hypochondriac

I know they're clear to you but you're posting history makes it clear that your judgement is irredemably flawed.

Sorry I don't understand the comparison.

The main trait of being a Nazi is being proudly and up front about supporting Jews.

So anyone who disputes the claim that Musk was doing a nazi salute are cowed by Musk's money? What a claim! You know those Jews though, they're happy to parrot any old belief for a bit of money.

I'll continue to bat your soft balls away all day and laugh when you make unevidenced claims about me that are untrue.

A rampant zionist who is far right and defends Nazis. Make it make sense!

Likewise. Always happy for you not to respond.

I don't need lectures from anyone about the horrors of the Holocaust, the discrimination my Jewish friends still experience or how awful places in Poland are that I've visited a few times. I've been accuse of being a rampant zionist on here and am a staunch supporter of the Jewish people. None of that has any relevance whatsoever to this issue and I can find just as many authoritative sources - including Jewish people - who are laughing at what you're saying.

We can all post numerous links with opposing opinions. Bit pointless though.

Thanks but I'll post when I want and don't need your permission xxx

Hopefully you're not talking about me. I haven't admired anyone, I don't really care much about Musk I'm just challenging the idea that he's a Nazi.

Yes you're right right it's a Nazi salute. So Musk is a Nazi yes?

The ADL have said it wasn't a Nazi salute. HTH.

Elon Musk secret nazi confirmed!!

It was mostly to do with foreigners coming here and doing stuff to English children-specifically girls. That's what caused everything to kick off as well as the nice weather of course. Wouldn't catch people out in January.

Fucking nazi.

They released only one photo of him as a 12 year old and referred to him as a Welsh choir boy knowing full well what connotations of that would be.

We might want him next season if Sheffield United don't want to pay.

If he really didn't want to say anything, Starmer could have easily said at the time "we believe that this attack was terror motivated. There are additional details to this case but it is not appropriate to release them at this time due to the criminal process. More information will be made public at its conclusion." Oh and I sure soggy could let you know if an EDL membership card exists. He's the forum authority on all thing EDL and Tommy Robinson.

Interesting. It seems that Prevent may have been 'prevented' from doing it's job effectively due to a fear of being seen as racist or islamophobic. You could make the same argument for the longevity of the Islamic rape gangs scandal.

Bizarre logic. There's no evidence whatsoever that releasing the information and not creating an information vacuum would have had any effect at all on the outcome of this case. The fact that this very clear cut case got a guilty verdict was not influenced at all by the cover up of this information (and the subsequent insistence by Starmer that the cover up was due to the court case collapsing) as evidenced by the fact that the information was released prior to the trial with no detrimental effect whatsoever and previous trials where information of this nature has been released prior to trial. It's an excuse and a lie to suggest that releasing it earlier would have collapsed the trial. At least if they were honest and said they hid it from the public because they didn't want to upset anyone you could kind of understand it even if you disagreed. Why did Rayner say the idea that this attack was terror related was fake news and a conspiracy theory when we now know that it is terror related as confirmed by Starmer today. It begs the question what else has the government been covering up for the public's own good? ‘institutions will not continue to enjoy the trust that they have had to date if there is any general sense that things are being hidden’.

I'm aware that the government has an incredibly low opinion of the British public-they demonstrate it frequently-but releasing the information prior to the trial anyway suggests they are being dishonest about it prejudicing the trial. If that were true then it would have been released during the trial or immediately afterwards and not months before. Besides, they've had no such scruples about allowing extra information on previous occasions when suspects have been arrested. There's definitely a case here that the cover up of information inflamed the situation and made the rioting worse. The next terror attack we have the same thing will happen except this time people will be more certain that the government is dismissing legitimate concerns as conspiracy theories when in actuality there was truth in what was being alleged (not all clearly).

Then be honest and state that. It came out anyway and arguably has done more damage longer term to undermine trust in the government and institutions.

Because as the reviewer of terrorist legislation makes clear, failure to properly inform the public undermines public trust in the government and creates an information vacuum which encourages conspiracy theory and misinformation to spread There's also plenty of other examples where key information has been released before trial. It's hard to conclude that the withholding of information was deliberate and that the excuse that it would collapse the trial is a flimsy excuse to cover up the government actions.

Precisely. Either the information was able to be released without collapsing the trial - in which case it should have been released when he was arrested and Starmer lied about it collapsing the trial - or it was sensitive information so it shouldn't have been released a few months later prior to the trial. It's one of those.