Ending Anonymous Hate

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The subject is not hiding accountable identity for defamation of named victims behind anonymity. Being accountable, including being the platform, for hate. Not to Big Brother, not to undocumented migrants (how weird a response is that?). But to the named victims of libellous hate; poison pen letters, press intrusion and defamation. Pay to hate, simple.

[accelafine]

There are perfectly good laws regarding libel and defamation. You really are a silly little man. Oooh, is that a 'hate crime'?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Before I had to login, I had the generic view and so saw your misanthropic comment, accelafine.

Defamation law is useless against anonymous abuse like yours.

I'll try and login immediately if necessary in future.

Oh, and hi, would you like a hug?

[Age]

Is calling someone a 'woke twat' 'hate speech'?

Do you 'hate' those who you call and classify as 'woke twats'?

If yes, then it may well be deemed as 'hate speech', as you, literally, 'hate them', and said as such in your words, 'woke twat'.

But, if no, then it would not be 'hate speech' at all, correct?

[Age]

It would only hurt those who have done nothing wrong anyway. A few years ago an Australian celebrity committed suicide because of relentless online bullying. She actually managed to track down her tormenters because no one would do anything and made a documentary about it. They didn't even care. It was water off a ducks back even when she was trying to reason with them with a camera on. Nothing happened to them either. Exposing who they were didn't make them 'accountable'.
They all seemed to be camp gay men. Ooooh, is it 'hate speech' to point out that observation?

Once again, do you point out that, so-called, 'observation', with 'hate' for or towards 'them'?

If yes, then it could be deemed as 'hate speech'. As, again, you literally 'hate them'.

See, it is very, very easy and simple to differentiate between what is actually 'hate speech' from what is 'not hate speech'.

Never mind that they drove a woman to hang herself.

Did 'that one' have a long history of depression as well?

If yes, then could have this be 'the cause' of the actual suicide, and not 'the bullying', itself?

As always your open and honest responses, and answers for clarification, are always very welcomed and appreciated, here.

Nasty bitchy woman-hating arseholes.

Some might suggest that there sounds like quite a bit of 'hate', built up there within 'you', here.

The vicious misogyny was off the charts, yet they were part of a 'protected group' while as a mere woman she wasn't.

Why is just about every thing, here, about your apparent hatred of "men", "americans", and 'those' who do not use language in 'the way' you like and prefer?

Poor vulnerable men.
Besides, 'hate speech' doesn't even cover something like this. It's a political term that's used specifically to destroy free speech and ENCOURAGE bullying and harassment.

Okay. So, 'this one', 'now', believes, absolutely, and is 'trying to' claim that there is 'political agenda' specifically to destroy 'free speech' and to encourage, in capital letters, 'bullying' and 'harassment'.

And, this bullying and harassment would be against 'women', am I right?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Stalin was a big fan of 'hate speech' laws. Hmm. No wonder wokies love them so much.

''The origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union. The motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.''

And just like what happened with the Soviet Union, they will bring about their own downfall. It's already happening, everywhere, and lacking any sort of imagination, all they can do is double down.

So who do you want to hate? Better say now before the wokies come down on your IP. Have you got a VPN?!

[Maia]

Stalin was a big fan of 'hate speech' laws. Hmm. No wonder wokies love them so much.

''The origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

The introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union. The motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.''

And just like what happened with the Soviet Union, they will bring about their own downfall. It's already happening, everywhere, and lacking any sort of imagination, all they can do is double down.

So who do you want to hate? Better say now before the wokies come down on your IP. Have you got a VPN?!

I think most reasonable people would hate organised rape gangs targeting underage girls, and those who enable them and cover up for them. Only in the last few days news has emerged that some of these evil rapists were members of the South Yorkshire police force, for example.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

And just like what happened with the Soviet Union, they will bring about their own downfall. It's already happening, everywhere, and lacking any sort of imagination, all they can do is double down.

So who do you want to hate? Better say now before the wokies come down on your IP. Have you got a VPN?!

I think most reasonable people would hate organised rape gangs targeting underage girls, and those who enable them and cover up for them. Only in the last few days news has emerged that some of these evil rapists were members of the South Yorkshire police force, for example.

I'm utterly appalled, revolted by that evil, but don't feel what I mean by hatred. I don't feel even a pulse of anger. But a rising tide of it, a slow, determined, implacable tsunami, which, being male, compartmentalized, I still put in a box. These vile, foul creatures should be pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and no aspect of the cultures involved not exposed to the light, every lead followed no matter where it goes. We are separated by semantics here Maia. And gender and age of course. I cannot imagine what it is to hate another with visceral loathing, to the point of wanting to stamp them to death. I hope I never do. Because it's entirely natural. Does hate have a spectrum? Of course it does in word usage. But an actual one? Does it cover despising? I feel not. As a man I have no right to question the hatred of male (sexual) violence. I loathe it. I want to have good will toward all, but there are limits. With some, there is no point, until they atone. And many can't. Not our problem. Even tho' there is the ghastly realisation of there but for fortune go I. As victim. Or worse.

Over the decades of the Stephen Lawrence case, I imagined if I were working in a customer facing capacity and one of his five killers presented to me. I'd have said 'Get out!'. And I'd have felt the full pulse of despite, of anger, revulsion; hatred. I've been in extreme conflict situations where I lose my voice above a hoarse whisper. That would have happened if he'd have said anything back. I'd have wanted to smash his face in.

The piece of filth who violated - I feel diffident about using the explicit word - and murdered Sarah Everard should never see the light of day. Never come off the 'seg'. Only psychiatrists should take the slightest interest in him. How on earth can he be redeemed in any way? Permanently ostracized and quarantined. Banged up till death. Medicated at most.

All reasonable people feel close to the centre of this spectrum of response. I just don't want to overreach beyond the crime. Which I have often. I pull back from that. Because in me it evokes despair at human nature. Including my own. I have been an Islamophobe, a homophobe. Sexist. Racist. A despiser of the poor. I have developed through those appalling barriers. I have been hateworthy. So my reaction to hate includes self-hate. Shame. My prejudices were born of ignorance, and knowledge. The latter is worse. Ignorance can be alleviated, has been. But knowledge? Of unspeakable evil?

I do not hate conservative, natural, moral responses. I have them still of course. I identify with the common man. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, an armchair social justice warrior, but not just. As an atheist republican I was at His Majesty King Charles III's second proclamation, and viscerally cheered him and sang the anthem with abandon. I'm comfortable with head-heart paradox. I am most old school.

After all Maia, I'm a reasonable man. Try me.

[Maia]

So who do you want to hate? Better say now before the wokies come down on your IP. Have you got a VPN?!

I think most reasonable people would hate organised rape gangs targeting underage girls, and those who enable them and cover up for them. Only in the last few days news has emerged that some of these evil rapists were members of the South Yorkshire police force, for example.

I'm utterly appalled, revolted by that evil, but don't feel what I mean by hatred. I don't feel even a pulse of anger. But a rising tide of it, a slow, determined, implacable tsunami, which, being male, compartmentalized, I still put in a box. These vile, foul creatures should be pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and no aspect of the cultures involved not exposed to the light, every lead followed no matter where it goes. We are separated by semantics here Maia. And gender and age of course. I cannot imagine what it is to hate another with visceral loathing, to the point of wanting to stamp them to death. I hope I never do. Because it's entirely natural. Does hate have a spectrum? Of course it does in word usage. But an actual one? Does it cover despising? I feel not. As a man I have no right to question the hatred of male (sexual) violence. I loathe it. I want to have good will toward all, but there are limits. With some, there is no point, until they atone. And many can't. Not our problem. Even tho' there is the ghastly realisation of there but for fortune go I. As victim. Or worse.

Over the decades of the Stephen Lawrence case, I imagined if I were working in a customer facing capacity and one of his five killers presented to me. I'd have said 'Get out!'. And I'd have felt the full pulse of despite, of anger, revulsion; hatred. I've been in extreme conflict situations where I lose my voice above a hoarse whisper. That would have happened if he'd have said anything back. I'd have wanted to smash his face in.

The piece of filth who violated - I feel diffident about using the explicit word - and murdered Sarah Everard should never see the light of day. Never come off the 'seg'. Only psychiatrists should take the slightest interest in him. How on earth can he be redeemed in any way? Permanently ostracized and quarantined. Banged up till death. Medicated at most.

All reasonable people feel close to the centre of this spectrum of response. I just don't want to overreach beyond the crime. Which I have often. I pull back from that. Because in me it evokes despair at human nature. Including my own. I have been an Islamophobe, a homophobe. Sexist. Racist. A despiser of the poor. I have developed through those appalling barriers. I have been hateworthy. So my reaction to hate includes self-hate. Shame. My prejudices were born of ignorance, and knowledge. The latter is worse. Ignorance can be alleviated, has been. But knowledge? Of unspeakable evil?

I do not hate conservative, natural, moral responses. I have them still of course. I identify with the common man. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, an armchair social justice warrior, but not just. As an atheist republican I was at His Majesty King Charles III's second proclamation, and viscerally cheered him and sang the anthem with abandon. I'm comfortable with head-heart paradox. I am most old school.

After all Maia, I'm a reasonable man. Try me.

I don't think it's really possible to separate our emotional response to something from an intellectual approach, and I suspect that the latter doesn't really exist, anyway, on its own. We are ruled by our emotions and this fact should be celebrated. If something seems wrong to us, then the chances are, it probably is. We have these feelings for very good reasons.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and would describe myself as a conservative, with a small c, but that doesn't mean that I lack compassion or empathy. Far from it.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I think most reasonable people would hate organised rape gangs targeting underage girls, and those who enable them and cover up for them. Only in the last few days news has emerged that some of these evil rapists were members of the South Yorkshire police force, for example.

I'm utterly appalled, revolted by that evil, but don't feel what I mean by hatred. I don't feel even a pulse of anger. But a rising tide of it, a slow, determined, implacable tsunami, which, being male, compartmentalized, I still put in a box. These vile, foul creatures should be pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and no aspect of the cultures involved not exposed to the light, every lead followed no matter where it goes. We are separated by semantics here Maia. And gender and age of course. I cannot imagine what it is to hate another with visceral loathing, to the point of wanting to stamp them to death. I hope I never do. Because it's entirely natural. Does hate have a spectrum? Of course it does in word usage. But an actual one? Does it cover despising? I feel not. As a man I have no right to question the hatred of male (sexual) violence. I loathe it. I want to have good will toward all, but there are limits. With some, there is no point, until they atone. And many can't. Not our problem. Even tho' there is the ghastly realisation of there but for fortune go I. As victim. Or worse.

Over the decades of the Stephen Lawrence case, I imagined if I were working in a customer facing capacity and one of his five killers presented to me. I'd have said 'Get out!'. And I'd have felt the full pulse of despite, of anger, revulsion; hatred. I've been in extreme conflict situations where I lose my voice above a hoarse whisper. That would have happened if he'd have said anything back. I'd have wanted to smash his face in.

The piece of filth who violated - I feel diffident about using the explicit word - and murdered Sarah Everard should never see the light of day. Never come off the 'seg'. Only psychiatrists should take the slightest interest in him. How on earth can he be redeemed in any way? Permanently ostracized and quarantined. Banged up till death. Medicated at most.

All reasonable people feel close to the centre of this spectrum of response. I just don't want to overreach beyond the crime. Which I have often. I pull back from that. Because in me it evokes despair at human nature. Including my own. I have been an Islamophobe, a homophobe. Sexist. Racist. A despiser of the poor. I have developed through those appalling barriers. I have been hateworthy. So my reaction to hate includes self-hate. Shame. My prejudices were born of ignorance, and knowledge. The latter is worse. Ignorance can be alleviated, has been. But knowledge? Of unspeakable evil?

I do not hate conservative, natural, moral responses. I have them still of course. I identify with the common man. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, an armchair social justice warrior, but not just. As an atheist republican I was at His Majesty King Charles III's second proclamation, and viscerally cheered him and sang the anthem with abandon. I'm comfortable with head-heart paradox. I am most old school.

After all Maia, I'm a reasonable man. Try me.

I don't think it's really possible to separate our emotional response to something from an intellectual approach, and I suspect that the latter doesn't really exist, anyway, on its own. We are ruled by our emotions and this fact should be celebrated. If something seems wrong to us, then the chances are, it probably is. We have these feelings for very good reasons.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and would describe myself as a conservative, with a small c, but that doesn't mean that I lack compassion or empathy. Far from it.

Agreed and understood Maia. It's entirely natural. Extreme liberals lack, and that's the the right word, normal, human conservative values, the group moral foundations. They are a minority for a reason. Conservatives don't lack the care and fairness foundations, except in the opposite extreme, they have the others: https://moralfoundations.org/. I have them all in varied measure. Politically I'm theoretically, idealistically radical left. I start with Geoism (Georgism). But know that that is utterly unrealistic, it will never happen. The top down redistribution of wealth can never happen without the collapse of society. I do not want that. It must be achieved by entirely peaceful, legal, truly democratic means. And the forest always welcomes the axe, because it has a wooden handle (the turkeys always vote for Christmas!). Because of the group moral foundations. Which are entirely pre-wired for experience by evolution. I am astounded how tolerant we are of being abused by the institutionalized predatory ruling class. Sorry! On crime and punishment again I'm theoretically liberal. I don't understand banging up the non-violent. But I certainly understand, endorse, that. And even then I'm liberal on those having a bad day that never ended. Dyed in the wool predators excepted.

One day I hope that moral conservatives will realise that we have a common enemy. That we have far more in common as little people than not.

[LuckyR]

In my opinion, the issue isn't ending anonymous hate, rather I'm continuously baffled why anonymous messages of any type, especially hate, is given any credence. Basically there are a few options: first, someone you know (or know about) and respect criticizes you, you'd likely take that seriously, thus it would effect you. Next someone you know marginally criticizes you, you'd make note of that. Next a named person you don't know criticizes you, you'd probably wait to see if there's a consensus before deciding how to take that. But in this era 97% of the time some anonymous avatar criticizes you, why would you even give that a second thought? Why are folks buckling under that strain? Why put a plaque on your coronary arteries over this non-thing? Or to put it a different way, if you described an event involving yourself to a friend of yours (F2F) and he gives you his opinion, then adds, "oh, and some guy you don't know in China thinks you are a douchebag and should kill yourself", what should you do with that?

[Maia]

I'm utterly appalled, revolted by that evil, but don't feel what I mean by hatred. I don't feel even a pulse of anger. But a rising tide of it, a slow, determined, implacable tsunami, which, being male, compartmentalized, I still put in a box. These vile, foul creatures should be pursued and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and no aspect of the cultures involved not exposed to the light, every lead followed no matter where it goes. We are separated by semantics here Maia. And gender and age of course. I cannot imagine what it is to hate another with visceral loathing, to the point of wanting to stamp them to death. I hope I never do. Because it's entirely natural. Does hate have a spectrum? Of course it does in word usage. But an actual one? Does it cover despising? I feel not. As a man I have no right to question the hatred of male (sexual) violence. I loathe it. I want to have good will toward all, but there are limits. With some, there is no point, until they atone. And many can't. Not our problem. Even tho' there is the ghastly realisation of there but for fortune go I. As victim. Or worse.

Over the decades of the Stephen Lawrence case, I imagined if I were working in a customer facing capacity and one of his five killers presented to me. I'd have said 'Get out!'. And I'd have felt the full pulse of despite, of anger, revulsion; hatred. I've been in extreme conflict situations where I lose my voice above a hoarse whisper. That would have happened if he'd have said anything back. I'd have wanted to smash his face in.

The piece of filth who violated - I feel diffident about using the explicit word - and murdered Sarah Everard should never see the light of day. Never come off the 'seg'. Only psychiatrists should take the slightest interest in him. How on earth can he be redeemed in any way? Permanently ostracized and quarantined. Banged up till death. Medicated at most.

All reasonable people feel close to the centre of this spectrum of response. I just don't want to overreach beyond the crime. Which I have often. I pull back from that. Because in me it evokes despair at human nature. Including my own. I have been an Islamophobe, a homophobe. Sexist. Racist. A despiser of the poor. I have developed through those appalling barriers. I have been hateworthy. So my reaction to hate includes self-hate. Shame. My prejudices were born of ignorance, and knowledge. The latter is worse. Ignorance can be alleviated, has been. But knowledge? Of unspeakable evil?

I do not hate conservative, natural, moral responses. I have them still of course. I identify with the common man. I may be a bleeding heart liberal, an armchair social justice warrior, but not just. As an atheist republican I was at His Majesty King Charles III's second proclamation, and viscerally cheered him and sang the anthem with abandon. I'm comfortable with head-heart paradox. I am most old school.

After all Maia, I'm a reasonable man. Try me.

I don't think it's really possible to separate our emotional response to something from an intellectual approach, and I suspect that the latter doesn't really exist, anyway, on its own. We are ruled by our emotions and this fact should be celebrated. If something seems wrong to us, then the chances are, it probably is. We have these feelings for very good reasons.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and would describe myself as a conservative, with a small c, but that doesn't mean that I lack compassion or empathy. Far from it.

Agreed and understood Maia. It's entirely natural. Extreme liberals lack, and that's the the right word, normal, human conservative values, the group moral foundations. They are a minority for a reason. Conservatives don't lack the care and fairness foundations, except in the opposite extreme, they have the others: https://moralfoundations.org/. I have them all in varied measure. Politically I'm theoretically, idealistically radical left. I start with Geoism (Georgism). But know that that is utterly unrealistic, it will never happen. The top down redistribution of wealth can never happen without the collapse of society. I do not want that. It must be achieved by entirely peaceful, legal, truly democratic means. And the forest always welcomes the axe, because it has a wooden handle (the turkeys always vote for Christmas!). Because of the group moral foundations. Which are entirely pre-wired for experience by evolution. I am astounded how tolerant we are of being abused by the institutionalized predatory ruling class. Sorry! On crime and punishment again I'm theoretically liberal. I don't understand banging up the non-violent. But I certainly understand, endorse, that. And even then I'm liberal on those having a bad day that never ended. Dyed in the wool predators excepted.

One day I hope that moral conservatives will realise that we have a common enemy. That we have far more in common as little people than not.

I too hope that one day we might all realise that we have a common enemy, before it's too late.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't think it's really possible to separate our emotional response to something from an intellectual approach, and I suspect that the latter doesn't really exist, anyway, on its own. We are ruled by our emotions and this fact should be celebrated. If something seems wrong to us, then the chances are, it probably is. We have these feelings for very good reasons.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and would describe myself as a conservative, with a small c, but that doesn't mean that I lack compassion or empathy. Far from it.

Agreed and understood Maia. It's entirely natural. Extreme liberals lack, and that's the the right word, normal, human conservative values, the group moral foundations. They are a minority for a reason. Conservatives don't lack the care and fairness foundations, except in the opposite extreme, they have the others: https://moralfoundations.org/. I have them all in varied measure. Politically I'm theoretically, idealistically radical left. I start with Geoism (Georgism). But know that that is utterly unrealistic, it will never happen. The top down redistribution of wealth can never happen without the collapse of society. I do not want that. It must be achieved by entirely peaceful, legal, truly democratic means. And the forest always welcomes the axe, because it has a wooden handle (the turkeys always vote for Christmas!). Because of the group moral foundations. Which are entirely pre-wired for experience by evolution. I am astounded how tolerant we are of being abused by the institutionalized predatory ruling class. Sorry! On crime and punishment again I'm theoretically liberal. I don't understand banging up the non-violent. But I certainly understand, endorse, that. And even then I'm liberal on those having a bad day that never ended. Dyed in the wool predators excepted.

One day I hope that moral conservatives will realise that we have a common enemy. That we have far more in common as little people than not.

I too hope that one day we might all realise that we have a common enemy, before it's too late.

: ) I suspect we don't mean the same one. I mean the one that has already won, the one hiding in plain site. The ruling class. The land owners. The cornerstone of capitalism. Liberalism is failing everywhere as it, they - rightly - can't raise income and purchase taxes (on consumables, including vehicles, and services) on the squeezed middle any more. Despite Trump doing exactly that with tariffs, which, along with the conspiracist feeding frenzy, may well, Ouroboros, doubly bite him in the arse. Until the land is freed (and don't worry, it never will be, not until the next, deferred ice age), cannot be owned, only rented, all back rent paid for a thousand years, there can be no further move to social justice, as capitalism intrinsically cannot deliver it. I see no other enemy within. Only above. All the media are owned by the ruling class you know. All politics, all legislation. So we will continue to have private opulence and public poverty. And fight over table scraps. A Reform government won't be able to stop the boat people either. Without killing them.

[Maia]

Agreed and understood Maia. It's entirely natural. Extreme liberals lack, and that's the the right word, normal, human conservative values, the group moral foundations. They are a minority for a reason. Conservatives don't lack the care and fairness foundations, except in the opposite extreme, they have the others: https://moralfoundations.org/. I have them all in varied measure. Politically I'm theoretically, idealistically radical left. I start with Geoism (Georgism). But know that that is utterly unrealistic, it will never happen. The top down redistribution of wealth can never happen without the collapse of society. I do not want that. It must be achieved by entirely peaceful, legal, truly democratic means. And the forest always welcomes the axe, because it has a wooden handle (the turkeys always vote for Christmas!). Because of the group moral foundations. Which are entirely pre-wired for experience by evolution. I am astounded how tolerant we are of being abused by the institutionalized predatory ruling class. Sorry! On crime and punishment again I'm theoretically liberal. I don't understand banging up the non-violent. But I certainly understand, endorse, that. And even then I'm liberal on those having a bad day that never ended. Dyed in the wool predators excepted.

One day I hope that moral conservatives will realise that we have a common enemy. That we have far more in common as little people than not.

I too hope that one day we might all realise that we have a common enemy, before it's too late.

: ) I suspect we don't mean the same one. I mean the one that has already won, the one hiding in plain site. The ruling class. The land owners. The cornerstone of capitalism. Liberalism is failing everywhere as it, they - rightly - can't raise income and purchase taxes (on consumables, including vehicles, and services) on the squeezed middle any more. Despite Trump doing exactly that with tariffs, which, along with the conspiracist feeding frenzy, may well, Ouroboros, doubly bite him in the arse. Until the land is freed (and don't worry, it never will be, not until the next, deferred ice age), cannot be owned, only rented, all back rent paid for a thousand years, there can be no further move to social justice, as capitalism intrinsically cannot deliver it. I see no other enemy within. Only above. All the media are owned by the ruling class you know. All politics, all legislation. So we will continue to have private opulence and public poverty. And fight over table scraps. A Reform government won't be able to stop the boat people either. Without killing them.

The ruling class have been exploiting the hated and despised native English since 1066, and now that they don't need them any more, they're having them replaced. Why on earth would I want to raise a family, for example, knowing that my children will become a minority in their own homeland in just a generation or two?

You're right about Reform. Farage is a liar and a sell-out. At one point, last year, I was even thinking of joining Reform, but I'm very glad I didn't, after the way they treated Rupert Lowe.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I too hope that one day we might all realise that we have a common enemy, before it's too late.

: ) I suspect we don't mean the same one. I mean the one that has already won, the one hiding in plain site. The ruling class. The land owners. The cornerstone of capitalism. Liberalism is failing everywhere as it, they - rightly - can't raise income and purchase taxes (on consumables, including vehicles, and services) on the squeezed middle any more. Despite Trump doing exactly that with tariffs, which, along with the conspiracist feeding frenzy, may well, Ouroboros, doubly bite him in the arse. Until the land is freed (and don't worry, it never will be, not until the next, deferred ice age), cannot be owned, only rented, all back rent paid for a thousand years, there can be no further move to social justice, as capitalism intrinsically cannot deliver it. I see no other enemy within. Only above. All the media are owned by the ruling class you know. All politics, all legislation. So we will continue to have private opulence and public poverty. And fight over table scraps. A Reform government won't be able to stop the boat people either. Without killing them.

The ruling class have been exploiting the hated and despised native English since 1066, and now that they don't need them any more, they're having them replaced. Why on earth would I want to raise a family, for example, knowing that my children will become a minority in their own homeland in just a generation or two?

You're right about Reform. Farage is a liar and a sell-out. At one point, last year, I was even thinking of joining Reform, but I'm very glad I didn't, after the way they treated Rupert Lowe.

I already am in Leicester. Everybody is. You would feel far less threatened if there was public luxury and private sufficiency for all, I suggest. But we'll never know. I sympathise. I have loved ones who feel similarly to you. But I have little sympathy for a bullying multi-millionaire. The ruling class will continue to divide and conquer us, set us against each other nonetheless. They just turn the heat down, Lowe... so that we don't realise that we're cooking frogs. A spoonerism of which almost sounds like deprecation of controversial footwear.