto caesar"? For
example, if the government raised taxes explicitly to build a
concentration camp for eliminating Jews, would you believe that you
should pay up?
I really can't see how it's acceptable for a Christian to defraud the
taxman but hey, YMMV.
He he. As a general rule, I would agree with you, though I might
disagree on what exactly counts as "defrauding".
She had no real choice. She was obviously guilty.
the politician was - as one might expect - dishonest and claimed he
was innocent and pleaded some bogus "neurodivergence" to excuse himself.
The secret barrister didn't say that. You've made it up.
Well Jesus did, and some of that tax went to pay the Roman soldiers who killed him.-a Should He have withheld it based on some of it being spent
for nefarious purposes
You've just broken the 9th commandment again, is it only the 4th one you keep?
On 19/08/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
She had no real choice. She was obviously guilty.
Likewise with the Labour chap.
Which bit of the NOT guilty verdict did you not understand?The verdict is so perverse that I wonder why the jury reached it. "I
On 19/08/2025 21:38, John wrote:
Which bit of the NOT guilty verdict did you not understand?The verdict is so perverse that I wonder why the jury reached it. "I
said it but I didn't mean it and poor little me is neurodivergent". Bah.
On 19/08/2025 20:57, John wrote:
You've just broken the 9th commandment again, is it only the 4th one
you keep?
Another one who shoots his mouth off without reading the evidence. Go
and read the URL GB posted.
On 19/08/2025 21:04, John wrote:
Well Jesus did, and some of that tax went to pay the Roman soldiers
who killed him.-a Should He have withheld it based on some of it being
spent for nefarious purposes
You could go further and point out that the Roman army was an army of occupation in Judea. In any case, as I pointed out previously, the
principle of paying Caesar what belongs to Caesar leaves a certain
amount of leeway.
If 25% of our income "belongs" to the British government, then the
demand that some people pay 40% is theft.
On 19/08/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
She had no real choice. She was obviously guilty.
Likewise with the Labour chap.
the politician was - as one might expect - dishonest and claimed he
was innocent and pleaded some bogus "neurodivergence" to excuse himself.
The secret barrister didn't say that. You've made it up.
Did you actually read the URL you posted?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
You know, there's a saying, when you're in a hole stop digging.-a At the rate you're going you're going to end up back in Australia!
On 19/08/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
She had no real choice. She was obviously guilty.
Likewise with the Labour chap.
the politician was - as one might expect - dishonest and claimed he
was innocent and pleaded some bogus "neurodivergence" to excuse himself.
By the way, talking of dishonesty, the Court of Appeal said that
Connolly's evidence as a witness was 'incredible', which is pretty
damning, don't you think?
I do find it extremely interesting that your reaction here is totally different to your reaction to someone who said something "in the heat of
the moment" yet you defended her.
The offence Jones was charged with is harder to prove than the one
Connolly was charged with.
In what way?
It's only 40% on all income above -u50,000, do you not think those with higher incomes should pay more, or should everyone just pay a flat rate?
As a matter of interest, which taxes do you think unfair, and wouldAny tax which goes towards the salaries of government ministers, for a
happily evade if you could.
Can I ask why you think it's okay to smear Mr Jones in this way? Maybe,
if you had made yourself an expert on all aspects of his trial, but as
you clearly haven't bothered it seems most unfair.
No. The evidence of his neurodivergence rCo which was broadly agreed by
the Prosecution and Defence expert.....
As a matter of interest, which taxes do you think unfair, and would
happily evade if you could.
On 20/08/2025 08:50, John wrote:
You know, there's a saying, when you're in a hole stop digging.-a At
the rate you're going you're going to end up back in Australia!
:)
The offence Jones was charged with is harder to prove than the one
Connolly was charged with.
Plus, Connolly was being held on remand, so she had little to lose by pleading guilty. She'd have been held on remand until her trial this
spring, if she'd pleaded not guilty. And, having pleaded guilty and got
a discount on the sentence, she's being released this month - may
already be released by now.
On 20/08/2025 08:50, John wrote:
No. The evidence of his neurodivergence rCo which was broadly agreed by
the Prosecution and Defence expert.....
1. At least you admit (now) that the term "neurodivergence" was used in
the report, something GB still seems to be having trouble with.
2. What exactly is "neurodivergence"? I suspect it is like ADHD, which exists mainly in the eye of the beholder, but is ever so useful as a
"get out of gaol free" card.
Perhaps if the Tory woman had been better
advised she could have claimed to be "neurodivergent" too - after all,
she is a woman, which makes her neurologically divergent from 50% of the population!
On 20/08/2025 08:50, John wrote:
No. The evidence of his neurodivergence rCo which was broadly agreed by
the Prosecution and Defence expert.....
1. At least you admit (now) that the term "neurodivergence" was used in
the report, something GB still seems to be having trouble with.
2. What exactly is "neurodivergence"? I suspect it is like ADHD, which exists mainly in the eye of the beholder, but is ever so useful as a
"get out of gaol free" card. Perhaps if the Tory woman had been better advised she could have claimed to be "neurodivergent" too - after all,
she is a woman, which makes her neurologically divergent from 50% of the population!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/08/2025 10:13, GB wrote:
Can I ask why you think it's okay to smear Mr Jones in this way?
Maybe, if you had made yourself an expert on all aspects of his trial,
but as you clearly haven't bothered it seems most unfair.
At least I picked up on the "neurodivergent" business when you had
clearly missed it.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/08/2025 09:22, John wrote:
As a matter of interest, which taxes do you think unfair, and would
happily evade if you could.
At the moment, road tax. Roads round here have not been repaired for at least two years - in many cases longer - and the potholes are making
some roads unusable.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/08/2025 08:43, John wrote:
I do find it extremely interesting that your reaction here is totally
different to your reaction to someone who said something "in the heat
of the moment" yet you defended her.
No, my complaint is that the two cases were treated so differently. Both involved things said in the heat of the moment, both involved calls to violence, yet one gets off scot-free while the other is shoved into clink.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/08/2025 09:22, John wrote:
In what way?
Define what belongs to Caesar.
It's only 40% on all income above -u50,000, do you not think those with
higher incomes should pay more, or should everyone just pay a flat rate?
Personally I think everyone should pay a flat rate. Your argument is
akin to the shoplifter who excuses what he does on the basis that "they
(the big shops) can afford it"
As a matter of interest, which taxes do you think unfair, and wouldAny tax which goes towards the salaries of government ministers, for a > start.
happily evade if you could.
On 20/08/2025 09:22, John wrote:
As a matter of interest, which taxes do you think unfair, and would
happily evade if you could.
At the moment, road tax. Roads round here have not been repaired for at least two years - in many cases longer - and the potholes are making
some roads unusable.
Neurodivergence covers a range of conditions including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and Tourette's, all of which are medical conditions.
At least I picked up on the "neurodivergent" business when you had
clearly missed it.
How do you conclude that? I didn't think it mattered.
The two cases were treated rather similarly. You're complaint is really
that the outcome was different, but that stems partly from the choices
made by the defendants.
Don't worry, John. It's just Kendall's underhand way of hitting out at
me, because I have autism and possibly ADHD.
I never would consider it an excuse for illegal behaviour.
I really don't understand why any use of that term *MUST* be commented
on? Why?
In what way have I admitted it (now)?-a I've nevr denied it.
But why do you do what you've done above in maligning GB? His replies
are polite towards you, and has far more patience with you than I have
when you make inane comments.-a As far as I'm aware GB hasn't denied that neurodivergence was used as a defence.
Neurodivergence covers a range of conditions including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and Tourette's, all of which are medical conditions.
Well she did say to one of her followers that she would play the mental health card if arrested.Did she, in the end, or was she too honest to claim such nonsense?
When Jesus said those words he was saying that all taxes should be paid,
was he not?
I take it you support defauding tax, which given you once boasted you
evaded a customs charge by not declaring the item you had in your possession, it doesn't surprise me.
I hadn't expressed a view but yes, I think those over a certain income should pay more.-a If it was a flat rate it would need to be higher than 20%, do you think it fair that those on low incomes should pay more tax
to reduce the tax of those on much higher incomes?
It's a massive leap to assume that because I support the present income
tax system I also think it's ok for shoplifters to rob big stores
because they can afford it.-a I don't by the way.
General taxation supports their wages, so presumably you'd wish to evade
all tax.
And without Government ministers the Government wouldn't function atOh rubbish. We got along perfectly happily for years without a minister
all, so perhaps you're in favour of anarchy as well
Even at 20 MPH?
Get a different vehicle! my road tax is -u20 a year, which I don't
begrudge paying at all.
Anyway, I susppect road tax will become a thing
of the past soon.-a As more and more vehicles become electric, the Govt
is going to need something to replace fuel duty, which is more than
likely to mean road pricing.
Having said that, labour has allocated an extra -u1.6 billion this yearIf newspaper reports I have read are accurate, even that sum will
to repair potholes.
Having said that, labour has allocated an extra -u1.6 billion this year
to repair potholes.
On 20/08/2025 21:00, GB wrote:
At least I picked up on the "neurodivergent" business when you had
clearly missed it.
How do you conclude that? I didn't think it mattered.
You accused me of making it up and specifically stated that it was not
in the URL you gave. Neither statement was true.
I think she was released the other day.
On 20/08/2025 21:06, GB wrote:
I really don't understand why any use of that term *MUST* be commented
on? Why?
Because it was there in the URL you gave, but when I referred to it you accused me of making it up.
I'm not expecting an apology for your false accusation, though it might
be a graceful act.
On 20/08/2025 20:47, John wrote:
In what way have I admitted it (now)?-a I've nevr denied it.
You supported GB when he accused me of fabricating the neurodivergent
claim.
But why do you do what you've done above in maligning GB? His replies
are polite towards you, and has far more patience with you than I have
when you make inane comments.-a As far as I'm aware GB hasn't denied
that neurodivergence was used as a defence.
See above.
Neurodivergence covers a range of conditions including autism, ADHD,
dyslexia, dyspraxia and Tourette's, all of which are medical conditions.
All of which are claimed to be medical conditions. I believe that it is possible to detect brain changes in those with autism, I am not aware of
any such changes for the others, though I may be wrong.
I am always suspicious of claims about dyslexia since noting that those
who claim it seem to have no trouble spelling the word, when anyone who knows about the subject will recognise that there are at least three mistakes possible: 'b' for 'd' (reverse shape), 'i' for 'y' and 'ks' for 'x'. bisleksia
Well she did say to one of her followers that she would play theDid she, in the end, or was she too honest to claim such nonsense?
mental health card if arrested.
On 20/08/2025 21:06, GB wrote:
I really don't understand why any use of that term *MUST* be commented
on? Why?
Because it was there in the URL you gave, but when I referred to it you accused me of making it up.
I'm not expecting an apology for your false accusation, though it might
be a graceful act.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 20/08/2025 21:00, GB wrote:
At least I picked up on the "neurodivergent" business when you had
clearly missed it.
How do you conclude that? I didn't think it mattered.
You accused me of making it up and specifically stated that it was not
in the URL you gave. Neither statement was true.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
GB did no such thing.-a Please refer to where you think he did thisThe secret barrister didn't say that. You've made it up. 19/08/2025 19:59
There may be a misunderstanding - quite possibly my mistake.
You are very much mistaken. GB never accused you of fabricating the neurodivergent claim, nor have I supported him (you can't really support something that's not been said)
They are claimed to be medical conditions because they are medical conditions.-a Just because you disagree doesn't alter that fact.
I suspect you will no doubt view her headaches as bogus.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were expert in these matters.-a What are your qualifications?
However, whilst I vaguely remember saying 'you made that up', it was not intended to refer to the word neurodiverse. Any chance you could explain
a bit more, please.
On 21/08/2025 11:08, John wrote:
GB did no such thing.-a Please refer to where you think he did this
The secret barrister didn't say that. You've made it up. 19/08/2025 19:59
On 21/08/2025 11:43, John wrote:
You are very much mistaken. GB never accused you of fabricating the
neurodivergent claim, nor have I supported him (you can't really
support something that's not been said)
Do you want me to quote your comments as well?
They are claimed to be medical conditions because they are medical
conditions.-a Just because you disagree doesn't alter that fact.
Can you cite the physical causes for them? What medicine can be taken to cure them?
I suspect you will no doubt view her headaches as bogus.
Not at all. I'm sorry to hear of her problems.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were expert in these matters.-a What are
your qualifications?
Me? None. My wife? She became quite a specialist in the subject.
On 21/08/2025 01:05, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 20/08/2025 21:06, GB wrote:
I really don't understand why any use of that term *MUST* be
commented on? Why?
Because it was there in the URL you gave, but when I referred to it
you accused me of making it up.
I'm not expecting an apology for your false accusation, though it
might be a graceful act.
Of course, if I've made a false accusation, I'll apologise. What's more, I'll be truly mortified.
However, whilst I vaguely remember saying 'you made that up', it was not intended to refer to the word neurodiverse. Any chance you could explain
a bit more, please.
On 21/08/2025 21:02, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 21/08/2025 11:08, John wrote:
GB did no such thing.-a Please refer to where you think he did this
The secret barrister didn't say that. You've made it up. 19/08/2025 19:59
I suspected it was this, and I've gone upthread a little to provide more context.
GB
The Secret Barrister has done a long piece about the differences between
the two cases.
Ken
the politician was - as one might expect - dishonest and claimed he was innocent and pleaded some bogus "neurodivergence" to excuse himself.
GB.
The secret barrister didn't say that. You've made it up.
You've misinterpreted what GB was saying.-a It looks like you are saying
the Secret Barrister was saying it was a bogus "neurodivergence" to
excuse himself, when it was in fact your innacurate conclusion from the article.-a Hence why GB said you made that up.
On 23/08/2025 19:39, GB wrote:
He had a viable defence. Namely that the words were not intended by
him to be taken literally. People do exaggerate. Quite often.
I am sure that Ms Connolly could have made the same argument.
And, let's face it, nobody did act on his words.
So far as we know.
The jury sat through all the evidence, and came to a conclusion. You,
based on very little information, have concluded the jury was wrong.
Can't you see that you might be wrong on that?
I wish that I had your touching faith in the common sense of juries, especially when the judiciary is nudging them in a certain direction.
He said the words. He agrees with you on that. Even so, he wasn't >> guilty of the offence. There's a big difference.
An offence carefully chosen to make sure that he was acquitted.
Had they both received the same treatment, I would have no complaint.
Did Ricky Jones encourage violence - no.
Did Lucy Connolly encourage violence - without a doubt.-a Or did all
those thugs attacking Muslims and illegal immigrants, based on a lie perpretated on social media, not happen in Kenworld?
On 23/08/2025 19:15, GB wrote:
Connolly was less fortunate. She may not have intended her words to be
taken literally, but unfortunately they were taken up as a rallying
cry by people who did exactly what she urged them to do - homicidal
arson.
My understanding is that the "homicidal arson" was already going on when Connolly posted, indeed, that her post was a response to what was
happening rather than a cause of it.
On 23/08/2025 19:39, GB wrote:
He had a viable defence. Namely that the words were not intended by
him to be taken literally. People do exaggerate. Quite often.
I am sure that Ms Connolly could have made the same argument.
And, let's face it, nobody did act on his words.
So far as we know.
The jury sat through all the evidence, and came to a conclusion. You,
based on very little information, have concluded the jury was wrong.
Can't you see that you might be wrong on that?
I wish that I had your touching faith in the common sense of juries, especially when the judiciary is nudging them in a certain direction.
He said the words. He agrees with you on that. Even so, he wasn't
guilty of the offence. There's a big difference.
An offence carefully chosen to make sure that he was acquitted.
She wanted the shorter sentence for pleading guilty. She could have
pleaded not guilty, and taken her chances. That was her choice.
Or the advice of her lawyer.
You are claiming she's honest, despite the court branding her
evidence, given under oath, as unbelievable.
She was honest in admitting what she had done and accepting that it was inexcusable.
The other man came up with dodgy excuses that both judge
and jury swallowed.
Can I suggest that, if you want to praise somebody as a paragon, youBy no means do I consider this woman to be a "paragon". What she wrote
choose someone a bit more deserving.-a She may have been hard done by,
and maybe I'm not sympathetic enough, but there must be people vastly
more deserving of your support than her!
was wrong and the way she expressed it was crude. All I am highlighting
is the contrast between the ruthless way in which she was prosecuted and
the way in which everyone bent over backwards to ensure that the other
man was let off.
Had they both received the same treatment, I would have no complaint.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 23/08/2025 18:58, GB wrote:
However, do bear in mind that over 50% of UK prisoners cannot read.
So, there seems to be some connection.
Connection between illiteracy and criminality, yes. Connection between
what I said and your comment, no.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
She wrote the post on 29h July, the same day the riots began, at thatWere the police able to produce one single person engaged in the
point no hotels had been set fire to.
Are you saying the Judge misled them? That's quite a serious accusation.
what other offence could he have been charged with? Now you are accusing
the CPS of deliberately engineering it so RJ could get off scot free.
Did Ricky Jones encourage violence - no.
Did Lucy Connolly encourage violence - without a doubt.
Or did all
those thugs attacking Muslims and illegal immigrants, based on a lie perpretated on social media, not happen in Kenworld?
On 24/08/2025 10:18, John wrote:
She wrote the post on 29h July, the same day the riots began, at thatWere the police able to produce one single person engaged in the
point no hotels had been set fire to.
violence who had read Lucy's posting and been driven by it to set fire
to a hostel?
In other words, the same question you ask about Jones, I ask about Connolley. Where is the evidence that what they said resulted in violent disorder?
And if we are merely going to go by the potential to create or the encouragement to create, then both were equally guilty.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
That was undoubtedly true, as the message was viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times.
You're not denying there was violent disorder?
On 24/08/2025 10:05, John wrote:
Or did all those thugs attacking Muslims and illegal immigrants, based
on a lie perpretated on social media, not happen in Kenworld?
It was already happening before Lucy put pen to paper. How many of those engaged in the violence happened to be subscribed to her Twitter account
and pulled out their phones to read what she wrote and then redoubled
their violence, I simply do not know.
On 24/08/2025 20:18, GB wrote:
That was undoubtedly true, as the message was viewed 310,000 times and
reposted 940 times.
So if Connelly had stood in front of the crowd and shouted her message,
she would not have been guilty?
You're not denying there was violent disorder?
Of course not, merely that it was not caused by Connolley's post,
however offensive and regrettable that post may have been.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Nobody suggests that Connolly was the sole cause of the disorder. After
all most of the 300-odd people who re-tweeted her post also added to the stirring up. Perhaps, they were lucky not to have been tried as well.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
So if Connelly had stood in front of the crowd and shouted her
message, she would not have been guilty?
I have no idea how you could conclude that. But, as an example, had she posted on this particular newsgroup without it being repeated elsewhere, it's unlikely that "(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial
hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
All the prosecution needed to prove in Connolly's case was "likely to be stirred up". She pleaded guilty, because the prosecution would have
wheeled in a senior police officer who would have said precisely that,
and of course he'd have been right.
The first scenes of violence started around 7-7.30 pm on 29th July 2024.
-aLucy sent her post at 8.30 the same evening. She deleted the post 3.5 hours later but not before it was viewed 310,000 times and shared 940
times.
That measn well over a million people will have seen that post.-a OverAnd those million people were all standing around the migrant hostels, peacefully protesting, until all million of them read Lucy's post, after
the coming days voiolence flared in other towns and cities, including attempted arson attacks on hotels housing migrants.
On 25/08/2025 08:43, John wrote:
The first scenes of violence started around 7-7.30 pm on 29th July
2024. -a-aLucy sent her post at 8.30 the same evening. She deleted the
post 3.5 hours later but not before it was viewed 310,000 times and
shared 940 times.
Thank you. So you confirm that the violence was already in process
*before* Lucy made her post.
That measn well over a million people will have seen that post.-a OverAnd those million people were all standing around the migrant hostels, peacefully protesting, until all million of them read Lucy's post, after which they were enraged and started throwing things.
the coming days voiolence flared in other towns and cities, including
attempted arson attacks on hotels housing migrants.
I never knew that Lucy was so influential!
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 25/08/2025 10:51, GB wrote:
So if Connelly had stood in front of the crowd and shouted her
message, she would not have been guilty?
I have no idea how you could conclude that. But, as an example, had
she posted on this particular newsgroup without it being repeated
elsewhere, it's unlikely that "(b) having regard to all the
circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
You claimed that it was the fact that her post was read and re-posted
which constituted the crime for which she was found guilty,
whereas the
other chap merely yelled at a relatively small mob, none of thom
repeated his words, and therefore he deserved to be found not guilty.
All the prosecution needed to prove in Connolly's case was "likely to
be stirred up". She pleaded guilty, because the prosecution would have
wheeled in a senior police officer who would have said precisely that,
and of course he'd have been right.
And why did the Labour chap not face the same charge of "likely to be stirred up"?
Two tier justice, if you ask me.
Lucy was charged because
she was Conservative, the other chap got off because he was Labour.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The charge against her was that she stirred up the violence, and now
it's your turn: are you seriously suggesting that she didn't?
On 25/08/2025 16:16, Kendall K. Down wrote:
If she had posted on this newsgroup, I don't think anybody here would
have taken much notice, and it would have been extremely difficult for
the prosecution to show that any of the 10 or so people who read this
group would have been likely to be stirred to racial hatred.
Instead, she chose to post elsewhere, to people whose racial hatred was almost certainly stirred up by what she wrote.
I remember answering this at least twice before. Why do you ask it yet again?
On 25/08/2025 16:54, GB wrote:
The charge against her was that she stirred up the violence, and now
it's your turn: are you seriously suggesting that she didn't?
Yes. Have the police produced a single person who says, "I was sitting peacefully at home until I read Lucy Connolley's post and then I
immediately ran out my front door and started throwing things"?
These million people who read her post, how many of them were from
outside the UK?
How many of those were bots and "fake accounts" created by the same
state agencies and organizatiosn set up for the purpose of manipulating public opinion and indeed manipulating the public.
On 25/08/2025 16:54, GB wrote:
The charge against her was that she stirred up the violence, and now
it's your turn: are you seriously suggesting that she didn't?
Yes. Have the police produced a single person who says, "I was sitting peacefully at home until I read Lucy Connolley's post and then I
immediately ran out my front door and started throwing things"?
These million people who read her post, how many of them were from
outside the UK?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 26/08/2025 02:50, Madhu wrote:
How many of those were bots and "fake accounts" created by the same
state agencies and organizatiosn set up for the purpose of manipulating
public opinion and indeed manipulating the public.
Certainly that is a valid point - though whether these "bots" are, as
you claim, part of a huge state conspiracy I have my doubts. I seem to remember reading somewhere that up to 80% of traffic to some sites was
bots rather than actual human beings.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 25/08/2025 17:11, GB wrote:
On 25/08/2025 16:16, Kendall K. Down wrote:
If she had posted on this newsgroup, I don't think anybody here would
have taken much notice, and it would have been extremely difficult for
the prosecution to show that any of the 10 or so people who read this
group would have been likely to be stirred to racial hatred.
But I'll bet the police would have still gone after her as "potentially stirring violence".
Instead, she chose to post elsewhere, to people whose racial hatred
was almost certainly stirred up by what she wrote.
She posted on her normal account, so far as I know. How many followers
did she have before this incident? How many people did she expect to influence? (I'll bet the answer is "zero".)
I remember answering this at least twice before. Why do you ask it yet
again?
Because I don't remember you answering it.
The best anyone has been able to come up with is that she was sitting peacefully at home posting to her handful of followers who, as far as
she knew, were also sitting at home. The other chap was standing in the middle of a mob of people who were already showing signs of unrest and
he attempted to whip them up to further murderous unrest. It is obvious which one needed to be prosecuted.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Nobody suggests that Connolly was the sole cause of the disorder. After
all most of the 900-odd people who re-tweeted her post also added to the stirring up. Perhaps, they were lucky not to have been tried as well.
On 25/08/2025 16:54, GB wrote:
The charge against her was that she stirred up the violence, and now
it's your turn: are you seriously suggesting that she didn't?
Yes. Have the police produced a single person who says, "I was sitting peacefully at home until I read Lucy Connolley's post and then I
immediately ran out my front door and started throwing things"?
On 25/08/2025 10:51, GB wrote:
And why did the Labour chap not face the same charge of "likely to be stirred up"? Two tier justice, if you ask me. Lucy was charged because
she was Conservative, the other chap got off because he was Labour.
On 25/08/2025 17:11, GB wrote:
On 25/08/2025 16:16, Kendall K. Down wrote:
If she had posted on this newsgroup, I don't think anybody here would
have taken much notice, and it would have been extremely difficult for
the prosecution to show that any of the 10 or so people who read this
group would have been likely to be stirred to racial hatred.
But I'll bet the police would have still gone after her as "potentially stirring violence".
Instead, she chose to post elsewhere, to people whose racial hatred
was almost certainly stirred up by what she wrote.
She posted on her normal account, so far as I know. How many followers
did she have before this incident? How many people did she expect to influence? (I'll bet the answer is "zero".)
The best anyone has been able to come up with is that she was sitting peacefully at home posting to her handful of followers who, as far as
she knew, were also sitting at home. The other chap was standing in the middle of a mob of people who were already showing signs of unrest and
he attempted to whip them up to further murderous unrest.
It is obvious which one needed to be prosecuted.
I had a website that was still in draft, and not intended for exposure
to the public at the time. I checked the logs, and 100% of traffic was
from bots like google.
She contributed to the stirring up, which is why she was extremely wise
to plead guilty. Because she was, and it reduced her jail sentence.
Your source for this very precise figure?These million people who read her post, how many of them were from
outside the UK?
257
Perhaps. What charge could she have been charged with that she was
actually likely to be convicted of?
I doubt she expected anything like the reaction she got. She was still guilty, though.
You must take more notice of what I write. :)
Has it escaped your notice that they both were prosecuted? They were
treated equally. Both were charged with the most severe charge for what
they did.
10,000 followers when she posted.-a 940 who shared the post, so at least
940 people who were influenced by her tweet.
How many took part in rio
Why do you lie so often?-a Watch the video because there are no real
signs of unrest.-a A handful of people shouting in agreement, but the
crowd was peaceful.
The original post which triggered the riots last August suggested the
man who murdered the 3 girls was a Muslim and an illegal immigrant.
I've seen you say some idiotic things but that one takes the buscuit.Chocolate coated, I trust.
I think some of them were.-a I read of one man who was sentenced to 38 months for sharing LC's post.Really? I have not heard of that.
On 26/08/2025 10:12, GB wrote:
I had a website that was still in draft, and not intended for exposure
to the public at the time. I checked the logs, and 100% of traffic was
from bots like google.
So one wonders how many of these million views were actually bots?
On 26/08/2025 10:09, GB wrote:
She contributed to the stirring up, which is why she was extremely
wise to plead guilty. Because she was, and it reduced her jail sentence.
What is your evidence that she contributed rather than that she *potentially* contributed?
These million people who read her post, how many of them were from
outside the UK?
257Your source for this very precise figure?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 26/08/2025 10:24, GB wrote:
Perhaps. What charge could she have been charged with that she was
actually likely to be convicted of?
Have you read in the papers recently about children being refused NHS treatment because they go to private schools? And aspiring doctors being refused NHS internships for the same reason?
With that sort of mind-set prevalent, the police could have charged her
with eating After-Eights in a provocative manner and judge and jury
would have rushed to sentence her to prison.
I doubt she expected anything like the reaction she got. She was still
guilty, though.
So in other words, she was as guilty as the chap who urged his hearers
to slash throats.
You must take more notice of what I write. :)
Mea culpa.
Has it escaped your notice that they both were prosecuted? They were
treated equally. Both were charged with the most severe charge for
what they did.
Bah. He was charged with an offence that was almost guaranteed to let
him off, she was charged with an offence that was almost guaranteed to convict her.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 26/08/2025 13:56, John wrote:
10,000 followers when she posted.-a 940 who shared the post, so at
least 940 people who were influenced by her tweet.
How many took part in rio
So in other words her post was not nearly as effective as the
prosecution claimed
rioted in response to her message, I'll bet her post actually achieved nothing.
Why do you lie so often?-a Watch the video because there are no real
signs of unrest.-a A handful of people shouting in agreement, but the
crowd was peaceful.
Which obviously irritated him so much that he urged them to cease to be peaceful and start murdering people.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 26/08/2025 13:28, John wrote:
The original post which triggered the riots last August suggested the
man who murdered the 3 girls was a Muslim and an illegal immigrant.
Was that Lucy Connelly's post?
No it wasn't, and that was my point.-a People stirred up on the back of a post that was an outright lie.-a Lucy Connolly was one of those people, hence her comments against illegal immigrants.
Now if you're claiming that Lucy Connelly didn't incite a single person, then that would apply to the person who started the tweet which kickedNo, I am not claiming that - because I simply don't know and no evidence
it all off, wouldn't it.
Have you read in the papers recently about children being refused NHS
treatment because they go to private schools? And aspiring doctors
being refused NHS internships for the same reason?
No
You do like to exaggerate
The law merely requires her words to be 'likely' to stir up violence.
The prosecution never needed to prove she succeeded, and I'm not
convinced they ever claimed it.
If I stand up in a theatre and shout 'fire!' purely as a joke, yet
people are injured in the resultant stampede, are you suggesting that I should not be prosecuted because I intended it as a joke? What about if,
by some miracle, nobody is hurt?
On 27/08/2025 14:17, John wrote:
No it wasn't, and that was my point.-a People stirred up on the back of
a post that was an outright lie.-a Lucy Connolly was one of those
people, hence her comments against illegal immigrants.
So some person makes an inflammatory post, people go out and start protesting, Lucy believes this post and herself makes a foolish post
which she later deletes. But guess who goes to gaol? Guess who gets the blame for the rioting?
Now if you're claiming that Lucy Connelly didn't incite a single
person, then that would apply to the person who started the tweet
which kicked it all off, wouldn't it.
No, I am not claiming that - because I simply don't know and no evidence
has been adduced, so far as I know, proving that her comments caused a single additional person to riot.
And your conclusion is plain foolish when, as you have already stated,
this person posted falsehoods and shortly thereafter protests and riots started.
Has he/she been prosecuted, do you know?
On 27/08/2025 10:51, GB wrote:
Have you read in the papers recently about children being refused NHS
treatment because they go to private schools? And aspiring doctors
being refused NHS internships for the same reason?
No
Then perhaps you ought to pay a bit more attention to current affairs.
You do like to exaggerate
At least I am au fait with current affairs.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 27/08/2025 10:57, GB wrote:
The law merely requires her words to be 'likely' to stir up violence.
The prosecution never needed to prove she succeeded, and I'm not
convinced they ever claimed it.
And are you going to sit there and tell me that the gentlemen who urged
his hearers to cut throats was not "likely to stir up violence"?
If I stand up in a theatre and shout 'fire!' purely as a joke, yet
people are injured in the resultant stampede, are you suggesting that
I should not be prosecuted because I intended it as a joke? What about
if, by some miracle, nobody is hurt?
But that is what happened with the throat-cutting chap. "I didn't mean
it, I'm neurodivergent, poor little me."
Bah.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
And yes, I agree that it can't be proved, it doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. You can't prove I woke up at five past six this morning
can you?
I was merely showing the foolishness of your belief that LC's tweet
didn't cause anyone to go out contibute to the riots.
Thanks.Has he/she been prosecuted, do you know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel3Now
He he! So the originator of this fake news was outside the reach of the British cops, so they went after an easy target - she was ConservativeHas he/she been prosecuted, do you know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel3Now
Incidentally, is it this one? https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/boy-denied-treatment-nhs- hospital-private-school-kingston-richmond-b1231805.html
rCLThe Trust has apologised for any miscommunication in its correspondence with the family and is amending its wording to avoid any confusion in
the future.rCY"
And are you going to sit there and tell me that the gentlemen who
urged his hearers to cut throats was not "likely to stir up violence"?
I think he was. That's why he was prosecuted.
On 28/08/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
And are you going to sit there and tell me that the gentlemen who
urged his hearers to cut throats was not "likely to stir up violence"?
I think he was. That's why he was prosecuted.
But was he prosecuted on the same charge as Lucy?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 28/08/2025 12:52, GB wrote:
Incidentally, is it this one?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/boy-denied-treatment-nhs-
hospital-private-school-kingston-richmond-b1231805.html
I don't think so. The case, as I recall it, was up in Liverpool.
rCLThe Trust has apologised for any miscommunication in its
correspondence with the family and is amending its wording to avoid
any confusion in the future.rCY"
Miscommunication? Weasel words.
On 28/08/2025 16:07, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 28/08/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
And are you going to sit there and tell me that the gentlemen who
urged his hearers to cut throats was not "likely to stir up violence"?
I think he was. That's why he was prosecuted.
But was he prosecuted on the same charge as Lucy?
No, because there was no racial element in his ranting. So, he could not
be charged with the same offence as Connolly.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 28/08/2025 09:10, John wrote:
And yes, I agree that it can't be proved, it doesn't necessarily mean
it didn't happen. You can't prove I woke up at five past six this
morning can you?
Have you ever heard the expression, "Innocent until *proven* guilty"?
I was merely showing the foolishness of your belief that LC's tweet
didn't cause anyone to go out contibute to the riots.
That is not my belief. My belief is that it was not demonstrated in
court that her tweets had done that.
On 26/08/2025 10:24, GB wrote:
Perhaps. What charge could she have been charged with that she was
actually likely to be convicted of?
Have you read in the papers recently about children being refused NHS treatment because they go to private schools? And aspiring doctors being refused NHS internships for the same reason?
With that sort of mind-set prevalent, the police could have charged her
with eating After-Eights in a provocative manner and judge and jury
would have rushed to sentence her to prison.
I doubt she expected anything like the reaction she got. She was still
guilty, though.
So in other words, she was as guilty as the chap who urged his hearers
to slash throats.
Actually, the charge against Ricky Jones was much easier to prove *had*You must take more notice of what I write. :)
Mea culpa.
Has it escaped your notice that they both were prosecuted? They were
treated equally. Both were charged with the most severe charge for
what they did.
Bah. He was charged with an offence that was almost guaranteed to let
him off, she was charged with an offence that was almost guaranteed to convict her.
On 27/08/2025 10:51, GB wrote:
Have you read in the papers recently about children being refused NHS
treatment because they go to private schools? And aspiring doctors
being refused NHS internships for the same reason?
No
Then perhaps you ought to pay a bit more attention to current affairs.
It didn't need to be.-a Lucy Connelly, rightly or wrongly, pleadedAs I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good. Now if only
guilty.-a Had she pleaded not guilty then I'm unsure whether they would
need to provw she did incite anyone or whether they just need to prove
the intent.
On 28/08/2025 12:59, GB wrote:
And are you going to sit there and tell me that the gentlemen who
urged his hearers to cut throats was not "likely to stir up violence"?
I think he was. That's why he was prosecuted.
But was he prosecuted on the same charge as Lucy?
You've snipped the bit where they said it was simply untrue. Not weasel words, surely?I quote the immortal Mandy Rice-Davies: They would say that, wouldn't they.
No, because there was no racial element in his ranting. So, he could not
be charged with the same offence as Connolly.
You seem to think that all ranting is the same, and it ought to be
charged with the same anti-ranting offence. So, if I rant about the lack
of public lavatories, that ought to be charged with the same offence as
if I urge treason.
On 28/08/2025 18:08, GB wrote:
You've snipped the bit where they said it was simply untrue. NotI quote the immortal Mandy Rice-Davies: They would say that, wouldn't they.
weasel words, surely?
Of course they're going to deny it, but they let the cat out of the bag
by more or less admitting that they did refuse treatment but it was all
a bit of "miscommunication".
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 28/08/2025 18:40, John wrote:
It didn't need to be.-a Lucy Connelly, rightly or wrongly, pleadedAs I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good. Now if only she'd stood up and said, "Oh, I'm neurodivergent, so you've got to let
guilty.-a Had she pleaded not guilty then I'm unsure whether they would
need to provw she did incite anyone or whether they just need to prove
the intent.
me off", she might have got away with it.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Ah, I googled it, it seems the young child had a false illness, I'm not surprised he was refused treatment.
As for the aspiring Doctors the story is partly true, but skewed
somewhat by the Telegraph and Mail on Sunday.
This is a more balanced view. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/elizabethgalton_hospitals-barring- private-school-pupils-activity-7363550462593093632-RXfm/God bless,
Ken, please stop lying.-a He did not urge his to do that,-a and he said so in court.
I think that she was referred to the wrong unit.
Which bit of racial was he likely to be guilty of?Ah yes, I forgot. It was a mutli-racial Sunday School outing he was addressing, wasn't it?
On 28/08/2025 20:45, GB wrote:
I think that she was referred to the wrong unit.
I think a unit which refused treatment "because you go to a private
school" is, more or less by definition, "the wrong unit".
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 28/08/2025 19:14, John wrote:
Which bit of racial was he likely to be guilty of?Ah yes, I forgot. It was a mutli-racial Sunday School outing he was addressing, wasn't it?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 28/08/2025 18:53, John wrote:
Ken, please stop lying.-a He did not urge his to do that,-a and he said
so in court.
His words are on public record. As, of course, are his excuses after the event when, confronted by the police, he suddenly remembers that he
didn't mean what he said.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 28/08/2025 18:40, John wrote:
It didn't need to be.-a Lucy Connelly, rightly or wrongly, pleaded
guilty.-a Had she pleaded not guilty then I'm unsure whether they would
need to provw she did incite anyone or whether they just need to prove
the intent.
As I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good.As a Christian, surely you should be applauding such action?
On 29/08/2025 02:56, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 28/08/2025 18:53, John wrote:
Ken, please stop lying.-a He did not urge his to do that,-a and he said >>> so in court.
His words are on public record. As, of course, are his excuses after
the event when, confronted by the police, he suddenly remembers that
he didn't mean what he said.
Why should your view, based on NOT hearing ANY evidence whatsoever,
trump that of the jurors even though they did hear the evidence?
There's nothing wrong with self-confidence, but aren't you going beyond that?
On 28/08/2025 19:11, John wrote:
Ah, I googled it, it seems the young child had a false illness, I'm
not surprised he was refused treatment.
Which young child? As I said to GB, my recollection is that the incident
And if the illness was fake, what did the child's school have to do with
it?
As for the aspiring Doctors the story is partly true, but skewed
somewhat by the Telegraph and Mail on Sunday.
Exactly how is it skewed? The URL you give below more or less confirms
the story of the two newspapers you mention.
This is a more balanced view.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/elizabethgalton_hospitals-barring-
private-school-pupils-activity-7363550462593093632-RXfm/
"Because you don't go to one of the schools we are contracted to provide
a service to."
As I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good.
As a Christian, surely you should be applauding such action?
My search came up with the same school as GB did.-a I can't find anything about a school in Liverpool.
Apparently, in the 8 year old boy's case, occupational therapy was
sought because he was unable to hold a pencil properly.-a I was merely following your rhetoric regarding neurodivergence.
It explains the rationale regarding the giving of internments. There's obviously not enough to go round so some sort of criteria needs to be applied.
if you go to a private school school you likely have access to any type
of work experience you want via network.
I don't think it will close the doors for private school pupils. They've been getting medical work experience for years via their networks and no
one complained - I dont think this will change that. This only helps to level the playing field a bit imo.
It isn't because they go to private schools, although it is aThen how did private schools come to be mentioned? Why not just say,
consequence of the criteria applied.-a-a As I say skewed somewhat.
Why should your view, based on NOT hearing ANY evidence whatsoever,
trump that of the jurors even though they did hear the evidence?
I very much doubt you're going to change Ken's stance on this.-a However
his rationale is incredulous to say the least, and his view is extremely bigoted, both against Ricky Jones and the jury who acquitted him (in
half an hour I hasten to add)
On 29/08/2025 14:11, John wrote:
As I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good.
As a Christian, surely you should be applauding such action?
Of course, which is why I have castigated the other chap for not
following her example.
On 29/08/2025 14:37, John wrote:
My search came up with the same school as GB did.-a I can't find
anything about a school in Liverpool.
Well, I may be wrong.
Apparently, in the 8 year old boy's case, occupational therapy was
sought because he was unable to hold a pencil properly.-a I was merely
following your rhetoric regarding neurodivergence.
I repeat; what did the child's school have to do with it? If he needed therapy, he should have received it whatever school he went to; if he
didn't need therapy, just say so and don't blather inconsequelities
about schools.
It explains the rationale regarding the giving of internments. There's
obviously not enough to go round so some sort of criteria needs to be
applied.
No doubt, but it is obnoxious that the type of school is considered one
of those criteria.
if you go to a private school school you likely have access to any
type of work experience you want via network.
And does he know this for a fact, or is he just shooting his mouth off
and displaying his prejudices?
I don't think it will close the doors for private school pupils.
They've been getting medical work experience for years via their
networks and no one complained - I dont think this will change that.
This only helps to level the playing field a bit imo.
I simply don't believe this. If these private school pupils have such extensive networks, why are they applying to the NHS? Can it possibly be that these networks exist only in the fertile and malicious minds of left-wing apologists?
It isn't because they go to private schools, although it is a
consequence of the criteria applied.-a-a As I say skewed somewhat.
Then how did private schools come to be mentioned? Why not just say,
"this application does not meet criterion abc123"?
On 29/08/2025 12:11, GB wrote:
"Because you don't go to one of the schools we are contracted to
provide a service to."
I didn't know that the NHS was contracted to certain groups in society?
On 29/08/2025 12:19, GB wrote:
Why should your view, based on NOT hearing ANY evidence whatsoever,
trump that of the jurors even though they did hear the evidence?
They heard the evidence chosen by a biased CPS, presented by an
unscrupulous lawyer, interpreted by a biased judge.
I presume you are going to assure me that the CPS is always fair,lawyers are always scrupulous, judges are never biased?
In the only case where I have been on the jury, I waited until the judge
had finished his summing up and then, as he had not noticed it, I raised
my hand and pointed out that the written evidence which we had been
given directly contradicted the statements of the prosecuting attorny.
It was delightful to see so many pigeons perturbed by such a small cat.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 29/08/2025 14:11, John wrote:
As I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good.
As a Christian, surely you should be applauding such action?
Of course, which is why I have castigated the other chap for not
following her example.
On 29/08/2025 12:19, GB wrote:
Why should your view, based on NOT hearing ANY evidence whatsoever,
trump that of the jurors even though they did hear the evidence?
They heard the evidence chosen by a biased CPS, presented by an
unscrupulous lawyer, interpreted by a biased judge.
I presume you are going to assure me that the CPS is always fair,
lawyers are always scrupulous, judges are never biased?
On 31/08/2025 16:18, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 29/08/2025 14:11, John wrote:
As I said some time ago, she's too honest for her own good.
As a Christian, surely you should be applauding such action?
Of course, which is why I have castigated the other chap for not
following her example.
Do you believe that all innocent people should plead guilty, then? Or,
just the ones you have decided are guilty, even though they are actually innocent?
And, most importantly of all, did you communicate your decision to Ricky Jones?-a If not, it's entirely your fault that this innocent man thought
he was innocent and acted accordingly.
You have absolutely no evidence that Ricky Jones was dishonest about his neurodivergency.-a Both the preosecution and the defence accepted it as
bona fide.
Do you believe that all innocent people should plead guilty, then? Or,
just the ones you have decided are guilty, even though they are actually innocent?
They're not, but this particular provider was.
"Occupational therapy services are available to all school-age children
who have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) either through the
NHS or the local authority. For children without an EHCP, advice may be available through existing NHS services provided in state school.rCY
"South London and Maudsley NHS Trust said its aim was to 'support
applicants from local schools who meet the participation criteria' such
as 'being from a lower income family', but it warns 'priority will be
given to those not attending a private school'."
They are all human, but you are conjuring a conspiracy out of thin air.
It's ridiculous.
Was that due to a conspiracy, too?
That is a very serious accusation, I trust you have the evidence to back
it up?
But a question for you, why do you think the judge was biased?
I would say it's possible for one of those to happen, at a very bigNo, I am not serious about claiming that all three were present in the
stretch two, but three?-a C'mon Ken, are you serious?
On 31/08/2025 19:05, GB wrote:
Do you believe that all innocent people should plead guilty, then? Or,
just the ones you have decided are guilty, even though they are
actually innocent?
Are you denying that he said those words?
How you get from "he's guilty but he has an excuse" to "he's innocent"
is beyond me.
On 31/08/2025 19:44, John wrote:
That is a very serious accusation, I trust you have the evidence to
back it up?
It's not an accusation - I don't know any of the people involved - but certainly some explanation is required for why the two cases were
treated so differently.
But a question for you, why do you think the judge was biased?
Why do you think he was not biased?
Take the recent case where a higher judge has reversed the ruling of a
lower judge about immigrants and hostels. It now appears that the higher judge is a left-wing activist and his decision is now being attributed
to bias.
In an ideal world no one in the criminal justice system would be biased
in any direction but would act with absolute fairness and impartiality. Regrettably we do not live in an ideal world.
I would say it's possible for one of those to happen, at a very big
stretch two, but three?-a C'mon Ken, are you serious?
No, I am not serious about claiming that all three were present in the
case under discussion. I merely point out that there are three possible sources of bias and injustice, any one of which would have been enough
to pervert the case.