From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 20/08/2025 14:57, JNugent wrote: 
 > On 20/08/2025 08:54 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 20/08/2025 01:10, JNugent wrote: 
 >>> On 19/08/2025 02:40 PM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >>>> On 18/08/2025 17:13, JNugent wrote: 
 >>>>> On 18/08/2025 04:34 PM, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2025 14:01:33 +0100, Pamela wrote: 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>>> As we know, she had a 12-year-old daughter and sick husband which 
 >>>>>>> made 
 >>>>>>> such detention a particular strain. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I am a care for my wife. SWMBO. I have been for 20 years (at least). 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> It is for this reason that I do not go around rioting, or encouraging 
 >>>>>> others to riot, or even post nasty things on Twitter. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I do my level best to make sure I am as fit and healthy and 
 >>>>>> available as 
 >>>>>> possible as a responsible carer. 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> So LC gets very very very short shrift from me. Maybe she doesn't 
 >>>>>> really 
 >>>>>> care about her husband and daughter and the guilty plea was a 
 >>>>>> disguised 
 >>>>>> attempt to get some respite ? 
 >>>>>> 
 >>>>>> I hate pithy sayings. But don't do the crime if you can't do the 
 >>>>>> time. 
 >>>>> 
 >>>>> But whever thought that "the time" for saying rude or insulting things 
 >>>>> would so draconian? 
 >>>> 
 >>>> She knew what 'the time' was likely to be when she pleaded guilty as 
 >>>> she 
 >>>> decided of her own volition to do. 
 >>> 
 >>> That wasn't the question, was it? 
 >>> 
 >>> Literally, my question was: "...wh[o]ever thought that "the time" for 
 >>> saying rude or insulting things would so draconian?". 
 >> 
 >> Well, she wasn't found guilty of that of course but of "inciting racial 
 >> hatred contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986", so 
 >> you're downplaying it somewhat I think. 
 > 
 > Did she know that? 
  
 Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  I think she knew full well that 
 inciting racial hatred was an offence, and that she really shouldn't 
 have been posting what she did. 
 > And whether or not she did, did she think that three years was the 
 > starting point for a rant on social media? 
 > 
 > Did she even have any reason to think that? 
  
 No, she didn't have to.  She knew she was doing wrong, and shouldn't 
 have been cynically calculating whether it was worth it. 
  
 >> It's all a matter of philosophy how seriously society takes inciting 
 >> racial hatred, but our elected representatives have decided that it is 
 >> very serious and it therefore carries severe penalties. 
 >> 
 >> If you're arguing that her words did not incite anything of the sort 
 >> then she shouldn't have signed the 'endorsement' she did saying she did 
 >> so of her own free will and that she 'intended to incite as per the 
 >> category 1 feature". 
 >> 
 >>> Taken in the way these things are meant to be read, that asks whether 
 >>> it is even likely that the knew the penalty could be so draconian at 
 >>> the time she made the remarks. How she reacted later on doesn't give 
 >>> any evidence on that. 
 >> 
 >> No, but ignorance of the law is no excuse as they say. 
 >> 
 >>>> €€She was given 31 months, of which 
 >>>> she would only have to serve 40%, or 12.4 months, in prison.€€ Which 
 >>>> would mean, if she hasn't been freed already, she is due for release 
 >>>> just about now. 
 >>>> 
 >>>> Is that so draconian? 
 >>> 
 >>> Do you get 12 months for a first offence of burglary, TWOCing or 
 >>> social security fraud, all of which have real, identifiable victims? 
 >> 
 >> She had made several similar comments before, as is clear from the CoA 
 >> judgement.€€ It was like asking for those to be taken into account just 
 >> like a few previous burglaries etc.€€ It wasn't really therefore a first 
 >> offence. 
 > 
 > It was the first time she had been charged with any such thing. 
 > 
 > Do you have evidence of antecedence? 
  
 Earlier posts she made are in the CoA judgement.  It wasn't the first time. 
 > But step back a second, you are answering a completely different 
 > question again. 
 > 
 > Do you get 12 months for a first offence of burglary, TWOCing or social 
 > security fraud, all of which have real, identifiable victims? 
  
 You get what the Sentencing Council's guidelines prescribe.  And they 
 reflect what our representatives in Parliament regard as the seriousness 
 of the offence. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)