OT Border Control State of Emergency

[Back of the net]

https://x.com/gsgb01/status/1956302726888837243?s=46&t=_H-PJT_Aa5CJQSL-fc1GEg

Child **** images no problem we will let you off.
Threaten to slit peoples throats no problem we will let you off
Tweet something bad take it down show remorse. Over 3 years prison.
2 tier labour 2 tier kier 2 tier solicitors.

[Timbertop]

More of the British population are listening to Talk and watching GB News and realising how much they are being deceived by the main stream media particularly about the rapidly increasing Islam prescence.

[Stovicmiller]

Where is our residence legal eagle the Oricle the all seeing eye to tell us everything is fine and he was found not guilty.

[KerrAvon]

What would you like me to say?

12 independent members of the public sitting on a jury heard the evidence - what the bloke said, the context of what he said and his explanation of what he said. They heard that evidence tested in cross examination and then found him not guilty.

Should we trust their judgement or should we listen to the talking heads on Twitter who have passed judgement based on a short video clip?

[Yak]

It’s clear now that all this is planned.
It’s not by chance it’s too far gone for that.
Police law enforcement justice system are paid enforcers of a bigger picture from this treacherous government. They are like there private army enforcing unfair and corrupt rules.
I never thought I would see such callousness from a government and puppets happy to take the pound.

Morals, ethics have gone now
Anyone who supports or votes labour imo have blood on their hands and should be ashamed and embarrassed
You are imo broken and lack any self respect
If that gets me banned off here so be it.

[NorthWestCorner]

What would you like me to say?

12 independent members of the public sitting on a jury heard the evidence - what the bloke said, the context of what he said and his explanation of what he said. They heard that evidence tested in cross examination and then found him not guilty.

Should we trust their judgement or should we listen to the talking heads on Twitter who have passed judgement based on a short video clip?

It?s not their judgement we are trusting but their opinion. There is no doubt over what he said.

As said above, we are living under a two tier leftist regime. It is obvious that the ?state? are attempting to control public opinion. This will end in a manner which we will all regret.

[Stovicmiller]

What would you like me to say?

12 independent members of the public sitting on a jury heard the evidence - what the bloke said, the context of what he said and his explanation of what he said. They heard that evidence tested in cross examination and then found him not guilty.

Should we trust their judgement or should we listen to the talking heads on Twitter who have passed judgement based on a short video clip?

. Thought I?d try a little fishing this morning and surprise surprise caught someone whose morals have disappeared up his arse.

[KerrAvon]

It?s not their judgement we are trusting but their opinion. There is no doubt over what he said.

As said above, we are living under a two tier leftist regime. It is obvious that the ?state? are attempting to control public opinion. This will end in a manner which we will all regret.

It was their judgement upon whether he held the intent required to prove the charge that was brought against him.

If you think that you or the Twitter crew are in a better position than to make that judgement then so be it. I disagree.

[howdydoo]

He or his lawyer had foresight to plead not guilty.

Lucy Connolly got bad advice and is in prison. If she'd pleaded not guilty she would have got off as well.

Both guilty in my opinion but neither should be doing time.

So why do I think they would both get off. The make up of the jury.

These are the twitter crew that people like Kerr want to discredit and talk down at every opportunity. Does he not think these people make up juries?

I can't fathom why people don't see there's a very worrying trend developing and it's not going to end well.

[KerrAvon]

But again, howdy, you are making your judgement upon who is or isn't guilty based upon fragments of reporting and a lot of conjecture and supposition on the Internet.

As I said to NWC, if you think that you are in a better position to determine guilt than a jury then I disagree.

You have made allegations about the judgement and professional integrity of the lawyer who advised Connolly. He would have reviewed the evidence, spent time in face to face conversation with her and ultimately acted on her instructions. If you think that you are in a better position than him to advise her then, again, we disagree, which is fair enough.

My understanding is that Connolly made a full admission (including the intent required to render her guilty) when she interviewed. That would not have made it impossible to run the case to trial, but would made it very hard to secure her acquittal. Without credit for a guilty plea, she would have got closer to 4 years.

[ragingpup]

He or his lawyer had foresight to plead not guilty.

Lucy Connolly got bad advice and is in prison. If she'd pleaded not guilty she would have got off as well.

Both guilty in my opinion but neither should be doing time.

So why do I think they would both get off. The make up of the jury.

These are the twitter crew that people like Kerr want to discredit and talk down at every opportunity. Does he not think these people make up juries?

I can't fathom why people don't see there's a very worrying trend developing and it's not going to end well.

'The twitter crew' will indeed be represented in juries but importantly, unlike the composition of groups of people on a footy message board, or large (but still comparatively small in context of the rest of the adult population) number of people who all follow the same issue, share the same tweets and join the same groups on social media, it is being very much amplified by one another until it seems to them that their views represent the general population. However, a group of 12 people is representitive of the whole adult population and so a very politically active ant-immigrant voice may only be represented by 1, 2 or even 0 people who are then outweighed by 10 or 11 other citizens who aren't predominantly motivated by such views. Therefore, taken away from their twitter sounding boards and discussing actual context and evidence with the rest of the jury, said tweet-ee is more likely to be swayed with the majority in the room with them.

I think the very worrying thing for people who are getting much news from twitter and social media is the frightening amount of 'news' or 'facts' that are loaded onto there and shared en masse that are simply made up, or distorting real events in order to stir up further outrage and unrest amongst their colleagues. I get these sent to me all of the time by my old Rotherham school pal (I still love him to bits) and only a small amount of looking up the situation of the post he has sent me usually leads to very deliberate distortion and even complete fabrication of factual events. But when I put back to him the real evidence, and how it has been distorted, my pal usually just hrumphs or makes a joke, but carries on believing it!

Only recently we had a social media post on this board where an interviewer for a Patriot message board was interviewing 2 ex-forces men who said that they had been evicted from their flat to make room for asylum seekers. Only 5 mins of research showed this was completely fabricated, but such message board leaders are hell bent on fabricating and twisting facts which is met with repeatedly unquestioning eagerness and causing huge amounts of anger and hysteria.

I'm not happy about the numbers of people arriving without checks into the country. It's not a healthy situation. But I recognise the difficulty that politicians in all major European countries have in navigating a whole host of laws and relationships with neighbour countries in providing workable solutions, especially as the country from which the small boats are sailing are having to deal with many more arrivals and asylum claims than we do. It's a ****ing ball ache but the worrying thing for me is not so much that the situation is being exploited by many extremely clever and manipulative people who try to lead us to thinking there are deep and sinister political motivations that are facilitating the issue, but that so many otherwise sensible, normal people are so, so willing to accept the social media postings as facts.

[Pocket rocket]

I’m not political I’m definitely not far right.

2 of my family members both serving police officers are leaving the force
They in their words can’t keep policing which is aimed at protecting a certain demographic.
They have both seen what’s happening and can’t continue with the two tier policing operational instructions. 35 years service gone because ethically they can’t carry on.
They were both labour supporters but they’ve had enough. They won’t vote moving forward.
They don’t go on twitter they aren’t easily influenced they know what’s happening.
Not everyone is the twitter gang.
Loads of serving officers aren’t happy and are looking to leave.

[KerrAvon]

Thanks, raging.

I forgot to deal with the jury composition point and agree with what you have said.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Plus note that Connolly and Brown were charged with breaches of two different offences

The outcome had already been manipulated before a single person entered the court

[Back of the net]

It’s amazing how some posters on here will challenge people’s perceptions or opinions as gullible or misinformed.
Yet when someone posts real events eg pockets post. Silence. I wonder why ?
It’s easier to dismiss people as far right etc but when presented with a sad situation of two tier examples nothing just bypass and wait to pounce in the next post that can be dismissed.