It certainly isn’t easy but perhaps a case resulting from this might clarify things and provide guidelines as to where the boundaries lie. I think myself that it’s possible to define some clearly understood, common sense general principles.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

If we take the position that Brand is innocent then if I had to give advice....obviously being a complete layman....but nevertheless....I'd advise him against going to the courts.

Our justice system is inherently liberalised and full of 'right ons'.....We only have to look at what happened to Johnny Depp here to see that.

He would probably be wasting a huge chunk of his money.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Brand ALWAYS WAS a rake. Its his politics that has got him into hot water.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Somewhat ironic as replying to someone who claimed to identify the nationality of people by looking at them in the street.

As I said, zero point engaging with this kind of mentality.

Edited by HKOwen (22 Sep 2023 12.07am)

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Up and until 48 hours ago, I would have agreed with you but given what has happened since, not so sure.

One theory I have heard is that he is actually quite popular with women (irony upon irony) in terms of his political output. And that the powers-that-be who manipulate public opinion fear him because of that.

Essentially women are far more likely to buy into all kinds of progressive BS than men. With Brand seen as a potential threat to that hence this attempt to knock him out of the game.

Not 100% convinced but then again, I never got the entire schtick of him anyway and none of the women in my life ever paid him or his antics the slightest bit of interest either but perhaps there might be something to that? Not sad enough to check up the demographics of his current audience.

Because otherwise, he remains a huge puzzle as to why he is now the target of this kind of level of interest? He was/is yesterdays man.

Or maybe he is just a warning to other people who were previously mainstream and, at least politically, on-board with the Zeitgeist not to jump ship because this is what will happen to them?

Edited by Matov (22 Sep 2023 6.18am)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

I guess this refers to some offhand remarks I made about the influx of overseas health workers at our local hospital. A hospital where my wife works and when she does I generally drop her off and pick her up, as I did this morning.

I know from her, from the reports in the local press and my own interactions with the staff there that the hospital has, and continues to, fill a lot of vacancies from overseas. Primarily from a variety of African nations, India and the Philippines.

Any remarks I would have made would have been in that context. Of course I cannot be sure just by looking at any individual whether they are newly arrived, been here for years or born here. What I can be sure of is that there are increasing numbers of overseas workers in our local hospital. That is factual. It has nothing to do with looking at anybody in the street, even if the streets around the hospital provide plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Why anyone is so desperate to try to find holes in anything I say is a very sad phenomenon to witness.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.