"Currants Bw..."

[HCZ_Reborn]

None of that true. There was an autopsy. But not in time to prevent the narrative from running riot. The confinement technique used was by the book. It was the overdose in his syetm that killed him, as confirmed by the autopsy. Anyway, who cares, good riddance to bad rubbish.

No the Autopsy confirmed no such thing

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-new-892530421961

[Niall_Quinn]

No the Autopsy confirmed no such thing

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-george-floyd-autopsy-new-892530421961

AP News? Well there we are then. Case closed. You are right though, I shouldn't have said died of an overdose, technically that's not correct (even though it's obviously true), I should have said he had an overdose present in his system and did not die from the actions of the cop. He was exhibiting signs of overdose well before he was restrained on the ground, which is why he asked to leave the car. Anyway, who cares? However the piece of shit went out, the main thing is he went out. We should be focused on genuine injustices like the state killing of Peter Lynch.

[HCZ_Reborn]

AP News? Well there we are then. Case closed. You are right though, I shouldn't have said died of an overdose, technically that's not correct (even though it's obviously true), I should have said he had an overdose present in his system and did not die from the actions of the cop. He was exhibiting signs of overdose well before he was restrained on the ground, which is why he asked to leave the car. Anyway, who cares? However the piece of shit went out, the main thing is he went out. We should be focused on genuine injustices like the state killing of Peter Lynch.

I love how utterly predictable you are. Lynch was a scumbag like Chris Kabba, and a perfect example of how the left and the right are perfect mirrors of each other in their disregard for truth and lionising pieces of shit.

[Niall_Quinn]

I love how utterly predictable you are. Lynch was a scumbag like Chris Kabba, and a perfect example of how the left and the right are perfect mirrors of each other in their disregard for truth and lionising pieces of shit.

You love how predictable I am? We have something in common then. Why was he a scumbag? In comparison to the rat that was shot, for example? Was a death penalty commensurate with the truth he told about the scum police who are now "officers" for the state instead of peace keepers serving the people? Which bit did he get wrong?

[HCZ_Reborn]

You love how predictable I am? We have something in common then. Why was he a scumbag? In comparison to the rat that was shot, for example? Was a death penalty commensurate with the truth he told about the scum police who are now "officers" for the state instead of peace keepers serving the people? Which bit did he get wrong?

Death Penalty??? :lol:…he was a fat fuck. Far easier to call it suicide if you want to be exact

Was he a relative of yours? Going by the placard he held a lot of overlapping beliefs

[Letters]

Geoff Capes :rose:

[WMUG]

Death Penalty??? :lol:…he was a fat fuck. Far easier to call it suicide if you want to be exact

Was he a relative of yours? Going by the placard he held a lot of overlapping beliefs

Seems like you're making the same mistake you accused Letters of making the other day.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Seems like you're making the same mistake you accused Letters of making the other day.

True but Well none of us is perfect. I’m also under no illusion that I’m preventing the spread of misinformation. The point of misinformation is you’re only susceptible to it if you’re already inclined to think a certain way.


Plus this is an extension of my a plague on both of your houses contempt for both the left and the right. Both are totally uninterested in objective truth and are more interested in projecting a narrative, both are incorrigibly hypocritical, both are prone to hysteria and both have authoritarian impulses.

[HCZ_Reborn]

And if anyone’s response to that is to ask me whether I think I’m unbiased. The answer is definitely not. The only difference is I prefer to make up my own mind up about individual topic matters and where I fall on them. On certain areas I might lean left, on other areas I might lean right.

[Niall_Quinn]

Death Penalty??? :lol:…he was a fat fuck. Far easier to call it suicide if you want to be exact

Was he a relative of yours? Going by the placard he held a lot of overlapping beliefs

That's what the entirely unreasonable sentence resulted in, isn't it? Over 2 years imprisonment for insulting the police and migrants, which apparently amounts to a serious breach of public order these days, although shoplifting and marching down the road calling for the death of Jews does not. You aren't going to pretend the legal system is impartial, are you? Because if you are then there's no point trying to discuss one of the outcomes of its clear impartiality. You call Lynch a scumbag, that might be true, we can't tell given the entirely biased output of the media which you quote in your mission to deter misinformation. I'm wondering why the same media is so concerned about a dirtbag it thumbnails as a smiling victim, while it substitutes genuine investigation into injustice with mugshots of the"perpetrator" and casual dismissal of the scandalous sentencing. It's not as if we haven't witnessed the whole BLM debacle, remember Arsenal dedicating the stadium to those racketeers who surfed on racial unrest to enrich themselves? Now we see the media bleating again and the same useful idiots bathing in the racism that unapologetically passes for political debate on the left. What's happened to the two "victims" from the airport chaos, are they banged up yet? What about the Labour bloke who wants to slit throats? Or all those Hamas supporting radicals and their overtly racist demands? Locked up? And why are the rape gangs and trafficking gangs afforded anonymity while others are paraded in front of the media for minor offences on Twitter? What about the child molesters? Why do they keep getting suspended sentences, like that sick BBC bloke? Reminds me a bit of reffing in the PL, a light touch for the serious offenders and an iron fist for Arsenal. Obviously the latter isn't on the same level of seriousness, nobody has died of dodgy reffing. Same can't be said of the corrupt legal system that seems determined to allow the serious criminals back into society based on their skin colour or political affiliations. And haven't they just released hundreds more convicted criminals back onto the streets? I bet their victims are chuffed. As you say though, best get this predictable misinformation about the scumbag Lynch out of the way. While we cry for the poor gang-banger who was cut down in the prime of his pristine life. The media can somehow make people believe literally anything.

[HCZ_Reborn]

So I didn’t read most of that, I could be wrong but I don’t think I’d be any more enlightened as a result. But to answer your point, I dont think anything I’ve said suggests I think the justice system is wholly impartial. In fact I’ve made a point of expressing my frustration at the fact that the police don’t come down harder on what anyone who is not completely biased would regard as Pro Palestinian hate marches.

But Lynch was treated no more unfairly than those who took part in the 2011 riots, if you take part in public disorder like that I have no sympathy for you. However additionally your point was to compare him to George Floyd, now if you’re telling me Floyd is a criminal…he is was of course a criminal. If Lynch was asphyxiated on the street like Floyd id equally say that was wrong. And if Floyd ended up in jail and ended up with fatal coronary as a result of his drug taking, I’d be equally unsympathetic as I am to Lynch.

That’s how I work, I think the Muslim who was kicked in the guy by the police officer was a cunt, but my opinion of him was irrelevant….the police shouldn’t be kicking people in the head.

[Niall_Quinn]

So I didn’t read most of that, I could be wrong but I don’t think I’d be any more enlightened as a result. But to answer your point, I dont think anything I’ve said suggests I think the justice system is wholly impartial. In fact I’ve made a point of expressing my frustration at the fact that the police don’t come down harder on what anyone who is not completely biased would regard as Pro Palestinian hate marches.

But Lynch was treated no more unfairly than those who took part in the 2011 riots, if you take part in public disorder like that I have no sympathy for you. However additionally your point was to compare him to George Floyd, now if you’re telling me Floyd is a criminal…he is was of course a criminal. If Lynch was asphyxiated on the street like Floyd id equally say that was wrong. And if Floyd ended up in jail and ended up with fatal coronary as a result of his drug taking, I’d be equally unsympathetic as I am to Lynch.

That’s how I work, I think the Muslim who was kicked in the guy by the police officer was a cunt, but my opinion of him was irrelevant….the police shouldn’t be kicking people in the head.

You haven't read what I said but now you will respond to it? Be re-iterating your points? Okay.

[Letters]

Quincy Jones :rose:

[Letters]

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/whats-on/things-to-do/popular-noughties-pop-duo-to-visit-pontefract-bar-this-weekend-4855720

Don't all rush at once.

[IBK]

https://www.wakefieldexpress.co.uk/whats-on/things-to-do/popular-noughties-pop-duo-to-visit-pontefract-bar-this-weekend-4855720

Don't all rush at once.

Didn't one of them marry a Lib Dem MP? Life is strange.

[The Wengerbabies]

Pretty shocking scenes in Amsterdam last night, Europe has a huge problem and we all know very well what it it.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Pretty shocking scenes in Amsterdam last night, Europe has a huge problem and we all know very well what it it.

Problem with that assertion is that there is conflicting information.

Ajax fans are thugs, and so on the whole are Israeli football fans. And whilst muzzas could have been responsible, it’s just as likely to be a Barney that got out of hand between two tanked up set of fans

[HCZ_Reborn]

Telling a 20 year old One direction fan in my office, that it’s Liam Payne’s own fault that he’s dead

[The Wengerbabies]

Serious question for you losers, do you seriously not find this concerning?

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1858803173848182941

[Niall_Quinn]

Serious question for you losers, do you seriously not find this concerning?

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1858803173848182941

Dude, ask them about the latest Netflix show if you want some big time feedback. You are asking them about "la la la, can't see, can't hear" issues, what do you think they are going to say?

[Letters]

Serious question for you losers, do you seriously not find this concerning?

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1858803173848182941

This is what that Tweet says:


This judge threw a 20 month sentence at someone for posting on social media that they didn’t want to see illegal aliens being given free stuff with their tax dollars.

And this is the reality:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/riots-facebook-posts-jailed-jordan-parlour-b2593990.html


Jordan Parlour, 28, admitted to publishing posts on Facebook last week which encouraged violence at a hotel in Leeds where 200 asylum seekers and refugees.

He was sentenced with 20 months behind bars in Leeds Crown Court this afternoon, after he wrote on Facebook: “Every man and their dog should be smashing f*** out Britannia Hotel.”

The Tweet dishonestly implies the dude was just expressing legitimate concerns and was thrown in to jail for it. My question is are you being dishonest too or do you just blindly believe anything like this which panders to your prejudices? If the latter then there’s a certain irony to this, given that you’re the sort of person who uses the word “sheeple”. And here you are blindly following anyone on Twitter who tells you what you want to believe. Embarrassing.

To answer the question a bit more seriously, there are some legitimate concerns here, but people who encourage people to smash up hotels where innocent families including children are being housed can go fuck themselves

:tiphat:

[Mac76]

This is what that Tweet says:



And this is the reality:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/riots-facebook-posts-jailed-jordan-parlour-b2593990.html



The Tweet dishonestly implies the dude was just expressing legitimate concerns and was thrown in to jail for it. My question is are you being dishonest too or do you just blindly believe anything like this which panders to your prejudices? If the latter then there’s a certain irony to this, given that you’re the sort of person who uses the word “sheeple”. And here you are blindly following anyone on Twitter who tells you what you want to believe. Embarrassing.

To answer the question a bit more seriously, there are some legitimate concerns here, but people who encourage people to smash up hotels where innocent families including children are being housed can go fuck themselves

:tiphat:

Well and truly knocked out of the park

Letters :bow:

[HCZ_Reborn]

The question you have to ask yourself is does that warrant a prison sentence or indeed should the law be involved at all

The police at the moment are investigating Allison Pearson, idiotic hack that she is. For a tweet which actually she took down before being arrested.

The same police force where a friend of mine, her friend and her children had to seek refuge with her for a week because even though there was video and text evidence of her ex partner threatening her….they were dragging their feet over arresting him, even when he came to the kids school and threatened the teachers if they did not bring the kids out to see him.

I don’t believe we have a two tier justice system, but I can totally understand why people do. People who post idiotic nonsense on social media are low hanging fruit, the police work and resources involved are minimal. Now I don’t believe for a second that what the guy did should be considered a criminal offence, the charge of incitement needs to have a higher bar. And when so much rubbish gets posted by so many people, it becomes completely arbitrary as to whether someone is arrested or not. And at a time where we are at near capacity in the prison estate, it creates the wrong impression as to priorities.

The longer this continues, the more fuel we provide for people who want to dishonestly push their own narrative

[Letters]

The question you have to ask yourself is does that warrant a prison sentence or indeed should the law be involved at all
It's a good question and as I said there are genuine concerns about the idea someone can be locked up for just saying some stuff online.
But free speech and freedom more generally don't exist in the way NQ defines in the context of living in a society. Like with all things he believes that this is a black and white issue, you're either free or you're not. In reality there are many shades of grey and degrees of freedom. In a society freedom has to be constrained because our words and actions affect other people.

Context is key here. I suspect most of the time the bloke wouldn't have been locked up or even arrested for saying what he said. But in the context of the stabbings, the subsequent lies about them and the unrest that stirred up anyone involved or actively egging people on was endangering lives. I have no issue with that being dealt with.

[HCZ_Reborn]

It's a good question and as I said there are genuine concerns about the idea someone can be locked up for just saying some stuff online.
But free speech and freedom more generally don't exist in the way NQ defines in the context of living in a society. Like with all things he believes that this is a black and white issue, you're either free or you're not. In reality there are many shades of grey and degrees of freedom. In a society freedom has to be constrained because our words and actions affect other people.

Context is key here. I suspect most of the time the bloke wouldn't have been locked up or even arrested for saying what he said. But in the context of the stabbings, the subsequent lies about them and the unrest that stirred up anyone involved or actively egging people on was endangering lives. I have no issue with that being dealt with.

The problem with setting limits to freedom of speech is who defines where those limits are. The reason this guy was arrested was because of the danger they thought his speech could pose. I posted on Facebook the other day that people who play music on carriages should be shaved, sterilised and destroyed…what if an officious police officer decided that this amounted to inciting violence?.

In an ideal world people would be more responsible with the things they say definitely during a period of unrest but we do not want idiots being turned into martyrs. It makes the false assumption that people wouldn’t attack hotels without people like that posting on social media.

[Letters]

The problem with setting limits to freedom of speech is who defines where those limits are.
The government do. They define all the laws which restrict our freedoms. To NQ that's an abomination, to me it's a reasonable consequence and necessity of living in a society.


The reason this guy was arrested was because of the danger they thought his speech could pose. I posted on Facebook the other day that people who play music on carriages should be shaved, sterilised and destroyed…what if an officious police officer decided that this amounted to inciting violence?
I don't disagree there are potential dangers here, but in general I think any reasonable person would understand that you were joking about that. So if an officious police officer did take an interest then I honestly don't believe it would get very far. This dude wasn't joking, he was actively inciting and encourage violence in the context of actual riots which were taking place and endangering lives.


In an ideal world people would be more responsible with the things they say definitely during a period of unrest but we do not want idiots being turned into martyrs. It makes the false assumption that people wouldn’t attack hotels without people like that posting on social media.
I agree that's a false assumption, but I also think that people actively encouraging the behaviour adds fuel the fire and makes it worse. I don't have an issue with that being dealt with. Whether it deserves a custodial sentence...well, I agree that's debatable.

[HCZ_Reborn]

I regard myself as a free speech absolutist, but the problem is a lot of people don’t understand what free speech is. That if you don’t want someone prosecuted for what they say you must agree with what they’ve said. Or conversely that even if you criticise what someone has said, or say that what they’ve said is stupid or disgusting you’re attacking their free speech (no you’re just exercising yours).
Also neither a public or private platform has to publish your opinions, and if an employer considers what you’ve posted to do harm to their business reputation they are well within their rights to dismiss you.

What there shouldn’t be (in my view) is any criminal consequences for what is spoken…incitement to violence has to be a direct and unambiguous thing and can often be taken care of by other criminal laws

[Letters]

incitement to violence has to be a direct and unambiguous thing

Isn't


“Every man and their dog should be smashing f*** out Britannia Hotel.”

Pretty direct an unambiguous? And again, one could make the same argument about what you said (which I agree with by the way). The difference is yours was a clear joke (as is my agreement with it, although they definitely need a poke in the eye).

[HCZ_Reborn]

The government do. They define all the laws which restrict our freedoms. To NQ that's an abomination, to me it's a reasonable consequence and necessity of living in a society.


I don't disagree there are potential dangers here, but in general I think any reasonable person would understand that you were joking about that. So if an officious police officer did take an interest then I honestly don't believe it would get very far. This dude wasn't joking, he was actively inciting and encourage violence in the context of actual riots which were taking place and endangering lives.


I agree that's a false assumption, but I also think that people actively encouraging the behaviour adds fuel the fire and makes it worse. I don't have an issue with that being dealt with. Whether it deserves a custodial sentence...well, I agree that's debatable.


You realise that asking who sets the limits was a rhetorical question. The point being that no individual has a truly objective and unbiased view of where the limit lies, and things like hate crime laws are often subject to interpretation (as they must be).
A reasonable person might also deduce that the guy who has 20 months inside was merely speaking in the heat of the moment and actually spoke about resentments that a lot of people feel, about how services are cut in these communities yet resources can be found to house people who have never lived here or paid into the system. I think it’s an incredibly simplistic point of view, but I can understand why people feel that way.
People say a lot of things when they are angry, often stupid things….if no tangible crime has been committed, it’s really no different from someone who has had a few too many to drink down the pub mouthing off.

A lot of these messages get found by police when they are trying to find the organisers of the riots, who are a bit too intelligent to publicly announce their intentions.

[HCZ_Reborn]

Isn't



Pretty direct an unambiguous? And again, one could make the same argument about what you said (which I agree with by the way). The difference is yours was a clear joke (as is my agreement with it, although they definitely need a poke in the eye).

Firstly it’s not direct and unambiguous. Direct and unambiguous would be “I am calling for all like minded citizens to go to this hotel on this day at this time and carry out x offence”. Secondly, the message was sent after the incident had occurred so there’s no direct causal link between the actual crime and the message.

[Letters]

You realise that asking who sets the limits was a rhetorical question.
I didn't realise that, that's why I answered it :lol:


A reasonable person might also deduce that the guy who has 20 months inside was merely speaking in the heat of the moment and actually spoke about resentments that a lot of people feel, about how services are cut in these communities yet resources can be found to house people who have never lived here or paid into the system. I think it’s an incredibly simplistic point of view, but I can understand why people feel that way.
People say a lot of things when they are angry, often stupid things….if no tangible crime has been committed, it’s really no different from someone who has had a few too many to drink down the pub mouthing off.
I think the difference is the internet. We can chat shit to each other on here fairly safely - let's face it, no-one is looking.
But the internet means someone can spout some bile and instead of a few mates in the pub hearing it, it can "go viral", as the kids are saying, and actually impact people. As I said to NQ in another context, it's why Flat Earth has become a thing. Loonies on street corners can now reach millions of people. Add a distrust of the mainstream and authority and...voila!

I don't think the law has really caught up with this, which is why some of this clumsy stuff happens. I'm not sure this bloke really belongs in jail, as you say he was more likely letting of steam. But when people shout stuff like that across the internet then it can have consequences so I think the law needs to reflect that somehow.

[HCZ_Reborn]

See I think this is largely a post hoc fallacy

There’s actually very little to prove that online behaviour influences real life behaviour anymore than anything else. Organised riots and public disorder happened long before the advent of the internet

It’s the same with this panicking about the spread of conspiracy theories. Basically if you are influenced by online conspiracy theories you are most likely to be the kind of person to seek them out. And if not online, in some other format…it feeds an existing demand.

The problem is unless you can prove tangible consequences which in this guys case they absolutely could not, then essentially he’s being sent to prison for saying something unpleasant. And I don’t think the law should get involved when it comes to saying unpleasant things

[Letters]

There’s actually very little to prove that online behaviour influences real life behaviour anymore than anything else.
Why are influencers a thing then?


Organised riots and public disorder happened long before the advent of the internet. It’s the same with this panicking about the spread of conspiracy theories. Basically if you are influenced by online conspiracy theories you are most likely to be the kind of person to seek them out. And if not online, in some other format…it feeds an existing demand.
All true, but what else can you attribute the proliferation of conspiracy theories too other than misinformation spread online?
It's a numbers game. You shout some conspiracy nonsense on a street corner and maybe a few dozen people hear you. Most laugh, maybe one or two people will be interested.
You post stuff online and end up going viral, suddenly millions of people can see what you wrote. Add a bit of scientific illiteracy and a distrust of the mainstream and voila, we suddenly have flat earth conferences springing up.


The problem is unless you can prove tangible consequences which in this guys case they absolutely could not, then essentially he’s being sent to prison for saying something unpleasant. And I don’t think the law should get involved when it comes to saying unpleasant things

I don't have a big issue with that, and I think he got caught up in the hysteria whipped up around that incident and a desire by the authorities to crack down hard to de-escalate the situation.
I don't know whether you should have to prove tangible consequences though - speeding is illegal whether you happen to run someone over or not, it's illegal because what you're doing increases the risk of there being consequences.