European News and Poland Thread 2

Lol!!!!! But you just did!!!!!


Jim, I think that is sound advice....STFU as you say in America!

...but if he were mentally competent he would be facing prosecution. Right?

Quoting dailymail:

Revealed: Christian street preacher who harassed a transwoman by repeatedly calling her a 'man in woman's clothing' was reported to counter-terror police for 'illegally espousing an extreme point of view'

Hey, jon, is that true or not?

BTW, in the land of 1984, the UK, he was reported for "illegally espousing an extreme point of view", not for harassing the guy. The USSR is looking better and better...

He isn't, however you can't stand in the street shouting abuse at passers by and threatening them in civilised countries.

And in very good news, the BBC has backed down and is no longer giving into threats from extremist Tories; Gary Lineker has won.

A victory for free speech.

Says who, you ?
He is a street preacher joun, yes or no ?


I never said he was 'facing "prosecution', you did, slippery joun.
I posted that he was facing "charges", not prosecution.
A Christian street preacher was reportedly facing criminal charges in the United Kingdom for declaring that a trans woman was really a "gentleman" and a "man in woman's clothing."

Now read that again slowly joun and focus on the words "reportedly" and "charges."


Better yet, you stick to what I say and not what you make up of what I said twisting words to diminish me.
We are sick of your diminishing tactics joun, time for you to grow up.

That whole post is pointless off topic trolling.

A loony gets picked up for yelling abuse at passers by. Happens every day in every big city.

And Gary Lineker won!

There's nothing worse than people who don't understand legal terminology trying to discuss legal matters. Jon is correct in his use of the term prosecution. Charges are brought and the case is prosecuted in the court. If one is charged with an offence one is facing prosecution.

There seems to be a great deal of confusion here about a very simple case.


He was prosecuted and found guilty.


He appealed and had his conviction overturned precisely because he's lucky enough to live in the UK and not the USSR.

His case was dealt with in the Magistrate's Court where the Judge is called the Recorder. The Recorder, in his summing up said that the case had not been proved as insulting somebody is not a criminal offence.

"it is not enough to show words were insulting and that [the complainant] was distressed. They must prove that we as a bench are sure that when [Mr McConnell] was using those words that he intended to cause distress.

"[Mr McConnell] said he had no such intent, he says he goes out preaching the Word of God and the last thing he wants to do is upset. He said he was not intending distress, just repeating what he genuinely believed to be the Bible's teaching."

You see Novi, that's how the law is administered in a free and democratic society.

No, Atch, in a free and democratic society the intent to cause "distress" is NOT a criminal offense. In a 1984 sh*ithole like the UK, it is.

You see, dear legal scholar, if everybody was like Ms. Manners, we wouldn't need the 1st Amendment. The 1st was created to protect speech that offends, upsets, annoys, irritates, and pis*ses people off. Like mine...and that is why I am still a free man, not in prison.

As JR would say, class dismissed.

Under English law, carrying out an action with deliberate intent to cause harm is a criminal offence. That harm does not have to be physical. Any act carried out with intent to cause harm to another, be it to their property, their physical person, their reputation, their mental state, is a criminal offence. But the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must demonstrate that the act was intentionally harmful. Therefore the Judge, on appeal, quite rightly overturned the conviction as intent was not demonstrated.


Well, my family have been in continuous legal practice in the British Isles since 1769. Having a youthful interest in the subject, I learned how to debate the law from my father's cousin who was a very prominent barrister. His was also an academic and his specialty was, strangely enough, the courts of criminal appeal, so I actually DO know what I'm talking about.

Which is impossible without drilling the offender's head and sticking a probe into the hole. This is what makes you the USSR - light, but not the US with its 1st as the gold standard.

The USSR had speech laws, too, that made it a crime to offend the state. In Muslim countries, you can't offend Allah. In the UK, you can't offend migrants and faggots.


I have no doubt that you know what you are talking about. You also know that you are a perfect example of another Euro bootlicker who would rather eat manure than say anything against your establishment. I know this to be a fact from your posts that are never critical of anything you ruling mob likes. Please, no lectures about "our legal representatives".

Citing your laws makes as much sense as citing Soviet or Nazi laws. Those were laws, too. BFD!

The problem: without the 1st Amendment or equivalent, you are subjects, not citizens.

They're not my laws. I'm not British.


The First Amendement is nothing more than a sop to Cerberus.


Seeing as you can't even remember what nationality I am, I don't think you're in a position to make such a statement.

the vulnerable people he should be concerned about, first and foremost, are his fellow citizens....

I agree with the trade unionist Paul Embry... who said (in a slightly different context) that Lineker is a multi-millionaire who is "largely insulated from the stresses that afflict ordinary voters"

If it has zero effect on their life, it's easy for someone to say the UK government is mean to people fleeing France in terror.... of what precisely? What (in France) are they fleeing?

Did you think he isn't? He's commented on the vulnerable and on many other social issues often enough, and done so for many years now. He is very well-known for being outspoken on behalf of the vulnerable.

That just sounds like whataboutery. Can he not be very "concerned about" society and have opinions about the way others are treated at the same time? He isn't a one-trick pony y'know...

Don't tell me, Maf, that you're another one who'd never heard of him before last week and don't know the background to the issue you're commenting on. Proof that it's so easy to sucker people in by a dead cat PR stunt.


As you know (or, it seems, perhaps don't know), the issue is not migration, a matter much discussed there by both politicians and the general public, one on which opinions are varied and which is governed by the law there and international law as well as foreign policy and relations with other countries.

The issue is the disgraceful attempt by certain back-bench politicians to make an issue over someone's very reasonable comments in order to distract from both a scandal over the chair of the BBC making a £400,000 donation to the Tory party and brokering an £800,000 loan to the then Prime Minister while he was a candidate for that role.

The Tories have also found that the proposed measures on migration have been received with very mixed feelings, and they are currently rock bottom in the polls with a mathematically negligible chance of retaining office after the next election. There are a few other Tory scandals going on right now (like an attempt to give a knighthood to a vicious wife-beater who happens to be the ex-PM's father and the fallout from the revelations about health policy).

Therefore, manufactured 'dead cat' PR stunts like this are something we can expect to see over the next few months. It's depressing how the gullible fall for them so easily and get all het up over something in a tabloid while so-called 'investors' are making more money from the sweated labour of the gullible than they do themselves.

The name was familiar but not much more than that.

I'm in favor of free speech so I'm against taking off the air from it.... but I don't have to respect what he said and I've already had a snootful of rich celebrities telling other people what to think or how to live...

If the UK wants to open its border to anyone who can arrive by boat from France... then open up and try to ever close them again.

Yes. We get this from Michael Portillo, an ex-Politician voted out of a safe seat who presents travel shows on the BBC and regularly makes right-wing comments in magazines. as well as the odious Jeremy Clarkson who wrote that striking workers should be shot in front of their families and continued to present Top Gear for five years after that. In tjhose cases however, there weren't scandals that the Tories wanted to draw attention away from.


Which of course it doesn't, unless you're a Daily Mail reader for whom prisons are 5 star hotels, people on disability benefits live in luxury mansions funded by the taxpayer, Poles eat swans stolen from the park, reality show contestants are 'celebrities', things ain't what they used to be and every primary school has sequinned drag artistes teaching 1st years how to go dogging.

you don't ask 'refugees' such questions - a big no-no

Actually, there are rather a lot of questions that are put as part of the process to determine the outcome of each case. Your comment is an odd one.


There's no obligation for them to remain there and of course there is a current action meaning that those among the people who travel that are not refugees are being returned; that is one of the key points of the current action. There are however ample other threads for you to spit bile about your obsessive hatred of migrants. This current issue is about the BBC

as per international law refugees should be only treated as such in the first safe country they arrive in - it is not the case for those who sail from France to the UK or try to illegally cross the border from Belarus to Poland

However they are not in this case and there are a number of very complicated factors involved. Completely aside from 'international' law, the UK has its own legal systems (we have three) and we also have a specific culture of welcoming refugees, as Poles have found for centuries, since enough of them came in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, thousands came fleeing the oppression of the right-wing 'second republic' and many also during the PRL

This however is irrelevant since we are, as you may remember, discussing right-wing corruption involving Sunak and the BBC. There are other threads on migration patterns and the ways these are developing in Europe.

Is Britain's culture and way of doing things a problem for you? And as you were told, there are myriad other threads for you to vent your extreme views on immigration.

I remember your nationality - it's Irish - and consider this fact irrelevant since Western stupidy and wokeness are international. And so is bootlicking and the desire to defend our own ruling mobs out of some sick sense of loyalty because they are "ours". The ultimate perversion: criticizing them is like criticizing myself. So we defend them.

I disconnected me from these bums a long time ago and found it very liberating.

I'm afraid facts are facts. You yourself are a great one for the facts and my nationality is an irrefutable fact. You referred to UK laws, policies, procedures etc. as 'mine' and to me as a 'subject'. I'm not a British subject. That's a fact. Sorry if that doesn't suit your argument but them's the breaks. The Irish people are far from a nation of bootlickers and the people of Ireland have a lot more freedom and power than most nations in the developed world, including the USA.

Without the 1st and the 2nd Amendments you are "subjects" and so are Poles and the rest of Europe. The evidence: you all act like subjects, always afraid and deferential to your rulers.

I have yet to see a post from a Euro that is critical of his government and policies - especially on Muslim migrants.

But the best evidence that you, Euros, are subjects is the fact that you are here, on an American forum, not one in Europe.

If you are familiar with my posts, please tell me that I would be as free to post my views in Europe without getting a visit from the Hate Speech Ministry.

Bottom line: You, Euros, are all the same. Timid and afraid of your masters. Try to find a post by a Euro that is similar to Joker's or mine. Yes, I know, your ruling scum is wonderful...

I rarely say anything bad about our current (Polish) government because I support it and dread the possibility that the current (self-titled) 'total' opposition takes power - I don't support them unconditionally though and also don't support some of their policies

High probability. Not possibility.

Would you want PiS to remain in office indefinitely?

I said I don't support them unconditionally - that should clear a thing or two

That wasn't the question, now, was it, Gumi....

Don't you think it's good to have governments from opposing sides every few years?

@gumishu
Basically the difference of choosing a man with a good working heart, but a rotten brain compared to a rotten heart with a well functioning brain. While both have their souls to take care of.

The difference of a 80 year old man waving with his walking stick, compared to a young and fast man who wants take away the walking stick and turn it in to a club.

Not much competition there if one of them is supposed to decide and govern dangerous institutions

Nice try...You and other Euros always "support" and approve but never hate anything your governments ever do - a statistical improbability.

Do you want Muslim or black migrants in Poland?

I am going to predict your Euro answer: I don't mind - or something like this.


Your cowardly post could not be more timely. It made my point that you are all cowards so well.
Instead of saying it directly, you resorted to those idiotic Polish metaphors and allegories.
When I want poetry, I will get Mickiewicz.

I also belong to European forums. I don't especially need to visit an American forum.


Well, you could do with a few lessons from the Basic Manners for the Beginner Ministry, that's for sure.


But we're not. Europe is not a country.

OK. Please recall the post that was the most critical of the government where that forum is located. Let me guess...It was: I respectfully disagree.


Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment and the gov goons knocking on my door at 4 am.


Where it matters, it is. It's called the EUNATO.

I'm against significant numbers of Muslim immigrants to Poland - so is the current Polish government

also I was highly critical of the previous (2007-2015) PO+PSL government (among others based on their attitude to immigrant quotas pushed on us by the EU) - sorry to burst your bubble