I couldn't countenance letting either of them out. Murdering someone in cold blood, practically zero motive, out at 31, nah. No sane person would do one of those offences the chap did, never mind twice. And even now he's still trying to justify doing them, I see little contrition.

So her story is that she got drunk, had a text row with someone. Her and her mate both tooled up with kitchen knives and went to the house where the lad was. They were rowing with him so owner of the house comes out to see what's going on, she plants the kitchen knife through his chest (ie, not even the lad they were rowing with).

Mitigation is that she was abused by step father, and learned to be aggressive as defensive technique.

Does seem incredibly excessive, though her tweet was very inflammatory (encouraged mass murder).  It's also about stopping a growing problem escalating in it's tracks.  So much for women getting soft sentences heh!     

The bigger issue I have is this.  That someone made a complaint about the tweet and X responded that they saw nothing wrong with it, and wouldn't take it down.  So one rule for an individual and zero consequence for repeated offences from a foreign large corporation.  Something seriously wrong there.

Yes tweeted out of understandable anger, the whole tweet attacked many people and it was not literal, obviously. If there is a case for suspended sentences, this is one of them. I believe she herself lost a child.

People who cause actual harm get to walk away, some people who just write (stupidly) about harm get sent to prison. The tw@ts who felt it was fine to smash in the faces of armed female cops are not even facing any charges.

The establishment seeing her as evil personified wipes out any credit she has from being a little way up the grievance hierarchy (female), in fact right at the bottom, below pond life, gammons and paedos.

The chap made the obvious point that she had all the education, then got into a fight over something trivial with another lag AFTER the education. Effectively saying that demonstrated she might not be fully ready for the outside. Perfectly sane. Then he let her out anyway!

So what repercussions will he face should she re-offend, given the fact that he overrode the evidence? (dw rhetorical!)

It didn't even look like prison where she was already, more like a holiday camp with a farm lol

Good to hear. Twatter is so ubiquitous it's pretty impossible to avoid its influence. Half of journalism now centres around people regurgitating twatter for their output, without leaving their house.

At least it doesn't have the major political bias it once had.