Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Baleforce]

Reform are dangerous lunatics.

Doctor uses Reform conference speech to link king’s cancer to Covid vaccine

Aseem Malhotra claimed ‘eminent oncologist’ said jab was ‘significant factor in the cancer of members of royal family’

www.theguardian.com

 

[LutonSpurs]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1964407356696961045

This is a disgrace

 

[LutonSpurs]

I actually thought she had called for all the asylum hotels to be burnt down. She actually doesn't. She said she wouldn't care if they were burnt down, along with all of our politicians inside.

Actually seeing the tweet i'm gobsmacked she got time for that.

And i can see why many people are disconcerted and alarmed that she did.

Aah you find benovelence when you need to. And it's absolutely ridiculous. You seem to find legality only a problem when douchebags break the law (and the legality is not even clear). With this you become 2 tier Silly McSilly Face. Now write an essay nobody will read you absolute hypocrite.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Reform are dangerous lunatics.

Doctor uses Reform conference speech to link king’s cancer to Covid vaccine

Aseem Malhotra claimed ‘eminent oncologist’ said jab was ‘significant factor in the cancer of members of royal family’

www.theguardian.com

Eminent Oncologist is a push. And regardless he knows sweet FA about infectious diseases. These people are culpable for manslaughter imo. Absolute dangers.

 

[Baleforce]

We are living through very dangerous times.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

I actually thought she had called for all the asylum hotels to be burnt down. She actually doesn't. She said she wouldn't care if they were burnt down, along with all of our politicians inside.

Actually seeing the tweet i'm gobsmacked she got time for that.

And i can see why many people are disconcerted and alarmed that she did.

Here you go....you might as well have the t-shirt

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Splitting hairs. Given the context of what was happening at the time, it was effectively endorsing the burning down of hotels.
She deserved her sentence.
Stop trying to defend her.

Splitting hairs? Its locking someone up. "Effectively endorsing?" It isn't the same thing at all. It is an irrationsl emotional outburst. Not something to spend time in prison for whatsoever. On the other hand as I said around the same time Huw Edwards is convicted of trading the most extreme category of child porn and doesnt go to prison. I'm not defending her. I think you have to be incredibly careful with what you post on social media and say in public in this day and age. I have a golden rule: i'm not on social media and I do not discuss and won't discuss politics at work or with people I am not close to. It is a rule everyone should follow.

But I can absolutely 100% understand the anger and resentment a lot of people feel and how her spending time in prison for that will fuel that anger.

 

[LutonSpurs]

Splitting hairs? Its locking someone up. "Effectively endorsing?" It isn't the same thing at all. It is an irrationsl emotional outburst. Not something to spend time in prison for whatsoever. On the other hand as I said around the same time Huw Edwards is convicted of trading the most extreme category of child porn and doesnt go to prison. I'm not defending her. I think you have to be incredibly careful with what you post on social media and say in public in this day and age. I have a golden rule: i'm not on social media and I do not discuss and won't discuss politics at work or with people I am not close to. It is a rule everyone should follow.

But I can absolutely 100% understand the anger and resentment a lot of people feel and how her spending time in prison for that will fuel that anger.

She incited violence. Literally. That's against the law. You are 2 Tier.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

She incited violence. Literally. That's against the law. You are 2 Tier.

No she didn't. FYI, it is against the law to show support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. But you've just posted saying it was a disgrace that people were arrested for showing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. So which is it? You either obey the law or you don't. What you seem to be advocating or in favour of is obeying the laws you like but not the laws you don't like.

 

[LutonSpurs]

No she didn't. FYI, it is against the law to show support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. But you've just posted saying it was a disgrace that people were arrested for showing support for a proscribed terrorist organisation. So which is it? You either obey the law or you don't. What you seem to be advocating or in favour of is obeying the laws you like but not the laws you don't like.

No. I want the law changed. The arrests are legitimate in law. It's a bad law. But it is the system we live in.

And yes she did. She pleased guilty too. You are such a contradiction but also you really have a low ability to understand what others are saying as you are so driven by your prejudices. It's all very Silly.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

No. I want the law changed. The arrests are legitimate in law. It's a bad law. But it is the system we live in.

And yes she did. She pleased guilty too. You are such a contradiction but also you really have a low ability to understand what others are saying as you are so driven by your prejudices. It's all very Silly.

Where is the incitement to violence in that tweet? I thought she had incited violence as that is what I read in the press. I'd never actually seen the tweet until you posted it. It has really changed my mind on it. Spending time in prison for that? Wow.

I have posted on here that Starmer's government are fast and loose with counter terrorism laws. I think the proscription of PA as a terrorist organisation is a massive f*cking reach unless they are prepared to put more evidence or intelligence into the public domain. Doesn't seem to enjoy widespread public support. I also think using counter terrorism powers to try and tackle organised crime groups trafficking people across the channel is wrong. They're not terrorists. There isn't an immediate threat to significant public life via their activity.

However the govt make the law and the police enforce it. Everyone at that protest was told in a pre-brief it would be a criminal offence to be there. They organised the protest deliberately to break the law in enough numbers to overwhelm the criminal justice system and they asked the protectors to refuse street bail. Basically they went there on a "rule of the mob" basis.

Basically, I am 70% in agreement the law may be an a** in this case. But you either have rule by law or rule by the mob.

 

[LutonSpurs]

"Set fire to all the hotels full of the bastards for all I care"

What silly probably agrees with but doesn't have the guts to be honest about his views. The mask will slip.

After she said this people literally tried to burn hotels down.

 

[LutonSpurs]

No. I want the law changed. The arrests are legitimate in law. It's a bad law. But it is the system we live in.

And yes she did. She pleased guilty too. You are such a contradiction but also you really have a low ability to understand what others are saying as you are so driven by your prejudices. It's all very Silly.

Also you don't care for the rule of law 2 tier Silly.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

"Set fire to all the hotels full of the bastards for all I care"

What silly probably agrees with but doesn't have the guts to be honest about his views. The mask will slip.

After she said this people literally tried to burn hotels down.

Set fire to the hotels for all I care isn't inciting violence in my interpretation. Not beyond reasonable doubt in terms of the men's rea of the offence (which is the intent behind the actus reas - the action which is necessary to establish a crime)

 

[Baleforce]

The only thing I can’t believe is that she was released early.

Hundreds of people could have died.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

The only thing I can’t believe is that she was released early.

Hundreds of people could have died.

Hundreds of people could have died of a tweet?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Splitting hairs? Its locking someone up. "Effectively endorsing?" It isn't the same thing at all. It is an irrationsl emotional outburst. Not something to spend time in prison for whatsoever. On the other hand as I said around the same time Huw Edwards is convicted of trading the most extreme category of child porn and doesnt go to prison. I'm not defending her. I think you have to be incredibly careful with what you post on social media and say in public in this day and age. I have a golden rule: i'm not on social media and I do not discuss and won't discuss politics at work or with people I am not close to. It is a rule everyone should follow.

But I can absolutely 100% understand the anger and resentment a lot of people feel and how her spending time in prison for that will fuel that anger.

No, she was saying she was happy for hotels with immigrants inside to be burnt down. At a time when there was an online campaign for people to turn up and protest outside hotels housing asylum seekers. And she didn't care if saying that made her racist. She was charged with publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred. If what was published could be deemed to encouarage actions which threaten or endanger life, then that automatically carries a custodial sentence. I don't see how you can argue that isn't what she was doing. And she pleaded guilty.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Hundreds of people could have died of a tweet?

She wasn't charged with inciting violence. She was charged with publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred. Which is exactly what she was doing.

 

[Baleforce]

She wasn't charged with inciting violence. She was charged with publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred. Which is exactly what she was doing.

in a tweet which was then weaponised by the far right and targeted to certain groups, who passed it on, and people then turned up at the hotels with Molotovs

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

No, she was saying she was happy for hotels with immigrants inside to be burnt down. At a time when there was an online campaign for people to turn up and protest outside hotels housing asylum seekers. And she didn't care if saying that made her racist. She was charged with publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred. If what was published could be deemed to encouarage actions which threaten or endanger life, then that automatically carries a custodial sentence. I don't see how you can argue that isn't what she was doing. And she pleaded guilty.

I don't see it. "Do it if I care" is not incitement in my book. Where's the racial hatred angle also. No race mentioned anywhere. She shouldn't have pled guilty in my view. Probably duff legal advice.