Fair enough. I get the importance of the meeting but it’s like entrusting the safety of a mouse to a pair of snakes. Putin has already won a battle, by having this meeting on American soil and having Trump kowtow to him by submitting to it, instead of arresting him for war crimes. Trump has already said that land may have to switch hands, which is why I referenced Alaska, because if he is in the mood for switching property then he can start with his own land. Ukraine has shown that Russia is not the mighty force it once was and I think that Europe could put more pressure on both Trump and Putin to force a ceasefire, by giving their own deadline. Give Putin a deadline to ceasefire, withdraw and return stolen land. If not implemented then invite Ukraine to join NATO. As I understand it, Russia is currently moving troops into positions that will enable them to try and take key cities that would give them total control of major highways, that would facilitate them moving troops and weapons in more quickly and giving them a launchpad for further incursions, when they have restocked. That is not the act of a country looking for a ceasefire. And, once they take over Ukraine, they will probably then attack another ex satellite country from the Soviet Union era. Europe needs to decide for themselves and not leave it to the Americans, irrespective of who might be the president.
Narcissistic psychopath meets Narcissistic psychopath, Just give them a mirror. They will be stuck. Plenty of time to decide what to do.. with them.
Yeah I dont wish death on many and it doesn’t feel right. But if a strategic bomb went off maybe the world would be a better place.
Yeah people can't exactly blame the police or CPS for this but I'm sure they will. I do think it's a terrible decision by the jury though. Bet some of the people jailed last Summer are wishing they went to trial.
Yeah I concur, the right will have a field day with this but they are not comparable cases due to one pleading guilty and one pleading not guilty. This will just encourage everyone to contest absolutely everything, whether seemingly bang to rights or not. He absolutely should be doing some time for this and I cannot fathom how the jury came to the conclusion he wasn't guilty. Doesn't change my opinion of Lucy Connolly and her ilk who are utter filth and the country is better off for them being punished, but Ricky Jones belongs among them being the other cheek of the same arse.
Something doesn't smell right about the reporting... Are we to believe fhat 10 out of 12 jurors were left leaning, or has there been selective reporting... keep the click bait going.
I don't agree it's a terrible decision. I think this is more complicated. I do agree that it's absurd that people were jailed for tweets while a man who stood in front of a crowd on the streets and and called for throats to be slit walks free. The best argument in favour of a not guilty verdict is probably that people often say silly things in the heat of the moment that they don't mean and everyone knows not to take them literally (as far as I'm concerned the same applies to social media posts, especially those that are quickly deleted). It's still the case that what he did is clearly far more likely to directly cause violence than a tweet. However, for me when you combine this decision with the decisions in other Southport-related cases (including those involving people on "the other side") it shows two things: 1. It makes it clear the public don't believe people should be sent to prison for this sort of speech-related offence. As I've said before in this thread, it's now obvious the people who were sent to prison last year made a big mistake by pleading guilty. Hopefully more people do the same as in this case and British governments stop trying to police people's speech. 2. It highlights the importance of trial by jury as a defence against authoritarian governments. I have no doubt that if a judge had been responsible for deciding this case (as would have been the case in most of Europe) the verdict would have been guilty. There have been fairly similar cases in the past - the people who tore down the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol and threw it in the harbour were very obviously guilty of criminal damage but the jury didn't believe they should be sent to prison so it found them not guilty. Juries introduce an element of public opinion into trials and protect us all from government overreach.
Yeah 2-tier justice system will be cited a lot (just checked online and it is already by the Tories and Farage), but in this case as much as I personally think it is wrong, a jury of peers decided this. Not the courts, government, woke, etc, but actual real people on a jury.
Some good points there and I agree to an extent but I think context matters with these sorts of things. At the time of these offences occurring we were the middle of pretty severe social unrest with violence being carried out by different groups in a large number of cities - the worst violence seen on the streets in 13 years. Anybody trying to incite further violence in the midst of those circumstances absolutely should be guilty of a criminal offence as far as I'm concerned. And especially when speaking at a rally in the streets.
The obvious difference is that one went before a jury and the others, for whatever reason, pleaded guilty. That obvious (to most) difference hasn't stopped loading from using it to try and prove that two tier justice doesn't exist. The fact that Jones was actually arrested and charged might have made a stronger argument. But an almost triumphant tone to loading's post using a guy who escaped punishment for advocating slitting people's throats is a strange attitude to say the least. Maybe it's because the target of his incitement was the "far right" in this case.
Yeah, that's fair. As I said, I think it's much harder to defend someone (especially an elected councillor) who says something like this on the streets in front of a crowd than it is to defend someone tweeting something stupid while sat at home. There's a much more obvious and direct link to potential violence. My guess is there's a different context that's affected this outcome. Most people I know are very uncomfortable about people being put in prison or visited by the police for things they've said or posted on social media and there have been several polls and reports published recently where a lot of people say they regularly self-censor and often don't feel they can say what they really think for fear of getting in trouble, losing their job or whatever. My guess is that's affected the jury's decision in this case. If I'm wrong then that's very worrying, because the only other explanation I can think of is that people think it's okay to call for the killing of the "far right" and that would mean we have a very serious problem.
Being reported that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, came off the plane in Alaska wearing a sweater with CCCP on the front. The Cyrillic abbreviation for USSR. He’s trolling Trump before they even start talking.
