James Pfeffer
@jamespfeffer.bsky.social
Lefty centrist. Never again means never again for anyone.
Next up: gold teeth.
November 15, 2025 at 4:49 PM
Next up: gold teeth.
I didn't know he actually fought with them.
October 2, 2025 at 11:12 AM
I didn't know he actually fought with them.
And Afghanistan.
October 2, 2025 at 10:54 AM
And Afghanistan.
Actually Corbyn and Dmowski have too much in common. 😱 Let's say Ed
Davey.
Davey.
September 21, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Actually Corbyn and Dmowski have too much in common. 😱 Let's say Ed
Davey.
Davey.
We have a Roman Dmowski street in Gdańsk. Charlie Kirk was a veritable Jeremy Corbyn in comparison.
September 21, 2025 at 6:43 PM
We have a Roman Dmowski street in Gdańsk. Charlie Kirk was a veritable Jeremy Corbyn in comparison.
You seem to be confusing "how America works" with how America works.
September 21, 2025 at 6:35 PM
You seem to be confusing "how America works" with how America works.
Reposted by James Pfeffer
19 identical drones, every one unarmed, in a holding pattern for an hour over Belarus before they crossed into Poland, followed a week later by the incursion of three jet fighters into Estonia. If Western intelligence officials remain insure, maybe they should reconsider their career choices.
September 20, 2025 at 1:04 PM
19 identical drones, every one unarmed, in a holding pattern for an hour over Belarus before they crossed into Poland, followed a week later by the incursion of three jet fighters into Estonia. If Western intelligence officials remain insure, maybe they should reconsider their career choices.
Grzegorz Braun seems to have misunderstood international talk like a
pirate day. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...
pirate day. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...
International Talk Like a Pirate Day - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
September 19, 2025 at 11:31 PM
Grzegorz Braun seems to have misunderstood international talk like a
pirate day. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...
pirate day. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...
That's after he's had the secret service defuse the ice cream bombe.
September 17, 2025 at 8:29 PM
That's after he's had the secret service defuse the ice cream bombe.
If further proof were required of the "slippery slope" argument, then this is it.
September 17, 2025 at 10:36 AM
If further proof were required of the "slippery slope" argument, then this is it.
Talking arse in the case of Chris Mason.
September 16, 2025 at 3:01 AM
Talking arse in the case of Chris Mason.
Don't worry, Ben. I have every
confidence that after a couple of weeks locking up peaceful pensioners for holding placards Starmer will somehow summon up the backbone to remain silent in the face of Musk's call to violence.
confidence that after a couple of weeks locking up peaceful pensioners for holding placards Starmer will somehow summon up the backbone to remain silent in the face of Musk's call to violence.
September 13, 2025 at 10:58 PM
Don't worry, Ben. I have every
confidence that after a couple of weeks locking up peaceful pensioners for holding placards Starmer will somehow summon up the backbone to remain silent in the face of Musk's call to violence.
confidence that after a couple of weeks locking up peaceful pensioners for holding placards Starmer will somehow summon up the backbone to remain silent in the face of Musk's call to violence.
True, but they usually concern the state of mind of the defendent, who has the benefit of the doubt. The problem with this law is illustrated by the fact that you and I reasonably disagree about the meaning of the t-shirt but your view would prevail in court simply because it is the most illiberal.
September 13, 2025 at 1:44 PM
True, but they usually concern the state of mind of the defendent, who has the benefit of the doubt. The problem with this law is illustrated by the fact that you and I reasonably disagree about the meaning of the t-shirt but your view would prevail in court simply because it is the most illiberal.
The spuriousness or otherwise of the argument depends on whether or not the PO genuinely suspected that the shirt expressed support but there is no way for a jury to determine the state of the PO's mind. All they have to go on is whether the argument presented in court is reasonable.
September 13, 2025 at 12:38 PM
The spuriousness or otherwise of the argument depends on whether or not the PO genuinely suspected that the shirt expressed support but there is no way for a jury to determine the state of the PO's mind. All they have to go on is whether the argument presented in court is reasonable.
Consider the "plasticine" t-shirt. If that were seen at a pro-Palestine protest, do you think it would be unreasonable to suspect that it was coded support for Palestine Action? And are you confident that no police officer could convince a jury that it was reasonable?
September 13, 2025 at 12:06 PM
Consider the "plasticine" t-shirt. If that were seen at a pro-Palestine protest, do you think it would be unreasonable to suspect that it was coded support for Palestine Action? And are you confident that no police officer could convince a jury that it was reasonable?
Whether it's about wind farms, Ukraine or Trump's eye for beauty, Simon Jenkins's weekly screed is guaranteed 24-carat bollocks, but if someone could write a piece on why this journalistic fossil still has a job at the Guardian, that is something that would be worth reading.
September 13, 2025 at 12:23 AM
Whether it's about wind farms, Ukraine or Trump's eye for beauty, Simon Jenkins's weekly screed is guaranteed 24-carat bollocks, but if someone could write a piece on why this journalistic fossil still has a job at the Guardian, that is something that would be worth reading.
"Everyone has the right to protest in a way that the government sees fit. " Dan "Kim Jong Un" Jarvis.
September 12, 2025 at 2:00 PM
"Everyone has the right to protest in a way that the government sees fit. " Dan "Kim Jong Un" Jarvis.
What I find more shocking than anything else is the formulation that someone commits an offence if they
"arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation." So a police officer only needs to say, "I suspect you," claim some spurious reason and you're guilty.
"arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation." So a police officer only needs to say, "I suspect you," claim some spurious reason and you're guilty.
September 12, 2025 at 1:34 PM
What I find more shocking than anything else is the formulation that someone commits an offence if they
"arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation." So a police officer only needs to say, "I suspect you," claim some spurious reason and you're guilty.
"arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation." So a police officer only needs to say, "I suspect you," claim some spurious reason and you're guilty.