BROTHER

This is so fucked up

oh fuck oh shit oh fuck oh

Back home from the pub, about to dig into some beans on toast 😋

When I was in the US I didn’t really know what the “gravy” was and I asked if it was vegetarian and the waitress looked at me like I’d just asked if I could shoot her dog

Inshallah the Seinfeld entity gets it next

Can't believe it. @YoungBobRB filmed me setting fire to a wheelie bin. Now I'm facing charges of arson, arson with intent to endanger life, criminal damage, and violent disorder. You little bitch Bob!

Atheists in California are now spraying GAY CHEMTRAILS on the road to make the cars homosexual.

Who else is having nut n bolts for tea? 😋😋😋

Thank you for facetuning this photo. Easier to be empathetic now. R.i.p

If Das Boot is a good anti-war film for showing how war is weeks of waiting with hours if not minutes of terror, & Come and See is a good anti-war film for showing the depths of human depravity in war, Jarhead is a good anti-war film for showing how 98% of guys experience neither

If it’s “pineapple belongs on a pizza” yes If it’s “burning children alive is worth it so Jews can have an ethnostate” then no

Capitalism is neat because the world's first trillionaire had the resources to end global hunger and instead actively chose to starve hundreds of thousands of people to death

CyberPeterMolyneux in 2056:

If I were on a jury just now I would consider it my moral duty to find them not guilty regardless.

There are lots of people on here drinking the security services Kool Aid over the sentencing of the Filton Four. They believe the judge was right to overturn the jury's decision to convict four anti-genocide activists of criminal damage and make it a terrorism offence instead, overturning centuries of legal precedent. Why? Because, they claim, the four activists broke / smashed / shattered a police woman's spine. But that obviously can't be the explanation because three of the activists had nothing to do with that incident and yet they were convicted as terrorists by the judge anyway. Even Samuel Corner, the activist who was convicted over this incident (which left the police woman with a minor fracture, according to the medical authorities who testified), shouldn't have been sentenced as a terrorist for it because that is not what the jury, which heard the actual evidence, decided. The jury convicted Samuel Corner of grievous bodily harm *without intent*. The prosecution had charged him with GBH *with intent* because they needed that as his conviction to build a public mood in support of the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. If Corner could be presented as having entered Israel's Elbit weapons factory with intent to commit violence, then the implication would be that the other activists were in on that plan – a conspiracy – and the government would be off the hook of violating fundamental legal norms by proscribing Palestine Action. By stripping out intent, the jury pulled the rug from under the government's feet. Judge Johnson's task was put the rug firmly back in place by riding roughshod over the jury's decision and sentencing them as terrorists anyway. The timing couldn't be more convenient. On Monday, the Appeal Court will be deciding on the government's appeal against the High Court declaring its proscription of Palestine Action unlawful. If you're peddling the "But they smashed the back of a police woman" line you've been fed by the Daily Mail and BBC, it's because that is exactly what the government needs you spouting as it upends our age-old rights to jury trials, as it stamps out an honourable tradition of direct action dating back to the Suffragettes and before, and as it gives itself cover for continuing complicity in a genocide. Stop being a cuck. Don't fall for this psy-op.

"This turnout is bigger than Great Yarmouth!!"