A U.K. judge has sentenced a teenager who created an "abhorrent" online image of Prince Harry to 4 years and three months in a young offenders' institution.
Judge Rebecca Poulet lambasted student Michal Szewczuk, 19, for creating an image of Harry with a pistol to his head against a blood-spattered background. The post, which was shared a few months after Harry married biracial ex-actress Meghan Markle, included the phrase "See Ya Later Race Traitor."
sadly I doubt Harry wanted to marry this nigress. He always looks miserable around her.
Was an arranged marriage brought on by the queen in case of a civil war. If the conservatives/royalists/nationalists win it will be Prince William still in charge if the leftist/globalists win Harry will be put on the throne for being "woke". Either way, Elizabeth didn't leave the throne vacant.
OI you got a liocense for that acronym, mate?
4 years 3 months for a poster, when the average sentence for murder is about 2 years in the UK ?
This is fucking disgusting, but it's more disgusting that Europeans tolerate this shit. What, we've been free too long? Can't remember just how horrible tyranny really is, we gotta do it again just to make sure it's really as god awful and deadly as it's ALWAYS been? Evidently so
Whenever I think America is swirling the toliet bowl, all I have to do is look at the UK. In comparison, we haven't even fallen in yet.
My issue was not the time but that it was in a Juvi centre and not a jail. He's an adult after all so that makes no sense.
And the average murder getting only 2 years? I doubt it. You have a citation for that?
You have no issue with a person going to prison over a poster, are you mad? YOU are what's wrong with western society. Where does it end? Soon enough it will be YOUR beliefs and ideas that offend and it will be YOU going to prison.
I unironically prefer globohomo monarchy to racial republic. If God wants to screw over us with globohomo, then it is His will. At least globohomo monarchy demonstrates a continuity from glory to decadence.
4 years for a meme. Nice thought crime. 0 years for the thousands of muslim gang rapists, when execution would be more fitting than imprisonment. Also notes for clown world: judge is female, no sense of humour or proportion cunt. memer is polish. goes well with the divorcee half-caste negress jewess american whore that the stupid ginger twat was forced to marry at rothschildian behest.
UK is the test-bed for orwellian horrors, the US use the UK as a controlled environment where they can see how far people can be pushed. If there isn't an uproar, then they end the prototype phase and distribute it to the rest of the world, including the US. Nowhere is safe, what you should know is that these are warnings that will echo in your own side of the prison in due time.
I don't see why the Windsors should have to fight for such novel concepts as "race", "Volk" or "Nation". They only have a duty to their dynasty, not to some abstraction created to make commoners feel like being part of a racial elite.
Cuckoldry here is impossible. I never owned the Prince, not the royal family's blood, how can I be cucked if he marries an African American?
If everything is cuckoldry, then nothing is cuckoldry.
You should look up the definition of definition, burger-mutt.
I have no problem with jailing someone for making death threats
making death threats is not a violation of property, it should not be a crime doesn't mean it should be encouraged either, it should be rightfully condemned, but it should not be a crime
Ah yes, the lolbertarian-autist-right pipeline.
I don't see why property alone should define what is or is not crime. There are profoundly immoral of unethical acts which are not related to propertarianism.
Considering that an increasing amount of people are poor and/or landless, you would think that the majority of people would have in interest in crime being more than property violations.
It should because property rights are a philosophy based on observable truths, starting with self-ownership
That is, I own myself, I am the sole owner of my body and every action imposed on it without my consent is ethically wrong Respecting that, there are two means of acquiring property: original appropriation and free trading Any action imposed on property acquired through those means without the owner's is also inherently unethical
Jailing someone for any kind of "hate speech" is wrong because, even if well intentioned, it violates the individual's right to self ownership, to say something, as offensive as it may be, is simply an act of using your property, in this case, your body
What do you mean? I do agree that while something isn't unethical, it doesn't mean that it isn't wrong, that's why certain kinds of destructive behavior should not be encouraged, such as drug usage, but should not, while there isn't any property violations, lead to jail
Not an argument
But it is. When this post-property underclass constitutes the majority of the Western world, they will necessarily assert their rights to life and liberty, even if they can't assert it over property. This is but an exercise of popular sovereignty.
From this, death threats are induced so as to reduce the enjoyment of life and liberty, or should we take your logic, to increase the risk of enjoying ones own "life-property." In this regard, death threats are as graffiti on the "life-property" of others and have no place under the law or even what should be law under your framework.
That's "His royal highness, Prince Race Traitor" for you, kid!
But they all have some sort of property, starting by themselves, their bodies, and whatever else they acquired by original appropriation or free trading Property isn't just land, and not everybody even wants to own land
What I mean by "not an argument" is that it is not justified to, somehow, impose your wants on other's property, unless they have been acquired through unethical means, all of the problems that you're probably referring to, like lack of land/overprice of homes can be linked to state intervention on the market somehow, but since you didn't specify anything and I'm simply speculating what you mean, I can't give a full picture on it
That is also wrong Saying to someone that you want to kill them, inside your own property or inside the property of someone else who has allowed you to say that, is not a violation, but a mere exercise of property rights, speaking isnt a crime, its simply the usage of your property, in this case your body
Actually going out of your way to harm someone else or their property is what's wrong, threats are not, but as i said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage them either