David Lammy isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. He's also what my old professor would have called an unlucky wight - a blundering ninny with the gift of making himself look foolish. So it's hardly surprising that Lammy should be one of those most publicly afflicted by an increasingly common condition - mental derangement by Brexit.
Boris Johnson writes with an amused tolererance in this morning's Telegraph about Lammy's uncontrolled outburst terming Johnson a 'Nazi'. In Britain this is not an offence. However, living in a country in which calling someone a National Socialist without justification in print or on screen is a criminal offence, it is instructive to contemplate that MP or not, if Lammy had said what he said here, he would find the handcuffs around his plump wrists.
And this in turn leads me to offer Remainers a crumb of comfort. Whilst the UK remains tied to the EU, calling me a Nazi in the comments will make a correspondent liable to detention and extradition using the European Arrest Warrant - if the offence includes an element of racism or xenophobia, which Lammy's jejune mud slinging appeared to have - and an appearance before a Napoleonic court of a sort unknown to British law. Brexit, my mentally deranged friends, will paradoxically free you from this risk.
And that is really exactly as it should be.
15 comments:
A black David Coleman.
Soubry was called a Nazi in public; I understand arrests were made, or at least police cautions. Here we have an overtly racist goon, apparent quota-filling MP bullshitter, classic Dunning-Kruger material. Here we have him on the national broadcaster confirming he said and meant it.
These people will be running the country soon due to Mrs. may and a cohort of traitors (I do NOT use that word as an insult, I mean it). Lammy, Abbott, McDonnell, Watson et al. FFS.
and an appearance before a Napoleonic court of a sort unknown to British law. Brexit, my mentally deranged friends, will paradoxically free you from this risk.
Risk? Risk? You mean 'deprive us of the right to a trial before a panel of 3 exquisitely trained Judges and 2 well trained professional jurors (the German Strafkammer-it varies throughout the EU) who probably have 'pro reo' tattooed somewhere discretely ? Free us from the risk of 12 Daily Express 'reading' brexSShiteurs deciding we are guilty simply because we profess libertarianism, freedom of speech and thought (concepts alien to your average Gammon, I know).
I think "draw" in your first line should be "drawer".
Don Cox
Tx Don. Corrected.
"the right to a trial before a panel of 3 exquisitely trained Judges and 2 well trained professional jurors"
you're not right in the head luv.
Ketch - and you will be deemed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Meanwhile you could be kept in jail.
Give him and Abbott as much air time as possible. Every time they open their big fat mouths then they lose the Labour party votes. I predict they will be quietly sidelined during any election campaign though.
Jade
you're not right in the head luv.-Ravenscar
Undoubtedly, however unlike, i suspect, most here I actually have experienced the differences between the two systems of criminal justice. English courts are theaters of malice concerned primarily with establishing guilt or innocence; So called 'Napoleonic'(they aren't and haven't been for a long time most places, that's another Brit myth) EU Criminal courts tend to see their job as 'interrogative', establishing the facts before assigning guilt.
Do innocents get wrongly convicted in Europe? Yes of course but the more infamous of British injustices -say Stefan Kiszko , probably couldn't have happen under , for example, either the Austrian or German systems. Neither , possibly, would have the Guildford and Birmingham travesties taken place because the DAs have an 'investigative role' alongside their prosecuting work.
Ketch - and you will be deemed guilty unless you can prove your innocence. Meanwhile you could be kept in jail.- Val
In which EU country?
"Before assigning guilt". No mention of innocence I couldn't help notice.
You're describing a court martial. Don't know if that's what you intended.
So BrexSShiteurs can read now? You know Jack, I honestly think you're coming round.
Jack's right.
Here in Austria it's well known that only the guilty have to appear in court. The innocent are not prosecuted. The system is infallible. The purpose of the court hearing is to demonstrate the openess and fairness of the system.
But the strangest part of it all is that most people accept this as true.
But the strangest part of it all is that most people accept this as true.
-Raed
I should think that is true for most countries and justice systems, although I'm sure you're right about the Austrians being particularly trusting of their criminal courts and it certainly applies to Germans. In the UK people too tend to assume that 'there is no smoke without fire', indeed it wasn't til I got to know The Landlady that I realised how common miscarriages of justice are and how close most of us are to a wrongful conviction for something or the other.
No innocents at Military Courts Martial either. Never any acquittals; just a matter of how long they go down for.
“March in the Guilty Bastard.........”.
But he didn't call Johnson a Nazi, Raedwald.
Asked if he was saying that Rees-Mogg and Johnson were the modern-day equivalent of Nazis, Lammy said: “Ask Boris Johnson why he’s hanging out with Steve Bannon.”
He showed arguably weak judgement in not anticipating what the MSM would make of his comments, however, but I can forgive him that given his background, and the appalling things that the likes of Johnson have said.
Post a Comment