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!

"She also revealed that her boyfriend ended their relationship after learning the truth."........Wise Man!!

As far as alleged breaches of impartiality, an estimated 3,500–4,500 allegations of impartiality breaches were made against the BBC from 2017 to 2023, based on Ofcom’s reported 918 complaints in 2022–23, 594 in 2021–22, and an estimated 500–700 per year for 2017–21. Only 29 of these were confirmed as actual breaches! You called my biased, I proved you wrong.......period!

Bias in my statement, absolute drivel! i am not talking about alleged bias, i am talking about actual bias....that the BBC and Ofcom have accepted.. There are 29 impartiality breaches not just claims but actual breaches acknowledged by the BBC or its regulator, Ofcom, as failing to meet the Royal Charter’s requirement for “due impartiality” under the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines or Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code. These are cases where complaints were investigated and upheld, meaning the BBC accepted (or was required to accept) that its content lacked the necessary balance or fairness! I can you give an idea, but I am not going to give the whole lot. 2017: Today Programme (Moshe Ya’alon) - Unchallenged claim on Palestinian “independence”; ECU upheld, BBC accepted. 2017: Today Programme (Nigel Lawson) - False climate claim not countered; Ofcom ruled, BBC accepted. 2019: BBC Breakfast (Naga Munchetty) - Trump remarks initially deemed biased; BBC upheld but later clarified, acknowledging initial error. 2020: BBC News (Boris Johnson Edit) - Edited laughter skewed impartiality; BBC upheld complaint. 2021: The World at One (Ruth Davidson) - Unbalanced Scottish Government coverage; ECU upheld, BBC accepted. 2022: BBC News (Emily Maitlis Tweet) - Anti-Tory tweet; BBC upheld as bias. 2022: BBC Radio (Devi Sridhar) - Pro-SNP book coverage; ECU upheld, BBC accepted. 2022: Front Row (Tom Sutcliffe) - Unbalanced JK Rowling comment; BBC acknowledged after resolution. 2022: BBC News (Russell T Davies) - Anti-licence fee comment; BBC upheld as biased. You can check with Ofcom bulletins. As far as alleged breaches of impartiality, an estimated 3,500–4,500 allegations of impartiality breaches were made against the BBC from 2017 to 2023, based on Ofcom’s reported 918 complaints in 2022–23, 594 in 2021–22, and an estimated 500–700 per year for 2017–21. Only 29 of these were confirmed as actual breaches!

No the BBC by being biased are breaking the rules of the Royal Charter. You can easily find the charter , it explicitly mandates non-biased output as a legal and operational requirement.

Maybe 25 years ago you would be correct, now they are not broadcasting news, but opinions. They have broken the Royal Charter so many times, because they are not impartial, but biased. Not just on the ongoing conflict in Gaza, but Brexit, Climate Change, Syria, etc No precise count exists, but thousands of complaints annually allege bias, with notable peaks (e.g., over 11,000 for the 2009 Gaza appeal decision, 2,000 for a 2023 Conservative bias claim, and 1,500+ alleged guideline breaches in 2023-2024 Israel-Hamas coverage)

Yes, however many folks are now not paying the fee, as they are not watching live TV, or using iplayer. Its perfectly legal. Thing is in 2025 why is the BBC living in the 20th century?

Ramaphosa is worth around half a BILLION US dollars, he went to see Trump to beg for money, cos his country , SA, has almost 40% unemployment and he cant feed everyone. Instead he git a wake up call!! The BBC covered the incident under the headline “Ramaphosa keeps cool during Trump’s choreographed onslaught, Well at least the BBC didn't use the word 'ambush' like so many other MSM did?😂

You have evidence its a scam?

So this proves that the bio metric scans do actually work!

So he is on overstay, a year, so instead of giving himself a low profile, he actually brings attention on himself?? Not the shiniest penny in the roll!