418
British journalist could face years in prison for refusing to hand over his passwords to the police
(www.ilfattoquotidiano.it)
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2025
418 points (98.4% liked)
UK Politics
3192 readers
52 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You still thinking I have the power to put him in prison is hilarious. It's called an opinion lil bro.
This is just too good to leave alone. You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, obviously, but the really funny part is that you also have absolutely no idea what you yourself are taking about. You actually aren't capable of writing down your point of view, which is fascinating because it could be for so many reasons.
You've been running scared of your position the entire thread, chasing after some inconsequential slippery slope argument you can't even argue for without sounding brain damaged. What was it you said, every accusation is a confession?
Why don't you just come out and say it, you LOVE terrorists, hate Jews, want to rape civilians, and murder everyone that disagrees with you. It's very clear seeing as you refuse to address it.
Yes.
I'll address your ridiculous claims though, since you asked. I don't love terrorists. It's a moronic proposition anyway based on the subjectivity of the word. I don't hate Jews, and it's very weird you brought that up since neither of us have mentioned Jews up until this point. Are you getting confused with another thread maybe? I don't want to rape anyone, and again, this is the first mention of any type of sexual assault in our discussion so it's very hard to be sure where you're getting this from. I don't want to murder anyone at all, whether they disagree with me or not. The only violent speech in this discussion has come from you.
So - it's another bunch of accusations which have come completely unfounded and out of nowhere. My first guess would be that they are projection of your own mental state, but feel free to correct me if you like.
That's very easy to clear up. You see Richard Medhurst loves those things and supports the people that do them, and you defend him, so here we are. The video I posted shows him ejeculating over 2 IDF soldiers being shot with one bullet, like it's a CoD montage, and you defended that too. Cry all you want about whether section 12 of the UK terrorism act should exist, but don't pretend Medhurst shouldn't be fully investigated for breaking it, including his phone being searched for even more explicit support of these groups.
Ok so here are the problems with your argument:
No, he doesn't. Or at least I've seen no compelling evidence he does.
No, I didn't.
If you don't see the contradiction there idk what to tell you.
Well this is great, you didn't object to him supporting terrorists, which is the entire point of the law (to support or encourage others to support), and why the cops want to search his phone. What a breakthrough.
When you use the quote tool (>) you're supposed to actually quote the person. What you have done here is called a "misquote". Do you understand the concept? Because if you do you will know that it instantly discredits your argument. In this particular case it goes even further and makes your argument unintelligible. It's impossible to respond meaningfully because it's nonsense. Either it's a strategy or an oversight. Either way, not a good look I'm afraid.
Anyway, your second paragraph. Are there no possible ways for a person to get arrested that you wouldn't object to? Do you think laws are automatically ethically correct and perfectly applied in every case?
Lmao, all that yapping because you contradicted yourself within the same breath. Or are you gonna sperg out about how comments don't involve breathing now? My use of the quote tool is fine, don't blow a blood vessel because you look like a fool in your last comment.
Ofc there are unjust laws, usually enforced by people Medhurst cheers for. In this case I'm sure many human rights lawyers are incensed about this UK law, but usually the course correction for laws like this is a bad material consequences and a subsequent rewrite. So unless you have examples of sympathetic victims of this law I don't care.
It's a shame you can't engage in good faith; you might have learned something
You can't even admit a blatant contradiction, you don't get to talk about good faith. Also wtf would I learn from you? How to avoid making autists scream and shit their pants with the quote tool?
Anything else? You done? Get it allll out.