A suspended sentence doesn't take effect unless you commit further crimes, so that's irrelevant: my point is that people who post to Facebook are regularly spending more time in prison than people who commit violent crimes, and that point is correct.
I specifically didn't say what was being posted on Facebook, because that is - again - irrelevant to the point! When you argue with this and call it a "cute minimization", what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Putting aside the morality of that, whether you agree with the policy just isn't relevant to whether it exists.
> "weird way" suggests coercion or cheating
That's not a definition you'll find in any dictionary. The top definition of weird in Mirriam Webster is "of strange or extraordinary character", which is a reasonable description of an election in which supporters of the oldest political party in the world collectively decide it should be destroyed and the winner gets a landslide on fewer votes than the previous election, which they lost.
> you get your news from sources who don't want you to know ... The BBC
Exactly. The stories I linked to are on the BBC, because I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources. But these stories aren't highlighted and the general trend of two-tier justice isn't discussed. The top result on the BBC site for the phrase is headlined "Two-tier policing claims are 'nonsense', MPs told" and which simply lets the police deny it all without any pushback. They want to keep you in the dark, confused and mystified about why other people act the way they do, and it works: you were completely unaware of any of this. You won't be able to understand international or even domestic events if you get your news exclusively from the BBC.
And this stuff matters. It's not about me, or you. These stories have had a huge impact on Trump, Musk and the American right in general. They hold them up as examples of what would have happened to America if the Democrats had won, and of course America isn't averse to wielding American power against countries that they think are or are becoming totalitarian. These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally (or maybe now, unfortunately, "ally"). To write it off as a mere difference in personal news preferences is to show how badly the BBC's selective reporting is distorting people's world views.
> I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources
Happy to read any alternative source that's got a reputation for decent journalism.
> what was being posted on Facebook [is] irrelevant to the point!
It isn't, though. You can't minimise "aggravating racial hatred in the middle of race riots" to "posting on Facebook" as if they're posting innocuous stuff about cats or their lunch. There are laws against it and if you break them, you'll get done.
> what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker.
Nope, haven't said that. All I pointed out was that you minimised one side and maximised the other. That's not arguing in good faith.
> you were completely unaware of any of this
No, I just don't believe that they're good examples of "two-tier policing". I do believe "two-tier policing" exists, though, just not in the "victimisation of white males posting on Facebook" genre.
> These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally
I don't think they are, personally. The crazed ravings of Musk aside, obviously.
I specifically didn't say what was being posted on Facebook, because that is - again - irrelevant to the point! When you argue with this and call it a "cute minimization", what you're saying is that you believe it's right and just that words are punished more severely than rape, when you personally disagree with the politics of the speaker. Putting aside the morality of that, whether you agree with the policy just isn't relevant to whether it exists.
> "weird way" suggests coercion or cheating
That's not a definition you'll find in any dictionary. The top definition of weird in Mirriam Webster is "of strange or extraordinary character", which is a reasonable description of an election in which supporters of the oldest political party in the world collectively decide it should be destroyed and the winner gets a landslide on fewer votes than the previous election, which they lost.
> you get your news from sources who don't want you to know ... The BBC
Exactly. The stories I linked to are on the BBC, because I suspected you wouldn't read them if I linked to alternative sources. But these stories aren't highlighted and the general trend of two-tier justice isn't discussed. The top result on the BBC site for the phrase is headlined "Two-tier policing claims are 'nonsense', MPs told" and which simply lets the police deny it all without any pushback. They want to keep you in the dark, confused and mystified about why other people act the way they do, and it works: you were completely unaware of any of this. You won't be able to understand international or even domestic events if you get your news exclusively from the BBC.
And this stuff matters. It's not about me, or you. These stories have had a huge impact on Trump, Musk and the American right in general. They hold them up as examples of what would have happened to America if the Democrats had won, and of course America isn't averse to wielding American power against countries that they think are or are becoming totalitarian. These judicial rulings are therefore a major influence on the stance of the UK's most important ally (or maybe now, unfortunately, "ally"). To write it off as a mere difference in personal news preferences is to show how badly the BBC's selective reporting is distorting people's world views.