Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Where do you want to start?
1. lying about not punishing pensioners? ( keep your eye on this one they aint done yet. )
2. Lying about smashing the gangs as illegal migration ( sorry I forgot, they've changed it to irregular migration ) as the boat crossings grow by the week. Lets dismantle everything that was in place, before doing anything else?
3. Division, as he picks out and targets the white population for daring to criticise the government on its policies of lack of action. Suddenly , everyone condeming mass migration and moaning about it, is far right and a racist. A tiny minority decide to riot(wrongly) so he starts to change the response rules without parliament. Folks having their doors kicked in at 5 am for posting stuff he doesn't like. Yet crime like the Romanian knifing the kid, gets very little attention. Two tier policing is very real and widespread. He sits down with the cops, so don't say he doesn't have remit on this. Folks watch the Palestinian hate marches continue and he allows it to molly coddled.
4. Rayner rips up the natives first policy on new housing. Meaning native born poor working class, really are bottom of the pile now.
Again, more anger will grow and explode.
5. Asked if his loyalties sit with the UK or DAVOS, he instantly jumped for the global gang
6. Giving away billions to other countries for their green madness, whilst confiscating prime agriculture land for solar monstrosities. ,Milliband is like a man pocessed on drugs.

In 4 weeks this lot have had the country turning on its head. Sorry, but you can't have your normal whinge of TORIES/ TORIES/ TORIES,

They are in charge and its all on them , to quote your good self.
You aint seen nowt yet. The hints are there for whats coming. From income tax to national insurance to hammering the motorist. He's sidling up to Europe in many ways, that he never explains.
The way he's going, he'll be having the place running like China soon, the way he's removing rights bit by bit. His arrogance is quite frankly repulsive

He'll be gone in less than a year, the moment his plans encroach on his left masters.

Even by your standards that is the most one eyed pile of bollux I’ve ever read on here.

‘Gone in less than a year’? Hmmm…we’ll see. Suspect that has about as much credence as all your other prophecies.

[MadAmster]

I often wondered who Tommy Ten Names financial backers were. If this article from the Guardian is correct then it's a pretty unsavoury group of right wing tossers, IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-brexit-march

[swaledale]

I often wondered who Tommy Ten Names financial backers were. If this article from the Guardian is correct then it's a pretty unsavoury group of right wing tossers, IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-brexit-march

Rather rich ones though MA!

[ramAnag]

I often wondered who Tommy Ten Names financial backers were. If this article from the Guardian is correct then it's a pretty unsavoury group of right wing tossers, IMO.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...t-brexit-march

Interesting…but unsurprising. Always worth exposing such individuals imo.

[swaledale]

A hate crime is defined as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; ***ual orientation or perceived ***ual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”


Seeing as gammon is neither about race or religion it hardly fits. Note I'm not denying its probably childish and could be insulting to certain parts of the population but then insults generally are.

On the other hand given Thickys propensity to repeatedly post utter bilge and often offensive, hateful and demonstrably false sentiments on here, IMO using the word gammon is a lesser offence.

[Andy_Faber]

A hate crime is defined as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s…disability or perceived disability…

gammon is neither about race or religion

So, guilty as charged, your obsession with anti -white sentiment as pointed out by GP moves you to ignore, or even be unaware of, your own assertion from an earlier post that such folk are probably so identified due to suffering from hypertension (I think your jibe just called it high blood pressure) which is recognised as a disability.

So you define the offence then decide some of it doesn’t count as it doesn’t fit your narrative? Try harder…

[Geoff Parkstone]

Even by your standards that is the most one eyed pile of bollux I’ve ever read on here.

‘Gone in less than a year’? Hmmm…we’ll see. Suspect that has about as much credence as all your other prophecies.

And you should recognize a one eyed pile of....😄😄

[ramAnag]

And you should recognize a one eyed pile of....😄😄

Ah…the rear gunner reappears.

[Geoff Parkstone]

A hate crime is defined as “any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; ***ual orientation or perceived ***ual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”


Seeing as gammon is neither about race or religion it hardly fits. Note I'm not denying its probably childish and could be insulting to certain parts of the population but then insults generally are.

On the other hand given Thickys propensity to repeatedly post utter bilge and often offensive, hateful and demonstrably false sentiments on here, IMO using the word gammon is a lesser offence.

I'm not planning to enter the debate of what is and isn't a hate crime but just ask, for my own clarity, why gammon doesn't constitute a "hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race" as you define it, Swale.

I've never seen the word used to describe anyone other than a white race person: the notion of a black gammon (isn't that a gambling game?) is one I've not encountered, although I have met right wing / brexiteers of all race and hue - especially South Asian - and not heard gammon used in respect of them.

Yet only white folk seem to be defined as gammon, despite the political beliefs being distributed across the racial spectrum. Maybe the ruddy complexion is not so obvious on non white faces?!

This would suggest it is a "hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race" and therefore, by the definition you cited, a hate crime?

[MadAmster]

I'm not planning to enter the debate of what is and isn't a hate crime but just ask, for my own clarity, why gammon doesn't constitute a "hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race" as you define it, Swale.

I've never seen the word used to describe anyone other than a white race person: the notion of a black gammon (isn't that a gambling game?) is one I've not encountered, although I have met right wing / brexiteers of all race and hue - especially South Asian - and not heard gammon used in respect of them.

Yet only white folk seem to be defined as gammon, despite the political beliefs being distributed across the racial spectrum. Maybe the ruddy complexion is not so obvious on non white faces?!

This would suggest it is a "hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race" and therefore, by the definition you cited, a hate crime?

This whole "being offended by next to nothing" has, IMO, got completely out of hand. I do realise that some on here are pot stirring but to consider "gammon" or "gaslighter" or referring to someone as a "Karen" as being a hate crime is incredibly absurd. Whatever happened to context? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

I fear that we are close to the point where the name calling and the complaining about being "offended" will move on from the verbal to the physical. All driven by those who would divide and conquer. Maybe it's time to stamp, metaphorically (although some might think, literally), on Tommy Ten Names and those who fund him and those who encourage him. There's more of us than them and it's time WE took control of matters before the "wrong" revolution hits the fan and the majority end up in 15 minute cities amid a great reset.

I've long thought the 5% were ensuring they remained exactly that by having politicians in their pockets and that they organised themselves into the WEF to make sure they remain in control. I am now starting to think that day is not far away when they do own everything and, as Schwab wrote, we'll have nothing and we'll be happy.

Basically, the enemy isn't those fleeing conflict and deciding to come to the UK or elsewhere in (geographically) Europe. It's not those of a different colour or of a different religion. It's the 5%. The elite. The rich. Call them what you will. They saw population in Europe falling. That would affect their trade. Growth could not be sustained. That would hit the size of the dividends. No, that can't happen. The only way to keep growth going is to increase population and population growth. Hence the great need for immigration. The richest of them fund wars that ups the number of refugees and asylum seekers. The 5% are the ONE group that benefits from mass immigration. They also control politicians and through that they control the police and armed forces.

Is the above a mere conspiracy theory I've concocted or something that has been creeping along for ages and is now close to reaching the point of no return?