|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 19, 2024 1:00:47 GMT
If she is struck off for having a criminal record, then the fact she could be stuck off for having a criminal record was made plain in the terms and conditions You don’t seem unhappy at the prospect of Trump being unable to be POTUS if he has such a record. Why is it any different for a left wing doctor ?Her politics mean nothing to me; the fact she is a qualified GP and the country is dangerously low on qualified GPs is what matters. In regard to Trump the world already has too many borderline retarded, multiple failure businessmen, with egos so big they can't see just how fucking delusional they are - we don't need any more. All The Best Well then perhaps the General Medical Council needs to send an urgent reminder to every single person in possession of a certificate of fitness to practice reminding them that a criminal record means being struck off. It seems to me the minutes of the meeting at which she is struck off will serve splendidly for that purpise I was fully aware various organisations such as English Highways had obtained injunctions making it contempt of court to protest at certain locations. I can’t see a doctor being less intelligent, less aware of tbe law or less informed on such matters than I. I am sure you are aware it was Tony Blair in person who brought in legislation making it an offence for more than two or three to assemble in the House of Commons Lobby as a direct result of over 1000 businessmen, myself included, travelling to that place and reducing Parliament to chaos by the simple act of collectively green carding my MP. I am also sure you must have heard his similar attempts to declare a lone anti war protestor encamped outside the entrance illegal backfired spectacularly when it was upheld that the law could not apply retrospectively and he had been there first. You want to make a woman who has deliberately broken tbe law exempt from the consequences because of who she is and what she does. That’s really not how it works |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 19, 2024 6:06:10 GMT
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 Yaxley-Lennon was convicted of criminal contempt. As far as I can see, Benn was guilty of breaching a civil injunction. Other than in cases involving violence or fear of violence, the punishment for breaching a civil injunction is not a criminal punishment. As such, Benn will not have a criminal conviction/record from these breaches.
From reading the judgments, it appears Benn and her group were involved in behaviour which was pretty risky and may have put the public at risk. Obviously I'm guessing, but it may be this part of her behaviour that the tribunal are considering.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Apr 19, 2024 7:07:43 GMT
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 Yaxley-Lennon was convicted of criminal contempt. As far as I can see, Benn was guilty of breaching a civil injunction. Other than in cases involving violence or fear of violence, the punishment for breaching a civil injunction is not a criminal punishment. As such, Benn will not have a criminal conviction/record from these breaches.
From reading the judgments, it appears Benn and her group were involved in behaviour which was pretty risky and may have put the public at risk. Obviously I'm guessing, but it may be this part of her behaviour that the tribunal are considering.
As always, great to hear your input. I think it's a damn shame she won't get a criminal record. The people pulling the sort of stunts JSO enjoy pulling definitely need to. The unwashed left are exceptionally fond of using fear of job denial as a weapon to use against anyone not as biased and bigoted as themselves. I feel it would be good for society and a matter for public jubilation among the ordinary people whose lives they not only delight in disrupting but happily put at risk of ending as a price worth paying for the cause if she, and they more widely, felt the wrath of the society opposed to their cause and their antics in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 19, 2024 11:23:32 GMT
She knew she was violating the law, so it was her own actions. When it was T Robinson many on here were saying throw away the key. There should surely be equality under the law 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 She was in contempt of court , a very serious offence . Nothing to do with her views |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Apr 19, 2024 11:25:36 GMT
Her ‘ crime ‘ was contempt of court afaik. Not her political beliefs . This is not comparable with expressing a political belief and being cancelled for it. Having said that , it is a bit over the top to ruin her career .imo. 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 You've clearly never met any of these people (or you are one).
They are nutters.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 19, 2024 11:27:19 GMT
If she is struck off for having a criminal record, then the fact she could be stuck off for having a criminal record was made plain in the terms and conditions You don’t seem unhappy at the prospect of Trump being unable to be POTUS if he has such a record. Why is it any different for a left wing doctor ?Her politics mean nothing to me; the fact she is a qualified GP and the country is dangerously low on qualified GPs is what matters. In regard to Trump the world already has too many borderline retarded, multiple failure businessmen, with egos so big they can't see just how fucking delusional they are - we don't need any more. All The Best The bombing of Glasgow airport was carried out by a qualified doctor from a medical family en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Abdullah |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 19, 2024 16:39:21 GMT
Her politics mean nothing to me; the fact she is a qualified GP and the country is dangerously low on qualified GPs is what matters. In regard to Trump the world already has too many borderline retarded, multiple failure businessmen, with egos so big they can't see just how fucking delusional they are - we don't need any more. All The Best The bombing of Glasgow airport was carried out by a qualified doctor from a medical family en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_AbdullahSo that makes all Doctors guilty does it? Well, in that case: LINK let's sack every CEO and add them to the Sex Offender Register. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Apr 19, 2024 17:11:51 GMT
So that makes all Doctors guilty does it? Well, in that case: LINK let's sack every CEO and add them to the Sex Offender Register. All The Best Did I post that? Would you be happy to see her as your GP? Would you trust her? Issue with lefties like you is that you post one thing ( don't strike her off she's ''special'' because she's a doctor) and when the idiocy of your position is pointed out (another 'special' doctor bombed an airport) come over with a touch of the vapours and all unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Apr 19, 2024 17:25:27 GMT
Digressing slightly but still on JSO dickheads... Just Stop Oil protesters found guilty of aggravated trespass and criminal damageFive Just Stop Oil protesters have been convicted of aggravated trespass after they disrupted a performance of Les Miserables in London’s West End last year. Two of them were also found guilty of criminal damage. The estimated cost to the theatre of cancelling the performance was £60,000. The left wing anarchists pleaded not guilty, however Hannah Taylor, 23, Lydia Gribbin, 28, Hanan Ameur, 22, Noah Crane, 18, and Poppy Bliss, 19, were found guilty of aggravated trespass and will be sentenced at a later date. www.irishnews.com/news/uk/just-stop-oil-protesters-found-guilty-of-aggravated-trespass-at-west-end-show-PG52FVJYL5ICVKH5B27Y6SNORM/I sincerely hope these five privileged pampered entitled lefties get a minimum six months in Wormwood Scrubs. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 19, 2024 17:42:13 GMT
So that makes all Doctors guilty does it? Well, in that case: LINK let's sack every CEO and add them to the Sex Offender Register. All The Best Did I post that? Would you be happy to see her as your GP? Would you trust her? Issue with lefties like you is that you post one thing ( don't strike her off she's ''special'' because she's a doctor) and when the idiocy of your position is pointed out (another 'special' doctor bombed an airport) come over with a touch of the vapours and all unnecessary. Oh, I am not the one who exemplified idiocy by posting a story about an entirely different doctor, carrying out an entirely different crime, in an entirely different city to justify striking off a GP who has done nothing to harm anyone other voice an opinion some other idiots don't like. That was YOUI'd be perfectly happy to have Dr Susan Benn as my GP, she hasn't hurt anyone (except the feelings of those special snowflakes who don't like hearing opinion they can't understand), Dr Abdullah on the other hand has sought to harm people, so I would not be happy to have him as my GP. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 19, 2024 19:16:02 GMT
I'd be perfectly happy to have Dr Susan Benn as my GP, she hasn't hurt anyone (except the feelings of those special snowflakes who don't like hearing opinion they can't understand), Dr Abdullah on the other hand has sought to harm people, so I would not be happy to have him as my GP. All The Best No, she hasn't hurt anyone, but she was part of a group that took some pretty foolhardy risks which might have resulted in serious injury or death. I can't see how the profession can ignore that. This is a link to an application to have the injunction discharged which details the risks and some of the behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 19, 2024 19:48:29 GMT
I'd be perfectly happy to have Dr Susan Benn as my GP, she hasn't hurt anyone (except the feelings of those special snowflakes who don't like hearing opinion they can't understand), Dr Abdullah on the other hand has sought to harm people, so I would not be happy to have him as my GP. All The Best No, she hasn't hurt anyone, but she was part of a group that took some pretty foolhardy risks which might have resulted in serious injury or death. I can't see how the profession can ignore that. This is a link to an application to have the injunction discharged which details the risks and some of the behaviour. Well, if we are going to condemn people for what might have been I suggest we should all have criminal records. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 19, 2024 20:21:20 GMT
No, she hasn't hurt anyone, but she was part of a group that took some pretty foolhardy risks which might have resulted in serious injury or death. I can't see how the profession can ignore that. This is a link to an application to have the injunction discharged which details the risks and some of the behaviour. Well, if we are going to condemn people for what might have been I suggest we should all have criminal records. All The Best We do - inchoate offences like attempts and conspiracies, breaches of H&S legislation, etc.
More pertinently, do you suggest the medical profession should ignore the conduct of a member which was reckless with regard to the safety of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Apr 19, 2024 21:57:07 GMT
Well, if we are going to condemn people for what might have been I suggest we should all have criminal records. All The Best We do - inchoate offences like attempts and conspiracies, breaches of H&S legislation, etc.
More pertinently, do you suggest the medical profession should ignore the conduct of a member which was reckless with regard to the safety of others.
I am not even remotely convinced her actions were such. The ruling handed down has a lot more to do with the politics of making lawful protest almost impossible to achieve, leaving protestors no route but to break the law, than it does with the alleged risk of the actions of the protestors. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 20, 2024 4:39:02 GMT
We do - inchoate offences like attempts and conspiracies, breaches of H&S legislation, etc.
More pertinently, do you suggest the medical profession should ignore the conduct of a member which was reckless with regard to the safety of others.
I am not even remotely convinced her actions were such. The ruling handed down has a lot more to do with the politics of making lawful protest almost impossible to achieve, leaving protestors no route but to break the law, than it does with the alleged risk of the actions of the protestors. All The Best It's a point of view.
How about, do you suggest the medical profession should ignore the conduct of a member which is alleged to have been reckless with regard to the safety of others? |
|
