• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Disgraceful. Nothing more than thugs looking for an excuse to fight and attack innocent people.

What's very worrying is how easy it is to mislead these people by making things up on the internet. It has been for a while, but disinformation is fast becoming one of the biggest issues in modern society.
 

Hezbollah's 2nd in command and Hamas' leader within 12hrs is wild - Iran must be raging it happened right under their nose
 
I know the police have issues that need resolving but it seems that attacking and assaulting them has now become fair game. That's Manchester and Southport in the space of week. There were more headlines about police brutality than there were about two thugs thinking it was ok to repeatedly punch two officers (including a female) in the face. Assaulting the police is a massive red line IMO. Justice system needs to be looked at with much more severe punishments for anyone assaulting the police or being involved in these pathetic disinformation fuelled revenge attacks. No surprise that it's being reported that the EDL were involved. Who the **** appointed them to defend the victims' families in this way. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
27 cops taken to hospital from the disorder in Southport. They have one investigation they should be concentrating on, and these tw@ts just can't help themselves.
 
The far right racists were just looking for an opportunity to express their displeasure that their enablers and encouragers lost the election. This was just the first (manufactured) in excuse.

They want to remind everyone that they're there. They need to feel that they're still there in reasonable numbers. They want to create a narrative that Labour / Starmer are responsible (also migrants = bad, of course, whether or not migrants were involved)
 
Last edited:
Had nothing whatsoever to do with defending the victims' families.

I doubt it had anything to do with assaulting the cops either.

It's all fuelled by disinformation to make it look valid. Of course they were looking for any excuse to cause trouble but I don't see much difference between this and when they claimed they were 'defending the cenotaph' which had no validity either.
 
Might be a stupid thing for me to get upset about. It's also reported three police dogs injured by bricks thrown at them.

Yes they can be nasty bitey things when doing there job. But who throws bricks at a dog!!!!
 
Ha!
A fundraiser for Kamala Harris was held on Twitter (ETA, sorry, it was a youtube fundraiser hosted and promoted by a twitter account). They raised $4M, then Elon closed them down. After tonnes of complaints to Elon personally, he reinstalls the host account
He's such a child

 
Is this a case of the law being an ass?

My understanding on this brief statement because Edwards received the images he technically reproduced them and therefore guilty. Even though by the sounds he specifically asked not to receive any and was not informed they were.

 
Is this a case of the law being an ass?

My understanding on this brief statement because Edwards received the images he technically reproduced them and therefore guilty. Even though by the sounds he specifically asked not to receive any and was not informed they were.

I'm confused by reading the article. So if someone sends you illegal images, even if you didn't ask for them or know what they are and you delete them immediately, you are then guilty of making indecent images?

If that's what happened then I don't understand why he's being prosecuted. (maybe I've missed something obvious) Did he not delete them?

Edit: Discussed with my wife who works in the legal field. She suggested that "He did not keep the images" doesn't mean he didn't watch or look at them. Also doesn't give a time frame. Did he delete them immediately, did he keep them for a week, then delete them?
 
Last edited:
I'm confused by reading the article. So if someone sends you illegal images, even if you didn't ask for them or know what they are and you delete them immediately, you are then guilty of making indecent images?

If that's what happened then I don't understand why he's being prosecuted. (maybe I've missed something obvious) Did he not delete them?

Edit: Discussed with my wife who works in the legal field. She suggested that "He did not keep the images" doesn't mean he didn't watch or look at them. Also doesn't give a time frame. Did he delete them immediately, did he keep them for a week, then delete them?
Yeah but its more complex from the article it looks like he asked for reassurances and specifically asked for them not to be illegal.

Like you say he could of destroyed them long after but also if you believe them to be legal why would you?
 
Top