• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Societal collapse?

Any attempts to soothe tensions or discredit suggestions of two-tier justice have just been given an almighty kicking. Starmer, the police and the justice system have tied themselves up in knots and the manifestation of this is unlikely to be good.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how this is on Starmer or the police or the justice system. The police arrested and charged him, I assume the CPS decided there was sufficient evidence to prosecute and Starmer wasn't involved at any point. Comparisons have been made with Lucy Connelly who pleaded guilty so there was no option to find her not guilty by way of a jury.

The jury didn't deliberate for long so they were biased, incompetent...or right.
 
Jury trials have been enshrined since the Magna Carta.

And funnily enough, the same smooth brained morons who will be bellowing about "two tier justice" (hi Nigel) are the same planks who often cited the Magna Carta when they wanted to do whatever the fuck they wanted during Covid. Make your mind up.
 
FFS..can't be doing with this shit....sharing the same view as this twat
1000029977.jpg
 
Last edited:
AndyWolves said:
It's missing the point though, the optics, and what people will take away from this are exactly as @EpsomWolf says.
Click to expand...

Such a strange take on what I posted. Are you saying a jury should have found him guilty not on the evidence but on how it looks? That would deal with the perception of two tier justice…but wouldn’t be justice.
 
The Saturday Boy said:
Such a strange take on what I posted. Are you saying a jury should have found him guilty not on the evidence but on how it looks? That would deal with the perception of two tier justice…but wouldn’t be justice.
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that this will be twisted into the "two-tier" justice perception. The actual facts and finding of the case are irrelevant to that view
 
AndyWolves said:
No, I'm saying that this will be twisted into the "two-tier" justice perception. The actual facts and finding of the case are irrelevant to that view
Click to expand...
That's like saying we shouldn't have sold Guedes because it'll only egg on the idiots who are convinced we're selling everyone.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
That's like saying we shouldn't have sold Guedes because it'll only egg on the idiots who are convinced we're selling everyone.
Click to expand...
I haven't said the guy shouldn't have been found not guilty. Merely that the reality of the situation is that people will see it as confirming their views.

In the same way that guedes being shit is irrelevant to the people who think we're selling everyone.
 
I just don't get it. He was standing with a crowd in the street, saying you should slit the throats of people.

Is that legal now?
 
Del Woppio said:
I just don't get it. He was standing with a crowd in the street, saying you should slit the throats of people.

Is that legal now?
Click to expand...
It's a jury trial.

Do you think Harry Redknapp did or didn't evade tax when he was Portsmouth manager and had bank accounts in his fucking dog's name and how many days in prison did he serve?

And if you've watched The Gold, Kenneth Noye (the massive psycho) literally got away with murder in the 80s.
 
That's bone headed stupidity though, writ large.

What system are they saying is broken? The jury system?

What bearing does it have on a criminal case whether you do or don't have children and/or grandchildren FFS? And that horrible cunt Connolly pleaded guilty, what are the courts supposed to do there?
 
Forget the nonsense thats written, it's the video of what the dude is saying that's interesting and what people need to decide upon.

Is that worse or not worse or as bad as was tweeted by Lucy Connelly - that's what I think people are weighing up
 
I can think a jury got it wrong, I often do.

But what exactly is the complaint here? Ordinary people don't understand the law and shouldn't be trusted to make these kind of decisions? I have some sympathy with that viewpoint.

Now try and go on a Brexity Facebook page and say "jury trials should be abolished" and see what reaction you get.
 
I think the complaint is that there are different rules depending on who you are.

If you think that what this labour bloke said is as bad was what Lucy Connelly tweeted, but see different outcomes, it reinforces the view of two tier justice.

The mechanics of how that's achieved then becomes "evidence" of the disparity.
 
The point around juries not being fit for purposes is bang on, and quite scary
 
More like there are different rules depending on how you plead. Mind-bending stuff I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top