Merlin's Eye Teeth
30.6K posts
@MerlinsEyeTeeth
Popping Putin's (and his puppets') propaganda. (Follows aren't necessarily endorsements. No DMs.)
The slight problem with close protection, of course, is that the police then keep a log of everywhere you go, and everyone you meet .. Bit restricting, isn’t it? Unless you’ve nothing to hide.. 👇👇🇬🇧🇬🇧🤬🤬🤬
An example of the derangement syndrome that @Nigel_Farage provokes in the political class by his very existence. This MP once showed his bravery and grit in the Army. Yet rather than engage in the battle of ideas, he’s resorted to cheap mockery over an old video. Very sad.
The far-right flag cult shouts “off our streets” and “deportation” at a brave Muslim man who was there alone. Then they attack him. A message to Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood: We shouldn’t have to live like this in Britain.
Mr Yusuf, For the avoidance of doubt, I pleaded guilty in 1987 to an offence of gross indecency under laws that discriminated against homosexual men. The age of consent was then 21 for gay men & 16 for heterosexuals. Those discriminatory offences no longer exist. Also, the individual who was 17 was ‘wired for sound’ by Robert Maxwell’s paper. He said on the tape he was over 21. Unfortunately, there was a lacuna in the law in 1987 which provided heterosexuals with a defence. If heterosexuals believed those they had sexual relations with were of consensual age, & the jury believed this, then they could find the accused not guilty. No such defence pertained to homosexuals. If the younger person was under 21, the offence was committed. I did not realise this lacuna in the law existed until my lawyer, Sir David Napley, informed me. I then told him immediately I would plead guilty. Parliament has since recognised that these laws were unjust. Under the so-called “Alan Turing law”, people convicted of consensual homosexual offences under repealed legislation can have those convictions disregarded & pardoned as part of righting historic wrongs. Also, what I did was neither gross nor indecent. It was done in private and between consenting adults. I have never hidden any of this. What you are doing is attempting to weaponise a historic conviction under discriminatory laws to discredit me because you disagree with my views, & blind loyalty. That is your choice. My point remains unchanged: politicians should respect the police’s request not to speculate during a live murder investigation. Personal abuse is no answer to a principled argument. You are free to criticise me, & to answer a principled argument with personal abuse & character assassination - however unbecoming - but personal vilification is no substitute for civil debate. Ann Widdecombe believed in decency, free speech & the rule of law - which is why she stood by me and offered me practical, private & public support throughout my ordeals. I rather think she would have expected better.
