On 07/05/2026 11:09 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JR:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
You must have missed the report that u25 million is being paid to >>>>>>>>Jewish communities for extra policing because of the antisemitic >>>>>>>>attack in Golders Green presumably (which we now know were nothing >>>>>>>>to do with antisemitism or terrorism)? Starmer made the >>>>>>>>announcement.
"...paid TO Jewish communitie...s"?
How? And in what form?
As compensation for past failures of policing?
It doesn't sound too likely, does it?
If you want to be pedantic it's paid to the police EXCLUSIVELY to >>>>>>provide additional policing for Jewish communities. Am I the only >>>>>>one who has kept up with the various announcements on this matter?
[JG:}It seems more like you're the only one who hasn't been keeping up.
[JN:]Then why did I have to explain this payment that has been widely >>>>reported since the day of the attack?
<Whoosh!>
Here's a hint: You didn't have to explain anything which was not a
result of your own error (if error it was).
You need to explain that. As I said earlier:
My OP included:
"Will we still have to pay for extra protection/policing of Jewish
people to the exclusion of everybody else despite the fact the attack
was not terrorism nor antisemitism as we now know?"
That is not wrong and hasn't changed.
Where to begin...?
You said that the money was going to Jewish communities and behaved... >well... boorishly... when it was pointed out to you (by several posters) >that you could not be more wrong.
As to your latest claim that addressing threat and crime is all wrong >because it will mean less protection for people not suffering the
threats...
...is it really necessary to point out that this applies to ALL crime? Any >officers dealing with one thing are, by definition, at least temporarily >unable to deal with other crime reports from other places?
Come on...
On 2026-05-07, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 in message <slrn10vnh4m.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-06, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn10vmr80.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-06, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 06/05/2026 in message <n60slkFdc8pU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>wrote:
On 05/05/2026 10:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
You must have missed the report that u25 million is being paid to >>>>>>>>Jewish communities for extra policing because of the antisemitic >>>>>>>>attack
in Golders Green presumably (which we now know were nothing to do >>>>>>>>with
antisemitism or terrorism)? Starmer made the announcement.
"...paid TO Jewish communitie...s"?
How? And in what form?
As compensation for past failures of policing?
It doesn't sound too likely, does it?
If you want to be pedantic it's paid to the police EXCLUSIVELY to >>>>>>provide
additional policing for Jewish communities. Am I the only one who has >>>>>>kept
up with the various announcements on this matter?
It seems more like you're the only one who hasn't been keeping up.
Then why did I have to explain this payment that has been widely >>>>reported
since the day of the attack?
You didn't have to explain it. In fact you failed to explain it,
you got it wrong, and you had to have other people explain it to you.
Did you reply to the right person?
Yes.
And one Mr Ribbwns deosn't want to reply to with facts!
A copy of a post that was rejected. e seems to be in the same position
were were when Brown was PM, some subjects cannot be discussed.
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
And one Mr Ribbwns deosn't want to reply to with facts!
Again, you have made the same point repeatedly already. If you want
to make a new post, find something new to say.
On 08/05/2026 in message <slrn10vra3f.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
And one Mr Ribbwns deosn't want to reply to with facts!
Again, you have made the same point repeatedly already. If you want
to make a new post, find something new to say.
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions and speculation.
If people want to challenge the reported facts they need to come up with some credible reasons.
I merely asked you to detail what you felt I said was wrong but you seem unable to do so.
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message <slrn10vra3f.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
And one Mr Ribbwns deosn't want to reply to with facts!
Again, you have made the same point repeatedly already. If you want
to make a new post, find something new to say.
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions >>and speculation.
No, you posted facts which you then embellished with opinions and >speculation, and you didn't it like when people pointed out the
errors in your opinions and speculation.
If people want to challenge the reported facts they need to come up with >>some credible reasons.
I merely asked you to detail what you felt I said was wrong but you seem >>unable to do so.
I and others have repeatedly told you what you have said wrong,
and I'm not going to abuse my moderator status by allowing myself
to be excessively repetitious either.
On 08/05/2026 in message <slrn10vrf4a.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message <slrn10vra3f.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
And one Mr Ribbwns deosn't want to reply to with facts!
Again, you have made the same point repeatedly already. If you want
to make a new post, find something new to say.
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions >>>and speculation.
No, you posted facts which you then embellished with opinions and >>speculation, and you didn't it like when people pointed out the
errors in your opinions and speculation.
If people want to challenge the reported facts they need to come up with >>>some credible reasons.
I merely asked you to detail what you felt I said was wrong but you seem >>>unable to do so.
I and others have repeatedly told you what you have said wrong,
Indeed and you were entitled to those opinions but facts would be better.
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message <slrn10vrf4a.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn10vra3f.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
And one Mr Ribbwns deosn't want to reply to with facts!
Again, you have made the same point repeatedly already. If you want >>>>>to make a new post, find something new to say.
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by >>>>opinions
and speculation.
No, you posted facts which you then embellished with opinions and >>>speculation, and you didn't it like when people pointed out the
errors in your opinions and speculation.
If people want to challenge the reported facts they need to come up with >>>>some credible reasons.
I merely asked you to detail what you felt I said was wrong but you seem >>>>unable to do so.
I and others have repeatedly told you what you have said wrong,
Indeed and you were entitled to those opinions but facts would be better.
I agree, but note that the bits of what you are saying that have been >questioned are your opinions, not the facts. You keep providing facts
that don't back up your opinions, but carrying on as if the facts and
your opinions are the same thing.
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions and speculation.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppj4dx8dnq29011@news.individual.net...
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions >>and
speculation.
The two purported "facts" you posted, are clearly self contradictory
a) u25 million is being paid to Jewish communities for extra
policing
b) the suspect wasn't anti semitic but had mental health
problems
So how is it possible to (a) pay u25 million to Jewish communities
such as Golders Green for extra policing, when this will obviously
benefit both Jewish (37%) and Gentile (63%)* inhabitants of
Golders Green from being attacked by people who, (b) aren't even >anti-semites, but have mental health problems ?
bb
https://parkeastdayschool.org/golders-green-a-jewish-epicenter-in-north-london/
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tkmth$2sume$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppj4dx8dnq29011@news.individual.net...
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by
opinions and
speculation.
The two purported "facts" you posted, are clearly self contradictory
a) -u25 million is being paid to Jewish communities for extra
policing
b) the suspect wasn't anti semitic but had mental health
problems
So how is it possible to (a) pay -u25 million to Jewish communities
such as Golders Green for extra policing, when this will obviously
benefit both Jewish (37%) and Gentile (63%)* inhabitants of
Golders Green from being attacked by people who, (b) aren't even
anti-semites, but have mental health problems ?
bb
https://parkeastdayschool.org/golders-green-a-jewish-epicenter-in-
north-london/
Thank you for the steer :-)
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the Government has said."
Link:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/national/26065594.government-announces- gbp25m-security-golders-green-attack/
So the government has clearly said the money is to increase security for Jewish communities, not me.
The charges laid were for murder with no mention of antisemitic hate
charges which seems to be what the press calls them.
There were several
reports that he was mentally ill of course, I tend to assume people will have seen them in a high profile matter like this.
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tkmth$2sume$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppj4dx8dnq29011@news.individual.net...
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions and
speculation.
The two purported "facts" you posted, are clearly self contradictory
a) u25 million is being paid to Jewish communities for extra
policing
b) the suspect wasn't anti semitic but had mental health
problems
So how is it possible to (a) pay u25 million to Jewish communities
such as Golders Green for extra policing, when this will obviously
benefit both Jewish (37%) and Gentile (63%)* inhabitants of
Golders Green from being attacked by people who, (b) aren't even >>anti-semites, but have mental health problems ?
bb
https://parkeastdayschool.org/golders-green-a-jewish-epicenter-in-north-london/
Thank you for the steer :-)
"A further u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the Government
has said."
Link:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/national/26065594.government-announces-gbp25m-security-golders-green-attack/
So the government has clearly said the money is to increase security for Jewish communities, not me.
The charges laid were for murder with no mention of antisemitic hate charges which seems to be what the press calls them. There were several reports that he was mentally ill of course, I tend to assume people will have seen them in
a high profile matter like this.
On 08/05/2026 14:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tkmth$2sume$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppj4dx8dnq29011@news.individual.net...
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions >>>>and
speculation.
The two purported "facts" you posted, are clearly self contradictory
a) -u25 million is being paid to Jewish communities for extra
policing
b) the suspect wasn't anti semitic but had mental health
problems
So how is it possible to (a) pay -u25 million to Jewish communities
such as Golders Green for extra policing, when this will obviously >>>benefit both Jewish (37%) and Gentile (63%)* inhabitants of
Golders Green from being attacked by people who, (b) aren't even >>>anti-semites, but have mental health problems ?
bb
https://parkeastdayschool.org/golders-green-a-jewish-epicenter-in- >>>north-london/
Thank you for the steer :-)
That reference is from a school in New York City.
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish >>communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the >>Government has said."
Link:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/national/26065594.government-announces- >>gbp25m-security-golders-green-attack/
And this is a regional newspaper for North Norfolk (UK).
There was a policeman standing outside one of the polling stations in >Golders Green. Are you prepared to agree that he was there to protect all >the people voting at that polling station, around two-thirds of whom were >not Jewish?
Anyway, that's part of the -u25m.
So the government has clearly said the money is to increase security for >>Jewish communities, not me.
You come from Dorset. Should I complain that money is spent on the >coastguard near you, and as I'm far from the sea it doesn't benefit me >personally?
The charges laid were for murder with no mention of antisemitic hate >>charges which seems to be what the press calls them.
You keep making this silly point. Why do you insist on disregarding the >multiple explanations of why you're wrong on this?
There were several reports that he was mentally ill of course, I tend to >>assume people will have seen them in a high profile matter like this.
So what?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppj94t8k3gpr016@news.individual.net...
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tkmth$2sume$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppj4dx8dnq29011@news.individual.net...
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by opinions >>>>and
speculation.
The two purported "facts" you posted, are clearly self contradictory
a) u25 million is being paid to Jewish communities for extra
policing
b) the suspect wasn't anti semitic but had mental health
problems
So how is it possible to (a) pay u25 million to Jewish communities
such as Golders Green for extra policing, when this will obviously >>>benefit both Jewish (37%) and Gentile (63%)* inhabitants of
Golders Green from being attacked by people who, (b) aren't even >>>anti-semites, but have mental health problems ?
bb
https://parkeastdayschool.org/golders-green-a-jewish-epicenter-in-north-london/
Thank you for the steer :-)
"A further u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish >>communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the >>Government has said."
Link:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/national/26065594.government-announces-gbp25m-security-golders-green-attack/
So the government has clearly said the money is to increase security for >>Jewish communities, not me.
I see.
So the only "fact" you're actually concerned with is the "fact"
that the government made the claim.
You're not concerned with the "fact" that to implement such a
measure is clearly impossbile in practice; when 63% of the
population of the area are not even Jewish.
But nevertjeless for the sake of argument you're going to
pretend you really believe that all u25 million will solely
be of benefit to Jewish residents of Golders Green.
Just as you're going to pretend that you always believe
everything the Government says, that you've never heard
of public relations; and that your interst in this matter
has nothing wharsoever to do with your seeming obsession
with Jews, the Holocaust, their supposed special treatment,
etc. etc.
The charges laid were for murder with no mention of antisemitic hate >>charges which seems to be what the press calls them. There were several >>reports that he was mentally ill of course, I tend to assume people will >>have seen them in a high profile matter like this.
Right. So had the Government said thay were going to spend u25 million >protecting the people of Golders Green from people with mental health
issues (AKA "Golders Green Syndrome") would you have been happy
with that ?
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tl30q$30jm8$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 08/05/2026 14:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tkmth$2sume$1@dont-email.me> billy
bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppj4dx8dnq29011@news.individual.net...
In both these cases the reported facts I posted have been met by
opinions and
speculation.
The two purported "facts" you posted, are clearly self contradictory
a) -u25 million is being paid to Jewish communities for extra
policing
b) the suspect wasn't anti semitic but had mental health
problems
So how is it possible to (a) pay -u25 million to Jewish communities
such as Golders Green for extra policing, when this will obviously
benefit both Jewish (37%) and Gentile (63%)* inhabitants of
Golders Green from being attacked by people who, (b) aren't even
anti-semites, but have mental health problems ?
bb
https://parkeastdayschool.org/golders-green-a-jewish-epicenter-in-
north-london/
Thank you for the steer :-)
That reference is from a school in New York City.
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for
Jewish communities after the suspected terror attack in north London,
the Government has said."
Link:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/national/26065594.government-announces-
gbp25m-security-golders-green-attack/
And this is a regional newspaper for North Norfolk (UK).
There was a policeman standing outside one of the polling stations in
Golders Green. Are you prepared to agree that he was there to protect
all the people voting at that polling station, around two-thirds of
whom were not Jewish?
Anyway, that's part of the -u25m.
So the government has clearly said the money is to increase security
for Jewish communities, not me.
You come from Dorset. Should I complain that money is spent on the
coastguard near you, and as I'm far from the sea it doesn't benefit me
personally?
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
I have now provided a source (first one I
came across). Instead of inventing hypothetical questions why not accept
the accusations were incorrect and that is exactly what Starmer said?
The charges laid were for murder with no mention of antisemitic hate
charges which seems to be what the press calls them.
You keep making this silly point. Why do you insist on disregarding
the multiple explanations of why you're wrong on this?
Why do you call it a silly point, it is factual?
There were several reports that he was mentally ill of course, I
tend to assume people will have seen them in a high profile matter
like this.
So what?
So it is probably the most relevant factor in this matter.
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
No you weren't.
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
No, that's not correct. You merely invented a tale that it was going to be >donated to the Golders Green Jewish community in order to fight potential >crime.
It was pointed out to you that this was not correct.
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tl55d$31r7p$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
But nevertjeless for the sake of argument you're going to
pretend you really believe that all u25 million will solely
be of benefit to Jewish residents of Golders Green.
I have proved it is what Starmer said which is all I claimed.
I have only ever claimed that is what Starmer said. In general terms I don't believe anything any government says.
Will we still have to pay for extra protection/policing of Jewish people to the exclusion of everybody else despite the fact the attack was not terrorism
nor antisemitism as we now know?
It's a serious question. In its panic the government has agreed to donate money we don't have because of an event that was nothing to do with antisemitism.
Will we get our money back?
Seriously? In the current economic climate u25 million is being handed out to
one community for an incorrect reason?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppjly591hqrq01c@news.individual.net...
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tl55d$31r7p$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
But nevertjeless for the sake of argument you're going to
pretend you really believe that all u25 million will solely
be of benefit to Jewish residents of Golders Green.
I have proved it is what Starmer said which is all I claimed.
I have only ever claimed that is what Starmer said. In general terms I >>don't believe anything any government says.
So that despite the fact that *on your own admission*
"in general terms "I don't believe anything any government says"
in this instance, clearly that no longer applies; as the examples
quoted below prove beyond doubt.
So tell me Jeff Gaines, what is it about the politician Keir Starmer
that makes you believe every word he says in this instance ?
Is it the neat hairsyle ?
Is it the serious look ?
Or are you going to claim its the man's obvious sincerity ?
So why do you believe Keir Starmer, Jeff ?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppcato1if6s2000@news.individual.net...
Will we still have to pay for extra protection/policing of Jewish people >>to the exclusion of everybody else despite the fact the attack was not >>terrorism nor antisemitism as we now know?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppf8h64jej4f009@news.individual.net...
It's a serious question. In its panic the government has agreed to donate >>money we don't have because of an event that was nothing to do with >>antisemitism.
Will we get our money back?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppfebu4raree00e@news.individual.net...--
Seriously? In the current economic climate u25 million is being handed out >>to one community for an incorrect reason?
On 09/05/2026 in message <10tmp2u$3ga64$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppjly591hqrq01c@news.individual.net...
On 08/05/2026 in message <10tl55d$31r7p$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>wrote:
But nevertjeless for the sake of argument you're going to
pretend you really believe that all u25 million will solely
be of benefit to Jewish residents of Golders Green.
I have proved it is what Starmer said which is all I claimed.
I have only ever claimed that is what Starmer said. In general terms I don't >>>believe anything any government says.
So that despite the fact that *on your own admission*
"in general terms "I don't believe anything any government says"
in this instance, clearly that no longer applies; as the examples
quoted below prove beyond doubt.
So tell me Jeff Gaines, what is it about the politician Keir Starmer
that makes you believe every word he says in this instance ?
Is it the neat hairsyle ?
Is it the serious look ?
Or are you going to claim its the man's obvious sincerity ?
So why do you believe Keir Starmer, Jeff ?
You really are desperate aren't you.
Starmer said:
A further u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the Government has said.
I reported that and a heap of criticism has been raised.
I didn't claim to believe it
I merely reported it and asked if it would proceed since no charges relating to antisemitism have been brought as you have quoted below.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppcato1if6s2000@news.individual.net...
Will we still have to pay for extra protection/policing of Jewish people to >>>the exclusion of everybody else despite the fact the attack was not terrorism
nor antisemitism as we now know?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppf8h64jej4f009@news.individual.net...
It's a serious question. In its panic the government has agreed to donate >>>money we don't have because of an event that was nothing to do with >>>antisemitism.
Will we get our money back?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppfebu4raree00e@news.individual.net...
Seriously? In the current economic climate u25 million is being handed out to
one community for an incorrect reason?
--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Thanks for teaching me the meaning of plethora, it means a lot.
The charges laid were for murder with no mention of antisemitic hate
charges which seems to be what the press calls them.
You keep making this silly point. Why do you insist on disregarding
the multiple explanations of why you're wrong on this?
Why do you call it a silly point, it is factual?
There were several-a reports that he was mentally ill of course, I
tend to assume people will-a have seen them in a high profile matter
like this.
So what?
So it is probably the most relevant factor in this matter.
On 08/05/2026 in message
<slrn10vsn06.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
No you weren't.
Then since you are so adamant why don't you tell me what you think I was being told?
On 09/05/2026 08:38, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message
<slrn10vsn06.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
No you weren't.
Then since you are so adamant why don't you tell me what you think I was
being told?
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
On 09/05/2026 08:38, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message >><slrn10vsn06.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at >>>>least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and >>>>what Starmer said it was for.
No you weren't.
Then since you are so adamant why don't you tell me what you think I was >>being told?
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
On 09/05/2026 in message <10tn02f$3i43s$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 09/05/2026 08:38, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message >>><slrn10vsn06.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at >>>>>least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and >>>>>what Starmer said it was for.
No you weren't.
Then since you are so adamant why don't you tell me what you think I was >>>being told?
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>obviously was. And, you know it was.
There is no evidence for that at all.
JNugent wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at
least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and
what Starmer said it was for.
No, that's not correct. You merely invented a tale that it was going
to be donated to the Golders Green Jewish community in order to fight
potential crime.
It was pointed out to you that this was not correct.
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the
Government has said."
On 2026-05-09, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 09/05/2026 in message <10tn02f$3i43s$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 09/05/2026 08:38, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn10vsn06.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>On 2026-05-08, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
You seem to have missed the point completely. I was being told by at >>>>>>least a couple of people I had invented the -u25 million donation and >>>>>>what Starmer said it was for.
No you weren't.
Then since you are so adamant why don't you tell me what you think I was >>>>being told?
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>obviously was. And, you know it was.
There is no evidence for that at all.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish >>communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the >>Government has said."
Wherever that quote (if it is one) came from, it's not relevant.
You said that the money -u25,000,000 - was going to "Jewish Communities".
On 09/05/2026 in message <n68jrdFk1kiU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish >>> communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the
Government has said."
Wherever that quote (if it is one) came from, it's not relevant.
You said [in your own words] that the money -u25,000,000 - was going to "Jewish
Communities".
Is English not your first language?
Do you think in the light of Starmer's statement it was going to the Kilmarnock green toads' bagpipe group?
On 09/05/2026 12:42 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 09/05/2026 in message <n68jrdFk1kiU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
"A further -u25 million will be invested to increase security for Jewish >>>>communities after the suspected terror attack in north London, the >>>>Government has said."
Wherever that quote (if it is one) came from, it's not relevant.
You said [in your own words] that the money -u25,000,000 - was going to >>>"Jewish
Communities".
Is English not your first language?
Have you the slightest idea how ridiculous you are making yourself sound?
Do you think in the light of Starmer's statement it was going to the >>Kilmarnock green toads' bagpipe group?
No. And neither was it going to "the Jewish community".
It must now be a source of embarrassment and difficulty for you in trying
to assert that you did not say what you did say (and even now, have chosen >to snip rather than address).
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
There is no evidence for-a that at all.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
On 09/05/2026 12:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>obviously was. And, you know it was.
There is no evidence for-a that at all.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when you >clearly don't?
GB wrote:
On 09/05/2026 12:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[GB:]You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>> obviously was. And, you know it was.
There is no evidence for that at all.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when
you clearly don't?
You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
On 10/05/2026 10:34 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:[Jon Ribbens:]
On 09/05/2026 12:39, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[GB:]You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>obviously was. And, you know it was.
There is no evidence for that at all.
And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>you clearly don't?
You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>> obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>> you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>>> obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>>> you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting
evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and he stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this is
not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>>>obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>>>you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep >>>>pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting >>evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and he >stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this is not >evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism" and >"antisemitism"?
On 10 May 2026 at 13:32:42 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>>>>obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>>>>you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep >>>>>pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting >>>evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and he >>stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this is
not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
I am not sure how relevant the fact is that the assailant was Muslim. It >would
have been equally obviously antisemitism if he had been Christian, or even >Jewish. It would have required some striking contrary evidence (such as the >victims being personal enemies) for it to be anything else.
On 10 May 2026 at 13:32:42 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>>>> obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>>>> you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting
evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and he
stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this is
not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
I am not sure how relevant the fact is that the assailant was Muslim. It would
have been equally obviously antisemitism if he had been Christian, or even Jewish. It would have required some striking contrary evidence (such as the victims being personal enemies) for it to be anything else.
On 10/05/2026 in message <n6bc79F2os5U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it
perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence
when
you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting
evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and
he stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this
is not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
I am not going to quibble about meanings of words, no.
You put forward your opinion that this man deliberately travelled to somewhere to stab 2 Jews.
I said the he is mentally ill (reported so a fact) so we have no idea if
he was able to know where he was going, it may come out in court.
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime,
again fact.
You will also be aware that under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a
criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law."
So, once again, Ii have quoted facts, you have stated an opinion. I
fully support you right to have and express an opinion but it is just
that, it is not fact.
On 10 May 2026 at 13:32:42 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it perfectly >>>>>>>>>> obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence when >>>>>> you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep
pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting
evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and he
stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this is
not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
I am not sure how relevant the fact is that the assailant was Muslim. It would
have been equally obviously antisemitism if he had been Christian, or even Jewish. It would have required some striking contrary evidence (such as the victims being personal enemies) for it to be anything else.
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime,
again fact.
On 10/05/2026 02:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <n6bc79F2os5U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it >>>>>>>>>>>perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence >>>>>>>when
you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep >>>>>>pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence.
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no supporting >>>>evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and
he stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this
is not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
I am not going to quibble about meanings of words, no.
You put forward your opinion that this man deliberately travelled to >>somewhere to stab 2 Jews.
I said the he is mentally ill (reported so a fact) so we have no idea if
he was able to know where he was going, it may come out in court.
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>again fact.
You will also be aware that under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, >>Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a >>criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law."
So, once again, Ii have quoted facts, you have stated an opinion. I
fully support you right to have and express an opinion but it is just
that, it is not fact.
Ah, right.
So there is no antisemitism unless and until someone is charged with it as >an aggravating factor and duly convicted?
On the same bais, you m ust believe that there is very little racism in >western society because there are very few related charges and convictions.
Thanks for the clarification. It helps a lot.
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime,
again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to get
to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as "antisemitic
hate crimes".
On 10/05/2026 in message <n6bgaiF3bgqU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2026 02:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <n6bc79F2os5U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it >>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence >>>>>>>> when
you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep >>>>>>> pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence. >>>>>>
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no
supporting
evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and
he stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this >>>> is not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism"
and "antisemitism"?
I am not going to quibble about meanings of words, no.
You put forward your opinion that this man deliberately travelled to
somewhere to stab 2 Jews.
I said the he is mentally ill (reported so a fact) so we have no idea if >>> he was able to know where he was going, it may come out in court.
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime,
again fact.
You will also be aware that under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, >>> Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a
criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law."
So, once again, Ii have quoted facts, you have stated an opinion. I
fully support you right to have and express an opinion but it is just
that, it is not fact.
Ah, right.
So there is no antisemitism unless and until someone is charged with
it as an aggravating factor and duly convicted?
On the same bais, you m ust believe that there is very little racism
in western society because there are very few related charges and
convictions.
Thanks for the clarification. It helps a lot.
If it helps you to differentiate between facts and opinions it may help
you more than you think since it is an area you struggle with.
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as
"antisemitic hate crimes".
On 10 May 2026 at 15:23:20 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>> again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to get >> to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as "antisemitic
hate crimes".
We have indeed discussed this at length. There are a few crimes that are directly related to racism, such as inciting racial hatred. But generally violent crimes are charged according to the nature of the violence, with any racial motivation treated as an aggravating factor for sentencing, although naturally referred to during the evidence.
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime,
again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to
get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as
"antisemitic hate crimes".
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a >> knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the
antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in >> this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious discrimination as racism.
Religious discrimination is about discriminating against people
because of what they believe, what they choose to believe, not because
of what they are.
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2026 at 15:23:20 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>> again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>> the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to get >>> to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as "antisemitic
hate crimes".
We have indeed discussed this at length. There are a few crimes that are
directly related to racism, such as inciting racial hatred. But generally
violent crimes are charged according to the nature of the violence, with any >> racial motivation treated as an aggravating factor for sentencing, although >> naturally referred to during the evidence.
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a >> knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the
antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in >> this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously
motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious discrimination as racism. Religious discrimination is about
discriminating against people because of what they believe, what they
choose to believe, not because of what they are.
We have laws against religious discrimination mainly because religious
people can't get along with other religious people. Overwhelmingly, it
isn't non-religious people discriminating against the religious.
On 10/05/2026 03:21 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <n6bgaiF3bgqU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2026 02:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <n6bc79F2os5U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 10/05/2026 12:26 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:[JG:]
Jeff Gaines wrote:
GB wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
[Jon Ribbens:]
You keep saying it wasn't an antisemitic attack, when it >>>>>>>>>>>>>perfectly
obviously was. And, you know it was.
[JR:]There is no evidence for that at all.
[JG:]And you expect anyone to take you seriously?
[GB:]I expect people to work on the basis of evidence.
[JG:]How come you expect other people to work on the basis of evidence >>>>>>>>>when
you clearly don't?
[JN:]You need to provide some evidence that I do that rather than keep >>>>>>>>pushing your own agenda to the detriment of the available evidence. >>>>>>>
You, alleging that others have an "agenda"?
Oh, the irony!
[JG:]
It seems patently obvious with all the points raised with no >>>>>>supporting
evidence.
I note that once again you provide no evidence...
A Muslim man travels to Golder's Green from his home in SE London and >>>>>he stabs two plainly and obviously orthodox Jews and you say that this >>>>>is not evidence of antisemitism?
Or are you going to quibble about the meaning of the words "semitism" >>>>>and "antisemitism"?
I am not going to quibble about meanings of words, no.
You put forward your opinion that this man deliberately travelled to >>>>somewhere to stab 2 Jews.
I said the he is mentally ill (reported so a fact) so we have no idea if >>>>he was able to know where he was going, it may come out in court.
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>again fact.
You will also be aware that under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, >>>>Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a >>>>criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty >>>>according to law."
So, once again, Ii have quoted facts, you have stated an opinion. I >>>>fully support you right to have and express an opinion but it is just >>>>that, it is not fact.
Ah, right.
So there is no antisemitism unless and until someone is charged with
it as an aggravating factor and duly convicted?
On the same bais, you m ust believe that there is very little racism
in western society because there are very few related charges and >>>convictions.
Thanks for the clarification. It helps a lot.
If it helps you to differentiate between facts and opinions it may help
you more than you think since it is an area you struggle with.
So... The Gospel According To Gaines: There is very little racism in the
UK and almost no antisemitism or anti-muslim feeling here because there
are so few charges brought detailing those things.
On the same basis there is very little speeding and even less uninsured or >unlicenced-driving since the numbers charged are small compared to the >numbers of people driving.
On 10 May 2026 at 15:23:20 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to get >>to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as "antisemitic
hate crimes".
We have indeed discussed this at length. There are a few crimes that are >directly related to racism, such as inciting racial hatred. But generally >violent crimes are charged according to the nature of the violence, with
any
racial motivation treated as an aggravating factor for sentencing, although >naturally referred to during the evidence.
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a >knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the >antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in >this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
I find it surprising that the discussion you referred to did not make this >apparent to you.
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it
involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences
such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault"
offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a
maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come
into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase
in the sentence.
On 10/05/2026 15:23, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to >>get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>"antisemitic hate crimes".
I asked you the same question as Jon a few days ago. You simply ignored it.
The answer is that in the UK there's no crime of racially-aggravated
murder or attempted murder. It's just charged as murder or attempted
murder.
When it comes to court, evidence of racial motivation can be presented,
and, if proved, the judge takes that into account when sentencing.
Multiple posters have attempted to put you right, but you have ignored
them. Here's a post from Mark:
You wrote:
If terrorism or hate crimes were involved
then he would have been charged with them, he hasn't [been].
And, in reply, Mark wrote:
He's been charged with attempted murder. Which is one of the most serious >crimes there is.
"Hate crime" isn't a specific crime, it's a category covering many
different crimes. Of which attempted murder is one. Nobody is ever charged >with "hate crime", they get charged with whatever crime they actually >committed, and then, if it is a hate crime, that will be taken into
account when sentencing (assuming the outcome is a conviction or guilty >plea).
Equally, there's no such crime as "Terrorism". Unlike hate crime, there
are a number of offences which are specifically created by The Terrorism
Act 2000. However, all of these are used in cases where prosecuting a >different crime would not match the seriousness of the offence. In this >particular case, though, there is no Terrorism Act offence which carries a >more severe penalty than attempted murder. So there is no reason not to >charge the attacker with attempted murder.
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences
such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault"
offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a
maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come
into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase
in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
On 10/05/2026 in message <10tqcag$gdto$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 10/05/2026 15:23, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>> again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>> the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to
get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as
"antisemitic hate crimes".
I asked you the same question as Jon a few days ago. You simply ignored it.
I was probably sick of people posting their opinions in the guise of facts.
The answer is that in the UK there's no crime of racially-aggravated
murder or attempted murder. It's just charged as murder or attempted
murder.
When it comes to court, evidence of racial motivation can be presented,
and, if proved, the judge takes that into account when sentencing.
Multiple posters have attempted to put you right, but you have ignored
them. Here's a post from Mark:
You wrote:
If terrorism or hate crimes were involved
then he would have been charged with them, he hasn't [been].
And, in reply, Mark wrote:
He's been charged with attempted murder. Which is one of the most serious
crimes there is.
"Hate crime" isn't a specific crime, it's a category covering many
different crimes. Of which attempted murder is one. Nobody is ever charged >> with "hate crime", they get charged with whatever crime they actually
committed, and then, if it is a hate crime, that will be taken into
account when sentencing (assuming the outcome is a conviction or guilty
plea).
Equally, there's no such crime as "Terrorism". Unlike hate crime, there
are a number of offences which are specifically created by The Terrorism
Act 2000. However, all of these are used in cases where prosecuting a
different crime would not match the seriousness of the offence. In this
particular case, though, there is no Terrorism Act offence which carries a >> more severe penalty than attempted murder. So there is no reason not to
charge the attacker with attempted murder.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any sort
of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>> again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>> the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as
"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your
assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it
involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore
meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences
such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or
religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault"
offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a
maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come
into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase
in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
GB wrote:
On 10/05/2026 15:23, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>> again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>> the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as
"antisemitic hate crimes".
I asked you the same question as Jon a few days ago. You simply
ignored it.
I was probably sick of people posting their opinions in the guise of facts.
The answer is that in the UK there's no crime of racially-aggravated
murder or attempted murder. It's just charged as murder or attempted
murder.
When it comes to court, evidence of racial motivation can be
presented, and, if proved, the judge takes that into account when
sentencing.
Multiple posters have attempted to put you right, but you have ignored
them. Here's a post from Mark:
You wrote:
If terrorism or hate crimes were involved
then he would have been charged with them, he hasn't [been].
And, in reply, Mark wrote:
He's been charged with attempted murder. Which is one of the most
serious crimes there is.
"Hate crime" isn't a specific crime, it's a category covering many
different crimes. Of which attempted murder is one. Nobody is ever
charged with "hate crime", they get charged with whatever crime they
actually committed, and then, if it is a hate crime, that will be
taken into account when sentencing (assuming the outcome is a
conviction or guilty plea).
Equally, there's no such crime as "Terrorism". Unlike hate crime,
there are a number of offences which are specifically created by The
Terrorism Act 2000. However, all of these are used in cases where
prosecuting a different crime would not match the seriousness of the
offence. In this particular case, though, there is no Terrorism Act
offence which carries a more severe penalty than attempted murder. So
there is no reason not to charge the attacker with attempted murder.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences
such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a
maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come
into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase >>>in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any
basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said
and updating your position in light of it?
On 10/05/2026 10:14 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences
such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a
maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come
into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase >>>in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
...and in defiance of the advice you have received multiple times now to
the effect that there are no "hate crimes" as you describe, with "hate" >being merely an aggravating factor.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any sort >>of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
He has been charged with very serious crimes that any reasonable person >knowing the context would be aware were almost certainly hate crimes.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for the
CPS to use?
On 2026-05-10, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a >>> knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the >>> antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in >>> this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly
religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously
motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious
discrimination as racism.
There is a very strong correlation between a person's religion and the religion of their parents - and an even stronger correlation between a person's race and that of their parents :-) So in many cases, whether
someone is discriminating against religion or race is almost a moot
point, one is a proxy for the other.
Religious discrimination is about discriminating against people
because of what they believe, what they choose to believe, not because
of what they are.
It might be. But much more commonly, it isn't, it's about what the
person doing the discriminating chooses to believe.
On 10 May 2026 at 17:29:46 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 May 2026 at 15:23:20 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>>> again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>> religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>>> the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>> not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try to get >>>> to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as "antisemitic >>>> hate crimes".
We have indeed discussed this at length. There are a few crimes that are >>> directly related to racism, such as inciting racial hatred. But generally >>> violent crimes are charged according to the nature of the violence, with any
racial motivation treated as an aggravating factor for sentencing, although >>> naturally referred to during the evidence.
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a >>> knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the >>> antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in >>> this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly
religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously
motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious
discrimination as racism. Religious discrimination is about
discriminating against people because of what they believe, what they
choose to believe, not because of what they are.
We have laws against religious discrimination mainly because religious
people can't get along with other religious people. Overwhelmingly, it
isn't non-religious people discriminating against the religious.
The disadvantage of 'racism' as a term is that human races do not really exist, but I think it is fairly well established that Jewish people are, socially speaking, an ethnic group as well as generally belonging the Jewish religion. I am prepared to be contradicted by anyone who actually knows what they are talking about, if necessary.
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>>>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try >>>>>to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences >>>>such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and >>>>Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a >>>>maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come >>>>into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase >>>>in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any
basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said
and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on facts,
I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
On 5/10/26 19:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him
with a knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or
murder) and the antisemitism is not a separate offence that is
charged. Even though, as in this case, it is (albeit potentially
rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly
religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously
motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious
discrimination as racism.
There is a very strong correlation between a person's religion and the
religion of their parents - and an even stronger correlation between a
person's race and that of their parents :-) So in many cases, whether
someone is discriminating against religion or race is almost a moot
point, one is a proxy for the other.
No, we have free will.
Religious discrimination is about discriminating against people
because of what they believe, what they choose to believe, not because
of what they are.
It might be. But much more commonly, it isn't, it's about what the
person doing the discriminating chooses to believe.
I think you are trying to make the point that often bad ideologies discriminate against good ideologies, but that doesn't contradict my
point. There is a difference between judging people for what they choose
to believe, and judging people for what they are.
On 5/10/26 19:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him with a >>>> knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or murder) and the >>>> antisemitism is not a separate offence that is charged. Even though, as in >>>> this case, it is (albeit potentially rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly
religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously
motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious
discrimination as racism.
There is a very strong correlation between a person's religion and the
religion of their parents - and an even stronger correlation between a
person's race and that of their parents :-) So in many cases, whether
someone is discriminating against religion or race is almost a moot
point, one is a proxy for the other.
No, we have free will.
On 2026-05-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate >>>>>>>>crime,
again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such >>>>>>>that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try >>>>>>to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences >>>>>such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and >>>>>Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a >>>>>maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come >>>>>into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an >>>>>increase
in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any >>>basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said
and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on facts,
I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the >>moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
I really should have listened to myself five years ago, when I said:
"Ok, fair enough, I give up. You're simply too stupid to be worth
bothering with."
On 11/05/2026 in message <5618095867.cadd6645@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort
of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
He has been charged with very serious crimes that any reasonable person
knowing the context would be aware were almost certainly hate crimes.
Again, with the greatest respect, that is speculation/opinion.
The facts are a mentally ill man got a bus to somewhere, deliberately or accidentally, we don't know, and attacked a couple of people with a
knife. That is as far as it goes at the moment.
On 11/05/2026 08:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <5618095867.cadd6645@uninhabited.net> Roger >>Hayter wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>sort
of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
He has been charged with very serious crimes that any reasonable person >>>knowing the context would be aware were almost certainly hate crimes.
Again, with the greatest respect, that is speculation/opinion.
The facts are a mentally ill man got a bus to somewhere, deliberately or >>accidentally, we don't know, and attacked a couple of people with a >>knife. That is as far as it goes at the moment.
To be frank, you appear completely obsessed in defending a daft position. >But, at least, you've moved on from your original statement that no >antisemitism was involved.
On 11/05/2026 in message <slrn110353j.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon
Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message <slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>>>>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>>>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate crime, >>>>>>>>>again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such that >>>>>>>>the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try >>>>>>>to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>>>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism" >>>>>>or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>>>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>>>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences >>>>>>such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and >>>>>>Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault, >>>>>>ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>>>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>>>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a >>>>>>maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come >>>>>>into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an increase >>>>>>in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any >>>>basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said >>>>and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on facts, >>>I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the >>>moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
I really should have listened to myself five years ago, when I said:
"Ok, fair enough, I give up. You're simply too stupid to be worth
bothering with."
You really need to distinguish between facts and opinion.#
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppnd3qcpfqat025@news.individual.net...
On 11/05/2026 in message <slrn110353j.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>>>>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate >>>>>>>>>>crime,
again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially >>>>>>>>>and/or
religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such >>>>>>>>>that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks >>>>>>>>>were
not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try >>>>>>>>to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>>>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>>>>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism" >>>>>>>or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>>>>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>>>>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences >>>>>>>such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and >>>>>>>Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault, >>>>>>>ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>>>>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>>>>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a >>>>>>>maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come >>>>>>>into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an >>>>>>>increase
in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that; >>>>>you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any >>>>>basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said >>>>>and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on >>>>facts,
I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the >>>>moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
I really should have listened to myself five years ago, when I said:
"Ok, fair enough, I give up. You're simply too stupid to be worth >>>bothering with."
You really need to distinguish between facts and opinion.#
Do you mean the fact that you really are stupid ?
Or fact that in most people'e opinion, you really are stupid ?
quote:
Voters in Dorset have overwhelmingly backed leaving the European Union.
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36615415
Now there's a surprise !
On 2026-05-11, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/26 19:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/26 15:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
So if a racist goes and attacks some Jewish people not known to him
with a knife he is going to be charged with attempted murder (or
murder) and the antisemitism is not a separate offence that is
charged. Even though, as in this case, it is (albeit potentially
rebuttably) self-evident.
Why do you say racist? I thought the people he attacked were visibly
religious. So if we are to assume anything it should be religiously
motivated hatred.
I very much dislike the way religious people misrepresent religious
discrimination as racism.
There is a very strong correlation between a person's religion and the
religion of their parents - and an even stronger correlation between a
person's race and that of their parents :-) So in many cases, whether
someone is discriminating against religion or race is almost a moot
point, one is a proxy for the other.
No, we have free will.
That has nothing to do with what I said above.
On 5/10/26 19:39, Jon Ribbens wrote:
There is a very strong correlation between a person's religion and the
religion of their parents - and an even stronger correlation between a
person's race and that of their parents :-) So in many cases, whether
someone is discriminating against religion or race is almost a moot
point, one is a proxy for the other.
No, we have free will.
I believe it is reasonable to judge people for being Zionist, or even
Jewish religious.
On 11/05/2026 14:40, Pancho wrote:
I believe it is reasonable to judge people for being Zionist, or even
Jewish religious.
So, if you were hiring an employee, you would discriminate against them
on the grounds of their religious or political beliefs?
On 5/11/26 16:29, GB wrote:
On 11/05/2026 14:40, Pancho wrote:
I believe it is reasonable to judge people for being Zionist, or even
Jewish religious.
So, if you were hiring an employee, you would discriminate against
them on the grounds of their religious or political beliefs?
As I said in the bit you snipped.
---
For the avoidance of doubt, I do support anti-discrimination laws in preventing oppressive behaviour, but this should not exclude all criticism. ---
Political beliefs are not protected. I'm not an employer, but my
personal inclination would be to ignore social life issues like politics
and religion and concentrate on ability to perform the job. However, I
don't know how much I would bend to external pressure, reputational risk
and what not.
I do remember a personal bias against a South African interviewee (the
big moral issue of my youth) but he was employed.
<slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any
basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said
and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on
facts, I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
It seem the good people of Golders Green have received u25 million of
money we can's afford for chanting "antisemitism" loudly.
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6cknaF8s87U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2026 10:14 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message
<slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate
crime,
again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>> religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such
that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>> not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try
to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as
"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your
assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it
involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore
meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences
such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and
Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or
religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault"
offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a
maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come
into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an
increase
in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
...and in defiance of the advice you have received multiple times now
to the effect that there are no "hate crimes" as you describe, with
"hate" being merely an aggravating factor.
I haven't received "advice", if I want advice I go to professionals,
several people have offered opinions.
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for
the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't
committed one has he?
On 11/05/2026 in message <5618095867.cadd6645@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any
sort
of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
He has been charged with very serious crimes that any reasonable person
knowing the context would be aware were almost certainly hate crimes.
Again, with the greatest respect, that is speculation/opinion.
The facts are a mentally ill man got a bus to somewhere, deliberately or accidentally, we don't know, and attacked a couple of people with a
knife. That is as far as it goes at the moment.
On 11/05/2026 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any >>>basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said
and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on
facts, I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the >>moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
It seem the good people of Golders Green have received u25 million of
money we can's afford for chanting "antisemitism" loudly.
Oh, my Gawd...
Back to square 1.
On 11/05/2026 08:44 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6cknaF8s87U1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2026 10:14 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn11019gq.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 10/05/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn11013nn.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I also pointed out that he faces no charges of antisemitic hate >>>>>>>>crime,
again fact.
Suppose for a moment that the attacks were definitely racially and/or >>>>>>>religiously motivated: what charges would you expect to see, such >>>>>>>that
the lack of these charges leads you to conclude that the attacks were >>>>>>>not racially or religiously motivated?
No idea what they are technically, my attempts some time ago to try >>>>>>to get to the bottom of this failed. The press refers to them as >>>>>>"antisemitic hate crimes".
So, your conclusion is not based on facts then, it is based on your >>>>>assumption that a charge exists which has "hate" or "antisemitism"
or similar in the name that would be appropriate in this case if it >>>>>involved antisemitism and so the lack of such a charge is therefore >>>>>meaningful.
As far as I can tell, your assumption is false. There exist offences >>>>>such as "racially or religiously aggravated assault" (Crime and >>>>>Disorder Act 1998 s29) which can be charged in cases of assault,
ABH, GBH, etc, but there appears to be no such thing as "racially or >>>>>religiously aggravated attempted murder". The "aggravated assault" >>>>>offence has a maximum of 7 years, whereas attempted murder has a >>>>>maximum of life.
I think in a case like this, the "hate crime" aspect would only come >>>>>into it at the sentencing phase, and would potentially cause an >>>>>increase
in the sentence.
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
...and in defiance of the advice you have received multiple times now
to the effect that there are no "hate crimes" as you describe, with >>>"hate" being merely an aggravating factor.
I haven't received "advice", if I want advice I go to professionals, >>several people have offered opinions.
Go and find a "professional" who will confirm for you that a non-existent >criminal offence exists.
On 11/05/2026 08:47 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <5618095867.cadd6645@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>sort
of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
He has been charged with very serious crimes that any reasonable person >>>knowing the context would be aware were almost certainly hate crimes.
Again, with the greatest respect, that is speculation/opinion.
The facts are a mentally ill man got a bus to somewhere, deliberately or >>accidentally, we don't know, and attacked a couple of people with a
knife. That is as far as it goes at the moment.
That is NOT all we know and it isn't as far as it goes.#
Have you forgotten the things we know about that attack?
Or is it simply convenient to pretend that you have forgotten it?
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for
the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that >>question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't
committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much).
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing
as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a >crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been
explained to you many times.
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eem8FhdfiU7@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2026 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>> sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that;
you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any
basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said
and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on
facts, I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the >>> moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
It seem the good people of Golders Green have received -u25 million of
money we can's afford for chanting "antisemitism" loudly.
Oh, my Gawd...
Back to square 1.
In the absence of any FACTS from anybody else my position remains the same.
Have you made any progress in providing facts rather than your opinion?
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eethFhdfiU9@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>> sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for
the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that
question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't
committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much).
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing
as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a
crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been
explained to you many times.
Don't think so.
On 11 May 2026 at 21:49:23 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eethFhdfiU9@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>>
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>> sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for >>>>> the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that >>>> question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't
committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much). >>>
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing >>> as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a
crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been
explained to you many times.
Don't think so.
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in muslim dress
outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't try betting on horse races.
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to
Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in
muslim dress outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate
random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't
try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the
police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates
them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have
charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind
it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two
different charges for the same offence?
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 21:49:23 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eethFhdfiU9@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>>> sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for >>>>>> the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that >>>>> question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't
committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much). >>>>
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing >>>> as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a >>>> crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been
explained to you many times.
Don't think so.
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to
Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in muslim dress
outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate random event; nothing >> to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two different charges for the same offence?
On 11/05/2026 10:16 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 21:49:23 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the police he
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eethFhdfiU9@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>>
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>>>> sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for >>>>>>> the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that >>>>>> question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't
committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much). >>>>>
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing >>>>> as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a >>>>> crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been
explained to you many times.
Don't think so.
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to
Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in muslim dress
outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate random event; nothing
to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't try betting on horse races. >>
had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates them, what would >> have been the precise offence the police would have charged him with,
reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind it is not proper (except
in a few technical cases) to make two different charges for the same offence?
Assuming he carried out his plans and attacked a number of people:
attempted murder (as many counts as there were victims).
On 12 May 2026 at 00:02:49 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2026 10:16 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>
On 11 May 2026 at 21:49:23 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the police he
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eethFhdfiU9@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>>>>> sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for >>>>>>>> the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that >>>>>>> question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't >>>>>>> committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much). >>>>>>
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing >>>>>> as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a >>>>>> crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been
explained to you many times.
Don't think so.
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to
Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in muslim dress
outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate random event; nothing
to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't try betting on horse races. >>>
had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates them, what would >>> have been the precise offence the police would have charged him with,
reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind it is not proper (except
in a few technical cases) to make two different charges for the same offence?
Assuming he carried out his plans and attacked a number of people:
attempted murder (as many counts as there were victims).
Assuming none of them died!
On 11 May 2026 at 21:45:50 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eem8FhdfiU7@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2026 08:43 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<slrn110206t.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>>On 2026-05-10, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
Yes, but my post above explains how you are mistaken in doing that; >>>>>you are making an error and you are wrong to think that you have any >>>>>basis for your statements. Perhaps you could try reading what I said >>>>>and updating your position in light of it?
Not sure of the validity of your posts, my statements are based on >>>>facts, I have no idea if you are qualified to explain the law.
The fact remains no race/religious hate charges have been laid so at the >>>>moment there is no suggestion it was race or religious hate.
It seem the good people of Golders Green have received -u25 million of >>>>money we can's afford for chanting "antisemitism" loudly.
Oh, my Gawd...
Back to square 1.
In the absence of any FACTS from anybody else my position remains the >>same.
Have you made any progress in providing facts rather than your opinion?
A man travelled from South London to one of a handful of places in North >London where you could be certain of seeing a large number of observant >Jews,
for no extraneous reason that has been hinted at, and stabbed two of a
group
of men wearing Jewish religious emblems. Applying my impressive knowledge
of
Bayesian statistics (and a modicum of common sense) I assess the
probability
of this being an attack motivated by antisemitism at greater than 95%.
One would have to be completely mad (or have a forlorn antisemitic agenda) >to
reach any different conclusion. At least in the absence of an alternative >explanation. The attacker being mentally ill really does not alter this >assessment.
You are flogging a dead zebra.
On 11 May 2026 at 21:49:23 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6eethFhdfiU9@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2026 08:49 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message <n6ckr7F8s87U2@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
My statements are based on the fact that no charges were laid for any >>>>>>sort of hate crime as I have made clear many times.
What "hate crimes" do you say are on the statute book, available for >>>>>the CPS to use?
As I have said before when I raised this a year or so ago I asked that >>>>question but didn't really get anywhere.
If these are no hate crimes he can be charged with then he hasn't >>>>committed one has he?
Well... I'll give you that much, for what it's worth (which isn't much).
But of course, you have been told repeatedly that there is no such thing >>>as a hate crime, distinct from other crimes.
"hate", where it can be demonstrated and imputed in the commission of a >>>crime, is an aggravating factor, not a crime in itself.
And you cannot claim that that you did not know that. It has been >>>explained to you many times.
Don't think so.
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to >Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in muslim >dress
outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate random event;
nothing
to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't try betting on horse races.
On 2026-05-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to >>>Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in
muslim dress outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate >>>random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't
try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the
police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates
them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have >>charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind
it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two
different charges for the same offence?
He's already been asked that question several times. His answer is that
he has no idea - and he's got himself so twisted around that he reckons
that somehow his lack of knowledge proves there was no hate crime. It's >completely bizarre.
On 11/05/2026 in message
<slrn1104mj2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>> Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to
Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in
muslim dress outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate
random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."?-a If so, don't
try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the
police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates
them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have
charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind
it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two
different charges for the same offence?
He's already been asked that question several times. His answer is that
he has no idea - and he's got himself so twisted around that he reckons
that somehow his lack of knowledge proves there was no hate crime. It's
completely bizarre.
How do we know that, has he told the police in an interview and has it
been made public? You will have to hypothesise as the "man from
Highgate" is hypothetical.
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to
Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in
muslim dress outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate
random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't
try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the
police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates
them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have
charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind
it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two
different charges for the same offence?
He's already been asked that question several times. His answer is that
he has no idea - and he's got himself so twisted around that he reckons
that somehow his lack of knowledge proves there was no hate crime. It's
completely bizarre.
How do we know that, has he told the police in an interview and has it
been made public?
On 12/05/2026 08:40, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 11/05/2026 in message >><slrn1104mj2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-11, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 11 May 2026 at 22:05:18 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to >>>>>Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in >>>>>muslim dress outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate >>>>>random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."?-a If so, don't >>>>>try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the >>>>police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates >>>>them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have >>>>charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind >>>>it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two >>>>different charges for the same offence?
He's already been asked that question several times. His answer is that >>>he has no idea - and he's got himself so twisted around that he reckons >>>that somehow his lack of knowledge proves there was no hate crime. It's >>>completely bizarre.
How do we know that, has he told the police in an interview and has it >>been made public? You will have to hypothesise as the "man from Highgate" >>is hypothetical.
I can't make up my mind whether you are deliberately trolling or you've
just confused yourself.
I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but maybe I should give you the benefit
of the doubt and conclude that you're simply raving? ;)
On 12/05/2026 08:40 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Supposing someone from Highgate had travelled by public transport to >>>>>Whitechapel (where he knew no one) and stabbed a couple of men in >>>>>muslim dress outside a mosque, would you think: "Ah, an unfortunate >>>>>random event; nothing to do with them being Muslim."? If so, don't >>>>>try betting on horse races.
Follow up question: suppose the gentleman from Highate had told the >>>>police he had set out that day to kill some Muslims because he hates >>>>them, what would have been the precise offence the police would have >>>>charged him with, reflecting the gravity of his crime. Bearing in mind >>>>it is not proper (except in a few technical cases) to make two >>>>different charges for the same offence?
He's already been asked that question several times. His answer is that >>>he has no idea - and he's got himself so twisted around that he reckons >>>that somehow his lack of knowledge proves there was no hate crime. It's >>>completely bizarre.
How do we know that, has he told the police in an interview and has it
been made public?
Er... you'd better sit down...
Sitting comfortably? That's better. I'll begin...
He wasn't talking about the suspect.
He was talking about you.
I am not trolling
On 12/05/2026 12:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am not trolling
The trouble is that that's what you'd say whether or not you are trolling. >Catch 22.
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that none has been committed.
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvbi6$207qg$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 12/05/2026 12:42, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I am not trolling
The trouble is that that's what you'd say whether or not you are
trolling. Catch 22.
"I'm obviously not a robot".
"That's what a robot would say"
It's not all I said and people who know me from 30 years on Usenet know
I don't troll.
I do get extremely pissed off with people who push their own agenda and
make things up, including attributions, to prevent a sensible
discussion, worse moderators who decide when the discussion has gone on
long enough for their personal liking and refuse posts.
worse moderators who decide when the discussion has gone on long
enough for their personal liking and refuse posts.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a charge >>by
the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that none has been >>committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
On 12 May 2026 14:45:43 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
worse moderators who decide when the discussion has gone on long
enough for their personal liking and refuse posts.
So refuse to post in moderated groups and you won't have to deal with
that particular tendency to censor your posts.
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a charge by
the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that none has been >>>committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a charge >>>>by
the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that none has been >>>>committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a charge >>>>>by
the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that none has been >>>>>committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL,
Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppq0wgfd0qya02n@news.individual.net...
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>charge
by
the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that none has been >>>>>>committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>TRIAL,
Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed >>innocent
until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
In which case, whatever crime he was charged with by the
police is totally irrelevant, isn't it ? As is the
question as to whether or not he is suffering from
mental illness
All totally irrelevant, according to you.
So why have you persisted in wasting everybody's time*
by having them try and explain these things to you,
when you've now decided that none of this really
matters ?
Apparently you've doing this now for 30 years. Clearly
the only reason you eventually landed up on a moderated
group such a ULM is that this was the few places left
where you could be protected from the abuse and escape
from the killfiles to which you'd been rightly
subjected elsewhere. I also have no doubt that as
with Nugent, another "refugee" you have been partially
responsible for the eventual demise of numerous
newsgroups along the way.
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately
released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
On 13/05/2026 in message <slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>>charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
On 13/05/2026 in message <slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>> charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>> none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately
released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
On 13 May 2026 at 10:35:54 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>>>charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later >>>>>by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a >>>>>hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>>released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct >>statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, >>perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
If you were to claim this was just a random copycat antisemitic attack by a >deranged individual (as the authorities claimed about the fascist attack on >Brixton market and a gay Soho pub a few years back which was of some
concern
to me as I must have walked past one of the bombs earlier that day) then it >would be hard to refute your argument. But subject to what evidence comes >out
later, as in the case of the fascist attack I referred to. However your >claim
it was not self-evidently antisemitic just discredits you. It is a gift to >the
people trying to discredit your political argument.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct >>statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, >>perfectly possible.
Sadly I regret to inform you that I am calling you a dickhead for free, >nobody is paying me to do so.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
I already told you the correct word is "christophobia".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
That's not discrimination against Christians, no matter what you call it.
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
On 13/05/2026 in message <6848553596.dac029c7@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2026 at 10:35:54 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy
bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in messageI have none in mind,
news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>>>> charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>>> none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ? >>>>>>>
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later >>>>>> by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a >>>>>> hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence >>>>>> of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately
released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct >>> statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well,
perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
If you were to claim this was just a random copycat antisemitic attack by a >> deranged individual (as the authorities claimed about the fascist attack on >> Brixton market and a gay Soho pub a few years back which was of some
concern
to me as I must have walked past one of the bombs earlier that day) then it >> would be hard to refute your argument. But subject to what evidence comes
out
later, as in the case of the fascist attack I referred to. However your
claim
it was not self-evidently antisemitic just discredits you. It is a gift to >> the
people trying to discredit your political argument.
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
On 13 May 2026 at 12:04:41 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <6848553596.dac029c7@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2026 at 10:35:54 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>>>bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...I have none in mind,
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of >>>>>>>>>>a
charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ? >>>>>>>>
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later >>>>>>>by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a >>>>>>>hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence >>>>>>>of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an >>>>>>>ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which >>>>>>>there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be >>>>>>>easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be >>>>>>>decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>>>>released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to >>>>>Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara >>>>budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly >>>>correct
statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, >>>>perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
If you were to claim this was just a random copycat antisemitic attack by >>>a
deranged individual (as the authorities claimed about the fascist attack >>>on
Brixton market and a gay Soho pub a few years back which was of some >>>concern
to me as I must have walked past one of the bombs earlier that day) then >>>it
would be hard to refute your argument. But subject to what evidence comes >>>out
later, as in the case of the fascist attack I referred to. However your >>>claim
it was not self-evidently antisemitic just discredits you. It is a gift >>>to
the
people trying to discredit your political argument.
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually >being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly been >committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until proved >guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the trial of his >murderer.
On 13/05/2026 in message <slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon
Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>>charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later
by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a
hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, perfectly possible.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppq455fhfawt02p@news.individual.net...
On 13/05/2026 in message <slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> >>Jon
Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of a >>>>>>>>charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>>none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ?
I have none in mind,
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later >>>>>by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves.
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a >>>>>hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence
of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which
there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>>released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara >>budget.
The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct >>statements
make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, perfectly >>possible.
Damn ! It looks like we've finally been rumbled, at last.
And you're right of course. Our aim all along has been to
reduce you to the state of a dribbling imbecile.
Although unfortunately, in your case it looks as if somebody
else, has already got there first.
On 12/05/2026 in message
<20260512213758.57dbf997@deangelis.fenrir.org.uk> Brian Morrison
wrote:
On 12 May 2026 14:45:43 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
worse moderators who decide when the discussion has gone on long
enough for their personal liking and refuse posts.
So refuse to post in moderated groups and you won't have to deal with
that particular tendency to censor your posts.
You think that's a solution?
On 13/05/2026 in message <7112835235.9d7267fa@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2026 at 12:04:41 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <6848553596.dac029c7@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2026 at 10:35:54 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message
<slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy
bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>>>> bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in messageI have none in mind,
news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence of >>>>>>>>>>> a
charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence that >>>>>>>>>>> none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ? >>>>>>>>>
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later >>>>>>>> by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves. >>>>>>>>
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a >>>>>>>> hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence >>>>>>>> of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an
ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which >>>>>>>> there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be
easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult
to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be
decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>> FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>> presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>>>>> released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to
Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly
correct
statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, >>>>> perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
If you were to claim this was just a random copycat antisemitic attack by >>>> a
deranged individual (as the authorities claimed about the fascist attack >>>> on
Brixton market and a gay Soho pub a few years back which was of some
concern
to me as I must have walked past one of the bombs earlier that day) then >>>> it
would be hard to refute your argument. But subject to what evidence comes >>>> out
later, as in the case of the fascist attack I referred to. However your >>>> claim
it was not self-evidently antisemitic just discredits you. It is a gift >>>> to
the
people trying to discredit your political argument.
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly been >> committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until proved
guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the trial of his >> murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's pointless.
On 13 May 2026 at 12:55:18 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <7112835235.9d7267fa@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2026 at 12:04:41 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <6848553596.dac029c7@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
On 13 May 2026 at 10:35:54 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message >>>>>><slrn1108fh2.425.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-13, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 13/05/2026 in message <10u1714$2gke2$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>>>bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>news:xn0ppp76vepwbwh02l@news.individual.net...
On 12/05/2026 in message <10tvlaj$23ocp$1@dont-email.me> billy >>>>>>>>>>bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>news:xn0ppot0ze6oxrr02i@news.individual.net...I have none in mind,
In fact, of course, I have said several times that the absence >>>>>>>>>>>>of
a
charge by the police for a hate crime is pretty good evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>that
none has been committed.
So which particular hate crime, or crimes, did you have in mind ? >>>>>>>>>>
That's because non exist.
The hate element is added later by the CPS, and possibly even later >>>>>>>>>by the Trial Judge in sentencing*; not by the police themselves. >>>>>>>>>
It's technically impossible for the police to charge anyone with a >>>>>>>>>hate crime.
So the absence of evidence of a hate crime charge, is not evidence >>>>>>>>>of the absence of a hate crime.
Your reasoning is totally flawed.
The police can only ever arrest and charge a suspect for an >>>>>>>>>ordinary everyday offence GBH, attempted murder etc, for which >>>>>>>>>there is actual physical evidence; and which can in theory be >>>>>>>>>easily proved in Court.
Whether a hate element exists may prove much more difficult >>>>>>>>>to establish to the satisfaction of a jury; and so will be >>>>>>>>>decided on much later, by the CPS or the Judge.
bb
* The same it seems, can also apply to terrorism
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/12/palestine-action-activists-elbit-protest-terrorist-connection-ruling
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>>>FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Clearly he is a fine upstanding individual, he should be immediately >>>>>>>released and provided with a shiny new knife and a bus ticket to >>>>>>>Stamford Hill.
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara >>>>>>budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly >>>>>>correct
statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as >>>>>>well,
perfectly possible.
There is an excellent example of antichristianism here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/threeyearold-ultraorthodox-jewish-children-told-the-nonjews-are-evil-in-worksheet-produced-by-school-10481682.html
Wonder if the government will cough -u25 million to stamp it out?
If you were to claim this was just a random copycat antisemitic attack >>>>>by
a
deranged individual (as the authorities claimed about the fascist >>>>>attack
on
Brixton market and a gay Soho pub a few years back which was of some >>>>>concern
to me as I must have walked past one of the bombs earlier that day) >>>>>then
it
would be hard to refute your argument. But subject to what evidence >>>>>comes
out
later, as in the case of the fascist attack I referred to. However your >>>>>claim
it was not self-evidently antisemitic just discredits you. It is a gift >>>>>to
the
people trying to discredit your political argument.
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually >>>being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>been
committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until proved >>>guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the trial of >>>his
murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't >>understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>pointless.
The suspect may be presumed innocent, but someone has clearly still been >murdered! A murder has taken place. Or, in the case in hand, an antisemitic >attack has still taken place, regardless of the presumed innocence of the >accused.
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly
been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until
proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the
trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's pointless.
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually >>>being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't >>understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had
to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an >innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is simply
a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not claimed to have >any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired when >applied to your continued trolling.
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and
actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the
trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's
pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime
had to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be
solved because there would be no power of arrest and no right to
question a suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to
bring an innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed
committing the crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent uncles
and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually >>>> being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the
trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's
pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had
to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an
innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the
crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>> presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually >>>>> being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>> trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>>> pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had >>> to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an
innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >>> crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the
Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent
uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal is totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an almost-certainly antisemitic attack *happened* and two unfortunate people *were* seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
On 14 May 2026 at 10:54:24 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>> presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>>> trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>>>> pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had >>>> to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an
innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >>>> crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the
Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent >>> uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal is >> totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an
almost-certainly antisemitic attack *happened* and two unfortunate people
*were* seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
Or does some strange kind of metaphysics mean that the perpetrator's innocence
does not make the attack non-existent, just makes it non-antisemitic?
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and >>>>>actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>>>been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>>>proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>>trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't >>>>understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>>>pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had >>>to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved >>>because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a >>>suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an >>>innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >>>crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the >>Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent >>uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal is >totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an >almost-certainly antisemitic attack happened and two unfortunate people
were seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change
the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
On 14/05/2026 in message <5246388652.2ea015fe@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>> FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>> presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and
actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>>> trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>>>> pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had >>>> to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an
innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >>>> crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the
Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent >>> uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal is >> totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an
almost-certainly antisemitic attack happened and two unfortunate people
were seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change
the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
Any assault is nasty but we were discussing the state of the suspect who
is currently innocent.
On 14 May 2026 at 11:50:04 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <5246388652.2ea015fe@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>>>FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>>>presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and >>>>>>>actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having >>>>>>>blatantly
been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent >>>>>>>until
proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>>>>trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't >>>>>>understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, >>>>>>it's
pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime >>>>>had
to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved >>>>>because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a >>>>>suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an >>>>>innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing >>>>>the
crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the >>>>Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent >>>>uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal >>>is
totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an >>>almost-certainly antisemitic attack happened and two unfortunate people >>>were seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change >>>the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
Any assault is nasty but we were discussing the state of the suspect who
is currently innocent.
Honestly, I thought we were discussing an antisemitic attack in Golders >Green!
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara
budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly
correct statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet
as well, perfectly possible.
On 13/05/2026 10:35, Jeff Gaines wrote:
It is very easy on Facebook to identify posts funded by the Hasbara >>budget. The number of posts in this thread attacking my perfectly correct >>statements make me wonder if they are funding people on Usenet as well, >>perfectly possible.
I wish! You are Mike Corley, and ICMFP.
Here's a link to your opera: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corley_Conspiracy
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
-aUnder the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is
simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not
claimed to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired
when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you
look at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
-aUnder the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is >>>simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not claimed >>>to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired >>>when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions >>forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you look >>at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only for >the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for the >purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think before >the verdict.
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions >>>forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you look >>>at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only for >>the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for the >>purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think before >>the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal
group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
"When you're dead, you do not know that you are dead. The pain is felt
by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid."
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn110cggj.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
"When you're dead, you do not know that you are dead. The pain is felt
by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid."
Ricky !!!
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>> presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is
simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not claimed >>>> to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired
when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions
forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you look >>> at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only for
the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for the
purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think before >> the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal
group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is
simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not
claimed to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago
expired when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your
opinions forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you
look at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only
for the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for
the purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think
before the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal
group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
On 2026-05-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn110cggj.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
"When you're dead, you do not know that you are dead. The pain is felt
by others. The same thing happens when you're stupid."
Ricky !!!
Indeed, although it appears someone improved it a bit from his version.
On 14/05/2026 10:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence >>>>>>shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is >>>>>simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not >>>>>claimed to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago
expired when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your
opinions forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you >>>>look at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only
for the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for >>>the purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think >>>before the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal >>group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
What does "presumed" mean?
Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be charged with
an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of innocence.
How do you square that?
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>> presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually >>>>> being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>> trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>>> pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had >>> to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an
innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >>> crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the
Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent
uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal is totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an almost-certainly antisemitic attack *happened* and two unfortunate people *were* seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal
group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
What does "presumed" mean?
Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be charged
with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of innocence.
How do you square that?
Do you think the normal rule doesn't apply then?
Your assertion is nonsense, despite what you might see on TV people are arrested "on suspicion of..."
On 14 May 2026 at 22:20:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall >>>>>>be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is >>>>>simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not >>>>>claimed
to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired >>>>>when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions >>>>forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you >>>>look
at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only for >>>the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for the >>>purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think >>>before
the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal >>group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
So if someone is found dead with an axe embedded in their head you are >determined to assume that there has not been a murder committed until >someone
is tried and convicted? It could have just been a juggling accident? Or
they
asked someone to pass them a packet of cigarettes and they misheard?
On 14/05/2026 10:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 10:31:32 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6likqFakfuU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote: >>>
On 13/05/2026 12:55 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Roger Hayter wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>> presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
There is a subtle difference between being presumed innocent and actually
being innocent. There is a difference between a crime having blatantly >>>>>> been committed and a particular person being treated as innocent until >>>>>> proved guilty. A murder victim is unecquivocally dead even before the >>>>>> trial of his murderer.
The victim may be dead but the suspect is still innocent. I can't
understand how people can argue against what the law clearly says, it's >>>>> pointless.
He is merely presumed to be innocent.
That's what you yourself quoted above.
If that had to be taken literally, and everyone suspected of a crime had >>>> to be actually treated as "innocent", no crime would ever be solved
because there would be no power of arrest and no right to question a
suspect in an interview. Indeed, there would be no power to bring an
innocent person to trial, even if they had been witnessed committing the >>>> crime by a police officer.
Oh, hang on...
Your childish playing with words is really tedious. The suspect in the
Golders Green has not been found guilty of any hate crime so is innocent >>> uncles and until he is.
It really is simple and you should be able to understand it.
Without playing with any innocent words at all, I concede that your pal is >> totally innocent at the moment; however, it is still the case that an
almost-certainly antisemitic attack *happened* and two unfortunate people
*were* seriously injured in Golders Green. So his innocence doesn't change the
reality for those poor people that the attack happened.
If someone with major mental health problems and a form of psychosis
attacks someone whose clothing identifies them as Jewish, arguably that
is an antisemitic attack. But not necessarily with the intent to harm a
Jew rather than someone who happened to be nearby. So arguably
antisemitism requires an intent to harm/insult/threaten Jews specifically.
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I
just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all
Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country
and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who
hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards
women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution
guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police
training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being
stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that
they must teach their sons not to assault women.
On 14/05/2026 in message <9947402665.5e589a05@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 22:20:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>> FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall >>>>>>> be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is >>>>>> simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not
claimed
to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired >>>>>> when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions >>>>> forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you >>>>> look
at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>> TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only for >>>> the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for the >>>> purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think
before
the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal
group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
So if someone is found dead with an axe embedded in their head you are
determined to assume that there has not been a murder committed until
someone
is tried and convicted? It could have just been a juggling accident? Or
they
asked someone to pass them a packet of cigarettes and they misheard?
You really have reached the depths of stupidity haven't you.
If a person if found with an axe in their head an enquiry will be held to determine the circumstances.
If it seems it was embedded there by an identifiable third party then the police will question the suspect and may arrest him on suspicion of committing murder depending on the circumstances.
He is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
There may be may reasons why the suspect is either not charged or tried
and found not guilty, including mental capacity.
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
-aUnder the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>> FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is
simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not
claimed to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago
expired when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your
opinions forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you
look at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only
for the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for
the purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think
before the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal
group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
If someone with major mental health problems and a form of psychosis
attacks someone whose clothing identifies them as Jewish, arguably that
is an antisemitic attack. But not necessarily with the intent to harm a
Jew rather than someone who happened to be nearby. So arguably
antisemitism requires an intent to harm/insult/threaten Jews specifically.
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I
just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all
Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country
and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more protection for the Jewish community.
I even take issue with those who
hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police
training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that
they must teach their sons not to assault women.
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I
just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all
Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country
and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who
hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards >>women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police
training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former >>partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that
they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it could >reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen >until
someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
On 15 May 2026 at 09:48:34 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <9947402665.5e589a05@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 22:20:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>>>FAIR TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall >>>>>>>>be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
The man is currently innocent of any hate crimes.
Are you seriously denying that?
The correct position is that he is presumed to be innocent. That is >>>>>>>simply a legal presumption which has no basis in fact and is not >>>>>>>claimed
to have any basis in fact.
But the "innocent until proven guilty" legal fiction long ago expired >>>>>>>when applied to your continued trolling.
Again, I have stated facts and you have attempted to put your opinions >>>>>>forward to refute them.
Since you are being so childishly pedantic about words I suggest you >>>>>>look
at the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 again.
It is in English not American, not a "proven" in sight.
The point you're missing is that HRA bit that you have quoted is only >>>>>for
the purposes of the trial, ie the suspect is presumed innocent for the >>>>>purposes of the trial.
That bit of the HRA doesn't impinge on what you're allowed to think >>>>>before
the verdict.
I am not missing anything.
Nothing in law impinges on what you can think!
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal >>>>group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
So if someone is found dead with an axe embedded in their head you are >>>determined to assume that there has not been a murder committed until >>>someone
is tried and convicted? It could have just been a juggling accident? Or >>>they
asked someone to pass them a packet of cigarettes and they misheard?
You really have reached the depths of stupidity haven't you.
If a person if found with an axe in their head an enquiry will be held to >>determine the circumstances.
If it seems it was embedded there by an identifiable third party then the >>police will question the suspect and may arrest him on suspicion of >>committing murder depending on the circumstances.
He is presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
There may be may reasons why the suspect is either not charged or tried
and found not guilty, including mental capacity.
Indeed, but pending all that, which may take a number of years, it is >reasonably for the rest of us to work on the basis that someone was almost >certainly murdered.
On 15/05/2026 09:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A FAIR >>>>TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal >>>>group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
What does "presumed" mean?
Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be charged
with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of innocence. >>>How do you square that?
Do you think the normal rule doesn't apply then?
What "normal rule" are you thinking of?
You appear to be relying upon a non-exoistent rule, or number of rules.
Your assertion is nonsense, despite what you might see on TV people are >>arrested "on suspicion of..."
What did I assert?
I asked you a question - two questions, in fact.
a) What does "presumed" mean?
b) Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be charged
with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of innocence. >How do you square that?
You have not answered either of them.
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I
just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all
Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country
and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who >>>hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards >>>women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police >>>training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former >>>partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that >>>they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it could >>reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen >>until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment,
perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental capacity.
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I >>>>just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all >>>>Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country >>>>and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>>>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who >>>>hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards >>>>women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>>>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police >>>>training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>>>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former >>>>partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that >>>>they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it >>>could
reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen >>>until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>capacity.
You appear to have forgotten that what you actually said was that
"we now know [the attacks] were nothing to do with antisemitism".
That is the statement you made, that you need to defend.
If you are shifting your position so that you now admit we do not
know the attacks were not antisemitic, simply that it has not yet
been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then you
would not be getting much argument from anybody.
On 15/05/2026 in message
<slrn110ds9t.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I >>>>>just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all >>>>>Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country >>>>>and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>>>>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who >>>>>hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards >>>>>women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>>>>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police >>>>>training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>>>>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former >>>>>partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that >>>>>they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it >>>>could
reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen >>>>until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>>capacity.
You appear to have forgotten that what you actually said was that
"we now know [the attacks] were nothing to do with antisemitism".
That is the statement you made, that you need to defend.
If you are shifting your position so that you now admit we do not
know the attacks were not antisemitic, simply that it has not yet
been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then you
would not be getting much argument from anybody.
That is exactly what I have said all along. I you feel I have said
anything different you'll have to supply a link.
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message
<slrn110ds9t.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I >>>>>>just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all >>>>>>Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country >>>>>>and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>>>>>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who >>>>>>hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence >>>>>>towards
women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>>>>>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police >>>>>>training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>>>>>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former >>>>>>partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that >>>>>>they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it >>>>>could
reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen >>>>>until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>>>capacity.
You appear to have forgotten that what you actually said was that
"we now know [the attacks] were nothing to do with antisemitism".
That is the statement you made, that you need to defend.
If you are shifting your position so that you now admit we do not
know the attacks were not antisemitic, simply that it has not yet
been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then you
would not be getting much argument from anybody.
That is exactly what I have said all along. I you feel I have said
anything different you'll have to supply a link.
It's nothing to do with what I "feel" - I quoted your exact words.
They were from the following post:
From: "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: Is Zack Polanski Right?
Date: 5 May 2026 21:24:15 GMT
Message-ID: <xn0ppfe9y4r80hm00d@news.individual.net>
which, if you don't know how to use Message-IDs, you can also view here:
https://unequivocal.eu/up/xn0ppfe9y4r80hm00d@news.individual.net
You made similar comments in several other posts.
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I
just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all
Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country
and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more
protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who
hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence towards >>>> women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution
guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police
training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being
stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former
partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that >>>> they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it could >>> reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen
until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment,
perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental capacity.
You appear to have forgotten that what you actually said was that
"we now know [the attacks] were nothing to do with antisemitism".
That is the statement you made, that you need to defend.
If you are shifting your position so that you now admit we do not
know the attacks were not antisemitic, simply that it has not yet
been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then you
would not be getting much argument from anybody.
On 15/05/2026 in message
<slrn110e1a7.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message >>><slrn110ds9t.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I >>>>>>>just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all >>>>>>>Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the country >>>>>>>and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>>>>>>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those who >>>>>>>hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence >>>>>>>towards
women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>>>>>>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police >>>>>>>training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>>>>>>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or former >>>>>>>partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents that >>>>>>>they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it >>>>>>could
reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't happen >>>>>>until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>>>>capacity.
You appear to have forgotten that what you actually said was that
"we now know [the attacks] were nothing to do with antisemitism".
That is the statement you made, that you need to defend.
If you are shifting your position so that you now admit we do not
know the attacks were not antisemitic, simply that it has not yet
been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then you
would not be getting much argument from anybody.
That is exactly what I have said all along. I you feel I have said >>>anything different you'll have to supply a link.
It's nothing to do with what I "feel" - I quoted your exact words.
They were from the following post:
From: "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: Is Zack Polanski Right?
Date: 5 May 2026 21:24:15 GMT
Message-ID: <xn0ppfe9y4r80hm00d@news.individual.net>
which, if you don't know how to use Message-IDs, you can also view here:
https://unequivocal.eu/up/xn0ppfe9y4r80hm00d@news.individual.net
You made similar comments in several other posts.
At that point that reflected what the various announcements said, it
was a fast moving situation. Originally it was described as
antisemitic and terrorist then the police back-tracked.
On 15/05/2026 in message <n6o4oeFmsvrU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2026 09:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A
FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal >>>>> group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
What does "presumed" mean?
Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be charged
with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of
innocence.
How do you square that?
Do you think the normal rule doesn't apply then?
What "normal rule" are you thinking of?
You appear to be relying upon a non-exoistent rule, or number of rules.
In English law words are interpreted in their normal meaning unless
there are grounds for a different interpretation. Long time since I had
to give an exam answer so there may well be a better wording, look it up.
Your assertion is nonsense, despite what you might see on TV people are
arrested "on suspicion of..."
What did I assert?
I asked you a question - two questions, in fact.
a) What does "presumed" mean?
b) Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be
charged with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of
innocence. How do you square that?
You have not answered either of them.
I have answered both of them.
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message
<slrn110e1a7.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message >>>><slrn110ds9t.4sr7.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu> Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>>>On 2026-05-15, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3521424278.1de3fca7@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>>Hayter wrote:
I don't have any problem with calling it an antisemitic incident - I >>>>>>>>just take issue with those who say that it is typical of the way all >>>>>>>>Jews now face persecution throughout London or throughout the >>>>>>>>country
and we must therefore demonstrate at Downing Street and demand more >>>>>>>>protection for the Jewish community. I even take issue with those >>>>>>>>who
hold demonstrations in public to say that femicide and violence >>>>>>>>towards
women are a major problem that requires new laws, new prosecution >>>>>>>>guidelines, new deployments of police. By all means update police >>>>>>>>training to take seriously complaints from women that they are being >>>>>>>>stalked, or groped in carriages, or threatened by a partner or >>>>>>>>former
partner. But you can't "cure" the problem by preaching at parents >>>>>>>>that
they must teach their sons not to assault women.
Indeed, the extent of antisemitism and the appropriate response to it >>>>>>>could
reasonably have been debated. The argument that something didn't >>>>>>>happen
until someone has been convicted of doing it is just silly.
Nonsense, it is that paragraph of your that is silly.
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that. >>>>>>
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>>>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>>>>>capacity.
You appear to have forgotten that what you actually said was that
"we now know [the attacks] were nothing to do with antisemitism". >>>>>That is the statement you made, that you need to defend.
If you are shifting your position so that you now admit we do not >>>>>know the attacks were not antisemitic, simply that it has not yet >>>>>been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, then you
would not be getting much argument from anybody.
That is exactly what I have said all along. I you feel I have said >>>>anything different you'll have to supply a link.
It's nothing to do with what I "feel" - I quoted your exact words.
They were from the following post:
From: "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: Is Zack Polanski Right?
Date: 5 May 2026 21:24:15 GMT
Message-ID: <xn0ppfe9y4r80hm00d@news.individual.net>
which, if you don't know how to use Message-IDs, you can also view here:
https://unequivocal.eu/up/xn0ppfe9y4r80hm00d@news.individual.net
You made similar comments in several other posts.
At that point that reflected what the various announcements said, it
was a fast moving situation. Originally it was described as
antisemitic and terrorist then the police back-tracked.
So you're saying that, despite just now having denied it, you have indeed >changed your position, and are unable to defend your previous position?
On 15/05/2026 10:53 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <n6o4oeFmsvrU2@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2026 09:41 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:20 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
Under the Human Rights Act 1985, Schedule 1, Article 6, RIGHT TO A >>>>>>FAIR
TRIAL, Clause 2 "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be >>>>>>presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
I can't believe that anybody who takes part in a discussion in a legal >>>>>>group doesn't have that imprinted on their heart.
What does "presumed" mean?
Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be charged >>>>>with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of >>>>>innocence.
How do you square that?
Do you think the normal rule doesn't apply then?
What "normal rule" are you thinking of?
You appear to be relying upon a non-exoistent rule, or number of rules.
In English law words are interpreted in their normal meaning unless
there are grounds for a different interpretation. Long time since I had
to give an exam answer so there may well be a better wording, look it up.
You still have not said what you consider your "normal rule" to say and >control.
Your assertion is nonsense, despite what you might see on TV people are >>>>arrested "on suspicion of..."
What did I assert?
I asked you a question - two questions, in fact.
a) What does "presumed" mean?
b) Taken at face value, it would mean that no-one could ever be
charged with an offence, since that would not reflect a presumption of >>>innocence. How do you square that?
You have not answered either of them.
I have answered both of them.
Only in certain cases of "both" having the same meaning as "neither" (if >any).
As others have already concluded, you are trolling.
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will say anything to refute.
I wonder why?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will >>say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >support.
Don't you wonder why ?
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment,
perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental
capacity.
That really isn't hard to understand and I have at no time said there
was no attack, there clearly was.
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people
will say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of
people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to
support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is. Do you >feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts) what the >motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good enough for
everyone on this NG but you.
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment,
perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental
capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is. Do
you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts) what
the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good enough for
everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>>>capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is. Do >>>you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts) what >>>the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good enough for >>>everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not
antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions.
On 15/05/2026 18:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will >>>>say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Because you're sounding pretty odd?
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0ppta8g32ew3700x@news.individual.net...
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will >>>>say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Well you must obviously care.
Otherwise you wouldn't be sat there, day after day,
typing away and endlessly repeating yourself,
would you *?
Why else would you bother ?
You'd type your "facts" the once, regardless of
whether or not anyone else agreed with you;
and then go away and do something else.
"That's it, done, finished ! I've made my point"
But no ! Here you still are, banging away,
day after day, while making out you really
don't care.
* Apparently you've also been contradicting
yourself as well; although presumably you don't
care about that either. Sat there, day after day
contradicting yourself
bb
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7rv9$frdb$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppta8g32ew3700x@news.individual.net...
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will >>>>> say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>> people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>> support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Well you must obviously care.
Otherwise you wouldn't be sat there, day after day,
typing away and endlessly repeating yourself,
would you *?
Why else would you bother ?
You'd type your "facts" the once, regardless of
whether or not anyone else agreed with you;
and then go away and do something else.
"That's it, done, finished ! I've made my point"
But no ! Here you still are, banging away,
day after day, while making out you really
don't care.
* Apparently you've also been contradicting
yourself as well; although presumably you don't
care about that either. Sat there, day after day
contradicting yourself
bb
You think I should stop setting out the facts because a small group of
people try to belittle them with unsubstantiated views and insults? Seriously?
There have been no contradictions. One person has suggested there was but
he failed to take account the timeline. Why don't you check yourself
instead of repeating what somebody else said?
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7rv9$frdb$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>news:xn0ppta8g32ew3700x@news.individual.net...
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will >>>>>say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>>people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>>support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Well you must obviously care.
Otherwise you wouldn't be sat there, day after day,
typing away and endlessly repeating yourself,
would you *?
Why else would you bother ?
You'd type your "facts" the once, regardless of
whether or not anyone else agreed with you;
and then go away and do something else.
"That's it, done, finished ! I've made my point"
But no ! Here you still are, banging away,
day after day, while making out you really
don't care.
* Apparently you've also been contradicting
yourself as well; although presumably you don't
care about that either. Sat there, day after day
contradicting yourself
bb
You think I should stop setting out the facts because a small group of people try to belittle them with unsubstantiated views and insults? Seriously?
On 15 May 2026 at 22:12:59 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7rv9$frdb$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>news:xn0ppta8g32ew3700x@news.individual.net...
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>>wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people >>>>>>will
say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>>>people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>>>support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Well you must obviously care.
Otherwise you wouldn't be sat there, day after day,
typing away and endlessly repeating yourself,
would you *?
Why else would you bother ?
You'd type your "facts" the once, regardless of
whether or not anyone else agreed with you;
and then go away and do something else.
"That's it, done, finished ! I've made my point"
But no ! Here you still are, banging away,
day after day, while making out you really
don't care.
* Apparently you've also been contradicting
yourself as well; although presumably you don't
care about that either. Sat there, day after day
contradicting yourself
bb
You think I should stop setting out the facts because a small group of >>people try to belittle them with unsubstantiated views and insults? >>Seriously?
There have been no contradictions. One person has suggested there was but >>he failed to take account the timeline. Why don't you check yourself >>instead of repeating what somebody else said?
One interesting consequence of your position is that a suicide bombing by a >lone ativist, even if it killed or injured 300 people, could never be >recorded
as a hate crime.
On 15 May 2026 at 22:12:59 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7rv9$frdb$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase
wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppta8g32ew3700x@news.individual.net...
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy bookcase >>>> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of people will
say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>>> people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>>> support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Well you must obviously care.
Otherwise you wouldn't be sat there, day after day,
typing away and endlessly repeating yourself,
would you *?
Why else would you bother ?
You'd type your "facts" the once, regardless of
whether or not anyone else agreed with you;
and then go away and do something else.
"That's it, done, finished ! I've made my point"
But no ! Here you still are, banging away,
day after day, while making out you really
don't care.
* Apparently you've also been contradicting
yourself as well; although presumably you don't
care about that either. Sat there, day after day
contradicting yourself
bb
You think I should stop setting out the facts because a small group of
people try to belittle them with unsubstantiated views and insults?
Seriously?
There have been no contradictions. One person has suggested there was but
he failed to take account the timeline. Why don't you check yourself
instead of repeating what somebody else said?
One interesting consequence of your position is that a suicide bombing by a lone ativist, even if it killed or injured 300 people, could never be recorded
as a hate crime.
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7o8f$dtno$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that. >>>>>
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the
moment, perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's >>>>> mental capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is.
Do you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts)
what the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good
enough for everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not
antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions.
As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have
been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human
Rights Act again do I?
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7nsf$dtjf$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 18:48, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7kro$ddb8$1@dont-email.me> billy
bookcase wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:xn0ppt5r42wcw8700w@news.individual.net...
I have put forward a factual position which a small number of
people-a will say
anything to refute.
I wonder why?
You have put forward a factual position which an even smaller number of >>>> people apart from yourself, i.e none whatsoever, have said anything to >>>> support.
Don't you wonder why ?
No. Why should I care?
Because you're sounding pretty odd?
Why do you find the facts odd?
On 15/05/2026 in message <3575483368.ec24b50b@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 May 2026 at 09:48:34 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <9947402665.5e589a05@uninhabited.net> Roger >>Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 22:20:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
On 15/05/2026 22:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7o8f$dtno$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that. >>>>>>
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>>>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's mental >>>>>>capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is. Do >>>>>you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts) what >>>>>the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good enough for >>>>>everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not >>>antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions.
As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have >>been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human >>Rights Act again do I?
You said, categorically, that this was not an antisemitic crime. That is
an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to hold. But, you can hardly >claim it's based on facts.
On 15 May 2026 09:49:09 GMT
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <3575483368.ec24b50b@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 May 2026 at 09:48:34 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <9947402665.5e589a05@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
On 14 May 2026 at 22:20:05 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>>>wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <10u55gf$lvu7$3@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 14/05/2026 10:34, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 14/05/2026 in message <n6lib4Fai4gU1@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 13/05/2026 12:04 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
(recent North London murders)
Wouldn't all this be better discussed in a legal NG?
On 16/05/2026 in message <10ua2vj$12cmi$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 22:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7o8f$dtno$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that. >>>>>>>
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the
moment, perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the
suspect's-a mental capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive
is.-a Do you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts) >>>>>> what the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good >>>>>> enough for everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not
antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions.
As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges
have been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the
Human Rights Act again do I?
You said, categorically, that this was not an antisemitic crime. That
is an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to hold. But, you can
hardly claim it's based on facts.
"As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have
been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human
Rights Act again do I?"
You must have missed the report that -u25 million is being paid to
Jewish communities for extra policing because of the antisemitic attack
in Golders Green presumably (which we now know were nothing to do with antisemitism or terrorism)? Starmer made the announcement. "
Wouldn't all this be better discussed in a legal NG?
It was until the moderators threw it out :-)
On 16/05/2026 17:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2026 in message <10ua2vj$12cmi$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 22:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7o8f$dtno$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied that. >>>>>>>>
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment, >>>>>>>>perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's-a mental >>>>>>>>capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is.-a Do
you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts) what
the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good enough for
everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not >>>>>antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions.
As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have >>>>been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human >>>>Rights Act again do I?
You said, categorically, that this was not an antisemitic crime. That is >>>an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to hold. But, you can hardly >>>claim it's based on facts.
"As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have >>been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human >>Rights Act again do I?"
"On 05/05/2026 10:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
You must have missed the report that -u25 million is being paid to
Jewish communities for extra policing because of the antisemitic attack
in Golders Green presumably (which we now know were nothing to do with >>antisemitism or terrorism)? Starmer made the announcement. "
It's a categorical statement that the attack had nothing to do with >antisemitism. And, it's clearly not based on any facts at all.
Indeed, you now claim that you don't know whether it was an antisemitic >attack, which is a complete volte face.
You appear to be behaving rather weirdly, I'm afraid.
On 16/05/2026 in message <10ua753$13j0t$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 16/05/2026 17:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2026 in message <10ua2vj$12cmi$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 22:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7o8f$dtno$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote: >>>>>>>
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied >>>>>>>>> that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the >>>>>>>>> moment, perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the
suspect's-a mental capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive >>>>>>>> is.-a Do you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or
thereabouts)-a-a what the motive was, and given this imperfect >>>>>>>> world, that's good-a-a enough for everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not
antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions.
As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges
have been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the >>>>> Human Rights Act again do I?
You said, categorically, that this was not an antisemitic crime.
That-a is an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to hold. But,
you can-a hardly claim it's based on facts.
"As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges
have been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the
Human Rights Act again do I?"
"On 05/05/2026 10:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
You must-a have missed the report that -u25 million is being paid to
Jewish communities for extra policing because of the antisemitic attack
in Golders Green presumably (which we now know were nothing to do with
antisemitism or terrorism)? Starmer made the announcement. "
It's a categorical statement that the attack had nothing to do with
antisemitism.-a-a And, it's clearly not based on any facts at all.
Indeed, you now claim that you don't know whether it was an
antisemitic attack, which is a complete volte face.
You appear to be behaving rather weirdly, I'm afraid.
I am making a statement based on facts which I am not going to repeat
yet again.
I think refuting those facts is the weird behaviour.
On 16/05/2026 19:43, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2026 in message <10ua753$13j0t$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:So, you don't deny that you've completely changed your tune and that you >were wrong initially. That's good.
On 16/05/2026 17:31, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/05/2026 in message <10ua2vj$12cmi$1@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 22:09, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7o8f$dtno$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote:
On 15/05/2026 19:16, Jeff Gaines wrote:As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have >>>>>>been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human >>>>>>Rights Act again do I?
On 15/05/2026 in message <10u7noc$dtjf$2@dont-email.me> GB wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 15/05/2026 10:44, Jeff Gaines wrote:
There clearly was an attack on two people, I have never denied >>>>>>>>>>that.
What I have said clearly is we do NOT KNOW THE MOTIVE at the moment,
perhaps we won't until the trial depending on the suspect's-a mental
capacity.
I agree that we do not know with 100% certainty what the motive is.-a Do
you feel vindicated now?
However, we can infer with 99.9999999% certainty (or thereabouts)-a-a
what the motive was, and given this imperfect world, that's good-a-a >>>>>>>>>enough for everyone on this NG but you.
YOU can infer what you like, I work on facts.
Unfortunately, you claimed that the attack by Suleiman was not >>>>>>>antisemitic. You have no facts to support that, just suppositions. >>>>>>
You said, categorically, that this was not an antisemitic crime. That-a >>>>>is an opinion that you are perfectly entitled to hold. But, you can-a >>>>>hardly claim it's based on facts.
"As I have said many times the fact is no antisemitic hate charges have >>>>been laid, that is the fact. I really don't have to quote the Human >>>>Rights Act again do I?"
"On 05/05/2026 10:24 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
You must-a have missed the report that -u25 million is being paid to >>>>Jewish communities for extra policing because of the antisemitic attack >>>>in Golders Green presumably (which we now know were nothing to do with >>>>antisemitism or terrorism)? Starmer made the announcement. "
It's a categorical statement that the attack had nothing to do with >>>antisemitism.-a-a And, it's clearly not based on any facts at all.
Indeed, you now claim that you don't know whether it was an antisemitic >>>attack, which is a complete volte face.
You appear to be behaving rather weirdly, I'm afraid.
I am making a statement based on facts which I am not going to repeat yet >>again.
I think refuting those facts is the weird behaviour.
Absolute nonsense but if it comforts you...
On 16/05/2026 19:54, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Absolute nonsense but if it comforts you...
Why do you keep denying your obvious howler?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 13:15:40 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
7 files (11,196K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,448 |