4 minutes ago, RayC said:

"... no lefties stirring up racial divides ..." said without irony by the man who's favourite saying is a sarcastic, "diversity is our strength".

I think we both know that the recent rise in ethno nationalism in the UK is a direct response to the racist DEI policies, two tier justice and mass immigration forced upon the indigenous British people against their will.

Every action has a reaction. The left would do well to remember that.

37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I think we both know that the recent rise in ethno nationalism in the UK is a direct response to the racist DEI policies, two tier justice and mass immigration forced upon the indigenous British people against their will.

Every action has a reaction. The left would do well to remember that.

I'm glad you admit it is "ethno-nationalism". I wonder if Nigel and Rupert would agree? Or are you just referring to your friend Tommy? Either way, I don't think any party with "ethno-nationalism" as its ethos will ever be the government of this proud country.

2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I'm glad you admit it is "ethno-nationalism". I wonder if Nigel and Rupert would agree? Or are you just referring to your friend Tommy? Either way, I don't think any party with "ethno-nationalism" as its ethos will ever be the government of this proud country.

Thanks for asking. Actually I was referring to your mate, green party deputy leader Zach Polanski saying Greenland is for Greenlanders.

Your ilk always support ethno-nationalism and indigenous rights when it suits. Which generally means whenever is not white Europeans promoting it.

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Thanks for asking. Actually I was referring to your mate, green party deputy leader Zach Polanski saying Greenland is for Greenlanders.

Your ilk always support ethno-nationalism and indigenous rights when it suits. Which generally means whenever is not white Europeans promoting it.

Thanks for the clarification.

21 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I think we both know that the recent rise in ethno nationalism in the UK is a direct response to the racist DEI policies, two tier justice and mass immigration forced upon the indigenous British people against their will.

Every action has a reaction. The left would do well to remember that.

No we don't both know that. That is the false narrative that you use to try to sow division.

The overwhelming majority - including both the vanishing small number of indigenous people and the vast number of 'mongrels' - who constitute the UK population are welcoming of LEGAL immigrants. These immigrants have not been forced upon them against their will.

The concept of a two-tier justice system exists only in the minds of people such as yourself. As for "racist DEI policies", any racism and xenophobia is clearly demonstrated by those who continually complain about diversity.

Indeed, every action has a reaction. The extreme right should learn from events such as Cable Street, Lewisham and Brixton that they are not wanted in our communities.

18 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Were Lucy Connolly and Isabel Vaughin-Spruce handcuffed when arrested? You are saying they both were then? I can't find any mention or evidence that either of them were.

And Isabel Vaughn-Spruce appealed in court under Article 9 of the ECHR's right to freedom of thought and religion. Don't worry though, if your right wing buddies get in to power there'll be no more of that nonsense - that must make you happy.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce: Her legal claim against West Midlands Police specifically included "assault and battery" relating to her treatment during arrest. In August 2024, the police paid her a £13,000 settlement. You don't get a five-figure payout for "assault" if the police just politely asked you to move; the settlement was an acknowledgement of the unlawful use of physical force—including being handcuffed and subjected to an intrusive search—while she was standing still and compliant.

Lucy Connolly: While there is no viral video of her arrest like there is for Vaughan-Spruce, the disparity remains: she was remanded in custody for 72 days before sentencing. Under UK prison transit protocols, any prisoner on remand is standardly handcuffed when being moved between court cells and prison vans.

In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) itself issued guidance in October 2024 stating that silent prayer is "not necessarily" a crime, even within buffer zones.

Vaughan-Spruce’s legal victory wasn't a "right-wing" whim; it was a settled legal claim where the state admitted it overstepped. If the police arrest someone for what they are thinking in their head, they are violating the most fundamental tenet of a free society. Even the most ardent secularists generally agree that "thoughtcrime" is a dangerous legal precedent.

To address the "right-wing buddies" jab: this isn't about partisan politics; it’s about consistent application of the law. If a 72-year-old man accused of high-level corruption (Mandelson) is too "vulnerable" or "compliant" for handcuffs, then a 45-year-old woman standing silently (Vaughan-Spruce) is certainly too compliant for them.

The fact that the police only seem to find their "discretion" when dealing with the powerful/high profile/friends in high places folks!

Personally I think the UK should leave the ECHR, so it might be 'nonsense', but the UK government—under both Conservative and Labour leadership—remains a signatory to it

19 minutes ago, RayC said:

Indeed, every action has a reaction. The extreme right should learn from events such as Cable Street, Lewisham and Brixton that they are not wanted in our communities.

Actually I was talking about peaceful Democratic reactions. How telling that an anti-Democratic radical leftist would assume and then brag about past violence. 😄

I suspect that if an old white man spent much time in "your" community of Brixton you'd be on the lookout for a new phone fairly quickly.

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Actually I was talking about peaceful Democratic reactions. How telling that an anti-Democratic radical leftist would assume and then brag about past violence. 😄

I suspect that if an old white man spent much time in "your" community of Brixton you'd be on the lookout for a new phone fairly quickly.

Demonstrations deliberately held in areas populated by large numbers of immigrants by the anti-Semitic and racist Blackshirts and National Front with the clear intention of provoking the local residents. Yes, what could be more "peaceful" than that. But of course, those groups were simply enacting their right to freedom of speech and should not be held accountable or responsible in any way for the violence which ensured.

My old (white) man had no need of a mobile phone but in the 50+ years he wandered around Brixton he didn't get mugged either. I'm pretty sure that if he had been, his black friends in the betting shop would have been appalled.

The bottom line is that decent Brits reject your nasty, diverse, insular vision of what the UK should look like.

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce: Her legal claim against West Midlands Police specifically included "assault and battery" relating to her treatment during arrest. In August 2024, the police paid her a £13,000 settlement. You don't get a five-figure payout for "assault" if the police just politely asked you to move; the settlement was an acknowledgement of the unlawful use of physical force—including being handcuffed and subjected to an intrusive search—while she was standing still and compliant.

There was no violence against her, she was not handcuffed on arrest. ADF included the "assault and battery" as she was later searched against her will. Nice that you shouted it in bold, but there is no claim that she was assaulted or battered, it is a legal term and even basic physical contact during a search can constitute low level battery in technical terms. The compensation was for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. West Midlands police apologised for her arrest.

Again, my original statement was it was not unusual that Mountbatten and Mandelson were not cuffed during arrest. It is not standard procedure if there is no risk of flight or no threat to the arresting officers. This was also the case with Vaughan-Spruce, so I am still correct.

And FWIW I think her arrest was ridiculous. But she was not cuffed or handled violently in any way shape or form.

Lucy Connolly: While there is no viral video of her arrest like there is for Vaughan-Spruce, the disparity remains: she was remanded in custody for 72 days before sentencing. Under UK prison transit protocols, any prisoner on remand is standardly handcuffed when being moved between court cells and prison vans.

Again she was not cuffed during arrest. Same thing as above.

You can move the goalposts and talk about moving prisoners under remand all you like.

And FWIW I think she did deserve to be arrested and charged. And so did she, hence her guilty plea.

To address the "right-wing buddies" jab: this isn't about partisan politics; it’s about consistent application of the law. If a 72-year-old man accused of high-level corruption (Mandelson) is too "vulnerable" or "compliant" for handcuffs, then a 45-year-old woman standing silently (Vaughan-Spruce) is certainly too compliant for them.

The fact that the police only seem to find their "discretion" when dealing with the powerful/high profile/friends in high places folks!

As above, none of them were cuffed. If you can find evidence they were please share.

Personally I think the UK should leave the ECHR, so it might be 'nonsense', but the UK government—under both Conservative and Labour leadership—remains a signatory to it

I think it is hilarious that the EU was the cause of everyone's woes. Then we left and their lives didn't get better, they got worse. So then the immigrants became the cause of everyone's woes. Then they realised that the immigrant problem is largely a consequence of us having left the EU. Ah, so now it is the pesky ECHR - if only we left that then all our woes will be gone. It's a slippery and dangerous slide and largely (to me) incomprehensible that people would even consider leaving an organisation that protects their very own basic and fundamental human rights, and indeed Vaughan-Spruce even invoked it. Ah, but we'll enact our even, even gooder and betterer version, right? Yeah, right.

Be careful what you wish for.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Demonstrations deliberately held in areas populated by large numbers of immigrants by the anti-Semitic and racist Blackshirts and National Front with the clear intention of provoking the local residents. Yes, what could be more "peaceful" than that. But of course, those groups were simply enacting their right to freedom of speech and should not be held accountable or responsible in any way for the violence which ensured.

Why do you keep talking about violence? I am talking about an entirely peaceful reaction at the next election. I hope you accept that result this time instead of calling for another vote like you did when the Brexit vote didn't go your way.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

My old (white) man had no need of a mobile phone but in the 50+ years he wandered around Brixton he didn't get mugged either. I'm pretty sure that if he had been, his black friends in the betting shop would have been appalled.

Exactly my point. It was a different London back then before immigration/crime got out of control. Lucky for him he enjoyed the best of it.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

The bottom line is that decent Brits reject your nasty, diverse, insular vision of what the UK should look like.

I'm not sure what you think my diverse vision to be, but there is nothing nasty or insular about having concerns about the current state of Britain.

What's nasty is supporting a government that sought to block a national inquiry into the Pakistani rape gangs because it doesn't fit the narrative. That jails young mothers for years for rude tweets. That openly encourages racist sentencing guidelines and DEI policies. That selectively cracks down on free speech. That appoints Epstein's best mate to Ambassador of the US. That freezes pensioners. That drives farmers to suicide. That's real nastiness, not seeking to protect the rights and freedoms of the indigenous (yes I know you hate that word being used for white people) population that built the country.

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Why do you keep talking about violence? I am talking about an entirely peaceful reaction at the next election. I hope you accept that result this time instead of calling for another vote like you did when the Brexit vote didn't go your way.

Just dropping this in here, you know, when Farage said if remain win 52-48 there would absolutely need to be a second referendum. Again, you don't understand your own hypocrisy.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I think we both know that the recent rise in ethno nationalism in the UK is a direct response to the racist DEI policies, two tier justice and mass immigration forced upon the indigenous British people against their will.

Every action has a reaction. The left would do well to remember that.

Utter drivel as usual but if you want to blame someone for your imagined nonsense then blame the Tories who were power for 14 years until 2024.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

Just dropping this in here, you know, when Farage said if remain win 52-48 there would absolutely need to be a second referendum. Again, you don't understand your own hypocrisy.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

“In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

No hypocrisy here.

1. Farage saying something does not make MY opinions hypocritical. I never said 52-48 should be re-run. Talking of which...

2. In what world does Farage saying "unfinished business" translate to "absolutely need to be a second referendum" (before the result of the first one was implemented like Ray was suggesting back then)?

Looks like you'll have to do a bit better than that. 😄

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

Utter drivel as usual but if you want to blame someone for your imagined nonsense then blame the Tories who were power for 14 years until 2025.

But But But - The Tories.

How original. 😄

PS. I know lefties love "their truth" but the election was in 2024.

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce: Her legal claim against West Midlands Police specifically included "assault and battery" relating to her treatment during arrest. In August 2024, the police paid her a £13,000 settlement. You don't get a five-figure payout for "assault" if the police just politely asked you to move; the settlement was an acknowledgement of the unlawful use of physical force—including being handcuffed and subjected to an intrusive search—while she was standing still and compliant.

Lucy Connolly: While there is no viral video of her arrest like there is for Vaughan-Spruce, the disparity remains: she was remanded in custody for 72 days before sentencing. Under UK prison transit protocols, any prisoner on remand is standardly handcuffed when being moved between court cells and prison vans.

In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) itself issued guidance in October 2024 stating that silent prayer is "not necessarily" a crime, even within buffer zones.

Vaughan-Spruce’s legal victory wasn't a "right-wing" whim; it was a settled legal claim where the state admitted it overstepped. If the police arrest someone for what they are thinking in their head, they are violating the most fundamental tenet of a free society. Even the most ardent secularists generally agree that "thoughtcrime" is a dangerous legal precedent.

To address the "right-wing buddies" jab: this isn't about partisan politics; it’s about consistent application of the law. If a 72-year-old man accused of high-level corruption (Mandelson) is too "vulnerable" or "compliant" for handcuffs, then a 45-year-old woman standing silently (Vaughan-Spruce) is certainly too compliant for them.

The fact that the police only seem to find their "discretion" when dealing with the powerful/high profile/friends in high places folks!

Personally I think the UK should leave the ECHR, so it might be 'nonsense', but the UK government—under both Conservative and Labour leadership—remains a signatory to it

More cherry picking than a cherry orchard.

Not everyone arrested in the UK is put in handcuffs. Handcuffing is not an automatic procedure (unlike in the USA) but a form of "reasonable force" used only when necessary, such as to prevent escape, protect the public, or prevent harm to the officer or suspect. Isabel Vaughan-Spruce perhaps didn't deserve to be handcuffed but then again she then received 13k for her troubles. Seems fair enough. And you quote 'any prisoner on remand is standardly handcuffed when being moved between court cells and prison vans' as if this isn't a sensible thing to do to prevent them from fleeing.

You guys are always conflating other situations to demonstrate some sort of difference between how people are treated. Both Andrew and Mandelson are elderly gentlemen of obvious notoriety and therefore are highly UNLIKELY to be kicking off, hence no need for handcuffs.

It's really that simple.

15 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

But But But - The Tories.

How original. 😄

PS. I know lefties love "their truth" but the election was in 2024.

You're the one going on about 'the left would do well to remember that' when all the (imagined) things you mentioned were done by the right.

4 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You're the one going on about 'the left would do well to remember that' when all the (imagined) things you mentioned were done by the right.

I disagree.

The Conservatives haven't been right wing for a very long time.

Just as Liberals haven't been liberal for a very long time.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

I disagree.

The Conservatives haven't been right wing for a very long time.

Just as Liberals haven't been liberal for a very long time.

They've never been 'right wing' but they certainly are/were right.

You are right wing in case you need an identifiable comparison.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Why do you keep talking about violence? I am talking about an entirely peaceful reaction at the next election. I hope you accept that result this time instead of calling for another vote like you did when the Brexit vote didn't go your way.

I mentioned Cable Street and Lewisham to illustrate that ordinary working class people don't want anti-semites, racists, xenophobes, etc wandering around their communities trying to sow division.

Despite my fears - since realised - that Brexit would be a monumental mistake, I did not call for a second referendum. I hoped that my fears would prove groundless and that Brexit would be a success. What I expected - as a minimum - was that Brexit supporters would take accountability and responsibility for the outcome. What I actually got was none of the above.

I've said on many occasions, imo Alex Salmond's 'once in a generation' gap between referendums seemed about right. Assuming that politicians adopt the same principle, the only remaining question is how much more damage will be done by Brexit before we inevitably rejoin the EU sometime in the late 2030s.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Exactly my point. It was a different London back then before immigration/crime got out of control. Lucky for him he enjoyed the best of it.

The racial mix in boroughs such as Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets hasn't changed that much: There were a large number of immigrants in those boroughs 50 years ago - including many of Afro-Caribbean and Muslim heritage - and these boroughs still have a high proportion of immigrants now.

Things were different in the '70s and '80s in the sense that most areas of Inner South and East London were dumps. Those living in Lambeth in the late 20th century had 'the best of it'? I don't think so.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I'm not sure what you think my diverse vision to be, but there is nothing nasty or insular about having concerns about the current state of Britain.

What's nasty and diversive is your continual and continuous scapegoating of immigrants - especially those of Muslim extraction - and the implication that they are responsible for the problems in the UK today.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

What's nasty is supporting a government that sought to block a national inquiry into the Pakistani rape gangs because it doesn't fit the narrative. That jails young mothers for years for rude tweets. That openly encourages racist sentencing guidelines and DEI policies. That selectively cracks down on free speech. That appoints Epstein's best mate to Ambassador of the US. That freezes pensioners. That drives farmers to suicide. That's real nastiness, not seeking to protect the rights and freedoms of the indigenous (yes I know you hate that word being used for white people) population that built the country.

This government has been a major disappointment and its' inept handling of issues such as the Pakistani rape gang, the Mandelson affair, the lack of a clear strategy, etc deserves reprimand. However, the idea that it is anti-white, against free speech and is systematically trying to freeze its' elderly citizens to death and drive its' farmers to suicide as you state is as ridiculous as it sounds:

The young mother was not jailed for a rude tweet. She was jailed for inciting a riot and promoting arson.

Unfortunately, too many individuals from many sectors commit suicide due to financial problems but to blame this sad outcome on government action is wrong and distasteful. No British government in my lifetime has sought to deliberately kill its' citizens. Would you blame Thatcher for the suicides of miners and steel workers in the '80s?

Wrt the farmers, this government has merely removed the favourable treatment afforded to them so far as inheritance tax is concerned.