RayC

I'm pleased that you have decided to call an end to your claim that I am gaslighting. Thank you. Just a shame that you felt the need to post the false allegation in the first place. You have a great day as well.

Ahh gaslighting definition #1: "Psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence ..." So what shall we settle on? Gaslighting claim #5 or #8? I'm easy. You choose. This thread is about free speech, Jonny, but you are the one who introduced a racial element into the discussion, so why be surprised when those who disagree with your contention offer counter-examples to your claims? From page 3 of this thread (recognise the words?): "Just pay your taxes and shut up. Or jail awaits (but only if you're white working class of course)" I've got more but that's enough for now.

I agree with your sentiments but until the law is changed what choice was there other than to release him?

Agreed I would imagine that surveillance of suspects requires a specialised set of skills which not all officers possess. Therefore, transferring officers to the surveillance units might not be as easy as you suggest. Naughty, naughty Jonny☹️. As you well know I have replied numerous times to you about your gaslighting in the appropriate thread.

As do I. https://www.statista.com/statistics/284677/police-stop-and-searches-in-england-and-wales-by-ethnicity/ Accusation of gaslighting #5 in this thread alone. You are doing an excellent job of making yourself look like someone gaslighting https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaslighting

Then that will require a change to the law as the article clearly states. Until such time as that occurs there is no alternative but to release him. Sigh ..... Some might call this gaslighting.

You keep calling out a lot of things that don't exist; my gaslighting is just one example.

Ahh .... Gaslighting Part 4. This one's got legs

😂 If you really believe that nonsense, Jonny, then I'd keep looking behind.

Presumably this is the NYT article to which Sputnik is refering (and distorting)? The paper described by the NYT does not remotely resemble a proposed, initialised agreement. It is more akin to 'Notes of a meeting', which illustrate areas of fundamental major disagreement. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html

Got a link for that?

Of course they threw the evidence out of the car when they were out of sight. What other explanation could there be for anyone driving away hurriedly when they knew that they were being followed by an unmarked van?🤦 We white people in the UK do have it hard. Unlike non-whites we can't play the race card. Funnily enough, during all the millions of encounters that I've had in the UK over the years - whatever the situation, whatever the profession/ personal circumstances of the individuals I've interacted with - I've never personally experienced any anti-white discrimination anywhere in the UK. I guess that I must be the lucky exception.

As Dos Santos stated, and as is clear from the video, the cars parked on the left-hand side of the street make it impossible not to cross the central line. There was no indication that the van was a police van when Dos Santos realised he was being followed. The video also shows that Dos Santos' car was out of sight when the lights on the police van were switched on and he pulled over at the next junction. How can you know that the couple's colour could not be seen from the police's first vantage point?

If they had something to hide then they did a very good job of concealing the evidence as nothing incriminating was found either on their person or in the car. I very much doubt that they would have not been st a search no matter what stage they pulled over.

The UK is clearly not a police state as evidenced by the fact that individuals have freedom of expression and the ability to protest. Note that I said 'protest', not 'riot'. Nor is there a 2-tier (policing) system which discriminates against white people.

Meloni heads a coalition government. It's unlikely that she has free rein to implement all the policies she wants to.

Two sides to every story as the BBC link and attached video makes plain. Sky's analysis suggests that Williams' partner was guilty of driving at 32mph in a 20mph zone. Not good but given that he realised that he was being chased by an unmarked van, quite understandable in the circumstances. Now I'm race baiting. Makes a change for gaslighting I suppose.

Third time with the gaslighting charge. You're certainly trying to prove that the second of the definitions in the link which I provided is correct! How about the treatment of Bianca Williams and her partner? The use of 'stop and search' where young black males are disproportionately more likely to be stopped? Is that 2-tier justice or solid, common sense policing? Cue, an accusation of 'whataboutery' and a fourth charge of gaslighting. https://news.sky.com/story/uk-riots-what-does-two-tier-policing-mean-and-does-it-exist-13191977

Then I imagine that it was a fake. If it wasn't it would have been all over the press and TV.

I am usually more than willing to blame Johnson for negative events but there is no evidence to support the notion that he scuppered a Russia - Ukraine agreement, which was " .. initialed and ready to go", for the simple reason that no such agreement ever existed.

If my arithmetic is correct then the UK would lose approximately 1.5 million people from the workforce. (Figure based on data from gov.uk) Well I confess that I did have you down as a Tory. In my defence, I think that it was an easy mistake to make given that you have taken every opportunity from day 1 of Labour taking office to lambast the government. Nevertheless, I apologise for my error. I completely understand why you might feel insulted by the association. I'm not sure that the US considers itself a 3rd world country.

"I believe whatever the law is, it should apply equally to both sides" Both sides? There are no sides other than defence and prosecution in the eyes of the law. "Let's see ..." "Let's see ..." "Let's see ..." ... "None will spend a day in jail". So much for waiting to see what happens. Definition of gaslighting: 1. To psychologically manipulate (someone) usually over time so that the victim experiences doub own emotional or mental stability. 2. : to badly mislead or deceive (someone) especially for one's own advantage. (Source: Merriam-Webster) Where am I guilty of meeting either of those definitions? In fact, the person guilty of gaslighting is yourself. Whenever challenged about anything, you almost invariably accuse your opponents of gaslighting in the hope that the charge will eventually stick. "The justice system is ... currently stacked in (my) favour"? Really? I can't say that I've noticed an uptick in my fortunes as a result of the justice system discriminating in my favour. Your sense of grievance shows signs of paranoia.

If you want to be pedantic, Islam is a religion. It's difficult to find figures detailing the number of white Muslims, but given that 97% of Muslims live in Asia or Africa, and that those who live outside of those continents are usually of Asian/ African ethnicity, I'd suggest that Islam is overwhelming a non-white religion and for that reason alone, a white supremacist might well be opposed to it. Being an atheist who believes that organised religion - whatever its' favour - has caused more problems than it has solved down the centuries, this is a tricky one for me. The best that I can offer is an AI generated list of the benefits of Islam. (An AI generated list would be the most I could offer for Christianity as well). _----++++++++----------- Islam offers a variety of benefits to individuals and communities, including: Spiritual guidance The Shahada, or Declaration of Faith, helps Muslims affirm their faith and find spiritual guidance. Discipline and mindfulness The practice of Salat, or prayer, five times a day, helps Muslims develop discipline and mindfulness. Social justice and compassion Zakat, or almsgiving, helps Muslims redistribute wealth to those in need, promoting social justice and compassion. Self-discipline, empathy, and gratitude Sawm, or fasting during Ramadan, helps Muslims develop self-discipline, empathy, and gratitude. Unity among Muslims The Hajj pilgrimage strengthens unity among Muslims globally and provides a profound spiritual experience. Optimism Islam encourages Muslims to have a positive outlook on life and to trust in Allah's plan. Morality The Quran encourages Muslims to be kind, humble, and honorable to their parents, and to not commit adultery or kill unjustly. Contribution to human civilization During Islam's golden age from the 9th to the 14th centuries, Muslim achievements in science, technology, and intellectual culture influenced the European Renaissance and the birth of the modern scientific method. ------+++++-----_- However, let's not pretend religious atrocities are the sole preserve of Islam. Buddhists in Burma are killing Rohingya simply for being Muslim, and some nations in Africa and deranged sects in the US kill homosexuals in the name of the Christian God. Yes that's whataboutery ,but as I stated at the start of this section, I don't have much time for any form of organised religion, so please don't ask me to explain away acts of terrorism/ murder done in the name of Islam - or any other religion for that matter - as I can't. Given that the incident involving the Batley school teacher happened when the Tories were in power are you now saying that a 2-tier justice system existed before Labour came to power? I thought all the problems of the UK were of Labour's making? I can understand your skepticism about the Aporia article. I too have my doubts. Most of their research appears to be pseudo-scientific nonsense trying to prove the concept of hereditarianism.

Nadine, please do yourself a favour and seek help. You're 67. You're too old to cling to a teenage infatuation. Maybe you could start the recovery process by removing the pictures of Boris from your bedroom walls.

We disagree completely on the fundamentals of this conflict. With the collapse of the Soviet Union (and the Warsaw Pact), the newly independent states became sovereign nations who were (should have been) free to choose their alliances. Whether Ukraine was corrupt - imo it was and what's left of it may still be - is immaterial. Internal Ukrainian politics should have remained a matter for Ukraine to deal with. Ukraine was clearly looking towards the EU and NATO. No doubt, this met with the US's approval and, perhaps, the CIA lent a 'helping hand'. However, with or without US involvement, the direction of travel was clear: West not East. Also let's not pretend that Russia was standing idly by during this period, and letting events take their course; she was actively interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs. Russia may have had some cause to try to protect the interests of Russian speakers in the Donbass, but that does extend to invading Ukrainian territory. The idea that Russia was worried that NATO had plans to launch an invasion through Ukraine is imo frankly ridiculous. Russia has a legitimate security concern in protecting its' borders but that does not extend to occupying the territory of adjacent sovereign nations. Russia's sphere of influence should be limited to its' own territory and that of the nations who, willingly, wish to align with her. Imo this conflict isn't just about security. It is also about economics. A more Western (EU) orientated Ukraine poses a grave threat to the Russian economy.