Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Jo Swinson is the biggest liar

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Your wrong again ... jeez can't you get anything right?

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Do you mean to imply that she would not get fair and impartial treatment?
Rather negates your point.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

No, but a judge can be stern or lenient. Character of the accused also enters into the ewuation.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Not impartial then. Sentence depends on if the judge likes or dislikes the defendant.
So you are saying that judges can be biased.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Of course some Judges are biased, the contempt of court case against Tommy Robinson is proof of that. This about the way the justice system worked and not about the man. He was arrested outside the court for Breach of the Peace. He is then officially charge with Breach of the Peace, put into a holding cell where he was to await immediate trial. Even though his own lawyer was available, Tommy was refused access to his own lawyer and given a court appointed lawyer who knew nothing about Breach of the Peace case law. Tommy was tried and found guilty and sentenced to 14 months in prison. This all happened in approximately 8hrs, from the initial arrest to being sent to prison, considered to be one of the fastest times anyone in the UK has been arrested and sent to prison. His lawyer appealed and Tommy was released due to judicial procedures that was breached.

Then comes his appeal hearing. It turns out on the day of the court case of which Tommy was outside videoing the accused, that it is standard practice for the court to issue instructions if the media are allowed to record or not. The instructions are put on the courts website AND notices are put up in the entrances to the court building. On the day, the court clerks admitted to making errors in not posting media restrictions on the website or putting up notices in the court building saying that media recording is not allowed. Due to nothing being posted, Tommy said he was under the impression that media restrictions had been lifted and he was OK to record outside the courthouse. The judge disagreed and said it was still his responsibility to find out if reporting restrictions had been lifted, even to the point of asking a courthouse security guard if need be.

It is clear the Judge was biased in his dealing with Tommy Robinson but because of the nature of the man and his past of being ex founder of the EDL, it was very obvious the Judge want Tommy off the streets and found a way to achieve that.

If a Judge wants something to happen a certain way, it will happen. Remember, the highest courts in the land prior to that of the Supreme Court found in favour of the government saying it was a political issue and not a legal one, both the highest court in Scotland and England and here we have 11 supreme court judges over ruling these high court judges saying they are wrong and the 11 supreme court judges are right. If they are all working from the same legal framework, how is that possible?

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

Great post - Dodge, sums it up exactly.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

All Judges are biased. That's why they have 12 of them in the Supreme court. They always have an odd number sitting to make sure there's no ambiguity about a result. The High court case in London had three judges. The Scottish court case also had three judges who reached a different verdict. So should we discount the Scots case too? You don't have to be a legal expert to unanimously agree that Boris prorogued in order to shut parliament up in order to push through his no deal Brexit. That he wasn't proroguing in order to prepare for the Queen's speech. That is pretty obvious and that's why we have a legal system that formally examines and rules that he wasn't being entirely honest and that he was trying to tie the hands of Parliament in their role of keeping the government from doing whatever it likes.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

For almost every crime the punishment knows a certain range. How heavy a sentence turns out is dependent on several factors.
Is the accused a first time offender, has he/she previous convictions, showing remorse etc. That is to a degree a p ersonal assessment by the judge, subjective, but biased is a different matter. If may had done the same and gotten away with it, then you could use the term biased.

Re: Katie Hopkins in the Supreme Court

I can't really comment in an unbiased way on Katie having watched her bully a clearly mentally ill man in BB I found her to be beyond nasty. But the supreme court I think it was 9/11 paid by the EU so it's very hard to believe they want best for UK that they had to create a law to say PM broke it rather made a mockery of the entire case I thought. Also Gina Miller and John Major are paid by EU too so only person not paid was the man they charged.