Tolerance And Inclusiveness (Part 2)

Tolerance & Inclusiveness Pt2 v2

Yossi Nehushtan and Stella Coyle: Ashers Baking (Part 2): Do Homophobes and Racists have a Right Not to Manifest Liberal Messages?

Interesting that the above blog post is considered suitable for a legal discussion forum, but the following isn’t considered appropriate as a comment on it:

“Do Homophobes and Racists have a Right Not to Manifest Liberal Messages?”

Surely some mistake?

You forgot Islamophobes and sexists!

And what about cakes with jolly cartoons celebrating Muhamed(pbuh) (perhaps with little Mohamed and Aisha figures to make them look more weddingey?)?

Oh, and what about misandrist and atheist cakes?!

But, of course, the big question is really:

What about if the “reasoning will result in vindicating behaviours that are founded on anti-CONSERVATIVE values, thus undermining core CONSERVATIVE values….. [with] the effect of betraying core CONSERVATIVE values”?!

And how, exactly, is opposing same sex marriage, repugnant, never mind discriminatory?

Marriage traditionally is not a right, but a RITE to promote the formation of potentially pro-creative pair bonds including (especially?) between gays.

Any straight, gay, bi, a, whatever, sexual born with a penis has ALWAYS had the EQUAL opportunity NON discriminatory RIGHT to marry ANY straight, gay, bi, a, whatever, sexual born with a vagina in the hope their coupling will create the next generation and save society from extinction.

Promoting “values” that seek to undermine that basic aim of any healthy society, never mind promoting inherently infertile pairing, that, surely, is what should be repugnant to any society that wants to CONSERVE its values?

It will, however, be publicised as an example of the tolerance and inclusiveness of the oh so 21st Century legal profession, especially it’s more academic and learned sections.

Advertisements

Tolerance And Inclusiveness (Part 1)

Tolerance & Inclusiveness Pt1 v2

The above is the second attempt at posting to:

Yossi Nehushtan and Stella Coyle: Ashers Baking (Part 1): The Supreme Court’s Betrayal of Liberalism and Equality

 

Text:

November 8, 2018

Interesting that the above blog post is considered suitable for a legal discussion forum, but the following isn’t considered appropriate as a comment on it:

I do hope Part 2 will fully cover artistic one legged black liberal secular lesbian couples asking a Muslim printer to print their atheistic Mohamed cartoons.

And also explain fully and clearly why marriage is a Uman Right rather than a Social RITE designed to favour, prom[ote], and once upon a time (and still in places like Saudi Arabia and Germany, reward) the bonding of opposite sex couples (regardless of gender or sexual leanings or preferences, or even lack of them) to form potentially procreative breeding pairs to propagate future generations of that society, so ensuring its survival.

A discussion on the liberal values view of murdering blacks, gays, and especially the disabled, in the context of the womb, would also be enlightening, given that the owner of that “Bed & Breakfast” service or Baby Bakery Bun Oven has, at most, a 50% (and the passive 50% at that) input into their entirely different, distinct, in fact unique, defining DNA!

I will, however, be publicised as an example of the tolerance and inclusiveness of the oh so 21st Century legal profession, especially it[]s more academic and learned sections.

Remainer Brexit Lies

 

Remainers keep insisting Brexit Leavers lied and/or were lied to by the Leave Lobbies.

One day I decided to jot down the Remainer lies I could think of.

And got over a couple of dozen off the top of my head.

And added a few more major ones I came across later

I kept meaning to tidy this up and post it somewhere but never got round to it:

Some of the Remainers lies (apologies, still drafting it):

 

Pre Referendum Remainer Lies

 

1. EU Immigration Is Good For The Economy

Many immigrants are working to save money to spend in their home countries.

That takes wealth out of our economy

2. EU Immigrants Pay More In Tax Than They Claim In Benefits

That claim is from a study from an EU funded social “science” “research” institute.

It only applies to EU immigrants, even that “study” said non EU immigrants/refugees cost us money.

It is based on the average of out of date figures from a period from some years ago.

It is based on highly paid in work immigrants, eg doctors, bankers, entrepreneurs.

It only counts benefits claimed, not benefits used or provided, eg emergency services, roads, schools, etc.

Or any of the other expenditure that taxes are needed to fund, armed forces, foreign aid, etc.

So the more productive EU immigrants of the past didn’t even pay for themselves, never mind all immigrants.

And since the new accession immigrants started flooding in working EU immigrants aren’t even covering non-working EU immigrants benefits claims!

3. We Have An Ageing Population and Not Enough Young To Look After Them

But this is just deferring the problem – what is going to happen when the immigrants retire?

Or are the Remainers arguing all immigrants should be repatriated when they reach 60?

4. Fall of Disposable Household Income by £4,300

The calculations were (one) projection of a (possible) fall in GDP, not the same thing as household income at all (unless all corporate income is paid out to – local – suppliers, employees, shareholders and the government – if any is diverted out of the country – eg Starbucks, Google……. then it all falls apart).

Not only that, it wasn’t a fall, it was a slower rise than another projection.

And not only that, they divided the gross future projected GDP figure by the smaller CURRENT number of households, NOT the much larger number of future households!

A hat trick of lies in one false claim about economic guesstimates!

5. Emergency Budget

There would have to be an immediate Emergency Budget with spending cuts and raised taxes

6. Emergency Pension Cuts

There would have to be immediate emergency cuts in the State Pension

7. World War Three Would Start If We Left

No further comment needed!

8. Labour and the Unions Support Remain

Labour and the Unions traditionally EuroSceptic

Tony Benn, Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn and TUC all anti EU

Cameron bought off TUC by changing Trade Union law.

TUC bought off Corbyn.

But some maverick Labour MPs and Trade Unions still supported Brexit.

9. EU Protects Workers Rights

EU forced Greece and Hungary to ban collective bargaining.

For those doubter Remainers out there (that would be all of them):

http://www.worker-participation.eu/National-Industrial-Relations/Countries/Greece/Collective-Bargaining

http://www.tuaeu.co.uk/the-eu-attacks-wages-and-collective-bargaining/

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-eu-has-done-nothing-for-workers-rights/18464#.V5fuzzXsGRw

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-8f95-The-growing-myth-of-social-Europe#.V5fv6jXsGRw

10. EU Protects Workers Jobs

Look at Southern Europe, especially youth unemployment.

11. EU Protects Industry

EU gives grants to investors in UK to move their factories to Eastern Europe, and even non EU Turkey – Ford Transit Production

12. UK Financial Services Won’t Be Able To Operate in EU If We Leave

As I understand it the Financial Services Passport being scrapped in New Year, any bank, etc, whose country has EU levels of regulation, eg UK, will be able to operate in EU

13. The EU Protects Women’s Rights

It was EU regulations which forced the UK to have a Tampon Tax!

14. The Leave Campaigners Didn’t Have A “Plan A”

The Leavers weren’t a Government!

The Leavers weren’t even a party!!

They were a campaign group to get the government to get us out of the EU!!!

It was the government’s job to actually get us out, and the government should have had a plan ready when it put the referendum in their manifesto!

15. We Won’t Have Access To The EU Free Trade Zone

The whole world has access to the EU Free Trade Zone, it just doesn’t all have tariff-free access to it!

We currently import about half of our food, much of it tariff free from the EU, but have to charge the 30%, is it, EU tariff on all the food we import from the rest of the world.

When we leave the EU we can have tariff free imports from the rest of the world.

If the EU wants to insist on charging 30% tariffs on the tiny amount of food we sell to it, and on paying 30% tariffs on the enormous amount of food we buy from the EU, that’s their problem, not ours, especially as the world will be our tariff free oyster.

16. The £350 Million Figure Is A LIE!

It’s what we hand control of over to the EU and is the only hard figure available.

Grants and subsidies haven’t yet been fully claimed, and often require match-funding.

The rebate depends on the (reviewable by the EU up to three years later) GDP and the amount of grant received.

The veto on scrapping the rebate has as much worth as Ireland or Holland or France’s veto they had a referendum on and either had to vote again, or were ignored!

17. If We Leave The Economy Will Crash

The Pound and the Property Market were over valued and due a fall.

One of the main factor in strong prices is confidence, in poor figures is uncertainty.

Everyone was, and still is, exaggerating, or even fabricating, the level of uncertainty, and talking down the UK and its economy, so any falls were largely the result of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

18. Leavers Are Uneducated

When Old Fogey Leavers were educated half the country didn’t go to university and get degrees like today.

But that’s because hardly anyone went to university, only the most academic high flyers, who took academically demanding, high flying, theoretical courses.

Most people took lower level courses and qualifications, that could well have been much more demanding than today’s “degrees”: HNDs, ONDs, HNCs, ONCs, A Levels, O Levels, apprenticeships. Most of today’s “graduates” wouldn’t have even been able to cope with O Levels, never mind A Levels, from the “Olden Days”!

Most people in the “Olden Days” went straight to work after school, whether it was down’ ‘pit or into a manual apprenticeship at 13, into a bank at 16, or into management or public service administration, or a technical apprenticeship (eg aircraft design) at 17 or 18.

Sydney (Hurricane) Camm left school at 15 to become an apprentice carpenter, then became a carpenter at an aircraft company where he moved to the drawing office, after working for another aircraft company, he joined Hawker at around 30 as a senior draughtsman

R J (Spitfire) Mitchell left school at 16, gained an apprenticeship at a locomotive engineering works then worked in the drawing office while studying engineering and mathematics at night school, joining Supermarine at the age of 22.

Barnes (Bouncing Bomb) Wallis left school at 17 for an apprenticeship in an aircraft design office.

Frank (Jet Engine) Whittle left school to become an RAF apprentice, eventually getting a degree six years after patenting his turbojet design.

Albert Einstein originally went to teacher training college. Marconi never formally attended a university.

Tommy (Colossus Computer) Flowers undertook a mechanical engineering apprenticeship at the Royal Arsenal while studying for his degree in electrical engineering in evening classes at the University of London. At about 21 he joined the Post Office (GPO) telecommunications branch.

The world today’s “Graduates” live in was invented, designed and built by us Old Fogeys. Remember even Bill Gates and Paul Allen, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and Theodore (Gateway Computers) Waitt were University drop-outs, as were Michael Dell, Tom (MySpace) Anderson, Julian (Wikileaks) Assange, Evan (Twitter) Williams, Mark (Facebook) Zuckerberg and Dustin (Facebook) Moskovitz, Larry (Oracle) Ellison, Jan (WhatsApp) Koum, Travis (Uber) Kalanick, Bram (BitTorrent) Cohen, David (Tumblr) Karp, Kevin (Digg) Rose, Shawn (Napster) Fanning.

Then there’s people like architect Frank Lloyd Wright, geodesic dome inventor Buckminster Fuller, entrepreneur and innovator Ingvar (IKEA) Kamprad.

Others without a degree include Da Vinci, van Leeuwenhoek, Faraday, Goodyear (tyres), Darwin, Joule, Mendel, Edison, and the Wright Brothers!

Not to mention Richard Branson, Ray (McDonalds) Kroc, Colonel Harlan (KFC) Sanders, Dave (Wendy’s) Thomas, Simon (X-Factor) Cowell, Roman Abramovich…..

Oh, and don’t forget most meejah and sports stars didn’t go to university!

Although most old fogey trendy-lefty journos probably did, though they probably spent all their time protesting!

19. Winston Churchill would have voted for Remain/Supported the EU

Winston’s grandson — Remainer Nicholas Soames — even dismissed claims Churchill would have voted Leave as ‘appalling’ and ‘totally wrong’.

However Churchill proposed and supported regional groupings, like mini United Nations or regional Commonwealths, NOT federal superstates, for not just Europe, but the Americas, Africa, Asia. But he was clear that Great Britain should not face Europe, but towards the sea, and that the UK’s place was in a Commonwealth of former colonies, including the US!

‘We are linked to Europe, but not combined,’ wrote Churchill in 1930. ‘We are interested and associated but not absorbed.’

20. We’re Better Off Changing The EU From The Inside

We’ve been on the inside for 43 years and the only change we’ve seen is ever closer union!

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!!!

21. Brexit Will Deprive Our Young Of The Chance To Work Abroad

With up to 50% youth unemployment in Europe, and the youth of Europe having to come to the UK to find work, what on earth makes our youth think there are opportunities for them abroad in the EU?!

22. Leaving Will Prevent Us From Travelling, Living, and Working in The EU

We manage to travel, live and work in non EU parts of Europe, and managed to do so in the EU before we joined.

23. There Are More/As Many UK Citizens Working/Living In The EU Than EU Citizens Working/Living In The UK And They Will All Be Repatriated

Remain finally scaled back to the true figures of around 3 Million EU citizens working or claiming benefits here and around 1 Million Brits working or retired in the EU, not over 2 Million as Remainers originally claimed.

There is no way, say, Spain, or anywhere else in the EU, is going to expel the pensioners who pump their UK pensions and savings into the Spanish economy, employing cooks, gardeners, maids, and providing income for bar and shop owners.

24. Old People Don’t Have A Right To Vote Away Our Future/They’ll Soon Be Dead

Old people created their future. Their fathers and brothers gave their lives for it.

On the basis of our experience and wisdom we are voting for what we think is best for our unborn grandchildren.

25. We Can’t Leave The EU And Then Pick And Choose Which Bits We Want To Keep/The EU Will Dictate The Rules/Can’t Change Them

Lichtenstein doesn’t have to accept free movement.

Iceland doesn’t have to accept free movement of capital.

Mexico has special favoured status and isn’t in the EU.

But, more importantly, we don’t want to be in their club.

And it is the EU who will be wanting tariff-free access to the UK market, not the other way round:

If the EU wants to pay, is it 30%, tariffs to continue selling, or, rather, trying to sell, us lots of food when we will be able to get tariff-free food from the rest of the world, that’s their economic funeral!

26. We Will Lose Research Grants/Won’t Be Able To Cure Cancer

It’s our taxes, or what’s left of them after going through Brussels, and then often several layers of EU related Quango.

You don’t even have to be in the EU to get EU research grants!

27. We Will Lose Access To Education Grants/Won’t Be Able To Study Abroad

It’s our taxes, or what’s left of them after going through Brussels, and then often several layers of EU related Quango.

You don’t even have to be in the EU to get EU education grants!

Turkey is in the Erasmus+ Programme! The Russian Federation is an Erasmus Partner!! Countries across North Africa and out across the rest of the World have access to the scheme!!!

28. Voting Leave/Campaigning For Leave Is Racist/Excuses/Gives the Green Light To/Increases Hate Crime And Racist Attacks

Hate crimes encompass a lot more than race, and any “surges” are in REPORTS and not incidents, and it is not the Leavers, but the Remainers, and the media, who are stirring up the trouble, if there is any, and not just that, the media are fabricating and magnifying any disturbances. And the police, “anti”-hate “charities, and Remainers are touting for and encouraging the submission of “reports”.

For example, there was a big fuss from the police, and the media, about a “race hate” “incident” on a Manchester tram.

But it was a merely verbal abuse, by drunks that might just as easily have “attacked” a fat b’stard, a four-eyed git, a fat s1ag, or a ginger minger, or a trendy-lefty Guardianista for that matter.

They were “abusing” a Latino Yank and telling him to go back to Africa, about as far as you can get from the Brexit agenda.

On the Manchester Police Faceplace thingy the usual suspects were calling for the “attackers” to be locked up for life and throw the key away if they can’t actually be hung, as well as abusing anyone who was a Leaver.

And when a contributor pointed out that on the same day there had been a physical assault on a bus driver and a s€xual assault on a YOUNG girl (7?) and no one, least of all the Police, were taking any notice of them, another responded that they were political point-scoring and of course ALL THREE incidents were EQUALLY serious?!?!?

However, the Bus driver incident was referred to in passing in later news.

Supposedly someone (a drunk?) had phoned a Caribbean rest home and made threats, which necessitated a full evacuation and lock-down situation across Greater Manchester?!?!?

Apparently it was in retaliation for the attack on the bus driver, which would indicate that the driver was white, and the attackers not, but I’m guessing, because the reports I’ve seen never mentioned any such details?!?!?

It would be interesting to hear the “details” of the s€xual assault too.

And whether the Remainers feel that by their campaign they were giving the green light to assaults on the indigenous population by immigrants!

And I note that another lead story is of the widowed pensioner who had excrement pushed through her letterbox and daren’t leave her home.

Which, strangely, is EXACTLY the same story Enoch Powell told in his so-called “Rivers of Blood” speech (which had nothing to do with blood, never mind rivers of it), except his widowed pensioner who had excrement pushed through her letterbox and daren’t leave her home was English, not German, and the press insisted his story was a LIE! (it was eventually shown to be true, he’d just been prepared to sacrifice his reputation to protect her) unlike the current one which they automatically accept to be gospel.

29. Leave Is On The Wrong Side Of History/Out Of Step With Civilised Opinion

According To A Spectator Article the latest Pew Global Attitudes Survey reports that 73 per cent of voters in Holland oppose ‘ever closer union’, and 85 per cent in Sweden. In Greece, it’s 86 per cent. Even in core EU member states like Germany, Italy and France, no fewer than 68, 65 and 60 per cent of voters, respectively, reject Brussels-driven empire building.

30. Hardly Any/Only 13% Of Our Laws Come From Brussels/60% Is A LIE!

The two figures come from the SAME report:

.  13% of our laws are written in Westminster under EU direction
+49% of our laws are written in Brussels
=62% in Total of our laws come from the EU

And one of Remain’s Project FEAR SCARES was that we are entangled in so much Brussels red tape and regulations that if we voted Leave it would take decades to untangle, if it was at all possible, during which time our government would be paralysed, our economy destroyed, our children’s futures ruined, World War Three would start and the World would End!!!

31. And remember, they can’t undo the decision we take. If we vote out, that’s it. It is irreversible. We will leave Europe for good.

But once we voted for leave we had to have another referendum to reverse the irreversible and do the undoable?!?!

32. A (Or Was It Two) Company(/ies) Are THINKING Of Leaving The UK If The UK Leaves The EU

I’m aware of around half a dozen at least significant, if not major international, companies announcing they were moving to the UK, or were going ahead with major investments in the UK, in the run up to the Referendum, REGARDLESS of whether we left the EU!

Strangely, despite the massive media coverage of the companies THINKING of leaving, there was almost NO coverage of the companies actually coming or investing here, I’m only aware of them because people had picked the stories up in their local papers and spread the word on social media!

 

33. Brexiteers are worried about immigration but most is from outside the EU – leaving the EU won’t stop immigration

Firstly no Leaver said they wanted to stop all immigration, EU immigration, or non-EU immigration, they wanted to take back CONTROL of our borders.

Secondly while most legal and illegal immigrants might originate from outside the EU they don’t get here in rubber dinghies across the Atlantic, they get here by crossing the no-borders EU, often gaining EU passports on the way, and a RIGHT to enter and stay in the UK.

And, thirdly, it’s EU Human Rights laws that stop us getting rid if immigrants that shouldn’t be here or are no longer welcome.

 

========================

Post Referendum Remainer Lies

 

1. Leave Should Have Had A Bigger Lead/60% Of the Vote To Count

Remain had a Remain campaign group, with its Remain budget.

Plus the Government campaigning for Remain, with an even bigger budget.

Plus most of the Labour Party, and the Lib Dems, and the SNP……

Plus the government had been preparing the Remain campaign months in advance (eg “asking” companies who do – £BILLIONS of – business with the government to support the Remain campaign and even put statements into their annual reports saying their company would be harmed by Brexit).

Plus the Remain camp had access to Civil Service support while the few Leave Ministers weren’t even allowed to see documents relating to the EU in the run up to the referendum!

The original, true-blue, dyed in the wool, dedicated Leave campaigners, UKIP, were relegated to a support act and the Leave campaign funding was given to a new Leave campaign group chosen by the government of dubious dedication and resolve.

Oh, and the Remainers had most of the media, the luvvies, the Bank of England, the Police, the EU, friendly overseas politicians, EU employees and former employees (who lose their diamond encrusted EU pension if they don’t support the EU), even the traditionally Eurosceptic unions, which Cameron bought with changes to Trade Union Legislation, etc, spouting propaganda on its behalf, and spreading Project FEAR and Project SHAME spin!!!

All that was worth far more than 10% ! ! !

 

2. Leave Did Not Have A clear win

(Copied from someone else’s post)

In a binary referendum the winner is the one who achieves 50% + 1 vote.

Leave won with 50% + 1,269,501 votes.

Leave won 270 polling areas
Remain won 129 polling areas

Leave won in 9 regions
Remain won in 3 regions

Translated into seats under our present FPTP system (bit of fun, I know)

Leave 440 seats
Remain 220 seats

The margin of victory for Leave is clear, convincing and brooks no argument.

 

3. The New Prime Minister Won’t/Doesn’t Have A Mandate/There Should Be A General Election

In the UK we don’t have a President.

We don’t vote for a Prime Minister.

We vote for local candidates to become MPs.

The one who has the best chance of forming government does so.

If that person dies, resigns, or whatever, then the next most likely takes over and forms a government from the current intake of MPs until the next election.

The Tories have a majority in parliament, holding a referendum was in their manifesto, it was made quite clear in the enabling act that the government intended to honour the will of the people, there was a majority for Leave, May is the new leader of the party with the majority and is forming the new government, which will take us out of the EU, there is nothing there that would trigger an election, regardless of whether anybody is happy with it or not.

 

4. [British] “Europol chief says Brexit would harm UK crime-fighting” – Guardian
“Rob Wainwright says UK risks losing access to a European security database used daily by police”
“….leaving the EU meant the UK would become ‘a second-tier member of our club'”

After the Referendum he told the Today programme:

“We’re dealing very much with a globalised problem that requires close co-operation with our European neighbours, particularly in information sharing. That’s going to continue of course, even after the UK leaves the EU.”

According to the Spectator:

“Wainwright will know that Britain will still certainly have a working relationship with Europol: There is a long list of countries from outside the EU, including the likes of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine, who do at the moment. Whilst further afield, Australia, Canada and the Colombia enjoy an ‘operational agreement’ with Europol.”

 

5. Scotland voted to stay in the EU

The Referendum was on: “should the UK remain in or leave the EU”.

The UK voted to leave.

Scotland voted to remain in the UK in their Independence Referendum.

In the full knowledge of the impending EU Brexit Referendum!

 

6. Only Two States Voted Leave. The Majority of UK States Want To Remain

Brexit won the “Popular Vote” IN A POPULAR VOTE REFERENDUM!

The two states that voted leave comprised about 60 million of the population.

Little Scotland, tiny Northern Ireland and miniscule Gibraltar only have a population of about 6 million!

Strange how the same people who want the “Popular Vote” THAT WAS NEVER TAKEN in the US to overturn the Electoral College States majority also want the “Popular Vote” THAT *WAS* HELD on Brexit to be overturned and replaced with a state based constituency vote THAT WAS NEVER HELD?!?!?

 

7. Oh, and the UK “liberals” and “democrats” think that the “constituency” State votes in the US Presidential Election that was ACTUALLY held should be replaced by a NON EXISTENT “Popular Vote” that wasn’t campaigned for, didn’t have an advertising budget, and for which many Trump supporters in California and New York and some other big population, guaranteed Democrat vote didn’t bother turning out for.

While demanding the EXACT OPPOSITE happen with the Brexit vote?!?!?

 

8. Oh, oh, and what’s this massive bill the EU is going to hit us with before we’re allowed to leave?!?!?

You don’t mean the EU actually costs us loads more than even the Leavers suspected?!?!?!!!!

 

9. Snap General election lost by Leavers

No, both Tories AND Labour agree that the vote was Leave and we should leave, as did UKIP, so something like 80% of voters voted for Leave supporting parties.

May merely lost seats to other Brexit supporting parties!!!

========================

Other Lists of Referendum Remainer Lies

Even The “Independent” managed to admit:

3. ‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne

5. ‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthew-ellery/leave-lies-remainers-need_b_12191462.html

Almost identical blog with pictures for the hard of thinking:

View story at Medium.com

https://brexitcentral.com/audacious-lie-referendum-campaign-remainers-claim-immigration/

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-were-the-lies-of-the-Remain-Campaign

http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/remembering-remain-predictions-for-brexit/

http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/remains-arguments-have-been-proven-false/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3655236/Nailed-four-big-EU-lies-Talks-Turkey-stall-Brexit-WON-T-spark-trade-war-say-Germans-Brussels-NOT-reform-open-borders-deportation-jobless-EU-migrants-myth.html

 

View story at Medium.com

She Doesn’t Like These Words Either – (Not) Dun Blamin

And “I Like Words” Didn’t Like These Words Too (3):

An Unequal Justice – and an Unequal Legacy

 

An Unequal Justice – and an Unequal Legacy

wont-somebody-please-think-of-the-children[1]

So she DELETED these words:

“Take the Dunblane massacre, for example. In March 1996, 16 children and one teacher were killed by a single gunman, Thomas Hamilton, who then turned the gun on himself. The massacre shocked the local community and the entire country, and led to a permanent change in British gun ownership laws. In February 1997, Parliament passed a law banning private ownership of any gun over .22 calibre, and in November 1997 this was extended to all handguns. There has not been a school shooting in the United Kingdom since.”

And how many before?

Especially in Victorian and Edwardian times when gun control was effectively non-existent and ownership widespread and commonplace?!

Before firearms controls gun murders were almost unheard of (as in Switzerland now).

Neither were there many shootings in the first half of the last century when there were only limited, light touch, controls.

Then the 1967 Criminal Justice Act required licences – but not registration – for shotguns.

And hard on its heels, the 1968 Firearms Act consolidated existing laws and gave the Home Office the right to set fees for shotgun licenses.

So the Hungerford massacre in August 1987 followed the tightening up of gun controls!

Then we had the knee-jerk Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles; weapons which fire explosive ammunition; short shotguns with magazines; and elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles. Registration was also made mandatory for shotguns, which were required to be kept in secure storage.

These even more draconian controls were followed in 1996 by the killings in Dunblane, when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary school children and their teacher with four legally-held pistols.

Deciding that the medicine wasn’t working, so more of the same medicine was required, the Conservative government drew up legislation banning handguns above .22 calibre. But following their general election victory, Labour introduced the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which outlawed .22s as well.

Which were followed by “a series of high-profile shootings” to quote the BBC!

So we then had the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 introduced.

Which was followed by the Cumbria shootings in June 2010.

And most of the shootings since have been with totally banned pistols and even more totally banned full-auto weapons!

And contrary to the cherry picked dozen or even half dozen [country (out of 200 to 250 of them)]* league tables the gun ban lobby present, high legal gun ownership countries have low gun homicides and vice versa.

In fact Switzerland is nearly falling off the bottom of the gun [murder]* league table.

Serbia and Israel, two other countries near the top of the ownership table, are three quarters of the way down the gun murder league table.

And even the US is around, or even below, depending on year/table, half way down.

The US isn’t even at the top of the gun deaths table, despite the massive availability of guns for suicide, usually coming between 6th to 10th!

With countries above having very strict controls on (legal) gun ownership!

You shouldn’t believe every lie you are told!!!

[……]* Correction as per also deleted follow up post

 

And replaced them with these words:

ilikewords23 says:
June 12, 2018 at 6:06 am

I’ve deleted half your comments on this and other blogs. Please understand I welcome comments on my blogs but not to the extent of one reader picking apart every line of the blog in lengthy, separate responses and then adding a number of extra points of their own, as you seem to enjoy doing. I notice you have your own blog – can I suggest you put your own thoughts into a blog post of your own and post it on your own site? Feel free to link to it here if it is intended as a response to a blog of mine. I do appreciate you taking the time to read and comment on my blogs but it becomes a bit much when the responses are longer than the original post!

To which I replied:

But I note you have kept the half truths about Dunblane in your original post.

What I enjoy doing is highlighting hypocrisy and censorship, as with the Robinson case.

Not to mention half-truths.

The Sacred Barrister’s piece being a case in point.

 

And her response was:

ilikewords23 says:
June 12, 2018 at 2:06 pm

What I wrote about Dunblane was not a “half-truth” – I think you simply missed the point I was trying to make. I wasn’t aiming to talk about gun control, or to dissect all the ins and outs of Dunblane, or gun murders. My point was simply that the Dunblane massacre precipitated a change in our gun laws – it was offered up as an example of other brutal murders, besides Stephen Lawrence’s, which have had lasting impacts on our laws and society. The fact that gun laws were tightened as a direct result of Dunblane is not a half-truth; it is a simple fact, regardless of whether or not you agree with the logic of it. As I suggested above, if you wish to write your own blog post looking at any one of the issues you feel I have not covered in sufficient detail for your liking, then by all means do so – but given you are not paying me to write this blog, I would suggest your chances of getting me to rewrite my post to include all the issues you feel aggrieved about, are somewhere between slim and none.

My reply to that is:

I get the point you were trying to make.

I was addressing the point you made without trying.

The “fact” that gun laws were tightened as a “direct” result of Dunblane IS a half-truth; NOT a simple fact, regardless of whether or not you agree with the logic of it.

For a start the “fact” is that that gun laws were tightened as a “direct” result of emotive, emotionally-incontinent, emoting, guilt-inducing, emotional-blackmailing, immature, illogical, unreasonable, hysterical, won’t-someone-think-of-the-children, lobbying by the anti-gun, gun-ban lobby, which resulted in the similar knee-jerk response by the noisy minority, which in turn resulted in the cowardly surrender of both major political parties to their gun-ban MPs and those pro-liberty ones who were too weak and fearful to resist the lobbying, which in turn led to even more draconian gun controls “because” of the one-off, unique, never to be repeated, freak, outlier incident of Dunblane.

In fact the “fact” that gun laws were tightened as a “direct” result of Dunblane is not even a quarter-truth, and very far from a simple “fact”, regardless of whether or not you agree with the logic of it.

The really simple fact is that that gun murders were almost unheard of in the UK a century ago (the simple fact is a couple of centuries ago more babies died falling out of their prams than adults died by gun-homicide here, despite gun-controls being non existent and gun ownership widespread), but after each tightening of controls, things got worse.

Dunblane was simply the EXCUSE for that round of the “progressive” self-styled liberals’ salami-slicing attack on gun ownership.

I never suggested that you had not covered anything in sufficient detail for my, or anyone else’s liking , nor that I was paying you to write this blog.

And I rightly guessed my chances of getting you to rewrite your post to include all the issues I feel are grievously wrong are somewhere between slim and none.

I merely though you, and others, might like to hear some real facts.

But it would appear that guns bad – control good, while not your main point for your post, was certainly *A* point you wanted to make.

If the point you were trying to make WAS:

“…..simply that the Dunblane massacre precipitated a change in our gun laws…..”

You could have posted simply that:

“The Dunblane massacre precipitated a change in our gun laws.”

Or even if it WAS simply that:

“The Dunblane massacre precipitated a change in our gun laws – it’…s offered up as an example of other brutal murders, besides Stephen Lawrence’s, which have had lasting impacts on our laws and society… gun laws were tightened as a direct result of Dunblane.”

You could have posted simply that:

“The Dunblane massacre precipitated a change in our gun laws – an example of… brutal murders… which have had lasting impacts on our laws and society… gun laws were tightened as a…result of Dunblane…”

But you didn’t.

You posted:

“Take the Dunblane massacre, for example. In March 1996, 16 children and one teacher were killed by a single gunman, Thomas Hamilton, who then turned the gun on himself. The massacre shocked the local community and the entire country, and led to a permanent change in British gun ownership laws. In February 1997, Parliament passed a law banning private ownership of any gun over .22 calibre, and in November 1997 this was extended to all handguns. There has not been a school shooting in the United Kingdom since.” [My emphasis]

Which sounds a lot more like a statement or claim about the horrors of gun ownership, and the (believed) benefits of gun control.

You could have said he killed 17.

There was no need to stress *SINGLE* gunman (or if you really needed to establish there weren’t more than one you could have said “lone gunman”.

Or even just given his name – oh, you did!

So it sounds more like you were really saying “all it takes is a single person to kill so many kiddies if he’s armed with a gun – won’t somebody think of the children?!?!

“shocked… entire country… permanent change in British gun ownership laws”

“Permanent”?!

You do know how the British Parliamentary and legal systems works, don’t you?

Or are you assuming we’re permanently trapped in the EU?!

“There has not been a school shooting in the United Kingdom since.”

And there wasn’t one before Dunblane either, when we had no to low gun control and vastly more guns in legal circulation!

 

By the way, in tiny Rwanda, population around five million, and dropping off the bottom of the gun ownership league table, they managed to butcher 800,000 men, women, and children in a mere hundred days (that’s THREE TIMES the kill-rate of the Holocaust!), using nothing more lethal than an assortment of blunt kitchen utensils and rusty garden implements, plus the odd sharpened stick, or blunt object!

 

And in Asia, mass killings with bladed weapons (literally running Amok – cf going Berserk) are commonplace, especially where firearms are banned!

 

Oh, and modern mass school shootings in the States started in 1999.

Guns have probably been around since around the year 1000.

Oldest surviving example dates to around the year 1100.

Revolvers go back half a millennium.

Full-auto weapons go back centuries.

Mass production of revolvers started in the early 1800s.

And mass production of full-auto weapons in the late 1800s.

And they were effectively banned for ordinary civilians in the 1930s in the US and UK.

 

Oh, oh, and “Assault RIFLES” are full-auto rifles and so have been banned since the 1930s.

“Assault WEAPONS” are simply (NON full-auto) modern sporting rifles made with similar materials and in similar style to “modern” (ie WW2 and later) military weapons, as opposed to iron, wood, brass and silver musket style (WW1 and earlier) rifles, that the gun ban lobby try to confuse the public into thinking are full-auto military weapons and so should be banned too!

And they, and all other legal for general public purchase, rifles, are only used in a tiny proportion of gun murders (but frequently for self defence) in the States!

 

So if people were REALLY thinking of the children they would be ignoring guns, which have been around for a Millennia, they would be ignoring Assault “Weapons” (the real thing, actual full-auto weapons, were available legally for half a century a century ago, and there were no mass school shootings with them, and Assault Weapons have been available for half a century before modern mass school shootings started):

And trying to find out what has happened since the turn of the century to cause mass school shootings.

 

One thing cries out for investigation:

Prescription and illegal mind altering substances.

 

Yes, not everyone who uses them goes crazy.

But everyone who goes crazy seems to have used them!

(And you never hear the Won’t Somebody Please Think Of The Children lobby telling us that most people who drive over the speed – or even alcohol – limit never ever kill any kiddies – or anyone else for that matter!)

 

Has there been a significant change in drugs available, chemistry, typical dosage, number of people drugged, cocktails of drugs taken……. since a little before the turn of the Millennium?!

She Doesn’t Like These Words – A Political Powder Keg!

“I Like Words” Didn’t Like These Words Either:

A Political Powder-Keg?

A Political Powder-Keg?

Posted on May 30, 2018

More Words She Didn’t Like:

No doubt this isn’t applicable to this blog either:

Postponement of fair and accurate reports

• Under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 the court *may* postpone publication of a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of its proceedings where that is *necessary* to avoid a *substantial* risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings
• The power is strictly limited to fair, accurate reports and contemporaneous reports of the proceedings
• The court must be satisfied that a *substantial* risk of prejudice would arise from such reports
• If the concern is potential prejudice to a future trial, in making that judgment, the court *will* bear in mind the tendency for news reports to fade from public consciousness *and* the conscientiousness with which it can normally be expected that the jury in the subsequent case will follow the trial judge’s directions to reach their decision exclusively on the basis of evidence given in that case
• Before making a s.4(2) order, the court *must* be satisfied that the order would eliminate the risk of prejudice and that there is *no* less restrictive measure that could be employed
• If satisfied of these matters, the court *must* exercise its discretion balancing the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice against the strong public interest in the full reporting of criminal trials
*abc* = My emphasis

Also deleted by “I [Dis]Like [Too Many] Words”

 

UPDATE 13.06.2018

 

She Doesn’t Like These Words – Sacred Barrister!

A lesson for the Secret Barrister – from Jane Austen

A lesson for the Secret Barrister – from Jane Austen

Posted on May 30, 2018

Words She Didn’t Like:

How do you know SB is not lying?

Or that he gives a very good explanation?

Are you a QC? Criminal Law Professor?!

Or are you just repeating his claims, which some, including lawyers agree with, and others, including lawyers, don’t.

Let’s split the difference and agree he was telling a lot of half truths, shall we?

Which his blatant prejudice and bias should have forewarned you of.

For example there isn’t a crime of being suspected of being about to breach the peace.

Reporting restrictions are limited by all kinds of considerations.

And punishment for breach/contempt of them by several more.

Though judges like to forget the fact.

And he didn’t breach the conditions of his suspended sentence?

And the fact that a judge said otherwise doesn’t alter the fact.

Did you see recent Jeremy Thorpe trial dramatization?

“….it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact, and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.”

– Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Virginia,” 1782

“…the great principle of Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury…are the supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgment by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments.”

– Winston Churchill 1943

“His Lordship may tell you that to his heart’s content. As a great Lord Chief Justice of England, a judge superior in rank to any in this Court, once said, “It is the duty of the Judge to tell you as a jury what to do, but you have the power to do exactly as you like.” And what you do, Members of the Jury, is a matter entirely between God and your own consciences….”

– Horace Rumpole 1998

But, of course, there was no jury for Mr Robinson!

As you had linked to the Secret Barrister’s publicly available blog (under which he has closed comments after I’m certain he’d published three, though only two are still there) I’d assumed you thought your readers might be interested, and so I posted my unpublished responses under the obviously mistaken assumption you and they would be interested in the kind of questions people were asking him.

My mistake.

Feel free to delete this comment too.

Oh, and asking defendants if they’ve “got their prison bags” (not “packed” – the big bags they were carrying) says nothing, though their answers might have revealed something after sentencing, which wasn’t the situation.

 – DELETED by “I Like Words

————————

Words neither the “Sacred” Barrister nor “I Like Words” liked:

What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know.

Mr B J Mann says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 29, 2018 at 11:38 pm

1. Why was Tommy Robinson arrested?

“……West Yorkshire police, having been alerted to his activities, arrested Lennon at the scene.”

I’d heard that he was filming from a point agreed with the police: is that not true?!

2. What are reporting restrictions?

“The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done.”

What were the reasons for his secret trial (is it true it was secret even from his solicitor?!)?!

“However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations……”

I’d read he’d been dragged off to court because he’s breached terms of a suspended sentence, so that’s not the case?!

“…..One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of grooming rings involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end.”

Is that why the police don’t go to extreme lengths to publicise details of the defendants in “Grooming” Gang trials to ensure all possible victims come forward to “corroborate” the existing evidence?!

Unlike in ordinary rape trials?!?!

But, wait, in ordinary rape trials how do the police “avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked…. reporting of all of them”?!

Does this mean that all people convicted of rape following police (and media?!) publicity should be freed and have their convictions overturned?!

“….On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?”

But what about reporting on his own case? Surely that could be done with details of the rape trial being redacted?!

“This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.”
“Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.”

Why is this OK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39580591

“…..In all the 29 defendants face a total of more than 170 charges…..”

“…….They appeared in groups before district Judge Michael Fanning during a lengthy court sitting and are next due to appear at Leeds Crown Court on 11 May…..”

Plus a full listing of names, ages and all charges of the 29 defendants!?!?

3. But I heard Tommy Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace. What is a breach of the peace? How is a breach of the peace caused by someone simply filming?

“…..The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are ***reasonable*** grounds to ***fear*** that a demonstrator or protestor is ***likely*** to ***incite*** violence, even violence against themselves. This *appears* to be applicable to the present case. Robinson *provocatively* filming defendants, selected *deliberately* by ethnicity, and streaming on Facebook for the *edification* of his *cult*, is the *kind* of thing which *could*, it *might* be *argued*, lead to a breach of the peace.”

Is that the level of legal argument in court these days?!

5. So back up a step – what exactly is contempt of court?

“…..The law(s) of contempt are designed to safeguard the fairness of legal proceedings and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court.”

No further comment required!

6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

“On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four [***Asian***] defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing ***Muslim*** child rapists”

So you’re saying they weren’t British, they were Asian?

And they weren’t Muslim, they were Zoroastrian, or Buddhist, or Jewish or that other religion, you know, the Middle Eastern one, that was found in the other half of Iran, the other half of Afghanistan, across North Africa (until something strange happened), it’ll come to me!

Yes?! Is that your point?!?!

7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

“….This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon….”

You mean like Cliff Richard’s?!

“We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt.”

So why do the police advertise and publicise (non “Asian”) rape defendants?

Can you do that with people accused with burglary or GBH?!

Ever been punched by this man or seen him loitering around your house around the time you were burgled (even if you haven’t – yet – reported it)?!

“….it is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty.”

I take it all the false accusers, including in the police and CPS, in all the recent failed rape cases are being prosecuted for contempt of court as we speak?!

“It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists…..”

Why is it OK for you to prejudge the entire Asian continent as “Asian” accused rapists when they are MUSLIM gangs?

Especially as the “race” of Asians have a longer history of legal protection than the “religion” of Islam?!

8. How is all that relevant to what took place on 25 May 2018?

“…..In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists”…..”

But did he?!

9. What did he go and do?

“As we know now, he went and committed a contempt of court by reporting on court proceedings. He did so in a way that expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants”

Again, did he?!

10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

“…….offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away….. Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by a barrister and would have received full legal advice.”

Is it true his own lawyer in London had been told he was being released and he had to rely on one provided by the court?!

“He also wasn’t tried in secret; his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions….”

So secret to the country at large!

How many members of the general public, never mind his family, employers, supporters, associates, (own legal team) etc, were in a position to see for themselves the impartiality and lack of prejudice in this non-secret trial?!

“…media circus… orchestrated attempt at martyrdom… deranged followers… far-right” [where do you put Mussolini? Hitler?!]

“…judge agreed that, in light of what had happened over the Bank Holiday weekend, restrictions should be lifted to allow publication of the facts…”

So not the sharpest tool on the bench then!

“….As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others [why bring them up?!]) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial…”

As for your response, so you’ve given two examples of only Yaxley-Lennon being the subject/victim of that.

And none of any other person.

Handy!

Clearly the guy isn’t the nicest of people, and clearly he’s been involved in some pretty scummy activities (eg football hooliganism) and some pretty high class ones (“mortgage fraud” – bet there are no policemen, barristers or judges that have inflated their earnings to get a bigger mortgage, or perhaps they don’t need to, not least because they aren’t likely to be driven out of their homes and need to stump up for something safer and more secure?!).

But equally clearly there have been a lot of politically motivated prosecutions and sentences!

I thought I’d heard good things about the Secret Barrister Blog, but I must be thinking of some other.

“…former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan…. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name [so that his home and family can be attacked again, and even residents of former homes, again?!]… hordes… storming [you mean like storm-troopers? storm-front, is it?!]… knuckle-dragging cheerleaders… his racists-in-arms… Nazi-themed march… his cult… preaching to his online followers… diatribe… ye of little brain.. tub thumping… people like Yaxley-Lennon… media circus… orchestrated attempt at martyrdom… deranged followers… far-right” [where do you put Mussolini? Hitler?!] “UKIP” [why bring them up?!]

The writer of this prejudiced hit piece seems to epitomise everything wrong with our “justice” system “liberal” establishment!


 

Mr B J Mann says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 30, 2018 at 12:07 am

UPDATE:

In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:

11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

“This is quite something. But, sadly [your prejudices are showing again], Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available,”

As mentioned earlier, the “conspiracy theory” I’d heard was that his own solicitor had been told by the police he was being released and so their services weren’t required.

“but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences.”

So never even one single contempt case?

And did he have even 16 minutes? even 16 seconds?! experience of this one?!?!

“As an independent barrister, he prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.”

But we still have more questions than answers, your bonus Q&As notwithstanding!

Never published by the “Sacred” Barrister (along with all bar three other BTL comments – one of which disappeared while I was typing!)

 

And deleted by “I [Dis]Like [Too Many] Words

 


 

As was this related post on another of her blogs:

A Political Powder-Keg?

A Political Powder-Keg?

Posted on May 30, 2018

More Words She Didn’t Like:

No doubt this isn’t applicable to this blog either:

Postponement of fair and accurate reports
• Under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 the court *may* postpone publication of a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of its proceedings where that is *necessary* to avoid a *substantial* risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings
• The power is strictly limited to fair, accurate reports and contemporaneous reports of the proceedings
• The court must be satisfied that a *substantial* risk of prejudice would arise from such reports
• If the concern is potential prejudice to a future trial, in making that judgment, the court *will* bear in mind the tendency for news reports to fade from public consciousness *and* the conscientiousness with which it can normally be expected that the jury in the subsequent case will follow the trial judge’s directions to reach their decision exclusively on the basis of evidence given in that case
• Before making a s.4(2) order, the court *must* be satisfied that the order would eliminate the risk of prejudice and that there is *no* less restrictive measure that could be employed
• If satisfied of these matters, the court *must* exercise its discretion balancing the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice against the strong public interest in the full reporting of criminal trials

*abc* = My emphasis

Also deleted by “I [Dis]Like [Too Many] Words