Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

What unfairness? Nothing that happened to Robinson was unfair. If you are ill informed about what happened, the clearest account is on The Secret Barrister's blog.

He's moved on from Robinson now.
There's another white bloke who's been hard done by.

[Alpinestars]

NoNeed said:

Alpinestars said:

Ever considered the difference between murder and manslaughter? I wonder if intent has anything to do with the difference?

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

When you drive at speed into a crowd of people, I would think you are doing it with the full knowledge of what could happen, indeed, what you intend to happen, and if that is death then that is murder. Should the state of lesser charges then they are actively encouraging such behaviour.

Should, ie your view or do, ie what the law is?

Are you saying you don’t like the law as it stands? And it’s really really unfair?

[EddieSteadyGo]

NoNeed said:

Alpinestars said:

Ever considered the difference between murder and manslaughter? I wonder if intent has anything to do with the difference?

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

You were specifically were not talking about sentencing for the same crime. And what is an 'early please'?

[anonymous-user]

I see that No Need is critical of what he calls "big words". It is curious (not really) to see how TR supporters conform to a textbook pattern. Part of the pattern is fear or hatred of education, and of educated discourse. It is odd, given how liberating education can be, that so many hate or fear it. See also: all the Brexit threads.

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

When you drive at speed into a crowd of people, I would think you are doing it with the full knowledge of what could happen, indeed, what you intend to happen, and if that is death then that is murder. Should the state of lesser charges then they are actively encouraging such behaviour.

The picture you linked featured two people convicted of vastly different crimes. What you think about what people think / have knowledge of when driving is irrelevant to you trying to suggest there are double standards.

I made a more valid comparison for you which I wish to imply there is consistency with sentencing.

[bitchstewie]

desolate said:

Not just fall for it but support it and spread it around the internet.

So either thick and willfully ignorant or pursuing a racist agenda.
No other explanation.

It's easy to pigeon hole people as being thick or racist and in some case of course it will be that simple, but I do wonder why, when presented with "facts" like that poster/photo, some people will think "Hmm that isn't really comparing like with like is it?" and other will simply so "See, I told you, one law for us another for them".

You can't always help it if you're not too bright but there's plenty of info out there that most people could easily do their homework before posting these things as fact.

[coldel]

NoNeed said:

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

I put up some useful info on the previous page on this in case it was missed, it showed all the factors that make up sentencing for murder and why someone might get 40 years minimum vs someone getting 10 for what looks like the same crime (often the comparisons like you see on that poster are misrepresented and not presenting the full facts to make it look like colour is biasing the term). Intent, motive, premeditation etc all contribute to minimum jail terms.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

It's easy to pigeon hole people as being thick or racist and in some case of course it will be that simple, but I do wonder why, when presented with "facts" like that poster/photo, some people will think "Hmm that isn't really comparing like with like is it?" and other will simply so "See, I told you, one law for us another for them".

You can't always help it if you're not too bright but there's plenty of info out there that most people could easily do their homework before posting these things as fact.

In which case they support the underlying agenda.

[coldel]

desolate said:

bhstewie said:

It's easy to pigeon hole people as being thick or racist and in some case of course it will be that simple, but I do wonder why, when presented with "facts" like that poster/photo, some people will think "Hmm that isn't really comparing like with like is it?" and other will simply so "See, I told you, one law for us another for them".

You can't always help it if you're not too bright but there's plenty of info out there that most people could easily do their homework before posting these things as fact.

In which case they support the underlying agenda.

The person that created that poster did so knowing that the crimes were not comparable but did so anyway knowing a reasonable percentage of people are looking for stuff exactly like this, its called confirmation bias. This would then garner support for that persons political agenda. Tommy does it, his supporters do it, and people will follow.

I don't think the person that created it is thick, I also don't think the people that believe it are thick, just biased. I guess someone is not really using their potential intelligence if they evaluate it, research it, then conclude its correct.

[Pothole]

coldel said:

The person that created that poster did so knowing that the crimes were not comparable but did so anyway knowing a reasonable percentage of people are looking for stuff exactly like this, its called confirmation bias. This would then garner support for that persons political agenda. Tommy does it, his supporters do it, and people will follow.

I don't think the person that created it is thick, I also don't think the people that believe it are thick, just biased. I guess someone is not really using their potential intelligence if they evaluate it, research it, then conclude its correct.

Ignorant, then?

[Zod]

NoNeed said:

Alpinestars said:

Ever considered the difference between murder and manslaughter? I wonder if intent has anything to do with the difference?

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

When you drive at speed into a crowd of people, I would think you are doing it with the full knowledge of what could happen, indeed, what you intend to happen, and if that is death then that is murder. Should the state of lesser charges then they are actively encouraging such behaviour.

Sentencing is always the same for murder - the mandatory sentence is life. The judge makes recommendations as to minimum term to be served, but the sentence is life.

[coldel]

Zod said:

NoNeed said:

Alpinestars said:

Ever considered the difference between murder and manslaughter? I wonder if intent has anything to do with the difference?

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

When you drive at speed into a crowd of people, I would think you are doing it with the full knowledge of what could happen, indeed, what you intend to happen, and if that is death then that is murder. Should the state of lesser charges then they are actively encouraging such behaviour.

Sentencing is always the same for murder - the mandatory sentence is life. The judge makes recommendations as to minimum term to be served, but the sentence is life.

Yep, and the minimum term is dictated by the link on the previous page to this one I posted up.

[Digga]

La Liga said:

NoNeed said:

Yes but they are charges, I was talking about sentencing for the same crime, sentencing should be similar, if guidelines say x amount of thats what it should be with minor differences for early please and the like.

When you drive at speed into a crowd of people, I would think you are doing it with the full knowledge of what could happen, indeed, what you intend to happen, and if that is death then that is murder. Should the state of lesser charges then they are actively encouraging such behaviour.

The picture you linked featured two people convicted of vastly different crimes. What you think about what people think / have knowledge of when driving is irrelevant to you trying to suggest there are double standards.

I made a more valid comparison for you which I wish to imply there is consistency with sentencing.

^This.

If anything, owing to the outcome of the attack on the crowd outside Finsbury Park mosque, the direct effects - the suffering caused - of that attack were arguably greater.

[NoNeed]

Breadvan72 said:

What unfairness? Nothing that happened to Robinson was unfair. If you are ill informed about what happened, the clearest account is on The Secret Barrister's blog.

The problem with selected quoting is you take take one sentence and completely change what it meant. I have not referenced tommies trial at all and if you could detach yourself from your own prejudice for a second you would see that.

[Countdown]

NoNeed said:

coldel said:

The general issue is that most affiliated with extreme right wing politics and the likes of Tommy identify people of religions by their appearance. A dark skinned chap walking down the road with a beard and wearing a style of clothes will be targeted in this way.

I guess hypothetically, if for instance Ian Wright turned to Islam tomorrow holding very strong belief in it, would you still go for a beer with him to watch the football?

I socialise with muslims in several ways but they don't go drinking.

We do. We even drink. I’m surprised none of your “Muslim friends” has pointed that out. Are they the same people that Del Mar socialises with? I.e non existent?

[NoNeed]

Countdown said:

We do. We even drink.

Lol, very good I was taking the going for a drink as alcahol, but I think you know that.

[NoNeed]

I seem to have stirred quite a few bigots.

[Countdown]

NoNeed said:

Countdown said:

We do. We even drink.

Lol, very good I was taking the going for a drink as alcahol, but I think you know that.

It’s possible to socialise without drinking alcohol. Do you think your imaginary Muslim friends never ever go out socially?

[Digga]

NoNeed said:

Countdown said:

We do. We even drink.

Lol, very good I was taking the going for a drink as alcahol, but I think you know that.

The lads who run my favourite local Indian restaurant and takeaway are Muslim. They observe fast during Ramadan and all that but, one or two of them will, in occasion, have a drink - spirits, not beer - with favoured customers near closing time.

[coldel]

As I understand it alcohol is consumed by some of those of faith but its strictly not discussed. I'm sure plenty of mainstream muslims break a few of the codes as well as alcohol. I remember doing some quad biking out in Tunisia some years back and going a fair way out of town came across a discreet grove with a few pick ups parked up and lads downing some booze, they gave us a merry wave and a cheer as we passed by!