Permabanned
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 3,762
- Location
- My fabulous ship
arrested over an email
explain that to someone in the 70's ey? hehe

‘I made it clear to them I am absolutely not racist...One of my closest friends is an Irish traveller and he uses the term '*****' all the time
one question, why, through their entire article, do they spell it "gipsy"?....I've never known it spelt that way![]()
Who will they arrest next, Dave Spikey?![]()
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
Throw me all the sources you want. At the end of the day I can see just by looking at the article(s) that there's an important point missing, as there ALWAYS is, and that the key point has been deliberately excluded, or maybe not reported by Mr. Osmond.
As a serving police officer I'd never arrest anyone on face value of that email alone. One because CPS would laugh in my face and two, more importantly, it's a tremendous waste of time, especially as there is no real victim here.
As I said, there's always more to these stories than meets the eye.
I don't understand - have the Daily Mail got the story wrong?
As with most news sources, the question generally is not: "What have they lied about?", but: "What important bits of the story have they omitted to make the point the editor wants to make?"
M
No smoke without fire is it? Is this how a police state starts, we can't possibly believe police would arrest a man for a simple comment the government don't like, so we assume there's something else, what happens when it's you they come for though?