- Joined
- 29 Dec 2025
- Messages
- 1,271
- Reaction score
- 75
- Country

How do you know?Israel has been invaded numerous times, they have nukes.
Like Saddam had WMD?

How do you know?Israel has been invaded numerous times, they have nukes.

Go away troll, this thread is not for you.How do you know?
Like Saddam had WMD?![]()

Since when did you get to decide who can, or can't join in a discussion?Go away troll, this thread is not for you.

You are not adult enough for this conversation. See Ya.. You are not joining in you are trolling it.Since when did you get to decide who can, or can't join in a discussion?

You could put me on ignore, please, please.You are not adult enough for this conversation. See Ya.. You are not joining in you are trolling it.

I will not respond further to you as you are not here for debate.You could put me on ignore, please, please.
I wouldn't want you banned from a thread, I'm content to see you get all tied up with your own silly comments.
But when you retreat into your childish troll mode, I'll stop responding, pigeon.

I enjoy debating with sensible debaters.I will not respond further to you as you are not here for debate.

If the Damage is under £5k it is summary only. The CPS can hold back the more serious charges to see how this one goes. If the magistrate is inclined to convict, the CPS will ask the aggravating factors to be taken into account. Nice low profile conviction, with amore to come either way.Depends where the trial is held and the make up of the jury.
No nation with nuclear weapons have ever been invaded.
Interesting that the man was arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated criminal damage.
Obviously the police can see through the use of Zionist as a proxy word.

nobody expects you to have a clue, its funny that you pretend you do.An example of a premature post:
Poor Chicken Biker got overly excited.
Lol.No doubt they will be keeping the other charges in their back pocket

Since when did you get to decide who can, or can't join in a discussion?

Its fairly clearThe legal position hasn't changed.
You can't be found guilty of racially aggravated criminal damage simply for calling Churchill a Zionist. He was proud of being a Zionist.
But it is not clear what else this man wrote. If some of those things were bad enough, then he might be found guilty.