JonnyF

It was great to see the girl who was banned from wearing the Union Jack dress at school speaking at the rally. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15095189/Schoolgirl-barred-school-Union-Jack-dress-tells-Tommy-Robinson-anti-migrant-protest-You-feel-like-British-doesnt-count-culture.html What a brave little British girl. The leftist Britain haters could learn a lot from her.

Hardly. She got paid twice for the same job. The second time, paid millions. A job she volunteered for.

No you are not making sense. It would have been better to simply admit the error than type that garbage in an attempt to obfuscate. 😃

Whatever happened to "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences"?

Not necessarily as revenge. Possibly that. But certainly as a deterrent. Isn't that pretty much the definition of penal justice? You committ a crime and go to jail. In some countries you are executed or physically harmed in some way e.g. hands cut off in Saudi Arabia for stealing. All societies have this concept in some form. As do most religions. An eye for an eye being the most well known phrase in western societies. The alternative would be that you should be allowed to hurt someone but that they are not allowed to hurt you. That doesn't make sense. Where is the deterrent for them to not continue hurting you or someone else?

OK. I will. You said. And I quote... free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. Let's say xxxx represents a racial slur. Choose your own. Works best with a bad one. So if I say "Michael Green is a dirty xxxx", that is hate speech by your definition. But if I say "Michael Green is a dirty xxxx and someone should punch him in the nuts", that is NOT hate speech by your definition. That does not make any sense.

Certainly a great country. That's why people want to live there instead of the third world hell holes they come from. You might want to walk around London for an hour. Top tip ; Don't take you phone out of your pocket.

Not what you originally wrote though. 😆 I'll allow you to gracefully/gradually change your position to save face though. I'm nice like that. If you don't reply to this post I will not point out your error in logic again.

Not my speculation. The authorities have confirmed that the 22 year old was an anti "fascist" pro trans killer who assassinated Charlie Kirk. Just as many of us said when we first heard about the assassination.

Yes, you are saying that now that the right is also using the tactic.

But you said free speech can be hate speech as long as it does NOT advocate violence. So what if it DOES advocate violence? You have stated it cannot be hate speech. So what is it? A straight answer will do. This time...

Cool story Bro. Did you get that from The Guardian?

In other words, "We, the left, can kick you in the gonads but you cannot kick us in the gonads". Sorry Bro, doesn't work like that.

So what if it DOES advocate violence? Is it no longer hate speech?

Of course it doesn't matter. He was 22. A grown man. My mother and sister voted Labour, I grew up in what is now considered one of the most left wing/Woke cities in the UK, all my old Uni mates still live in London and vote Khan/Labour, does that make me a pro trans ANTIFA sympathizer? You're clutching at straws. The only thing possibly relevant is that his upbringing may have given him the weapons skills to carry out his left wing, pro trans, anti "fascist" political assassination of the Republican Charlie Kirk.

May as well have said "UK won't tolerate green martians flying around inside Number 10" after far right rally.

Let's have David Lammy. Alcoholics have to hit rock bottom before accepting they have a problem and need to change. Maybe it could work for Labour?

And if he had killed Uni students instead, the left wouldn't be laughing as much and making so many TikTok videos celebrating it.

Having introduced the dirty tactic, I see no evidence of the left stopping. So why would/should the right?

Fluff. Again, these are your words. Doesn't make sense. So what if it DOES advocate violence? Is it then not hate speech? Maybe just easier to admit you made a typo at this point? 😆 Perhaps you meant "free speech can be hate speech if it advocates violence". That makes sense. Or "free speech cannot be hate speech unless it advocates violence". That makes sense. But what you ACTUALLY wrote makes no sense at all. 😃

I also believe Robinson is the killer. I am not convinced the picture of the guy in the cap is Robinson. It may be as simple as another student in a black cap and T-shirt that day. It's not exactly an unusual outfit. Or it could be that someone helped him do it, carried ammunition etc. Or maybe the CCTV camera distorted things like those distorting mirrors at the fairground, possible - but I am not personally convinced by this theory.

How can free speech be hate speech if it does not advocate violence? Your words...

Irrelevant. My point being that you cannot use dirty tactics for a decade and then as soon as the opponent starts using the same tacists, declare them off limits.

Just as we said. Another pro trans, anti "fascist", left wing nut job. At 22 years old, it really doesn't matter who his father/grandfather allegedly voted for. But I guess that's all the left have so they're running with it. 😃

Perhaps you meant "cannot be" and had a Freudian slip? According to the left, free speech is hate speech if they disagree with it.