> I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources Happy to read any alternative source that's got a reputation for decent journalism. >

> I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources Happy to read any alternative source that's got a reputation for decent journalism. > what was being posted on Facebook [is] irrelevant to the point! It isn't, though. You can't minimise "aggravating racial hatred in the middle of race riots" to "posting on Facebook" as if they're posting innocuous stuff about cats or their lunch. There are laws against it and if you break them, you'll get done. > what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Nope, haven't said that. All I pointed out was that you minimised one side and maximised the other. That's not arguing in good faith. > you were completely unaware of any of this No, I just don't believe that they're good examples of "two-tier policing". I do believe "two-tier policing" exists, though, just not in the "victimisation of white males posting on Facebook" genre. > These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally I don't think they are, personally. The crazed ravings of Musk aside, obviously.