

For all we know he could have been stitched up.
For all we know he could have been stitched up.
Norris, 65, was elected as the MP for North East Somerset and Hanham in 2024, defeating the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
I wonder who will be lining up to try to win the seat after Norris is gone? Because he’s probably not going to be able to hold his seat, whether or not the charges stick.
Edit: In another article they mention that he also has a master’s degree in social work. More and more I’m leaning towards this being a potential stitch up. However, we don’t know what information the police have, none of that is public.
The USA detained her at the border because a) there was no direct way for her to go back home from the US/Canada land border; b) she had been refused entry by Canada, who have similar entry requirements, meaning the US should be refusing her entry also; and c) she had already been in the country for 3 weeks and they needed to investigate what she had been doing. That’s an awful lot more than just “vibes”.
But yes, as I said in my comment above, the length of detention is the real fucked up part. That’s longer than needed to sort the logistics or perform any necessary investigations, and proves that this is just about filling private prisons at the expense of taxpayers.
Canada was not in the same position as the US, so the two responses aren’t directly comparable. However, you’re right that the US is not a safe country - I’d even caution US citizens against crossing the border right now.
That one was at the Mexican border, and I think the woman was German.
You might be right, I remember the tattoo one being a girl who was turned away at another border before being detained by the US on her way back. If that happened in Mexico as well it’s easy to see why the two could get confused.
Like I say though the fucked up part is the lengthy detention. That doesn’t benefit anyone except the private prisons, at the expense of American taxpayers.
There is some reason to arrest her. She had already been in the country for 3 weeks doing who knows what, so now that they suspect she was doing something wrong it’s worthwhile to investigate.
There’s even some justification for making the detention a miserable process, so as to deter others. It’s very shitty, and I don’t agree with it, but there is at least a rationality about it.
The real kicker is the length of the detention. This isn’t in the interests of America, this is only in the interests of the private prisons padding their bill to the American taxpayer. The whole process is shitty, but this last part proves that they are only serving their own interests.
While I agree the time in detention was excessive, this wasn’t at an airport, it was at the Canadian land border. So it’s understandable that she wouldn’t immediately get on a plane back home - she’d likely have to be taken to a central facility and then transferred to an airport. But yeah, that shouldn’t take 3 weeks.
You’re angry at America and ICE, but it was Canada that refused her entry and first took issue with her activity. After that, when she immediately came back across the border, America was pretty much obligated to look into things.
They definitely should have just deported her immediately, but she apparently did break the visa terms. I read somewhere it was to do with her giving tattoos, or at least that was part of the accusation against her.
3 weeks’ detention is the fucked up part.
She narced on herself to Canada, then America overheard.
Exactly. Canada refused her entry first, then when America learned why they detained her.
She should have been deported and put on the next flight at her expense, not detained for nearly 3 weeks, but she definitely fucked up and took the piss with her visa.
New mission unlocked lol
Say what you will, but Hershey’s is a damn sight better than Nestle. As such, American KitKats >>> European KitKats.
His channel: https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics
Piped alternative: https://piped.wireway.ch/channel/UC5Ghe5TBQGYIOANuiNW4hDQ
I, for one, wish the Greens would turn to violence over more of their issues.
The issue here is people are trying to apply scientific reasoning in a legal setting. The two are not the same. There is a legal process for bringing in scientific reasoning - you can’t just hash it out in court like you would in an academic paper.
Yes, it might have been better for Lucy if there was a statistician. However, it’s not the prosecution’s job to prove her innocence, it’s her’s and her solicitor’s. If there needed to be a statistical analysis and sworn statement from an expert, it would be on the defendant to arrange that.