Should these Labour MPs go to prison too?

It may be recalled that during the riots that happened last week, there were many hooligans using masks that the Government of the country is now pondering if masks should be banned when attending protests. Gentle disclosure Among the conditions that the Sun reported would warrant the singer to remove her veil, ‘people in religious dress’ would be exempted. 
 
If this is so, then we might find ourself staring at an unexpected scene. Bands of aggressive xenophobic bigots, everyone wearing a burqa. 
 
For the time being at least it is the authorities’ task to revert the situation and punish the people responsible for it. But punishment is not only given to those who engaged in physical violence. Those who provoked violence by comments on the web are also punished, for instance. 
 
It is rather difficult to have compassion for such a person. That all being said, however, I worry that this approach would open up an enormous can of worms. For, if individuals may be imprisoned for e-mailing messages which can seem to incite violence, where does that leave the Health Secretary? 
 
In 2009, some years before he became a Labour MP, Wes Streeting responded to a controversial column in the Daily Mail by tweeting, of the woman who wrote it: “If I hate and push the bigoted old bag under a train, Jan Moir’s death would not be natural at all! ” 
 
In 2022, a spokesman for Mr Streeting said sorry, noting that the tweet is quite tasteless. An apology on the other hand would not have done anything to free those who were arrested in the past week for their atrocious behavior on social media. 
 
While I am still on the subject, I see that another Labour MP has recently apologized for a very old post where she was whining about “f—ing Estonian retards”. Was he inciting enmity there? And a third Labour MP has tweeted an image and a post containing a completely false narrative of an acid-throwing incident of a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough. Was that a hoaxster telling a falsehood? 
 
To be clear: Let me make it clear that I do not personally believe these MPs should be arrested. I am simply pointing out the fact that, if people are to be arrested for stupidity, temperance or for posting something that could be misleading in the heat of the social media storm, Labour cannot afford to construct 1. 5 Million New Homes – and the construct 1. And it will give us 5 million new prisons, instead. 
 
‘Community leaders’: the roles are reversed and the air is thick with tension of the unsaid and the unknown – the mystery deepens. . .

Perhaps you thought that to classify the term ‘community leaders’ as complicated was sufficient enough. But now it appears that there is a new strange new term out there for each of us to acquire. This announcement from the Crown Prosecution Service comes at a time when the service has said that in a bid to ‘drive our response’ to last week’s disorder it will be meeting ‘local panels’. 
 
But wait a minute. What is more, what could these hence voguish ‘local panels’ possibly be? What’s their remit? Who’s on them? But how does one achieve a place on one? 
 
Maybe “local panels” are just of the “area elites”, the “community leaders” of an area. Or maybe they are assembled in a way that can be compared to jurors’ selection. Assuming the position of a totally random layman, an individual gets an official-looking letter, that reads, ‘You are hereby directed to serve on your local panel. ’ 
 
However, as far as I myself am concerned, if local panels have powers to steer actions of such an important body as the Crown Prosecution Service, the members of such panels should be elected. The great British public, it seems to me, should have the right to determine which of our compatriots gets to sit upon these exalted boards. 
 
Thus, to guarantee that my appeal penetrates the right officials, I shall go directly to my community head. As soon as I’ve gotten some idea who on earth he or she is. 
 
Why it is time for the Olympics to ditch the drugs testing regime

The two girls Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting, the comfortable winners of gold in the women’s Olympic boxing have had to bear so many unbearable nasty accusations of not being real women or not having the real feminine attributes. Of course, all this unhappy row could have never happened if all the potential competitors in the female Olympic events were to be subjected to a simple cheek swab test in advance before they were allowed to compete (as was the practice in the past). Those supporting the two boxers though state that this would have been embarrassing, humiliating, invasion of the boxer’s personal space and dehumanising. 

Very well. But, applying the same pattern of thought, we should also cancel Olympic drugs testing, as well. 
 
But wait, just imagine how humiliating and demoralising it must be for Olympic athletes to be forced to provide a specimen by squeezing their genitals, so someone can suss out their fluids. Also, how painful and shameful it must be – because letting the athletes. take drugs tests at all evokes the impression that they could well be cheats. Why can’t we be kind and compassionate, and take it in good faith that Olympic athletes would not dream of cheating to win a gold medal? 
 
In my view, the intrusion into athletes’ bodies in this inconsiderate, adamant and predatory approach has to stop. And if an athlete just happens to run the marathon in 20 minutes, or throw the javelin halfway to Berlin, let everyone cheer for an outstanding athletic performance.