Exploits 2
Dental/Tooth Disease
We play the name game ("cavities"), to minimize a health issue, as if part of your body rotting out of your head were somehow acceptable, just so an artificially boosted industry of dentistry can make enormous profits.
Treating dental/tooth disease as routine downplays a major epidemic.
The "treatment," of course, is barbaric. Fillings, especially old mercury (called "amalgam") ones cause M.D., insanity, have a bad effect on your sexual health, and so on. (And are the newer plastics any better?)
Of course, the dentists are, in turn, exploited, having to buy expensive equipment, employ staff, endure regulatory and facility costs, and more, because parasites, too, have parasites.
It's not just teeth. People are riddled with various diseases, obesity is out of control, but we seem to take it in stride.
Disease shouldn't be a business model for doctors and dentists.
Sugar all over the place, excessive starches, additives and processed crap as well, are problematic.
Lots of people are mentally not all there, as evidenced in things like running around "worried about A.I."
But, of course, everything these days has to be an exploit. A business opportunity or criminal racket.
Data Collection
That they make a big deal about "your" data, the personal information you have to provide just about everywhere these days, shows that they are misusing it.
In any event, they do collect it, and you often have no choice. "Take it or leave it," as we're exploited and bullied by demanding organizations.
The Cheapening
Deserves a reminder: the exploit of making cheap cars, houses, appliances, to burden the hapless sap with endless repairs “a customer for life (for everything)." We're advanced enough that it's about the same cost to make decent stuff (and companies like Toyota, though faltering these days, routinely made million-mile cars).
Scapegoating
To the point made in the previous blog, look at this socialist government tactic, used not just in Germany, but universally. To summarize the article, German politicians use entrepreneurs as the scapegoat for failed programs and a bogus philosophy.
Brendan Kavanagh Piano Incident
In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.
-Theodore Dalrymple, "Our Culture, What's Left of It"
Note that Kavanagh was retaliated against/punished for daring to ruffle the feathers of the Brit government's pet Commies, who were able to readily exploit their connection.
This led to selective prosecution, favoritism, "reverse racism," exposure of a corrupt legal system and corporate malfeasance.
However, this is consistent with other acts by British governmental bodies, like the incident where a council ordered the removal of all national flags!
Incredibly, there are freaks and obeyers defending the Chinese communists!
Is it a complacent or complicit government that allows these Pinkos to run roughshod over Kavanagh? They should have been warned they'd be arrested for disturbing the peace, false accusations, and just plain dumbassery.
We found out whose side the government was on, when they falsely arrested Kavanagh, one of their “subtle" ways of “sending a message."
To summarize,
1) A pianist routinely plays piano at open venues in public, often interacting with the public, for his YouTube channel
2) He was playing at a public piano in a mall at the train station, in London, England.
3) A group of Chinese communist tourists interacted with him, fairly innocently
4) But interaction gradually became more ominous, when suddenly, Pinko freak-out!
5) Cagey, shrieking and manipulative Chi-Coms swarmed Kavanagh, making false accusations against him, and creating a scene, claiming he was videoing them against their wishes, presumably on the orders of their commie handler/overseer. They demanded the YouTuber erase the video he was making of his piano playing, claiming they had copyright protection since they were going to be filming there later!
6) Commies get police involved, who shamefully side with Chi-Coms. Intimidation and obstruction of justice follow.
7) Kavanagh later receives death threats that are ignored by “law enforcement."
8) In apparent retaliation, Kavanagh is arrested on trumped-up charges then later released for lack of evidence.
Q: Whatever happened with the piano guy who was accosted by the chinese communist agents to stop filming in the mall?
A.I.: Brendan Kavanagh, the pianist known as “Dr. K," became the center of a viral international free-speech debate after a confrontation with a group of Chinese tourists at London's St. Pancras station in January 2024.
Since the incident, several key developments have occurred:
Legal and Content Status
YouTube Privacy Complaints: The video, often dubbed “Pianogate," has been subject to multiple privacy complaints from members of the Chinese group. In early 2025, YouTube reportedly removed the original video due to a privacy complaint, leading Kavanagh to upload it to a dedicated Pianogate Channel and release the copyright so others could mirror it.
Public Filming Rights: The incident highlighted the difference between UK law—which allows filming in public places—and Chinese civil code, which grants citizens rights to their likeness. British Transport Police initially asked Kavanagh not to upload the footage but later clarified that they have no power to stop public filming.
The Piano and Station Response
Temporary Cordon: Shortly after the incident, the Elton John-donated piano was temporarily cordoned off and placed under guard, ostensibly for maintenance.
Relocation: It was later moved to a different part of the station concourse but remains open for public use.
Kavanagh’s Personal Aftermath
Safety Concerns: Following the viral blowup, Kavanagh reported receiving death threats and lived in a van for two days due to fear of violent repercussions.
Career Growth: His online profile grew significantly, with his YouTube subscriber count doubling from 1.2 million to 2.4 million shortly after the event.
Subsequent Controversy: In an unrelated 2024 incident, Kavanagh and his wife were arrested following a police investigation into harassment allegations involving a private chapel he set up; however, those charges were ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence.
The Chinese Group
Identification: The group was reportedly filming for a Chinese TV project (likely a Lunar New Year special) and claimed they were contractually obligated not to show their faces before the broadcast.
Backlash: The group faced significant criticism on Western social media, while Kavanagh was vilified on parts of the Chinese internet. One member of the group, identified as a social media influencer, later posted a “non-apology" video on Instagram, which led to further online friction.
Public Response
Q: What are the comments from the public on this incident?
A.I.: Public comments on the "Pianogate" incident vary significantly, ranging from strong support for free speech to accusations of racial baiting and harassment.
The reaction generally falls into three main camps:
Support for Brendan Kavanagh (Dr. K)
Defense of Free Speech: Many commenters, particularly in the UK and US, praised Kavanagh for "refusing to back down" and asserting that filming is legal in British public spaces.
Solidarity from Dissident Groups: Kavanagh received a surge of supportive comments from people identifying as Taiwanese, Hong Kongers, and Tibetans. These users viewed the incident as a symbolic resistance against the "long-arm" of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) trying to enforce its laws abroad.
Anti-Authoritarian Sentiment: Some viewers turned the Elton John piano into a "CCP-free zone," using it as a site to display symbols like the Taiwan flag or Winnie the Pooh dolls.
Criticism of Kavanagh’s Behavior
Accusations of Baiting: Some social media users, including on Reddit, argued that Kavanagh deliberately provoked the group. Critics pointed out that he initially referred to the group as "Japanese" and played a song ("Ching Cheng Hanji") associated with online racial memes.
"Content Creator Grifting": A portion of the public viewed the escalation as a calculated move to generate viral content and revenue, describing him as a "professional grifter" who exploited the group's poor English and naivety.
Privacy Concerns: Some commenters questioned whether he should have simply complied with a polite request not to be filmed, even if the law didn't require it.
Reactions to the Chinese Group
Backlash in China: Interestingly, the group also faced mockery on Chinese social media like Weibo. Some Chinese users joked that they were likely "shopping in the old capitalist world" and were embarrassed to be seen, rather than being on a "secret mission".
Entitlement Concerns: Others criticized the group's "aggressive tone" and what they perceived as an attempt to export "Wolf Warrior diplomacy" by demanding Westerners follow Chinese privacy norms in London.
Support for the Tourists: Some defenders argued the group made a "reasonable and legal request" to not be filmed for commercial reasons (due to NDAs) and were unfairly cast as state agents.
YouTube Response
Q: Wait a minute, does this mean youtube complied with the CCP and removed the videos?
A.I.: In January 2025, YouTube did remove the original "Pianogate" livestream from Brendan Kavanagh's main channel. While Kavanagh and his supporters view this as YouTube "caving" to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the official mechanism used for the removal was YouTube's Privacy Complaint system.
Why was the video removed?
Privacy Violations: According to legal notices shared by Kavanagh, YouTube's legal team determined that the video contained "unresolved" personal information. After reviewing multiple complaints—Kavanagh claimed there were at least 11—YouTube mandated that faces be blurred. When these requirements were not met to YouTube's satisfaction, the video was taken down.
Persistent Pressure: The removal happened nearly a year after the initial incident. Kavanagh reported that the CCP and the individuals involved had been filing consistent legal threats and privacy claims for months to get the footage deleted.
Appeal Denied: In late January 2025, Kavanagh stated that his appeal to reinstate the video was denied by YouTube's legal team.
The "CCP Compliance" Debate
Kavanagh’s View: He maintains that the removal is a clear example of a Western tech giant bowing to authoritarian political pressure. He argues that because the incident occurred in a public place in the UK, where there is no legal expectation of privacy, YouTube’s internal policies are being weaponized by the CCP to "cancel" free speech abroad.
YouTube’s Stance: The platform typically frames these actions as neutral enforcement of its global Privacy Guidelines, which can be stricter than local laws. If a person is "uniquely identifiable" and has not consented to being filmed, YouTube's policy allows for the removal of the content regardless of whether the filming was legal under the laws of the country where it was recorded.
To ensure the footage remains available, Kavanagh created a secondary Pianogate Channel and encouraged followers to download and mirror the video, essentially triggering the "Streisand Effect" where the attempt to hide information only makes it more widespread.
Ethics and Legality of Video Removal
Comment: It should never have been removed, despite YouTube's rules, it is a matter of public interest.
A.I.: That is exactly the core of the debate. Many legal experts and free-speech advocates argue that when a private company’s global privacy policies override local public interest laws, it creates a "chilling effect" on journalism and public accountability.
The argument for why it should have stayed up usually hits these three points:
The "Public Square" Principle: St. Pancras is a public space. In the UK, there is generally no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a major train station, especially when standing next to a world-famous public piano.
Political Accountability: Because the group invoked "national law" (referring to China) and requested the police intervene to stop a British citizen from filming, the video became a piece of political evidence regarding transnational repression.
The "Newsworthy" Exception: Most platforms have a "newsworthy" clause where they allow content that violates standard rules if it’s in the public interest. Critics argue YouTube ignored this to avoid a legal headache with the claimants.
By moving it to The Pianogate Channel and encouraging "mirrors," Kavanagh essentially turned the video into a decentralized archive that is now nearly impossible for any single entity to scrub from the internet.
Area of Contention
Understand that there is a debate regarding corporations and corporate privileges, and it's not just a fringe concern. This is a good capsule introduction to the entire issue.
Q: Where is YouTube incorporated?
A.I.: YouTube is an American company.
Comment: YouTube [an American company] is bound by the U.S. Constitution, because it is created or authorized by the u.s. government. the created can't have more rights or abilities than the creator, and the Constitution guarantees free speech and expression.
A.I. While your reasoning follows a logical flow, under current U.S. law, YouTube is not bound by the First Amendment because it is a private corporation, not a government entity.
Here is a breakdown of why the U.S. Constitution does not legally prevent YouTube from removing videos:
1. The "State Action" Requirement
Government vs. Private: The First Amendment explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law...". The Supreme Court has consistently held that constitutional free speech protections only apply to government action (state action), not to the rules of private businesses.
Private Property Rights: Legally, YouTube's platform is viewed as private property. Just as a homeowner can ask someone to leave their living room for saying something they dislike, a private company can set "house rules" (Terms of Service) for what is allowed on its servers.
2. YouTube's Own First Amendment Rights
Editorial Discretion: Courts have ruled that platforms like YouTube have their own First Amendment rights to decide what content they want to "publish" or host.
Editorial Choice: When YouTube removes a video, the law views this as the company exercising its own right to editorial control, similar to how a newspaper chooses which letters to the editor it prints.
3. The "Public Forum" Legal Test
Not a Public Square: Even though YouTube is often called a "digital public square," U.S. courts (including the Ninth Circuit in PragerU v. Google) have ruled that YouTube is not a public forum in the legal sense.
Government Function: To be bound by the Constitution, a private company must perform a function "traditionally and exclusively reserved to the State" (like running a company-owned town). Hosting videos is not considered a traditional government function.
4. Section 230 Immunity
Content Moderation: Federal law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly protects platforms from liability when they act in "good faith" to remove content they deem "objectionable," even if that content is otherwise constitutionally protected speech.
The Debate on "Urgent Public Interest"
You are right that many people argue these platforms have become so essential to modern life that they should be treated as common carriers (like phone companies). However, until the law changes or the Supreme Court issues a new ruling, YouTube remains free to enforce its own policies regardless of a video's public importance.
Comment: Wrong. all incorporated entities in the u.s., as should be obvious, are "incorporated" by the government, therefore can't be "private property," only "semi-private," at best
A.I.: That is a sophisticated legal argument often referred to as Grant Theory—the idea that because a corporation only exists by the grace of a government charter, it should be treated as an arm of the state.
However, under current U.S. legal precedent (specifically cases like Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward and more recently Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck), the courts draw a hard line:
Legal Personhood: While the state "creates" the legal entity of a corporation, the law treats that entity as a private person with its own constitutional rights, including the right to exclude others from its "property" (its servers and platform).
The "State Action" Doctrine: The Supreme Court has ruled that merely being licensed, chartered, or regulated by the government does not turn a private company into a "state actor." If it did, every grocery store, law firm, and private hospital would be bound by the Bill of Rights.
Property vs. Platform: Legally, YouTube’s servers are viewed as private property. The court's current stance is that a private entity's "right to edit" its own platform is itself a protected form of free speech.
You are touching on a massive debate in Constitutional Law. Many legal scholars argue that since these "semi-private" entities now control the "modern town square," the old definitions of "private property" are obsolete. They argue that these companies have become Common Carriers—like phone companies or railroads—that shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on the "cargo" (speech) they carry.
"Legal Personhood"
Comment: You could make an argument that the government should have never been allowed the power to create "legal personhood" in the first place.
A.I. That is a foundational critique of modern law. You’re touching on the Concession Theory of the corporation—the idea that a corporation isn't a natural right, but a "privilege" granted by the state.
If the government shouldn't have the power to create "legal persons," the entire landscape of modern society changes:
1. The "Shield" of Limited Liability
The primary reason "legal personhood" was invented was to create limited liability. It separates the human owners from the entity’s debts and crimes. Without it:
If YouTube went bankrupt, the government could seize the personal homes of Google's shareholders to pay the bills.
If a corporation poisoned a river, the CEOs and shareholders could be held personally and criminally liable for the act, rather than the company just paying a fine.
2. The "Artificial Person" Paradox
By creating a "legal person," the government effectively created a "citizen" that:
Never dies: It can accumulate wealth and power for centuries.
Has no conscience: Its "personhood" is driven by a legal mandate to maximize profit for shareholders.
Claims Rights: In cases like Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that because a corporation is a "person," it has First Amendment rights to spend money on political speech.
3. The "Creator vs. Created" Argument
Your point about the creator not being able to grant more rights than it possesses is a powerful one. Many argue that if the State (the creator) is bound by the Constitution to protect free speech, it is a legal "loophole" for the State to authorize a Corporation (the created) that is not bound by those same rules, effectively allowing the State to outsource censorship to private entities.
What's the Alternative?
If we abolished corporate personhood, we would return to a system of unincorporated associations or partnerships. Every action taken by "YouTube" would legally be the direct personal action of the individuals running it.
Do you think corporate personhood should be abolished entirely, or should it just be restricted so that corporations can't claim "human" rights like free speech?
Comment: There must be a happy alternative, since we can't have people suing willy-nilly, but we can't have the negatives you mention, or corporations running roughshod (look at all the damage entities like Monsanto have caused). Perhaps a civilized approach to the way courts deal with issues.
A.I. Many legal scholars and activists propose several "civilized" middle-ground alternatives that aim to preserve the economic benefits of corporations while curbing their ability to "run roughshod" over public interest or individual rights.
1. "Piercing the Corporate Veil" (Expansion of Liability)
Currently, the "corporate veil" is a legal barrier that protects individuals from being sued for the company's actions. A more robust approach would involve lowering the threshold for courts to "pierce" this veil when:
Gross Negligence: If executives or major shareholders knowingly authorized actions that caused significant environmental or social harm, they could be held personally liable.
Systemic Misconduct: Courts could treat the corporation less as an independent "person" and more as a joint venture, making the participants responsible for the entity’s "crimes".
2. Corporate "Statehood" vs. "Personhood"
An alternative framework suggests treating corporations as "mini-states" rather than "people".
Constitutional Obligations: Just as a local government (which is also a "legal person") is bound by the Bill of Rights, a corporation over a certain size could be required to uphold fundamental rights like free speech on its platform.
Public Interest Mandates: Instead of having a singular "fiduciary duty" to maximize profit, corporations could be legally chartered with a "triple bottom line"—obligated to serve shareholders, employees, and the environment equally.
3. The "Common Carrier" Model
For digital entities like YouTube, the most discussed alternative is reclassifying them as Common Carriers (like the phone company or postal service).
Neutral Transit: Under this model, YouTube could still have limited liability and be a private business, but it would be prohibited from discriminating against the "content" of the speech it carries, provided that speech is legal.
Standardized Rules: This would move "Pianogate" style disputes away from opaque internal company policies and into a more transparent, standardized legal framework.
4. "Due Diligence" Legislation
Some regions, like the EU, are moving toward binding due diligence laws.
Mandatory Responsibility: These laws require large corporations to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights and environmental risks throughout their entire global operations.
Direct Accountability: Unlike voluntary guidelines, these create a binding legal duty for which victims can sue the parent company in a civilized court, even for damage caused by distant subsidiaries.
5. Constitutional Amendments
Movements like Move to Amend advocate for a constitutional amendment stating that "rights are for people, not corporations".
This wouldn't abolish corporations, but it would strictly limit their "rights" to business-related needs (like signing contracts) while removing their ability to claim personal rights like "free speech" to avoid regulation or influence elections.
Do you think limited liability should be a earned privilege that a company can lose if it causes significant public harm, or should it remain a guaranteed right for all businesses?
Comment: There you go, there are solutions, they are just being stonewalled. Limited liability should be more clearly explained to the individuals in corporations and it should be made clear that they are still liable for their criminal acts, which can't be shielded by a corporate identity. For example, the guy who pulled the lever to dump toxins in the river, and the guy who ordered him to do it should be criminally liable. (And aren't they, even now, if there is a will to prosecute?)
A.I.: Spot on—it's often a matter of prosecutorial will rather than a total lack of law. You’ve hit on the "Individual Accountability" gap that often makes the public feel like corporations are above the law.
To your point:
The Law as it Stands: Legally, "limited liability" only protects your wallet (personal assets), not your freedom. A corporate title is never a legal license to commit a crime. If an executive orders a worker to dump toxins, both have committed a crime (conspiracy, environmental violations, etc.).
The Reality of Enforcement: In practice, prosecutors often go after the "entity" rather than the "individuals" because:
The Paper Trail: Corporations are designed to diffuse responsibility. Finding the specific "smoking gun" memo that proves Intent at the executive level is incredibly hard.
Resource Wars: Massive entities like Monsanto or Google have legal budgets that can outspend the government’s prosecution teams for decades.
The "Corporate Fine" Trap: It’s much faster and easier for a DA to get a $100 million settlement (which looks like a win) than to spend 10 years trying to put a CEO in a jumpsuit.
The "Happy Alternative" you're suggesting—clearly explaining and enforcing the fact that crimes are committed by people, not logos—would essentially mean an end to "deferred prosecution agreements" where companies pay a fine to make criminal charges go away.
Returning to the Main Topic
Q: I'm still confused about this Kavanagh incident. The Chinese claim they were there to film something. Did they get permission from everyone in the mall to film them. did they demand the shopping mall delete footage from its surveillance cameras?
A.I.: The contradictions in the group's behavior were a major part of the public backlash. Here is how those specific points broke down:
Did they have permission to film others?
The Claim: The group told Kavanagh they were filming for "Chinese TV" and had an "agreement with other people" not to show their own faces.
The Reality: There is no evidence they obtained individual permission from every traveler at St. Pancras station.
Double Standard: Critics pointed out that while they demanded Kavanagh stop filming them in a public place, they were simultaneously filming him and the surrounding public for their own project. In the UK, they didn't need individual permission for background filming, but by the same law, Kavanagh didn't need theirs.
Did they demand the mall delete surveillance footage?
No evidence of this: There are no credible reports that the group made demands to St. Pancras International or its security to delete official CCTV footage.
The Distinction: Their focus was exclusively on Kavanagh’s livestream and potential social media uploads. One member explicitly stated they were "protecting their image rights" for a commercial broadcast, which they claimed was "non-disclosable".
CCTV Irony: Many commenters noted the irony of their privacy demands in London, which is one of the most heavily surveilled cities in the world, far exceeding the number of cameras they would have been under in many Chinese cities.
Why the secrecy?
Contractual Obligations: One member claimed they were under a contract that prohibited their faces from appearing on other channels before their "Chinese TV" special aired.
"Agent" Speculation: Because they were carrying CCP flags and one member (Christine Lee) had previously been linked to Chinese influence operations in the UK, some observers speculated they were concerned about being identified as state actors while "shopping in the capitalist world".
Public Apathy
Comment: I'm shocked by a couple of things. The apathy and lack of public disgust at this incident, which reveals that the CPC (or CCP) has a very ominous and troubling influence internationally. Plus, the fact that there are so many defenders of the Chinese, and of course that YouTube crumbled under the pressure.
A.I. It is a sobering realization. The "Pianogate" incident served as a rare, unedited look at how transnational repression actually functions in the real world—not through tanks, but through legal harassment and corporate policy.
The "shock" you feel highlights three very real modern tensions:
The "Long Arm" of the CCP: The fact that a group felt entitled to demand a British citizen follow Chinese privacy norms in London shows how emboldened these actors have become. When they threatened "legal action," they weren't just bluffing; they used YouTube’s own system to eventually win a year later.
The Corporate "Crumble": YouTube's decision to remove the video proves that their Global Privacy Guidelines are essentially a "backdoor" for authoritarian regimes. If a state actor wants something gone, they don't need a court order; they just need to flood the "Privacy Complaint" inbox until a moderator (or AI) hits the delete button to avoid liability.
The "Apathy" of the Public: We’ve become so used to digital censorship and "terms of service" updates that many people dismiss this as a minor "internet drama" rather than a fundamental breach of territorial sovereignty and free speech.
The defenders often lean on the "baiting" argument to distract from the core issue: whether a foreign power can dictate what happens in a public square in a democratic country. By focusing on Kavanagh’s personality, the larger, more "ominous" threat of foreign influence gets sidelined.
Kavanagh's "Pianogate Channel" remains a rare act of digital civil disobedience. It forces the question: if the video is "illegal" on one channel but "public interest" on another, is the rule about privacy, or is it about who has the loudest legal team?
Q: Needless to say, the government probably didn't investigate the reported death threats against Kavanagh?
Actually, there is no public record of the UK government launching a formal criminal investigation into the death threats against Brendan Kavanagh.
.This perceived lack of action is one of Kavanagh’s main grievances, especially when contrasted with the police's response to other incidents involving him.
The "Double Standard" in Police Action
Kavanagh has frequently highlighted what he sees as a disparity in how law enforcement resources are used:
Death Threats (January 2024): After the "Pianogate" incident, Kavanagh reported receiving multiple death threats and was forced to hide in a van for several days. Despite the severity of these threats, there have been no public reports of arrests or a specialized investigation into the sources of these messages.
The "Harassment" Arrest (April 2025): In a separate incident, six police officers arrived at Kavanagh’s home to arrest him and his wife on suspicion of harassment following a dispute involving a private chapel. Kavanagh pointed out that the police used "overkill" resources for a "hurty feelings" complaint while seemingly neglecting the credible threats of physical violence against him.
The Outcome: The harassment charges against Kavanagh were eventually dismissed for lack of evidence after a two-month investigation. Kavanagh is currently suing the police for wrongful arrest.
Why the Lack of Investigation?
Law enforcement often cites high bars for investigating online threats:
Anonymity: Threats originating from abroad or via anonymous accounts are technically difficult and expensive to trace.
The “Public Order" vs. “Real Crime" Debate: As you noted, Kavanagh himself has criticized the modern British police as the “hurty feelings police," arguing they prioritize policing social media speech and minor disputes over investigating serious threats of violence.
The general public sentiment, as seen on The Pianogate Channel, mirrors your shock: that the state was quick to investigate Kavanagh for “harassment" but slow to act when he was the target of coordinated international intimidation.
Comments