6 coppers to take him down or 1 member of the public with his bike? 
 

 

 

1 hour ago, royal white said:

Hundreds turned out in Lucy’s local community protesting about the riots. You for some reason think they went out burning hotels down. You really do get easily confused. 

And they all hit the streets because that's what Lucy wanted 

Surely a facility like this (minus the gators) would be perfect over here. 
 

 

Elbow took their name from the guitarist's uncle from Madrid who was an archer.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

The artistic part, as I said before, does have some licence, as it should be.

That, however, cannot be used as a means to hide from the law.

Sooner or later, that has to be used, or it becomes a free-for-all.

The location is immaterial. Additionally, all Israelis have to serve a period in the IDF, irrespective of where they live. Part and parcel of their citizenship, upon reaching the age of majority. Therefore the attacks could be carried out anywhere, including here.

The need for "weaponry" is hardly relevant, given that our own soldiers have been  slain in this country by terrorists armed with knives.

IWhat do you think would have happened had SYL decided to form a group, and sang at a gig about murdering people?

Reckon I know the answer to that, and he would have deserved to be locked up too.

The actual wording or LC"s comments, although unacceptable, did have a degree of ambiguity about them, which may also have been taken into account had she gone to trial. There is no ambiguity here.

Further to this particular incident, there were apparently a number of signs/images which led to some Jews in attendance feeling threatened, and grouping themselves together, away from certain areas.

Are we allowed to say death to Putin ?

Asking for a friend 🙂

2 hours ago, royal white said:

When have I not accepted anything she did and  when have I downplayed it? Something else you’re making up. It’s fkin weird. What I am saying is hate crimes like these need to be treated the same, how one person can get away with saying “kill your local MP” and one person gets jailed for saying “burn down hotels” is beyond me. 
 

Hundreds turned out in Lucy’s local community protesting about the riots. You for some reason think they went out burning hotels down. You really do get easily confused. 

The statement read: “A thorough investigation has now been completed by detectives from the Counter Terrorism Command, which included interviewing an individual under caution and seeking early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

“A range of offences were considered as part of the investigation. However, given the time elapsed between the events in the video and the video being brought to police attention, any potential summary only offences were beyond the statutory time limit for prosecution.“

There’s your answer.

 And as others have pointed out. Musical lyrics will always be treated differently. Even if they were prosecuted

I’m sorry you find my comments weird. You’re giving off an impression that you think she’s been treated harshly. (To be fair I wondered the same until other posters gave more context). You’ve also been obsessing over what other people have done on a music stage & whether or not she was actually calling for foreigners to be burned. When you make all those deflections & Whatabout tangents, then it gives an impression you’re downplaying what she did. That’s where I’m at with your posts, but I can only apologise if I’ve got that wrong & we both agree the sentence was fair 👍

I couldn’t give a shite how far the people were from Lucy’s address who were involved in the riots. It’s irrelevant & an odd comment for you to obsess over. People travelled all over the country during those riots.

She (& many others) had a platform to thousands & she used it to incite racial hatred. People acted on it in horrific ways. Social media & misinformation played a huge part in those riots and you know this. Tough shit love, coming down hard on social media posts like this could make us all a lot safer. 

Edited July 1, 2025Jul 1 by London Wanderer

1 hour ago, frank_spencer said:

 

 

I also don't think that the DKs actually wanted to go on holiday to Cambodia either 😁

14 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

The statement read: “A thorough investigation has now been completed by detectives from the Counter Terrorism Command, which included interviewing an individual under caution and seeking early investigative advice from the Crown Prosecution Service.

“A range of offences were considered as part of the investigation. However, given the time elapsed between the events in the video and the video being brought to police attention, any potential summary only offences were beyond the statutory time limit for prosecution.“

There’s your answer.

 And as others have pointed out. Musical lyrics will always be treated differently. Even if they were prosecuted

I’m sorry you find my comments weird. You’re giving off an impression that you think she’s been treated harshly. (To be fair I wondered the same until other posters gave more context). You’ve also been obsessing over what other people have done on a music stage & whether or not she was actually calling for foreigners to be burned. When you make all those deflections & Whatabout tangents, then it gives an impression you’re downplaying what she did. That’s where I’m at with your posts, but I can only apologise if I’ve got that wrong & we both agree the sentence was fair 👍

I couldn’t give a shite how far the people were from Lucy’s address who were involved in the riots. It’s irrelevant & an odd comment for you to obsess over. People travelled all over the country during those riots.

She (& many others) had a platform to thousands & she used it to incite racial hatred. People acted on it in horrific ways. Social media & misinformation played a huge part in those riots and you know this. Tough shit love, coming down hard on social media posts like this could make us all a lot safer. 

Of course you got it wrong. You always do whilst making things up, it’s weird .

I’ve already given the answer as to why one was prosecuted and another wasn’t, it still doesn’t make it right though. Strange that the police would investigate a case, admit the person has done wrong but then turn around and say we can’t do anything. Another complete waste of money and time.

We still don’t know if anyone acted on her posts. Seeing as though a man was jailed in Sheffield for saying burn down hotels and a hotel near sheffied had an a attempted fire started then common sense would say that post, (if any) was a possible Instigator. 
 

But but her community acted on her tweets 😂😂 not one hotel was burnt down in her community. You really don’t help yourself. 

27 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Are we allowed to say death to Putin ?

Asking for a friend 🙂

Dunno.

Go on stage and try it.

Would be an interesting case for the police to consider. 

Perhaps with him being an individual, who clearly has launched an illegal war, you might get away with it, who knows.

Equally, they may take a dim view, in that it still breaches our law.

I reckon you should try it.

Could be fun.

Even got a band name for you:

"Two tiers for cheers"

 

 

23 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I also don't think that the DKs actually wanted to go on holiday to Cambodia either 😁

They do put California ahead of all others though.

8 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

They do put California ahead of all others though.

That's very true. And even the Germans have abandoned that bit! 😂

I saw Coldplay at The Apollo and Elbow were supporting.

Both were shite.

I saw Elbow a few years later at The Empress Ballroom and they were great. 

8 minutes ago, gonzo said:

I saw Coldplay at The Apollo and Elbow were supporting.

Both were shite.

I saw Elbow a few years later at The Empress Ballroom and they were great. 

Gay.

7 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Gay.

Takes one to know one.

Bummer 

2 hours ago, royal white said:

Of course you got it wrong. You always do whilst making things up, it’s weird .

I’ve already given the answer as to why one was prosecuted and another wasn’t, it still doesn’t make it right though. Strange that the police would investigate a case, admit the person has done wrong but then turn around and say we can’t do anything. Another complete waste of money and time.

We still don’t know if anyone acted on her posts. Seeing as though a man was jailed in Sheffield for saying burn down hotels and a hotel near sheffied had an a attempted fire started then common sense would say that post, (if any) was a possible Instigator. 
 

But but her community acted on her tweets 😂😂 not one hotel was burnt down in her community. You really don’t help yourself. 

It's because kneecap's alleged crime is classed as a summary offence and Lucy's is indictable

Edited July 1, 2025Jul 1 by peelyfeet

1 minute ago, peelyfeet said:

It's because kneecap's alleged crime is classed as a summary offence and Lucy's is indicatble

Calling for the killing of mps is only a summary offence, while saying burn down a hotel is more serious?

No wonder people regard the justice system as being multi-tiered, biased, truly bizarre and not acting in the best interests of the country.

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Calling for the killing of mps is only a summary offence, while saying burn down a hotel is more serious?

No wonder people regard the justice system as being multi-tiered, biased, truly bizarre and not acting in the best interests of the country.

They claimed it was satirical, taken ouf of context with other satirical things they said at the same time. The police have viewed the full footage and found they dont have grounds to press for an indictment so, as they could only raise a summary charge, the offence proceedings have to start within 6 months after the incident. They said it in 2023. 

14 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Calling for the killing of mps is only a summary offence, while saying burn down a hotel is more serious?

No wonder people regard the justice system as being multi-tiered, biased, truly bizarre and not acting in the best interests of the country.

Going through life without any sense of context must be really infuriating and quite torturous for you. Kneecap are just an Irish rap group mate. They're not writing manifestos and changing laws. Did you call the police every Saturday night when Mr Blobby smashed Noel's House up?

Meanwhile, kids are getting murdered on a daily basis by the subject of their ire, and you think that's perfectly acceptable because "these things happen".

Edited July 1, 2025Jul 1 by Cheese

10 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Going through life without any sense of context must be really infuriating and quite torturous for you. Kneecap are just an Irish rap group mate. They're not writing manifestos and changing laws. Did you call the police every Saturday night when Mr Blobby smashed Noel's House up?

Meanwhile, kids are getting murdered on a daily basis by the subject of their ire, and you think that's perfectly acceptable because "these things happen".

What the fuck has people being killed in war zones got to do with our Justice system? Thats next level whataboutery 

10 minutes ago, royal white said:

What the fuck has people being killed in war zones got to do with our Justice system? Thats next level whataboutery 

Ultimately it's a lot to do with politicians not having the bolloxs to stand up for what they truly believe to be right, because politics attracts and rewards populists, egoists and corrupt, greedy, selfish, coniving bastards. 

20 minutes ago, royal white said:

What the fuck has people being killed in war zones got to do with our Justice system? Thats next level whataboutery 

Not when the people you're moaning about are moaning about the people we're moaning about! 😁

54 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

They claimed it was satirical, taken ouf of context with other satirical things they said at the same time. The police have viewed the full footage and found they dont have grounds to press for an indictment so, as they could only raise a summary charge, the offence proceedings have to start within 6 months after the incident. They said it in 2023. 

Thats interesting and fair enough.

It harks back to the previous point I made about where the line is, and folk hiding behind being an artist.

For me, I fail to grasp how calling for the murder of an mp, especially in the context of two recent ones, would be deemed acceptable.

In addition, one has been charged with a terror offence more recently, which begs the question why were they there?

Listening to the words of LC, which were read out, there is context to those too.

Does a comment, with context, on Twatter truly warrant a wholly different approach?

Pressure was applied- some justified-but not if it led to poor advice or improper representation by legal professionals. 

As before, it would have been interesting to see her before a court, and what the jury would have come up with.

From a non-legal perspective, and purely a common sense, social view, there is more likely a chance of an act being conducted by a fan of a musician, than someone reading the rantings of an unknown woman on social media. 

Follow that with her ridiculously heavy handed treatment whilst inside, and there are bound to be questions over the rationale and nature of her sentence.

Unbelievably ridiculous judgements made in favour of foreign criminals re deportation, as opposed to her treatment are stark in there difference, and are only going to add to the frustration and anger within the population, which may have the opposite effect to what these sentences were intended.

 

 

Thing is - we either want freedom of speech or we don't. And if we don't - then we have to accept the fact that there's a line and that sometimes people are going to interpret that line differently. 

Realised who SYL was after realising it wasn't a band! 😂

I think the difference between him saying kill Muslims at a rally is that 

1) He's got a history of violence 

2) He's a convicted criminal

3) The audience are mainly pissed up ex football hooligans and in a public space 

4) There are loads of Muslims knocking about that could be a potential target for the not rights 

5) It's not really based on anything other than he doesn't like Muslims (or arguably in response to a historical terrorist attack). 

6) Would be very likely to cause issues after everyone stops talking about it

On the flip side this RV character

1) Hasn't got a history of violence as far as I'm aware

2) Hasn't got a criminal record as far as I'm aware

3) The audience are mainly stoned hippies and in a field which is closed in

4) There aren't any members of the IDF knocking about that could be a potential target for the not rights

5) He's saying what he's saying in response to 50,000 odd dead Palestinians 

6) Is unlikely to ever cause any issues once everyone stops talking about it 

So I'd argue that the context is very different. Whether you think there should be any context applied or the letter of the law should be applied exactly the same in every circumstance is another philosophical debate altogether. 

I'm ambivalent about it and can see both sides of the argument. 

From a non-legal perspective, and purely a common sense, social view, there is more likely a chance of an act being conducted by a fan of a musician, than someone reading the rantings of an unknown woman on social media. 

Deary me, now that's guff.

 

1 minute ago, kent_white said:

Thing is - we either want freedom of speech or we don't. And if we don't - then we have to accept the fact that there's a line and that sometimes people are going to interpret that line differently. 

Realised who SYL was after realising it wasn't a band! 😂

I think the difference between him saying kill Muslims at a rally is that 

1) He's got a history of violence 

2) He's a convicted criminal

3) The audience are mainly pissed up ex football hooligans and in a public space 

4) There are loads of Muslims knocking about that could be a potential target for the not rights 

5) It's not really based on anything other than he doesn't like Muslims (or arguably in response to a historical terrorist attack). 

6) Would be very likely to cause issues after everyone stops talking about it

On the flip side this RV character

1) Hasn't got a history of violence as far as I'm aware

2) Hasn't got a criminal record as far as I'm aware

3) The audience are mainly stoned hippies and in a field which is closed in

4) There aren't any members of the IDF knocking about that could be a potential target for the not rights

5) He's saying what he's saying in response to 50,000 odd dead Palestinians 

6) Is unlikely to ever cause any issues once everyone stops talking about it 

So I'd argue that the context is very different. Whether you think there should be any context applied or the letter of the law should be applied exactly the same in every circumstance is another philosophical debate altogether. 

I'm ambivalent about it and can see both sides of the argument. 

Ah you mentioned context - expect a content is stupid post incoming from the usuals.