It does, the right to offend must apply to the left if the right exercise it.I hope that makes sense to you.
It does, the right to offend must apply to the left if the right exercise it.I hope that makes sense to you.
You’ve obviously chosen to miss the point. Or it’s a poor attempt to undermine it.It does, the right to offend must apply to the left if the right exercise it.
Or it’s a poor attempt to undermine it.

I'm not reading through 22 pages of hits.I wonder whether that is the advice her solicitor gave her.
Similar posting styles, I think he’s got it sussed.Maybe I can give him some lessons. Apparently, I can undermine people without even knowing I am doing it.
Similar posting styles, I think he’s got it sussed.
Where are we on your new fan ?
Suffice to say, yes she had the duty solicitor who advised her to plead guilty otherwise she would be kept on remand until the trial that could have been a long time, pleading guilty shortened the time to her trial date and she was advised that the sentence would not be as long as it was.
IMO well stitched up.
I’ve never said it was.
It’s derogatory
It’s...... hate filled though
Not at all.MBK getting you to deflect on his behalf now?
He knows, and he knows he is wrong.
Hence the radio silence![]()
You might not, plenty do!It's intended to be
Derisory and, to an extent, pitying yes.
But "hate filled" ? I can only speak for myself, but I haven't the energy for "hate".
Quite, if she'd pleaded not guilty she could have been bailed. If that were refused it would be sign the judge was being leant on.IMO well stitched up.
Not at all.
Let’s agree the term “gammon” is hate speech at least ?
No, I’m asking you to admit it ?You're after MBK, and getting him to agree that "gammon" isn't racist (yl
By….?IMO well stitched up.