President Trump

I agree her post incited violence however the punishment was excessive and inconsistent from a politically judiciary.
I think we can all agree we do not want to be censoring free speech.
Free speech and hate speech are two different things, in my view.
Burning people alive crossed the line.

What we want is truth.
By removing certain media publications from the White House Donald ensures only supportive coverage - censorship.
By encouraging ownership of social media channels by friends (he stated this week that Tik-Tok had been saved) he ensures only favourable, non-critical coverage - censorship.

I have seen two separate speeches this week, one about Portland and one about Chicago. With the first, he claimed the national guard were needed to quell rioting. With the second, he said there had been 4,000 deaths. Neither came with any evidence, nor specifics, but he will employ the national guard and his media friends will repeat his assertions in the complete absence of fact. Proper journalism would seek to expose truth, and it would expose him. He is deliberately avoiding that scrutiny.


HERE IS A FACT CHECK ON CHICAGO:
The claim of "4,000 people murdered" in Chicago is misleading and lacks context, as the actual homicide statistics show a significant decline in recent years. As of 2025, Chicago has recorded 331 homicides, a significant decrease from previous years. In 2024, the city had 573 homicides, which, while high, is part of a broader trend of declining murder rates since 2022.

He is lying by omission and deliberately misleading the public.
 
Last edited:
I agree her post incited violence however the punishment was excessive and inconsistent from a politically judiciary.
I think we can all agree we do not want to be censoring free speech.
The problem here is you have to have one standard. If you call for the killing of innocent people then most people agree you should face a pretty harsh sentence. You don't get a discount for being a British flag shagger.
 
I agree her post incited violence however the punishment was excessive and inconsistent from a politically judiciary.
I think we can all agree we do not want to be censoring free speech.
Although, had she changed it from hotels to Nigel Farage’s house, then Nigel would have gone to court to give evidence against her and not invited her on stage at the reform gathering.
Funny how this ‘free speech’ thing works…
 
I agree her post incited violence however the punishment was excessive and inconsistent from a politically judiciary.
I think we can all agree we do not want to be censoring free speech.

Absolute bollocks.

The sentence was exactly what the law demands. Details here, in the very unlikely instance that you're actually interested in facts. https://davidallengreen.com/2025/05/explaining-a-31-month-sentence-for-a-tweet/

Any other sentence would have been political!

I think we can agree that we do want to censor incitement to racial murder.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top