Should these Labour MPs go to prison too?

The thugs who participated in riots that took place last week were wearing masks to the extent that the Government is planning to propose a ban on face coverings from any protest. The Sun, however, reported that there would be exemptions for ‘people in religious wear’. 
 
Should such be the case, one can only be met with a sight that is rather improbable. Gangs of savage racists in the disguise of Muslim women. 
 
For the present, at least, the authorities are free to concentrate on suppressing those who bring this about. But punishment is not just served for those who committed violent actions and deeds. Those who incited violence through post on social media are also paying the price. 
 
It’s rather difficult to sympathise with such a stance. Still, I have a feeling that such an approach would mean opening a rather large can of worms. Because, if people may be locked up for messages that seem to call for violence, what about 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: “That in itself reduces the ‘naturalness’ of Jan Moir’s death if I were to push the bigoted old bag under the train. ” 
 
In 2022, for instance, a spokesman for Mr Streeting was forced to apologise, noting that the message in the tweet was rather ‘tasteless’. An apology, however, would not have been enough to save those jailed in the past week for their behaviour on the social media. 
 
While we are at it, I observed yesterday that another Labour MP, Dawn Butler, has apologised for a tweet from April 2007 in which she expressed annoyance at “f—ing Estonian retards”. ‘Was that inciting some hatred?’ And a third Labour MP has deleted an image that it forwarded an unproven rumor about an acid attack against a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough. Was that disseminating fake news? 
 
To be clear: I have never been in this column that I think some of these MPs should be arrested. What I am saying is that if the intention is to go catching everyone who has ever made some foolish remark, an angry comment or provided misleading information on social media, then the Labour party must forget about constructing 1. 5 million new homes – and build one The aim of building 5 million new homes would imply that a certain number of these homes should be built to support this fundamental life process – bearing in mind that construction of five million homes would require a mammoth. Five million new prisons, instead. 
 
‘Community leaders’: this leaves a mystery that only increases 
 
You might have wondered what the meaning of the term ‘community leaders’ is provocative enough. But now it appears that there’s yet another peculiar fresh term for all of us to master. It is due to the CPS’s announcement that, to help “pursue our response” to last week’s disturbances, “it is working with local panels”. 
 
But wait a minute. But what are these ‘local panels’ — strange institutions which no local political party seems to fully control? What’s their remit? Who’s on them? But, how would anyone secure a place on one? 
 
Local panels might be made of an area’s “community leaders. ” Or perhaps they are assembled in the same fashion as the juries are. In a lucky draw like manner, out of the blue, randomly selected members of the public receive a stern-looking official letter to the effect that they are compelled to sit on their local panel. 
 
I, however, would like to join the supporters of the opinion that if local panels can have powers to affect decisions of such a huge body as the Crown Prosecution Service, then membership of these panels should be elective. It is entirely logical that we, the great British public, should have the right to select those of us who should represent Our Graces on such august entities. 
 
For this reason, I propose to directly address my plea to my community leader as a way of making sure that it gets to the authorities. As soon as I’ve worked out exactly who on earth he or she is. 
 
Attempts to ban drugs have been in various forms including frequent issuing of policies and rules by the Olympics, extensive drug testing and research and vigorous investigative journalism, yet they are all in vain, that is why there is need to abolish the tests for drugs. 
 
Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting who easily emerged as the winners of the gold in the women’s event Olympic boxing, two girls have had to face countless unpalatable calls that they are not really women. Of course, this entire unfortunate series could have been not to take place if all potential rivals in women’s Olympic categories were obliged, as they used to before, to pass a simple cheek swab test to prove that they are really biologically female. Criticizing the two boxers, however, would have been painful, embarrassing, invasive and dehumanizing according to their supporters. 
 
Very well. But by the same token, I fully support calls for the abolition of Olympic drugs testing, too. 
 
After all, imagine how humiliating and degrading it should be for an Olympic athlete suppressing a feeling of urination just to speel into a bucket so that someone, a total stranger, can check their bodily fluids. And also, how painful and embarrassing it must feel – because simply having one been compelled to take drugs tests, means one could be a cheat. Why couldn’t we be gentle and humble and presume that the Olympics sports stars will never have a plan B to dope themselves in a bid to clinch a gold medal? 
 
It is my belief that it is high time that people stopped attempting to regulate the bodies of athletes in such a harsh, invasive and uncessary manner. And if an athlete just happens to complete the marathon in 20 minutes, or hurl the javelin half way to Berlin, then let’s all stand up and cheer at such sporting magnificent.