am a big fan

What's the point of having the option to appeal if your current judge can just take it away from you?

@Legiondude

under what grounds can they deny right to appeal?

"If you do not win your case, there is usually a right to apply for the decision of the court to be reviewed by a higher court and possibly be quashed. Such a right, however, is not automatic. There must be proper grounds for making an appeal and there are strict time limits within which to do so. There must be substantial procedural or other irregularity which will give rise to appeal. The aim of an appeal is to correct a wrong decision and so avoid a miscarriage of justice.

An appeal must be allowed by a court. It is therefore necessary to prove that there was some kind of misunderstanding of the law, evidence or facts. Sometimes one of the parties obtains fresh evidence; this is not normally allowed by an appeal court, but if the party can show that this fresh evidence was relevant and credible but not possible to be obtained for the hearing at a lower court, it will be allowed."
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-judgements/right-to-appeal/

As far as taking away right to appeal, I can't find anything regarding that. So someone actually from the UK would have to address that

I guess that you dont automatically have the right

You have to prove some sort of wrongdoing it would seem

Which in Dank's case would mean the appeals judge would need to see what the judge did as wrongdoing

More info here as well: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/right-2-appeal/

thx

it seems in US there is no automatic right either, the courts must grant your hearing

I think you have the automatic right to submit an appeal, but the actual hearing needs to be approved. Which is fair I'd say

is there any video or trascript of the actual hearing? all ive seen is stuff from outside the building

right, my language for describing this sucks

I'm not sure. I would think so but I don't know if that kind of footage is public access

can't find anything but snippets so far
but this is good
http://barristerblogger.com/2018/03/24/its-time-to-change-the-bad-law-used-to-prosecute-count-dankula/
it says the OG law re: ``127 Improper use of public electronic communications network`` was used to protect from hoax telegrams and harrassment of female telephonists, (IE operators i'm assuming)

The writer is certainly no fan of Dank's humor

Which is often the best person to have defending you

That comes out a lot in the comments of articles too, lots of people saying "he's a cretin but I disagree with the ruling"

Good morning

Morning

Good after noon

I don't think he's as hilarious as his dog is cute

How do you say goodmorning in Hebrew ?

Boker tov

בוקר טוב

Yes that

The problem really *is* the vagueness of this law -.-
Comms Act 2003
SS127 (1):(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

How was I supposed to understand that ?

Understand what?

The one agenten sent

I wrote it with English letters

It’s literally in Hebrew

I know, I saw yours

If you were to google it you could probably find an english translation

I can’t do that.

copy-paste

"I can't be asked to do that."