James105

So they just receive money do they and don't have any of these things called... costs? I'd highly recommend you continue to stay away from running a business as you would likely crash it faster than the a girl from a customer complaints team would if given the job of running the UK economy. Much safer financially for you if you continue to share your business "wisdom" on here for our entertainment.

Look at this clown. Announcing something that is already illegal to now be illegal. If he really wanted women and girls to be safe then perhaps he could try and "smash the gangs" and stop the fighting aged men arriving illegally on small boats, deport every single one that has arrived on small boats rather than put them up in hotels and deport every single one of the rape gang perpetrators so they never get to rape an English girl again.

To be fair if they are overweight and unemployed I would turn off their electric from the grid and hook them up to an energy generating treadmill to at least contribute their own energy to "net zero" as well as losing some weight. If only BlackRock made energy producing treadmills then we could have seen this (in my humble opinion) quite ingenious policy, but they are more likely to have their fat fingers in Big Pharma.

So your premise now is that it is deranged maniacs that act on peoples social media words and if nobody posted hurty words on social media they would not ever carry out a deranged act even though they are deranged maniacs? Really? You still avoided my question though. What sentence (if any) should the individual who posted the example above receive? It's okay to admit you were wrong and there should be no custodial sentence given for posting mean words on social media if you do not think he should be jailed for this.

Ok lets put it to the test then. Here is another example recently posted on Twitter. What jail term do you think should be imposed for this - an actual demand to execute someone? 31 months the same as Connolly or longer as it is not just 'tacit approval' it is a demand to execute someone? My view is these are just words and at most require a ban from social media for while, as calling for someone to be executed is unpleasant. What say you? I've "chopped off" the more explicit parts but its still available here: https://x.com/Paul_LFC3/status/1860771030509203529

Not until next April though eh? According to Labours own study there will be at least 4000 pensioners who will not survive this winter due to the removal by Labour of the Winter fuel allowance to benefit from this policy that the Tories introduced.

I think Corbynism was socialism with good intentions, but this... This is something very different. I don't think Corbyn would have partnered with BlackRock in the same week that IHT for farmers was introduced (when BlackRock have been buying up farmland) or escalating the Ukraine conflict when BlackRock already have the contracts for rebuilding Ukraine and supplying weapons. There is some seriously dirty money involved in Starmerism. Surprised the leftists are still so enthused about it considering how anti big business they claim to be. Anyway, that reminds me, maybe its time to purchase some BlackRock shares as there is another 4.5 years of this to go.

Bookmark it if you like. Rachel from the customer complaints team with her anti-growth policies will ensure it happens. Economics 101 (obviously the class she skipped out on) is very clear that you cannot tax your way to growth. My next prediction is that when growth does not happen, Labour will be back for more taxes, inhibiting growth even further.

£400bn was lost on covid lockdowns. Labour wanted harder and longer lockdowns so the bill would very likely have been much, much higher. Yes the Tories were awful hence they are no longer in government, but as awful as they were they are nowhere near as bad as these incompetent clowns in government now.

If that was in the Labour manifesto and people voted for it then yes, there could and should be another referendum, as that is how the last one was granted. Was it in their manifesto?

You are starting to sound like one of those deranged people (who used to be right leaning) who think that people can be so easily swayed into action by something they see or hear, be it a video game, a movie, or nowadays some words in a social media post on the internet. No, they cannot be held accountable for other peoples actions and nor should they. If you were to tell someone to go jump off a cliff do you really think you have that kind of power to make them actually do it? Of course not. It is not whataboutery as this topic is about free speech in the UK, not an individual case. You claimed that people should be prosecuted if they were gave their tacit approval of horrific acts. Considering how hateful and intolerant the left is then that would see many thousands convicted and jailed for the spiteful "tacit approvals" of violence towards anyone who disagrees with them politically. I merely gave one example to counter your censorious desire to see people prosecuted for social media posts.

With 14 years to prepare for this as well it takes a special kind of stupid to perform as badly and be as incompetent as these clowns. In 2 years time when the UK has endured its 4th consecutive quarter of recession, the Starmer/Reeves clown show will still be repeating the same tedious and vacuous phrases of "22bn black hole", "fixing the foundations", "tough choices" and "cleaning up the mess left by previous government".

Indeed. No matter what they do to the UK, no matter how much the Pound Sterling decreases in value, no matter how many pensioners die this winter due to their cruel and unnecessary policies, no matter if the next 4.5 years are spent in recession, no matter if their partners in BlackRock buy up all the available farmland due to inheritance tax, no matter how expensive they make energy or even if the lights literally go out due to net zero insanity, and no matter how many repeats of Southport, there is literally nothing the UK can do about it. That petition could have 50 million signatures and will be ignored and probably just blamed on the far right or the usual suspects (Russia/China) again. It would need an event of far more significance than any of the above (such as someone eating cake on a birthday when they were not supposed to), before the legacy media would even turn against them.

Absolute nonsense. There would be thousands of trans activists in jail right now if their tacit approval of horrible things they wish to happen to JK Rowling were subjected to prosecution in the same way. Taking away someones freedom, effectively ruining their life, career and prospects (for their very first offense) over a single angry post on social media (that did no actual or provable harm to anyone) in the aftermath of 3 little girls being butchered by a muslim attacker is shameful behaviour. The UK can no longer take any moral high ground over China, Russia or North Korea in the way it treats its citizens for saying things the government does not approve of.

It is not a jailable offense to be an idiot and a liar as Starmer/Lammy/Reeves et all are proving on a daily basis by retaining their freedoms.

Right, so he is in jail for something he said. So you agree you cannot say whatever you want in the UK then contrary to what you posted earlier?

Good grief. I would if the only person I have knowledge of for inciting violence in public (since Starmer's tyrannical reign) wasn't a Labour councillor who demanded people slit the throats of right leaning people. I can only say (with some confidence) that if that had been Tommy Robinson saying the exact same words about Muslims he would be in jail right now. Oh wait, he is in jail right now... for saying something.

That bit in bold (for all I care) is the equivalent to the following: "I am indifferent to someone setting fire to hotels full of immigrants". This is not a pleasant thing to say. But it is not an illegal thing to say. Even then there is no evidence of any causal link between what she said and actions people took, nor is it possible to prove if anyone who participated in doing so even read her post. She deleted it and apologized for it. The correct "punishment" for this kind of post is an apology (which she gave) and an appropriate cool off ban from the social media platform she posted it on. The incorrect punishment is 31 months in jail, especially since this was her very first offense of any type. Had she been a serial offender and committed the exact same offense she would have known better than to plead guilty and she would never have been convicted of inciting violence from that post by a jury. The way they treated these people by remanding them in custody (for tweets/memes) and no doubt promising them reduced sentences if they plead guilty is shameful. Those who support this should be ashamed of themselves.

So she shouldn't have apologised for an offensive tweet? I don't understand you people at all. Why wouldn't she apologise if she felt bad for offending people for what she wrote in the aftermath of 3 little girls getting slaughtered in a dance class by a Muslim attacker? Maybe you don't care so much if 3 innocent little girls are butchered but this kind of thing has a big impact on people and they can do and say things they later regret. So she apologised. What shouldn't have happened is going to jail for a very first offence for an offensive tweet in her first ever encounter with the law. Had she been a more hardened criminal that knew the system even a little bit she would not have pleaded guilty and a jury would not have convicted her.

Incorrect. Her post implied that she was indifferent to whether or not the building was set on fire - it is not a crime to be indifferent to a bad thing happening. Her charges were inflated and she should not be in jail. Even if she had said what your echo chamber claimed she had said, it would still be impossible for a court to prove a causal link between what she said and whether that caused people to start fires, or even if those convicted of starting fires had even seen her post. But that isn't what she said, so is irrelevant. People who set fires to buildings and/or attacked police officers in an airport, or set fire to buses in the previous riots (the Roma ones) should all be in jail. People who posted offensive tweets, even if you didn't like them, should not be in jail.

I can do one better and repeat what I said. I'll bold the bit that you had trouble reading to make it easier for you. The UK though was one of the first countries (if not the first) to give citizens a version of freedom of speech (or at least started the process towards free speech) in the Magna Carter over 800 years ago in 1215.

Let's look at the evidence before dismissing this out of hand. In China you can be jailed for social media posts but it depends on how big the reach is. The example in this article someone with 2.5 million followers was jailed for 7 months under their defamation laws (something about criticizing the government. https://www.fairplanet.org/story/china-where-a-post-can-land-you-in-prison/ In the UK Lucy Connolly was jailed for 31 months for a social media post. On that basis I think it is reasonable to say that it is worse in the UK than China, but not probably not as bad as North Korea.

Thailand has never pretended to have freedom of speech though so its kind of baked into what we expect when we move here. The UK though was one of the first countries (if not the first) to give citizens a version of freedom of speech (or at least started the process towards free speech) in the Magna Carter over 800 years ago in 1215. To lose it and go backwards after all this time is really quite shameful.

No, you cannot say what you want if you are in the UK. Lucy Connolly mistakenly thought she had free speech in the UK and is currently serving a 31 month jail sentence for saying what she wanted to on facebook. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo

Nope, you have lost that too hence why we are still mostly in the dark about Southport.