Free speech not allowed

[dowie]

Comedy Crowds aren't anything - the comedians tend to be left-wing/liberal but crowds are literally people from all walks of life.

nah they tend to be quite liberal in London Comedy Clubs

obviously a working men's club up north might attract a different crowd and a roy chubby brown type gig in some chivvy holiday resort in span would perhaps too

but in London it tends to be a liberal audience (overall, I'm not saying everyone in the audience is)

 

[Orionaut]

I'm not a big fan of jury trials but in this case, where the judge was so out of touch, it would have perhaps been worthwhile to have had a jury..

Although this is not the official reason by any means.

I have always felt that the ultimate strength of a Jury trial is that it allows for the possibility of "Jury Nullification"

This is a common theme in US trials but not many people realise that UK Juries also have this power..

 

[Angilion]

And here I was thinking the USA was good at protecting free speech, setting an example for the rest of us: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ew-black-identity-extremists-fbi-surveillance

Armed biological group identity advocates publically and explicitly calling for armed insurrection and the murder of all police officers is not a clear example of freedom of speech.

 

[SlyReaper]

Appeal rejected.

Scotland's legal system suffering a critical dearth of common sense.

 

[Skunkworks]

No jury
No legal representation in court
Lawyer now being threatened with contempt

I find myself using the word 'sinister' more and more recently.

 

[Energize]

It was inevitable, a system so morally bankrupt as to convict someone of such an offence would inevitably reject an appeal, probably a few bribes made here and there.

 

[dowie]

Looking at the opinion quoted here it seems there was a judge even more out of touch than the one at the original trial:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...outube-court-case-gross-offence-a8483201.html

A letter from the court said the appeal was “not arguable and in each of its elements is wholly misconceived”.

It also dismissed arguments made by Meechan’s lawyers over the judge’s handling of witness evidence at Airdrie Sheriff Court in March and the meaning of “grossly offensive”.

“The appeal against conviction is without merit,” said the letter. “Likewise the appeal against sentence is not arguable – this was a deeply unpleasant offence in which disgraceful and utterly offensive material was very widely distributed by the appellant," it said. “This was to the considerable distress of the community in question and – just as disturbingly – to the apparent approval of a large number of persons who appear to share the appellant’s racist views.

“Indeed it must be observed that in the circumstance the appellant was fortunate that the learned sheriff was not considering custody as an option.”

Yup, he's clearly a horrible racist and should be locked up for a comedy video he published on youtube.....

 

[SlyReaper]

I try to avoid conspiratorial thinking, so I'm trying to come up with ways for so many Scottish judges to be so... Wrong... without them actually colluding. We have the judge who passed the original verdict, the judge who rejected the first appeal attempt, and three judges who rejected the second - 5 judges total. The only thing I can come up with, is there must be something about the process of becoming a judge that strips a person of their wisdom and logic.

 

[Energize]

I try to avoid conspiratorial thinking, so I'm trying to come up with ways for so many Scottish judges to be so... Wrong... without them actually colluding. We have the judge who passed the original verdict, the judge who rejected the first appeal attempt, and three judges who rejected the second - 5 judges total. The only thing I can come up with, is there must be something about the process of becoming a judge that strips a person of their wisdom and logic.

There is definitely a level of indoctrination in the legal system, judges come up with some of the most perverse reasoning I have ever seen.

 

[RDM]

I try to avoid conspiratorial thinking, so I'm trying to come up with ways for so many Scottish judges to be so... Wrong... without them actually colluding. We have the judge who passed the original verdict, the judge who rejected the first appeal attempt, and three judges who rejected the second - 5 judges total. The only thing I can come up with, is there must be something about the process of becoming a judge that strips a person of their wisdom and logic.

It is possible that the judges had access to information that you do not? It is also possible that the law as written means that he is guilty and the judges are just following what the law says. I havent really looked into the particulars of the case and I am not all that clued up on Scottish Law which can be quite different from UK law at times.

 

[Angilion]

It is possible that the judges had access to information that you do not? It is also possible that the law as written means that he is guilty and the judges are just following what the law says. I havent really looked into the particulars of the case and I am not all that clued up on Scottish Law which can be quite different from UK law at times.

It would be possible in a general sense, but in this case the judges are explicitly ascribing views to the defendent that he does not hold. Their judgement is based on those views and is thus incorrect. In essence, they're ignoring all context. Which is fashionable but not a good basis for, well, anything.

He taught a dog to give a Nazi salute on command. Not because he's a Nazi but because it was the thing most opposite to cute that he could think of (*) and because the incongruity of it amused him. I'm surprised the judges didn't have the dog arrested too.

* His girlfriend thought the dog was cute, so he wanted to teach it something anti-cute.

 

[dowie]

It is possible that the judges had access to information that you do not?

It isn't a secrecy trial and it isn't something that say happened in public and has multiple witnesses with differing accounts etc...

The evidence is the video itself that we can all watch and we have the reported statements made by count dankular to the court too.

 

[Narj]

Wow I missed that. Holy crap that's mental. Well done to Ricky Gervais for highlighting it too at the time.

I'd never seen him before and after a flick through, his content isn't really my bag but I hope he gets this BS quashed. Good job no-one videoed me as a teenager holding up my dog's paw for the obligatory "sieg heil" jokes.

Absolutely pathetic on the part of the legal system. You'd be forgiven for thinking there are more resources poured into potential hurt feelings on social media than into solving proper crimes these days.

EDIT: The Jonathan Pie video is classic

 

[GGizmo]

It is very sad that in todays day and age some people are so insecure that they fight to control everything, even jokes they don't find funny!

I remember seeing a glimpse of the Scottish system in action a few years ago while watching another case. Am I right in thinking that there is ultimately one person that holds ultimate power to decide if a case should go ahead or not? I remember thinking that was the case, though I can't remember the title the person.

 

[dowie]

Silly thing is the law in question applies here too, it isn't just the Scottish system. IIRC it was originally brought in in relation to the telephone system and to prevent female telephone operators from being subjected to grossly offensive language. It has then been rather carelessly transferred across to the internet.

If he'd shown the video on a stage it wouldn't have got him in trouble, it is just a very dubious law and a dubious interpretation of what he produced by the Judge(s).

 

[asim18]

Absolutely pathetic on the part of the legal system. You'd be forgiven for thinking there are more resources poured into potential hurt feelings on social media than into solving proper crimes these days.

Yeah this is what happens when peoples social anxiety levels go through the roof. Because they never go outside, they need to bring the crimes through their front door to feel more socially involved. These same people are secretly wishing and calling for police states so others who dont have a problem cannot enjoy freedom and liberty.

 

[Energize]

It is possible that the judges had access to information that you do not? It is also possible that the law as written means that he is guilty and the judges are just following what the law says. I havent really looked into the particulars of the case and I am not all that clued up on Scottish Law which can be quite different from UK law at times.

You mean the judges were basically applying the nuremburg defence to their actions? That is hardly acceptable.

Judges must uphold justice in a more general sense, that means not just blindly following every vile piece of legislation the government comes up with, and defending civil liberties which are in fact enshrined in law.

 

[SlyReaper]

You mean the judges were basically applying the nuremburg defence to their actions? That is hardly acceptable.

Judges must uphold justice in a more general sense, that means not just blindly following every vile piece of legislation the government comes up with, and defending civil liberties which are in fact enshrined in law.

This. Justice does not mean always rigidly enforcing the law, especially when such laws are as ambiguously and subjectively worded as "grossly offensive". This isn't justice, it's a stitch-up. No jury, no appeal, and threatening the defence lawyer for doing his job. It beggars belief.

 

[Energize]

I imagine the courts didn't want a jury because they knew that they would nullify the law, there are some disturbing parallels here, that girl was also convicted by a single judge with no jury, it seems that there is a concerted effort to avoid bringing all prosecutions under this law to a proper jury trial.

The judges conduct of attempting to intimidate the defence counsel is particularly reprehensible.

 

[SlyReaper]

I didn't know the Chelsea Russell case was also without jury. I think I tried to find out at the time, but couldn't find any information about it. It makes sense - it would be difficult to find a jury willing to convict, unless you found a way to stack it with SJWs. It wouldn't even be nullification, I think. The wording of "grossly offensive" is vague enough for any jury member to go "well I wasn't offended, so I don't think it's grossly offensive".

This trial without jury thing is a whole other layer of horrible. It was originally introduced to deal with cases of gang-related crime, the fear being that other members of the defendant's gang might get to the jury and intimidate them. But of course, once established, the scope of it expanded, as these things always do.