From: NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid 
  
 On 17/08/2025 14:08, Jethro_uk wrote: 
 > On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 12:55:21 +0100, GB wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 17/08/2025 09:10, Pancho wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> [quoted text muted] 
 >> 
 >> The evidence against Lucy Connolly was very strong. There was no getting 
 >> away from the fact that she typed those words. 
 > 
 > RJ was not found not guilty because he claimed he did not perform the 
 > action which was the basis of the offence. Which would have been 
 > difficult given there was video evidence. 
  
 I don't know anything about that trial, and I certainly don't want to 
 risk defaming someone whom we now know to be innocent! 
  
  
 > 
 > In the LC case she apparently had a history of racist tweets and even 
 > joked that she was in trouble over the last one but AIR would "play teh 
 > mental health card if charged". As with so many things, that probably 
 > would have sounded a lot less funny in court. 
 > 
 > It is amusing that despite walls of commentating, the fact that a cat is 
 > not a dog is really upsetting some folk. It would be harmless enough. But 
 > whilst that is going on the more serious question about how the laws are 
 > and should be is going undebated. I wonder if that is deliberate ? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)