King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: Hilarious; the UK "Rool by Media" in Covid19
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Wyot	Green Man wrote: [quote]Wyot wrote: emile wrote: Wyot wrote: The independence of the judiciary won't profit the government/parliament from passing binding legislation to that effect. No but sentencing is independent. I bet this legislation could be on the statute book 50 years and no judge will sentence anyone to 10 years in prison for this. That's before we even get on to the totally impractical policing of the matter. The 10 years is just a masturbatory fantasy on Hancock's part. But what Hancock masturbates to is disturbing. (The above insight does not require pictures thanks GM...) 'Damn condoms' 'Damn Jizz' I was wrong GM. My insight does benefit from this picture; if not my peace of mind...
Wyot	emile wrote: Wyot wrote: sentencing is independent no judge will sentence anyone to 10 years in prison for this Independent, to a degree. Although parliament also stipulates sentencing guidelines and sets tariffs for the judiciary to follow. Almost invariably, judges (in the UK) adhere to the guidelines and laws are enforced on the government's terms - as enacted in Westminster. I expect you will find the sentencing guidelines for this won't start with a presumption of custody of between 3-10 years! There will be provision for a fine as a sentence. Or some Unpaid Work in the community. Sentencing guidelines list exacerbating factors to justify increasing the tariff. What on earth could they be? And this Gov couldn't care less whether anyone is sent to prison for this. This is naked politics to distract from the worst death rate in the world. Look how bloody hard we are! It is utterly pathetic.
Green Man	Wyot wrote: [quote]emile wrote: Wyot wrote: The independence of the judiciary won't profit the government/parliament from passing binding legislation to that effect. No but sentencing is independent. I bet this legislation could be on the statute book 50 years and no judge will sentence anyone to 10 years in prison for this. That's before we even get on to the totally impractical policing of the matter. The 10 years is just a masturbatory fantasy on Hancock's part. But what Hancock masturbates to is disturbing. (The above insight does not require pictures thanks GM...) 'Damn condoms' 'Damn Jizz'
emile	Wyot wrote: sentencing is independent no judge will sentence anyone to 10 years in prison for this Independent, to a degree. Although parliament also stipulates sentencing guidelines and sets tariffs for the judiciary to follow. Almost invariably, judges (in the UK) adhere to the guidelines and laws are enforced on the government's terms - as enacted in Westminster.
Wyot	emile wrote: [quote]Wyot wrote: The independence of the judiciary won't profit the government/parliament from passing binding legislation to that effect. No but sentencing is independent. I bet this legislation could be on the statute book 50 years and no judge will sentence anyone to 10 years in prison for this. That's before we even get on to the totally impractical policing of the matter. The 10 years is just a masturbatory fantasy on Hancock's part. But what Hancock masturbates to is disturbing. (The above insight does not require pictures thanks GM...)