| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:37:34 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,617 |
So what has this to do with say the epistle to the Hebrews? Apparently this lady was prosecuted and sent to prison. Yet the lead singer of a bunch of muscic people was allowed to chant "Death death to the idf" and wasnt even prosecuted.
But apparently the lady in question pleaded "guilty"!!! She didnt contest the accusation in the court of law. A acquainance was prosecuted for historical assault.....when i came across him he was pleading not guilty and stating miscarriage of justice. I thought it was the right thing to do to support him through the trial. But upon the advice of his lawyer he changed his plea to "guilty"........he was told that if he pleaded not guilty and was found guilty then he would get a longer sentence than if he initially pleaded guilty, he would get a lesser sentence as he was not wasting the courts time.
This apparently is what Ms Connelly did. Her legal advisor counselled her to plead guilty, whih is what she did.
For me she has no right to plead the victim card as she by her own words she pleaded guilty.
i have never been in such a situation so i dont really know how i would react, but from where i sit now, i would never ever plead guilty if i thought i was not guilty.
As for Ms Connelly she wrote some unwise words in the immediate aftermath of the dreadful Southport murders. She withdrew the tweet four hours later. The Glastongbury muscos get away with calling for murder....Ms Connelly does time. Go figure.
On 23/08/2025 15:16, hermeneutika wrote:
i have never been in such a situation so i dont really know how i
would react, but from where i sit now, i would never ever plead guilty
if i thought i was not guilty.
That would be my instinct as well, but what if the police have - or
claim to have - cast iron evidence against you? What if it is evident
that the CPS is part of a conspiracy to "get" you? The grand old days
when a British jury would refuse to convict you if they thought you were innocent are, I fear, long gone.
Boy, you really have got it in for the Criminal Justice System haven't you?-a I'm not sure which verse in the bible supports this wonderful Christian trait but I'm sure you'll point me in the right direction.
The CPS did investigate Bob Vylan's chant, but conceded there was a less than 50% chance of a conviction.I'm sure they could have slanted the charge and the evidence if the will
On 24/08/2025 10:37, John wrote:
The CPS did investigate Bob Vylan's chant, but conceded there was a
less than 50% chance of a conviction.
I'm sure they could have slanted the charge and the evidence if the will
had been there.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Don't you worry that, now you are publicising how the establishment
targets certain individuals, they will need to silence you?
On 24/08/2025 10:44, John wrote:
Boy, you really have got it in for the Criminal Justice System haven't
you?-a I'm not sure which verse in the bible supports this wonderful
Christian trait but I'm sure you'll point me in the right direction.
I don't need Scripture to reveal what a cursory reading of the press
will tell you. It may be that our criminal justice system is better than that of other countries or that it is the best that imperfect humans can devise, but neither precludes there being room for improvement. In some cases, significant improvement.
It depends which press you read of course. If you read the Mail, the
Express or the Telegraph you're likely to get the type of views the
likes of Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage espouse.
On 25/08/2025 08:49, John wrote:
It depends which press you read of course. If you read the Mail, the
Express or the Telegraph you're likely to get the type of views the
likes of Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage espouse.
I don't think the brand of newspaper will substantially affect stories
of people being released having been found innocent after twenty years
in gaol. Or a higher court reversing the finding of a lower court.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 25/08/2025 08:49, John wrote:Neither of which addresses your point or my reply but hey.
It depends which press you read of course. If you read the Mail, the
Express or the Telegraph you're likely to get the type of views the
likes of Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage espouse.
I don't think the brand of newspaper will substantially affect stories
of people being released having been found innocent after twenty years
in gaol. Or a higher court reversing the finding of a lower court.Neither of which addresses the
Neither of which addresses your point or my reply but hey.You claimed that my statements about mistakes made by the police and the courts depended on the newspaper which was reporting them.
On 26/08/2025 13:13, John wrote:
Neither of which addresses your point or my reply but hey.
You claimed that my statements about mistakes made by the police and the courts depended on the newspaper which was reporting them.
Mistakes can happen, I'm not saying that they can't, but that's a far
cry from-a "The grand old days when a British jury would refuse to
convict you if they thought you were innocent are, I fear, long gone"
That is an attack on the Criminal Justice System.
Of course a jury willI've only had once experience of being on a jury. I was not impressed.
pass a not guilty verdict if it thinks you're innocent of the charge,
Ricky Jones being a case in point.
On 28/08/2025 08:53, John wrote:
Mistakes can happen, I'm not saying that they can't, but that's a far
cry from-a "The grand old days when a British jury would refuse to
convict you if they thought you were innocent are, I fear, long gone"
That is an attack on the Criminal Justice System.
No, it's a statement of fact. You can watch videos on YouTube which
explain how the possibility is forbidden to be mentioned in court and,
of course, if you are at all knowledgeable about history, you can
remember the splendid occasion when a jury refused to convict someone
being persecuted for his beliefs. The judge stormed at them, sent them
off to prison for a day (or was it two?) but in the end had to accept
the verdict.
Splendid days.
Of course a jury will pass a not guilty verdict if it thinks you're
innocent of the charge, Ricky Jones being a case in point.
I've only had once experience of being on a jury. I was not impressed.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
But, you are right. Jury nullification is rather frowned upon by the judiciary. The jury swears an oath to try the case according to the
evidence and the law, and producing a verdict based instead on their conscience involves breaking that solemn oath. So, in that very narrow sense, you perhaps ought not to be supporting it!
