- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Man Utd co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe; "The UK has been colonised by immigrants"
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:50 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:50 am
11
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:53 am to Hback
Not wrong
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:53 am to Hback
oh shite I hope hes able to stay out of jail.
what a stupid frickn country
what a stupid frickn country
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:57 am to Hback
Next interview...
Posted on 2/12/26 at 6:59 am to SallysHuman
Yep.. new owner of man u
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 7:13 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:00 am to Hback
He clearly has "frick you" money if he is saying this there. He thinks his wealth will protect him from progressive prosecution. We shall see.....
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:01 am to Hback
Same thing is happening here. Only a matter of time.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:05 am to SludgeFactory
quote:
He clearly has "frick you" money if he is saying this there. He thinks his wealth will protect him from progressive prosecution. We shall see.
There is nothing to see. Anyone in the UK can say what he said without any fear of harassment by the police. The speech laws are outrageous, but they are clear. Ratcliffe did not run afoul of them.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:11 am to Hback
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:19 am to Penrod
quote:
Anyone in the UK can say what he said without any fear of harassment by the police. The speech laws are outrageous, but they are clear.
If they're like 99% of other laws that attempt to limit speech they're vague as hell and can be used if the government wants them to be used.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:21 am to Night Vision
quote:
apologizes
What a loser. Dude has enough money to do whatever he wants. Can't handle a little leftist backlash.
This post was edited on 2/12/26 at 7:22 am
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:26 am to Night Vision
Wow! That turned on him quickly.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:26 am to Night Vision
Geez...."but but but he stayed within the lines of the law?!??"
I doubt losing fans for man u was a driver for the apology.
Fricking Western men are such a disgrace to our ancestors.
I doubt losing fans for man u was a driver for the apology.
Fricking Western men are such a disgrace to our ancestors.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:26 am to Flats
quote:
If they're like 99% of other laws that attempt to limit speech they're vague as hell and can be used if the government wants them to be used.
They are vague and subject to interpretation WITHIN A SPECTRUM OF SPEECH. What Ratcliffe said is outside of that spectrum and is not against the law. If he would have directed it at Muslims, for example, then it would have been problematic.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:28 am to Penrod
You say
In the same breath as
How can both be true?
quote:
The speech laws are outrageous
In the same breath as
quote:
Anyone in the UK can say what he said without any fear of harassment by the police.
How can both be true?
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:28 am to HagaDaga
quote:
I doubt losing fans for man u was a driver for the apology.
It probably would have gained fans.
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:33 am to Penrod
quote:
They are vague and subject to interpretation WITHIN A SPECTRUM OF SPEECH. What Ratcliffe said is outside of that spectrum and is not against the law.
You're saying that as if it's an objective fact and it's simply not. A quick search found language like this: (excerpts from wiki)
Section 3: "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."
And the people who will decide whether or not you intended to stir up religious hatred are the same clowns who did this:
quote:
In 2017, 19-year old Croxteth resident Chelsea Russell quoted a line from Snap Dogg's song "I'm Trippin'" on her Instagram page. The line, which read "Kill a snitch ****, rob a rich ****", was copied from a friend's page as part of a tribute to Frankie Murphy who was killed in a car accident at age 13.[38][39] Hate crime investigators were alerted to the presence of the slur and charged Russell with "sending a grossly offensive message by means of a public electronic communications network". Defence lawyer Carole Clarke stated that she received a request from one of the arresting officers that the word "****", the subject of the trial, not be used in court.[40] In April 2018, District Judge Jack McGarva found Russell guilty and delivered a sentence which included a £585 fine, a curfew and an ankle monitoring bracelet.[41] However, Russell's conviction was overturned by Liverpool Crown Court on 21 February 2019.[42]
Posted on 2/12/26 at 7:36 am to SallysHuman
quote:
The speech laws are outrageous
In the same breath as
quote:
Anyone in the UK can say what he said without any fear of harassment by the police.
How can both be true?
You are not this dense. But okay, I’ll painstakingly explain it to you.
Let’s say a law gets passed in the UK that makes it illegal to use the words “Muslim” and “candlestick maker” in the same sentence. You would agree that is an outrageous law? Good! We are halfway there. Let’s bring this home.
Now If a UK subject used the words “Muslim” and “butcher” in the same sentence, and outrage ensued with many claiming he violated the aforementioned law, I might say, “The UK speech law is outrageous, but anyone in the UK can say what this bloke said without running afoul of the law.”
There. We have given an example of how “both can be true.”
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News