There should really be a mechanism for this. Like a trial in absentia. Guilty and into the wood chipper.
Crime - part deux.
- Thread starter Sucky
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There should really be a mechanism for this. Like a trial in absentia. Guilty and into the wood chipper.
Too quick for some, we need to look into the past for punishments that fit the crime
And **** their human rights, the victims need our sympathy
because she's a she and not a he
Exactly mate. Can't imagine any bloke doing that at a Christmas party and not being nicked.
If it had been a he pretending to be a she there would've been blood everywhere
These ****s need a bit of old fashioned police brutality in the cells. Teach them to stop being absolute ****ers. Then let the judge do the rest, bit of time inside wouldn't go amiss if we had the space, but heavy fines hurting their pockets might be as effective and suspended sentences.
Joey Barton given 2 year jail sentence suspended for 18 months
The Judges summing up was interesting in defining the boundaries of free speech and hate speech
Just going back over the judge's sentencing comments, it is clear that Andrew Menary KC was keen to talk about where the boundaries lie in the freedom of speech debate.
He told Joey Barton: "Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.
"But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of *****philia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.
"As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit - amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful."
The Judges summing up was interesting in defining the boundaries of free speech and hate speech
Just going back over the judge's sentencing comments, it is clear that Andrew Menary KC was keen to talk about where the boundaries lie in the freedom of speech debate.
He told Joey Barton: "Robust debate, satire, mockery and even crude language may fall within permissible free speech.
"But when posts deliberately target individuals with vilifying comparisons to serial killers or false insinuations of *****philia, designed to humiliate and distress, they forfeit their protection.
"As the jury concluded, your offences exemplify behaviour that is beyond this limit - amounting to a sustained campaign of online abuse that was not mere commentary but targeted, extreme and deliberately harmful."
He's also got to pay the prosecution costs of over £23k. He's also had one private prosecution against him, which cost £100k. I think there maybe more private claims against him, which is why damages were not awarded, as the judge didn't wish to intefere in those cases. Also he has to do community service and attend rehabilatation, all in all has worked out very costly saga for him,
I knew that would be picked up, in the summary the judge mentioned the two years and the probable implication is that if he continues as he has he will end up with the two years
The judge was being lenient at this time hoping he could rehabilitate himself
Not a chance tho
It’s absolute nonsense that this got this far. Like or loathe the bloke and without question he’s done some terrible things in his life but this whole thing was a massive waste of resources.
Not sure what the alternative was tbf. If it was a first offence I'd agree but the bloke continuously commits crimes (think this was his 4th or 5th conviction) and doesn't change. He could of plead guilty but was too arrogant to do so which is why he had the 23 grand costs awarded against him I guess.
I don't particularly like the guy, but I also think should stuff like this really be getting dragged through our crown courts, especially in the current climate of a massive backlog of cases awaiting trial. Instead of getting rid of Juries maybe they should be kicking this nonsense out of the court room. The judge had made it clear in his summing up that there were private cases against him, one for which had already cost him a £100k. If this was two nobodies arguing on twitter no one would give a ****, the police certainly wouldn't be rocking up to protect us, but some how tv celebrities become protected by the law. It's not nice what he did and it needed to stop, but he was clearly testing the limit of free speech with his insults, but it's clear in this country free speech no longer exists, and you've got less chance of being locked up if you are a nonce. Yet now all he has to do is name drop the forbidded on X and he activates his prison sentence, the world has gone mad. I'm sure there are lots of women in society that would love similar protection, that they don't get btw.