Unbelievable.

SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I'm not saying it's right - I'm saying that it's just how it is - and these things are usually in place for very good reasons and work well and noncontroversially 99% of the time. But there will always be the 1% tail.

And the DM is very good at finding the 1% tail and making the most of it especially when it involves immigrants or refugees. That is absolutely not to say it's a molehill and the DM are making a mountain out of it; it's not; it's serious. But sometimes we should perhaps accept that nothing is perfect; do our best for those harmed and in need of our support; and try and change things to get a different outcome for the same scenario in the future.

As for the perpetrators. Well - whilst remaining legal and true to our principles we make things as tricky or difficult as we can for them.
Click to expand...

I do think you need to drop the DM bias in this instance. Pretty much every media outlet including several in the US and Europe have ran the story. Why not just focus on the meat of what happened, and the victims, and forget who ran the story.

Was the judge right to award what he did? There probably should have been some recompense, in law, but why not then give part of it to the victims and use the rest to either fly him back to wherever he's from. Irrespective of their govt saying they won't take him, he is their citizen after all, or house him in a secure unit till he can be deported.
 
Hobbit said:
I do think you need to drop the DM bias in this instance. Pretty much every media outlet including several in the US and Europe have ran the story. Why not just focus on the meat of what happened, and the victims, and forget who ran the story.

Was the judge right to award what he did? There probably should have been some recompense, in law, but why not then give part of it to the victims and use the rest to either fly him back to wherever he's from. Irrespective of their govt saying they won't take him, he is their citizen after all, or house him in a secure unit till he can be deported.
Click to expand...

If the judge followed the law and appropriate guidance in respect of any 'award', then the judge was right.
 
Hobbit said:
I do think you need to drop the DM bias in this instance. Pretty much every media outlet including several in the US and Europe have ran the story. Why not just focus on the meat of what happened, and the victims, and forget who ran the story.

Was the judge right to award what he did? There probably should have been some recompense, in law, but why not then give part of it to the victims and use the rest to either fly him back to wherever he's from. Irrespective of their govt saying they won't take him, he is their citizen after all, or house him in a secure unit till he can be deported.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? Only reference I can find to it is in Murdoch owned papers, i.e. times, mail, sun and Metro and rightwing Breitbart and the Express. Nothing on BBC that I can see
 
woody69 said:
You sure about that? Only reference I can find to it is in Murdoch owned papers, i.e. times, mail, sun and Metro and rightwing Breitbart and the Express. Nothing on BBC that I can see
Click to expand...

Yes very sure thanks...

A quick 5sec Google, CNN isn't owned by Murdoch.
 
Last edited:
pauldj42 said:
I wonder if this case gets the same outrage! It should

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...g-denied-entry-to-club-vip-area-a3717101.html
Click to expand...

There was an incident up here a while ago that's just gone to court. a middle aged woman who organised a charity event had an augment and glassed another. she was given a custodial sentence. hard to see how one is less serious than the other ??

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Inverness-businesswoman-is-jailed-for-assault-06122017.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top