British Police Chief Will Prioritize Online Abuse Reports Over Burglaries

The first leader of Britain’s National Police Chiefs’ Council, Sara Thornton, says that British residents cannot expect police to respond to burglary reports anymore. Because of funding cuts, Ms. Thornton, the former Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, says that online abuse cases and allegations of “sexual assault” will take precedence.

Therefore, the police will take Twitter “abuse” (politically incorrect jokes, maybe?) more seriously than someone breaking into your home with a crowbar and looting it. This is despite the usually ample evidential opportunities burglary reports provide relative to sexual assault cases, of which many are of the he-said-she-said variety.

Welcome to the world where a tweet can land you in more trouble than breaking into someone’s home.

I am not someone who denies that sexual assaults occur. They certainly do. Like murder, serious assault, corporate fraud and other serious crimes, one case of these incidents is theoretically too many. But they are nonetheless perpetrated by a minority in society. They are not widespread. As the Harvard academic Steven Pinker relates, violent acts in particular are at historic lows. Thornton’s dismissal of the importance of attending to burglary reports gives the illusion that we are somehow facing an epidemic of sexual assaults.

Furthermore, “online abuse” is the most poorly defined and often ridiculous category of criminal offence. Instead of creating actual harm, most of the time “offenders” are punished for hurting someone’s feelings. Unless there is a well-founded fear of real-life harm from a tweet or something similar, there is more of an argument for criminalizing adultery (which I’m not saying should be criminalized, by the way) or low-end schoolyard bullying than the very vague concept of “online abuse”.

Sara Thornton’s priorities only affirm the lack of due process for those accused of sexual assault

Police ignoring burglary reports will only increase the feeling of burglars that they can act with virtual impunity, increase the chances of violence against the property owners, and force homeowners and others to respond with more force against offenders than they otherwise would.

Sadly, evidence-poor reports of sexual abuse in modern times result in both social witch hunts and a systemic lowering of the standard of proof. Whilst police investigations are not “court processes” per se, those accused of sexual assault are now required to “prove” to police in Britain that they had consent, whatever that benchmark means and however it can possibly be satisfied.

Functionally, all this does is shift the pre-trial burden of proof, which should be on the state, to the accused. In the meantime, the actual collection of evidence, and the underlying strength of the police case, is left by the wayside.

Of course, the laying of police charges should not have to conform to “beyond reasonable doubt”. The idea is to properly test what is deemed to be evidence in a court of law. The problem is that even when we move to the courts, legal processes have been watered down specifically for sexual assault cases. Without any other evidence, aside from he-said-she-said, you would not see regular convictions for tax evasion, armed robbery, serious assault and other crimes, especially if the alleged incident took place years or decades ago. This is routine for sexual assault cases, however.

Reports of serious crimes must be investigated, emphasizing the EVIDENCE

What’s more likely to lead to a tragic outcome, impolite, rude comments on Twitter or someone ransacking your property and then turning on you when you discover them doing it?

Testimony of a complainant is part of the overall evidentiary framework. I do not refute this. But for it to be the only or preponderant evidence is a very dangerous path to take. It beggars belief that Sara Thornton, and presumably some of her senior colleagues, would largely abandon responding to burglary reports but divert more resources to investigating crimes where objective evidence of the kind demanded for almost every other criminal category is severely lacking.

The primary responsibility of the police is to protect citizens and maintain social order. “Order” to most people would mean the protection of property and person, which often dovetail where burglaries are concerned. Amidst the protecting, police need to be searching for and uncovering quality evidence that can be used to prosecute alleged offenders.

Clamping down on keyboard comments (which create far less damage and injury than burglaries) and he-said-she-said sexual assault allegations is a slap in the face to the millions of Britons who will suffer from having their property stolen and their homes violated. And what happens when these homeowners and their families are seriously injured or killed?

Burglars now have a much stronger get-out-of-jail free card thanks to Sara Thornton.

Read More: Lesbian Chief Constable Forces Bearded British Cops To Wear Beard Nets

97 thoughts on “British Police Chief Will Prioritize Online Abuse Reports Over Burglaries”

        1. “Free speech” was a promise from the government that they wouldn’t interfere with us. Unfortunately, we all know the value of political promises.

        2. That’s why many of us call them “God-given Rights” rather than “government-granted privileges” and thus they are considered something the government has no right to take away.

        3. Philosophically true, which is why they have spent so long denigrating philosophy and morality in the academic establishment.
          Practically, it could only last so long as the government either supported the moral foundation or feared the people.

  1. This is NOT police work. ITs state thought control and speech control.
    Stalin would be proud. What a bunch of parasitic control freaks.
    Beyond belief. Beyond contemptible. Wake up people. Any police officer that says this should be FIRED.

    1. Hummm…… Stalin would have dispatched that slut in uniform to Kolyma, with never to return !

    2. Agree. When police move from “serving and protecting the public and public property”…then they are no longer the police (they become the KGB, NSA, etc….).
      We already have one (in the US, at least)…we don’t need another one.

      1. As one of the commenters on the original article wrote, they’ve gone from protecting peoples’ safety to enforcing against online dissent against the system…

    3. Go on twitter and type that you’d like to rape the thief. Then the UK police will be at your house in no time flat!
      The UK and Sweden are such a source of horror stories these days!

  2. Words are harmful to liberal faggots because they can rip apart their weak ass arguments and regressive beliefs. Control the narrative, like the liberal media has for decades, control the beliefs of people. Liberals are pathetic fucking pussies too cowardly and limp wristed to face any real danger. Plus, in their minds, all criminals are the real victims.

  3. We’re descending into the wild west west again, where criminals have more rights than you and I. Fuck this stupid cunt, I hope she gets burglarized.

    1. Actually the wild west would be paradise. Everybody would have a gun, everybody would know everybody has a gun. Everybody would be equal.

    2. The “Wild West” Was safer than the cities back east. By far. Crime was rampant in the east where as the west was not “socialized” or “tamed” so it resulted in free people doing things freely.

    3. No mate ! That slut property & her is protected by a battalion of Police SWAT 7/24

    4. Criminals have never had more rights than you and I.
      I would prefer the wild west. At least I could defend myself.

  4. Aww c’mon guys. You didn’t think “Real” crime would take precedent over the feelings of our special little snowflakes did you? Real crime involves police work (emphasis on the word, “work”). Dusting a place for prints, getting dna samples, etc. Things that involve effort. Authorities much rather print out a text message and go arrest someone and get the same amount of revenue. The left will then laud them as heroes for making the world safer for women and girls. It’s simply easier.
    Remember according to the snowflakes there is a virtual rape epidemic.(Part 1)

    and Words are akin to actual rape (Part 2)

  5. Good article, except…
    “Of course, the laying of police charges should not have to conform to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.”
    No the laying of police charges SHOULD have to conform to beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of the trial is to then ensure the police did their job properly and that the suspect is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In a sensible justice system (i.e. not Britain’s) charging and especially putting a suspect on remand (aka pre-trial prison) who is then found not guilty would result in the suspect being paid substantial compensation. The idea being that it encourages police not to do that again & corrects injustices.

    1. that statement also denies the very real fact that the CPS routinely now use cases, aided by incompentent & cowered police – especially in sexual assult claims – as a way of pushing the goal posts further away and testing the ground whatever destruction that may bring to the accused.
      Britain must now face the fact that the law is being used – and no other country with British based law like Australia, Canada, New Zealand has yet fallen prey to : to satisfy the the screeching broomstick waving Mob who are represented by the gutter media.
      Politcians are now too cowardly to even suggest something is wrong for fear of being ripped to shreds over some minor incident in their private life.

  6. Good.
    The PC faggots wanted and’or allowed this to happen. Let them burn. Hopefully the ‘multicultural’ thieves will become embolden and muh dik some whitey femis.

    1. I get where you’re coming from but that’s a shitty position. It’s like saying oh, the kids have set the house on fire. Well, their choice, now I’m just gonna stand back and let it burn to the ground. You’re literally giving in to weak children.

  7. We should install some magnets/coils/etc on Orwell’s grave.
    The speed of his spinning could power all of Britain by now.
    Punishing people for tweets/hurting feelings/whatever is just one more step towards prosecuting crimethink.

  8. Yeah, this is Minority Report (movie) styled bullshit. I guess lazy law enforcement thinks they can find pre-cognizant crime and motive through social media. If social justice by definition morphs into criminal justice, then all crimes are social in nature. Policing social crimes only requires an internet connect, computer, and lots of overpaid, out-of-shape keyboard Colombo’s to find thought criminals. Physical crimes just require too much work. And having to deal with proving a case with actual evidence is just too much of a burden compared to thought crimes where the evidence is already there for the taking — a simple copy paste operation.
    This approaches crazy Christianity’s definition of and punishment for SIN. If you hate your brother and say to him, “raca,” it’s as if you murdered him, adn you’re answerable to the authorities. If you lust after a woman, it’s the same as if you committed adultery with her, in which case you should pluck out your eye and cut off your hand, because it’s better than going to hell. That shit uses fear (of hell) to keep people in line. It gave the church and clergy a way to wield massive power over gullible parishioners.
    Likewise, SJW’s and big Criminal Justice are partnering up to invent new ways to make everyone guilty of something, allowing the cultural priests of political and social correctness to wield power and invoke fear of speaking out against even the most benign of social topics, lets you be charged with a crime and found guilty in the court of public opinion. This approach gives power and reward to the worthless parasites of this generation. Whether politicians, priests, SJW’s, journalists, et al, they make a living labeling productive men as criminals for things that even a few years ago were normally accepted behavior.
    Now we all must suffer the slings and arrows of these wacko jacko’s and their need to lord over us as real criminals get away with stealing my shit.
    It’s a wonderful world we live in, praise Jesus!

  9. I agree with the basic points in this article but I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to make a sweeping statement that internet /social media just “hurts people’s feelings” when there is clear evidence that a lot of websites / comments sections seem to be a green light for defamation and the propogating of damaging lies.
    The “Hampstead Satanic” hoax is a good example of people using social media to defame , harass & intimidate people merely because they happen to live in a certain suburb. Many of those named on the net in that case have had death threats and their children have been abused & harrassed at school.
    The Devil is probably in The Detail and this Police chief should have told us exactly what she means.
    There is also no reason why police cannot do both jobs :investigate robbery & theft plus online abuse but of course politcians keep cutting funds.
    This is the problem I encountered and a lot of Insurnace companies will agree and it has been discussed by them for the last 10 years : with the rapacious onslought of privatisation has come a mindset : police will openly talk that people can now get recourse to car theft / burglary etc via insurance so they divert their investigations elsewhere.
    And as an excellent example of how persons accused in sexual matters now nust prove innocence : I recommend comedian Jim Davidson’s book on his Yewtree ordeals when he was accused of historic sexual assault.
    Davidson took the unusual step of (successfully) disproving every claim made. That is the job the police should have done but Davidson discovered the police where then informing claimants & allowing them to shift the goal posts to claim the assault then took place in another location (one, 200 miles away from the original) and on a different date.
    Davidson was just lucky as the claims must have been too ludicrous for the CPS to continue pursuing him.

  10. This shift from pursuing actual crime to persecuting people for unpleasant opinions online is simply a function of how the British police services, under orders from the Home Office and Ministry of ‘Justice’, measure success.
    See, the benchmark of success in British policing — and thus the metric by which the higher echelons are awarded their performance bonuses, promotions, pension pots, and gongs (OBEs, knighthoods, etc.) — isn’t prosecuted criminal acts, but a bizarre bureaucratic invention called ‘detected crimes’.
    A ‘detected crime’ is not an arrest, a prosecution, or even a case brought to trial, but completion of the correct box-ticking procedures, correct formatting of the relevant paperwork, and, if you’re REALLY lucky, the assignment of a crime to a suspect (whether prosecuted or not). All this means that going through the extended process of getting career burglar Sid Lag banged up in prison for a single burglary = 1 detection, while just getting little Johnny Chav (who knows he’ll get little more than a ticking off, thanks to Britain’s ludicrously lenient sentencing guidelines) to admit to a dozen instances of petty shoplifting = 12 detections.
    Which of these is less demanding of police time, effort and budgets? Exactly.
    From this perspective chasing up twitter abuse and suchlike are the perfect crime to pursue for the purposes of the higher ranks of the British police. SOP becomes: receive complaint; fire off an email to the ISP of the person accused of online ‘hate speech’; ISP responds with time stamped evidence supporting the accusation; copper files this as a detected crime of ‘harassment’, all without leaving his desk.
    And, if the Powers That Be have a bee in their bonnet over a particular ‘-phobia’ this month, the detection can be followed up with an exemplary prosecution of the person involved. This serves to 1) show that something is being done about the moral panic de jour, and 2) keeps the rest of the populace who might share similarly unfashionable opinions intimidated and in line.
    Meanwhile, your poor old Granny has had her house broken into, and her pension, silverware and your late Grandad’s war medals stolen. Up rocks PC Plod, under orders to get detections above all else. Burglary, traditionally a police matter, becomes a case of:
    “Sorry love, we don’t chase these up any more. Here’s a crime number; phone your insurance provider.”
    And back he trudges to field more phone calls/emails about twitter spite from the weak-minded and easily offended.
    Hilariously, detected crimes as the official measure of police efficacy were loudly and publicly dropped a few years back, but the Home Office continues to use something uncannily similar as a metric of success. Only the name has changed.
    This is Britain in 2015: Big Brother is watching, and he’s a lazy, spiteful, arbitrary bully who will ruin your life to make his ‘crimes detected’ figures look good.

  11. This article is extremely overdramatic.
    Yes, online abuse is very general and vague, but nowhere did Thornton mention Twitter bullying as part of it. In another article she says that anti-social behaviour would not be treated as a priority, so it seems like it would not be taken more seriously then a home invasion with a crow bar.
    “Instead of creating actual harm, most of the time “offenders” are punished for hurting someone’s feelings.”
    Have there been any instances of Twitter offenders being criminally punished for hurting people’s feelings?
    “Thornton’s dismissal of the importance of attending to burglary reports gives the illusion that we are somehow facing an epidemic of sexual assaults.”
    Google “rape statistics Britain”.
    I agree that a lot of women are illogical but when you post rubbish like this you’re acting exactly like a woman. If you guys were masculine you wouldn’t be posting whiny articles like this and ads for snake oil claiming to get you super ripped and laid every day.

  12. At least now people won’t look at America as the crime capital of the world. Might as rename Britain, Alcatraz because it will be a criminal paradise with that cunt in charge of the police.

  13. London has a TON of cameras. The Cameras are all the evidence they need. The process of tracking people down has been automated, now these lazy f*cks are gonna get paid to surf the net looking at Twitter, and Porn sites! 😛

  14. Solution seems pretty simple to me, let the people go on a looting spree, and ase how long it takes for the police to change their policy. Saying they won’t respond to a crime is effectively decriminalizing it, so you might as well go grab that new flat screen you wanted.

  15. Police everywhere increasingly regard theft, including burglary, as an insurance and not a law enforcement, matter. That being said, investigating online “abuse” strikes me as a typically feminine dislike of criticism.

    1. If you don’t know who stole it, they will tell you to contact your insurer. If you do know who stole it, then they will tell you to contact your lawyer and sue them to get your stuff back.

  16. The primary responsibility of the police is to protect citizens…

    This is a common misconception. The primary responsibility of the police is to keep the population in line. They have no responsibility to protect you. And you have no legal power to protect yourself. As such, no longer prosecuting burglaries fits in perfectly with their remit.
    Ask yourself, when is it you see the most police? And are you ever happy to see the police?

    1. Do you feel safe when you see a police car on the same street as you or is your first reaction to check to see if you’re not engaging in any obvious “ticketable” offenses.

      1. I never feel safe when I see the police. Even when I’m not driving I am instinctively on my guard wondering what I’m going to be harassed for today. I feel safer when I see a gang of thugs walking towards me. They are much less likely to fuck with me.

        1. It is sad how it has come to this.
          I was telling a friend that when we were younger our parents would teach us that if we had a problem, we could go to the police and trust them to help us.
          There is no way in hell that I’d teach that to my kids now.

        2. Exactly. You can guess what’s on the thugs minds. But cops are like grenades going off and need to have some sort of arrest before they go home for the day. And when I was taking martial arts we had a number of cops at the school. Those guys were kill-crazy and constantly looking for violent conflict while on the job.

      2. englishbob’s right. The cops aren’t there to protect you, they’re there to keep people in line. And no, I don’t feel safe when cops are around. They have an us-against-them mind-set and see everyone as a potential target. I’m white, and most people I know have been raised to not stare at, talk to, or hang around where there are cops for too long. They have quotas and prosecuters don’t care who’s innocent or guilty, they just put people into “the system” and as many as possible. All just part of the Big Blue Pill Machine.

        1. There’s so many laws that it is not only impossible to know if you are breaking the law or not, but cops can just make up any excuse to arrest you based on the same.
          In the USA, the number of federal laws is innumerable. Even Congress does not know how many laws there are.

      1. They’ve obviously never heard the phrase “you can never find a cop when you need one”.

      1. That is a relatively modern phenomenon but yes, generally your only interaction with the police will be for them to “tax” you.

      1. Why were you in a riot? I assume you were pleased to see them so you could throw rocks at them.

        1. LOL I wasn’t in the riot per see, I just glad someone was there to stop them.
          Unless you’re one of the Black lives matter nazi’s.

        2. It was a reference to their one sides views.
          They would force their views on you, and you either agreed or died/punished.
          Besides that black lives matter is funded by a Jewish billionaire Goerge Soros.

  17. The article correctly describes what is wrong with modern policing in terms of priorities and the worrying trend towards policing of speech, hurt feelings etc, rather than actual crime particularly insofar as this threatens freedom of speech, but the BBC source given doesn’t really provide solid evidence of this without interpretation. I’m only saying this because I actually think this is one of the most important issues of the day, but we’re only going to be able to counter it, if we can demonstrate very clearly what is happening, what is being done based on solid evidence

    1. Mark Steyn wrote something like this years ago: ‘in Britain, everything is policed except crime.’
      An 88 year old man was sent to prison for 2 years last week for owning an antique shotgun. The yobs who had been smashing his windows and tourmenting him were never bothered. It’s like a parody.

  18. Maybe a bit off topic, but the following is one of my favorite stories (not exactly ‘true’, but might as well be):
    Woman calls police.
    Says there a three ‘yutes’ burglarizing her shed out back.
    Police reply, “Sorry, there are no units currently in the area”.
    Woman hangs up.
    Woman calls back 5 minutes later. Tells dispatcher she was the one that called 5 minutes earlier.
    Tells dispatcher not to worry, she shot the offending ‘yutes’.
    5 minutes later, 6 patrol units, a SWAT team, and a helicopter arrive at the scene.
    Cops apprehend offending ‘yutes’ in the act.
    One cop asks woman, “I thought you said you shot them?”
    Woman replies, “I thought you said there were no units in the area?”

  19. This is how creeping socialism / statism works. The police stop caring about law abiding citizens – instead they target them.

  20. Grow a fucking backbone and call this shit out. It’s fucking pathetic how the PC crowd
    is fucking up countries left and right.

  21. Not sure how this works in the UK but the reason crooks were able to get the cops to “work to rule” here was by filing numerous complaints against the police. The incidents in Ferguson, Baltimore and other places (even if the cops were in the right) led to many just saying “my job isn’t worth this shit.”

    1. The other term is FIDO: “Fuck It, Drive On”. The cops won’t do their jobs when career and political ramifications hammer them. If they see something going down that could potentially blow up in their face, they just say “fuck it” and then drive on. It happens in Canada when dealing with Indians and sometimes with environmental protesters, and other types of protesters.

  22. So now a woman’s feelings are worth more than your private property…
    But somehow this is a patriarchal society?

  23. I guess in that case instead of tweeting about how abusive or rotten someone is, just go over and beat their ass in person.

  24. Have Twitter users ever heard of the marvelous yet enigmatic thing called “turning the computer off” if someone bombards them with “offensive” words/phrases?
    Now imagine if the US was still colonies under British rule…

  25. Why is that woman “Chief”? I serously don’t get it.
    The other day I was watching a football game, I think some of you call it soccer, and when the first half ended, the officials gathered and in that moment a police woman with a shield in her arm stood close to them.
    I’m a small man(1.62 cm), so I know how clear it is when someone taller than you stans by your side.
    Well, at least two of the officials were 20-30 cm taller than her.
    And there it was this little woman with her big shield, and I was thinking. If some shit happens, what the hell is she going to do? Because I know that, with or without shield, you just push her and that’s it. What is she going to do, yell at you?

    1. Haha yeah that’s what I say also when I see female police officers, and soldiers. World gone wrong.

  26. Remember, once they disarm you and take away your ability to defend your self, they can do whatever they want. Including deciding not to help you when you’re being raped or robbed, only if that person is “assaulting” you online.

  27. I reckon the real reason for this new policy is similar to the reason behind the old “How come the Police can find the time to give me a speeding ticket but never do anything about REAL criminals?” It’s about the ease vs difficulty of identifying the suspects.
    With the example in the article of burglary vs online harassment:
    A man commits a burglary while the homeowners are out and is long gone by the time the victim realises what’s happened. He only stole items which aren’t easily trackable like cash and jewellery. The victim reports the burglary to the Police. Put yourself in the shoes of the Police: most homes don’t have CCTV, so no mugshots of the burglar. The burglar was so stealthy that none of the victim’s neighbours saw him either. All that the Police can really do to identify the burglar is dust for prints which may or may not be there, may or may not be good quality prints, and may or may not match the prints of someone who’s already in the Police’s systems. So how are the Police ever going to identify the burglar?
    With online harassment, however, the Police just need to track the IP address of the poster. Job done.
    In my own experience, I’ve been frustrated by the fact that if I ever go a few miles over the speed limit or file my tax return a little late I get hit by fines and tickets all over the place but when someone commits a crime against me like shoplifting it’s rare that they’re caught. It’s annoying, but I understand why: when I speed, the Police just need to match up my car’s number plate with their database and they’ve got their suspect; when someone commits a shoplifting, unless I know their name and address, all the Police have to go on for an identification is grainy footage of someone who the Officer may or may not recognise. When I DO have the name and address of a shoplifter, the Police do investigate and the thief will at least get a warning and have to pay for what they stole – if they’re a repeat offender, they’ll get a fine and community service as well.
    I can understand where Garrett is coming from, but I think this is not so much a case of “Which crime does the Police consider to be more serious?” as it is a case of “Which crime takes less effort for the Police to investigate?” Hanlon’s Razor and all that.

  28. This bitch looks like *I* could kick the shit out of her. How the hell is a transgender butler chief?

  29. The only scintilla of reasonableness to this is the fact that clearance rates for forcible rape are significantly higher than for burglaries, less so for robberies.
    After the fact, investigating a rape is probably more worthwhile than investigating a burglary. That’s about it. Certainly, police should not simply ignore a burglary – or other crime – in progress. Investigating twitter trash talk rather than a clear property crime is an abomination. The further problem is that SJWs never think further than the end of their nose about how real people will alter their behavior as the formerly accepted rules of society keep getting messed with.
    Once people know that if a burglar gets away, then your property is gone because it will not be investigated by the police, you will find that a number of burglars – in their haste to escape to assured freedom – will accidentally trip and fall, face first onto my cricket bat that I may have careless left about the place.

  30. Of course, perverting the legal system to the ends of the feminist hegemony is the stated goal of women, so no surprise here.
    There is however a secondary causal factor at work. Women are very uncomfortable in a world of facts, science, logic, moral reason, rights, or accountability. The merest hint of those things produces profound psychological disruptions for them.
    It is natural that they would shun pursuing crimes that require all of those things in order to solve and hold a perp accountable. A woman is much more comfortable in a world where all things are mutable to the feelings she has. Online “abuse” and reports of he-said, she-said sex crimes fall in the female wheelhouse, and predetermined outcomes that match her emotional state feed the female soul like manna from heaven.
    Women, and a legal system that bears any resemblance to justice, are eternally incompatible. That is why, in this age of the feminist hegemony, the US constitution must be a “living, breathing” document that is constantly evolving, and the moral standards that undergird the law must be ever shifting. Why in the US and Britain, precedent, statute and the common law can mean anything, nothing or everything depending on the necessary construct to produce the desired outcome that makes women feel good about themselves.

  31. on a slight side note, I will never use twitter and i recently stopped browsing facebook.
    Ive seen a lot of good people get mobbed online because dipwad libtards felt they were offended.

  32. You cannot arm yourself with a gun in Britain and now their law enforcement is shifting efforts in stopping burglary towards comments on Twitter.
    The prisons shall be filled with Twitterheads and the burglars would be stealing valuables at gunpoint
    Such a progressive state

  33. Well, yeah, if I was a Marxist Feminist who wanted to bring down Western civilization, I would also prioritize imaginary crimes, and let actual criminals (particularly Muslim ones) run rampant while I investigated white guys hurting people’s feelings via the Internet.

Comments are closed.