• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

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

Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here you go....you might as well have the t-shirt

Screenshot_2025-09-06-21-06-44-96_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg
 
Glenda's Legs said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

She incited violence. Literally. That's against the law. You are 2 Tier.
 
LutonSpurs said:
She incited violence. Literally. That's against the law. You are 2 Tier.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LutonSpurs said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
LutonSpurs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also you don't care for the rule of law 2 tier Silly.
 
LutonSpurs said:
"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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back