UK police charged a man with a crime of silently praying - Politics Discussion

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo

Its to do with abortion buffer-zones. Basically these are restricted protest zones outside of abortion clinics.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

I know. It's still bullshit. The UK is a shithole country. You need a revolution and a cleansing.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

So we don't have the right to our own policies? The ordinance, as noted in that article apparently enjoys a majority of local support. This particular case was an individual doing essentially a form of "I'm not touching you" thing, and in isolation it sounds absurd. I don't know to what level harassment outside of abortion clinics was going on though.

"A public consultation by BCP Council found 75% of 2,241 residents supported the introduction of a buffer zone at the site which had previously been a focal point for people to gather and pray."

And what do you mean "cleansing"?

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

A country with no 1st-A unless you’re a cucked woke shill and no 2nd-A to protect yourself from a dictatorship trying to replace the whites with foreign invaders …. this is what our country has to look forward to under Scamala.

The UK is fooked.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

The UK literally had an election in July 2024. The Conservatives, the governing party were removed from office. How are we a dictatorship?

Most people in the Uk are in favour of heavy gun restrictions, by the way. A detail.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

Most people in the Uk are in favour of heavy gun restrictions, by the way.

Yes, by the cucked and the woke.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

What?

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/37663-gun-ownership-three-quarters-britons-want-stricter

It's the majority of the country.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

Yes, three quarters are cucked, such a tragedy for the others.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Only about 4% of the country wants looser gun laws. 76% want tighter laws, and about 20% think the laws are good enough. there's just no support or interest in gun liberalisation here.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

And that's why they're getting shafted by their own government.

A society without the freedom to own guns is not a free society, they are enslaved.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>And that's why they're getting shafted by their own government.

What policy are you referring to?

>A society without the freedom to own guns is not a free society, they are enslaved.

Who are we enslaved to?

And as many posts by you have demonstrated. You hate freedom. You want to persecute people.

Secondly, almost every country on earth has gun laws harsher than the USA.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

Secondly, almost every country on earth has gun laws harsher than the USA.

Yes, I’m aware, one of the several reasons we have “more freedom” and a true 2nd-A.

The harsher the gun laws, the more controlling and authoritarian the government is. Your type of establishment.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>The harsher the gun laws, the more controlling and authoritarian the government is. Your type of establishment.

You have any evidence of this whatsoever?

And how is my type of government authoritarian? What authoritarian laws do I support? Who are we enslaved to?

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Evidence please

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

A society without the freedom to own guns is not a free society, they are enslaved.

😂

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

"The UK literally had an election in July 2024. The Conservatives, the governing party were removed from office."

Do "immigrants" and their relations typically vote conservative?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Don't try that one on Semi, white people didn't vote for the Conservatives either. If only white people in the UK voted, the Conservatives still would have lost. They lost every demographic except for retired people.

There's no evidence of any widescale fraud here, if that's what you're inferring either.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

What did I "try?" Your response didn't address my question.

Are you going to answer it?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

No, they don't. What's your point? The Conservatives still lost the election.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

I see. Which parties do they typically vote for?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Labour won a plurality of the votes, although they lost a lot of Asian votes this time around due to Gaza.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

That wasn't my question. Which parties do immigrants and their relations typically vote for, other than Conservative since you've established they don't vote for that party?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

I told you: A plurality that immigrants vote, usually, is Labour. And this is true in 2024.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

You didn't specify you were referring to immigrants with "Labour won a plurality of the votes," but ok.

What is the Labour party's stance on immigration?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

To lower it, generally, and to try and disincentivise it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-immigration-boats-channel-b2583272.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrmme1d6gvo

https://smithstonewalters.com/news/immigration-changes-to-expect-under-the-new-labour-government

Not sure where you're going with this.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

That's interesting. So immigrants and their relations in the UK typically actively vote to reduce or limit future immigration?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Some might. Although of course it was not the only campaign issue.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

Of course not, though I do recall it being significant enough that the likes of a plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda made international headlines.

Anyway, other than immigrants because they apparently don't typically support immigration, what are the demographics that typically support immigration in the UK?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>Anyway, other than immigrants because they apparently don't typically support immigration, what are the demographics that support immigration in the UK?

I mean, it's not exactly a "support" or "oppose" dichotomy. You're neither either open borders, or closed borders. And people hold different views depending on the type of immigration. Most people in the UK however think immigration is too high: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/do-brits-think-that-immigration-has-been-too-high-or-low-in-the-last-10-years

But the demographic most sympathetic to immigration will be younger people, most likely. or Green Party voters. Although practically everyone thinks its too high.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

Young people supporting immigration makes sense. We've already established that the relations of immigrants typically don't support immigration, progeny being included amongst relations, so presumably young immigrants and/or the young progeny aren't included here.

I don't want this to become a semantics game, but I suppose you're right about that dichotomy, where realistically those who either are sympathetic towards or repulsed by immigration are more likely to state a proposed number per year than to promote absolute open or closed borders.

From what I recall, the Conservatives had a majority for over a decade. Is it safe to assume that the people that voted for that party were generally "opposed" to immigration? I'm wondering how immigration became a unilaterally recognized issue, where both Labour and Conservatives campaigned on reducing numbers, under the majority party that ostensibly leaned in the direction of reduction.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>Young people supporting immigration makes sense. We've already established that the relations of immigrants typically don't support immigration, progeny being included amongst relations, so presumably young immigrants and/or the young progeny aren't included here.

Relatively speaking. More young people still want less immigration than more. It really is only the Green Party now, who got about 8% in the last election who are closer to open borders. They have 4 MPs.

>From what I recall, the Conservatives had a majority for over a decade. Is it safe to assume that the people that voted for that party were generally "opposed" to immigration?

Yes.

> I'm wondering how immigration became a unilaterally recognized issue, where both Labour and Conservatives campaigned on reducing numbers, under the majority party that ostensibly leaned in the direction of reduction.

Because simply put the numbers got too high, and was/is causing social and economic issues.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

Just to make sure I'm following and we agree here, Conservatives are and were in favor of immigration reduction, were a majority for over ten years before Labour superseded them, but immigration became a problem under the Conservative majority.

How did that happen?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Conservatives failed to deal with it repeatedly

Although immigration was lowkey a problem before 2010 when they got in. It just got worse.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

Not dealing with it must have been frustrating for the UK citizens, the majority of which voted Conservative and were presumably in favor of small numbers or reduction all along.

If Conservatives were the democratic majority during the time that immigration became a problem, and it's safe to assume that the people that voted for that party were generally "opposed" to immigration, did it occur against the overall will of the people as it was happening to the extent that it became a problem?

In other words, was the immigration policy of the UK undemocratic all along?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

It could be so described. It was more a systemic inability to deal with it due to internal party political issues, weak majorities (2015), (2017 losing the majority) and many other policy distractions (Brexit, COVID) rather than any particular deliberate subversion.

Where are you going with this? Elected governments who break campaign promises, or don't fulfill them adequately constitute dictatorship?

Is that your argument here? Because that standard would make every single government on earth ever dictatorships.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

It's been awhile since you and I have conversed and I'm interested in your thoughts here, if that's enough of a motive.

If democratic processes failed to prevent the problem of immigration, that was against the will of the people as it manifested, are you confident that democratic processes will result in an effective solution to the problem?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>If democratic processes failed to prevent the problem of immigration, that was against the will of the people as it manifested, are you confident that democratic processes will result in an effective solution to the problem?

It's a solution to some potential policy problems. It's better than all the alternatives. Labour has a big majority now, and is better able to pass legislation than the Conservatives ever were.

If it can't be kept down, then there's a real chance that Reform take office in 2029. Or become the opposition party. Labour's majority in terms of votes are squishy. So in that sense, elections can correct for this.

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a month ago

I would be very surprised to see Reform win in five years, but who knows.

Anyway, if the immigration problem occurred undemocratically, what was driving it? You mentioned, "internal party political issues, weak majorities (2015), (2017 losing the majority) and many other policy distractions (Brexit, COVID) rather than any particular deliberate subversion" but those seem to be conditions that facilitated the occurrence rather than cause or motive.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>I would be very surprised to see Reform win in five years, but who knows.

Labour won a massive majority of seats on a small vote share increase due the Conservative collapse, and the other anti-Conservative vote fragmenting across multiple parties. They're weak.

>Anyway, if the immigration problem occurred undemocratically, what was driving it?

Incompetence, weakness, inability to face down big business, the underfunding of low training of people here that require immigrants to work in low-skilled industries, and the NHS. It's a variety of factors.

>You mentioned, "internal party political issues, weak majorities (2015), (2017 losing the majority) and many other policy distractions (Brexit, COVID) rather than any particular deliberate subversion" but those seem to be conditions that facilitated the occurrence rather than cause or motive.

They're reasons as to why the Conservative party who were in government were sidetracked and unable to deal with it, or deal with it effectively. It's also an issue partially outside of the UKs control as small boat crossings come from Europe and begin in North Africa and the Gulf.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Skavau’s ‘unable’ excuse is bullshit.

The purpose of a system is what it does. Mass immigration has been aggressively pursued by Tories and Labour since Blair - they both want it, and neither care that they’re destroying the UK in the process.

If anything they delight in it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>Skavau’s ‘unable’ excuse is bullshit.

I wasn't making excuses for them. Their structural inability to deal with immigration was their own shame and was a huge reason they left office.

>The purpose of a system is what it does. Mass immigration has been aggressively pursued by Tories and Labour since Blair - they both want it, and neither care that they’re destroying the UK in the process.

How do you know "both wanted it" officially, exactly? Why would both of them supposedly both want it?

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

‘inability‘ 🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Yes, the Cons could barely govern due to low majorities (or none in the May era) and party disputes.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Sure 🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Yes. Theresa May literally lost her parliamentary majority. David Cameron in 2010-15 was in a Lib Dem coalition, and only one a small majority in 2015-17.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Way to completely ignore Boris Johnson’s massive majority, you snake. Fact is they had 14 years to end mass immigration and they never even tried.

Another gaslighting fail from you there.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>Way to completely ignore Boris Johnson’s massive majority, you snake.

Boris had a healthy majority, and then governed straight into COVID, and then the Ukraine war. Then shortly after was removed. Then post-2022 the Conservative Party was essentially in total turmoil.

>Fact is they had 14 years to end mass immigration and they never even tried.

How would you even know this? Did you follow proposed policies put forward by the conservative governments over all these years?

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Pathetic excuses.

Shit gaslighting.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

I certainly don't make excuses for the Conservatives on anything. I've never voted for them, and likely never will. I'm just giving you some context over the years.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

🥱

reply

[–] moviechatterer (15583) a month ago

but ... why do they want it?

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Big banks want to cram too many people into the country to raise property value.

Big business want cheap labour.

Labour wants infinity poor people who they can bribe with benefits to get votes.

Evil overlords like Soros who fund NGOs want it because it breeds out the native populations and destroys the West.

Mass immigration persists because the powers that be want it.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>Big banks want to cram too many people into the country to raise property value.

>Big business want cheap labour.

True, to varying degrees.

>Labour wants infinity poor people who they can bribe with benefits to get votes.

Labour has pledged to lower immigration, and has done some things to mitigate it, collaborating with the Italian PM on it.

>Evil overlords like Soros who fund NGOs want it because it breeds out the native populations and destroys the West.

Now this is a pretty baseless conspiracy theory.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

But he's right.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Skavau knows I’m right, that’s why he’s here to do his shit gaslighting routine.

Can’t have people finding out what the regime’s actually up to…👇🏻

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

And what is "the regime" up to exactly? How is me challenging you on your baseless unevidenced claims on an obscure movie forum somehow preventing people from discovering what "the regime" (tm) is allegedly up to?

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

As usual, you can shove your Hatchling questions back up your ass.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

But you'll still keep devoting your entire life to following me around on a forum all the same.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Source!?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Every single day you check my profile and trawl through my posts to do nothing but insult me. You are genuinely, truly unhealthily obsessed.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Source!?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

I'll await evidence for his claims. Which he has never provided ever.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Nobody asked you, you ignorant, obnoxious twat.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Don't give a fuck, I'll do what I like.

This is an open forum and I'll reply to whoever I want.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Fuck off snitch

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1088) a month ago

https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/public-attitudes-towards-immigration-and-ethnic-minorities

reply

[–] Thaistickers (1500) a month ago

Two years of legal proceedings? I feel like there's much left out of your report, and I'm certain your very first sentence is untrue.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Those are not my words those are from the Twitter post. There are two videos attached that go into the whole story.

reply

[–] Thaistickers (1500) a month ago

Oh, from a Twitter post? I'm sure then it's absolutely accurate!

reply

[–] Zarkoff (1853) a month ago

It was a no prayer zone, I guess.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

Was this guy a Muslim?

Never really heard of / seen christians in the UK praying, facing certain directions in public outside a place of worship. So I'm assuming this is another case of islamophobia...

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

No, the guy was Christian. His crime? Praying too close to an abortion clinic, so they labeled his prayer as some anti-abortion political act. Now he's being persecuted for it. It’s absurd. The UK is a complete shithole and needs a revolution — old-school fascism to purge the left from every corner of society.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

It would apply to a muslim too. They're buffer zones.

And I thought you were for free speech? A slip as usual. Calling for fascism.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

I am for free speech. And I'm also for locking up the left. They are free to to say whatever they want from prison. But they are a detriment to society and belong behind bars. They are not going to be persecuted for their speech but for their actions and their identity. They are persecuted for being subhuman vermin. The deserve this.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Dude, you just said the UK should be subject to a violent revolution and all 'woke' dissidents removed from society.

>And I'm also for locking up the left. They are free to to say whatever they want from prison.

Then you hate free speech. Arresting people for what they say is by definition an attack on free speech. You hate free speech. You hate civil liberties. You hate the western world.

>They are not going to be persecuted for their speech but for their actions and their identity.

And what "actions" are these that they would be persecuted for precisely?

Expression of an identity is just as much a form of expression as anything else. You hate free speech.

>They are persecuted for being subhuman vermin. The deserve this.

So I deserve to be stripped of all my liberties and thrown in jail?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

I don't know how to make it any clearer. If you still don't understand the difference between persecuting someone for who they are or what they've done, as opposed to what they've said, then you will never get it. You're simply too stupid to live

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>I don't know how to make it any clearer. If you still don't understand the difference between persecuting someone for who they are or what they've done

And what things that some leftists have done should they be persecuted for?

What identities should people be arrested for?

You still haven't answered this. Nor do you understand the implications and chilling effects this has to free speech, because you're a stupid little pissant who can't win in an open debate so fantastises about a world where you can just make your political opponents disappear.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

Someone else already clarified this further down the thread. The confusion was due to the guy praying outdoors, facing certain directions.

Christians don't do that. They pray in churches. So we can only summise that the guy was being a confrontational arsehole.

I hope he gets jailed for wasting police time / public money...

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1088) a month ago

So then: someone who prayed outside an abortion centre has been convicted of breaching a safe zone after refusing requests to move on. The 51-year-old from Southampton denied failing to comply with the order, but the judge said on Wednesday his actions had been "deliberate". Smith-Connor was handed a two-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay more than £9,000 costs.On the day, he was near a tree, partially in view of the clinic, and refused to leave the area when asked to do so by a community officer who spoke to him for an hour and 40 minutes, the court was told.

A public consultation by BCP Council found 75% of 2,241 residents supported the introduction of a buffer zone at the site which had previously been a focal point for people to gather and pray.

And if his actions were not ultimately intended to intimidate abortion users, then why did he not just pray at home or slightly further away? Or come back after 7pm when restrictions are not in place, come to that? Instead Smith-Connor weaponised prayer.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

I think the guy was a Muslim. They have to stop whatever they're doing and pray in a certain direction at certain times. Wherever they are.

The police picking on this guy is just another case of islamophobia.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

No, he wasn't.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

Eh? You sure - don't think other religions do that sort of thing...

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Yes, I'm sure. This is not a hidden case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

"The court was told he had been praying for his unborn son, who he said died from abortion 22 years ago."

Ah, thanks. So it looks like he was just being deliberately confrontational then. No reason to actually be there or facing in whatever direction.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

Another emasculated beta.

There's nothing confrontational about praying silently.

Where's your outrage when the alphabet cult are displaying their junk in front of children?

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

Are you plain bananas?

There is no reason to turn absolutely everything into some kind of political football to kick about aimlessly.

Christians do not pray out in public. They pray in churches. Literally everyone knows that.

There's no angle to this. The guy was just being a complete arsehole. End of.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

Christians pray privately and in public.

The man was praying "silently" and was not bothering anyone except the demons.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) a month ago

No, Christians do not stand outside in random locations praying!

You're talking hot garbage there as I'm sure you're well aware.

As I said, there's no cause to attach yourself to here. The guy was just being a complete arsehole.

You'd be better off getting excited about that black guy who got shot by the police in London and it turned out he was a nutcase, in a gang and had shot someone days before. Now that's something to really sink your teeth into...

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

The UK is a shithole, and it needs old-school fascists willing to do whatever it takes to restore the country to its former glory. This means purging the left from every aspect of life — stripping them of their rights, locking them up, and deporting every non-White immigrant. Those responsible for opening the borders and allowing the UK to be overrun and its culture destroyed should be jailed as well. Abortion should be made illegal — not because it’s inherently wrong, but because it would drive the Left insane. Plus, there’s a practical reason: with low birth rates, especially in the West, we need to encourage White families to have more children, and banning abortion would help with that. Beyond that, we should offer financial incentives and a range of benefits to encourage White families to grow — making it easy for mothers to stay home, raise their kids, and have everything they need to make that job comfortable and efficient.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

So much for your supposed free speech absolutism.

You think I should be jailed.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

We're not talking about speech, you fucktard. Everyone's free to say what they want. We're targeting the left for being the left — it's about their actions, what they've done, and for being subhuman vermin.

And yes, under my regime you'd be jailed, not for anything you said, but simply for being a vermin.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>We're not talking about speech, you fucktard. Everyone's free to say what they want. We're targeting the left for being the left — it's about their actions, what they've done, and for being subhuman vermin.

And what "actions" are these? What forms of expression are you referring to that would get someone jailed? If someone is arrested for making a song, that's an attack on freedom of expression. The concept is not just specifically "making arguments on an online forum" for instance.

>And yes, under my regime you'd be jailed, not for anything you said, but simply for being a vermin.

So you don't think I should have the right to even talk to you. You want me jailed.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Correct. You'd be jailed for simply being an autist and asking too many stupid questions.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Still no answer to my questions. Too stupid as always.

Do you think it's reasonable for people who you want jailed to talk to you as if you are a piece of shit on their shoe?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

aNswEr mUh muH muH qUeSTTTIonS!!!!!

Shut up you autistic fuck! We had enough of you for one day. Go be a pest somewhere else. Go bother people on Reddit.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

I'll do whatever the fuck I like. I don't answer to you.

Your refusal and evasion over my question is again a clear indication that you're too much of an idiot to answer them.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

I'll dO wHaTEvEr I wAnT!!!!

You're a child. You need a time out. Now go stand in the corner. Hop to it bitch!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

What else is there to say when you make demands that I go away and cry like a little bitch that I'm replying to you?

You don't have to reply to me. Yet you choose to.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Skavau expects others to answer his endless barrage of moronic questions, yet when he’s asked something it’s:

I'll do whatever the fuck I like. I don't answer to you.

Quite the little tyrant isn’t he.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Except I actually answer curiousmind. And you're beginning to spam up the forum with repetitive replies, so I have actually reported some posts of yours.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

so I have actually reported some posts of yours.

Of course you have, because you’re jumped up Little Hitler who hates free expression, ya fucking snitch.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Are the mods "jumped up little hitlers" when they ask someone to stop spamming the same things?

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Scumbag reframe that tries to turn the mods against me. Unfortunately for you the mods see straight through your playground-level manipulative horseshit.

Let’s take a moment to remember how SemiAnimus described you:

I'm a moderate and think you're an absolute cunt, Skavau.

While I don't agree with the individual you argued with here, your attempt to bait his perspective for the purpose of reporting him so that he will be banned is contemptible and pathetic. If the fascists ever come to power, it will occur through the exact sort of suppression of expression that you champion all over these boards. You are truly one of the biggest pieces of shit here and if you got your way Moviechat would become another Reddit -like echo of opinionated fuckwads like yourself swallowing each others semen and/or vaginal fluid while flagging and banning anyone that diverges from the hive mind by not slurping the shit you secrete out of that bodily orifice you refer to as a mouth.

You are the enemy of what Moviechat and it's notion of uninhibited expression represents.

https://moviechat.org/tt31433814/Doctor-Who/66464c69267af721f3095705/Blacklisting?reply=6648d197b666ab688e260ea2

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

>Scumbag reframe that tries to turn the mods against me.

The mods won't care if you publicly criticise them. The point is that if I am a "jumped up little Hitler" for reporting you. Then should they remove your posts, as I know they have in the past - why would that also not make them Hitler?

>Unfortunately for you the mods see straight through your playground-level manipulative horseshit.

I'm challenging your obvious lack of consistency.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Fuck off snitch

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a month ago

Seeing you dismantled is awesome. Get owned you piece of trash.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Yeah, he really dismantled me. I've explained it ten times in ten different ways, and he's still too stupid to understand the argument. You're even dumber for thinking he actually got the better of me, you dumb simp

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Your premise that censoring someone, effectively, for how they present or their association or identification with a subculture is somehow fundamentally different than the act of specifically censoring specific arguments is fundamentally unargued for. Arresting for someone for a lifestyle is in itself, an act contrary to freedom of expression - in a sense, it's an attack on freedom of assembly and more broadly, expression itself and has direct chilling effects to what people would be willing to say as expression of particular viewpoints could out them, or make the authorities believe they are part of a specific, currently prohibited subculture or identity.

You hate freedom of expression. You hate the western world.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

You know what I hate? I hate you. I think you should be stripped of all rights and just jailed. You are subhuman and human rights shouldn't even apply to you.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

So still no answer. Just approaching making threats again now.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

ANSWER MY QUESTION !

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

I have answered your questions, and replied to your points.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

ANSWER MUH QUESTION NOW! NOW!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

You have a habit, have always had a habit of ignoring questions the other person asks you. It's beyond just this.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MUH QUESIONS RETARD! BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ANSWER!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

What questions are these?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Can't even answer a simple question. Can only answer with another question. Retard.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

If you're going to imitate me, parody me, it should probably make some sort of sense. You might actually have me if you could specifically refer to a question or point I haven't actually addressed.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

That's not an answer. You still haven't answered my questions. I'm still waiting.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

I can actually name questions and points I've raised that you haven't answered. You can't. You're just behaving like a little child because you have no actual points.

It's funny how you berate me for replying all the time, yet what are you doing now? Why are you still here?

I recall when you came back on this forum under this nick you said you didn't even want to talk to me at all. Yet here you are still.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

I can't believe you're this stupid. You can't even answer a simple question. Just evading.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

And again, you just can't break character. Still reply like a petulant child. Name the question and I'll answer it.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

You got evidence for that? Can you back that up with data and statistics? Of course not.
Still haven't answer my question.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

And again, petulant imitations that make zero sense outside of context. It's comical to me that you decry me spending my time here replying to people (and I do so seriously) yet you're also choosing to refresh the forum here to reply with asinine junk like this.

All these people who apparently don't take me seriously at all spend all their time on here replying to me.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Yet you keep replying. If you want me to stop replying just stop replying to my replies. But you can't help yourself, you've got to reply.

If you reply to this you're a faggot.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

"no u". Does this also apply to you? You're also replying?

>If you reply to this you're a faggot.

Now this is genuinely childish level. On the level of "if u look at this ur gay".

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

What a fag. He actually replied.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

"Oh no someone said i was a fag therefore i must be a fag".

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

They said you're a fag because you're fag.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a month ago

Also my point was that you complain constantly about me challenging you in threads, but you keep going at it with me.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Source?

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a month ago

Get dismantled like the bitch you are.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

LOL

Keep simping for an autistic retard.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a month ago

Scoreboard. Him 6 you 0.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

LOL
Yeah ok Gump.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a month ago

Mind your tongue. You violate the rules and you will be reported.

reply

[–] tvfan (12729) a month ago

Ah, the other snitch. You must be Skavau's bootlicker.

reply

[–] Melton (4435) a month ago

Snitching too? He really is a Skavau-simp 🙄

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1088) a month ago

Another good one from you, thanks! I do like your parodies.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

I’m glad you liked it, but no, really — I want fascism for the U.K. I want a swastika hanging over 10 Downing Street, the left rounded up and jailed, and every trace of wokeness scrubbed from every facet of life.

reply

[–] filmflaneur (1088) 25 days ago

Hey but keep it up, you are on a roll now!

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) a month ago

I'll get they would have left him alone if he had been a mudslime. They always get away with their asses in the air 5x a day.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Only White people are persecuted in the West. They’re actively working to destroy us and our culture, pushing race mixing at every turn. Their goal is to erase us entirely.

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) a month ago

Makes you sometimes wish that we'd just all leave and start a colony on Mars and leave everyone who doesn't appreciate us in the hell they created.

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Yeah, but they’d just follow us. If we don’t let them in, they’ll call us White supremacists. If we let guilt manipulate us, the whole cycle will just repeat itself, landing us right back where we are now. But if we’re ready to stand firm and say, 'No, this is a White colony, exclusively for Whites,' unapologetically — great. So why not start now? Why not organize, create White enclaves, and make it clear that it’s for Whites only, and hold our ground?

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14381) a month ago

It hasn't really hit everyone yet just how serious this is. Only places like South Africa have woken up for real to actual racial injustice and formed enclaves.

reply

[–] parkerbot (8993) a month ago

So if he had been praying for a ham sandwich it would have been okay?

reply

[–] curiousMInd101 (3409) a month ago

Well, he was praying for his son, which is perfectly fine. The issue arose because he was praying too close to an abortion clinic, and they don’t believe he was doing so out of concern for his son — they think he was making some sort of anti-abortion political statement. It’s absurd. The UK has become an anti-White, anti-Christian police state. A revolution is needed — a complete purge of the left-wing lunatics whose goal is to destroy the West, the White race, and its culture.

reply