Chomper Higgot

Do you have a link to data substantiating that claim? UK arrests v Russia arrests?

Well it was enacted by the Tories.

That’s self evident.

You perhaps don’t know what Purdue was referring to. Maybe not up to date with events and news from the U.S.

It’s also bad news for Farage’s attempts to attract defecting MPs from what’s left of the Tory Party.

I agree certainly needs deporting back to Gaza for the reasons stated.

I don’t see anything in the article that substantiates that he has been ‘welcomed into the UK’,

Who knew?!

He’s conducting business in the UK therefore he is subject to UK law on that portion of the business he conducts in the UK. The Clauses within the Acts you cite facilitate the requests of UK (and other jurisdiction) requests.

It’s not a ‘first amendment’/ freedom of speech issue. It’s a matter of a business complying with the law by providing the details of accounts on its servers. If there is a freedom of speech issue that is a matter for litigation by the individuals who believe their freedom of speech is being denied. Musk’s duty is obey the law.

There is no ‘Party structure’. Reform UK is registered as a private limited company and run as a private limited company by its owners for its owners. People who join Reform UK are not members, they are subscribers, with zero say in how the party is run or in any Reform Policies. An added irony is the party attracts ‘rebels’, people who think the ‘system’ is rigged against them. A squabbling rabble who would have you believe they are a Government in waiting.

He doesn’t, he just needs to obey the law.

A more pragmatic approach would have been to simply change the name of the JCPOA to the ‘Trump Deal’ and leave it in place. But that would have denied the dullard the opportunity to demonstrate everything he touches dies.

A squabbling rabble, removing the whip and thereby losing 20% of their MPs in the wake of Lowe challenging ‘messiah’ Farage. And they would have you believe they are a Government in waiting.

Don’t worry, payback is coming.

You do understand the difference between the Constitution and Laws? I think most who attended Civics class do.

It’ll wind up in court.

Nevertheless, once in the U.S. the individual has rights protected by the Constitution, amongst which are those under the 1st Amendment and the right to justice. Much hangs on the term ‘possible illegal behavior’.

Putin agrees.

I think you’ll find the main reason is UK law with the ECHR ruling on a very small number of cases. Even if the UK were to leave the ECHR, which is highly unlikely, the UK would still be bound by other international treaties to which it is a signatory, example the UN Conventions on human rights and specifically that relating to refugees and asylum.

All actions by Government age vies are subject to the Constitution, the law and may be challenged in court. The U.S. is not yet a dictatorship.

Greenland’s resources, not America’s, not Trump’s not those of any of the billionaires he works for.

It would look a lot like a green light to empire building.

Seems entirely reasonable.

There is no clause in the Constitution denying rights on the basis of legality or otherwise of residence.