Which would be funny as hekk

He was convicted on the contempt last i saw

He was found guilty of contempt of court

A child molester is higher on the progressive stack in UK than a reporter

I dont see any news against that

@Uksio you're wrong friend

Weird

What if someone is a pedo **and** a journalist? <:thinking_clown:590855640268668928>

Pedornalist, in short.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytt25vljxpg ah new one just started

@retxirT every journalist

https://is2.4chan.org/pol/1562858606374.webm

Honestly though like

Tommy, we get it

but you a dumbass

Wait.. so he mighta (psychologically) hurt a group of people that have, individually, performed what's generally considered a monstrous act?

The contempt thing is understandable.. but.. look.. we're talking about a series of individuals that have given up their rights by violating *children*.

I'm just trying to get my head around that one.

(Things about the entire "inalienable rights" concept is that, whilst they are inherent they can be relinquished by violating other's rights.)

Of course, my lense is singularly US.. so..

@King Canuck let's say he is. His anger and actions were righteous. This is unjust

@Laucivol how is it understandable?

@Jack of Trades oh I think his anger is just, his actions you can argue, but he doesn't deserve what he's been getting

can we agree there?

Of course

I don't care if he's dumb, he's right

Matter of concept- I don't know the details of the case.. just that the idea of contempt of court is reasonable.

He's doing all he knows how and he's being unjustly treated and it sickens me

@Laucivol In this case I don't agree

Again, was aiming at the idea, not that if he was or was not is correct or incorrect.

@Laucivol don't care

I'm talking super high level, not the details (as admitted I have not done the homework on it, so am not commenting on it).

That's fine, not interested in that. It's trivial

O R A N G E H O R S E B A D !

@Goodwood of Dank™ I'm out of weed ;^;

The underpinnings of law is trivial. K

Awww, poor foal.

@Laucivol that's an uncharitable interpretation. I care even less now

Indeed.

Truth is no more uncharitable than your own response. Which is fine, but I'm still stuck on the idiocy of the latter charge.

*eyeroll*