A lot of things are worse in the UK than in the US.

However, I will say: the race stuff is not nearly as extreme.

British people will read that last sentence and be like “m8, m8, oi, m8 – you ain’t know, m8.”

And yeah, I’m sure it’s bad enough, but it’s not as extreme as America.

Breitbart:

In what is being hailed as a victory for free speech in Britain, train conductor Simon Isherwood has won a suit for being wrongfully fired from his job over remarks questioning so-called “white privilege”.

Mr Isherwood, who was supported in his case against the West Midlands Trains (WMT) by the Free Speech Union (FSU), had been fired in 2020 for questioning left-wing ideology after being required to take an online diversity course on “white privilege”.

Forgetting to turn off his microphone after completing the course, Isherwood turned to his wife and said:“I couldn’t be arsed because I thought, ‘You know what, I’ll just get f***ing angry.’ You know what I really wanted to ask? … and I wish I had, ‘Do they have black privilege in other countries? So, if you’re in Ghana?’”

Guy’s a literal skinhead

The railway conductor said that he made the comments because he felt that the diversity training officers were trying to indoctrinate the workforce into believing that all white people are inherently racist, an idea which he rejects, maintaining that he personally is not racist.

Yet, merely questioning the dogmatic beliefs surrounding race and the Marxist concept of privilege was enough for his colleagues who overheard the remarks to file a formal complaint, resulting in him being suspended later that day and eventually fired for gross misconduct.

However, on Tuesday, an Employment Tribunal found that he was wrongly dismissed, with the presiding judge stating: “Freedom of expression, including a qualified right to offend when expressing views and beliefs (in this case on social issues), is a fundamental right in a democratic society and one that is protected by the Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

“In this instance, however, there is the added significance that these views were being expressed in the privacy of the claimant’s home to his wife. They were never intended to be heard by those who attended or ran the course… Whilst undoubtedly contentious, the remarks he expressed (albeit in an unguarded fashion because they were made to his wife) were akin to expressions of views not infrequently heard on radio and television or read in some newspapers.

“A significant section of society may of course disagree with those views, consider them narrow minded and may also take offence at them but undoubtedly there will be another section of society who hold a contrary view.”

With our help, Simon Isherwood has won his Employment Tribunal case against West Midlands Trains! The rail conductor was dismissed for gross misconduct after asking whether indigenous populations enjoy 'black privilege' in African countries during a diversity training course. pic.twitter.com/TYnGVU1vTy

— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) July 26, 2022

The prevalence of so-called diversity training programmes like the one Isherwood was subjected to has been spreading throughout British society, with even the publicly-funded BBC and the deep state civil service forcing employees to attend diversity training.

Celebrating the victory for Isherwood, Toby Young, the General Secretary of the Free Speech Union — which paid for Isherwood’s legal costs at the tribunal — said: “Next time an employer is urged to dismiss someone by woke activists for challenging their progressive dogma, I hope they’ll think twice. Mr Isherwood is now due for a five-figure payout.”

“I’m delighted we were able to help Simon win a landmark victory for free speech,” Young added.

The chief legal counsel at the FSU, Dr Bryn Harris said: “This is a tremendous victory for Simon and for free speech. The lesson is clear: if you’re a member of the FSU, make sure your employer knows it. And if you’re an employer – don’t bully our members, or we’ll come for you.”

Five figures doesn’t seem like very much.

In America it’s always “so and so was ordered to pay 800 million bajillion gazillion.”

A backwards primitive created through flouting the laws of nature has won the right to stay in Britain, despite torching his local council buildings and being arrested for violent conduct.

He was sentenced to four and a half years for his part in the London riots, where Black youths did what they do best and set fire to the area housing their living quarters.

He was due to be sent back to the hell-hole in Africa that had spewed him out, but the decision was then overturned by traitors in high places, because he claimed not to be Black enough to fit in.

Daily Mail:

Janbazian, who now lives in Wolverhampton, said he would be unfamiliar with the culture in Zambia and would be at a ‘significant disadvantage’ because he was mixed race and did not have the ‘facial characteristics or skin colour’ of many Zambians.

In his witness statement he said: ‘I would have nowhere to live and would not be able to support myself.

‘I would be homeless and living on the streets. I feel that as a mixed race person, I would be subject to attack and fear for my personal safety.’

Why was this same reasoning not used, to kick his abominable Black ass out of Britain and back to Zambia?

He does not have the skin colour or facial characteristics of ANYONE native to Britain and clearly has no way of supporting himself in England either, or he would have cited his job as a reason not to be deported.

The ungrateful pig burned down the very offices that paid his rent for him and now claims Britain has to look after him, because he would be homeless if they sent him back to Negroland.

His mother, in her witness statement, added: ‘I do not have any family in Zambia. Joseph does not know anyone in Zambia; he would have nowhere to live and would end up on the streets.

‘He would have difficulty fitting in to any local community. He is of mixed race ethnicity. I do not have any home town I belong to in Zambia.’

Whose fault is that? Why is the welfare of any of these retarded savages the responsibility of the British people? She was the one that brought the creature into Britain, she should be expelled with him too, along with all the rest of her parasitic race.

The sooner the human rights act is scrapped for non-humans the better.

Racial differences go a lot deeper than just a different color of skin, as anyone who has ever seen an albino Negro is well aware.

Unlike looking like a White man, these creatures look really repulsive. The Blacks themselves hate them, thinking that they are cursed.

Because of this, they like to cut parts of them off, to use in their witchcraft. Even their own families may do this to them, so the UN started interfering and the Tanzanian government removed the albinos from their families for their own safety.

But now the UN has got all uppity again and is saying that this breaches the albino’s human right to a family.

Fox News

The Tanzanian government’s system of rounding up children with albinism in state-run education centers isn’t adequately protecting them from widespread superstitious beliefs that human albino body parts will bring wealth and success or cure disease, the U.N. human rights office said Monday.

People with the genetic condition, characterized by a lack of pigment, are often referred to in Tanzania as ghosts, or zero zero, which in Swahili signifies someone who is less than human. Witch doctors often lead brutal attacks to use albino body parts in potions they claim bring riches.

The government started placing children and adults with the snow white skin, blond hair, and blue eyes into education centers after a wave of attacks started six to eight years ago and caught the attention of Western journalists.

The United Nations is now examining whether some of the 23 known education centers in Tanzania are engaging in segregation by forcibly removing from their homes hundreds of children with albinism who are at risk of being killed, mutilated or sexually abused, said human rights officer Alicia Londono.

Make your mind up UN, doesn’t the Witchdoctor also have a right to use culturally appropriate customs and traditions?

How does that fit with your ‘Universal Human Rights Act’?

The Human Rights Act is a subversive piece of legislation that has been used to give minorities special privileges over and above the rights of everyone else. It gives invading terrorists and parasites from the third world the right not to be deported from the countries they are looting.

The Act is based upon the falsehood that all human beings are equal, which can never be a universal situation, as the members of the nation involved should always have the final say in what goes on in their territory, no-one else. Their ancestors fought and died to secure that territory and bought that right with their own blood.

As British people, we all know that the Human Rights Act has to go, but instead of doing what we should do, which is start enforcing our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, both of which are for biologically British people only, the government and the media would like people to think that they do not even exist. They talk as though we do not have a Bill of Rights and as if our Constitution, which the majority of the rest of the world’s law systems are built on, needs improving. They do not need improving, what they need is enforcing. They cannot be improved upon and made us the envy of the world when they were in force.

Every time we hear the government start talking about a New Bill of Rights or a New Constitution, we should be asking ourselves why, what was wrong with the old one and when were they given the right to over-rule them?

Who gave them that permission? Because it certainly didn’t come from any Lawful source.

Daily Mail:

The Human Rights Act has given courts a blank cheque to make up the law, a senior judge said yesterday.

Lord Neuberger, who is the president of the Supreme Court, said the Act effectively gave the views of the judiciary precedence over Parliament. He said this extra power for judges was a good thing – because it kept governments in check.

British judges have increasingly defied ministers since the Act was passed by Labour in 1998. The Appeal Court shot down rules to prevent sham marriages by ruling they discriminated against immigrants.And judges have used the Act to dismantle attempts to control terror suspects.

In his landmark speech, Lord Neuberger cited a key judgment from June in which the Supreme Court declared it had the power – so far unused – to tell the Government to legalise assisted suicide.

The 1961 Suicide Act makes clear that helping someone to die is a serious crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison. But judges and prosecutors have opened up a defence for those who act out of compassion – defying Parliament’s wishes and effectively wiping out much of the meaning of the law it had laid down.

Lord Neuberger’s intervention comes at a time when the future of the Human Rights Act and the supremacy over British courts of the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights are being questioned.

David Cameron’s July reshuffle shifted opponents of constitutional reform out of the Government and replaced them with eurosceptics who want to end the power of Strasbourg to give votes to prisoners or prevent the deportation of terror suspects. They also want to rein in British judges who use human rights to establish new law on privacy or assisted suicide.

The reshuffle has led to speculation that the next Tory manifesto will promise repeal of the Human Rights Act and its replacement with a British bill of rights.

Lord Neuberger is the leader of the 12 judges who have the final say in Britain on how the laws set by Parliament are interpreted.

He said in a speech given to lawyers in Melbourne, Australia, that the Human Rights Act allows courts ‘to interpret statutes in a way which some may say amounts not so much to construction as to demolition andreconstruction’.

‘We can give provisions meanings which they could not possibly bear if the normal rules of statutory interpretation applied,’ Lord Neuberger said. ‘Parliament has written us judges something of a bank cheque in this connection.’

They are using the exposure of how the Human Rights Act has over ruled the government, to try to gain support for an even worse piece of legislation, which will be a ‘New’ Bill of Rights. We should be insisting that they start obeying and enforcing our original Bill of Rights, as that is the Law in Britain, not what Brussels say and not what any Jews say either, as the Law is that they should not be found anywhere on our land in the first place, let alone playing at being Judges and Prime Ministers.