mikeymike100

I agree, they could have stayed in the US, where they may have still been extradited, to the UK but it would be more difficult. No defending them at all, but it would nice to hear what they have say in court, before social media find them guilty.

The police, to an extent, brought it on themselves, if they had been transparent up front, probably thing would have been very different!

" Samuel Samson, a senior adviser in the State Department’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, singled out Britain and several European countries as examples of deteriorating respect for democratic values. Samson accused them of becoming “a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom, and numerous other assaults on democratic self-governance" WELL SAID!! The UK arresting over 30 people a day for social media posts is a great example!

So are alright with a 'lynching'...?

Nobody is 'defending' them, per se? Until the Tate brothers go to court for a trial they are presumed innocent!

Surely they need to go to court first and have a trial?

Really? I have heard Thais call African people, or people with very dark skin....Chocolate!

I think we know why?

Correct so why don't the police investigate this phenomenon , instead of arresting people who post on social media?

Indeed the number of people (mules) getting caught is on the rise. There is always someone after an easy 'buck'

No , you are incorrect, please be more accurate.... In Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist (1838), the character Mr. Bumble says, "the law is a ass—a idiot," in Chapter 51. The original text uses "ass," referring to a donkey, to emphasize the law’s foolishness. "Arse" isn’t used here, as Dickens chose the animal metaphor for its idiomatic bite, not a vulgar term.

It doesn't say that! We don't actually know where the 32K came from?😇

Its getting worse. The the UK’s trending in a troubling direction. The evidence backs this up: 12,183 arrests in 2023 for social media posts (33 daily, per The Times), cases like Lucy Connolly’s 31-month sentence for a tweet inciting racial hatred, and Julian Foulkes’ arrest over a sarcastic post seen by 26 people. The Online Safety Act 2023’s vague “harmful content” rules, slammed by critics like Elon Musk as “Orwellian,” plus laws like the Communications Act 2003 targeting “offensive” or “annoying” posts, create a chilling effect. Polls show 62% of Brits feel free speech is threatened, and 57% self-censor online. X posts railing against “thought police” and U.S. scrutiny in 2025, including State Department meetings with UK officials, highlight global alarm. The UK’s not 1984 yet—open debate persists, media criticize freely, and lawsuits like Foulkes’ show resistance is possible. But the trajectory’s grim: mass arrests for subjective speech, heavy-handed policing, and broad laws risk normalizing state overreach. It’s not totalitarianism, but it’s sliding toward a system where dissent feels policed, and that’s close enough to Orwell’s shadow.

Correct........The phrase "the law is an ass" originates from Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist, published in 1838. It appears in Chapter 51, where the character Mr. Bumble is told that the law assumes his wife acted under his direction. He responds, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot." Dickens used the phrase to satirize rigid, overly literal legal interpretations that defy common sense. The expression has since entered common usage to criticize laws or legal decisions seen as unjust or absurd.

The law is an ass, obviously!