mikeymike100

He is obeying the law! X is a U.S.-based company, so its primary legal obligations stem from American law. The Stored Communications Act (SCA) governs how U.S. tech companies handle government requests for user data. Under the SCA (18 U.S.C. § 2703), X must comply with U.S. court orders, warrants, or subpoenas for user data—but only if properly issued by U.S. authorities. Foreign governments, like the UK, can’t directly compel X to turn over data stored in the U.S. without going through a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) process. The U.S.-UK MLAT, streamlined by the 2019 CLOUD Act Agreement, allows UK authorities to request data from U.S. companies like X for serious crimes (e.g., terrorism, child exploitation) without routing through the U.S. Department of Justice, as long as the request meets strict criteria: It must target a specific individual or account. It must relate to a criminal investigation, not civil or administrative matters. It must respect U.S. free speech protections (e.g., not criminalizing speech protected under the First Amendment).

Yes in the US it would be practically unheard to do such thing, they have the First Amendment, the UK sadly does not!

Sometimes it does, but this guy Smikle is more about political messaging than evidence. I should have known when he made his appearance on MSNBC!

Oh dear......you may want to check how many ex presidents avoided the draft, before posting infantile comments? Of the presidents whose lifetimes overlapped with the Vietnam draft, four who served as president after the war avoided it: Clinton, G. W. Bush, Trump, and Biden. That’s four out of the six post-Vietnam presidents who were of draft-eligible age at the time (excluding Obama and G. H. W. Bush for age reasons). All used legal deferments—student, medical, or Guard service—common among the 15 million men who avoided Vietnam service out of 27 million eligible. Avoiding the draft wasn’t rare. Over half the eligible men didn’t serve, thanks to deferments (9 million got them), exemptions, or high lottery numbers after 1969. Presidents reflect that trend—many were from privileged backgrounds with access to education or connections. No president since Vietnam saw combat there, though some earlier ones (like Nixon) served in prior wars

No, you are saying people don't check in small bags? Of course they do if they contain items that you cannot pack in cabin luggage , like knives, or nail clippers etc!

The only time the Dems actually stood up and applauded was when the President mentioned Ukraine and the billions that had been sent. That sends a definite message, they hate America! How could anyone NOT love that speech?! It was funny, uplifting & entertaining. I am so happy Trump is back!

It doesn't say was this cabin baggage or not, or did I miss that? So if it was cabin baggage she didnt think the xray scanner wouldn't be able to see the animals?

Why are the Dems wanting to support this madness? Do they have a hidden agenda?

So they lie, right off the bat?.... "A Home Office spokesperson defended the agency’s approach, stating, "We will never compromise on border security"

"Hurty or derogative words would land you in court," Only in the UK were freedom of speech is dead!

It's no just Qatar Airlines that do it, most airlines have a similar 'policy'. If seats are empty, the body goes there—covered, belted, ideally out of sight. British Airways’ 2021 crew guidance (leaked via a FOI request) says “use a row of seats if available, preferably rear or premium cabin for privacy.” Delta’s similar—per a 2022 employee forum post, it’s “least disruptive placement,” often first class if vacant. Singapore Airlines, post a 2023 incident, reportedly favors galley areas or empty rows, per staff accounts on X. No-seats scenario? Galley corners, locked lavatories, or last-resort “leave in place” with blankets—Qantas and United have both done this, per 2020 and 2024 passenger reports. Most train crews for this in basic first-aid courses—American Airlines’ 2023 manual, cited in a lawsuit, includes a “deceased passenger” checklist: confirm, move, cover, report.

Who in their right mind would go there as a tourist.......... “I went blank and wrote something like ‘I wish the world peace.’ Afterwards my guide told me that was an inappropriate thing to write" If writing 'I wish the world peace' is inappropriate, what would be appropriate?

"On Sunday, Starmer and Zelensky will join 16 other European leaders at Lancaster House to discuss a coordinated strategy for ending the war. The prime minister is expected to urge his counterparts to prioritize increased defence spending over symbolic gestures of support, aiming to forge a united European response without provoking further discord with the White House." So looks like the Europeans and Brits have taken point on this, I am sure all the taxpayers in the various countries will be happy? But I wonder who from Europe/UK is going to negotiate with Putin? That is going to be interesting?

If this was legitimate, meaning the tourist initiated the fight, why did the security guard disappear? "After the punch, the security guard promptly disappeared into the crowd. "

Yes indeed, Thailand, well, TAT and the Government only think about $$$$

"A spokesperson for the Campaign Against Antisemitism went even further, calling the situation a national disgrace. “A national treasure has become a national embarrassment. The BBC has now admitted that license fee funds were paid to the family of a senior Hamas official. It has not yet been able to rule out that further payments to Hamas were made as it continues to investigate where hundreds of thousands of pounds went. Clearly, those responsible must lose their jobs. We are among those who have reported the BBC to Counter Terrorism Policing, which is now investigating.” " The Anti Terror Police may well investigate this disgraceful behavior, but its very doubtful anything will come of it. The BBC have repeatedly shown bias toward Hamas, breaking the formal agreement with the Government, re the BBC charter, What has happened to the BBC in the form of disciplinary action..nothing, they are like Teflon!

Here we go with a deflection. Tut tut....What a ludicrous comment. President Trump is not mentally disturbed, or do you have hard evidence he is? He is not running around with nuclear arms, there are extremely tight controls, as there should be, on nuclear arms, even the President cannot unilaterally fire them, unlike a person with gender dysphoria, firing a gun!

When I am in Hawaii, I always wear them, so do most other people!

So they are in the US. On February 27, 2025, Romanian prosecutors approved a request to lift the travel ban, позволяя the Tates to fly to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on a private jet. DIICOT’s statement clarified that while they can leave Romania, they remain under “judicial control,” meaning they must return when summoned—specifically by March 24 or 25, 2025, for their next court appearance—or face stricter measures like detention. I wonder if they will return?

According to the email i received..... "Skype Credit users can also continue to use their remaining Skype Credit. After May 5, 2025, the Skype Dial Pad will be available to remaining paid users from the Skype web portal and within Teams." Whatever that means!

The US military's main purpose is to defend the USA, to do that it may well involve killing the enemy. Do you really want people with a mental disorder...'gender dysphoria' running around with a firearm? According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), gender dysphoria is classified as a mental disorder. Specifically, it’s listed under the category "Gender Dysphoria"

As of February 28, 2025, the Associated Press (AP) is not banned from White House press briefings in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. They retain their credentials to enter the White House complex and can still attend and participate in the daily briefings open to credentialed press. However, they are banned from other exclusive presidential events, specifically Oval Office ceremonies, Air Force One travel, and similar pooled press opportunities outside the briefing room.

There was a huge cover up, to try and stop the police and judiciary from doing their job in Rotherham and other places. It was done to stop the police and judiciary from being called racist and not offend the Pakistani muslim communities. There’s also evidence of deliberate suppression to protect political or social interests. In Rotherham, Louise Casey’s 2015 report found a council culture of silencing whistleblowers and covering up abuse to avoid damaging the town’s reputation or sparking riots. A senior officer reportedly admitted the abuse had been ongoing for 30 years but was ignored because "with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out." Similar patterns emerged elsewhere, suggesting a systemic reluctance to confront the scale of the problem. Now somebody is going to ask 'what evidence' no doubt, so....... Louise Casey’s 2015 Report on Rotherham Source: The report, titled Inspection into the Governance of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, was commissioned by the UK government following the 2014 Alexis Jay report, which exposed the scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham—over 1,400 victims abused between 1997 and 2013. Findings: Casey documented a pervasive culture of denial and suppression within Rotherham Council and, to an extent, its police force. The report explicitly states that council officials and senior leaders were aware of the abuse but actively avoided addressing it due to fears of damaging the town's reputation and stoking community tensions. Key Evidence: Interviews with council staff revealed a "culture of silencing" where whistleblowers were discouraged or punished for raising concerns about grooming gangs. For instance, one unnamed official reported being told to "keep quiet" about the ethnicity of perpetrators to avoid "rocking the multicultural boat." Casey cited evidence of files and reports on CSE going missing or being deliberately suppressed. A notable example was the disappearance of a 2002 draft report by a council researcher, which identified Pakistani heritage men as the primary perpetrators but was never published after senior officials intervened. The report quotes a senior officer (anonymized but implied to be from South Yorkshire Police) admitting that the abuse was known for "30 years" but was deliberately ignored because "with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out." This reflects a calculated choice to prioritize social cohesion over victim protection. Testimonies from Whistleblowers and Victims Jayne Senior: A youth worker in Rotherham who managed the Risky Business project, Senior provided evidence to both the Jay and Casey inquiries. She reported submitting detailed logs of abuse—naming perpetrators and linking them to Pakistani Muslim networks—to police and council officials from the late 1990s onward. She testified that her warnings were repeatedly dismissed, and she faced intimidation to stop her work. In her 2016 book Broken and Betrayed, she claims police told her explicitly that pursuing these cases could "upset the Pakistani community." Victim Accounts: Survivors like "Emma" (a pseudonym used in media reports) told the BBC and The Times that police refused to act on their complaints in the early 2000s, with one officer allegedly saying, "We don’t want to cause a race riot." These accounts suggest a pattern of suppression driven by fear of public backlash. South Yorkshire Police Admissions Operation Stovewood: Following the scandal, the National Crime Agency’s investigation into historical Rotherham abuse uncovered internal police documents showing awareness of grooming patterns as early as the 1980s. A leaked 2010 memo from a senior officer acknowledged "systematic abuse by a small group of Asian males" but advised against public disclosure due to "potential community unrest." Chief Constable Testimony: During a 2016 parliamentary inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee, former South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable David Crompton admitted that officers had been instructed to tread carefully around ethnicity issues, citing "reputational risk" to the force and the town. Similar Patterns Elsewhere Rochdale: The 2023 independent review into Rochdale grooming scandals found that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) shelved a 2009 investigation (Operation Augusta) into similar gangs despite identifying 97 suspects, many of Pakistani descent. GMP later admitted this was partly due to "concerns about community relations" during a period of heightened racial tension post-2005 London bombings. Telford: A 2021 inquiry by Maggie Oliver, a former GMP detective turned whistleblower, revealed that West Mercia Police ignored intelligence about grooming by Pakistani men in the 2000s, with one officer reportedly stating, "We can’t be seen to target them—it’ll look bad." The inquiry estimated over 1,000 victims in Telford alone. Oldham: A 2022 review found that council leaders instructed police to downplay abuse reports in the early 2000s to avoid "provoking the far-right," according to internal correspondence cited in the report. Broader Context from Media and Investigations The Times Investigation (2011): Journalist Andrew Norfolk’s groundbreaking exposé linked the cover-up to a "fear of racism" among authorities. He cited confidential police sources who admitted that political pressure from Labour-led councils—dominant in northern towns like Rotherham—pushed for silence to maintain voter support in diverse constituencies. Home Office Suppression: A 2014 leaked draft of a Home Office report (later heavily redacted in its 2020 public version) allegedly contained a section on "political sensitivities" influencing police inaction, according to whistleblower claims reported by The Guardian in 2019. This evidence collectively points to a systemic reluctance—driven by political and social interests—to confront the grooming gang issue head-on. The fear of riots, reputational damage, and accusations of prejudice created an environment where suppression became a default response, delaying justice for victims and allowing the abuse to persist unchecked for years. While some argue this reflects incompetence rather than a coordinated conspiracy, the pattern across multiple towns suggests a deliberate choice to prioritize optics over accountability.

Correct, the war has been going on for three years now, all Biden did was support the war, by sending money and arms and eat his ice cream. Hundreds of thousands of people dead and no end in sight until Trump won the election and now the end is in sight!

Yes Red. The WH press room has 49 seats, for major outlets, but up to 70 people can get in standing room only. AP are allowed to attend. The Oval Office is considerably smaller. The Oval Office, located in the West Wing of the White House, is relatively small for a presidential workspace, measuring about 35 feet long and 29 feet wide. If it’s a standing event, such as a bill signing or a photo op, it can squeeze in more—maybe 30 to 40—though it’d feel packed. Press events often show this, with people shoulder-to-shoulder around the edges. AF1 has 13 seats reserved for the press. So having said that its up to President Trump and possibly Karoline who get to decide who can attend. As far as the 'exclusion' is concerned The White House, led by figures like Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, argued that AP’s stylebook—which shapes language for countless newsrooms—has been “weaponized” to push a partisan agenda, justifying the exclusion on AF1 and the Oval Office!