Chomper Higgot

On a point of logic. If Government have the power to remove a citizen citizenship, it’s only a matter of time before a different Government arrives with a different set of reasons to use that power.

Mainly the poor?

Well they would say that wouldn’t they. Actions, however, speak louder than words. It wouldn’t be the Daily Mail, The Telegraph or the Daily Express would it?! We don’t get criticism of the Tories from that quarter.

You need to present this contract.

Lineker can only win in court if the decision to censor him has no legal basis. In which case the blame for costs incurred is on those who decided to censor him.

Take that up with the political operatives who decided to censor Lineker.

Lineker always attacking the Government? Where did get that from?

The BBC’s rightwing political pandering has gone further, now singling out one episode of Attenborough’s latest series to be removed from general broadcast and only made available on BBC I-Player. https://inews.co.uk/news/bbc-david-attenborough-documentary-not-broadcast-2201612

I rather think if he does go to court he’ll pick up a nice fat settlement. All because of rightwing political interference trying to silence Lineker from expressing his personal views on his own personal social media account.

Expats in Thailand paying UK taxes is not at all unusual.

Nothing to do with ‘woke’ and everything to do with investment decisions. But nice try from you and Murdoch’s NYPost.

Never any shortage of socialism when a bank needs it.

You’ll need to produce the contract. I rather hope Lineker takes this to court, but I suspect the BBC will see sense and stop censoring Lineker. Your repetitive gripe about the funding of the BBC is absolutely nothing to do with Lineker being censored, though his censoring is a fact which knocks a gaping hole n your argument of a particular ideology.

I visited once on a cycle touring holiday. The repetitive joke was you’ve had enough when the pub starts to look straight. One of the biggest changes returning expats who have been away for many years will see is the disappearance of pubs, particularly in villages. During my February visit I got the sense cafes are taking over some of socializing that was the reserve of pubs. A sad loss I think.

You need to look at Campaign finance law.

Regardless of whether or not Trump turns up, Michael Cohen is scheduled to give testimony tomorrow.

no, they are not promoting abortions, they are offering the service to women who need it. You yourself have argued Abortions are available in some states in the US. Defenders of States that ban abortions frequently state women who need an abortion can travel to where they are available. It is the banning of abortions in some states that makes it necessarily other states to open their services to women from states where abortions are banned. Now back to the fact that a number of states ban all including in cases of rape or incest. Inevitable result, girls raped by their fathers, brothers, uncles, step fathers being made to go full term. Go ahead defend that obscenity.

Any excuse to prolong your willful avoidance of facts. No States ‘promote abortions’. Not that such a fact will get through.

If you don’t like Grand Juries, change the Constitution. Oh and while you’re at it……

Don’t misunderstand me, I think far more have them should have been gun-downed as they crossed the threshold.

Like, who was refusing to call out the national guard?

As a bonus the BBC have handed the general public an object lesson on worker solidarity and collective action. Goooooaaaaaal !

Watch and learn.

Not quite that simple. If the GJ passes down a decision to indict the prosecution then need to formally indict. It would however be extremely unusual for them not to do so. Thereafter a judge summons Trump before the court (This is an arrest regardless of how Trump turns up at court and regardless of whether he is cuffed). The judge will set a trial date and bail conditions. The judge will also order the prosecution to present all the evidence they have for and against Trump to his legal team. Trump is not accused of a violent crime and hence will certainly be given bail, with conditions attached. House arrest and surrender of passports is the most likely outcome. The attached conditions will include standard terms regarding intimidation of witnesses and what Trump may or may not disclose in the evidence the Court will ordered transferred to his legal team. Examples might be naming and doxing witnesses against him, threats overt or implied, against witnesses, prosecutors, the court, judge or anyone involved with the case. If Trump breaks those Bail terms then he may be rearrested and jailed. The question is of course, can Trump stop running his mouth?

Trump is the target of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury is a constitutionally mandated procedure to review evidence before indictments for ‘capital or infamous crimes’, in this case crimes that, if conviction is achieved will result in imprisonment. The Grand Jury is not a trial, but better described as an ‘inquest’ to examine if indictment is warranted. For this reason it is the evidence and testimony of witnesses in favor of prosecution that are presented to the Grand Jury. The ‘target’, in this case Trump gets to defend themselves at trial if the Grand Jury recommends indictment. However, under New York statutes, targets of Grand Juries are permitted themselves to address the Grand Jury, they are not compelled to do so but must be offered the opportunity to do so. Hence the invite with the ‘Mae West letter’. Trump will almost certainly decline the invite as anything he says before the Grand Jury is evidence admissible at trial. Trump is now in real peril of indictment, if he’s managed to find a lawyer who’s willing to give him the advice he needs, as opposed to the advice he wants to hear, then Trump will be zipping his mouth. Place your bets.