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".
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.
-
-
Tommy could have received a smaller sentence. So could anyone. Perhaps the judge didn't like him. It's a far cry from saying there's an active conspiracy by the establishment to silence Tommy. If that were true, Tommy would've been silenced long ago (he's been at it for a decade)
-
Who said anything about conspiracy? Its identity politics gone mad. Its absolute blindness of a large group of people. Its the unwillingness to stand for values. Its NOT some organised and orchestrated conspiracy.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So, why do you claim that its a "fact" he broke the law? Why do you claim that criticism is misplaced? Why do you ignore all warning flags in favour of "the law is the law" as if its all black and white?
-
(1) It is a fact that he broke the law-as-written. (2) The "criticism" that there's some kind of establishment conspiracy against Tommy is groundless. That doesn't mean the judge is not biased. (3) The "warning flags" are flimsy, and can't dispute the truth of (1).
- 3 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.