FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Police the Streets, Not the Tweets
Police the Streets, Not the Tweets
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ?" If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ?" But they aren't concentrating on monitoring social media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? But they aren't concentrating on monitoring social media." Exactly, there is no evidence to say they are either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? But they aren't concentrating on monitoring social media. Exactly, there is no evidence to say they are either " Plenty of evidence, you need to get outside your woke bubble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? But they aren't concentrating on monitoring social media. Exactly, there is no evidence to say they are either Plenty of evidence, you need to get outside your woke bubble." What is a woke bubble? There are far more arrests and prosecutions for other crimes rather than those committed online | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled. "That’s one example | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example "What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? But they aren't concentrating on monitoring social media. Exactly, there is no evidence to say they are either Plenty of evidence, you need to get outside your woke bubble." I was in the police for 30 years, I have lots of friends who are still in the police. None of them are concentrating on hurty words on the internet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot. "2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail "There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets. "If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets.
If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots "Have you read the reports on it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets.
If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots
Have you read the reports on it?"No, why would I, were you the judge in this particular case ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets.
If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots
Have you read the reports on it?
No, why would I, were you the judge in this particular case ? "Why would you have lots of comment on something you haven't even bothered to read. It's fucking odd mate. As I said, there's many more, get reading  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ?" Tackling on line crime is woke! Amazing, yet another definition for your book! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets.
If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots
Have you read the reports on it?
No, why would I, were you the judge in this particular case ?
Why would you have lots of comment on something you haven't even bothered to read.
It's fucking odd mate.
As I said, there's many more, get reading "No thanks, I will leave it to the experts in law, namely the judges. Are you a judge? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost." Then ask under the freedom of information act, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets.
If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots
Have you read the reports on it?
No, why would I, were you the judge in this particular case ?
Why would you have lots of comment on something you haven't even bothered to read.
It's fucking odd mate.
As I said, there's many more, get reading
No thanks, I will leave it to the experts in law, namely the judges. Are you a judge? "Maybe I am. We can't all sit back and live off of our 'great investments' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? Tackling on line crime is woke! Amazing, yet another definition for your book! It looks like inciting violence online is now work, whatever next " How do you know she has incited violence online? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets.
If they have broken the law, get to jail , if they are stupid enough to break the law online where people can see it then they only themselves to blame , idiots
Have you read the reports on it?
No, why would I, were you the judge in this particular case ?
Why would you have lots of comment on something you haven't even bothered to read.
It's fucking odd mate.
As I said, there's many more, get reading
No thanks, I will leave it to the experts in law, namely the judges. Are you a judge?
Maybe I am. We can't all sit back and live off of our 'great investments' "Maybe you aren’t, anyway, let me know when she appeals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? Tackling on line crime is woke! Amazing, yet another definition for your book! It looks like inciting violence online is now work, whatever next How do you know she has incited violence online? " Who are you talking about ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ?" No I don’t agree with the heading. Police both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets. "Maybe look up overall croke stats. As others have said, the vast majority of prosecutions are for physical crime rather than online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled. "Ohhh they would visit my house, with a bodybag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general." Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
Ohhh they would visit my house, with a bodybag."More death threats? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who support throwing the book at mean tweets are the same ones who hit report buttons because they can't stand anything negative said about em. "Break the law, go to jail, simple really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general." Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law " No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law " So there is no need to change the law, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Allison Pearson being visited for a non existent 'crime' which the officers couldn't even name ! Try getting the police to visit your house if you've been burgled.
That’s one example
What about the young girl sentenced for 'violent disorder' for filming the aftermath of riot.
2 examples, she broke the law, time for jail
There's many more. You need to broaden your news outlets. "Too many people in their woke media bubble  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? " No one knows as the police won't say. They did say it was a 'non hate' crime so you've got that wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People who support throwing the book at mean tweets are the same ones who hit report buttons because they can't stand anything negative said about em.
Break the law, go to jail, simple really "There are two problems here. - The law itself is authoritarian - Police say they don't have enough resources. So if they want to prioritise, we would prefer them to prioritise crimes in the street over hurty words said online | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law So there is no need to change the law, " I said they have to change the law if people really want free speech. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? " When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law So there is no need to change the law, I said they have to change the law if people really want free speech. " They are obviously happy with the way things are , you will just have to accept it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law So there is no need to change the law, I said they have to change the law if people really want free speech. They are obviously happy with the way things are , you will just have to accept it " Who said people are happy with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft "People who post illegal content online are obviously morons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft "The thing with free speech is that it's always someone else's problem until you can't speak about things you want to speak. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law So there is no need to change the law, I said they have to change the law if people really want free speech. They are obviously happy with the way things are , you will just have to accept it Who said people are happy with that?" Where is the drive to change the law? The protests? The pressure on MPs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
The thing with free speech is that it's always someone else's problem until you can't speak about things you want to speak."It simple, don’t post anything illegal and you won’t be arrested | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons "If a right wing government passes a law that posting anything supportive of socialist/communist ideologies is illegal, will you say the same thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons "Yes, they are. Things just go over their heads  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons
If a right wing government passes a law that posting anything supportive of socialist/communist ideologies is illegal, will you say the same thing."Yes, when is that happening ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons
If a right wing government passes a law that posting anything supportive of socialist/communist ideologies is illegal, will you say the same thing.
Yes, when is that happening ? "Are the women in Iran fighting against oppressive laws morons? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons "Calling people morons is a form of hate speech. Please report yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that?" Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons
Calling people morons is a form of hate speech. Please report yourself."Calling morons who post illegal content morons is a fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that?" Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons
If a right wing government passes a law that posting anything supportive of socialist/communist ideologies is illegal, will you say the same thing.
Yes, when is that happening ?
Are the women in Iran fighting against oppressive laws morons?"O dear, are you saying this is an oppressive law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons
If a right wing government passes a law that posting anything supportive of socialist/communist ideologies is illegal, will you say the same thing.
Yes, when is that happening ?
Are the women in Iran fighting against oppressive laws morons?
O dear, are you saying this is an oppressive law? "Yes. Free speech is fundamental to democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law." Do something about it then, stop moaning on here and set up a ‘movement ‘ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Too many people are unable to post illegal content online because the police will not prioritise solving phone theft
People who post illegal content online are obviously morons
If a right wing government passes a law that posting anything supportive of socialist/communist ideologies is illegal, will you say the same thing.
Yes, when is that happening ?
Are the women in Iran fighting against oppressive laws morons?
O dear, are you saying this is an oppressive law?
Yes. Free speech is fundamental to democracy. "Do something about it then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law." "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world." What are you going to do about it? I don’t like paying CGT at 24 % but I accept it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world." What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it " It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. " Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Black people or women peacefully breaking the law to improve their rights are 'morons'. All laws are correct and just and if you question them online you'll go to jail. Seems very much in line with Starmer's justice to be fair." When did this happen? What laws has starmer changed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? " The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line." So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it " Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Black people or women peacefully breaking the law to improve their rights are 'morons'. All laws are correct and just and if you question them online you'll go to jail. Seems very much in line with Starmer's justice to be fair. When did this happen? What laws has starmer changed " Starmer's justice is the will of the people and not to be questioned. Straight to jail with you if you dare! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? " That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says." I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? " It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected " Ok. So you are supportive of the law. We are arguing if that law is good or not. Instead of saying "the law says so. Just put up with it", you nred need to argue with us on the pros and cons of it. If we all keep saying "just follow the law", there is no point in having a political forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected Ok. So you are supportive of the law. We are arguing if that law is good or not. Instead of saying "the law says so. Just put up with it", you nred need to argue with us on the pros and cons of it. If we all keep saying "just follow the law", there is no point in having a political forum" I support the law, if you support democracy then you would at least accept it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, " You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected Ok. So you are supportive of the law. We are arguing if that law is good or not. Instead of saying "the law says so. Just put up with it", you nred need to argue with us on the pros and cons of it. If we all keep saying "just follow the law", there is no point in having a political forum I support the law, if you support democracy then you would at least accept it " Me not going out and acting violently about it is me supporting democracy. Me arguing about it with other people peacefully is me supporting democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost." 3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal?" Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected Ok. So you are supportive of the law. We are arguing if that law is good or not. Instead of saying "the law says so. Just put up with it", you nred need to argue with us on the pros and cons of it. If we all keep saying "just follow the law", there is no point in having a political forum I support the law, if you support democracy then you would at least accept it Me not going out and acting violently about it is me supporting democracy. Me arguing about it with other people peacefully is me supporting democracy. " The law is democratic, you can protest about it if you like, set up a movement and if it’s popular the law might be changed, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost.3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet " What has any of this got to do with Manchester airport? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected Ok. So you are supportive of the law. We are arguing if that law is good or not. Instead of saying "the law says so. Just put up with it", you nred need to argue with us on the pros and cons of it. If we all keep saying "just follow the law", there is no point in having a political forum I support the law, if you support democracy then you would at least accept it Me not going out and acting violently about it is me supporting democracy. Me arguing about it with other people peacefully is me supporting democracy. The law is democratic, you can protest about it if you like, set up a movement and if it’s popular the law might be changed, " We can also discuss the pros and cons of the law, which we are trying to do here. You are the one being undemocratic by telling us that "it's a law. Just follow it". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , " There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Not the same, why don’t you set up a protest, do something about it It is the same. People have their liberty taken away by authoritarian politicians. People want it back. Ok, like I said, show the courage of your convictions and do something about it Everyone knows the laws and everyone knows we use democracy to change the law. The debate we are having here is a moral one. People's moral views aren't same as the law. The question is whether you like the law that curtail free speech or not. Saying that "the law says so" is a massive cop out. Everyone knows what the law says. I like the law, I have never felt the urge to post anything online that is illegal, if you don’t like it then tough, we live in a democracy and the people who make these laws were democratically elected Ok. So you are supportive of the law. We are arguing if that law is good or not. Instead of saying "the law says so. Just put up with it", you nred need to argue with us on the pros and cons of it. If we all keep saying "just follow the law", there is no point in having a political forum I support the law, if you support democracy then you would at least accept it Me not going out and acting violently about it is me supporting democracy. Me arguing about it with other people peacefully is me supporting democracy. The law is democratic, you can protest about it if you like, set up a movement and if it’s popular the law might be changed, We can also discuss the pros and cons of the law, which we are trying to do here. You are the one being undemocratic by telling us that "it's a law. Just follow it". " Pros, stops hate speech and inciting violence, I have already asked yoh this, what can’t you currently say that you want to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective." Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law " People who demand “freedom of speech” are often the ones who want to post offensive material with impunity. That’s not what free speech means to me. To me, I am free to say / post whatever I like, and if I cross a line, I fade the consequences. I know someone who has a criminal conviction for assault, for roaring offensive abuse at someone … didn’t lay a finger on him, but has an assault conviction. If that’s how things operate in real life, I don’t see why people should be free of all constraints online. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Are any of the main political parties looking to get rid of this law No one spoke about that yet. But any politician who says they are supportive of freedom of speech should begin with that law People who demand “freedom of speech” are often the ones who want to post offensive material with impunity. That’s not what free speech means to me. To me, I am free to say / post whatever I like, and if I cross a line, I fade the consequences. I know someone who has a criminal conviction for assault, for roaring offensive abuse at someone … didn’t lay a finger on him, but has an assault conviction. If that’s how things operate in real life, I don’t see why people should be free of all constraints online. " Exactly, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime " Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? Tackling on line crime is woke! Amazing, yet another definition for your book! It looks like inciting violence online is now work, whatever next How do you know she has incited violence online? " She who? I haven't referred to anyone except the OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. " Not every arrest leads to a conviction, just the police doing their job | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Black people or women peacefully breaking the law to improve their rights are 'morons'. All laws are correct and just and if you question them online you'll go to jail. Seems very much in line with Starmer's justice to be fair." Of course none of the legislation was brought in under Starmer, but still | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UK" if you use the wrong pronouns | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UKif you use the wrong pronouns " You definitely won’t get arrested for that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UKif you use the wrong pronouns " This is, of course utter bollocks. "Hate speech is considered a crime in the United Kingdom when it crosses the boundary of criminality and becomes a hate incident. Hate speech is defined as any expression of hatred or abuse that is intended to alarm, harass, or distress someone because of their race, color, sex, disability, nationality, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online " theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. " If they haven’t crossed the line, they should be fine. And a journalist should know exactly where the line is. I haven’t seen the tweets in question, have you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources " You obviously have no idea what the law is then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. Not every arrest leads to a conviction, just the police doing their job " You are completely missing what is being said, they are not being arrested, it’s nothing to do with not being convicted, no crime has taken place so they are not being arrested but things are still being put on record that could affect a job application, things that they don’t even know about and the police won’t tell them. It’s my understanding that someone has been visited by the police and ‘warned’ about things they have written but the police couldn’t tell them what it was they had written or to whom the comments had been addressed, all sounds a complete waste of time and resources. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources "
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. Not every arrest leads to a conviction, just the police doing their job You are completely missing what is being said, they are not being arrested, it’s nothing to do with not being convicted, no crime has taken place so they are not being arrested but things are still being put on record that could affect a job application, things that they don’t even know about and the police won’t tell them. It’s my understanding that someone has been visited by the police and ‘warned’ about things they have written but the police couldn’t tell them what it was they had written or to whom the comments had been addressed, all sounds a complete waste of time and resources. " Let’s be honest, you only have one side to this story, and that is coming from Pearson, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots."i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost.3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet What has any of this got to do with Manchester airport? " It's a perfect example of Two Tier Kier in action. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UK" Au, the “hurty words” cliche again! So that’s a no then? You don’t know what was tweeted? Fair enough | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. Not every arrest leads to a conviction, just the police doing their job You are completely missing what is being said, they are not being arrested, it’s nothing to do with not being convicted, no crime has taken place so they are not being arrested but things are still being put on record that could affect a job application, things that they don’t even know about and the police won’t tell them. It’s my understanding that someone has been visited by the police and ‘warned’ about things they have written but the police couldn’t tell them what it was they had written or to whom the comments had been addressed, all sounds a complete waste of time and resources. " Spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost.3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet What has any of this got to do with Manchester airport? It's a perfect example of Two Tier Kier in action." … different police forces, investigating different offences, in different ways, at different paces …. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost.3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet What has any of this got to do with Manchester airport? It's a perfect example of Two Tier Kier in action." Hold on, I have recently been told that SKS has nothing to do with the police, so why is this his fault? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ? If you can’t do the time, don’t commit the crime Isn’t the whole point that they haven’t committed a crime. They are being visited/spoken too/reprimanded when no crime has actually been committed, they’ve just said stuff that others don’t like. Not every arrest leads to a conviction, just the police doing their job You are completely missing what is being said, they are not being arrested, it’s nothing to do with not being convicted, no crime has taken place so they are not being arrested but things are still being put on record that could affect a job application, things that they don’t even know about and the police won’t tell them. It’s my understanding that someone has been visited by the police and ‘warned’ about things they have written but the police couldn’t tell them what it was they had written or to whom the comments had been addressed, all sounds a complete waste of time and resources. Let’s be honest, you only have one side to this story, and that is coming from Pearson, " I would agree more information would be good, I wasn’t even aware of the persons name or who they are. If they’ve done something outside the law, use the law to deal with them but if they haven’t done something outside the law why are police getting involved when they have things to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost.3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet What has any of this got to do with Manchester airport? It's a perfect example of Two Tier Kier in action. … different police forces, investigating different offences, in different ways, at different paces …. " bollocks thats what it is | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were "And most of them are now in jail, good to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Apparently three police forces have been involved in investigating Pearson’s tweet since it was initially reported to the Met in November 2023. Sounds like a fantastic use of taxpayers money. Essex police’s rate for solving actual crimes is dismal. Far easier to sit at a computer at home scanning the internet and eating donuts. We should be told how much this investigation has cost.3police forces wtf for a hurry tweet have the scum from the Manchester airport been jailed or even charged yet What has any of this got to do with Manchester airport? It's a perfect example of Two Tier Kier in action. … different police forces, investigating different offences, in different ways, at different paces …. bollocks thats what it is " And they didn’t plead guilty like the thugs at the riots  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
And most of them are now in jail, good to see "for what seems to now be. Telling the truth 😂😂 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were "Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK. And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets. Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
And most of them are now in jail, good to see for what seems to now be. Telling the truth 😂😂"Jail time for rioting, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. "Thankfully it got very little public support, it was great to see the community come together to clear up and stop any further trouble from these simple minded thugs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. "do i support what they did, no Do i support why they did it. Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UKif you use the wrong pronouns This is, of course utter bollocks. "Hate speech is considered a crime in the United Kingdom when it crosses the boundary of criminality and becomes a hate incident. Hate speech is defined as any expression of hatred or abuse that is intended to alarm, harass, or distress someone because of their race, color, sex, disability, nationality, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. " " 'Hate incidents' are not crimes, that's the whole point! Yet the police are investigating and recording them. They are also self-defined - they do not need any supporting evidence or corroboration to be recorded by the police. Btw the courts have already warned the police over recording 'non crime' hate incidents but they seem to have ignored the judgement (Miller v College of Policing,2023). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes "Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc "as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done "Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? "gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple? "But why? You said you supported why they did this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes "You don't support the race hate rioters actions. But you support their non-existent reasons for race hate rioting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
You don't support the race hate rioters actions.
But you support their non-existent reasons for race hate rioting?"I think he supports their desire for free Greg’s and bath bombs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? "because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All this because of the draconian 2003 communications act passed during Blair Era. Police are wasting their time arresting people saying hurty words online. But if there are phone thefts and burglaries, police are openly saying not to keep their hopes up because they don't have time to investigate this. 14 years of conservative government where they kept complaining about woke policing but they never touched the 2003 communications act which enabled the police to do this. Tells you a lot about politicians in general. Trivialising hate crimes as “hurty words” doesn’t get you anywhere. If you are upset about the Pearson case, fine. Do you know what she actually tweeted? When do hurty words become hate crime? The US clearly draws the line at a direct call for violence. There is no clear line in the UKif you use the wrong pronouns This is, of course utter bollocks. "Hate speech is considered a crime in the United Kingdom when it crosses the boundary of criminality and becomes a hate incident. Hate speech is defined as any expression of hatred or abuse that is intended to alarm, harass, or distress someone because of their race, color, sex, disability, nationality, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. " 'Hate incidents' are not crimes, that's the whole point! Yet the police are investigating and recording them. They are also self-defined - they do not need any supporting evidence or corroboration to be recorded by the police. Btw the courts have already warned the police over recording 'non crime' hate incidents but they seem to have ignored the judgement (Miller v College of Policing,2023)." That's not the point that was being made. But if there is no crime, or allegations of crime. I don't know why the rozzers are getting involved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks "How is race hate rioting going to reduce the incidents of murder in the UK? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks "u mention it your a racist, far right You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see "If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. I don't know the problem is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see "There won’t be any more riots, these brainless thugs are in the minority, as proved by the huge counter protests and condemnations from the community , plus , most are in jail now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"'The Home Secretary has been threatened with legal action if she forces police officers to record more ‘non-crime hate incidents’ (NCHIs). Writing to Yvette Cooper, the Free Speech Union warned her not to reverse the previous Government’s policy protecting freedom of expression, which told the police to only record incidents if they present “a real risk” of either “significant harm” or a “future criminal offence".'" Who ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
And most of them are now in jail, good to see for what seems to now be. Telling the truth 😂😂"You don’t get jailed for “telling the truth” You do get jailed for things like rioting, attacking the police, trying to burn people etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. "but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him?? "Timmy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online " This is such a lame argument. If we pass a law to arrest trans people, the % of arrests will be low too. Would you be supportive of it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Essex police investigated and recorded a 9 year old who said her classmate 'smelt like fish'. Your tax money at work there. "Fake news, I know you can do better | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see "What exactly are we “starting to see”? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online This is such a lame argument. If we pass a law to arrest trans people, the % of arrests will be low too. Would you be supportive of it? " When was this law passed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and
"This is not allowed. " timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him?? " Timmy the racist moron being a racist moron is entirely unrelated. Hope this helps. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
What exactly are we “starting to see”? "We are starting to see idiots getting sent to jail? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy "so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? "timmy even lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? "Jimmy Timmy Jamal, don’t know any of them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? timmy even lol"Who is timmy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? timmy even lol"They both deserve to have their cases heard in court. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? timmy even lol
Who is timmy"A fictional racist shit bag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal?
Jimmy
Timmy
Jamal, don’t know any of them "me neither but its a simple question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal? timmy even lol
Who is timmy
A fictional racist shit bag."I know he had ten names but Timmy is a new one | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him?? "Are you suggesting that the rioters were shouting warnings about specific migrants, who they knew were offenders? Or do you agree that they convinced themselves that some of this lot were wrong ‘uns, so it’s ok to roar abuse at all of them and try to burn them alive in their shelter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? " These days you can get thrown into jail just for saying your English | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal?
Jimmy
Timmy
Jamal, don’t know any of them "What have I done now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? " There were several riots. We all saw them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pros, stops hate speech and inciting violence, I have already asked yoh this, what can’t you currently say that you want to " Which of the following lines are hate speech that deserves arrests? - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe the suffragates are morons too. If it's illegal, why did they do that? Also the Civil Rights and Anti Apartheid Movements, all morons apparently for breaking the law. "Just follow the law" as longs as the laws are what they like - Pretty much every authoritarian in the world. What is is that you want to say but you can’t ? The 2003 communications act says that it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Do you know where they draw the line at "grossly offensive"? For some people, fabswingers is grossly offensive. The language is not a mistake. It's a simple tactic used by authoritarian politicians like Blair to control speech. Write a law that's up to interpretation and arrest people who don't follow the party line. So you get offended by a law but you still don’t know what you can’t say ? That's the problem? Can you say where the line is drawn? Don't you think that a law that's so arbitrarily written is dangerous? It isn’t a problem, 99.9 % of the population don’t break this law, You say you like the law. But you don't even know how the law works and where the line is drawn. How can you like the law when you don't even understand what is legal and what is illegal? Yes I do, it’s called common sense, if in doubt and you think you may have crossed the line , don’t be a moron and post it, ignorance isn’t a defence, unfortunately since the advent of social media there are to many idiots who think they can post anything, you can’t , There was a time when it was just common sense to not speak against religions. Many people still believe it's common sense to not talk against religious figures. "Common sense" is highly subjective. Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online theres probably 70% of us in this forum that would be deemed as guilty as the nasty riot tweeters used and 99% haven't been arrested because they havent got the staff cells or resources
Lots of people here were very enthusiastic about the race-hate riots. i know all those right wing nutters rioting over a murdering welsh christian saying he were a islamist extremist because of farage... Oh wait he were
Yeah, someone who's religion was unknown at the time who was born in the UK.
And the racists kicked off big time. Singing racist chats. Setting fire to hotels with non-white women and children in. Attacking non white people in the streets.
Got a lot of support on here. Sickening. do i support what they did, no
Do i support why they did it. Yes
Why did they set fire to hotels, loot shops, wreck people’s car etc etc as a guess as im not sure which hotels cars or shops youre refering to but just a wild guess is the hotel probably full of illegals,the cars most likely in a heavy muslim area or opposition muslims that turned up anf same with the shops, i can probably guess that "tonys hardware shop" wont of got smashed up but spicy shawarma will of done
Why did they loot these places though, they also looted gregs and a candle shop? gifts for the wife as they said they were only going down to local for a couple?
But why? You said you supported why they did this? because they're sick of this happening over and over and really most of it were preventable, certainly with the grooming gangs and jihad terror attacks u mention it your a racist, far right
You take it further and you get social media bans. Make a documentary and get jailed so its only a matter of time before people take it into their own hands as were all starting to see
If you participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law. If you incite others to participate in race-hate rioting. Then you're breaking the law.
I don't know the problem is. but you can come into the country, be a known extremeist with jihad views, on the watchlist as a threat to the public and timmy gets jailed for shouting "racist" stuff at him??
Timmy so which deserves jail? Jimmy or jamal?
Jimmy
Timmy
Jamal, don’t know any of them
What have I done now? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? " Vigils with lots of smashing shit up, racism, and violence directed at non-white people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? These days you can get thrown into jail just for saying your English " No you can’t. Well, not in england anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you agree with this sentiment ? Given the extraordinarily low-rate of crime investigation and prosecution it seems many Chief Constables would rather their offices concentrate on monitoring social media for hurty words. Is this the best use of police time, or more State sponsored wokery ?" Surely you have something better to do..... maybe not....try a swingers site | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? " Ah West Yorkshire police. The ones who arrested that kid for the "lesbian nana" comment. Also the bunch of jokers who watched as an autistic kid's mother was forced to beg forgiveness from a group of religious extremists because her son who damaged Quran was getting death threats. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pros, stops hate speech and inciting violence, I have already asked yoh this, what can’t you currently say that you want to Which of the following lines are hate speech that deserves arrests? - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word"" Look, 99.999999 don’t get arrested for posting illegal things online, the other 0.00000001 % have 2 options, don’t post illegal content , or post illegal content and go to jail . The population don’t care | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pros, stops hate speech and inciting violence, I have already asked yoh this, what can’t you currently say that you want to Which of the following lines are hate speech that deserves arrests? - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" Look, 99.999999 don’t get arrested for daring illegal things online, the other 0.00000001 % have 2 options, don’t post illegal content , or post illegal content and go to jail . The population don’t care "So you don't know | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? Vigils with lots of smashing shit up, racism, and violence directed at non-white people. " Exactly what happened in Leeds, yet police have described it as a vigil. Their words, not mine ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? Vigils with lots of smashing shit up, racism, and violence directed at non-white people. Exactly what happened in Leeds, yet police have described it as a vigil. Their words, not mine !" 🙄 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"West Yorkshire Police have said in that the Leeds riot in which officers were attacked and multiple vehicles including a bus destroyed was a 'Romanian Vigil.' Maybe there were no riots, only a series of vigils? Vigils with lots of smashing shit up, racism, and violence directed at non-white people. Exactly what happened in Leeds, yet police have described it as a vigil. Their words, not mine !" Personally, if people are smashing shit up, being violent racists etc. then I have no sympathy for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Common sense means that 99.999 % of the population haven’t been arrested for posting illegal content online This is such a lame argument. If we pass a law to arrest trans people, the % of arrests will be low too. Would you be supportive of it? When was this law passed? " Again, you are coping out by arguing if the law exists or not. We are arguing if a law is good or not. If you think laws against free speech are fine because 99.99% of people don't get arrested, you should be fine with laws against trans people too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Pros, stops hate speech and inciting violence, I have already asked yoh this, what can’t you currently say that you want to Which of the following lines are hate speech that deserves arrests? - Chinese people are dirty - White people are oppresors - Black people should not be allowed inside the country - Indians should not be given citizenship - Muslims are violent people - People following Scientology are idiots - Jews are stupid - Transwomen aren't women - Not using preferred pronouns of someone - "Some god name" is a "some swear word" Look, 99.999999 don’t get arrested for daring illegal things online, the other 0.00000001 % have 2 options, don’t post illegal content , or post illegal content and go to jail . The population don’t care
So you don't know "I wouldn’t post any of them online, do I get a prize? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
