| 4/5 years?!!! on 18:29 - Jul 18 with 2172 views | factual_blue |
Five years is about 51,000 hours.
This law is outrageous though. |  |
|  |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 18:33 - Jul 18 with 2150 views | Kropotkin123 |
Law not justice. |  |
| Submit your 1-24 league prediction here -https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/514096/page:1 - for the opportunity to get a free Ipswich top. | | Poll: | Would you rather | | Blog: | Round Four: Eagle |
| |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 18:41 - Jul 18 with 2114 views | SitfcB |
Yes we needed a third thread on it  |  |
| |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 19:49 - Jul 18 with 1942 views | stonojnr |
Be out in 2, they'd have got a cut by a third if they'd plead guilty, im assuming by the court reports though it doesnt state it, they most certainly didnt, and neither displayed remorse or acknowledgement their actions were against the law.
which even those who try to play the system eventually do which is probably why it seems higher than you'd expect anyway. |  | | |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 22:06 - Jul 18 with 1741 views | Zx1988 |
This, for me, is the most concerning part of the article:
"He [Hallam] had also encouraged supporters to go to the court with signs saying: “Juries have a right to hear the whole truth."
On 2 July, some arrived with placards stating: "Jurors have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience."
As a result the judge, apparently concerned that this could affect the jury’s decisions, ordered the arrests of 11 protesters for contempt of court."
How can it be considered in any way ethical or lawful to order the arrest of those merely seeking to remind jurors of a right that is enshrined in law? Although, one supposes, it would rather damage any judge's summing up in which they tell jurors that they have no option but to find a defendant guilty... | |
| |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 05:56 - Jul 19 with 1536 views | Guthrum |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 22:06 - Jul 18 by Zx1988 |
This, for me, is the most concerning part of the article:
"He [Hallam] had also encouraged supporters to go to the court with signs saying: “Juries have a right to hear the whole truth."
On 2 July, some arrived with placards stating: "Jurors have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to their conscience."
As a result the judge, apparently concerned that this could affect the jury’s decisions, ordered the arrests of 11 protesters for contempt of court."
How can it be considered in any way ethical or lawful to order the arrest of those merely seeking to remind jurors of a right that is enshrined in law? Although, one supposes, it would rather damage any judge's summing up in which they tell jurors that they have no option but to find a defendant guilty... |
There's a fine distiction in there. Juries are supposed to find on the facts of the case and what the law is, not what they think the law should be. They are there to decide if the person did it, not whether they should have been prosecuted in the first place.
The banner could be read either way. |  |
| |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 08:49 - Jul 19 with 1406 views | BloomBlue |
Part of that was because of their contempt of the court. Apparently they didn't answer questions, just made political statements.
Same with anyone who goes into a court room, if you show contempt a judge will increase the sentence.
Either you accept a country has a legal process or it doesn't.
I personally think the entire legal system in this county is f***ed, lawyers, barristers, judges are paid far too much money (should be taxed more) and we should scrap it and start again. But it is what it is, you as an individual can respect the legal process or not, and if you choose not to, then a judge will increase your sentence. |  | | |
| 4/5 years?!!! on 23:18 - Jul 19 with 1234 views | bluebudgie |
Bloody good job pity they didn't get longer |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
