Baht Simpson

Apart from the trans issue there's a lot more to living in Thailand than just upping sticks and plonking yourself down here. Moving to another country requires research and planning regarding visas, healthcare, location, relationships etc. Maybe she has done some research but social media, Tiktok in particular, is littered with people young and old who have come here without fully thinking it through. I guess it might be a bit easier now with so-called digital nomad visas. Good luck to her.

"On 22 January 2025, during a GB News comedy show, Howie made a joke conflating the church and the full inclusion of LGBTQ+ with paedophilia, alluding to the LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory widely regarded as homophobic. Following this incident, Good Law Project began a campaign asking broadcasting regulatory body OFCOM to take action against GBN." Source: Wikipedia

Apparently, it was "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" chanted by a few people at the New York Drag March in 2023 and was meant as an ironic riposte to claims of them harming children. The chant was adapted from "we're here, we're queer, we're not going away" which was used some time ago. It's meant to be provocative of course but personally I think it was ill-judged in the present political climate and it was criticized by both sides of the trans debate. Nevertheless condemning all LGBT+ and claiming it proves they're harming children is clearly preposterous.

I had a very vivid dream last night. I dreamt I was eating an enormous white marshmallow, and when I woke up this morning my pillow had mysteriously disappeared. 😮

Your usual trick of presenting a link to an article that backs up your claim but really does nothing of the sort. Neither of these articles are seeking the normalization of paedophilia but reference the discussion of de-stigmatization of paedophilic thought to enable offenders to seek help and reduce harm to children. And they don't quote this as homosexual behaviour, as you'd like to project. I don't agree with all they postulate, but don't make this an LGBT thing to feed into your continual narrative against gay people. It does you no credit.

So, they lowered the duty and people started buying more. Did they not see that happening?

I wasn't pretending anything. I have no interest in left/right tribalism. How is stating correctly that one example is lawful and the other not, pretending anything? It's just your skewed interpretation. It's just what you like to think I meant.

Gaslighting?

Not in this case, clearly. We're talking about the law, not opinions or positions.

Yes, two tier. One's legal, one's breaking the law. Is the penny dropping?

The right to free speech is still there, 201 m from the clinic. The police routinely re-direct demonstrations where they believe they might cause intimidation. And make no bones about it, that's what it is, intimidation in the guise of "silent prayer."

Definition: "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally." It's the worst possible way to make point if you want to be taken seriously. 🙂

It would be if this is what happened, but it wasn't. Initially Robinson was sued for libel, which is covered by civil law. i.e. private plaintiff v. defendant. He lost and was ordered not to repeat the falsehoods. He subsequently defied the court order, a serious crime under public or criminal law which then involves the state. The sentence handed down was for that crime and he gave the judge little alternative and acknowledged his guilt. Thinking that's the result of a corrupt judge when it's standard procedure is preposterous.

By that measure terrorists are just doing their civic duty. Maybe she had a moral duty which led to civil disobedience but that's not what civil duty means. Civil disobedience must be morally justified. Rosa Parkes had that by taking a stand against racism. Robinson doesn't have that by defying a judge and repeating proven libelous remarks.

Your civil duty is to obey the law, pay taxes, refrain from violence and generally do all that is required in a polite, civil society to live together. Civil disobedience usually, but not always, involves breaking the law. They're broadly opposites. Civil disobedience sometimes has its place but it must be done in the correct way. That's where Robinson had failed.