|
|
|
|
|
|
by landl0rd
380 days ago
|
|
|
Right I am not actually interested in whether it was legal under british law. My point is british law is unjust and fundamentally illiberal in this respect. Anything that wouldn't pass the Brandenburg v. Ohio test of "imminent lawless action" is unconscionably bad. All that aside, can you explain the other 29 arrests that day so well? https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... This is from The Economist of all places not some right-wing rag. Please do not stick your head in the sand on this to "own the rightoids" or whatever. If you're a lefty oppose it on grounds of how it's used against the pro-palestinians. P.S. I don't see why you're bringing up the trump admin's actions like one bad thing existing means another can't. Both things can be bad. We can oppose both things. It's not that hard. |
|
|
No because I'm trying to find where that stat comes from. Also as I've pointed out, gross offence is only one offence, the communications act also covered fraud and a whole bunch of other things that are much less contentious.
> own the rightoids"
The extremes don't care about justice, only logical fallacies and being technically correct in the eyes of their peers.