RuamRudy

Why did you stop so soon? Maybe the bus could have careered into a nuclear facility and created a Chernobyl type situation across the south east, or it might have taken out a passing world leader, sparking an international crisis that led to global nuclear war? Your fantasy has so many more miles left in it.

That it seems reasonable to you comes as no surprise, but I am sure that there are many who recognise it as being truly authoritarian and Draconian; the sign of a weak government who uses fear and bullying to quash dissent.

Regardless of the details of his banner, 3 years for protesting is an outrage. I don't recall that law generating nearly so much umbrage on these boards.

3 years for hanging a banner off a bridge? That is not the sign of a healthy democracy.

Off topic? Are the parallels not obvious to you? Seriously? You called Scotland a police state yet you have no comment on the much worse situation across the UK? I would say that your position is not objective but political.

A genuine question - how do you feel about Sunak's attack on the right to protest? "For holding a sign outside a courthouse reminding jurors of their right to acquit defendants, a retiree faces up to two years in prison. For hanging a banner reading "Just Stop Oil" off a bridge, an engineer got a three-year prison sentence. Just for walking slowly down the street, scores of people have been arrested." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/the-right-to-protest-is-under-threat-in-britain-undermining-a-pillar-of-democracy

And yet not a single charge resulting from it. Could it be that it's possible for all laws to be abused thus?

Why would you do that? I presume that you know that the law is not retroactive so you know that your complaint is going to waste limited police resources? Why waste police time then boast about it?

It's called politics, but fortunately it's nothing like as bad as the cronyism and corruption that saturates English politics and, subsequently, pollutes the rest of the UK.

That reads a bit colonial - sort of like the natives can't be trusted not to pass laws their betters disapprove of. The bill received cross party support when it passed in 2021. This is not a single party imposed law.

There are 2 different issues here. One is the intent of the law; the other is the abuse of it by those who object to it or the party that implemented it. Note that the SNP does not have a majority in the Scottish parliament. The law was passed with cross party support, 82 for, 34 against and 4 abstentions. This is not an SNP whim.

I disagree. All laws are open to abuse. Should we avoid passing any law because of a small number of people with malicious intent?

I don't keep a log on anyone's activities, but then again even if I was why would you be aware. Are you keeping a log on users' activities? Based on this rant, i suspect it is you who needs to take the break.

Indeed, there is seemingly no limit to the idiocy of malicious, bigoted people. I think each one should be charged with wasting police time - but that would, of course, waste even more police time on these idiots.

Positive political discourse is taking a stand. Making vexatious complaints to the police about wildly misrepresented occurrences is not.

So you recognise that the law does not apply retrospectively yet you use this phrase? Strange... Funnily enough, it seems that 3,000 people have failed to understand the basic premise of the law, and rushed to put their bigoted ignorance on display.

Are you sure you understand what it meant to be hoisted by one's own petard? There is no doubt that Scotland has its fair share of bigots who object to the notion of a democratically elected nationalist government, and one led by a confident son of immigrants is anathema to many, hence the inevitable vexatious and malicious reports. The proof of your post however, will be if Police Scotland decides there is a case to forward to the PF. Let's hope that justice prevails - even though it will result in the usual outcry from the usual bigots that he is being protected.

Yes. Why do you ask?

You posted 1 minute and 5 seconds of a speech that consisted of much more. I appreciate that the thought of being able to denigrate a brown skinned man who, at the most superficial of glances, said something which could be construed as racist is catnip to you, but if you had bothered to use your intellect rather than allowing your true nature to lead you down this alley of fallacies, all your inherent biases wouldn't be laid bare once again.

If Jonnyf used the same device whenever he mentioned anyone else who had a regional accent then that might make sense. I don't recall him being consistent on that though.

He doesn't oppose white people in positions of power. If you had bothered to look beyond the rage bait headlines that hooked you so effortlessly, you would have realised that. Why?

Also his native land. By the way, you spelt white incorrectly.

Interestingly, an Iowa LGBT group criticised the sentence was being overly harsh. "true justice should always strive to be about rehabilitation, reconciliation, and healing communities. It is difficult to see how a 16-year prison sentence accomplishes any of those goals." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1105131

What is my agenda? Should I restrict my posts to topics of which you approve? Maybe you can let me know in advance what topics you think I should be permitted to comment on?

When making an unsubstantiated statement, the burden of proof is generally on the accuser. You have made the same accusations several times and you have repeatedly failed to provide a shred of evidence to back it up. The very best you can do is say "some people suggest".