Judge Martin Nolan

[Matlock]

I find it amusing to watch you go to great lengths to deny things that were never said. You've so much previous for it on PROC that one can only conclude that you're like that in real life too.

The one dodging on this thread is you - and you know it, and all your "word salad" accusations and cheerleading from toadies won't hide that fact.

But just for brevity, if you agree to answer the question I put to you on this thread here on this thread, I'll address your other concern. But given your rank cowardice I think you'll avoid it. Yet again.

I have no idea what your question is. It is intelligible. If you can format it in some way that is logical I will happily answer it.

Also, by "address your concern" you mean "acknowledge that you were wrong", right?

 

[ElderBerries]

I have no idea what your question is. It is intelligible. If you can format it in some way that is logical I will happily answer it.

Also, by "address your concern" you mean "acknowledge that you were wrong", right?

You said:
"Yes overcrowding is impacting sentencing, but it doesn't mean that no one gets a custodial sentence or there isn't a normal range."

as though I was saying, or at the very least implying, no one gets a custodial sentence.
Do you now accept I neither said nor implied that no one gets a custodial sentence?




In addressing your concern can you point out the post (or better again quote the line) where I was wrong and owe you an apology?

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Any chance you could apologise for incorrectly accusing me of reporting you? I note you are busily ignoring that on the other thread. (apart from the moronic smiley emoji you have to use ever time you are made a fool of)

He will in his hole. Way too arrogant to admit he was wrong. You know this, you've been down that pointless route with him in the past, it's a waste of time.

 

[ElderBerries]

Speaking of cheerleading toadies and one appears ?

 

[Matlock]

You said:
"Yes overcrowding is impacting sentencing, but it doesn't mean that no one gets a custodial sentence or there isn't a normal range."

as though I was saying, or at the very least implying, no one gets a custodial sentence.
Do you now accept I neither said nor implied that no one gets a custodial sentence?

Your post was this

"usual sentencing"? Didn't you previously say that the current crowding in our jails is having an impact on whether or not custodial sentences are handed down these days?

Now you are claiming that you didn't mean this to suggest that custodial sentences were not being given. If you didn't mean that, then what the fuck did you mean?

In addressing your concern can you point out the post (or better again quote the line) where I was wrong and owe you an apology?

You already know all of this. But, as predicted, you won't acknowledge it and will try and weasel your way out of it. It is pathetic, and everyone can see it.

He will in his hole. Way too arrogant to admit he was wrong. You know this, you've been down that pointless route with him in the past, it's a waste of time.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[ElderBerries]

Your post was this

"usual sentencing"? Didn't you previously say that the current crowding in our jails is having an impact on whether or not custodial sentences are handed down these days?

Now you are claiming that you didn't mean this to suggest that custodial sentences were not being given. If you didn't mean that, then what the fuck did you mean?

You already know all of this. But, as predicted, you won't acknowledge it and will try and weasel your way out of it. It is pathetic, and everyone can see it.


That's it in a nutshell.

We were talking about whether BM would get a custodial sentence or not, you said "usual sentencing" and I asked hadn't you previously cited overcrowding in our jails as being a factor lately. Then you tried to pretend that I claimed no one was getting custodial sentences, which is clearly not the case.

If you had a shred of moral decency you'd admit you were wrong but then again you do claim to be a solicitor so moral decency may not be your forte



You accused me of accusing you of something but it seems you now can't produce any hard evidence to support your claim. Surely a solicitor would know there'd need to be some supporting evidence to make an accusation that's to be taken seriously.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Speaking of cheerleading toadies and one appears ?

Not cheerleading at all boy, I fully aware of what you are from first hand experience as is every one else here.

 

[Matlock]

We were talking about whether BM would get a custodial sentence or not, you said "usual sentencing" and I asked hadn't you previously cited overcrowding in our jails as being a factor lately. Then you tried to pretend that I claimed no one was getting custodial sentences, which is clearly not the case.

I never said it was a factor lately. It has been a factor for years.

If you had a shred of moral decency you'd admit you were wrong but then again you do claim to be a solicitor so moral decency may not be your forte



You accused me of accusing you of something but it seems you now can't produce any hard evidence to support your claim. Surely a solicitor would know there'd need to be some supporting evidence to make an accusation that's to be taken seriously.

The evidence is in the other thread. You could go and read it there. It's all waiting for you. You won't though. We all know this.

 

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

That's it in a nutshell.

Just ignore him or take the piss, either works. Pointless engaging in debate with him because he just your typical Shinner'tard, public servant.
Not very bright.

 

[ElderBerries]

I never said it was a factor lately. It has been a factor for years.

The evidence is in the other thread. You could go and read it there. It's all waiting for you. You won't though. We all know this.

You poor sad wastrel. I immediately went to the other thread and asked. Thats you wrong yet again - not that you’d ever admit it mind.