Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qpr fan arrested.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by OldR View Post

    From Yaxley Lennon's own mouth: '“I sacked my solicitors because they tried to broker a deal where I apologised and I admit guilt'

    From the appeal court session;

    'His lawyers argued that the sentence was "excessive" and claimed procedural failings had caused prejudice against Robinson.' - Note, no claim that he hadn't committed the offence or admitted it...

    Carson Kane - his lawyers - issued a statement which never once said he was 'innocent' but only that he should be subjected to a fair trial.

    His in-court barrister: " Robinson’s barrister, Jeremy Dein QC, had argued that a “conglomeration of procedural deficiencies” had given rise to prejudice against his client and caused him to be handed a “manifestly excessive” prison sentence.

    He argued that proceedings at Leeds Crown Court were “unnecessarily and unjustly rushed”, causing Robinson’s representative to miss potential mitigating factors that could have lowered his sentence."

    Note how he doesn't claim Robinson is innocent but only he was guilty by 'mitigating factors'..

    So, where have I got that wrong...

    As for the suspiciously looking attic-room studio now located on an industrial estate.... Do you know what's worse than you being conned... You possibly leading others to be conned too....

    Do you want to also explain what happened to all the money he pretended to need to sue the Metropolitan Police and CPS?

    Whilst you're at it, could you confirm where the hundreds he took in donations for his 'sponsored walk of the Great Wall of China' went?
    That was in the appeal court hearing where no admission of innocence or guilt is required, and none was given.
    You can only appeal a conviction if you can prove procedural flaws on new evidence.
    I think we may be talking past eachother, but at no point in the court of appeals or in the rehearing of his trial did he plead guilty to the charge he was convicted of.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stanley View Post

      But is it really reasonable for western largely secular societies to have to wait until Islam has undergone its own reformation (which is unlikely to even occur in our lifetimes, if ever at all), before it's permitted to satirise and reveal its shortcomings by way of the arts? Yes, Islamic 'blasphemy' (however subjectively that may be defined) is a criminal offence in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia etc, but is not in the the UK, Europe, North America etc last time I checked.

      And what of the concept of integration and assimilation into a culture and society that has been good enough to offer these people safe haven, asylum, employment and a new life.....into a culture in which religious satire is woven into its very fabric?
      I don't think it is reasonable for the West to wait for an element of Islam to embrace secular, 'enlightened' thought which allows us to take the #### out of religions or religious figures. However, I think they shouldn't, and neither should we as Christians, have to accept our faiths being subjected to material clearly designed to shock and offend whole swathes of the faithful. The problem is where is that dividing line? Take my previous example: Surely no-one on here is going to deny the right of South Park to have a Jesus and that they should be allowed a Mohammed but I hope few, if any, would be happy to see Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha, for example, super-imposed onto a pornographic picture.

      And integration and assimilation should be part and parcel of any immigrants stay n the UK. No-one is saying that they have to become Christians, vote a certain way or even dress a certain way ( I really can't understand those who want to ban the Burka regardless of whether or not those who wear it have opted to) but you should, as millions of migrants have done for decades, accept our core values. Our core values should encourage us to prosecute those who violate what should be clearly defined laws about Religious rights and tolerance, of course, but they should also mean that you can satire religion.

      The truth is that no-one has put much thought into this and the floodgates (no Hatey Hopkins intended) have been open too long to have an immediate effect. We need to have a dialogue as a nation - on a whole array of matters - and people shouldn't be scared to mention colour and/or religion where there is an obvious need to do so. An honest debate will also mean that we have to clamp down further on people like Yaxley Lennon standing on a residential street in Dewsbury and pointing at random people's houses declaring them to be 'an enemy combatant'... We need the dialogue to be honest but conducted by adults.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

        That was in the appeal court hearing where no admission of innocence or guilt is required, and none was given.
        You can only appeal a conviction if you can prove procedural flaws on new evidence.
        I think we may be talking past eachother, but at no point in the court of appeals or in the rehearing of his trial did he plead guilty to the charge he was convicted of.
        And yet every paper in the country said he 'admitted' contempt of Court in Leeds..... I'm friends with one of the journalists who wrote that, would you like his details to sue him?

        Cashley Lennon (see what I did there!) would have been the first to sue them if he hadn't.... He didn't even ask for a note of correction to be printed.....
        And at the appeal the legal team were still, even out of court and with their statements, not denying that he had committed the offence...

        As I said, you've been conned mate and probably need to choose your heroes a bit differently...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by OldR View Post
          people shouldn't be scared to mention colour and/or religion where there is an obvious need to do so.
          I agree. The Yorkshire child sexual exploitation scandal was predominantly perpetrated by Muslim men of South Pakistani descent. When the social worker pointed this fact out she lost her job because it was deemed a racist comment by the PC liberal left, when all she was doing was stating a fact. The liberal Maajid Nawaz made the very same point. Point being until as a society we can have truly open and honest dialogue we'll not even get to first base in tackling these issues.
          IMO
          YMMV
          LOL

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stanley View Post

            I agree. The Yorkshire child sexual exploitation scandal was predominantly perpetrated by Muslim men of South Pakistani descent. When the social worker pointed this fact out she lost her job because it was deemed a racist comment by the PC liberal left, when all she was doing was stating a fact. The liberal Maajid Nawaz made the very same point. Point being until as a society we can have truly open and honest dialogue we'll not even get to first base in tackling these issues.

            We have the same problem in London with the stabbings and shootings. It is clearly a problem within a section of the black youth but people don't want The Met to conduct stop and searches based upon profile identifications? What is wrong with these people?

            Sometimes at an away match I used to travel in a group of a dozen or so and we'd get stopped because we fitted the profile of race, age and group for football hooligans. We wasn't but not once did we claim to be victims. If 90% of stabbings and shootings are carried out by young, black males who live within a certain area then no-one should be blaming the authorities for searching those who fit that profile.

            I hate to sound all Richard Littlejohn here, but you really couldn't make it up...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OldR View Post
              people don't want The Met to conduct stop and searches based upon profile identifications? What is wrong with these people?
              It's absolutely nuts, and as far as I'm concerned they are akin to fifth columnists - as they are certainly not part of any solution.

              #WhiteLiberalGuilt
              IMO
              YMMV
              LOL

              Comment


              • Decent thread this. Well impressed with OldR knowledge and arguments

                Comment


                • Originally posted by OldR View Post

                  I'm White, would be offended by the burning of an effigy of the Virgin Mary and would sign petitions to get the perpetrators arrested and prosecuted.

                  Also, I even said that the decision to prosecute the burner of the poppy - despite the fact that it is a secular symbol - was correct and the fine too low.

                  Racism and acts of blatanty attacking a religion to offend en-masse should be crimes regardless of the perpetrators or 'victims' race or religion. Only an idiot thinks otherwise.
                  That's ridiculous, you would want someone to be locked up because they chose to burn an inanimate object?
                  Can't say im a fan of blasphemy laws.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

                    That's ridiculous, you would want someone to be locked up because they chose to burn an inanimate object?
                    Can't say im a fan of blasphemy laws.
                    I didn't say locked up to be fair.
                    Prosecuted covers a whole array of punishments.

                    Maybe someone could be fined, someone else perform a community service within the community he has offended. All should be required to attend religious education /tolerance classes though in my opinion.

                    Comment


                    • This video pretty much sums my thoughts up on all this thought crime nonsense

                      https://youtu.be/ceS_jkKjIgo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by OldR View Post

                        I didn't say locked up to be fair.
                        Prosecuted covers a whole array of punishments.

                        Maybe someone could be fined, someone else perform a community service within the community he has offended. All should be required to attend religious education /tolerance classes though in my opinion.
                        I think I'd opt for prison instead of some re-education program, thanks.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by West Acton View Post
                          Decent thread this. Well impressed with OldR knowledge and arguments
                          Me too Wests.......

                          #MeToo

                          Oh no..... that's a different subject entirely .....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

                            I think I'd opt for prison instead of some re-education program, thanks.
                            You might end up with Tommy on one of his regular visits ;-)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by OldR View Post

                              You might end up with Tommy on one of his regular visits ;-)
                              That was pretty funny to be fair.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by OldR View Post

                                Hmmm.....

                                Although I am not making a direct comparison - historical, of course, or theoretically - I will say that the relationship between followers of Islam and Mohammed is very similar to the relationship Catholics have with Mary to some extent: Not God but an integral part of their faith and revered. Would I be offended if someone burned an effigy of Mary. Absolutely and I understand why Muslims would be offended by the same happening to Mohammed. Both should be considered religious crimes in my opinion.

                                The difference between the above and the burning of an effigy of Pope Leo XI is that he is not revered by Catholics and most (about 99.99%) wouldn't be able to tell you that he was the Pontiff at the time of the Gunpowder Plot: I certainly had to look on Google. He is an irrelevance to the Catholic faith but plays an important, if not integral, role in the Plot. Therefore the burning of his effigy should't be considered as religious hatred in my opinion.
                                Hang on Old, i'm confused.
                                I thought i read you said you thought it was ok to burn an effigy Pope Leo, but burning one of the present Pope is offensive?
                                So I obviously wrongly assumed you were happy to burn effigies, of the dead and gone, but not the present.
                                So swap Pope Leo for Mary and you would be outraged?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X