mokwit

Trump should reply with, yeah sure, but let's do an intelligence test also, and also test ability to walk in a straight line when asked (as per police stop for suspected driving whilst drunk).

Spelt propaganda wrong it is not spelt 'belief'

Left wing Governments in Brazil have been notoriously corrupt - I think it is more likely that they are trying to suppress exposure of any corruption as much as any opposing political views. Anyway, I think X has been reinstated, no?

Depends on whether it is true or not. If it is true people have a right to know so they can protect their pets, if it is a lie it is a racial slur. With free speech the truth can be established. The Left quoted the Mayor who is is making money from Haitian immigration as some kind of definitive answer. i have seen footage of a dog on a spit and of someone butchering a cat, the question is, is this from the time and place stated and does it represent the people stated. I'm afraid people are advocating against opinions against immigration. In the UK the Left shut down all debate for years and to mention immigration policy is to have someone scream racism.

What the left classes as hate speech and racism yes, real hate speech and racism no, but there are laws in place for that, that must be adhered to. Discussion of immigration is not racism and having opposing views to the Left is not "Hate". censorship is unacceptable as is Lefties crying because people can counter their points without being banned.

You spelt free speech wrong. (note, I am sure there were reasons other than the stated reason).

It's so good of you, Comrade Squealer, to come in and correct our wrongthink (yes I know, I am conflating two different books)..

Precisely. he never debates, only smears or make some snidey comment.

Yes I should have been clearer, arson is right out. Assembling peacefully and non threateningly to make it clear to people who are not real asylum seekers that they are not welcome would be acceptable only if you could be 100% sure that there were no genuine asylum seekers present.

A bit rich coming from you who smears everybody who doesn't share your spoonfed propaganda views, but it is really a tactic "pretend to be offended/pretend to be occupying the high ground". Methinks you have no answer.

No, you can say what you want if it is directed against me, I believe in free and fair debate and am quite thick skinned, or are you applying the "pretend to be offended tactic" to avoid answering? GO AHEAD. let's hear it. if you think I am the idiot say so., other members can judge for themselves, but it would help if you support your arguments rather than just smear or post a link from a biased source. In fairness I should have called you naive or gullible, rather than idiot - I will try and amend the post - especially if it will help you answer.

Naive (edited) , or do you think I am? You can see from the pre printed fuchsia/yellow stand against racism placards this is FUNDED the far left - SWP with Union support. They assembled in the locations given out by Lowles of Hope not Hate and of course because it was a fake location nobody from the "far right" was there so the left could then claim that they forced them off the streets. Walthamstow was MUCH larger than the handful of people that turned up elsewhere. i already told you this was the reality but you dismissed it as "conspiracy theory" without countering - the tactic of smearing without explanation. You are so susceptible to political manipulation that if you are not a propagandist I feel sad for you. People spontaneously assembled with pre printed placards?. Puhuhuleeze

Far Right thug is open to interpretation. the main backlash against Starmer has come from normal people resenting his labeling of any opposition to his worldview as "Far Right". Opposition to mass immigration and fake asylum seeking is only "Far Right" and "hate" in the minds of the Far Left. It is a deliberate tactic to demonise any dissenting voices. For the record I am very disturbed by the assembly/attempted arson outside building housing "asylum seekers" as there might have been genuine asylum seekers there, not just country upgraders.

Starmer himself potentially prejudicing A LOT of trials when he called people Far Right thugs ahead of their court appearances and insinuated that their social media posts had provoked rioting BEFORE any causal connection was "proven" in a court of law? You would have thought as a former lawyer/DPP he would know better, or is he too incompetent to know better? Police videos released online showing people dragged out of their homes and put in a cage were not helpful to the achievement an unprejudiced trial. IMO it has to be considered that these are unsafe convictions ( I am talking about the online incitement cases, not clear criminal damage/theft/looting).

Not the same thing as an intelligence test.

The strategy would be to get harsh sentencing news out as soon as possible to quell any further flare ups. I think the same strategy was employed in the 2011 riots. This is my interpretation, again, what were you expecting, a link to a Home Office web page?. I have seen this interpretation discussed online by others. I find it incredible how you demand a link for situations where it is required to make a judgement call on what went down. perhaps this is because as has been demonstrated multiple times you refuse or rare incapable of engaging in argument. It is either posting a link or demanding others do. Does it go over your head that in many cases a judgement call has to be made on limited facts???? I really don't take you seriously. You only seemingly look at one sides propaganda and then tha is your view, no attempt to look at other sources in order to get an unbiased view (such that this is possible).

Guilty pleas were required in order to get the sentencing press releases and videos out quickly and also because with a guilty plea in all but the most egregious mismatch between the law and the facts* less burden of proof is required than with a NG plea and trial. Looking at the way these laws are written makes this possible IMO. Pressure from the Police, possible innocent or malicious misrepresentation of the severity of sentence likely to be received by advising solicitor. *a judge can rule that the case should not have been brought if the points of law needed to be met to secure a conviction are not met, but with a guilty plea they would have to stand out in stark relief for that to happen.

All of whom are meant to be independent of each other. IMO the convictions need to be looked at to see if they are unsafe.

You edited out 'The usual insult/smearing as per Bolshevik tactics.'

Like Nick Lowles, or does he get special exemption for trying to inflame tensions?

The usual insult/smearing as per Bolshevik tactics. We already know, how come you seemingly don't?

For some reason Nick Lowles of the Labour party affiliated Hope not hate is not in prison for inflaming the situation tweeting that someone had thrown acid into the face of a muslim woman and that mosques would be attacked in multiple towns. Likewise Jesse Phillips (Labour).

Seems Chomper was stating as fact that neither Islam or muslims had any part without proof. He needs to hold himself to the same standards he demands from others.

So roughly in line with inflation then.