This picture sums up whats happening in the UK
https://x.com/RadioGenoa/status/1840683142618722677
This explains the two tier justice system happening in the UK
UK Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that thousands of prisoners will be released early beginning in September. Following their release, prisoners detained for opposing mass migration will occupy the vacated spots.
shareThis is was will happen in the US is Kamala secures The Steal.
shareLet’s see your proof.
shareThat's what "the thieves" are always asking.
shareThat makes no sense.
shareWhen a thief is caught and accused of his crime, he goes straight for the "Let’s see your proof" tactic.
shareYou haven't caught any thief, you've just thrown accusations. Do you automatically assume that someone accused of anything is guilty the moment they ask for some kind of evidence? Like this reasoning implies you reject innocent until proven guilty as a concept.
share"Asking for evidence of an allegation I make against you is evidence that its true".
You seem to have failed every single basic logical argument test there is.
Oh, so all your dumbassery questions are tests eh.
You have no logic and you don't argue .... you annoy and troll.
>Oh, so all your dumbassery questions are tests eh.
No. Just noting that your grasp of logic is utterly laughable.
>You have no logic and you don't argue .... you annoy and troll.
Dude, you think that all allegations against someone are automatically true if the person objects to them. I won't take any lectures on logic from you.
Moron.
>UK Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has announced that thousands of prisoners will be released early beginning in September.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/feb/25/scheme-release-prisoners-early-extended-indefinitely-england-wales
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/prisoners-set-free-70-days-29130548
https://www.thejusticegap.com/justice-secretary-announces-new-early-release-prison-plan/
The early release scheme was set up by the previous Conservative government.
>Following their release, prisoners detained for opposing mass migration will occupy the vacated spots.
Name me a specific person specifically arrested and jailed purely for opposing mass migration.
As usual, your challenge is larded up with so many qualifiers that you'll never concede that any political prisoner in the U.K. matches your terms. Pathetic.
shareHere's the answer: No-one has been arrested in the UK for opposing mass migration. Inciting violence? Yes. Actively causing violence at the head of riots? Yes. Inciting racial hatred? Yes. But not opposing mass migration. It's just an outright fucking lie.
shareYou gullible insufferable establishment shill.
Everything you described they did is what “they” were falsely accused of.
They’re not going to charge them with “opposing mass migration” when it is being allowed deliberately.
You accuse others of lying and yet you believe the lies of the establishment and regurgitate them with your own spin and distortions.
You label others as liars but you’re the 2nd biggest liar on this forum next to Keelai.
You accuse others of making shit up, and yet, you are the master fabricator of bullshit.
Now play the stupid coy hatchling with your usual questions.
>Everything you described they did is what “they” were falsely accused of.
Falsely accused of what? Who the fuck, and what the fuck are you even referring to?
>They’re not going to charge them with “opposing mass migration” when it is being allowed deliberately.
"They're" not going to charge anyone with opposing mass migration because it's not illegal to oppose mass migration in the UK.
>You accuse others of lying and yet you believe the lies of the establishment and regurgitate them with your own spin and distortions.
What lies of the establishment here are you even on about?
I have no idea what you're even calling lies here.
Moron.
"They're" not going to charge anyone with opposing mass migration because it's not illegal to oppose mass migration in the UK.
No shit? ... That's precisely why they are being falsely charged with "other" illegal bullshit. share
By "other illegal bullshit" you mean inciting violence, making threats, and actually participating in violence by rioting?
shareThey were just "good people" on another "day of love" surely?
shareBy "other illegal bullshit" you mean inciting violence, making threats, and actually participating in violence by rioting?
Now you're getting it.
So that's wrong, is it? People should be allowed to legally smash windows, assault police officers, launch fireworks into buildings and make death threats?
shareWho do you think is making these claims? the towelhead rats are. They have infested the government in the UK.
shareWhat the fuck are you talking about? The people arrested and charged for looting, smashing windows, lauching fireworks, assaulting police were caught on camera doing so. The people who made threats were caught doing so.
The riots did actually happen.
yeah sure they were.
https://x.com/TrialedTruth/status/1840684307045597266
Yes, they were.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy39gxekv5o
Are you claiming that this, for instance, didn't happen? That the police just made this up?
That none of the riots existed at all?
HAHAHAHAHAHA he linked to the BBC. He is actually backing up his argument with propaganda straight from the towel heads.
shareThat's not an answer. Those men were arrested, and convicted. Are you claiming that they didn't do anything they were accused of?
Are all these videos fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ANIXgXx7n4
Is this bodycam footage fake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDPC3nE-EbI
Is this footage fake? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_V9L__DBVo
I'm not claiming the riots didnt happen you pinhead.
shareRight then, so people were rightly arrested and charged and jailed for... rioting (vandalism, looting, arson, assault etc). So what's the problem?
share"(vandalism, looting, arson, assault etc)" ...
... Yes, all the same bullshit that the migrants did but were not charged or arrested for it, only those that opposed the mass migration were charged; how convenient.
You really are a traitor to your own race.
>... Yes, all the same bullshit that the migrants did but were not charged or arrested for it,
No, this is a fucking lie.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0l8pk0964no
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl0nd1yrlo
There were counter-riots, and they were arrested.
Why don't you ever stop fucking lying, you piece of shit?
Yes, and almost all of them were or are being released to make space for the protesters that opposed them.
Your bullshit propaganda holds no weight for your arguments.
You need to come up with a better tactic, shill.
>Yes, and almost all of them were or are being released to make space for the protesters that opposed them.
No, they aren't. None of the rioters charged have been released under that scheme. Those are for older sentences and was planned before the riots even happened. Why do you keep fucking lying?
Show me a single rioter arrested released early under that scheme, you lying piece of shit.
And how is the BBC "propaganda" "straight from the towel heads"?
share"You accuse others of lying and yet you believe the lies of the establishment and regurgitate them with your own spin and distortions."
ding ding ding. We have a winner. He will still need it explained to him in great detail before he gets it, after he asks for evidence.
And what lies am I saying here? Name them.
shareI'm sorry to break it to you, but he’s never going to 'get it.' You can present him with all the evidence in the world, and he’ll either spin it or ignore it entirely. His mind isn't changing. He’s only here to poke holes in your argument, whether they exist or not. Beyond that, his goal is to drag you into a drawn-out, exhausting conversation where he’ll try to sniff out your politics. The moment he realizes you’re not a left-wing progressive, he’ll brand you a fascist. And if you say anything remotely 'spicy,' he'll run straight to the mods to try and get you banned. He’s a known snitch.
shareSorry, what evidence has he presented? What am I lying about in this thread?
The premise of this thread is a complete lie. The early prison release scheme was started by the last government, the Conservatives. What does that have to do with Shabana Mahmood, who only took a cabinet role after Labour won the election as funnily enough, she is a Labour MP.
What is the lie here by me in pointing that out?
> The moment he realizes you’re not a left-wing progressive, he’ll brand you a fascist. And if you say anything remotely 'spicy,' he'll run straight to the mods to try and get you banned. He’s a known snitch.
You mean if he incites violence or makes threats? Is that what you mean by "spicy"?
There is nothing wrong with inciting with violence or making threats.
shareAre you going to answer my prior question?
"The early prison release scheme was started by the last government, the Conservatives. What does that have to do with Shabana Mahmood, who only took a cabinet role after Labour won the election as funnily enough, she is a Labour MP." What's the lie here?
No I'm not going to answer your question. I don't care about your questions.
shareSo as usual, you're too stupid to answer it.
shareRemember the last time you tried this pathetic tactic and I ran circles around you?
Let me guess, it never happened right? Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
By "ran circles around me" you simply mean responding, and making excuses for why you can't answer it. You could say anything and you'd call it "running circles around me". You're apparently proud of the online equivalent of thumbing your nose at someone, as if that represents a smart argument.
It's a matter of public record that the Conservatives were responsible for the early prisoner release scheme. Do you deny this?
Once again, you’re being deliberately stupid. In our last conversation, I answered all your questions and addressed all your arguments. When I refused to answer more of your nonsense, you claimed I was too stupid to respond. So, I came back and utterly destroyed your entire argument, which even shut you up for a brief moment. Naturally, you ignored everything that just happened and moved on to another question, at which point I ended our conversation.
share>Once again, you’re being deliberately stupid. In our last conversation, I answered all your questions and addressed all your arguments.
No, you did not. There were at least 3 points I raised that you made excuses for not addressing. All of them were fundamentally indefensible and absurd.
> When I refused to answer more of your nonsense, you claimed I was too stupid to respond.
You were and are.
>So, I came back and utterly destroyed your entire argument, which even shut you up for a brief moment.
What the fuck are you talking about? The only point you "destroyed" or eventually replied to was your position on freedom of expression, which you clarified you were only calling for social consequences, not legislation against particular expressions (and that by "punishment" you didn't mean state punishment but contextually your original phrasing made this claim make little sense). I also pointed out that you've been inconsistent about this on here and have called for government directed censorship. And you also produced the absurd argument that criminalising a sexuality in itself doesn't have implications for freedom of expression.
>Naturally, you ignored everything that just happened and moved on to another question, at which point I ended our conversation.
What did I ignore? Show me the post (I assume you're referring to the Penguin thread) I supposedly ignored and didn't address. Naturally you can't because you're a lying piece of shit too stupid to answer.
I will try again, as this is pertinent to your original claims within the thread and the topic that the OP tried to focus on:
It's a matter of public record that the Conservatives were responsible for the early prisoner release scheme. Do you deny this?
I provided various sources that show that the early prisoner release scheme was organised by them. Do you deny this?
Those are fake conservatives.
shareMaybe they are. Not relevant. The point is that the early release scheme has nothing to do with Shabana Mahmood.
shareIt is relevant since there’s no difference between them and the current ruling faction.
shareYou don't live here. How the fuck would you know?
It's not relevant because the OP is trying to blame Labour, and specifically this woman for a policy they inherited from the outgoing government.
You don't live here. How the fuck would you know?
You don't live here in the USA, so I can ask you the same question every time you stick your lying nose in our politics.
Once again, Mahmood is a member of the current faction; the very same faction that's no different than the fake conservatives. Capisce? share
>You don't live here in the USA, so I can ask you the same question every time you stick your lying nose in our politics.
I don't really comment that much on actual domestic policy in the USA. I comment directly on completely nonsensical claims you make.
>Once again, Mahmood is a member of the current faction; the very same faction that's no different than the fake conservatives. Capisce?
You have no way of knowing that they are the "same faction". This is your ignorant bullshit.
Not "capisce". Go fuck yourself, scumbag.
"I don't really comment that much on actual domestic policy in the USA."
Bullshit, another lie.
I comment on your baseless claims of electoral fraud, weird conspiracy theories about hurricanes, NWO/WEF related schizo rambling.
The Democrats and Republicans are different. As are the Conservatives and Labour in the UK.
Lying shill, you stick your lying ass nose in almost all our politics.
shareI don't comment specifically on domestic cases like this. This would be comparable to me criticising police brutality in the USA and what they can or cannot do, or immigration laws.
But you've already made some dumbass claims on here that don't stand up to any basic scrutiny. Going to address that? You claimed some rioters, and specifically the asian diaspora rioters, have already been released from prison. Can I see some evidence for that?
Convenient. So then you will have no problem saying someone is a fake liberal then? You claim that anytime a conservatives is caught in a lie you scumbag.
shareI don't know why you're asking me these questions. I don't give a shit about the OP and have no thoughts on it. I just dropped in to give ClownBaby some advice on what he can expect if he engages in conversation with you.
shareYou seem to ignore the reality that it is quite possible, and indeed a matter of site public record, that people do make baseless claims at me, and that I actually do provide sources that demonstrate they're talking shit - as is the case with ClownBaby on this thread.
shareCool Story Bro...
Tell it again.
Lol wishful thinking. You got your ass whooped.
shareLOL. No, I handed you your ass during our conversation, and you ran away like a little bitch. Then you claimed I was destroyed by Skavau because I got tired of his endless questions. So, I came back and demolished every single one of his arguments with one elegant post — just to prove you wrong.
Now that you got smacked again you can go ahead and run away like little bitch.
Ha nope. I just got tired of your nonsense. You only own yourself bitch boy. Like I said any racist post you will make will be reported. Mind your tongue.
shareYes, you got tired. But let’s be real — you had no more arguments left. I dismantled every one of them and made you my bitch. And If you're going to be in my country, you should at least show some respect for our most cherished values, particularly freedom of speech. That freedom is what allows me to express my racism. Under the banner of free speech, hate is protected. In fact, it’s the most unpopular speech, like hate speech, that the First Amendment was designed to protect. Allowing people to express their hate is an American value. By telling me to mind my tongue or else you'll try to have me censored by the mods, you've demonstrated that you don’t share our values. Get the fuck out of my country — you don’t belong here.
share>Yes, you got tired. But let’s be real — you had no more arguments left. I dismantled every one of them and made you my bitch.
This sounds like what I've said to you.
>And If you're going to be in my country, you should at least show some respect for our most cherished values, particularly freedom of speech. You flip flop all over the place on it.
It's very debateable if you accept freedom of speech and the first amendment. Your own track record on this, as I've pointed out to you, is highly dubious.
>By telling me to mind my tongue or else you'll try to have me censored by the mods, you've demonstrated that you don’t share our values. Get the fuck out of my country — you don’t belong here.
So ignoring moviefanatic specifically, anyone who operates a forum who has a terms of service that users must abide by hates the USA and should leave (this by the way is basically every forum that exists)?
You didn't dismantle one thing I said not one. Make me leave this country fuckboy. This is a private platform therefore you will be minding your tongue. You understand me?
You don't support freedom of speech so spare me your bullshit. You are for censoring people you dislike. Gtfoh!
So now you're going to lie, huh? Or perhaps you’re just delusional and genuinely believe the nonsense you’re spewing. Why don’t you take a moment to read through our exchange and explain to me how I didn’t dismantle every one of your arguments?
And no, you subhuman piece of shit, I’m not going to mind my tongue. I will say whatever the fuck I want, and you’ll just have to learn to deal with it bitch.
And believe me, you are going to leave this country. In the next 30 years as more White people awaken to the fact that they're losing their nation and birthright to shitskins, they will inevitably organize and take action. When that happens, you better hope it’s deportation and not ethnic cleansing because one way or another, you will leave.
And don’t presume to tell me what I stand for. I have always been against censorship. I have defended free speech, not just in words but in deeds. I have actively stood up for my enemies when they were being censored and have done my utmost to prevent it from happening again. I may despise you or even persecute you, but I will never censor you or allow anyone else to do so, to the best of my ability.
I didn't lie about shit you lying scumbag. No you made the claim, now you prove it.
Oh no you will not. If you get out of line you will be reported to the mods fuckboy. So you will be minding your tongue.
Once that day happens get back to me. In the meantime do something or shut the fuck up bitch.
"Oh no you will not. If you get out of line you will be reported to the mods fuckboy. So you will be minding your tongue."
If only you realized what an acolyte, sycophant piece of shit you are.
Man lots of parrots on this site. No one told you, you had permission to speak fuckboy. Get back to 4chan you incel. If I wanted any lip from you I would have unzipped my pants.
share"No one told you, you had permission to speak fuckboy."
No one told you that you had permission to speak, fuckboy.
I fixed it for you. In regards to the rest of your statement, are you as stupid as you inability to punctuate implies or did you just never grow up?
As I said if I wanted lip from you I would unzip my pants. Anything else or we done here?
share"As I said if I wanted lip from you I would unzip my pants."
As I said, if I wanted lip from you, I would unzip my pants.
I fixed it again. I don't know; are we?
I think so. Let's get you on ignore.
shareLet's? Is there more than one of you?
That escalated quickly. You're pretty sensitive for someone that talks to others as you do, a trait commonly seen in school age bullies along with the caliber of insults you use. I'm now leaning towards you being both stupid and having never grown up instead of one or the other.
Anybody home? Think McFly think. Make like a tree and get out of here!
share>And don’t presume to tell me what I stand for. I have always been against censorship. I have defended free speech, not just in words but in deeds.
This is just not true. If only moviechat had a functioning search, I'd be using it to immediately throw prior comments you've made on this back in your face.
>And believe me, you are going to leave this country. In the next 30 years as more White people awaken to the fact that they're losing their nation and birthright to shitskins, they will inevitably organize and take action. When that happens, you better hope it’s deportation and not ethnic cleansing because one way or another, you will leave.
And deportation to where, exactly? This was one of the comments you were incapable of replying to.
>I have actively stood up for my enemies when they were being censored and have done my utmost to prevent it from happening again. I may despise you or even persecute you, but I will never censor you or allow anyone else to do so, to the best of my ability.
"I may despise you, but I will never censor you. I might however endorse other people's right to kill you." What an utterly comical response.
I still have no reason to believe you don't support censorship given your many flip-flopping comments on it in the past.
>So, I came back and demolished every single one of his arguments with one elegant post — just to prove you wrong.
And I then replied to this "elegant post".
Yeah, with no arguments left except to move the goalposts and throw out another stupid fucking question.
shareWhat goalposts did I move? Name them.
Also, you only replied to a single point I made about your attitudes to freedom of speech and nothing else in that thread.
I have no interest in going through the whole thing with you again. The only thing I’ll say is that the conversation revolved around you misrepresenting my views and falsely claiming that I’m anti-free speech and pro-censorship. I corrected the record, but you insisted that my statements contradicted others I’ve made. I clarified that there is no contradiction because persecution is not the same as censorship. When you continued to argue against this, I presented a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. You eventually agreed that the hypothetical proved my argument, but instead of leaving it at that, you shifted to claiming that, while it might be persecution, it’s not persecution by the state, which was irrelevant to the original argument. I then demonstrated that my argument holds even in a state context, yet you dismissed it as a dumb position. You continued to make the same mistake, asserting that persecuting someone for who they are equates to censorship because it would prevent them from discussing their identity freely. At that point, I ended the conversation, as it was clear you were unable to grasp the argument, even after it was shown to be valid.
share>I have no interest in going through the whole thing with you again.
I do not care. You reply to me, I will reply back. I've made this perfectly clear.
>The only thing I’ll say is that the conversation revolved around you misrepresenting my views and falsely claiming that I’m anti-free speech and pro-censorship.
I believe you are. I believe you run around with the goalposts and sometimes claim to be pro free-speech and sometimes claim not to be. You're inconsistent on this to say the least.
>I corrected the record, but you insisted that my statements contradicted others I’ve made. I clarified that there is no contradiction because persecution is not the same as censorship.
By "contradict others I made" I mean that you have literally, on various occasions, openly called for government directed censorship against LGBT people, 'woke' people and feminists on this forum before. Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?
And no, persecution absolutely CAN amount to censorship. This is a completely unjustified claim. You have just asserted this, and not backed it up, and I have directly addressed this.
>When you continued to argue against this, I presented a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. You eventually agreed that the hypothetical proved my argument, but instead of leaving it at that, you shifted to claiming that, while it might be persecution, it’s not persecution by the state, which was irrelevant to the original argument.
I did no such thing. You claimed that the state persecuting people for who they are as a hypothetical does not amount to censorship. This is utter bullshit.
>I then demonstrated that my argument holds even in a state context, yet you dismissed it as a dumb position. You continued to make the same mistake, asserting that persecuting someone for who they are equates to censorship because it would prevent them from discussing their identity freely.
How is that a mistake? If being LGBT is banned, then effectively expressing any pro-LGBT is also de facto banned. Banning LGBT identity de facto bans all expression relating to it. Any government that does ban this knows this, and that's often the specific intent.
>At that point, I ended the conversation, as it was clear you were unable to grasp the argument, even after it was shown to be valid.
No, you're just a fucking moron who can't make basic inferences. "I'm not banning rock music, I'm just making it illegal to be seen with a guitar". It's comical.
>There is nothing wrong with inciting with violence or making threats.
Legally? Morally? Should it be acceptable for anyone to incite violence, call for the murder of anyone? Or make threats to do people harm?
It's both legal and moral depending on the circumstances.
shareAnd what circumstances is it legal and moral to make threats, or incite violence?
shareIf those you're threatening truly deserve it, then it’s moral. And as long as your threats aren’t imminent, direct, or credible, they remain within the bounds of the law.
shareHow do we determine if someone "truly deserves it"?
And my question was only partially about legality. The mods will remove threats of violence here. Are they wrong for doing that?
Yeah, they’re wrong. I don’t blame them, though; the rules are the rules, and they have to enforce them. But how they interpret those rules is up to them. In the past, they’ve definitely misread things and were way too eager to ban people. Now, it seems like they’re more lenient, trying to give posters the benefit of the doubt — at least Mod 5 is. Mod 5 is a good egg with integrity. He has my respect.
share>Yeah, they’re wrong. I don’t blame them, though; the rules are the rules, and they have to enforce them.
Do they not write and/or have say in the rules?
>But how they interpret those rules is up to them. In the past, they’ve definitely misread things and were way too eager to ban people. Now, it seems like they’re more lenient, trying to give posters the benefit of the doubt — at least Mod 5 is. Mod 5 is a good egg with integrity. He has my respect.
There's only two mods left. There used to be more mods.
What "benefit of the doubt" is to be given when someone makes a threat of violence exactly?
One has to consider the context of the 'threat of violence.' If it’s not serious and is just an attempt to be hyperbolic, it should be seen as acceptable. This also applies to situations where someone is simply sharing their opinion. For example, if I say that Hitler’s genocide was justified, that’s just me expressing my take on a historical matter, and it shouldn’t count as a violation of the rules. Similarly, if someone comments on a potential violent event — like saying there is a lot of hate for the Jews and if things continue, there will be another Holocaust — that is merely a commentary on something that could happen. However, if I were to say that Jews should be genocided today, that definitely crosses the line and violates the rule against violent speech. Clearly, any genuine threats of violence — not just exaggerated claims — should be taken seriously as violations.
share>One has to consider the context of the 'threat of violence.' If it’s not serious and is just an attempt to be hyperbolic, it should be seen as acceptable.
By whom? On all platforms? Why should you get to make this call for how other people interpret such things?
>This also applies to situations where someone is simply sharing their opinion. For example, if I say that Hitler’s genocide was justified, that’s just me expressing my take on a historical matter, and it shouldn’t count as a violation of the rules.
Not sure if that does specifically, but it comes very close.
>Similarly, if someone comments on a potential violent event — like saying there is a lot of hate for the Jews and if things continue, there will be another Holocaust — that is merely a commentary on something that could happen.
I've never reported for that.
>However, if I were to say that Jews should be genocided today, that definitely crosses the line and violates the rule against violent speech. Clearly, any genuine threats of violence — not just exaggerated claims — should be taken seriously as violations.
Why would you regard that as a violation given its unlikely someone who claims that has the power to do it?
>By whom? On all platforms? Why should you get to make this call for how other people interpret such things?
Everyone should listen to me because my opinion is grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the rules for violent speech should be even more lenient—violent speech itself should be allowed. Only direct, credible, and imminent threats of violence should be banned, which makes sense since that’s already illegal.
>Why would you regard that as a violation given its unlikely someone who claims that has the power to do it?
I was talking about how the current Movie Chat rules on violent speech should be interpreted. But if it were up to me, those rules would change. For starters, all hate speech rules would be dropped immediately. Violent speech would be allowed unless it crosses into illegality. I'd also tell the mods to be as lenient as possible when enforcing the rules.
>Everyone should listen to me because my opinion is grounded in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
I'm not talking about law, but private groups, chats, communities etc. Part of freedom of association is also allowing groups to set up and set their own conditions for participation.
>I was talking about how the current Movie Chat rules on violent speech should be interpreted. But if it were up to me, those rules would change. For starters, all hate speech rules would be dropped immediately.
It's pretty obvious that hate speech rules on here, if they are enforced, are barely enforced.
Prisoners have already been released early - a process started by the previous Conservative administration. It is true that many of the places freed up have been now occupied by those found guilty of rioting, usually right wing thugs. Research has shown that the hatred towards immigrants displayed by rioters was largely inspired by misinformation on social media, and that the majority of the most influential accounts were not even based in the UK.
The Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood is the Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood, and has been an MP continually since 6 May 2010. She currently holds the Government post of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. A greater and more distinguished contribution to public service, I would suggest, than some of the racists here.
No one named Mahmood should in any way make decisions for indiginous Brits.
shareskavau is too stupid to see that Mahmood is the one making those reports that he's linking.
shareWhat the fuck are you talking about? Mahmood, as a Labour politician and in opposition, was somehow responsible for the Conservative Party's early release scheme? And personally invented the media response to that?
share