|
|
Post by Rebirth on Oct 26, 2024 13:30:04 GMT
Certainly none of those violently demonstrating have achieved anything positive — it was left to the law-abiding members of various communities to clear up the mess... When has shouting a few words been dangerous or violent. Why is it we have to protest in our own country for our own rights? When they aren't supporting Hamas or BLM. Keep in mind that Labour are for identity politics and embrace the racially motivated grooming gangs and knife crime as a positive thing. For every angry response comes more third worlders and more draconian laws to oppress the people with. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 26, 2024 13:31:56 GMT
100% British Patriots! Are taking to the streets......RIP Peter Lynch. Our fucking excuse for a government should be fucking ASHAMED of their treatment of a 61 year old father of four with three grandchildren! DISGUSTING! The government is the executive branch of the three branches* of the state. The courts/judiciary is another branch which, in the case of Peter Lynch, judged him and applied the law. He was sentenced to two years and eight months after he pleaded guilty to being part of the unrest at the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham on 4 August.**
Lynch had suffered a heart attack earlier in the year and had also been diagnosed with diabetes. He had gone to the hotel to protest against immigration. Part of his defence was that he had a general conspiracy theory against anyone and any form of authority, and had taken a placard referencing Deep State and space agency Nasa. In other words, Lynch was a possible dangerous nutter, who should have had greater regard for his own health and stayed away.
Seems to me that it's always a good idea to stay away from potentially violent demos, whether pro or anti any cause.
Sadly, in the case of Peter Lynch, he didn't even live long enough to serve the 40% of his time...
*Parliament is the third branch of the state.
What he was was a man who believed in what he was doing and he felt he was standing up for his people, hence he wanted to go there and be at all the protests, much as if you were say a football team supporter and you would travel to all their away matches to give your moral encouragement. So I think how he saw it was part of his culture. For a crime to be committed, you not only have to do the crime, but you have to intend to do it. I don't believe he had the intent. What I think happened was he had a dodgy lawyer who forgot to tell him this and so he assumed the action was enough to prove guilt. Not so. The classic lie by omission ruse. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 26, 2024 13:38:19 GMT
When has shouting a few words been dangerous or violent. Why is it we have to protest in our own country for our own rights? Amazing how forceful some words can be when they cause the damage, destruction and injuries witnessed in the summer riots.
What rights are you having to protest for...?
Just to live in our own country FFS. We are second class citezens in our own countr... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 26, 2024 13:43:03 GMT
When has shouting a few words been dangerous or violent. Why is it we have to protest in our own country for our own rights? Amazing how forceful some words can be when they cause the damage, destruction and injuries witnessed in the summer riots.
What rights are you having to protest for...?
If only Chris Kaba realised that when he heard the word ‘ stop’. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 26, 2024 13:48:07 GMT
Amazing how forceful some words can be when they cause the damage, destruction and injuries witnessed in the summer riots.
What rights are you having to protest for...?
Just to live in our own country FFS. We are second class citezens in our own countr... Regurgitated rhetoric bollocks — give some verified specifics, and you might get a sensible discussion...
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Oct 26, 2024 13:50:12 GMT
You may guess right or you may guess wrongly, IMO it appears to me they have a reason for wanting to see what is on his Phone and who or what organisations he is contact with . Here is what he has been charged with He is accused of being in contempt of court following the airing of a film at a protest in central London and after attending Folkestone Police station on Friday, he was separately charged with failing to provide his mobile phone Pin to police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, IMO not charged with an Act of Terrorism, but failing to comply with legislation which is part of the Terrorism Act It's a load of fucking bullshit. A real terrorist would be like the Baader-Meinhof Gang or the IRA, not a man who hangs around London giving out leaflets or whatever he does at these gigs. It's just a waste of our taxes. The judges and lawyers are making a killing out of all this self-developed bullshit. More Waffle a rant with no substance |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Oct 26, 2024 13:50:55 GMT
Amazing how forceful some words can be when they cause the damage, destruction and injuries witnessed in the summer riots.
What rights are you having to protest for...?
If only Chris Kaba realised that when he heard the word ‘ stop’. If Abbott and Khan stoked up a race riot over that Patman would be banging the drum. This is why I just roll my eyes at his racist hypocrisy and double-standards. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 26, 2024 13:51:33 GMT
Amazing how forceful some words can be when they cause the damage, destruction and injuries witnessed in the summer riots.
What rights are you having to protest for...?
If only Chris Kaba realised that when he heard the word ‘ stop’. Indeed — and we're now expected to feel outraged when a convicted rioter dies while serving time in prison... |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 26, 2024 13:55:42 GMT
If only Chris Kaba realised that when he heard the word ‘ stop’. If Abbott and Khan stoked up a race riot over that Patman would be banging the drum. This is why I just roll my eyes at his racist hypocrisy and double-standards. I don't remember giving an opinion on the Kaba killing — except for a few seconds ago on here...
|
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Oct 26, 2024 13:56:52 GMT
It's a load of fucking bullshit. A real terrorist would be like the Baader-Meinhof Gang or the IRA, not a man who hangs around London giving out leaflets or whatever he does at these gigs. It's just a waste of our taxes. The judges and lawyers are making a killing out of all this self-developed bullshit. More Waffle a rant with no substance How so? Robinson isn't a terrorist and the anti-terror laws are perverse and used by the two-tier state to shut down dissent, whilst support for actual terrorist organisations was being promoted by the establishment left media. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 26, 2024 14:00:55 GMT
It's a load of fucking bullshit. A real terrorist would be like the Baader-Meinhof Gang or the IRA, not a man who hangs around London giving out leaflets or whatever he does at these gigs. It's just a waste of our taxes. The judges and lawyers are making a killing out of all this self-developed bullshit. More Waffle a rant with no substance It's either you don't understand or choose not to understand.
Economics is supply and demand. Lawyers supply legal services. Those services can earn according to demand. The more demand there is the more their wages go up. They also work to create demand by extending the scope of the law so more and more normal and harmless activities are classified as something that will creates demand for lawyer services. Now you love to accuse all and sundry on here as dumb and stupid, but then you fail to grasp this quite simple point. What you see as stupid is often your lack of understanding of it. You don't see sense so you blame it on others. The tax burden on normal people is at an all-time high. This conflict of interests must be addressed. It's not just lawyers either. It might be so-called child services and children with special needs. They classify so then that extends the tax bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 26, 2024 14:08:43 GMT
If only Chris Kaba realised that when he heard the word ‘ stop’. Indeed — and we're now expected to feel outraged when a convicted rioter dies while serving time in prison... But ‘ we’ were supposed to be outraged when a black violent criminal was rightly shot by police and believe the bullshit given out by his family ..until we weren’t . Yes,a frail (both physically and mentally) white man given a long sentence ,as an example,for shouting at police is something to be outraged at …as you would have been had he been black. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 26, 2024 14:11:56 GMT
The government is the executive branch of the three branches* of the state. The courts/judiciary is another branch which, in the case of Peter Lynch, judged him and applied the law. He was sentenced to two years and eight months after he pleaded guilty to being part of the unrest at the Holiday Inn Express in Rotherham on 4 August.** Lynch had suffered a heart attack earlier in the year and had also been diagnosed with diabetes. He had gone to the hotel to protest against immigration. Part of his defence was that he had a general conspiracy theory against anyone and any form of authority, and had taken a placard referencing Deep State and space agency Nasa. In other words, Lynch was a possible dangerous nutter, who should have had greater regard for his own health and stayed away.
Seems to me that it's always a good idea to stay away from potentially violent demos, whether pro or anti any cause. Sadly, in the case of Peter Lynch, he didn't even live long enough to serve the 40% of his time...
*Parliament is the third branch of the state.
What he was was a man who believed in what he was doing and he felt he was standing up for his people, hence he wanted to go there and be at all the protests, much as if you were say a football team supporter and you would travel to all their away matches to give your moral encouragement. So I think how he saw it was part of his culture. For a crime to be committed, you not only have to do the crime, but you have to intend to do it. I don't believe he had the intent. What I think happened was he had a dodgy lawyer who forgot to tell him this and so he assumed the action was enough to prove guilt. Not so. The classic lie by omission ruse. Lynchwas filmed calling the police "scum". Peter Lynch carried a placard that stated that police chiefs, reporters, civil servants, judges and the Environment Agency were all "corrupt". But although his sign and protest was not unlawful, his verbal abuse towards police officers during the "racist incident" crossed the line, Judge Richardson said.
"You were unquestionably endeavouring to rev up the situation the best you could," the judge told Lynch
He was a "full participant" in the disorder, the court was told. Thus, the intention was there...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 26, 2024 14:15:23 GMT
Just to live in our own country FFS. We are second class citezens in our own countr... Regurgitated rhetoric bollocks — give some verified specifics, and you might get a sensible discussion...
From the left...When you are given specifics you usualy attack the source or ignore it....Where's your faux condemnation of those that march in support of the hamas and palestine and anything else that should not be allowed to be protested on our streets streets? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 26, 2024 14:17:39 GMT
What he was was a man who believed in what he was doing and he felt he was standing up for his people, hence he wanted to go there and be at all the protests, much as if you were say a football team supporter and you would travel to all their away matches to give your moral encouragement. So I think how he saw it was part of his culture. For a crime to be committed, you not only have to do the crime, but you have to intend to do it. I don't believe he had the intent. What I think happened was he had a dodgy lawyer who forgot to tell him this and so he assumed the action was enough to prove guilt. Not so. The classic lie by omission ruse. Lynchwas filmed calling the police "scum". Peter Lynch carried a placard that stated that police chiefs, reporters, civil servants, judges and the Environment Agency were all "corrupt". But although his sign and protest was not unlawful, his verbal abuse towards police officers during the "racist incident" crossed the line, Judge Richardson said.
"You were unquestionably endeavouring to rev up the situation the best you could," the judge told Lynch
He was a "full participant" in the disorder, the court was told. Thus, the intention was there...
His Placard only spoke the truth FFS...And what intention would that be then Pat FFS? |
|
