In my book, The Indispensable Right, I discuss how free speech is in a free fall in Great Britain, where officials continue to crack down on an ever-widening array of viewpoints. Some of these actions are designated as “non-crime hate” but are still the subject of law enforcement actions. According to the Daily Mail, they now include children who have been pulled in for calling other children schoolyard names like “retard” or saying that other children smell “like fish.”
According to the Daily Mail:
“A nine-year-old child is among the youngsters being probed by police over hate incidents… Officers recorded incidents against the child, who called a fellow primary school pupil a ‘retard’, and against two schoolgirls who said another student smelled ‘like fish.’ The youngsters were among multiple cases of children being recorded as having committed non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs), The Times discovered through freedom of information requests to police forces.”
“Non-crime hate” was introduced in 2014 as part of the Hate Crime Operational Guidelines. It is chilling in its ambiguity and scope. It only requires the perception of either a victim or a third party that a statement is motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity.
The HCOG stresses, “The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. Evidence of the hostility is not required.”
That guarantees the maximal level of investigation and documentation of speech incidents. The chilling effect on free speech is glacial.
For years, I have been writing about the decline of free speech in the United Kingdom and the steady stream of arrests. A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”Last year, Nicholas Brock, 52, was convicted of a thought crime in Maidenhead, Berkshire. The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.
While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”
Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:
“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”
Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.
After the sentencing, Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”
Great Britain is now turning, it appears, to their children in speech crackdowns. Schoolyard taunts can be investigated by officers. The impact on both parents and children will obviously be immense. It adds a coercive element to speech laws. Given the subjective and vague standard, the response is to self-censor to avoid any such accusations. Raising children in such an environment will only erode free speech values. Indeed, it fosters the type of speech-phobic generation that many activists may welcome. Speech is viewed as dangerous and subject to continual monitoring by the state.
Stopping some kid from using a playground taunt will do little to instill mutual respect, but it will instill fear over how the state may respond to your words. It is a lesson that many in the free speech community may relish but one that most citizens should reject. “Non-crime hate” investigations are meant to maintain a constant sense of oversight and monitoring of speech, even with our children.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Looks like Roger Waters was a prophet after all…
Leave it to the Eurotrash monarchy idolizing idiots to take the path least desirable! History shows Europe, and in particular the British government, as error-prone fools who reap the rotten fruit or their policies! In another generation they will wonder how they became enslaved to a repressive government that resembles the failed Soviet Union. Sad part is the elitist illuminati see nothing wrong with the Great Unwashed being repressed until revolution comes for their heads!
What comes around, goes around. These morons will one day be subject to their own very laws that are truly examples of “toxic ideology”.
Any surprise felt over this is due to the entirely unsupported fiction that the British are the “good guys” so many think them to be. They are not all Churchills, and even he was a good deal of a prick. You don’t conquer an Empire by being “the good guys”. Any good the British have done in the world was inadvertent or an afterthought, like giving India its independence after brutally exploiting it for a century, or allowing a part of Ireland to be free of it after eight bloody centuries of persecution and genocide. They covered the Empire with slaves and then puffed themselves up when it was no longer profitable and they abolished it. They imprisoned citizens for life for trifling offenses or sent them to the other side of the world to be tortured and enslaved, and were taking off heads and displaying them to cow the populace well into the 19th century. Adams and Franklin well knew that if the War of Independence had ended in defeat, they would have been drawn and quartered, their body parts sent around America and the rest of the Empire for the edification of the lower class. Yes, they were good allies in two enormous wars that they started or enabled (and were losing) and then allowed us to come over and save them. We finally cut them loose during the Suez Crisis, but that was largely payback for stiffing us in Vietnam. Why anyone would expect them to do the right or honorable or even sensible thing is baffling.
cionnath: Amen!
Wasn’t the Suez Crisis in 1956 and U.S. involvement in Vietnam began around 1962? So how could the former be payback for the latter?
“Wasn’t the Suez Crisis in 1956 and U.S. involvement in Vietnam began around 1962? ”
Well, we did have previous involvement in Indochina, dating back to the Eisenhower administration, but your point remains valid. He also did not mention the genesis of our troubles in Iran (then Persia). Post WWII, Britain was pumping oil out of Iran, paying almost nothing for it, and stifling any attempts by Iran to et better terms. Then, in 1951, Iran elected Mohammad Mosaddegh prime minister. Mossedegh ran on a platform of getting the British to pay a fair price for oil extraction, or get out, and apparently intended to fulfill that commitment. The Brits (in the form of quasi-government agency British Petroleum) had no intention of paying more, but after their losses in WWII, and troubles in other parts of their Empire, the British military was stretched quite thin. They appealed to Eisenhower for help. In 1953, Alan Dulles had his CIA minions foment a revolution in Iran, and the Peacock Throne was created for Reza Pahlavi, who was declared Shah (essentially, a dictatorship justified by inflated or entirely fictitious claims of history and legacy). Pahlavi was supported by sycophants backed by covert US assets, and began a long rule that was as brutal as it needed to be to maintain an iron grip on unearned power. That rule finally came to an end in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution, which brought to power the brutal, virulently anti-US mullahs, who remain in power to this day. I’m certain that there was supposed to be some quid pro quo from Britain in return for saving Iranian oil profits for them, but I have never found out what that was supposed to be, much less whether it ever materialized. Maybe their failure to reciprocate for that action led to our lukewarm support re the Suez.
How frequent are these “thought police” incidents in Britain? The article doesn’t attempt to answer this question, and by avoiding it and cherry-picking the most outrageous examples, casts the impression that Brits have gone loony. I was just there 2 years ago, and found the Brits some of the most outgoing and uninhibited people in the world you can “chat up”. So, while I agree this hate-speech law-phobia is a troubling trend, I think it will likely run its course as a failed policy experiment — because the Brits are naturally cheeky and full of pluck.
Meanwhile, I think they will come out wiser from having run this experiment, better equipped to uphold norms of civility — without the strongarm of the law — but rather through learned social skills of gentle wit with fellow adults, and loving guidance for children…..just like intemperate speech has traditionally been dealt with.
“. . . cherry-picking . . .” “. . . a troubling trend . . .”
So which is it?
So Turley is cherry picking but apparently everything is fine in the UK because everyone was really friendly to you while you were on vacation there two years ago.
pbinca: The day the Brits “uphold norms of civility,” the sun will revolve around the earth. There is nothing in British history that even hints at civility. Conquering and slaughtering millions over hundreds of years is hardly civil. And it continues today with the British support for genocide in Gaza and Lebanon. The Brits are a lot of things, but “civil” just isn’t one of them.
What is rare today will be commonplace tomorow – this is true in this country too.
It is only a few places in this country where the left is gone full bull moose goose looney in the nonsense that they do in schools.
But what is uncommon today will be common tomorow.
I expect that this nonsense will end in the UK also – brits like the maga movement in the US are reaching the end of their tether.
In the last election – labor massively took over government – but they barely got a plurality of the vote.
Conservatives split the majority between Reform and the Tories.
Reform and tories will work out their issues or people will leave the tories for reform.
Regardless, the UK is ripe for its own Trumpian moment
Have the Brits lost their will to fight for what so many of their countrymen not long ago died for, have they forgotten?
“Free speech carries with it the evil of all the foolishness, unpleasant venomous things that are said but, on the whole, we would rather lump them than do away with them.” Winston Churchill
“…. countrymen not long ago died for, have they forgotten?” WWII was not about free speech. Can’t find that quote, so I doubt that it was as PM during WW2. Maybe?
Apparently form the book “Churchill by Himself” p. 574
Churchill, Roosevelt and the Reporters
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-152/churchill-roosevelt-and-the-reporters/
see footnote 3.
The British have had their tight control over the language and speech for decades. They have been able to do things on secrecy and speech that no governmental official in the US could legally do. (Although the Biden Administration has tried). It’s just getting out there more in the population. If the Prime Minister is truly 1st lord of the Treasury then he could bring this to an end quickly. These events are not rare but often reported in other news sites beside here. I look for no relief from Labour because the have just won a great victory with a huge majorly in Parliament (but with only 35% of the popular vote so it will take a real earthquake to shake them loose) And people whine over us having the electoral college.
Our Constitution is there to protect our rights and freedoms and not to make the government more efficient in controlling us. The British have come close at times about understanding that but no longer.
There is much to admire in the UK but the last Conservative Government and this New Labour Government would appear to have some significant deficits and the “will of the people” seems to be a joke in both of them.
Didn’t the British fail spectacularly 250 years ago when they tried to control the hearts, minds, and thoughts of the inhabitants of their American colonies? I guess they never learned.
Fifty years ago, you failed spectacularly when you tried to control the hearts, minds and thoughts of the inhabitants of a small SE Asian country. We all have our occasional failures. We lost America because the French Bourbon monarchy bailed out George Washington and his fellow insurrectionists with active military intervention. A French monarchy that your ungrateful Founding Fathers repaid by cheering on the murderous French revolutionaries a decade later. The same Founding Fathers that could not understand that Canada did not want to join your new nation and lost badly when you attempted to invade…
Our war in Vietnam wasn’t a moral failure, it was a military failure, you turnip. No one cared about controlling anyone’s hearts or minds. The goal was keeping the Communist North from invading their neighbor.
And the American Revolution was eventually a military failure for Britain, not a moral failure. If you actually read a decent history of the conflict you would know that the Revolution only enjoyed about 10% support amongst the colonists. About 10% were Loyalists, and the other 80% could not give a damn.
And to say that the US cared not a jot about hearts and minds in Vietnam is simply hilarious. You are obviously very ignorant about the employment of psyops and what is now termed CIMIC during the conflict…
It was actually more like 33-33-33. For, against, and neutral.
The American revolution was a military failure because it was a moral failure.
Prior to the Revolution the UK was not only the worlds only superpower, but the leafing light of self govenrment and individual liberty.
But you failure to carry that tradition on and passed the light to the US – and the rest as they say is history.
The US involvement in Vietnam was idiocy on multiple levels.
We were not trying to preclude one country from being invaded by its neighbor – Vietnam was one country that was artificially divided,
That many north and south wanted united again.
Did the US try to win “Hearts and minds” – certainly – with the same cimmittment and level of effort as the British did during the american revolution.
For many of the vietnamese – this was their war of independence.
For the US it was an idiotic fight against the spread of communism – except that was not what any of it was about.
Mostly Vietnam was “Johnson’s War” without very much real meaning.
The french sped up the American victory. While it is had to replay alternate histories, it was increasingly difficult for GB to fight a war 2500 miles away with an educated and capable populace that was not going to capitulate.
This problem because worse as GB got itself into conflicts with the rest of Europe.
MAYBE in a perfect world with GB ONLY fighting the US it could have defeated washington and other colonial forces – though even that is dubious.
Most every effort of the British to leave the confines of US Port cities resulted in disaster.
But even some major defeat of colonial forces would not have ended the conflict. GB would have had to station forces in the colonies in perpetuity to continue to hold them.
If GB wanted to continue to hold the colonies – the time to do so was a decade or more before 1776.
Had George provided some larger degree of home rule, to colonists, had colonists been allowed representatives in Parliament,
Had the british aristocracy not pissed over the risingamerican aristocracy – the Washington’s the Frankl;in’s etc.
Then the US might have remained part of the UK.
But ultimately the revolution was invetiable due to a number of poor british decisions.
As to the French – there interest in aiding the colonists was primarily to put a thumb in the eye of GB,
The US also got some assestance from the Dutch – for similar reasons and likely could have gotten assistance from Spain – for similar reasons.
By the time of the treaty of paris, GB was at war with nearly all other major powers in the world.
It could not afford the troops or resources to continue the fight against the colonies.
And that was going to occur eventually even without french aide, and even with a british defeat of Washington – had the british ever managed that.
Frankly Washington dramatically out generaled the British commanders in the US. Who did not understand the revolution itself.
And did not understand that the americans were not overawed by them.
Much is made of the socalled Guerilla tactics of colonists – and it is absolutely true that those made it impossible for british forces to operate at significant distances from Port cities. British expeditions into the depths of new England ALWAYS proved disastrous.
Regardless, There was only one critical requirement for colonial forces, that was to avoid being wiped out entirely.
The US lost vietnam for many of the same reasons that thGB lost the colonies.
Arrogance and trying to fight a dedicated populace seeking their freedom from 3000 miles away.
Worse still the US got suckered by France and the UK in vietnam,
Ho Chi Minh had been promised independence for assistance against Japan in WWII.
At wars ends european -powers were reluctant to give up their empires.
The french tried to hold indochina, and the British supported the FRance and drug the US into it, before deciding that vietnam really did not matter much.
The Vietnams declaration of independence was deliberately crafted from the US declaration of independence.
The US was split over support for the french revolution – it is highly inaccurate to say that the US was cheering it one.
But I would note that the murderous French revolution was proto socialist – socialism managed to take over England without a fight,
but it has been no less damaging.
There was a time historically – when the UK was more than just a world superpower – they were – as the US is, if often badly, the pinnacle of individual liberty in the world.
GB was ultimately supplanted by the US because you slowed and stopped progressing towards greater individual liberty.
Americans Embraced whole heartedly Watt, Hume, Smith, Locke and the rest of the “scottish enlightenment”
that was just the natural progression of the english reach for individual liberty that dates atleast to the magna carte.
I am not sure that John Stuart Mill was all that great an influence in the US – but only because We did not need “On Liberty” – but the UK was already falling behind in the quest for self governance and individual liberty – a Quest that for centuries YOU lead.
There is absolutely nothing that has prohibited the UK from maintaining its 18th and 19th century superpower status through to today,
EXCEPT for its failure to continue to advance individual liberty and self governance.
We are fighting in the US woke idiots who wish to remake the US into the modern UK or EU.
Why would anyone want to do that ? The UK is not a failure – but its failure to continue to make progress on self govenrment and individual liberty lead to where it is today
A second fiddle in the world, with a 2nd tier standard of living.
“The British have had their tight control over the language and speech for decades.”
And a checkered history for centuries.
In the 17th century, one of England’s greatest intellectuals, John Locke, had to flee the country because of his opposition to the king.
Locke fled to the Netherlands due to his close relationship with some of the extreme Whigs involved in the Rye House plot to assassinate the King and his brother. Now, whilst not necessarily directly involved in the plot, the point is that Locke did not flee because of his political “opposition to the king” but because of his proximity to would be murderers. He did of course return once William ascended the throne as consort to Mary following the Glorious Revolution.
“. . . Locke did not flee because of his political “opposition to the king” but because of his proximity to would be murderers.”
You’re either clueless about the history of your own country, or are a chronic apologist for absolute monarchy.
Locke fled, along with his mentor, Shaftesbury, because the tyrannical Charles II targeted them — *the opposition* — for persecution.
Not “his” country, Reeder is no other than the Lawn Boy adze-clown attempting to disguise him self as a Limey fruitloop.
Sam the details of UK politics do not matter.
What does matter is that the greatest minds of their time – almost all english and scottish, ultimately influenced OUR leaders, but NOT british leaders.
It does not matter – you lost him. You ignored your own leading intellectuals – not just Locke.
The US is what it is today because our founders were heavily influenced by YOUR leading minds of the time,
While the UK was not.
You got a 2nd chance decades later with John Stuart Mill – but you ignored that too.
It is not Locke or the rest of the scottish enlightenments parochial politics that are relevant.
It is that the UK did not learn from them and the US did.
There appears to be two problems in the UK. First, they have criminalized speech, or in some cases, as well as perceived thoughts, in addition to actions. The next phase might be dreams. Then they can start accusing people of spectral crimes again. The second problem is that they seem to be doing it inconsistently. A crime against one group may not be enforced against others. Its bad enough that in the US, an ordinary crime can be elevated to a “hate crime” in what are often arbitrary circumstances, but the crime of “hate speech” as a stand-alone offense is alive and well in the UK and across Europe in general.
“The second problem is that they seem to be doing it inconsistently”
On the contrary, I think that the total irrationality is quite consistent.
define hate speech. is that when Leftist call for the death of those on the Right?
Or just went out of favor groups call speak the truth?
Muslim for call the end of Christianity….Globalist have ZERO problem with that?
By the Way all Hate Laws in America are Unconstitutional…as they provide extra protection to certain groups.
white man killed…no one cares. Black gay man killed…you go to jail for a 1000 years? TOTALLY WRONG!
Everyone should ENJOY the same protections….BTW if you kill someone…you hated them…right?
“By the Way all Hate Laws in America are Unconstitutional.” Well, lets see. If true, why havn’t the courts tackled that incongruity?
Because they have – there are are no laws in the US criminalizing hate speech. Every effort to create them has been shot down.
To the very limited extent that the US has any “hate crime” laws it is that specific motives are deemed to allow sentence enhancements to the ordinary crime that is committed.
In the US you can hate whoever you please – though most of us do not hate anyone.
But you can not murder people.
And if you murder someone with some kind of racial motive – you may serve more time.
“*The victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief*, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception. *Evidence of the hostility is not required*.” (Emphases added)
That is utter insanity — more insane and unjust than the Salem Witch Trials. During that hysteria, there had to be some “evidence” to support a (bizarre) claim that a woman or a child was a witch. The “evidence” was irrational — spectral “evidence,” with the “victims” in a trance, bites on their bodies, throwing fits, having fevers.
These hysteria-driven, neo-Witch Trials dispense with the need for any evidence, this-worldly or other-worldly. They are the arbitrary run amok: You’re guilty because I say so.
This is incredible.
Read up on Harry Miller. He is a former police officer who was caught up in this bizarre turn in British policing and their thought police. He fought and won a David and Golieth legal case and won.
Now is is an activist in the fight against this madness.
https://youtu.be/TV5ubJq39h0
SRO’s in schools are not only to protect, but to help kids learn respect for the law and enforcers there of. Having the police just spying will bring nothing but hate and fear of all LEO. UK really is a scary place to visit these days.
There are no police in British schools. Simple fact. So no police are spying on school children. You are perfectly welcome not to visit the UK if you are so scared, though…
Fvcking lying is back in his pathetically transparent disguise as a Briton. What a consummate loser!
No, sunshine, a loser is someone who posts as Anonymous, and has no answer except trolling to a plain statement of fact. There are no police in UK schools. Sorry if that is an inconvenient truth. Now do run along back to your bridge, there is a billy goat that would like a word with you.
Actually, this comment system seems to call me anonymous if I don’t “log in”. Other sites recognize you and use the name you have given it.
Oliver Reeder: From the Guardian:
“Nearly 1,000 police officers are operating within UK schools, figures show, with these officers being more likely to be based in areas with higher numbers of pupils eligible for free school meals. Analysis by the Runnymede Trust shows that of the 979 police officers operating in UK schools, half are based in London.”
Take note that the moment Oliver Reeder is presented facts as a counter to his opinion, he suddenly disappears from a thread.
I have no idea if there are police in UK schools. But you are arresting children for the crime of being children.
OR you can screw up your own country to your hearts content.
Which it is self evident that you are doing.
Regardless l;ike the woke left in the US but to greater success in the UK you are treating 1984 as howto manual rather than as a warning.
Oh dear lord…
‘Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.”’
If Professor Turley was to apply himself to checking the facts, as a good Professor of Law might be expected so to do, rather than just relying on trash journalism, he would recognise that both of these statements as false; the arrests were made for physical violence or the threat of physical violence.
Furthermore, one might have expected Professor Turley to be celebrating the fact that attempted overreach and excessive zealotry by the Essex constabulary in investigating a tweet by the journalist Allison Pearson, have ended with humiliation, ridicule and condemnation of the police by all and sundry, with even the Prime Minister, a notoriously lefty lawyer forced to say they should focus on investigating real crime, not tweets. As ever, Turley, inexplicably and unforgivably for a professor of law, confuses the law and its prohibitions, with policing guidelines which all too often lead to police overreach but no charges. Should the police be reined in? Yes. Is free speech in “freefall” in the UK? No. I do wish he would stop spouting utter bollocks.
Why are we to beleive you ?
I was teaching English reading to two spanish-speaking juveniles. I heard one say, “Huele a caca.” I assumed I heard wrong, that he meant cacao, and let it pass.
“Great Britain Cracks Down on “Non-Crime Hate” Speech”
Stinking retards!
As juvenile as it may sound, but the Brit writer Geo. Orwell perdited this in 1949.
The USSR/Soviet Union is alive & well & living in the not so Great Britain.
This article reflects the precise reasoning behind the founding fathers of the American Revolution writing the US Constitution & Bill of Rights.
The citizens of the UK need to find their inner American and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!!!
Jesus Christ predicted it 2000 years ago. It’s a reoccurring theme in human history because of the limitations of thought and actions. They repeat.
Newsflash: That villanous villain, Putin, is still alive to do the villainous things that he does. By still being alive, he will likely keeping doing villainous things into the future. In order to stop him from donig such villainous things, I recommened dropping a commando team of a thousand assassins into Russia to get the job done. Then these villainous acts will finally stop.
There’s stupid and then there is this level of stupidity. Drop 1000 commandos into Russia is like the Beatles of bad ideas.
relevance?
If everyone would just be nuked, then we wouldn’t have to deal with this issue, or any other issue, for that matter.
The attack on the children of GB will only reenforce the crack down on free speech. These children will grow up and continue the suppression on the next generation, tightening the totalitarian grip now being implemented. President-elect Trump should remind Starmer that we are their greatest ally and friend and that this type of behavior is unacceptable…
“President-elect Trump should remind Starmer that we are their greatest ally and friend and that this type of behavior is unacceptable…”
Maybe we should just write off the UK as *any* kind of ally and/or friend until they stop this nonsense on their own. That could happen more quickly without any kind of support from us. How much societal damage they might incur before reaching the moment of awakening, I do not profess to know, but at this point in time, the UK is of very marginal value to the US, so I really do not give a damn. Why do you?
What about the children of Ukraine who are subjected to lethal weapons, not just words that hurt their feelings?
Note, Germany has alreday gone down the rabbit hole. Their FM Baerbock (Green) has filed 1,300 complaints against Germans citozens because she felt insults by their socioal media messages.
Vice chancellor Rbt. Habeck (Green) too; a 64 y/o maln wrote on social media that he is a Vollidiot (Moron). He is in fact. Habeck had the state police arrested and jailed for slander.
“Germany has alreday gone down the rabbit hole”
Yes, they have, and in many more ways that you cite in your post. For example:
The End Of Democracy? Vote To Ban AfD Party Will Occur Before German Snap Elections
ttps://www.zerohedge.com/political/end-democracy-vote-ban-afd-party-will-occur-german-snap-elections
The Communist Greens et all are trying to ban another political party? Not untypical for Germans – been done before, in 1932. Hitler banned the SPD. Then guess what happened?
Shades of things to come?
What do you do when you can’t catch the criminals? You catch the kids? The once mighty UK has slipped a few rungs. We could call them “retards.”
And in the UK you would rightly be called utter scum for using that pejorative term. It is here deemed worse than the racial epithet beginning with N. No excuse, ever. Go give your head a wobble, sir.
Your phony employment and invocation of what you deem as British colloquialisms belies your true motivation. Also, your sentence beginning “If Professor Turley was to apply himself to checking the facts,…” is grammatically incorrect, as it should say “If Professor Turley were to apply himself to checking the facts,…”
Such a pity that an ostentatious Englishman turns out to be a true wally.
Oh dear, even a paragon of grammatical virtue such as myself can occasionally stumble. However, it is telling that you have no rebuttal of the point that I am making, namely that Professor Turley is wholly inaccurate in his characterisation of some of the incidents he describes, and really should know better. He really should get employ a more careful intern to write his blog entries, and not someone who thinks the Daily Mail is a newspaper of record, as opposed to bumf. I am so sorry that you cannot accept my nationality; of course, if you did, you would have to focus on your inability to rebut my points ,instead of just casting chaff about my nationality as a distraction from the ignorance of the UK displayed here.
No one beleives you are anything beyond an idiot with affectations.
I highly doubt you are english, But I do not give a crap. If you want to defend the damage the british have done to themselves that just exposes how retarded you are.
“Your phony employment and invocation of what you deem as British colloquialisms belies your true motivation.”
Very true. It’s the first tell, and a mistake amateur’s always make: They try too hard to be authentic. And come off as utterly phony.
And you might be arrested – and that is the topic of this article.
We do not care what it is deemed in the UK.
Get your head out of your ass – read your OWN great intellectuals. You are engaged in incredibley RETARDED public policy that is hyarming your country and people.
You say “retard” is never acceptable, Are you all that fragile ? Never mind – you are making yourselves that fragile.
The standard of living of your country does not depend on zealous enforcment by your thought police,
But by the willingness to think disruptive thoughts and then act on them by a small portion of the most vigourous of your people.
The rest go along for the ride – at best carrying part of their own weight.