Freedom of speech...

[TRITON]

Have a look at the video I've linked to below. It is a chap who is an actual barrister and so an expert

I've watched a few of his vids over the years and now he seems to be concentrating on populism, in a pandering sort of way.

Must be more lucrative to his channel earnings than just a bit of legal advice

 

[sploo]

I've watched a few of his vids over the years and now he seems to be concentrating on populism, in a pandering sort of way.

Yes - that puts it in a more concise way than my previous waffle.

 

[Chris152]

It’s been suggested ...

We can all suggest all sorts.

 

[Jake]

You must have watched a different video to me because up to that point he has been going through all of the relevant law and guidance and has explained very well what can be considered to be incitement. He then tells people that they need to do if they are questioned or charged which is essentially that they need to get legal advice.

You are probably not attuned to legal argument. Listen again, when he starts saying it needs to be urging specific action against specific targets that's not anchored in any of the law/guidance he's previously been through - he's slipped smoothly into his own opinion/gloss and stopped citing external support.

 

[Jake]

As I said above, I don't think the sentencing remarks show that her barrister did give that advice so can we say that she didn't ignore his advice as she wanted to get things over and done with?
And a simple cursory search will show that he is anything but 'some bloke from his own one-man firm in the sticks who isn't a proper specialist criminal barrister'.

Sentencing remarks wouldn't show that but it is implicit in pleading guilty. If she chose to plead guilty against advice that's her own lookout.

As for his credentials, I looked at his website and they are very ordinary at best, and he certainly is not a specialist criminal barrister (and it is a specialism).

 

[mudman]

Sentencing remarks wouldn't show that but it is implicit in pleading guilty. If she chose to plead guilty against advice that's her own lookout.

As for his credentials, I looked at his website and they are very ordinary at best, and he certainly is not a specialist criminal barrister (and it is a specialism).

It is only implicit to one that wants it to be there and so chooses to apply his own interpretation. I do agree that it is her own lookout.

He is a registered barrister and as such, I think I trust his ability to interpret the relevant laws. Do you think he can't?

 

[mudman]

You are probably not attuned to legal argument. Listen again, when he starts saying it needs to be urging specific action against specific targets that's not anchored in any of the law/guidance he's previously been through - he's slipped smoothly into his own opinion/gloss and stopped citing external support.

I did listen again and he is giving a pretty good interpretation of what the law says. He doesn't offer an opinion on the Lucy Connolly case.

 

[Jake]

It is only implicit to one that wants it to be there and so chooses to apply his own interpretation. I do agree that it is her own lookout.

Most people don't go to prison for a 25% sentence discount if they are advised they have reasonable chances of getting off completely.

He is a registered barrister and as such, I think I trust his ability to interpret the relevant laws. Do you think he can't?

He starts well when explaining the statutory text, loses a bit of credibility by treating CPS guidance as some kind of legal gospel (rather than a practical guide to what the prosecutors might decide to pursue, irrelevant by the time the case gets before a judge), but then just slides into unsupported assertions of opinion. He's pretty slick and persuasive on a surface level but no, I don't find him convincing. He literally distances himself from what he saying by stating it is just opinion and not advice - sensible of him, but when he says that, it is to be taken seriously.

 

[mudman]

Yes.

Actually, she wasn't convicted of inciting violence but for 'publishing written material that incited racial hatred'.
So, I think that shows that the no one actually thought she was inciting violence, but you do so I think you should think about your motivations for that.

This still leaves the question, should she have been sentenced to two years and seven months in prison for expressing an opinion? We have laws in place now that mean that anyone can be prosecuted for words and thoughts and the effect is that freedom of speech has been eroded to the extent that people will look at such cases and think twice about giving an opinion as it can be said that these offences are seen as more egregious than some acts that cause serious physical harm.

There have been a lot on here that seem to have no problem with limiting speech and for implementing punishments for speech and views that they feel are harmful but in actuality are just different points of view and opinions. It is a very dangerous road that our country have gone down and the end of it can be a very scary place that the cheerleaders for limiting points of view and opinions, may one day regret leading us to.

 

[Chris152]

We have laws in place now that mean that anyone can be prosecuted for words and thoughts

Do we? How do they know what we're thinking?

 

[mudman]

Most people don't go to prison for a 25% sentence discount if they are advised they have reasonable chances of getting off completely.

He starts well when explaining the statutory text, loses a bit of credibility by treating CPS guidance as some kind of legal gospel (rather than a practical guide to what the prosecutors might decide to pursue, irrelevant by the time the case gets before a judge), but then just slides into unsupported assertions of opinion. He's pretty slick and persuasive on a surface level but no, I don't find him convincing. He literally distances himself from what he saying by stating it is just opinion and not advice - sensible of him, but when he says that, it is to be taken seriously.

A lot of people pled guilty because they were advised that they were going to spend a long time on remand before they came to trial so they might as well get it over and done with. Maybe that is apocryphal but it would be a valid reason.

 

[mudman]

Do we? How do they know what we're thinking?

Oh good grief. How about people expressing what they think.
Although there have been cases of people being prosecuted for silently praying.

 

[Chris152]

Although there have been cases of people being prosecuted for silently praying.

Blimey, that sounds odd. What were the circumstances in those cases?

 

[mudman]

Blimey, that sounds odd. What were the circumstances in those cases?

Here you go: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/thoughtcrime-is-now-a-reality-in-the-u-k/

 

[Chris152]

Here you go: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/10/thoughtcrime-is-now-a-reality-in-the-u-k/

Ah, it was in a protection zone around an abortion clinic, which he refused to leave.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html

More of what this thread's about.

 

[Jake]

Here's the protection order - plainly there had been a load of harassment of clients of the BPA clinic by Christianicists to bring this on. His offence was breaching the order, not the prayer itself. He could have done the latter anywhere but in the protection zone, but he clearly chose not to in order to try to harass the clients.

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Asset...-area-Public-Spaces-Protection-Order-PSPO.pdf

 

[mudman]

Ah, it was in a protection zone around an abortion clinic, which he refused to leave.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...christchurch-uk-parliament-army-b2631603.html

More of what this thread's about.

Maybe so, but is it proportional to prosecute someone for silent thoughts?

 

[Jake]

Maybe so, but is it proportional to prosecute someone for silent thoughts?

Could be worse if say you try breaking into an army base and seeing how a silent prayer goes down.

 

[Chris152]

Maybe so, but is it proportional to prosecute someone for silent thoughts?

Read the fact check again, maybe you'll see that's not the issue.

 

[mudman]

Here's the protection order - plainly there had been a load of harassment of clients of the BPA clinic by Christianicists to bring this on. His offence was breaching the order, not the prayer itself. He could have done the latter anywhere but in the protection zone, but he clearly chose not to in order to try to harass the clients.

https://www.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/Asset...-area-Public-Spaces-Protection-Order-PSPO.pdf

Which of these was he engaged in: