No I didn't deep dive into your twitter account. What is the law? Yes I agree illegals shouldn't walk into a home without permission. Where we disagree is where I don't think anyone should walk into a home without permission. But if we start changing the law on trespassing who is going to film refugees eating their breakfast?
Stop digging and trying to reinvent what I post and hoping nobody notices. You've admitted you ****ed up. Just go and find someone else to bore with your drivel. You really are **** at this, and seem reduced to celebrating getting any response, even if it proves you are simply ignorant to the facts. You agree it is wrong that the illegal got the message it's fine to walk into someone's home.
The 'scrutiny' you offered confirmed the point in my initial post, which caused you to flap and flounder. All you proved is your ignorance and desperation, as well as the fact you've become as boring as ****. My main point is that it's the wrong message to give to illegals. Despite all your verbiage, you agree. You're done.
My main point is that you are only concerned with "illegals" walking into homes, uninvited. I see a pattern forming. Should England change the law so that it would be a criminal offence for anyone to do this, or just "illegals"?
Utter bollocks. That is not my only concern at all. You are simply trying to rewrite things to cover some of your many **** ups and ignorance. Others doing what that illegal did have been arrested and interviewed to find out their intentions. Intent can be a defence, or a cause for charges. The fact that didn't happen here because he's an illegal is an issue and sends the wrong message. You really should consider my observation that you are piss poor at this. You are showing yourself to be a tedious fool simply fishing for any reply.
Avoiding the question i see. How many "citizen journalists" who have been asked to leave private property have been arrested once they refused to do so?
As I said, you really are **** at this. You admit you agree with the point in my post. The amount of words you tried to use to avoid doing that shows your limitations. Anyone trying to enter a property uninvited should be challenged on their intent. The citizen journalists are on film many, many times being challenged on exactly that, and giving their explanations. There are few if any cases of citizen journalists intending to rape or steal, contrast that with the illegals.
We're these citizen journalists arrested and questioned at a police station over their intent? That seems to be important to some. Does a citizen journalist refusing to leave private property and filming "illegals" in their rooms send a message that it's wrong for "illegals" to do the same?
In your feeble attempts to be a contrarian, you are managing to flag up the failings in the Policing system and their handling of that incident and confirming my initial point. I doubt that was your intent. Yes, some citizen journalists were taken to Police Stations, and some even charged, or given orders with certain conditions attached. Others were interviewed at the scene. Some were assaulted in the process, witnessed by the Police, but the Police did not charge the assailants, and admitted (on camera) that the citizen journalists had broken no laws due to their explanation of the intent. There are many videos out there of exactly this happening. If the illegals wish to enter a tax payer funded facility with similar clientele, there are plenty of clips on youtube showing them how to do so legally. Do you have a facility in mind that fits the criteria? The fact you ask such questions, along with your earlier **** ups only highlights your ignorance on the topic.
"THE AGE VERIFICATION SCAM Some companies claim they are protecting you. But they are really harvesting you. Age verification has become the perfect disguise. It sounds like safety. It feels like protection. But behind the curtain, it is a data grab. → Date of birth → Legal name → Government-issued ID → Sometimes even facial scans Once collected, that information lives forever in their systems. And "forever" is a dangerous word in the world of data. Your birthday can unlock your identity in the wrong hands. Your photo can train an AI without your permission. Your ID can be sold, shared, or stolen. The companies doing this rarely give you the full picture. They do not clearly explain how long they keep your data. They do not disclose who they share it with. They hide behind a legal checkbox and call it compliance. Meanwhile, the real compliance — protecting consumer privacy — gets ignored. Safety and privacy are not the same thing. You can verify age without storing personal data. You can protect people without building a permanent file on them. If companies cared about privacy, they would prove it in their design, not in their press releases. Consumers are waking up. Trust will be the currency that matters. And those who abuse it will pay the price."
Interesting So you believe those citizen journalists were assaulted as they were trespassing? Are you worried the "illegal" was assaulted by two members of the public for trespassing? I'm seeing a pattern
****ing hell, you're getting worse. The illegal wasn't assaulted at all. There is video of the whole event. In the cases of assault, more often than not the citizen journalists were not trespassing, they were in public places. You're making a total arse of yourself, all for the hope of a reply. It's really not a good look for you. Just man up and face the reality that you agreed with the initial point, and the message from plod to the illegal is not acceptable.
I believe I confirmed I don't think people should walk into homes uninvited 3 times now. Why do you keep referring to it? Why are you comfortable with anyone but "illegals" trespassing? Would you defend an "illegal" who was assaulted while trespassing so righteously?
