Lucy Connolly to be freed

[Brigadier]

 

[motorbiking]

If you scroll up you will find analysis from an actual KC, not Northern Dave from socialist club.

 

[Brigadier]

If you scroll up you will find analysis from an actual KC, not Northern Dave from socialist club.

It's not "Northern Dave" analysis; it's reporting of the findings.

So, what has Northern Dave got wrong?

 

[Koolpc]

Woof!

 

[motorbiking]

It's not "Northern Dave" analysis; it's reporting of the findings.

So, what has Northern Dave got wrong?

Point 1 - He ignores that she was advised by the unknown Duty Solicitor to explain herself to the Police. She is clearly not the sharpest tool and anyone talking to her for 5 minutes would see that. The evidence was not strong at that point and this was terrible advice. There is a reason for no comment, she was facing a Category A1 or A2 offence at that point. She should have been given advice to make them prove her culpability and intent. This would have been much harder with a no comment response or a "I deleted it".

Point 2 There is a middle ground between accepting the prosecutions position and opting for a Newton hearing. Her Solicitor can submit a basis of plea, this should have been based on her statement to the police under caution. i.e. she accepted she posted it but did not accept the culpability and intent. Her counsel did not attempt to document the basis of plea as an alternative to the Newton hearing. He could have ignored the prosecution and done it anyway.

Point 2 - She would not have been punished additionally for the disputed element of the case if she lost a Newton hearing. He's double counted that with the loss of discount for early plea. By accepting the position she is already in the worse case scenario.

Others have suggested that given her tweet was removed quickly and there is guidance not proceed in such cases, there may have been some influence. Something also not mentioned is she played the mental health card and this again worked against her.

 

[Brigadier]

Point 1 - He ignores that she was advised by the unknown Duty Solicitor to explain herself to the Police. She is clearly not the sharpest tool and anyone talking to her for 5 minutes would see that. The evidence was not strong at that point and this was terrible advice. There is a reason for no comment, she was facing a Category A1 or A2 offence at that point. She should have been given advice to make them prove her culpability and intent. This would have been much harder with a no comment response or a "I deleted it".

Point 2 There is a middle ground between accepting the prosecutions position and opting for a Newton hearing. Her Solicitor can submit a basis of plea, this should have been based on her statement to the police under caution. i.e. she accepted she posted it but did not accept the culpability and intent. Her council did not attempt to document the basis of plea as an alternative to the Newton hearing. He could have ignored the prosecution and done it anyway.

Point 2 - She would not have been punished additionally for the disputed element of the case if she lost a Newton hearing. He's double counted that with the loss of discount for early plea. By accepting the position she is already in the worse case scenario.

Others have suggested that given her tweet was removed quickly and there is guidance not proceed in such cases, there may have been some influence. Something also not mentioned is she played the mental health card and this again worked against her.

Pity for LC that she didn't have the benefit of a top lawyer like yourself then

 

[noseall]

Point 1 - He ignores that she was advised by the unknown Duty Solicitor to explain herself to the Police. She is clearly not the sharpest tool and anyone talking to her for 5 minutes would see that. The evidence was not strong at that point and this was terrible advice. There is a reason for no comment, she was facing a Category A1 or A2 offence at that point. She should have been given advice to make them prove her culpability and intent. This would have been much harder with a no comment response or a "I deleted it".

Point 2 There is a middle ground between accepting the prosecutions position and opting for a Newton hearing. Her Solicitor can submit a basis of plea, this should have been based on her statement to the police under caution. i.e. she accepted she posted it but did not accept the culpability and intent. Her council did not attempt to document the basis of plea as an alternative to the Newton hearing. He could have ignored the prosecution and done it anyway.

Point 2 - She would not have been punished additionally for the disputed element of the case if she lost a Newton hearing. He's double counted that with the loss of discount for early plea. By accepting the position she is already in the worse case scenario.

Others have suggested that given her tweet was removed quickly and there is guidance not proceed in such cases, there may have been some influence. Something also not mentioned is she played the mental health card and this again worked against her.

So basically, if she had lots of money, to afford top drawer legal councel/advice, she could have got away with just about anything. Everyone is shocked that a QC managed to come to these conclusions. - not.

Meanwhile, a hatred spouting, guilty pleading idiot is left rueing whether she should sue her legal counsel. No wonder the RWR morons are excited.

 

[Notch7]

Point 1 - He ignores that she was advised by the unknown Duty Solicitor to explain herself to the Police. She is clearly not the sharpest tool and anyone talking to her for 5 minutes would see that. The evidence was not strong at that point and this was terrible advice. There is a reason for no comment, she was facing a Category A1 or A2 offence at that point. She should have been given advice to make them prove her culpability and intent. This would have been much harder with a no comment response or a "I deleted it".

Point 2 There is a middle ground between accepting the prosecutions position and opting for a Newton hearing. Her Solicitor can submit a basis of plea, this should have been based on her statement to the police under caution. i.e. she accepted she posted it but did not accept the culpability and intent. Her council did not attempt to document the basis of plea as an alternative to the Newton hearing. He could have ignored the prosecution and done it anyway.

Point 2 - She would not have been punished additionally for the disputed element of the case if she lost a Newton hearing. He's double counted that with the loss of discount for early plea. By accepting the position she is already in the worse case scenario.

Others have suggested that given her tweet was removed quickly and there is guidance not proceed in such cases, there may have been some influence. Something also not mentioned is she played the mental health card and this again worked against her.

If she was a Muslim who called for setting fire to homes of white people……your opinion would be very different.

 

[pete01]

If she was a Muslim who called for setting fire to homes of white people……your opinion would be very different.

Don't be silly

 

[Notch7]

Point 1 - He ignores that she was advised by the unknown Duty Solicitor to explain herself to the Police. She is clearly not the sharpest tool and anyone talking to her for 5 minutes would see that. The evidence was not strong at that point and this was terrible advice. There is a reason for no comment, she was facing a Category A1 or A2 offence at that point. She should have been given advice to make them prove her culpability and intent. This would have been much harder with a no comment response or a "I deleted it".

Point 2 There is a middle ground between accepting the prosecutions position and opting for a Newton hearing. Her Solicitor can submit a basis of plea, this should have been based on her statement to the police under caution. i.e. she accepted she posted it but did not accept the culpability and intent. Her council did not attempt to document the basis of plea as an alternative to the Newton hearing. He could have ignored the prosecution and done it anyway.

Point 2 - She would not have been punished additionally for the disputed element of the case if she lost a Newton hearing. He's double counted that with the loss of discount for early plea. By accepting the position she is already in the worse case scenario.

Others have suggested that given her tweet was removed quickly and there is guidance not proceed in such cases, there may have been some influence. Something also not mentioned is she played the mental health card and this again worked against her.

Maybe those points would’ve worked for Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan who got 4 years

 

[Notch7]

Don't be silly

So you think a Muslim calling for people to set fire to hotels full of white people should be let off.

Yes I guess that is what you saying

 

[MNW67]

So basically, if she had lots of money, to afford top drawer legal council/advice, she could have got away with just about anything. Everyone is shocked that a QC managed to come to these conclusions. - not.

Meanwhile, a hatred spouting, guilty pleading idiot is left rueing whether she should sue her legal council. No wonder the RWR morons are excited.

Counsel!!!!!

Sorry, I just couldn't hold it in any longer

 

[pete01]

So you think a Muslim calling for people to set fire to hotels full of white people should be let off.

Yes I guess that is what you saying

I think religion/ethnicity shouldnt come into it if people do what he says it wouldnt be his fault...free speech and all that LOL....

 

[noseall]

Counsel!!!!!

Sorry, I just couldn't hold it in any longer

Sorted

 

[motorbiking]

So you think a Muslim calling for people to set fire to hotels full of white people should be let off.

Yes I guess that is what you saying

How did you get on with the 32 videos I provided of hate preachers, preaching hatred and violence towards non-muslims?