egg

You plainly don't understand how the law works. The police erred on the facts of that particular case. The High Court sorted it. They gave some clarity to the law, albeit got it wrong in 2 respects. The COA sorted it. Courts aren't naughty steps.

Therein lies your contradiction. The police believed, based on the complaints and the vagueness of the law, that there was something to be investigated. That the law was subsequently tested and found to have been wrongly applied is the process of the law being played out. That's given more clarity. You are interpreting a newspaper article re Miller as you wish to. The High Court clarified the law but, if you've read it all, you'll know that they got the law wrong in some respects. The COA addressed that. In doing so, they, as per the Hight Court to the police, did not rebuke the High Court, rather they further clarified a new and vague law.

The high court did not rebuke the police in the case you and I exchanged on. They clarified how the law should be interpreted. That's how it works. I think the point here is that you don't see that anything wrong has been done in the cases you've mentioned.

Indeed, and especially re new and relatively untested law.

Disagree. Where it looks like there's a case to answer, the police have a job to do. That's their function. The court's function where the law is untested is to determine and set where the boundaries lie, and then decide who's on which side. That's our legal system.

The decision is not quite what you think. The decision was that these particular tweets were not beyond the line. Thus, transphobic tweets could be a hate crime although the judgement sets the bar quite high to be fair. The summary judgement is as below (I CBA to read the full 65 page judgement) The decision "emphasises the vital importance of free speech in a democracy and provides a reminder that free speech includes not only the inoffensive, but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative, and that the freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having". Donny could do with reading that.

A swastika made of pride flags, and Transphobic tweets are potential hate crimes. Alas, I'm not surprised that you can't see what's wrong with that, and find the latter funny. You seek to give the impression that you take a balanced view, but you really don't.

Genuine question, how many? Who? Regardless, you cannot address every issue by seeking to find an equivalence. What else may have happened previously, doesn't alter the fact that what's happening is wrong.

Ha!! When he's the answer, christ knows that the question is.

Donny definitely not trying to restrict free speech via MSM. Definitely not. Nope. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr4qe0rz2zvo

That's speculation. All we know is that he says that he's unwell quite often. And has deteriorated on the pitch.

Indeed. The point still being missed is that pushing for the booting of someone prominent, after threats to the broadcaster, is as obvious an attempt to restrict speech via that platform (and clip the wings of that platform) as you could see. That other platforms are available, doesn't alter the intent to restrict the platform and control the narrative.

Jeez. You don't get this do you.

Kimmel says something contrary to the narrative. Threat then made, essentially, to pull ABC license unless he's dealt with. He's then taken off air. Of course it's a freedom of speech issue.

Nice but of commentary from these lads on Trump's motorcade. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DOtjWZiiG2c/?igsh=Z3N4bGJ4Zjg3bmll

He's highlighted Livramento as a reason why youth players shouldn't go there, whereas his career path highlights how they develop players for a career beyond Chelsea. I think his point relates to the prospect of actually playing for Chelsea, rather than a young player acknowledging that they're a well paid Chelsea asset who will be developed through coaching and the loan system to find their level and be moved on for mutual gain in due course. It's a pathway club for kids, not the end destination.

You're not making much sense here. He's ended up at Newcastle, playing CL football, and for his country, after coming through the Chelsea system. The development he got there gave him that opportunity. JJ won't have gone to Chelsea expecting to be playing CL football for them in a few years.

He wouldn't have got that £2m net if he'd stayed here. Lighthouse thinks he'd have done a Dibling if he'd stayed, whereas he could have done a Ballard and still ended up earning £5k pw somewhere if that turns out to be his level. That £2m gives him a decent headstart in life.

Because they're different players. You've ducked my question. It's you that says JJ should have stayed. That must mean you feel we'll have managed his career. Please answer my question. The last point. Sims, Hesketh and the young left back who's name escapes me haven't. We've not done well at all by them. Regardless, for your point to have any validity, there'd have to be a case that JJ won't end up at his level following the Chelsea move. I'm not sure what you base that on. He'll find his level, and bank a few mil on the way.

I'd go with that. I think we need Stewart up top, and someone playing off of him rather than supporting from midfield. Mads was 50/50 for me. He needs to be better positionally than he was in Sunday, and hold the line.

Continually mentioning Dibling misses the point. Dibling is Dibling. JJ isn't. Chelsea have invested in JJ. They're managing his career via loans. They'll want a return on him. They'll get one if he keeps developing. Please explain how you feel JJ's career would have developed better staying here. To me, it seems like he's getting better career development, and more dollar. Sure, he may have sat on our bench a bit, and played a bit in some cup games, but he'll develop more going through the gears in the loan system imo.

Trying to find equivalences doesn't alter that it's strange that people criticise strong punishment of individuals inciting severe violence via Twitter.

The labour MP hasn't been condoned. Someone doing that on TV is a disgrace though , although it's unconnected to some dinlo inciting arson or worse via Twitter.

Err, JJ isn't Dibling. If we're doing daft comparisons, have you forgotten that Dom Ballard exists, as did Ryan Seager, etc etc. Show me one player we've managed well via the loan system over recent years. Just one. I'll spare you the search, there's been none.

What he would he have gained by staying here? I don't think we've developed our young players for life beyond SFC very well at all. They've had loans which haven't developed them, and that hasn't helped them. Since joining Chelsea, and getting over a serious injury, JJ has had half a season in league 2, this season in league 1. In all likelihood, the championship next season, if he's ready. He's playing, and now scoring. He's got the security of a decent contract, and it seems like his career is being well managed. Will he ever play for Chelsea, probably not, but they'll develop him for their gain, and that'll benefit him.