They wanted to find evidence of voter fraud in Georgia, so they did everything they could to find some.

Atlanta-area prosecutors investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia are in possession of text messages and emails directly connecting members of Donald Trump’s legal team to the early January 2021 voting system breach in Coffee County, sources tell CNN.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is expected to seek charges against more than a dozen individuals when her team presents its case before a grand jury next week. Several individuals involved in the voting systems breach in Coffee County are among those who may face charges in the sprawling criminal probe.

Investigators in the Georgia criminal probe have long suspected the breach was not an organic effort sprung from sympathetic Trump supporters in rural and heavily Republican Coffee County – a county Trump won by nearly 70% of the vote. They have gathered evidence indicating it was a top-down push by Trump’s team to access sensitive voting software, according to people familiar with the situation.

Trump allies attempted to access voting systems after the 2020 election as part of the broader push to produce evidence that could back up the former president’s baseless claims of widespread fraud.

It’s not clear, to me at least, whether or not it’s a crime to try to get access to sensitive voting software. It sounds as if it might be, but also as if it might not. Can we all do that? Is it just a normal, if unusually energetic, attempt to make sure everything is kosher? Or is it an attempt to get access to something people are not allowed to get access to?

[T]he voting system breach in Coffee County quietly emerged as an area of focus for investigators roughly one year ago. Since then, new evidence has slowly been uncovered about the role of Trump’s attorneys, the operatives they hired and how the breach, as well as others like it in other key states, factored into broader plans for overturning the election.

Together, the text messages and other court documents show how Trump lawyers and a group of hired operatives sought to access Coffee County’s voting systems in the days before January 6, 2021, as the former president’s allies continued a desperate hunt for any evidence of widespread fraud they could use to delay certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Last year, a former Trump official testified under oath to the House January 6 select committee that plans to access voting systems in Georgia were discussed in meetings at the White House, including during an Oval Office meeting on December 18, 2020,  that included Trump. 

Six days before pro-Trump operatives gained unauthorized access to voting systems, the local elections official who allegedly helped facilitate the breach sent a “written invitation” to attorneys working for Trump, according to text messages obtained by CNN.

There’s my answer, I guess – they were looking for, and got, unauthorized access.

The messages and documents appear to link Giuliani to the Coffee County breach, while shedding light on another channel of communication between pro-Trump attorneys and the battleground state operatives who worked together to provide unauthorized individuals access to sensitive voting equipment.

There again. Unauthorized individuals, unauthorized access.

MSP Patrick Harvie thinks men should be allowed to invade women’s sports.

His stupid little cardboard sign says TRANS PEOPLE BELONG IN SPORT which is of course repetition #18 billion of the Big Lie. Nobody is saying trans people don’t belong in sport; people who know their ass from their elbow say male people don’t belong in female sport. Men who claim to be women can still be in sport, they just shouldn’t be in women’s sport.

Conspicuous twit Xander Elliards writes:

PATRICK Harvie stood in solidarity with trans women at a protest on the final day of the cycling world championships.

The Glasgow MSP, who also serves as Active Travel Minister in the Scottish Government, was criticised in some corners after he took part in a protest ride with the charity LEAP Sports Scotland, which coincided with the elite women’s road race.

Leap, which stands for “leadership, equality and active participation” for LGBT people in sports, organised the protest ride after the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) banned trans women from competing in female sporting events.

Why did the UCI do that? Because trans women are men, and have the physical advantages that men have over women, so it’s unfair for them to compete in female sporting events.

Harvie was joined at the event by Bailie Elaine Gallagher, a Greens councillor in Glasgow Southside who is also a trans person. Campaigners with the group held a flag which said “let trans women win” and a placard which said “trans people belong in sport”.

Gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland criticised the messaging, writing: “The sign … says ‘Let trans women win’. Not enough that they are ‘included’, they are openly confirming what we all already knew, they want to take women’s prizes.”

The comment was amplified by tennis star-turned-campaigner Martina Navratilova, who added: “Sure. Why not? I mean what else is there to take? Nothing.”

Props to Elliard for including that.

Questions were raised about why the protest had targeted the women’s elite road race and not the mens’. However, the UCI has not imposed any restrictions on the rights of trans men to enter men’s competitions.

Because women competing against men is not unfair to the men. Men competing against women is unfair to the women. It’s very simple and very obvious.

The Daily Beast lines up some lawyers who say Trump is indeed engaged in open witness tampering.

Donald Trump publicly insisted on Monday that a key witness in Georgia’s grand jury probe shouldn’t testify this week as ordered—a brazen ask that one legal expert described as “witness tampering in real time.”

Georgia’s former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican, was the witness at the center of the early morning tirade from Trump, who has been raging for weeks as the Fulton County grand jury is seemingly inching closer to filing criminal charges against him over alleged efforts to meddle in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

While singling Duncan out on Monday, Trump misspelled his first name.

“I am reading reports that failed former Lt. Governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, will be testifying before the Fulton County Grand Jury,” Trump posted to Truth Social. “He shouldn’t.”

Scores of legal experts were shocked by the brazen post.

“This morning’s first attempt at witness intimidation,” attorney George Conway, a frequent Trump critic whose ex-wife Kellyanne worked in the Trump administration, posted to Twitter.

Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade posted a similar sentiment, writing that Trump’s morning rant was “witness tampering in real time.”

Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University in Atlanta, similarly called the post “blatantly unlawful stuff” that could warrant a charge of influencing witnesses.

“This is exceptionally bad even for Donald Trump,” he said.

And we’ve seen what Joyce Vance said.

In more news from Georgia:

Former President Donald Trump on Monday launched a string of familiar attacks against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Monday as Willis is expected to begin presenting her election interference case to a grand jury later today.

In three all-caps posts on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump attacked Willis over her investigation, blasted media leaks, specifically urged “someone” to tell the grand jury he did not interfere in the election while continuing to make false claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Witness tampering and DA intimidation right out in the open.

Joyce Vance six minutes ago:

He’s blabbing about stuff from the disclosure docs!

Update: No he’s not; this is the Georgia case. My bad. I was so startled I didn’t pause to read any replies.

But still. Farking hell.

Via Tim Harris at Miscellany Room: Ron DeSantis and Prager U (not a university, just an initial!) explain slavery.

I could only stand 4 minutes.

Trump thinks he can do whatever he wants no matter what. He may turn out to be right.

Donald Trump slammed the judge presiding over his newest criminal case early Monday, testing her three-day-old warning that he refrain from “inflammatory” attacks against those involved in his case.

In a Truth Social post just before 1 a.m., Trump assailed U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan as “highly partisan” and “very biased and unfair,” citing as evidence a statement she made during the sentencing of a woman who participated in the mob that breached the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

“She obviously wants me behind bars,” Trump wrote.

He’s jumping up and down in front of the judge saying “Nyah nyah you can’t stop me.” I worry that he’s right, that no one will be able to stop him.

Trump was alluding to Chutkan’s remark during the October 2022 sentencing of Christine Priola of Ohio. Chutkan admonished Priola, before sentencing her to 15 months in jail, about the Jan. 6 mob’s threat to the peaceful transfer of power.

“I see the videotapes. I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats that they were wearing, and the garb,” Chutkan said. “And the people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this county and not to the principles of democracy. It’s blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.”

It’s an interesting ploy. He’s openly criminal and treasonous, so people say that’s what he is, so he uses their saying so as a reason to ignore them, including (and especially) law enforcement and prosecutors and judges. Terrifyingly, he may get away with it.

Chutkan’s sentiments have been common among judges who have sentenced Jan. 6 rioters. Several have expressed discomfort over punishing rioters — who had been deluged with lies about the election by Trump and steered to the Capitol with a warning that their country was being stolen and their livelihoods were in danger — while those who misled them have faced no consequences. But Chutkan is the first of those judges to end up with Trump as a defendant in her court, charged by special counsel Jack Smith with seeking to subvert the 2020 election with lies and a plan to violate the constitution.

Trump is so open and brazen with his crimes that he makes it impossible to find any judges who aren’t aware of them…thus they all have a “bias” against him. Case dismissed!

Trump’s conditions of release at his arraignment earlier this month included a vow — which Trump swore to uphold in court — that he would not intimidate or harass witnesses and officers of the court or threaten the administration of justice. It’s unclear what Chutkan will do if she determines Trump has violated those conditions.

Of course he’s violated them. He’ll continue to violate them.

An item from last month:

Now more than ever, cis female athletes must show solidarity with trans athletes

Must? Why?

Is there ever going to be a time when we’re told trans athletes must show solidarity with women?

Of course not. Stupid question. Women are privileged bitches, Karens, hags.

Johanna Mellis goes on:

Kathryn Bromwich argued that the main threat to us cisgender women comes from cisgender men, and not trans women. It is the same in sport: historically and currently, the common perpetrators of sexual assault, abuse and harassment in sport are cisgender men.

Trans women are men. Skip the “cis” label, which doesn’t mean anything. Trans women are men who pretend to be women, which doesn’t make them not-men, much less women. They’re just men; it’s nonsensical to say the threat to women doesn’t come from men, it comes from men. The three letters c i s are not magic and don’t change men into women any more than the five letters t r a n s do.

 The GOP is using sporting exclusion as an entry point to gain support for their proto-genocidal assault to eliminate trans people.

Proto-genocidal?

For the gazillionth time I wonder why the Guardian publishes this kind of childish dreck.

Well, that’s up front.

Let trans women win, the protest sign says, meaning: let men cheat by competing against women. Let men win by pretending to be women so that they can easily win all the prizes. So they’re cheating, so what, let them win!!

You wouldn’t think they’d want to go with that.

Colin Montgomerie telling women what we can and can’t say about men pretending to menstruate by wearing white jeans with a huge red blob in the crotch.

It’s good playful fun! Really!

Nightclub sells the opportunity to spy on women:

A Scottish nightclub has installed a two-way mirror allowing male revellers to secretly spy on women when they visit the venue’s toilets.

Only clubbers who hire out either of the two £800-a-time private rooms at The Shimmy Club in Glasgow can view the spyglass which overlooks the sinks in the women’s toilets.

Similar to the those used in police interrogation rooms, the mirror allows revellers in the private function rooms to spy on those in the women’s toilets without their knowledge.

“Revellers” nothing. Evil men degrading women.

A picture taken inside one of the rooms and leaked on the internet shows two female clubbers applying make-up in the toilets completely unaware they are being watched.

The two-way mirror has outraged female guests and women’s rights campaigners.

The nightclub, which is owned by millionaire entrepreneur Stefan King’s G1 Group, has defended the ‘interactive feature’ as ‘a bit of fun’.

Remember Susan Sarandon’s line? “When a woman’s screamin’ like that she isn’t havin’ any fun.” It may be fun for the men but it’s not fun for the women. We know the nightclub people know this, because they didn’t tell the women about the two-way mirror.

Shocked female revellers have told how they were completely unaware of the mirror and had no idea they could be viewed by people in private rooms as they used the venue’s toilet.

One clubber whom asked not to be named told the newspaper: ‘I was completely shocked to discover that the mirror in the ladies’ bathroom is a two-way mirror facing out onto the club. I find it absolutely outrageous that a club can get away with this, it is a complete invasion of privacy of the unsuspecting girls.

‘Nowhere is it made clear that this is the case so when visiting the bathroom for the first time, there are women bending over the sink, pouting into the mirror to redo their lipstick, adjusting themselves whilst unknowingly being watched by people on the other side.

‘The fact that these two-way mirrors only look into the ladies’ bathrooms and not the men’s makes it clear that the intention is to sexualise women as objects, allowing men to make inappropriate gestures and leer disgustingly at them.’

A lesbian* couple decided to try to “co-parent” a kid with another couple.

For us, the ideal parenting setup would consist of three or four of us sharing responsibility for a child (the others involved would also be responsible for providing the sperm).

The others? Not one of the others, but both of them? Really?

The way we see it, why not use the implicit obstacles we face as a same-sex couple to become parents in a way that works for us and redefines the family unit completely?

Ah. There’s actually an answer to that question. Or several answers, but one in particular is very basic. It’s because biological parents have a stake in the child that non-biological parents lack. This of course doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t adopt children, but it does suggest that parents shouldn’t casually swap kids with other couples just to “redefine the family unit completely.” Sharing a kid with another couple is a different thing, but still, it’s as well to understand the realities before trying to redefine them.

Our first real contact with this world was last year at the Modern Family Show in London, an annual event for LGBTQ+ people looking to start families. One of the events was a talk on the legal side of co-parenting. Before this event, the room had been packed out for a talk on surrogacy. Then, the room cleared. Just a handful of us turned up to hear the co-parenting talk; mostly women.

See, surrogacy is cool, because it’s just renting a woman. Co-parenting is more complicated, and suggests some work is involved.

It has been energising to see that – niche as it may be – there is a call for this kind of family structure, but the eggs-to-sperm ratio remains an issue. In our experience, co-parenting seems to overwhelmingly appeal to cis women, trans men and non-binary people assigned female at birth.

In other words, women. You don’t say.

Without any exhaustive studies on this, I can only guess why.

Let me help. It’s because they’re all women. Women are supposed to do the child stuff. All of it.

*Or at least a couple of women. The other one is called “Leo” so maybe there’s a luxury identity involved.

Brendan O’Neill on the idiocy of the atheist bros:

We are living through a great showdown between hysteria and reason. On one side stand the adherents to the cult of transgenderism, hawking their hocus pocus about gendered souls and self-authentication through castration. On the other side stand those of us who know that biology is real…

Not just castration of course. Genital mutilation on both sides, bilateral mastectomies, hysterectomies, cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers.

You’ll never guess which side some New Atheists are taking in this clash between delusion and truth. The crazy side. The side that says a bloke with a beard and balls can literally be a lesbian. Which is infinitely more cranky than the idea that a bloke with a beard and balls can literally be the Son of God. How did rationalist bros, those secularists on steroids, those Dawkins acolytes whose hobby for years was to make fun of the faithful, become devotees of such a strange, post-truth sect?

One answer is massive social pressure. but what the roots of that are I will never understand.

This week a Twitterfeed called The New Atheists slammed Richard Dawkins for becoming a TERF. Dawkins is a rarity in the new rationalist ranks: he thinks people with penises are men, not women, just as bread is bread, not the body of Christ. He is ‘utterly confused’, decreed his angry apostates. Biology ‘isn’t black and white, it’s a full spectrum of colour just like a rainbow’, they said.

And just like a tub of sprinkles.

We’ve witnessed Neil deGrasse Tyson, America’s best-known scientist, bow to the creed of gender-as-feeling. In a TikTok video he said ‘XX/XY chromosomes are insufficient’ when it comes to reading someone’s sex, because what people feel matters along with their biology. So someone might feel mostly female one day but ‘80 per cent male’ the next, which means they’ll ‘remove the make-up’ and ‘wear a muscle shirt’.

What people feel matters, but it doesn’t change certain basic realities about them. What people feel can change their mood, their thinking, their behavior, their politics, many things, but it can’t change their sex any more than it can change their species.

We’ve seen Matt Dillahunty, a leading American atheist, promote the mystic cry that there’s a difference between ‘what your chromosomes are’ and your ‘gender identity’. ‘Transwomen are women’, he piously declares, perhaps keen to prove that while he might be fond of bashing the old religions, he has not one cross or blasphemous word to say about the new religion.

More to do with his significant other, from what I’ve seen in Twitter commentary.

Stephen Fry is another godless lover of science who appears to have converted to the trans belief. Phillip Pullman, Stewart Lee and others who were once noisy cheerleaders for rationalism are likewise strikingly reserved on this new ideology…

I wish. Phillip Pullman isn’t reserved on the subject, he’s all too mouthy on it.

Then there’s Humanists UK. Even Britain’s most influential God-free organisation has thrown its lot in with the Flat Earthism of the post-sex ideology. It entreated the British government not to change the definition of sex in the Equality Act to mean ‘biological sex’. Why? Because some people have a mysterious inner gender – soul? – which apparently counts for more than their biological sex when it comes to the question of which social spaces they should be allowed to enter.

Aka mind-body dualism, which as many have pointed out, humanists should be wise to.

Some women resigned from Humanists UK over what they viewed as its abandonment of ‘compassionate, scientific [and] rational’ principles in favour of the unreality of gender subjectivity.

The link is to Joan Smith.

O’Neill goes on to draw grand (and silly) conclusions about Dawkins and selfish genes and “the soulless technocracy of the New Atheism,” whatever that might be. He’s right about Team-Dillahunty though.

Meanwhile the “activists” work hard at messing up Sharron Davies’s life:

Olympian Sharron Davies said activists call her children’s school and abuse her kids over her views on trans women’s participation in sport.

The Olympic swimmer, former Gladiator and sports commentator, who attended 12 consecutive Olympic Games, was vilified after speaking out against biological males competing in women’s sport.

She also said she has not received enough support from fellow athletes who are too scared to speak up and lose “revenue”.

Ms Davies, 60, told the Off Air podcast she is inundated by trolls who try to stop her “debating and presenting the science”.

She said “Activists [ring] every single job I have, ringing every single charity, ringing my children’s schools, abusing my kids, calling me every name under the sun.”

So progressive, right? The most progressive social justice movement ever, right?

“It feels like it is totally and utterly a men’s rights movement. Historically, women get hit over the head with this ‘be kind’ slogan. Yet if you turn around to men and you said, ‘Well, let’s be kind to Lance Armstrong. He was only cheating a little bit – it’s not going to matter. He’s only got a one per cent advantage on us – let him carry on’.

“They would just laugh in your face.”

There certainly doesn’t seem to be any current flourishing social justice movement to defend Lance Armstrong’s cheating. I wonder why that might be.

Poor Steve Wardlaw. All he did was insult women he disagrees with and now look – he’s being laughed at all over the shop. Can’t a guy air his misogyny in peace any more?

There’s this article from The Guardian in 2019, see, that’s Steve Wardle saying how rich he is and how he spends it.

I worked as a senior oil and gas lawyer in Moscow for eight years and was on a low tax rate of about 13% which allowed me to save and invest in small businesses and build a seven-figure investment portfolio that now produces about £150,000 a year.

Ah yes an oil and gas lawyer. So altruistic and self-denying compared to those horrible women in their shaker kitchens refusing to agree that men can be women.

Ian and I live in both Kent and London. Our Kent property is a converted oast house, which has three chimneys and looks like a cross between a hobbit house and a Disney princess’s castle. It’s lovely, you open the back door and you see nothing but fields. I bought it for £610,000 and it’s probably worth north of £1m now. We spent about £200,000 renovating it, which involved moving a few walls, adding a dog-friendly shower room, and a new staircase.

But no shaker kitchen, I take it.

The Daily Mail tells us:

A lesbian speed-dating event is at the centre of a transphobia row after the organiser insisted that only ‘adult human females’ can attend. It follows outrage from attendees at the popular weekly £15-a-head event, held in Bloomsbury in London, after trans women tried to join. 

Lesbian means lesbian; it doesn’t mean man playing pretend-lesbian.

Last week, Jenny Watson, a town planner who runs the nights, posted on her website: ‘If you are male, please refrain from coming to the events, you are not a lesbian.’ 

Ms Watson told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Last year, a person turned up sporting a purple latex outfit… and an erection. Another time, a trans woman came into the female toilet and pushed their body at a woman who was upset and told me after. It got me thinking that this isn’t fair on women.’

Ms Watson, 31, added: ‘Transgender individuals deserve respect. But there is a need for protection of sex-segregated spaces for lesbian women.’

I’m not sure transgender people do particularly deserve respect. Forbearance, maybe, but respect, not so much. They’ve fallen for a ridiculous fad which is at least as silly as religion. I don’t have a lot of respect for credulity, especially when it’s accompanied by bullying and shunning.

Members of an activists’ group reported Jenny to her London council employers as transphobic for insisting on social media that only ‘adult human females’ should attend and ‘lesbians don’t have penises’. 

An inquiry into the get-togethers was last night under way by Stonegate Group, the owners of the College Arms, the pub where the event is held.

Another reason not to respect trans people: this refusal to just leave women alone.

Women must not be allowed to have anything. Not. one. thing.

I’d share more beautiful thoughts from Sandy Ally She/Her but she has me blocked (I’ve never heard of her) so I can’t.

Originally a comment by Cluecat on No further action.

Here is a fantastic example of the issue that a lot of Normies – including the police – are much more comfortable with the “Self-Diagnosed” “I’m so very quirky and speshul!” version of autism and other conditions, the kind of thing that is something to put into a social media bio, that gives the individual the right to interrupt and condesplain about “As a Neurodiverse person…”

You know, the kind of thing that doesn’t actually make day-to-day life particularly difficult. The kind of thing that can provide quite a nice living as a “Diversity Consultant” if you’re from the right background, once you age-out of being obnoxious on the internet (or should have done, anyway).

Most people aren’t comfortable at all with the reality. They seem to have no interest in understanding someone who genuinely thinks differently from the Normies, doesn’t fully comprehend their social rules, and is behaving perfectly logically in response to the situation they are in, it’s just that they are operating by different standards to that of the Normie World – which is confusing, overwhelming, and frequently terrifying.

A lot of people aren’t comfortable with genuine difference. This includes the Police, who should bloody well know better, and yet they keep refusing to do so. It can only be deliberate at this point.

The fact that they were only called to get a vulnerable child home safely, and this is how they chose to behave, is utterly disgraceful. They knew that she was autistic from the start. Their training should cover that autistic individuals may well behave differently from what the officers might expect, but they are generally not being “difficult” or “non-compliant” on purpose – many of us have to carry information cards to that effect (which, unfortunately, a lot of officers ignore, because they think they know everything, as if half an hour of powerpoint slides gives them greater knowledge than a lifetime of living with the conditions in question).

This is especially egregious given repeated recent reports regarding their institutional behaviour towards female victims and witnesses, along with previous reminders about their failures towards disabled people generally, and autistic individuals specifically.#

This is the organisation that actually wonders why disabled women and girls especially (and their loved ones) do not trust the police to maintain even a minimum standard of professionalism. So now, there are a whole lot of people and their families who know that they shouldn’t call the police to help them in any way if they or their vulnerable loved-one needs help, or goes missing. Or worse, if they’re a victim of an actual crime, which is pretty common, because if there’s one thing predators of all sorts really like, it’s a vulnerable victim. Not to mention the rise in crimes committed against disabled victims because of their disabilities. It’s so much easier to take your frustration out on someone less likely to put up a fight, you see. Many don’t bother reporting it, because we know that the police don’t care. They keep demonstrating it.

Great job there! That’ll free up loads of time to look for “offensive” tweets! Such a fantastic display of public service!

Perhaps if they’d spent a little more time on the actual practical policing stuff, rather than the latest obsessions of middle management (and extremely-online activists), they might have managed to do their job. Maybe the basic humanity of disabled people was skipped over for a trendier, more exciting training session, again. The police generally might have considerable amends to make regarding their previous behaviour towards Gay, Lesbian and Bi individuals, but what the hell was this about? Apparently, some animals really are more equal than others.

A basic understanding of the law is, in fact, required in order to be a police officer. The law as it actually is, not as certain officers would evidently like it to be (and this force has been told about this problem before).

As has already been pointed out, it’s not actually a “Public Order” offense if it does not take place in public – it says so right there in the text (specifically that the offence does not apply in a private dwelling). I’m still slightly confused, given the amount of genuine abuse that gets directed at officers by the various people they have to deal with, as to how there was anything actually offensive here in the first place.

Why totally overreact to that, of all things? From a vulnerable child?

(I’ve had similar observations from students, and it’s often either entirely neutral – “you look like this other person I know”, or even a slightly complicated compliment – “you look like this person I really like”. Surely Occam’s Razor could be applied here? That’s probably too logical, isn’t it?)

# There was an incident a few years ago – with a different force, I think, but still – where an autistic man was physically restrained, thrown to the ground resulting in injury, then sat on by several officers for some time. His “offence”? He just wanted to get back to his house, and so he went around an officer that was restricting access to a particular street. He told them he was a resident, but they were unhappy about him being unable to read their minds, apparently. He kept telling them that he was Autistic, and he needed to get home, but they’d already decided that he was a “problem”, which had to be “dealt with”. The force was made to apologise, which they eventually did, possibly after legal threats had to be made. No “lessons” appear to have been “learned” here.

Also the incident of the autistic young man slapped with a Hate Crime label for asking a fairly innocent question in a (admittedly rather awkward) manner which a particularly sensitive Normie police officer found “sooo offensive” – then maybe this isn’t the career for them, given the abuse I’ve heard directed at officers who are just trying to stop some idiot injuring himself.

It’s always amazing how officers can have so much patience with an adult male who is clearly intoxicated and causing serious damage (and inevitably screaming abuse and obscenities at all and sundry), but what they flip out over is one autistic child. Almost like girls are held to a different standard. Or are easier to bully. One of those.

How they see us:

He might as well have just typed “YOU ARE DISGUSTING” as many times as the character limit would allow.

The “you” in question is Hadley Freeman by the way.

Judge tells Trump to be cautious about the mouthing off.

A federal judge has warned former US President Donald Trump against making “inflammatory” statements which could taint the jury pool ahead of his trial for conspiring to overturn the result of the 2020 election.

But Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Mr Trump can publicly share some of the non-sensitive evidence which prosecutors disclose to his legal team.

…

At a 90-minute hearing in Washington DC, the judge said the historic case was proceeding as normal. “He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have restrictions like every single other defendant,” she said. “The fact that the defendant is engaged in a political campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case.”

Nor, I take it, is the fact that he’s an ex-president. He’s just another fella around here.