JSO Protestor being struck off as a GP

Yup, criminalising GPs (of which this country needs more, now more than ever) because of their political views seems like a genuinely common sense thing to do...

...NOT


What a fucking stupid state of affairs.
Smacks just a little bit of fascism as well.



All The Best

It's the right decision. These people have been radicalised, they are mentally unstable and unsuitable for positions of responsibility.

I don't really have a problem with short term sentence for breaking the law, though Freedom Of Political Expression is guaranteed under our Membership of the UCHR.

But then taking it further and preventing her from being a GP is a) wrong, two punishments for one crime, and b) utterly stupid, we need more GPs, not less, and c) sacking someone because of their views is surely a "leftie, woke, cancel culture thing", but no this proves it is actually a "rightie, fascist, cancel culture thing".

I fully expect the Righties on here to now support Lefties in their cancel-culture efforts, or will reserve the right to call them "ignorant hypocrites".


All The Best

But The Squeezed Pimple says she should be struck off because she has been "radicalised".

That has nothing to do with contempt of court, and EVERYTHING to do with Political Beliefs.


All The Best

THEY chose to violate a court injunction.

This is not a ‘right to protest’ issue

In exactly the same way as a certain shithead thought himself exempt from a judge’s reporting restrictions and rightly found himself held in contempt for endangering a subsequent trial, this silly mare thought because she was a GP a court injunction could be sidestepped or ignored.

JSO have been subjected to multiple such court orders put in place to control their lawbreaking, and this woman has reaped the reward of her criminal actions.

THEY deserve everything they get

Well "a certain shithead" means precisely nothing.

So unless you are going to name names, and back it up with evidence I'll assume it another made-up anecdote to support the insupportable.


All The Best

I could not remember his name

I was thinking of Mr Yaxley-Lennon who considered himself above the law in reporting, or trying to, the conviction of a man for a sexual offence in association with a group of men, and who was now going to stand trial on similar, if not identical charges, in relation to similar acts carried out at another location, at another time, in association with a different group of men

English and Welsh law required that the details of his conviction, although a matter of public interest and freely open to any who attended the court to know, be held from the wider public and in particular any person involved in the jury for the later trial until that jury concluded its deliberations on the basis of evidence permitted in that courtroom.

As i am sure you are aware Yaxley Lennon was taken into custody on suspicion of contempt of court for failing to follow the requirements of the trial judge presiding over the first trial that the detail not be put in the public domain until the second trial concluded

I have seen the judge’s instructions myself. They were categoric in both stating the reason for the restriction and declaring that the full details of trial conviction and sentence could be freely reported after that other trial concluded.

I’m sure you remember the circumstances now