OK, I give up, you don't want to refer to objective enforcement of law, and biased reporting like the above (did you hear the language used - contempt is dripping from it). You will gloss over swiftness and sentence and media ban /1
-
-
Replying to @jonsaxon67 @G_S_Bhogal
And you will accept a false claim that this was breaching an order aimed at preventing tainting other cases, when it was reporting from OUTSIDE the court. When one has no doubt in their side, one is blind. And my biggest concern: where is the doubt? /2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67 @G_S_Bhogal
in a case like this, there should have been doubt and worry, because of the very nature of the accusation. It should have been scrutinised to death. Every comma. But glaring bias is accepted, because "we believe the legal system will never act in bad faith".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
I was gonna say, ignore the nasty tone of the article. It discusses the legal matters in good depth, and that is what I wanted us to focus on. And yes, the law is biased. It always has been. But the fact remains, there is more than sufficient legal grounds for Tommy's sentence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Ignore the tone??? You think that tone doesn't come with reporting bias? You think you are immune??? You are naive. You believe the "facts" you want and ignore others. You have done a great job of ignoring many of my claims and repeating "the law is the law".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
Again, it'd be great if you could back up your claims with evidence. I've already pointed out the laws Tommy broke. Could you provide any exonerating circumstances?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Twitter is never enough for serious arguments. Facebook is SLIGHTLY better. I'm referring to my comment and especially the "agonising care" part: https://www.facebook.com/groups/425504050908112/permalink/1012866372171874/?comment_id=1013094492149062&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67 @G_S_Bhogal
starts with "The ease at which people..." just in case it doesn't open at it (which it sometimes doesn't)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Did I ever mention how much I dislike Facebook?pic.twitter.com/BCf8xqTdch
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree with pretty much all of that. But it doesn't change the fact that there are actual written down laws, which you can yourself read, that Tommy contravened, not once, but twice (after being let off the first time). Was his sentence harsh? Yes. Was it unlawful? No.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
You continue to ignore what I'm saying. Did you even stop to consider whether the law may not be that clear cut, or is the actual court ruling proof enough that there is no other way of viewing it? Did you stop to consider the strange circumstances?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
I'm well aware that the law is not clear cut, and that much of it is up to the judge's discretion. It's something I learned as a child, because it's always been that way. It's impossible for a system composed of humans to be 100% consistent at all times.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.