[sanskritical]

Because this thread started in a discussion about the United Kingdom, I think it is relevant to cite how this exact scenario did happen in the United Kingdom.

https://www.facebook.com/piersmorganuncensored/videos/elizab...

Elizabeth Kinney was arrested for a homophobic slur used privately in a text message to a third party -- not even a public comment -- against a man who physically beat her. The man served no jail time for beating her.

[onraglanroad]

What really happened:

"The defendant and the victim in this matter had been friends but had a falling out which resulted in an incident on the October 27, 2024 whereby abusive and homophobic text messages were sent to the victim causing her alarm and distress."

[sanskritical]

Yes, the prosecutor defined the "victim" in this case as the third party receiving the text messages. They were so harmed by hearing someone who beat the defendant until she had a brain injury called a slur that the only remedy was bust into her house with a swat team to put her in a jail cell, instead of having the "victim" block and cut ties with the sender.

[onraglanroad]

So you knew the details and chose to misrepresent the situation.

We don't have SWAT teams in the UK. She'd have been sent a letter telling her to appear in court on a certain date.

If you feel the need to lie continually, you shouldn't really consider yourself a Christian.

[sanskritical]

I didn't misrepresent the situation it all. It is exactly as I described.

11 armed people is a functional equivalent of a SWAT team. My statement was hyperbolic. If you serve someone a court summons for a bullshit charge it is a threat of violence against their person. And the charge was bullshit. And the threat of violence was followed up with force.

I'm not lying. I'm also not Christian at all! Never claimed to be.

[onraglanroad]

Sorry, mixed you up with someone else in this thread.

I don't believe that 11 armed people turned up to arrest her. I've never heard of such a thing.

Edit: ok, I'm going to assume you had no idea that UK police officers are not routinely armed. Armed officers are specifically trained and only deployed when the suspect is thought to be armed. Most of those were probably IT to check computers and devices.

She pled guilty to the charge on the advice of her lawyer.

Edit 2: actually the more I read on this the less I believe. An initial contact by the police would be 2 police officers, they would knock at the door and ask to speak to you. How did they get a warrant to get in? Is this all completely bullshit?

[santoshalper]

Do you have a credible source?

[sanskritical]

IBTimes: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/terrified-naked-mum-four-arrested-...

Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15302729/Assault-vi...

The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/37356128/mum-convicted-hate-cr...

MSN: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/crime/general/terrified-and-naked-...

Inkl: https://www.inkl.com/news/terrified-and-naked-mum-of-four-ar...

Revolver News: https://revolver.news/2025/12/uk-mother-arrested-faced-10-ye...

[daveguy]

So, no.

[sanskritical]

At this point, assertions such as these are a form of ad hominem fallacy against half of society. You are discrediting the multitude of sources who have covered this story because of the nature of the speaker while no hardline liberal outlets have covered this story at all and presented a counterargument. If you want to have an alternative narrative, you need to link a major outlet showing her to be a liar. The case has been presented to the public. You don't like the people presenting the case. That doesn't invalidate the case. You must, at this point, present a member of your team making a reasonable, evidenced based deconstruction of her claims. The fact that there isn't any coverage from your side at all of this incredibly well televised and written embarrassment for the legitimacy of crown prosecutors speaks volumes.

The UK is extremely litigious in regards to libel. Her lying would be an act of public libel against the crown prosecutor. She went on TV to talk about it. It's been well covered in everything from the IB Times to The Sun to the Daily Mail (as linked above), as well as fully televised on Piers Morgan. Naturally the team you obviously root for can just refuse to cover any prosecutions which are embarrassing for them and you can simply smugly say "well it's not in any source I personally recognize as valid so it didn't happen."

[daveguy]

You can explain it away all you want. Those sources are garbage. They pay for stories, don't confirm sources, or do anything else required of journalism. I get you may be GenZ and have been fed garbage soup your whole life about how "all news bad", but fyi there are still some publications with journalistic standards. You might as well add the National Enquirer from the US. Your sources are such sensationalist rags that they were selling attention long before the internet.

It's not ad-hominem it's ad-practices. For all you know every single one of those articles is based on the same half-baked rumor.

[sanskritical]

Firstly, IB Times is one of the biggest news sources in existence. They own Newsweek. They do not pay for stories, and they do confirm sources, as they are an institutional capitalized outlet operating out of the UK (the friendliest jurisdiction for libel litigation in the world) that does not want to be sued out of existence. They are not a politicized outlet and generally swing left-wing, in contrast to some of the other sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times

All the sources you claim have standards repeated corporate-state lies during COVID (I know this because they all did). They have zero integrity, they are just mouthpieces for a government that would cover up its lies and never have accountability. I am not GenZ and your assertion that this is a generational issue is another form of ad hominem attack, showing your own personal willingness to dismiss speakers on the basis of perceived identity, as well as fraudulently attribute their speech to groups that you perceive as intellectually lesser. Regardless, it is her word and the case records against the UK government. The latter has been caught lying countless times and is immune from prosecution for doing so, while she and the publications in question can be held accountable for any false claims. Ergo, they have skin in the game, they are taking the risk, and the government is not, and you should assume that she is telling the truth as the incentives are aligned with her to do so.

[actionfromafar]

Thank you so much! NASA + aliens coverup!

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nasa-lies-claims-spark-fury-public...