Five, apparently. That’s five armed police officers, of course. Heaven knows how many unarmed officers it would take to bring down a mighty warrior like Graham Linehan.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
Economics |
How many coppers does it take to arrest one comedy writer?September 2nd, 2025 |
 48 comments to How many coppers does it take to arrest one comedy writer?Leave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
You have to understand that this writer was saying things that opposed the official Party Line and therefore was aiding enemies of the State and [Protected Class] People. While traditionally british cops have gone unarmed, this was deemed to be a greater threat to those in power and therefore required stronger measures. I rather suspect those measures will be extended to the general proletariat soon.
In passing, after his arrest Linehan had to be taken to their equivalent of an ER. His systolic blood pressure was at about 200, which is stroke territory. All this for 3 tweets. In any case, if he should survive brit healthcare [itself not a surety], he needs to get out of britain and never come back and consider changing his nationality. I would also recommend that all Americans avoid britain, as you would any totalitarian country.
Subotai Bahadur
I expect the police were armed because the arrest was at Heathrow and the police are armed there.
But 5 police? Unless that fracas at Manchester Airport has put the wind up our persons in blue. Perhaps they are unsure about our natural respect for their duties. I wonder if that’s it?
They need five armed thugs because they are cowards.
If you like legal arcana, this is all going to raise a jurisdictional issue that will either be insurmountable to the state, or will trigger armed conflict between the US and the UK.
They’re prosecuting him for actions he took while here in the US.
That means they are claiming jurisdiction over me, typing at my computer, here in the US.
No one in the USA who has tweeted badly about the UK will be able to travel to the UK.
A reminder that it’s less than six months since Stewart Lee, that fearless puncturer of hypocrisy, was bleating about being scared to travel to the US. I may be wrong, but as far as I’m aware, no comedians have been arrested under speech laws in the United States so far in 2025.
As much as I hate to defend the British state, a display of “overwhelming force” will often prevent violence from happening, and when it does, it’s far safer for both the officers (assuming they are reasonably trained) and for the person they are trying to subdue.
If a single officer has to manage someone who’s gotten violent they have to be *more* violent, and they don’t have time to be careful.
If 5 cops have to manage someone who’s gotten violent, then 4 of them can focus on being careful with the individual (should they wish to) while the 5th deals with external issues.
Besides, this is an American. Even a sick American comedian is worth 2 or 3 bobbies…and you never know, he MIGHT be carrying a firearm.
The real issue isn’t the number, it’s the state.
My wife and I were going to celebrate our 30th wedding annivesary by spending 30 days in Europe. I’ve pretty much decided that y’all don’t deserve our tourist dollars.
“or will trigger armed conflict between the US and the UK.”
“INCONCEIVABLE!!!” (with apologies to Vizzini)
“No one in the USA who has tweeted badly about the UK will be able to travel to the UK.”
Worrisome. Plausible.
“being scared to travel to the US”
No need to be scared unless you go to certain neighborhoods in certain blue cities (IYKWIMAITYD). In other words: steer clear of minority neighborhoods, which are indeed very dangerous, and watch your six in neighborhoods on the margins off minority neighborhoods. Everywhere else, you’re golden.
He’s Irish, so he has no need to change his nationality, just never set foot in the UK ever again, and give the Anglo-Saxon Salute to the UK courts when they demand his attendance.
Does present-day Ireland sound like a nation that will actively fight his extradition for anti-woke behavior?
@bobby b
If you like legal arcana, this is all going to raise a jurisdictional issue that will either be insurmountable to the state, or will trigger armed conflict between the US and the UK.
I don’t think this is legal arcana at all, in fact I think it is one of the three major points. The first point of course is that free speech is dead in Britain. It has gone to meet its maker, pining for the fjords, resting in peace, pushing up the daisies. Second point is that apparently saying things that offend people is now treated by the police more seriously than the serial rape and human trafficking of children. But those points are obvious, I suppose.
The third point is that little Britain and its shitty little Ofcom seems to think it can control the whole world. It seems ironic that this article comes immediately after an article where some petty little European bureaucrat is complaining about Trump trying to impose his loathsome ideas about freedom of speech on Europe. While Britain is bringing back colonialism by suing American companies with no assets in Britain, for violations of their totalitarian speech laws.
If Britain is going to be the most censored nation in the Western world, at least have the decency to keep it to yourself. If 4chan is allowing people to say things they don’t like, Britain can block their internet traffic at the border. Keep up with that and you’ll soon have an internet like North Korea. Would that the large American companies like Facebook, Apple, Google and Netflix have the courage to stand together for free speech and tell Britain to go f**k themselves. Would they even notice the 1% drop in traffic?
And the worst part? Britons seem pretty ok with the whole thing, the radical anarchists who inhabit these parts excluded of course. When I talk to Britons about it that I know I’ll say “you know free speech is dead in Britain?” and they’ll say “yeah, you are right” with a sigh or resignation.
The state is getting out of control. I hope there’s a complaint procedure?
Perhaps the right choice, given the level of anti-Americanism around here — stirred up by USAID, the NY Times, and other US institutions.
But you are making the typical American mistake of confusing Britain with Europe. I myself am reluctant to visit Britain, as things stand; and even Germany is dodgy: i could face a lawsuit there for expressing my opinion that the German political class is insane.
But in countries where the “”populist right”” has been in government, there is still some freedom of speech — unlike American campuses. Speaking of which:
I walked to Columbia University in NY City, about 40 years ago. At the time, NYC was still a dangerous city, and Columbia is located in a Black neighborhood; yet i saw no reason to be scared (perhaps naively). I even asked a couple of Black youth for directions. They seemed surprised that i would speak to them.
Today, i’d be more scared of entering the Columbia campus than to walk in the neighborhood. And i am not even Jewish!
When Herbert Marcuse talked about the need to suppress “repressive tolerance”, I suppose this is what he meant: abolishing the “wrong” sort of speech.
This creates all kinds of problems for certain people. Jeremy Corbyn’s far left alliance with Islamists has a problem: many of the latter are hostile to the whole LGBTQ agenda. It’s a reason why the “Jezbollah” project is likely to collapse even before it has begun.
A few days ago I read a columnist in Bloomberg, a haven of “centrist Dad” establishment opinion, concede that the U.K. has a serious problem with the loss of free speech. So it’s not just classical liberals etc who are alarmed, although it would be nice if the conventional wisdom brigade could acknowledge that we’ve been right to warn about this for decades.
I’m a supporter of the Free Speech Union.
Fraser:
What the police take seriously is not offending people in general, but offending the mascots of the Anointed, to use Sowell’s terminology.
Ultimately, the British police are there to discipline people who expose the failures of the establishment.
and they’ll say “yeah, you are right” with a sigh or resignation.
Maybe because they don’t fancy waking up in a majority minority prison within 24 hours of being apprehended and rushed through what we have all seen can sometimes be a remarkably quick court system.
It’s all very well being told “don’t plead guilty” and “ask for a jury trial” but can they be sure they will be as fortunate as Ricky Jones or the Manchester airport thugs who avoided being held in custody and were instead allowed to live normally for upwards of a year before trial. The perception of two-tier justice has put the fear of God into the population, probably exactly as it was intended to.
Were I an English ex-pat, I’d want all assets out. Jurisdiction in rem is easier to declare and enforce than jurisdiction in personam.
(Had GL not returned, they could have easily taken his property instead of him under their new theory of jurisdiction.)
Background info,
Linehan, who now resides in the US (how did he get that green card btw, I’ve been waiting since 2016 for mine and it’s not happening anything soon) was returning to the UK to stand trial for harassing Sophia Brooks, a transgender activist and trans woman whose modus operandi if online video clips are to be believed consists of disrupting events and shoving a camera into people’s faces. Hopefully the impartial British justice system will establish who was doing the harassing.
It is always the way…
The Filth always go in mob-handed when it is things like this. See, for example, how they respond to non-crime hate incidents. Obviously Linehan was unarmed but he might have made a snarky remark (he is a comedy writer).
Down With This Sort Of Thing!
According to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer there is Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom – he is a liar.
According to the establishment in general there is Freedom of Speech in the United Kingdom – they also are lying.
However, even people now denouncing the present situation can not escape some (some) of the blame.
For example, former Prime Minister Alexander Boris Johnson is busy, quite rightly, denouncing the government and their police – but he fails to mention that he repealed NONE of the Acts of Parliament on which this repression and persecution are based. He had a majority in Parliament and he did nothing – I know the pressure on people in office are terrible (I have admitted this many times), but the fact remains that he did nothing – no repeal of the “Equality Act” or any of the other pieces of legislation that have bit-by-bit have undermined liberty over the last 60 years – yes 60 years (bit-by-bit – stage-by-stage).
Nothing the state is doing is “illegal” by the definition of “law” pushed by Sir Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham – and, of course, Sir William Blackstone. The state passed “laws” allowing all of this – so if (if) “law” is just the formal expression of the will of the state (as expressed in such things as Acts of Parliament) then what the state is doing, the censorship, the repression, the persecution, is NOT unlawful.
Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke and Chief Justice Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710) would have a different point of view, as would the Founders of the United States, but such people are not fashionable with the British legal establishment.
Walking past the newsstand at the supermarket this morning I see that the dead tree press has at least noticed that there is a problem.
On the subject of such suppression of free speech being illegal, doesn’t European human rights law cover this? Presumably they only obey those laws when it suits them.
I would add that those who suppress free speech are never on the right side of history, they are always the bad guys.
@Sam Duncan,
Slightly off topic, but I am curious why you would mention ‘Stewart Lee’ and ‘comedian’ in the same entry?
Stonyground – such international declarations and conventions are carefully drafted to NOT protect basic liberties.
The wording is very carefully chosen to give-the-impression that liberty is being protected – whilst NOT protecting liberty.
None of this is new – for example the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen in the French Revolution was carefully written to give the impression that it protected individual liberty, whilst NOT doing so. In reality there was no defense against “the people” (read – the regime) under the French Revolution, and no defense for Freedom of Speech (or any other basic individual liberty) in the modern documents – not if one reads them carefully (they have “kill switch” terms such as “subject to law” – which means that liberty destroying “laws” may be imposed by the state whenever the establishment feels like it).
The contrast with the American Bill of Rights and those of many American States is stark – these Bills of Rights actually due try to defend individual liberties against “the people”.
To be a member of the European Union (and the distinction between the European Union and the earlier European Convention has collapsed – as the E.U. has incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, and its court, into its own documents) a nation must have “Hate Speech” “laws”.
Not must NOT have such evil – must have such evil. Must have “Hate Speech” “laws”.
Not that the British state, those followers of Sir Francis “The New Atlantis” Bacon and Jeremy “13 Departments of State” (covering just about everything) Bentham, needs any encouragement in pushing tyranny.
This is the problem that the vote for independence in 2016 did not address – the British state, and establishment generally, is filled with “Progressive” hatred and contempt for the British people.
So, unless something is done to break the power of the “Progressive” establishment – the march towards tyranny will continue.
Telling them that if present trends continue, eventually the conclusion will be a boot stamping down on our faces for ever, has-no-effect on the Progressive establishment.
It has no effect to say that to the Progressive establishment – because that is what they want.
And not just in the United Kingdom – but internationally, this is what the international establishment want.
Free speech doesn’t mean you can say what you want. It means you can say what we like.
Penseivat: Heh. He used to be one, a long time ago.
(C’mon, be fair… his double-act with Richard Herring had its moments back in the ’90s.)
From The Met commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Emphasis mine. So, seeing as I am not from a “protected group” (one of the elect?) it’s OK to threaten to punch me in the bollocks? I’m a white, British born, middle-aged, middle class, heterosexual male. You can do what you want to me. Actually, I’m not so very different from Mr Linehan. I also have an Irish passport (all you need is one grandparent).
Mary Black and NickM – yes indeed.
We remember the BBC “comic” who urged people to throw battery acid in the face of Nigel Farage.
Was she arrested by five armed policemen? No – of course not.
“Two Tier justice” is not justice at all.
How about the Labour councilor who crossed London to deliver a speech to an angry mob an telling them to “cut the throats” of their political opponents.
A jury of his fellow leftists thought that was just fine – they want our throats cut, because we are “racists”.
And none of this started yesterday…..
Years ago the members of “the 100” (an offshoot of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament – founded by the socialist philosopher Bertrand Russell) helped “spring” the traitor George Blake from prison and get him to his beloved Soviet Union.
They admitted their guilt – indeed they boasted about it in a book.
But the establishment (even years ago) liked them – it presented a “prosecutor” who refused to get into political debate, leaving that to the Defense Barrister, must-not-contradict-the-darling.
And a jury of their fellow leftists found them “not guilty” – treason, betraying British agents, “springing” the traitor from prison, all just fine.
They want us dead, or enslaved – they make that very clear.
And “they” include the members of various socialist “legal” societies – such as many judges and the Prime Minister.
And it is the same in the United States – at least when it comes to many judges and juries, if not the laws (they do not have the same death-to-liberty statutes that we do).
Judges and juries in such places as Washington D.C. and New York City (and other places to – such as the Hellhole the Minneapolis area has become) find the innocent (people they know to be innocent) guilty – and they giggle as they do it, and Grand Juries refuse to even indict the obviously guilty.
The battle lines are clearly drawn – the left (be they sitting with robes on as judges – or sitting in the jury box) do not care about justice, indeed they HATE justice – which is why they find the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent.
They stand for Social Justice – which is the enemy of Justice.
How many people did George Blake betray?
He once boasted it was 500 – but it may have been “only” 40. Popov was executed by the Marxist regime (the “Soviet Union”).
Rather than being executed, as he should have been, Mr Blake was sent to prison – supposedly he was going to be there for life (but if you believe the establishment would not have released him after a few years – I have a nice bridge to sell you).
But the jury in 1991 thought that getting this traitor to the Soviet Union was just fine – and the two “Committee of 100” people had previous, they had been sent to prison themselves for “non violent” treason, and they continued their activities (for example supporting the vicious Communists in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) after “springing” Mr Blake.
Remember the date of the trial – 1991 in the middle of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yet the left, including the jury, had no remorse – they had no shame.
They did not give a damn about the tens of millions of people murdered by the socialists in the Soviet Union (or elsewhere – for example the Boat People from Vietnam, or Year Zero in Cambodia, or the tens of millions murdered by Mao in China) – indeed, if they had the power, they would have done that here.
May they all burn in Hell.
George Blake, the swine who “sprung” him, the jury that let them off, and the establishment that never really gave a toss about any of it.
Including not giving a toss about people who risked, and lost, their lives opposing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
How far back do the Double Standards, the “Two Tier” thinking, go?
In the United States President Woodrow Wilson was very concerned that “Reactionaries” not regain control of Mexico or Russia – and took action to prevent this. Yet this is not really mentioned in the history books – had he backed the “Reactionaries” it would be mentioned, and denounced, in the history books.
In 1946 the United States government demanded that the government of the Republic of China stop its Manchurian offensive, which was defeating the Communists. Yet to ask about this risks condemnation as a “McCarthyite” – ditto many other strange actions by the American bureaucracy.
In Britain and France people today are punished for words considered “right wing” (this will include me, at some point the axe will fall), but not for “left wing” words – but things are more radical than this and it goes back a long way.
In September 1939 National Socialist (Nazi) Germany invaded Poland – and Britain and France declared war on Germany – and people who were “pro Nazi Germany” were put in prison in Britain.
Also in September 1939 the Soviet Union also invaded Poland – yet there was no Declaration of War on the Soviet Union by Britain or France, and “pro Soviet Union” people were not put in prison – they remained free to sabotage France in 1940 – thus helping the German invasion.
The Soviet Union also invaded Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and part of Romania – no Declaration of War by Britain or France, and no rounding up of “pro Soviet Union” people.
The Soviet Union also invaded Finland, the Winter War – still no Declaration of War from Britain and France and no rounding up of “pro Soviet Union” people.
Even some non Communists seem to have regarded the Soviet Union as somehow “Progressive” – even proposing, in the 1930s, some sort of alliance with it – this at a time when the Marxist regime was already responsible for the deaths of millions of human beings, something the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany had not-yet-done.
The Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet invasion of many other countries (see above), seems to have not changed the thinking of the Western establishment.
Here’s a thought experiment…
Let’s say in the ’90s Graham Linehan hadn’t created “Father Ted” which of course poked fun at the Catholic Church…
…instead he created “Imam Ali” a sit-com based around a mosque in Ireland and the comedic antics thereof…
Linehan probably wouldn’t have been arrested by the Met, he’d most likely be dead.
Or another way to look at it… Around the time “Father Ted” first aired I was living in Stepney*. (Now in the People’s Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets). If I were to move back would I be a protected minority?
*Back then in the mid ’90s there were still Cockneys within the sound of Bow Bells. There were even Jews! You could get an excellent beigel. It was actually, genuinely, diverse in the true sense of the word.
Linehan has some words to say:https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/i-just-got-arrested-again
Linehan has always been a nasty piece of work however his arrest is outrageous, and a complete waste of police time.
Paul has already heaped a lot of well-deserved abuse on the Commies, but let me add that the Nazis were perhaps the first to denounce the mass murders of the Commies.
Meanwhile, the Englishman Walter Duranty was whitewashing them in the NY Times.
Depends upon what purpose you think the police serve.
No, I’m not.
There are many incidents that gave rise to this, a couple in Britain, and several more across Europe.
Snorri – yes both the New York Times and the Guardian (then the Manchester Guardian) covered up the death of millions in the Soviet Union in the 1930s – they were despicable publications then, and sadly they-still-are despicable publications now.
As for the specific British legal situation…..
Politicians should be asked whether or not they support the repeal of the “Communications Act”, the “Equality Act” and the other pieces of legislation that are used for censorship and persecution.
If they say “no” or hedge by saying “the Acts are not being properly applied…..”
Then the politicians have shown themselves to be totally useless – and should be told to go-away.
It is no good politicians (or anyone else) saying “it is bad that so-and-so has been arrested” if they do not support the repeal of these Acts of Parliament.
Ragingnick’s link is quite interesting.
I previously noticed that the 3 tweets that got Linehan into trouble, contain neither humor nor rational argument. I would define them as rude, and that is an understatement. They seem to me to contribute less than nothing to the case against trans-insanity.
The aforementioned link suggests that that has always been Linehan’s modus operandi on Twitter (and now on “X”).
I trust that people who read Samizdata are smart enough to understand that the above paragraph is not meant to justify his persecution.
— There is, however, an interesting ethical question for me: should i support Linehan or not?
I have previously remarked that i feel no obligation to defend the freedom of speech of people who would not defend mine.
(That is the principle of the Free Speech Union btw: defend the people who contribute to the FSU.)
From what i read, it seems to me that Linehan would not defend my freedom of speech: therefore, i feel no strong obligation to defend his freedom of speech.
OTOH, I remain free to defend his freedom of speech if and when it is expedient, and in this case, it is in fact expedient.
On the gripping hand, Linehan obviously does not need my support. Still, it is an interesting thought experiment.
In this PMQ the Prime minister says “This country has a long history of free speech in this country, I’m very proud of it and I will always defend it.”
This is quite simply a bald faced lie.
William O. B’Livion:
I am aware of this, since i look up Breitbart Europe regularly*.
But you should also be aware that you know about the countries where said incidents occur, but not about the countries where such incidents do not occur — not often, anyway.
* That is because there are very few woke incidents in Europe which are reported by Samizdata or Instapundit. I want to be sure that that is not because Samizdata & Instapundit are oblivious to what is going on in Europe.
I try to look for evidence against my prejudices.
We all know why the Met chose Heathrow as the location for the arrest, when they could have visited his home – only at Heathrow could they use armed officers for that extra intimidation factor without anyone complaining.
If only we had a Home Sec worthy of the post who could bring them to heel.
Snorri Godhi at 5:23am, “But in countries where the “”populist right”” has been in government, there is still some freedom of speech.”
I had a chance to visit Prague last July to attend a conference, sadly it fell through. I assume the Czech Republic is one of your “populist right” countries an American can visit in spite of having expressed wrongthink online. Yes?
Hungary and Poland, too?
These are my rough recollections of the state of things…am I right? I’d hate to visit the wrong place and wind up spending more, and lower quality, time there than planned.
Any other European countries you would add to this list?
There are various websites that track things like freedom, poverty, etc. Maybe Samizdata.net could create an Anglosphere Freedom Index to share with those of us with less direct knowledge of the situation on the ground? I started exploring Europe (a bit) late in life and I hate to have to cut that off.
Snorri makes an interesting point about whether we should stick our necks out to defend the liberty of people who would not defend our liberty.
I would say “yes” – not for their sake, but for the sake of the principle, but I see the point that Snorri makes.
GregWA – it is complicated.
The Czech Republic does not have many third world migrants in the place – but does not make a great noise about this, as Hungary does.
So the European Union (and the accursed “international community” generally) have, so far, largely left the Czech Republic alone – after all the government there is very supportive on Ukraine and so on.
But this will not last for ever – sooner or later the “blessings” of “cultural enrichment” or Third World “Diversity and Inclusion” will be forced on the Czech Republic – unless (unless) it chooses to break with the European Union and the rest of the accursed “international community”.
Hungary is what it is – it is indeed “Populist Right” (although Budapest has a leftist city government).
Poland is split – it has a “mainstream” Prime Minister (Donald Tusk – ex European Union official) and a “Populist Right” President.
For the record – I am on the side of the President, so that would make me “Populist Right”.
In response to GregWA: I do not remember reading of anybody arrested for speech crimes outside the UK, but i would not be surprised to find that it happened in Ireland, from what i read. Even in Germany, you can be sued just for tapping your head (indicating what you think of somebody else’s mental faculties), but you can hardly end up in jail afaik. But perhaps somebody else here knows better than me.
Of course, there are certain areas where it is not prudent to go. I never bothered to find out what they are in any European city in which i lived (usually smallish), but i am told that there are some.
You might also suffer some verbal abuse, more or less subtle, for being American. In this case, it should be of some comfort to know that we also insult each other (not to mention immigrants); although that is perhaps not as common nowadays.
Thank you, Snorri. Very helpful.
Snorri – yes indeed, Freedom of Speech is not something the German establishment hold dear, to put the matter mildly. And the German media establishment are sickeningly dishonest (no surprise there) – for example they will imply that someone is pro Nazi when they were actually attacking Nazi policies – attacking Nazi principles. The media even do this in relation to court cases (where someone has been dragged into court for a social media post – or whatever).
It is much the same in the Republic of Ireland – and we should expect this, as the German and Irish and BRITISH establishments are not independent of each other – they are all part of the international establishment, which seeks to crush Freedom of Speech – and crush all other basic liberties.
And this includes the United States – where the “liberal” (which is rabidly ANTI liberal) establishment seeks to crush Freedom of Speech, see the government actions in California, Minnesota and other places, and all other basic liberties.
The agenda of the international establishment (which is called liberal – but is not) can be summed up in one word – liberticide.
Just today i came across this (via Instapundit).
Still no danger of being arrested, but if it interferes with elections, then it is very worrying.
And yet… I am located in Italy, and i can access both the French Twitter Files (and https://www.public.news/ in general) and the Citizen Free Press.
So, i am not too worried. I don’t think that Giorgia will let Emmanuel interfere with her chances of re-election.
Snorri Godhi at 11:23am…I’d never heard of the Ace of Spades website. Quick look at a few articles there and I bookmarked it! Thank you for pointing it out!
It looks like i didn’t know what i was talking about, when i said that you can hardly be arrested for speech crimes in Germany:
German woman given harsher sentence than convicted rapist for calling him ‘disgraceful rapist pig’
If you read the article, there are mitigating circumstances for the rapist (he was a minor) and aggravating circumstances for the woman (a previous conviction).
Still a disgrace for German “justice”.
The last sentence:
I am tempted to call Merz an idiot.