Man in Scotland arrested over dog's 'Nazi salute'.
Discussion
amusingduck said:
A paragraph from his appeal rejection letter:
It smacks very much of double standards at least; I'd love to see a legal professional's view on the response. Appeal Rejection Letter said:
Likewise the appeal against sentence is not arguable; this was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant. This was to the considerable distress of the community in question and - just as disturbingly - to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant`s [sic] racist views. Indeed, it must be observed that in the circumstances the appellant was fortunate that the learned sheriff was not considering custody as an option. I also refer to the sheriff`s [sic] Report at paragraph 83 where he deals with the plea in mitigation.
He charitably describes this as `unusual` [sic] On my reading it appears to be wholly improper. It involved an attack upon the bona fides of the police and prosecution; an apparent refusal by an officer of the court to accept the verdict of that court; an apparent attempt to intimidate the court in the sentencing process by reference to a publicly funded appeal; expressions of personal views on the outcome by the solicitor whose professional duty was clearly confined to submissions in fact and law; and an apparently enthusiastic endorsement of the appellant`s [sic] defiance. For an officer of the court to engage in such behaviour is at best unprofessional and improper and would certainly merit a professional complaint. Indeed for my part I consider the solicitor was fortunate not to himself require representation on the matter of contempt.
Whoever wrote it clearly has a penchant for grave accents He charitably describes this as `unusual` [sic] On my reading it appears to be wholly improper. It involved an attack upon the bona fides of the police and prosecution; an apparent refusal by an officer of the court to accept the verdict of that court; an apparent attempt to intimidate the court in the sentencing process by reference to a publicly funded appeal; expressions of personal views on the outcome by the solicitor whose professional duty was clearly confined to submissions in fact and law; and an apparently enthusiastic endorsement of the appellant`s [sic] defiance. For an officer of the court to engage in such behaviour is at best unprofessional and improper and would certainly merit a professional complaint. Indeed for my part I consider the solicitor was fortunate not to himself require representation on the matter of contempt.
To a layman like myself I see beaucoup subjectivity ["unpleasant", "disgraceful"], lots of presumption, ["lots of people who share the appellant's racist views] and downright untruths ["considerable distress of the community in question"]. All in all a hotchpotch of hyperbole.
The view that an officer of the court should just shut up and accept a verdict seems to undermine the very validity of an appeal process the Appeal Court is central to.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and indeed this appears to be a summation rather than the whole legal examination, but it sort of reinforces the view that the whole shabby affair was more guided by political expediency than objective truth.
andy_s said:
It smacks very much of double standards at least; I'd love to see a legal professional's view on the response.
To a layman like myself I see beaucoup subjectivity ["unpleasant", "disgraceful"], lots of presumption, ["lots of people who share the appellant's racist views] and downright untruths ["considerable distress of the community in question"]. All in all a hotchpotch of hyperbole.
The view that an officer of the court should just shut up and accept a verdict seems to undermine the very validity of an appeal process the Appeal Court is central to.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and indeed this appears to be a summation rather than the whole legal examination, but it sort of reinforces the view that the whole shabby affair was more guided by political expediency than objective truth.
Very well put. Nail ->head.To a layman like myself I see beaucoup subjectivity ["unpleasant", "disgraceful"], lots of presumption, ["lots of people who share the appellant's racist views] and downright untruths ["considerable distress of the community in question"]. All in all a hotchpotch of hyperbole.
The view that an officer of the court should just shut up and accept a verdict seems to undermine the very validity of an appeal process the Appeal Court is central to.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and indeed this appears to be a summation rather than the whole legal examination, but it sort of reinforces the view that the whole shabby affair was more guided by political expediency than objective truth.
Gareth79 said:
I can't watch the video just yet - which level of appeal is this? Presumably £185k will go much further than a simple crown court appeal.
It'll probably have to go all the way up to the Supreme Court in London so who knows if even his £185k will be enough?Frankly, the manner in which his request for an appeal was dismissed and the implied threats from the Scottish legal system towards his legal representative for daring to defend him, is downright frightening and paints a very grim picture of the way things are going in Scotland.
Sounds a perfect UKIP candidate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
La Liga said:
Sounds a perfect UKIP candidate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
So he’s not just a free speech advocate afterall he’s also a bit of a racist by the sounds of it. UKIP sure know how to pick him.However I still think that prosecuting this guy like they did was wrong and a complete waste of resources.
BlackLabel said:
La Liga said:
Sounds a perfect UKIP candidate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
So he’s not just a free speech advocate afterall he’s also a bit of a racist by the sounds of it. UKIP sure know how to pick him.However I still think that prosecuting this guy like they did was wrong and a complete waste of resources.
By the same logic if you use reddit (or even PH) you are somewhere between a paedo, racist and white supremacist because other people typed stupid things.
He has made a big mistake here stepping into the political world for the same reason as he was convicted in the first place - the wider world doesn't consider context and intent, and he comes from a place with a more nuanced argument.
That piece is journalism on the level of the Sunday Sport....
La Liga said:
Sounds a perfect UKIP candidate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
Did you know 100% of all mass murders used water?andy_s said:
It smacks very much of double standards at least; I'd love to see a legal professional's view on the response.
To a layman like myself I see beaucoup subjectivity ["unpleasant", "disgraceful"], lots of presumption, ["lots of people who share the appellant's racist views] and downright untruths ["considerable distress of the community in question"]. All in all a hotchpotch of hyperbole.
The view that an officer of the court should just shut up and accept a verdict seems to undermine the very validity of an appeal process the Appeal Court is central to.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and indeed this appears to be a summation rather than the whole legal examination, but it sort of reinforces the view that the whole shabby affair was more guided by political expediency than objective truth.
I agree. This is to be expected from the UK, the whole system stinksTo a layman like myself I see beaucoup subjectivity ["unpleasant", "disgraceful"], lots of presumption, ["lots of people who share the appellant's racist views] and downright untruths ["considerable distress of the community in question"]. All in all a hotchpotch of hyperbole.
The view that an officer of the court should just shut up and accept a verdict seems to undermine the very validity of an appeal process the Appeal Court is central to.
Perhaps I'm missing something, and indeed this appears to be a summation rather than the whole legal examination, but it sort of reinforces the view that the whole shabby affair was more guided by political expediency than objective truth.
Bent Police
Bent Politicians
Get pissed and drive if you're a celebrity....No problem....Pay and play
Brexit didn't happen on the date
It goes on and on and on
Ted Heath with the youngsters
Thatcher with Peter Morrison
Blair....."Yes Mr Bush we will help you bomb Iraq"
and on and on it goes
Children sexually abused here there and everywhere......?????
and
Edited by Penelope Stopit on Wednesday 1st May 15:23
Order66 said:
BlackLabel said:
La Liga said:
Sounds a perfect UKIP candidate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
So he’s not just a free speech advocate afterall he’s also a bit of a racist by the sounds of it. UKIP sure know how to pick him.However I still think that prosecuting this guy like they did was wrong and a complete waste of resources.
By the same logic if you use reddit (or even PH) you are somewhere between a paedo, racist and white supremacist because other people typed stupid things.
He has made a big mistake here stepping into the political world for the same reason as he was convicted in the first place - the wider world doesn't consider context and intent, and he comes from a place with a more nuanced argument.
That piece is journalism on the level of the Sunday Sport....
BBC said:
He also posted memes about black people, including one implying they were thieves.
It shows a picture of film character Indiana Jones about to steal a golden relic in a cave and is captioned: "Black people. Anything that doesn't belong to them."
It shows a picture of film character Indiana Jones about to steal a golden relic in a cave and is captioned: "Black people. Anything that doesn't belong to them."
Order66 said:
BlackLabel said:
La Liga said:
Sounds a perfect UKIP candidate: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-po...
So he’s not just a free speech advocate afterall he’s also a bit of a racist by the sounds of it. UKIP sure know how to pick him.However I still think that prosecuting this guy like they did was wrong and a complete waste of resources.
By the same logic if you use reddit (or even PH) you are somewhere between a paedo, racist and white supremacist because other people typed stupid things.
He has made a big mistake here stepping into the political world for the same reason as he was convicted in the first place - the wider world doesn't consider context and intent, and he comes from a place with a more nuanced argument.
That piece is journalism on the level of the Sunday Sport....
Article said:
On the forum, Mr Meechan, who posts under his online persona Count Dankula, used racist language, including the N-word.
He also posted memes about black people, including one implying they were thieves.
He also posted memes about black people, including one implying they were thieves.
t the bed.La Liga said:
Which is fine as a lot of people do it.
Few want to be an elected politician, though.
He was a comedian before he became a part of UKIP, if he'd hidden his dark humour away and it had come out later on then I'd understand the shock at what he's a part of.Few want to be an elected politician, though.
Don't forget that he only joined UKIP because he felt it was the party with the strongest beliefs for free speech, a right which Dankula feels he has been prosecuted for expressing. Media and the government put him in this position and all he wanted to do was make funny videos on YouTube.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff