Not extremists?

deptfordmarmoset

Active Member
Instead of yet another feeble personal attack, why not post on topic?

The notion that lenient criminal sentences are somehow forced through to soften the public up for an attack on the civil High Court is the worst form of tin hat twattery.
There was nothing in the post I was responding to that referred to lenient sentencing. You appear to have got a little confused.
 

Pale Rider

Well-Known Member
There was nothing in the post I was responding to that referred to lenient sentencing. You appear to have got a little confused.

I was pouring scorn on the ridiculous notion that lenient sentences are somehow arranged to soften up the public for an attack on a different branch of judiciary.

Your appear to have got a little confused by your overwhelming desire to sneer at me.
 
I was pouring scorn on the ridiculous notion that lenient sentences are somehow arranged to soften up the public for an attack on a different branch of judiciary.

Your appear to have got a little confused by your overwhelming desire to sneer at me.

As already pointed out the only person saying that is you.

The point is that a public perception, which ministers and their acolytes are happy to encourage, of out of touch judges passing soft sentences. That undermines criminal justice but also the wider rule of law.

A Lord Chancellor worth his job title would put himself about defending the judiciary and rule of law.

Doing that is probably what got Buckland sacked. I'm not holding my breath for Raab doing so...
 

deptfordmarmoset

Active Member
Rather than have someone rubbishing an argument that no one has mentioned recently, we might get back to the main discussion. BlackBeltBarrister gives a rather breathless account of the government attempt (if the Times' account is accurate) to undermine the separation of powers.

 
Read the OP and post three and come back to me.

I did. Neither even suggests sentences are being arranged.

The point is that government and its mouthpieces bang the drum about so called lenient sentences, i.e. those that meet the law and guidelines but don't satisfy the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, so as to undermine the rule of law.

It s a dangerous game and one which, as I said, a properly engaged Lord Chancellor would be speaking out against.
 
Last edited:
A bit of narrative on the Nationality and Borders Bill:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lity-and-border-bill-repatriation-deportation
 
I did. Neither even suggests sentences are being arranged.

The point is that government and its mouthpieces bang the drum about so called lenient sentences, i.e. those that meet the law and guidelines but don't satisfy the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, so as to undermine the rule of law.

It s a dangerous game and one which, as I said, a properly engaged Lord Chancellor would be speaking out against.

Come on @Pale Rider, have you accepted the OP's proper meaning?
 
Top Bottom