Good to see him being found guilty.
I hope the sentence is commensurate with the crime – hatred, supporting terrorism ….
What an interpretation! Typical carriage in front of horses. He hasn’t been sentenced or found guilty yet, but in Stu’s mind that has already happened, It’s ironic because most of those who are so quick to judge support state sponsored terrorism when it’s convenient … go figure …
What a typical failure to read the story – or check for more information by Beberts.
Per Pink News:
“Leeds Magistrates Court heard this week that Nicholas Scales admitted sending Mr Andrew an email after the incident … Scales, 41, pleaded guilty to sending malicious communication … Scales will be sentenced at a later date”
This is confirmed by various other news outlets.
He has been found guilty – he pleaded guilty.
He hasn’t been sentenced – hence why I said “I hope the sentence is commensurate with the crime”; hope being something that one anticipates or desires in the future. If it is in the future, then it has not yet happened.
What is wrong with seeking a commensurate sentence for someone who has pleaded guilty to a criminal offence?
Pleaded or found guilty? Better go into technical territory. And Stu has already decided he is guilty of “hatred, supporting terrorism …” Would he dare to guess the sentence and the punishment as well? Or should we wait for the real judges to decide?
Pleaded guilty and bailed to be sentenced – ergo court has found him guilty.
If you bothered to do your research and understand issues then you would be aware of it.
Laziness on your part, Beberts.
Its not my role or place to determine the sentence, nor did I intend to, I just hope its commensurate with the offence that he has admitted and for which his guilty plea has been accepted by the court.
Given that he himself made comments about terrorism – it seems perfectly reasonable for an observer to discuss this.
Oh, and I notice Beberts, you choose not to comment on my question – which I shall repeat for you (although you are usually too cowardly to answer questions) “What is wrong with seeking a commensurate sentence for someone who has pleaded guilty to a criminal offence?”
He pleaded guilty of sending the message. Nothing else.
What he pleaded guilty to was sending a malicious communication. I suggested the message was hate filled and supporting terrorism – which if you had bothered reading the story then you would have understood it.
Er Beberts, I’m embarrassed for you. Way to show yourself up as not very bright.
You haven’t suggested Stu. I have assumed. There is a difference. That’s the reason your carriage is in front of the horses.
I did suggest
You may also have assumed, but I did suggest
Perhaps your failure to comprehend (as exhibited by the exchanges above) is why you end up saying things that are incorrect, untrue and not based in fact.
Stu you’re missing a couple of key points here:
1) Its Beberts
2) The victim was Tory
Ergo, there could not possibly be any wrongdoing on the part of Mr Scales because anyone Tory is without exception sub-human and therefore fair target in the eyes of Beberts.
No point in muddying the waters with talk of convictions or guilty pleas – to Beberts there can be no crime if the victim is a tory
Well observed, Sister.
I had forgotten that logic was not a strong point of Beberts
How can Tories be sub-human Sister, when they think they’re above everyone else? For me, we are all at the same level, but I’m not denying all the attrocities committed by the Tory party. The Tories and the Nazzis will never change.
Well said Sister Mary!!!
Beberts, I believe you talking crazy again!
Perhaps reading the article instead of picking a couple of words is my advice to you… go figure…
A person pleads guilty to a charge not to individual facts. The defendant pleaded guilty to a criminal charge of sending a malicious communication. On his plea, the court then found him guilty.
Why is calling someone gay a “slur”?
He didn’t call them gay…he called him “queer” and a “mummies boy” (6th paragraph)
To me, the more important bits were that
“he accused Mr Andrew of “wasting police time” and suggested he “get [his] ******* job done” and suggested he did not know how to defend himself”
“expressed a desire for the IRA to reform and bomb a Tory party conference”
and linked both this issues to disparaging vocabulary about the orientation of the recipient.
Personally, I find this behaviour unacceptable.
Do you also find unacceptable the British presence in Northern Ireland Stu?
Any more tangential and we’d need M-Theory to explain the link you’re attempting to make. This is about homophobic abuse, not long-running territorial and cultural disputes.
Thats a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and has no connection to my opinion on this matter.
As ever Beberts throws tangents and asks questions (never answers them though – lacks the moral fibre required for that!) that bear no relevance to the subject in question.
As usual Stu accuses others of not answering direct questions posited to them, but fails to answer questions posited to him. What’s new?
However, when beberts is asked a question it is usually relevant to the issue being discussed (see above). He still refuses to answer the questions.
If it was a relevant question, I would choose to answer it – because I have the moral courage that Beberts lacks. (IMHO)
The accused has mentioned the IRA, so mentioning Northern Ireland appears to be entirely relevant to the discussion, but In Stu’s mind they are two unconnected and irrelevant issues…
I’m sorry beberts – I though you were seeking clarification on my comment – rather than my thought on something entirely unconnected to what I had just said.
I have just asked you a simple question, if you also find unacceptable the British presence in Northern Ireland. A yes or no would have sufficed.
Not going to be lectured by you, beberts, on answering questions !!!
The master of evasions and illusionism has nothing to learn … quelle surprise! Someone seems well geared into condemning terrorism, but hey, only when its convenient of course, no qualms involved … when it isn’t convenient, just make some smoke, tweak a few mirrors and hope no one will notice … I say, you should use those mirrors to look at yourself instead …
The many who pleaded guilty stated that he wanted a proscribed terrorist organisation to bomb someone and connected it to the orientation of the person he communicated that desire to. The person he communicated it to he stated was his desired target.
Perfectly reasonable to comment on terrorism being wrong and linking the person who admitted making this malicious communication to it.
Not reasonable to throw tangents into the subject (as is your usual wont) and which is why I shall not be addressing them. I certainly shall not bow down to your demands to answer questions, when you refuse to.
Tangents indeed, conveniently enjoyed or ignored at your own leisure…
Presuming you can understand what a tangent is (and given your comprehension on this story – it is doubtful), then I am pleased you recognise your outbursts are irrelevant in connection to this story.
Beberts “when it isn’t convenient, just make some smoke, tweak a few mirrors and hope no one will notice”
Did Beberts really have the audacity to say this about someone else, could there really be such a lack of self awareness?
Not half as unacceptable as your presence here mate.
There is no question here that Scales was guilty and yet you will not have it that anything wrong happened solely because the victim was a Tory.
You are disgusting
Of course wrong things happened. They do all the time. But never mind all the attrocities the Tories committed and are still committing, I’m sure if the victim was a Nazzi you’d also show your support and sympathy …
So because organisations others a members of have done wrong things – that justifys others sending malicious messages to them? Is that really what you are trying to say, Beberts?
Those who support iniquity or are connected to parties that do, can expect some iniquity back, can’t they?
I asked you a question, Beberts
As you have previously said “A yes or no would have sufficed.”
Do you really believe this behaviour should be excused because the recipient is a Tory MP, Beberts?
Of course not. His behaviour was awful, as much as that of those who ignore reality and (perhaps unawarely) toe the same line and replicate the cycle.. When I ask about the awful state sponsored terrorism being promoted against the Chagossians, or the Irish and Argentine nations, some just shrug their shoulders or give lame justifications for the continuing and already chronic problems. Terrorism doesn’t work in isolation, it’s a complex issue and operates in many ways. Anyone who is really interested in peace should know that. One can support or tacitly approve state sponsored terrorism, ignoring its ramifications, hoping for the best … well, it seems some of this “best” are typically just some violence in response. It shouldn’t take a genius to realise that.
This story is not about terrorism, its about malicious messages which endorse terrorism – do try and keep up.
Your obsession with the “Chaggosians” is irrelevant to this debate.
This story is either about terrorism or it isn’t. The Chagossians, the Irish and the Argentinians are still waiting for your support, and you keep making smoke and tweaking mirrors, Look inside the mirrors Stu, if you dare….
The story is about a malicious communication that suggested terrorism against an MP would be encouraged.
The story is about the acts of this individual, expressing it to then correlate to anything other than that is being tangental and irrelevant.
Of course, Beberts, understand this because irrelevance is his raison d’etre.
Beberts : “Those who support iniquity or are connected to parties that do, can expect some iniquity back, can’t they?”
In the context of this story that appears to suggest that Stuart Andrew deserved these repulsive and odious messages (only similarly odious people would support or endorse such crime).
However, when challenged about this Beberts performs a volte face, and says:
“Of course not. His behaviour was awful”
It seems when it suits Beberts he will ally himself with those who carry out repellant actions, but then will deny this when challenged. Its all very “smoke and mirrors”, denial and double standards where Beberts is concerned. He then tries to tangentally connect it to issues that lack relevance and anyone who refuses to engage in the irrelevance by Beberts “smoke and mirrors” and deceptions is a supporter of the issue he wishes to irrelevantly drag into an unconnected subject. In reality, the subject may be of
interest to some of those debating if the debate forum was relevant, but are not prepared to have a debate hijacked by deception.
This debate is about an individual crime of one person in Leeds and their comments – nothing more, nothing less.
If Beberts wants to discuss the N Ireland situation or the Chaggosian situation – he could very easily write a comment piece for PN or another outlet and an opportunity would present itself. The need to hijack other discussions, malign others (often not grounded in fact or understanding – as exhibited above) and to be aggressive would not occur. Perhaps, Beberts blood pressure would be helped too.
Stu, it’s too easy to knock your cover off, and it is so simple to make it impossible for someone like me to do that again. You just need to treat everyone alike. If you had vehemently condemned state sponsored terrorism the same way you condemn private citizens, I wouldn’t be here wasting my time challenging you. The question I have posited at the beginning of this thread remains unanswered by you, but here goes another question: Are you really sure your blood pressure is lower than mine? You can answer this question or remain silent. it’s up to you.
If its really important for you to know, my blood pressure is 115/72 this morning and thats around normal for me.
I am prepared to comment on each story on what is relevant to the story and state sponsored terrorism is a wide ranging area which has no relevance to this article (which is about individual conduct).
If you wish to comment on state sponsored terrorism on a relevant thread (perhaps writing a comment piece on it?) then I will comment in detail – you use sophistry to try and link it to stories where there is no basis to link it. You also present it as a simple question (despite your refusal to answer questions). When I suspect you are trying to lure readers and those commenting into a trap that deviates from the relevance of the comments and the subject matter of the article. More than happy to debate with you on this subject and explore either of our understandings on an article where it is appropriate – perhaps you could write one, given your passion for it.
And while you two ‘girls’ have been bitchin and bickering most others have had to search for the relevant comments to this story.
Stu… You know Beberts is on another planet… you know you can’t reach that single brain cell….. so why bother?
Make whatever irrelevant comment you wish to my comment about you Beberts!
Still postponing the inevitable, dealing with the issues posited to you. Your blood pressure seems OK Stu but is higher than mine, no points for you there…
Jock darling, I’m sorry I’ve been ignoring you lately, but don’t be so desperate to attract my attention, your time will come…
I hear what you are saying, but I will not lie down and take Beberts hypocrisy and irrelevance
If your BP is much lower than mine (depending on your age) then you might wish to get it checked as it somes potentially like essential hypotension.
oops somes= sounds
No hypotension either. There’s nothing to deal with there, Stu. The only issue (and question) left is still the one I have posited to you at the beginning of the thread, before you started with your usual evasive tactics.
Write a piece on the topic you want to debate and I will debate it with you, otherwise if you want to talk about this particular case – more than happy to discuss it with you.
Not evasion (although you repeatedly fail to answer questions put to you).
You now know the mechanism to get me to answer questions which you want the answer – and this is not hijacking discussions – write an article and you will get all my opinions relevant on that thread.
Unless and until you either do that or answer all questions put to you (and ideally both) your sophistry and attempts to deviate will not be responded to.
Stu, there’s no need to write an article to engage in a debate. My questions are sufficient enough to demonstrate your eagerness and promptness to throw whatever you want at others, while unwilling to engage in a debate afterwards. It shows your double faced standards. You were the first one to throw the word terrorism in here, do not forget that when others throw that word back to you. That’s what debating is all about.
Beberts continues with his fiction and irrelevance and deception.
His hypocrisy of refusing to answer questions whilst disparaging others who decline to where it is unconnected to the article in question.
His games, irrelevance and distraction are clear – and I ain’t playing on this thread with beberts no more, unless he sticks to the subject matter.
No doubt see you again elsewhere, Beberts, when you will continue to evade questions, throw in irrelevant tangents, bully, dominate and hijack the comments about subjects irrelevant to the article.
I challenge you to write an article where your comments may be appropriate – but I know you lack the moral fibre or capacity to do so.
Bigot Scales should resign. Political parties should boot those types out. I bet he’s against equal marriage too! Where is Ed Miliband in all this I wonder? Absolutely shameful and I hope the book is thrown at Scales. He’s unfit for office.
Scales isn’t an MP though, is he? From what I can find out he’s just some lone anti-Tory nutter (and a pretty hideous one at that) who lives in Surrey – why he felt it necessary to abuse a Yorkshire MP is anyone’s guess.
With respect, what has Scales got to resign from and what does Ed Miliband have to do with Scales?
I misread the article thinking he was an MP and of course he isn’t. If this man is a Labourite, then people like that should be admonished. Ed Miliband, as leader of his party, should speak out and condemn this sort of behaviour, be it an ordinary citizen or an MP. It has no place in British politics.
Fair play about the error.
I reckon (even though I am not his biggest fan) that Miliband will have condemned similar behaviour at some point – whether this specific incident, I have no idea.
Wel its ok 4 the rich gay tory boys trustees of crusaid 2 use aids charity møney to pay people off after email abuse! Equality in gay land dontcha just luv it !:-)