Discussion
Crackie said:
DeepEnd said:
It is interesting to think of the link between the anger and common players across Owen Jones, Farage, Brexit, Markle, Greta, BBC threads.
How long before they join the dots about their wisdom & insight in the other topics?
How long before they join the dots about their wisdom & insight in the other topics?
You're one of the common players on those threads...........your posts come across as perpetually angry. Congrats, you've made the lead the least self aware post of 2020. Unlikely to be beaten too............ by anyone else.
I'm just asking what on earth are you so angry about that you decide to take the side of a violent SS flag bearing combat 18 homophobe in an unprovoked attack?
I'm bemused at the anger. It is illogical and rather tragic really.
Edited by DeepEnd on Monday 20th January 19:23
Esceptico said:
psi310398 said:
No, incrimination might come from evidence that proves premeditation - "let's go out gay-bashing" - the police will have had a good look at his messages and mobile phone but don't seem to have turned anything up - or a pattern of behaviour - "he's got five convictions for violence at anti-left demonstrations" but his record has no evidence of any relevant pattern of behaviour. So despite an apparently thorough trawl of his past and present, the police seem unable actually to find anything to pin on him.
And in the absence of anything relevant, the prosecution decided to try out some some general non-specific stuff instead. The 'evidence' adduced to blacken Healy's name does nothing much, individually or in the round, to illuminate the circumstances in which he committed the crime he admitted to, and tells us little more than that he is or has been a yob - which we might have inferred without much assistance from the fact he assaulted Jones.
Assume a similar case where the assault on Jones was carried out instead by a professed, even lapsed, Christian and it is deemed homophobic or racist without the requirement for any further evidence of motivation beyond frequent Church attendance in the past and the ownership of some questionable material, viz paraphenalia like a crucifix and ownership of a Bible - literature full of hate speech and unqualified incitements to violence against gays, non-believers, adulteresses and also absolutely brimming with racial supremacist beliefs? Worse, the culprit might also have some Biggles books on his shelves? Obviously further unquestionable evidence of deeply held racist and imperialist beliefs and desire to reintroduce slavery.
Nonsense? Why? They are similar 'facts'. Where do you draw the line?
It's a very slippery slope.
There is sufficient evidence that the attack was motivated by hate.And in the absence of anything relevant, the prosecution decided to try out some some general non-specific stuff instead. The 'evidence' adduced to blacken Healy's name does nothing much, individually or in the round, to illuminate the circumstances in which he committed the crime he admitted to, and tells us little more than that he is or has been a yob - which we might have inferred without much assistance from the fact he assaulted Jones.
Assume a similar case where the assault on Jones was carried out instead by a professed, even lapsed, Christian and it is deemed homophobic or racist without the requirement for any further evidence of motivation beyond frequent Church attendance in the past and the ownership of some questionable material, viz paraphenalia like a crucifix and ownership of a Bible - literature full of hate speech and unqualified incitements to violence against gays, non-believers, adulteresses and also absolutely brimming with racial supremacist beliefs? Worse, the culprit might also have some Biggles books on his shelves? Obviously further unquestionable evidence of deeply held racist and imperialist beliefs and desire to reintroduce slavery.
Nonsense? Why? They are similar 'facts'. Where do you draw the line?
It's a very slippery slope.
1. Healy approached OJ and asked him whether he was OJ. I wouldn’t have recognised OJ and I doubt that most “normal” people would either (in surveys of the general public you often find the majority can’t name most of the government except the prime minister and certainly not left wing journalists that write for the Guardian).
2. Why did he check on OJ’s identity if not to make sure that they were not going to attack an “innocent” person ie someone that just looks like OJ?
3. From OJ’s evidence and CCTV there was no altercation or argument in the pub between OJ and Healy. So no evidence of an alternative motive ie because of hurt feelings.
4. From CCTV Healy attacked OJ from behind when he wasn’t looking (so it was a premeditated attack, not a fight).
Taking all the facts above it seems clear - or clear enough - that Healy attacked OJ because of who he was. As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes. The evidence collected at Healy’s house link him to white supremacists, who hate left wingers and homosexuals.
If the attack was not motivated by hate of OJ’s identity and views, what was the motivation?
DeepEnd said:
Crackie said:
DeepEnd said:
It is interesting to think of the link between the anger and common players across Owen Jones, Farage, Brexit, Markle, Greta, BBC threads.
How long before they join the dots about their wisdom & insight in the other topics?
How long before they join the dots about their wisdom & insight in the other topics?
You're one of the common players on those threads...........your posts come across as perpetually angry. Congrats, you've made the lead the least self aware post of 2020. Unlikely to be beaten too............ by anyone else.
I'm just asking what on earth are you so angry about that you decide to take the side of a violent SS flag bearing combat 18 homophobe in an unprovoked attack?
I'm bemused at the anger. It is illogical and rather tragic really.
biggbn said:
Esceptico said:
There is sufficient evidence that the attack was motivated by hate.
1. Healy approached OJ and asked him whether he was OJ. I wouldn’t have recognised OJ and I doubt that most “normal” people would either (in surveys of the general public you often find the majority can’t name most of the government except the prime minister and certainly not left wing journalists that write for the Guardian).
2. Why did he check on OJ’s identity if not to make sure that they were not going to attack an “innocent” person ie someone that just looks like OJ?
3. From OJ’s evidence and CCTV there was no altercation or argument in the pub between OJ and Healy. So no evidence of an alternative motive ie because of hurt feelings.
4. From CCTV Healy attacked OJ from behind when he wasn’t looking (so it was a premeditated attack, not a fight).
Taking all the facts above it seems clear - or clear enough - that Healy attacked OJ because of who he was. As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes. The evidence collected at Healy’s house link him to white supremacists, who hate left wingers and homosexuals.
If the attack was not motivated by hate of OJ’s identity and views, what was the motivation?
Please don't use such ridiculous arguments that are reasoned and contain actual facts. They will not go down well on here, cos, like, he deserved it cos, like, Owen Jones. This new legal defence will change the face of British justice. 1. Healy approached OJ and asked him whether he was OJ. I wouldn’t have recognised OJ and I doubt that most “normal” people would either (in surveys of the general public you often find the majority can’t name most of the government except the prime minister and certainly not left wing journalists that write for the Guardian).
2. Why did he check on OJ’s identity if not to make sure that they were not going to attack an “innocent” person ie someone that just looks like OJ?
3. From OJ’s evidence and CCTV there was no altercation or argument in the pub between OJ and Healy. So no evidence of an alternative motive ie because of hurt feelings.
4. From CCTV Healy attacked OJ from behind when he wasn’t looking (so it was a premeditated attack, not a fight).
Taking all the facts above it seems clear - or clear enough - that Healy attacked OJ because of who he was. As proved by comments on this thread OJ is hated by right wingers and homophobes. The evidence collected at Healy’s house link him to white supremacists, who hate left wingers and homosexuals.
If the attack was not motivated by hate of OJ’s identity and views, what was the motivation?
DeepEnd said:
Would be interested in psi's "alternative facts" on this.
I'm quite happy living with the actual facts of the case as established. And it would be right to see him punished on the basis of his actions rather than his inferred thoughts. He's admitted guilt. The CCTV shows an apparently unprovoked and cowardly attack. Healy's explanations regarding spillage etc do not seem to be borne out by the CCTV. Fine. All factors that a judge can quite reasonably take into account in making a sentencing decision.
I'm not the one weaving the thinnest of "evidence" into something from next to nothing. First, no evidence of membership of any Neo-nazi organisation is produced but some paraphernalia and an old photo suddenly mutate into his being a full-blown neo-Nazi, despite no evidence being produced of neo-Nazi activity. I'd prefer to have seen some evidence from the police of membership cards/texts/emails/meeting attendance etc to demonstrate that rather than some football-related paraphernalia. Having painted him as a Neo-Nazi, presumably because all Neo-Nazis are homophobes, he must be, despite no evidence at all of prior examples of his homophobia being adduced. And then we chuck in the completely irrelevant question of white supremacy, despite OJ not being a person of colour. But, of course, the aim was to paint Healy in the worst possible light rather than anything more noble.
I do wonder if the real motivation for riding the aggravation element so hard is that Healy's early guilty plea will automatically get him a substantial discount on his sentence and aggravating factors will allow the judge to ramp up the sentence length again.
psi310398 said:
DeepEnd said:
Would be interested in psi's "alternative facts" on this.
I'm quite happy living with the actual facts of the case as established. And it would be right to see him punished on the basis of his actions rather than his inferred thoughts. He's admitted guilt. The CCTV shows an apparently unprovoked and cowardly attack. Healy's explanations regarding spillage etc do not seem to be borne out by the CCTV. Fine. All factors that a judge can quite reasonably take into account in making a sentencing decision.
I'm not the one weaving the thinnest of "evidence" into something from next to nothing. First, no evidence of membership of any Neo-nazi organisation is produced but some paraphernalia and an old photo suddenly mutate into his being a full-blown neo-Nazi, despite no evidence being produced of neo-Nazi activity. I'd prefer to have seen some evidence from the police of membership cards/texts/emails/meeting attendance etc to demonstrate that rather than some football-related paraphernalia. Having painted him as a Neo-Nazi, presumably because all Neo-Nazis are homophobes, he must be, despite no evidence at all of prior examples of his homophobia being adduced. And then we chuck in the completely irrelevant question of white supremacy, despite OJ not being a person of colour. But, of course, the aim was to paint Healy in the worst possible light rather than anything more noble.
I do wonder if the real motivation for riding the aggravation element so hard is that Healy's early guilty plea will automatically get him a substantial discount on his sentence and aggravating factors will allow the judge to ramp up the sentence length again.
Healy was not being accused or tried for being a neo-nazi. He was accused of attacking OJ because of OJ’s politics or homosexuality. Therefore they didn’t need to prove membership of any neo-Nazi organisation.
We are still waiting for your theory on why Healy attacked OJ if it wasn’t a hate crime.
psi310398 said:
I'm quite happy living with the actual facts of the case as established. And it would be right to see him punished on the basis of his actions rather than his inferred thoughts.
He's admitted guilt. The CCTV shows an apparently unprovoked and cowardly attack. Healy's explanations regarding spillage etc do not seem to be borne out by the CCTV. Fine. All factors that a judge can quite reasonably take into account in making a sentencing decision.
I'm not the one weaving the thinnest of "evidence" into something from next to nothing. First, no evidence of membership of any Neo-nazi organisation is produced but some paraphernalia and an old photo suddenly mutate into his being a full-blown neo-Nazi, despite no evidence being produced of neo-Nazi activity. I'd prefer to have seen some evidence from the police of membership cards/texts/emails/meeting attendance etc to demonstrate that rather than some football-related paraphernalia. Having painted him as a Neo-Nazi, presumably because all Neo-Nazis are homophobes, he must be, despite no evidence at all of prior examples of his homophobia being adduced. And then we chuck in the completely irrelevant question of white supremacy, despite OJ not being a person of colour. But, of course, the aim was to paint Healy in the worst possible light rather than anything more noble.
I do wonder if the real motivation for riding the aggravation element so hard is that Healy's early guilty plea will automatically get him a substantial discount on his sentence and aggravating factors will allow the judge to ramp up the sentence length again.
He lied about the spilled pint to deflect from it being unprovoked.He's admitted guilt. The CCTV shows an apparently unprovoked and cowardly attack. Healy's explanations regarding spillage etc do not seem to be borne out by the CCTV. Fine. All factors that a judge can quite reasonably take into account in making a sentencing decision.
I'm not the one weaving the thinnest of "evidence" into something from next to nothing. First, no evidence of membership of any Neo-nazi organisation is produced but some paraphernalia and an old photo suddenly mutate into his being a full-blown neo-Nazi, despite no evidence being produced of neo-Nazi activity. I'd prefer to have seen some evidence from the police of membership cards/texts/emails/meeting attendance etc to demonstrate that rather than some football-related paraphernalia. Having painted him as a Neo-Nazi, presumably because all Neo-Nazis are homophobes, he must be, despite no evidence at all of prior examples of his homophobia being adduced. And then we chuck in the completely irrelevant question of white supremacy, despite OJ not being a person of colour. But, of course, the aim was to paint Healy in the worst possible light rather than anything more noble.
I do wonder if the real motivation for riding the aggravation element so hard is that Healy's early guilty plea will automatically get him a substantial discount on his sentence and aggravating factors will allow the judge to ramp up the sentence length again.
As he checked his identity, he attacked hik purely because he was Owen Jones.
What’s your take on his motive?
(more noble? there is nothing noble here)
Esceptico said:
Lots of words yet you dodged the question.
Healy was not being accused or tried for being a neo-nazi. He was accused of attacking OJ because of OJ’s politics or homosexuality. Therefore they didn’t need to prove membership of any neo-Nazi organisation.
We are still waiting for your theory on why Healy attacked OJ if it wasn’t a hate crime.
Exactly. He was not being tried as a Neo-Nazi and yet that seems to be the point of the prosecution's argument...There was no evidence at all produced of any prior political violence or homophobia, and no evidence of his prior words or deeds that Healy was targeting left-wing or gay people. So, if he is successfully to be identified as a neo-Nazi thug with an imperative to commit such crimes, it would be handy actually to see police intelligence or other evidence of subscription to such views - such as membership of an organisation or communications espousing neo-Nazi views etc. Otherwise it is hard to see how any of the stuff produced is at all relevant. Healy was not being accused or tried for being a neo-nazi. He was accused of attacking OJ because of OJ’s politics or homosexuality. Therefore they didn’t need to prove membership of any neo-Nazi organisation.
We are still waiting for your theory on why Healy attacked OJ if it wasn’t a hate crime.
As for another motive, many posts earlier I'd suggested the Occam's razor point - the simplest answer might be the correct one: simply that Healy had met him. I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality. There are plenty who share one or the other with Jones who also find him utterly odious. Most people, however, can restrain themselves, rather than lamping someone they despise, however tempting it might be. But thugs might not. It's why we have laws against assault, I'd imagine - because they are needed.
As for not lamping him straight away, you do not need to have the brains of an archbishop to realise that attacking someone in front of witnesses is a bit dim. Equally, someone lacking the archbishop's brains might fail to look for CCTV outside the pub...
DeepEnd said:
He lied about the spilled pint to deflect from it being unprovoked.
As he checked his identity, he attacked hik purely because he was Owen Jones.
What’s your take on his motive?
(more noble? there is nothing noble here)
I don't dispute that he is a liar and a thug. He wouldn't be the first person to lie to a judge. As he checked his identity, he attacked hik purely because he was Owen Jones.
What’s your take on his motive?
(more noble? there is nothing noble here)
And I can quite readily accept that he attacked Owen Jones because he was Owen Jones.
The issue is whether he attacked Owen Jones because Owen Jones is a t
t or because of his politics and/or sexuality. My money would be on the former.psi310398 said:
Exactly. He was not being tried as a Neo-Nazi and yet that seems to be the point of the prosecution's argument...There was no evidence at all produced of any prior political violence or homophobia, and no evidence of his prior words or deeds that Healy was targeting left-wing or gay people. So, if he is successfully to be identified as a neo-Nazi thug with an imperative to commit such crimes, it would be handy actually to see police intelligence or other evidence of subscription to such views - such as membership of an organisation or communications espousing neo-Nazi views etc. Otherwise it is hard to see how any of the stuff produced is at all relevant.
As for another motive, many posts earlier I'd suggested the Occam's razor point - the simplest answer might be the correct one: simply that Healy had met him. I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality. There are plenty who share one or the other with Jones who also find him utterly odious. Most people, however, can restrain themselves, rather than lamping someone they despise, however tempting it might be. But thugs might not. It's why we have laws against assault, I'd imagine - because they are needed.
As for not lamping him straight away, you do not need to have the brains of an archbishop to realise that attacking someone in front of witnesses is a bit dim. Equally, someone lacking the archbishop's brains might fail to look for CCTV outside the pub...
As I said earlier, should be laughably easy for a good lawyer to overturn the conviction if it is as weak as you suggest. I will not, however, hold my breath. What a strange thread.As for another motive, many posts earlier I'd suggested the Occam's razor point - the simplest answer might be the correct one: simply that Healy had met him. I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality. There are plenty who share one or the other with Jones who also find him utterly odious. Most people, however, can restrain themselves, rather than lamping someone they despise, however tempting it might be. But thugs might not. It's why we have laws against assault, I'd imagine - because they are needed.
As for not lamping him straight away, you do not need to have the brains of an archbishop to realise that attacking someone in front of witnesses is a bit dim. Equally, someone lacking the archbishop's brains might fail to look for CCTV outside the pub...
biggbn said:
As I said earlier, should be laughably easy for a good lawyer to overturn the conviction if it is as weak as you suggest. I will not, however, hold my breath. What a strange thread.
It is not the conviction that is in question, and I'd imagine that appealing a guilty plea would be a novel experience. What I am doubtful about is the 'evidence' being considered as to aggravation.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If we're going with Occam's razor maybe keep in mind the judge came to her view having had access to all of the available information whilst you continue to make excuses for this bloke based of having seen a couple of pieces in the press.
Because no British judge has ever strayed from complete objectivity, especially in "political" trials? Without having to think too hard, look up Joseph Cantley, Nigel Bridge and Humphrey "Fragrant" Potts
And what excuses have I made for him? I haven't disputed that he is a liar and a thug. But I am questioning the quality of the evidence being used against him.
psi310398 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: If we're going with Occam's razor maybe keep in mind the judge came to her view having had access to all of the available information whilst you continue to make excuses for this bloke based of having seen a couple of pieces in the press.
Because no British judge has ever strayed from complete objectivity, especially in "political" trials? Without having to think too hard, look up Joseph Cantley, Nigel Bridge and Humphrey "Fragrant" Potts
And what excuses have I made for him? I haven't disputed that he is a liar and a thug. But I am questioning the quality of the evidence being used against him.
You aren't subject to all of the information the judge was yet here you are most definitely not making excuses for this thug.
What are the chances that if it had gone to trial and he had been found not guilty that you'd be on here making lots of noise about judicial "objectivity, especially in "political" trials"?
I think we can take a guess.
Of all the people to go to bat for you choose this dude.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: And there we go again.
You aren't subject to all of the information the judge was yet here you are most definitely not making excuses for this thug.
What are the chances that if it had gone to trial and he had been found not guilty that you'd be on here making lots of noise about judicial "objectivity, especially in "political" trials"?
I think we can take a guess.
Of all the people to go to bat for you choose this dude.
So you only believe in defending the rights of those you agree with? You aren't subject to all of the information the judge was yet here you are most definitely not making excuses for this thug.
What are the chances that if it had gone to trial and he had been found not guilty that you'd be on here making lots of noise about judicial "objectivity, especially in "political" trials"?
I think we can take a guess.
Of all the people to go to bat for you choose this dude.
Safeguards are there largely for those we disapprove of most, not the ones we support. That is, at least theoretically, the basis of justice.
psi310398 said:
It is not the conviction that is in question, and I'd imagine that appealing a guilty plea would be a novel experience.
What I am doubtful about is the 'evidence' being considered as to aggravation.
If the conviction is not in question, and the accused pleaded guilty...why do you doubt the evidence? And yes, I know he pleaded guilty, my post was exaggerating a point to make a point. This thread is ridiculous. What I am doubtful about is the 'evidence' being considered as to aggravation.
biggbn said:
If the conviction is not in question, and the accused pleaded guilty...why do you doubt the evidence? And yes, I know he pleaded guilty, my post was exaggerating a point to make a point. This thread is ridiculous.
He emphatically did not plead guilty to the alleged aggravated element, did he? So, on the basis of a farrago of circumstantial bits and bobs, he's going to have his sentence increased. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff