Eight weeks in jail for telling the truth

MoggasDog said:
Outrageous that he was held in contempt for giving his reasons for what he did. how is this possible? the judge should be sent down instead. this is like something from the middle ages.
Click to expand...
Welcome to Tory run Britain (noticed I left out the Great, cos it isn’t, it’s chit. Chit Brit
 
Well the judge said he shouldn’t mention it so as not to prejudice the jury, as the court is there to determine whether they committed crimes not whether they were telling “the truth” about climate change.

It is possible to be right about something and go the wrong way about it.
 
atypical_boro said:
Well the judge said he shouldn’t mention it so as not to prejudice the jury, as the court is there to determine whether they committed crimes not whether they were telling “the truth” about climate change.

It is possible to be right about something and go the wrong way about it.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of how angry the tories were after a jury found those protesters who toppled that slaver's statue in Bristol not guilty.

Must have decided they didn't want a repeat of that.
 
atypical_boro said:
Not sure I follow. Do you think the Tories are giving the judge directions on how to apply the law?
Click to expand...
No idea.

I guess it is pretty unimaginable that this current tory party, a bastion of integrity, a shining exemplar of all that is honest and true, would exert any kind of influence over a judge. I am absolutely sure that the old boys networks and scratching of backs couldn't have used a bit of carrot and stick to exert some control.
 
MoggasDog said:
Outrageous that he was held in contempt for giving his reasons for what he did. how is this possible? the judge should be sent down instead. this is like something from the middle ages.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately judges are often childish foot stamping infants. It's all the ridiculous kow towing and bowing and other pageantry horse**** that panders to it.

The Tory party won't be having any influence over the judge. I think the idea is pretty amusing.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Unfortunately judges are often childish foot stamping infants. It's all the ridiculous kow towing and bowing and other pageantry horse**** that panders to it.

The Tory party won't be having any influence over the judge. I think the idea is pretty amusing.
Click to expand...
If you think there's no link between the Conservative party and the judicial system you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
 
ForssAwakens said:
Why wasn’t he allowed to say it?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I have this correct but in an earlier trial he and others were found guilty (regretfully the jury said) of criminal obstruction for gluing themselves to a train.

In that case the same judge told the jury that the defense of necessity could not be used and instructed them to focus on the accused actions not their intentions.

This is a rerun of that scenario where the judge said that intentions were not relevant and should not be referred to. Mr Nixon ignored him, the jury were sent out and he was given 2 chances to apologise.

He chose not to and was found in contempt.

That is how I understand it and pass no judgement whether it is right or wrong. You can sympathise with Mr Nixons stance and his integrity in not apologising yet if a judge tells you something is inadmissible and you ignore it then it's contempt.

PS the comments about the judiciary and the tories above in respect of this case are b***ks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top