Home Blog Page 5878

Here is what Subramanian Swamy told people who wanted a hospital at Ram Janmabhoomi in 2017

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Here is what Subramanian Swamy told people who wanted a hospital at Ram Janmabhoomi in 2017

The verdict in the Ayodhya case has been declared by the Supreme Court today, on the 9th of November, 2019. The judgment provided for the construction of the Ram Temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi while the Sunni Waqf Board would be provided with an alternate piece of land for the construction of a Mosque.

Read: Supreme Court hands over Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus to build Ram Mandir, Sunni Waqf Board to be given an alternate site for a mosque

Until now, it has been the stated position of liberals to build a hospital or a school or some other structure of public utility at Ram Janmabhoomi. While their position irked people from both communities, they never wavered from their stance. The most befitting response was given by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in 2017. He had suggested that a psychiatric treatment facility be constructed at the opposite bank of the sacred Sarayu with a window to see the Temple.


The tweet is going viral again on social media in the aftermath of the verdict. Subramanian Swamy, like all leaders of the BJP, has been a vocal proponent for a Bhavya Ram Mandir at Ayodhya. He is known for his straightforward comments on social media.

Read: Ayodhya verdict: While the nation celebrates, ‘liberals’ become the rudalis at the ‘death of justice’

Earlier, he had suggested that Sitaram Yechury should first change his name ‘Sitaram’ before making malicious comments on the Ramayana.

Ayodhya verdict: While the nation celebrates, ‘liberals’ become the rudalis at the ‘death of justice’

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ayodhya verdict: While the nation celebrates, ‘liberals’ become the rudalis at the ‘death of justice’

Ram Mandir will be built at Ayodhya. The Supreme Court today in a historic verdict ruled in favour of Ram Lalla and said that the Central Government should build a trust which will then construct the temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Muslim party should be given 5 acre land where a mosque will be built.

While most of the country rejoiced at the verdict, the usual suspects were busy crying themselves hoarse that constructing of Ram temple would be gross injustice.

Delhi University professor and wife of Founding Editor of leftist portal TheWire, Nandini Sundar said that the Supreme Court has ‘rewarded’ the VHP for demolishing the masjid which was built after destroying the ancient Ram temple.


This is technically incorrect because the case did not go in favour of the Hindu parties either as the Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to set up a trust and hand over the site for construction of the temple.


She was really, really upset with the judgement.

Read: Meet Nandini Sundar, the DU professor who is accused of having blood of adivasis on her hand

Apparently, there is no justice because the Supreme Court judgement did not suit their ideology.


Also upset were other TheWire ‘journalists’ who chimed in what the maalkin said.


‘Journalist’ Nikhil Thatte reminded how the locks were opened under the Congress government.


Other ‘journalists’ also thought it is only fair that Congress gets its due credit for the Ram Temple which will soon be constructed.

When will Congress get the credit for the Big Bang?

About time Congress also gets the credit for the Big Bang as well and for creating the universe. Meanwhile, Thatte was still whining.


Rabid Islamists were also unhappy with the judgements who referred to the upcoming Ram temple as ‘symbol of injustice and terrorism’.


Other ‘journalists’ also cast aspersions that Supreme Court takes orders from the RSS.


Of course, had the judgement been the other way round, pretty sure the faith in judiciary would have been ‘restored’.

Meanwhile, Ch Fawad Hussain, Pakistan’s Minister for Science and Technology took this opportune time to describe Pakistan in five words.

The Wire posts irresponsible content on social media on the day of the Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya verdict

OpIndia Staff
-
0
The Wire posts irresponsible content on social media on the day of the Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya verdict

Tempers are running high on the day of the Ayodhya verdict. The verdict has been declared and the Supreme Court has announced that the Muslim community ought to be awarded an alternate piece of land for a mosque of their own while the entirety of Ram Janmabhoomi has been provided for a Temple in Ayodhya.

Security has been beefed up across large parts of the country and politicians have appealed to the citizenry to maintain peace and communal harmony regardless of what the verdict may be. Appeals have also been made to the media to be responsible in their coverage of the events.

Read: Hinduism has no concept of Dhimmis or Jaziya – Arif Mohd Khan dismisses “Hindu Rashtra” fear-mongering by The Wire journalist

While most media portals have been responsible in their coverage, The Wire stands out like a sore thumb. Leading up to the verdict, the far-left propaganda outlet has been posting content that would appear extremely problematic even to the layman. They have been posting images from the day the Babri Masjid was torn down.

Via The Wire Twitter handle

Furthermore, they have also been peddling propaganda regarding by Leftist historians that have been thoroughly rejected by the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has accepted the ASI report which stated that there was a Hindu structure under the Mosque.

Read: Leftist propaganda portal The Wire says that ‘Jai Shri Ram’ is a slogan of hooliganism

Historian Dr Meenakshi Jain has also documented numerous evidence which conclusively proves that Ayodhya has been a holy site for Hindus since centuries. We have also documented evidence that Ayodhya featured prominently in the plans of the Maratha Empire. Thus, at a time when security has been heightened across the country, it is extremely irresponsible to deny the importance of the sacred site to the Hindu community.

Via The Wire Twitter handle

Apart from these, they have also posted extremely problematic content. Even today, The Wire was busy pursuing a political agenda ahead of the Ram Janmabhoomi verdict. The insinuation of Varadarajan’s article shared by The Wire account appears to be clearly political in nature which could further escalated tensions.

Via The Wire Twitter handle

The Wire has never been known for a responsible journalist. But today, on the day when the historic verdict has been delivered in Ram Janmabhoomi case, they have exceeded expectations. One would have hoped that on a critical day as today, The Wire would have exercised caution and refrained from pursuing a preordained agenda. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Read: MK Venu calls ‘aggressive’ chants of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ provocative in The Wire, justifies Mamata Banerjee’s reign of violence

In the past, The Wire has used the abrogation of Article 370 to promote discontent between the people of this country by insinuating that Dalits will be next victims of ‘Shah’s lethal strategies’. They have also made a habit of spreading negativity during Hindu festivals while wishing people of other communities how they are supposed to during their festivals.

More than that, an article published in The Wire on 19th January 2018 did lead to violent protests in Assam, bordering Nagaland. Reports had claimed that following the publishing of that article in The Wire, which quoted one Jagdamba Mall, as an RSS veteran, widespread violence broke out.

Ayodhya Verdict: Litigant Iqbal Ansari happy that a verdict has been finally delivered, Sunni Waqf board lawyer Jilani dissatisfied

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Ayodhya Verdict: Litigant Iqbal Ansari happy that a verdict has been finally delivered, Sunni Waqf board lawyer Jilani dissatisfied

In a watershed moment for the Indian political and judicial landscape, the Supreme Court has pronounced a historic judgment in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case, handing over the disputed land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, paving the way for the construction of a grand magnificent Ram Temple at the site.

The Apex court also ordered the union government to provide 5 acres of land at an alternate site at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Babri Masjid which was demolished in 1992.

Read: Supreme Court hands over Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus to build Ram Mandir, Sunni Waqf Board to be given alternate site for mosque

The verdict by the Supreme Court in the protracted Ayodhya dispute elicited mixed reactions from the contending parties. While the Hindu parties welcomed the apex court’s decision, the Sunni Waqf Board has stated that they are not happy over the verdict.

The Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani said that his side is not satisfied with the verdict and they will soon decide the future course of action after perusing the whole judgment. He added that the alternate land of 5 acres granted to them has no value for them. Stating that he respects the order, Jilani appealed for calm and peace.


On the other hand, one of the litigants in the Ayodhya dispute case, Iqbal Ansari, said that he is happy that the top court finally delivered a verdict on the centuries-old issue and asserted that he respects the order given by the court.


The SC has delivered a unanimous judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. The top 5 senior judges came to the decision after weighing the arguments presented by all sides for 40 days. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the bench is the final arbitrator in the matter and he said that the court is not obligated to give a religious rationale while deciding the case.

The 5-judge bench said that the Central Govt should within 3 months formulate a scheme envisaging setting up of Trust to build the Ram Mandir. Possession of inner and outer courtyards to be handed over to the Trust.

Masjid is a priceless entity, Allah owns it, we can’t accept any land ‘in exchange’ – Sunnni Waqf Board on Ayodhya judgement

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Masjid is a priceless entity, Allah owns it, we can’t accept any land ‘in exchange’ – Sunnni Waqf Board on Ayodhya judgement

The Sunni Waqf Board, which lost the title suit for the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Supreme Court today but was granted an additional plot of land to rebuild the Babri Masjid, has said that the judgement is unjust for the Muslim parties. In a press conference held after the verdict was announced, they said that they are dissatisfied with some findings of the judgement. The land has been given to the other party, so we can’t term it as justice, although they respect the verdict.

Babri Masjid Action Committee member and Sunni Waqf Board’s lawyer Zafarayab Jilani said that they will study the judgement and consult with senior lawyers to decide whether to file a review petition against the apex court verdict. He said that the court held that the suit number 3 (filed by Waqf board) is valid, but still gave the land to the other party, which is not satisfactory.

Read: Supreme Court hands over Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus to build Ram Mandir, Sunni Waqf Board to be given alternate site for mosque

When asked about the alternate site given for Muslims, Jilani said that Muslims can’t accept land in exchange of mosque, as the mosque is owned by Allah. He said that the Masjid is priceless and it can’t be shifted, adding that the 5-acre land has no value for Muslims. Jilani said that the Working Committee of AIMPLB will decide whether to accept the 5-acre land or not.

Jilani also appealed everyone to maintain calm and respect the verdict, he said that there should not be any protest or demonstration against the court verdict.

In a historic judgement, the 5-judge bench of Supreme Court headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi handed over the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya for construction of the Ram Mandir. At the same time, the court asked the government to provide 5 acres of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya to the Muslim parties represented by the Sunni Waqf Board. The apex court has asked the central government to formulate a scheme for the same within 3 months. The government will have to form a board of trustees for construction of the temple.

Know what is Article 142 of constitution, which Muslim personal law board thinks has been ‘wrongly’ used by SC

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Know what is Article 142 of constitution, which Muslim personal law board thinks has been ‘wrongly’ used by SC

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has decried the Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya case giving the entire 67 acres in favour of Hindus. AIMPLB said that they think that Article 142 of the Indian Constitution has been wrongly used by the Supreme Court in this judgement.

Here is what Article 142 of the Constitution says

Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc ( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself. 

It is this section that the AIMPLB thinks has been misused by the Supreme Court in their Ram Janmabhoomi verdict.

What was the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ram Janmabhoomi case

In a historic judgement ending a dispute spanning centuries, the Supreme Court of India handed over the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid land to the Hindu parties, making way for Hindu devotees to have a grand Ram Mandir at the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Apex court also ordered the union government to provide 5 acres of land at an alternate site at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Babri Masjid which was demolished in 1992.

Read: Supreme Court hands over Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus to build Ram Mandir, Sunni Waqf Board to be given an alternate site for the mosque

SC has delivered a unanimous judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. The top 5 senior judges came to the decision after weighing the arguments presented by all sides for 40 days. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the bench is the final arbitrator in the matter and he said that the court is not obligated to give a religious rationale while deciding the case.

The 5-judge bench said that the Central Govt should within 3 months formulate a scheme envisaging setting up of Trust to build the Ram Mandir. Possession of inner and outer courtyards to be handed over to the Trust.

Supreme Court hands over Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus to build Ram Mandir, Sunni Waqf Board to be given alternate site for mosque

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Supreme Court hands over Ram Janmabhoomi site to Hindus to build Ram Mandir, Sunni Waqf Board to be given alternate site for mosque

In a historic judgement ending a dispute spanning centuries, the Supreme Court of India handed over the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid land to the Hindu parties, making way for Hindu devotees to have a grand Ram Mandir at the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Apex court also ordered the union government to provide 5 acres of land at an alternate site at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Babri Masjid which was demolished in 1992.

The 5-judge bench of the supreme court delivered a unanimous judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. The top 5 senior judges came to the decision after weighing the arguments presented by all sides for 40 days. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the bench is the final arbitrator in the matter and he said that the court is not obligated to give a religious rationale while deciding the case.

The 5-judge bench said that the Central Govt should within 3 months formulate a scheme envisaging setting up of Trust to built the Ram Mandir. Possession of inner and outer courtyards to be handed over to the Trust.

Delivering the much-anticipated verdict, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that this court must accept faith and belief of worshippers. CJI Ranjan Gogoi started the pronouncement by saying that this Court set up under Constitutional scheme should defer from interfering with faith and belief of worshippers and that secularism basic feature of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court dismissed Suit 3 filed by Nirmohi Akhara. CJI said that this suit is governed by Article 120 of Limitation Act and is barred by limitation, Supreme Court. SC said that the Nirmohi Akhada has not been able to prove that they had Shabait rights and that the ASI data cannot be disproved. 

Further, the Supreme Court said that Ram Janma Bhoomi not a juristic person but Ram Lalla Varjaman is (which is the deity itself). 

The Supreme Court said that there is adequate material in ASI report to conclude the following – Babri Masjid not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure. The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure, Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said that ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple, Finding of title cannot be based only on Expert report of ASI, Supreme Court. Title to the land should be decided based on settled legal principles,

Talking about faith, the SC said that people from both faiths, Hindus and Muslims offered prayers at the site. Further, SC said the cross-examination of the witnesses has not led the court to believe that the faith of Hindus is not justified. On whether a belief is justified is beyond judicial inquiry, SC said once faith is established, courts should defer to it. Also, the accounts of the travellers must be read with introspection. The court must be circumspect in making conclusions from what a traveller may have seen and observed.

Sunni Waqf Board has the locus to initiate legal proceedings. Sunni Waqf Board’s suit is maintainable. But Muslims can’t assert the right of adverse possession. Possession, as asserted by Muslims cannot meet the threshold of adverse possession, the SC observed.

The Supreme Court held that the Muslims have not brought evidence to show possessory title, there is no evidence to show the offer of Namaz by Muslims to the exclusion of Hindus. Hindus have been able to establish unimpeded possession of outer courtyard, Supreme Court.

The disputed site is one composite land parcel. Sunni Wakf Board has not established its case of adverse possession. Hindus have had exclusive control of the outer courtyard. Access and possession of the inner courtyard is disputed

The Supreme Court has held the Allahabad High Court was incorrect in dividing the land into three. The Supreme Court held that the Muslims would get a separate land to build a Mosque and the Central government would form a trust to build a temple.

It may be noted that while the Ram Mandir will be built by a trust constituted by the central government, the Sunni Waqf Board will built the mosque on the plot given to them by the government.

Muslims should have given up claim to Ayodhya site voluntarily, says SC lawyer Syed Naqvi

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Muslims should have given up claim to Ayodhya site voluntarily, says SC lawyer Syed Naqvi

Supreme Court advocate Syed Naqvi on Saturday has written a letter asking Muslims to give up claim on the disputed site in Ayodhya voluntarily and said that a temple should be built at the birthplace of Lord Ram at Ayodhya.

A letter written by Syed Naqvi states, “Before the Christians, the Jews and Muslims came to India for trade, proselytizing and invasions, the inhabitants of the length and breadth of India were Hindus and practised their religion by constructing Temples of Hindu Gods. One of the most revered Hindu God is Bhagwan Ramji. It is the belief of the Hindus that Bhagwan Ramji was born at Ayodhya.”

The letter further reads that it is also a belief of the Hindus that Bhagwan Ramji was born at the site where the Babri Masjid was constructed during the reign of the Mughal ruler Babur. Syed Naqvi wrote that there is no claim that Bhagwan Ramji was born anywhere else in India and in the manner that Hindus do not question the existence of Allah, Muslims have no right to question either the birth or existence of Bhagwan Ramji.

Stating that Muslims can pray anywhere at any Mosques or even at their homes, Naqvi stated, “It is a fact that during about 1000 years of Muslim rule on and in India, Muslims built lakhs of Mosques, Eidghas and Dargahs across the length and breadth of India. Muslims believe that their God Allah is Omniscient and Omnipresent.”

He advised Muslim of the country that, when the original inhabitants of India claim that Bhagwan Ramji was born at Ayodhya at the site of Babri Masjid, Muslims of India ‘voluntarily and unitedly ought to have given up’ the site where the Hindus claim Bhagwan Ramji was born ‘in lieu of the fact that there are other lakhs of Mosques in the State of Uttar Pradesh itself, where Muslims can and continue to pray.

“The total area of 2.77 acres on which the Hindus claim Bhagwan Ramji was born is a fraction of the total area of the lands on which lakhs of Mosques, Eidgahs and Dargahs across India are standing today,” he added.

He further wrote that the Muslims should have filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India to give up its claim on the 2.77 acres of the ‘Holy Land’ on which Hindus believe Lord Ram was born, for the sake of peace between Muslims and Hindus and as a gratitude to the framers of the Constitution of India for granting and guaranteeing Fundamental Right to Pray, Practice and Preach Islam in India.

Criticising some section within the Muslim community with vested interests, he wrote that a handful of Muslims’ insistence to property rights over this minuscule 2.77 acres of land and their legal fight right up to the Supreme Court of India has jeopardised the lives of Muslims in India, religiously, politically, economically, socially and fundamentally in their daily lives.

Read: Ayodhya 1855: The violence at Hanumangarhi shows why Ram Janmabhoomi could not be reclaimed during British rule

He said that Muslims, instead of seeking legal remedy, should have sought a brotherly resolution by voluntarily and unitedly giving up this holy land to Hindu Brothers. “In any way, any claim over the land by the legal representatives of a conquerer is inferior to the right of the prior inhabitants of that land unless the land was acquired by legal means,” he added.

It is notable here that many leaders of the Shia Muslim community have been favouring a Ram Temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi. The Shia Waqf Board has also supported the Hindu side during the title suit.

My last wish before I die is to see a logical end to this case: Ram Lalla’s 92 year old lawyer

OpIndia Staff
-
0
My last wish before I die is to see a logical end to this case: Ram Lalla’s 92 year old lawyer

If you would have been part of legal proceedings or even seen them, you would know that lawyers stand up when they put forth their arguments. In films at least you’d have seen it. In the 40-day hearing that took place in Supreme Court Parasaran was arguing for Ram Lalla Virajman. There were quite a few instances where he put forth the arguments in front of the Muslim parties.

During the hearing, one day the Chief Justice of India (CJI) asked Parasaran, “Would you like to sit and argue?” But he said, “My Lord, you are very kind. But it has been a tradition that one must get up and put forth the arguments. I hold this tradition very dear.” The reason the CJI asked this question was Parasaran’s age. The man who stood for hours arguing in the court is 92 years old.

During the Emergency imposed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Parasaran was the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and in 1980 he was appointed Solicitor General of India. Between 1983 to 1989, he served as the Attorney General of India. However, after 2016, his courtroom appearances have been rare. In his journey from Chennai to Delhi, he must have seen many bitter-sweet moments.

Read: Will Ram Lalla finally come home: The culmination of a people’s movement spanning over 491 years

He had argued in Sabarimala case as well. He is considered an expert in Hindutva. Parasaran, who was a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from 2012 to 2018 has been a favourite lawyer for many state governments. He has so much knowledge about religious books that he cites them even during his arguments in the court. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Chief Justice of Madras High Court called him ‘Pitamah’ of Indian laws who contributed a lot without compromising on the religion.


During Sabarimala case, he had argued against allowing entry of women of menstruating age from entering the temple complex. He put forth the arguments on behalf of the devotees. In case of Ram Setu, both the sides tried to have him argue on their behalf. But, true to religion, he argued on behalf of the Ram Setu. He did this to save the SetuSamudram project. “This is the least I could do for my Lord Ram,” he had said.


Parasaran’s father was an expert in Vedas. Hence, it could be said that he inherited the sanskars, which he took to another level. Rajeev Dhavan, arguing on behalf of the Muslim parties, was having a tough time arguing in the day-to-day hearing of the case. He had appealed against it which the Supreme Court had rejected. But do you know what would Parasaran say to this? He used to say, “It is my last wish before I die that I take this case to its logical end.”

Power of Ummah or Ecosystem? Amethi Police runs away after warning Rana Ayyub for provocative tweet

OpIndia Staff
-
0
Power of Ummah or Ecosystem? Amethi Police runs away after warning Rana Ayyub for provocative tweet

Ahead of the much anticipated Supreme Court judgement on the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute, there are attempts being made by radical Islamists to incite the Muslim population by making provocative statements.

Rana Ayyub, an Islamist troll masquerading as a journalist had on Friday resorted to inciting the Muslim populace of the country by fear-mongering ahead of the Supreme Court of India.

Ayyub, who is notoriously known for her fake news peddling and constant anti-Hindu anti-India narrative, tweeted that Babri Masjid was a ‘monument of faith’ for Indian Muslims, which was ‘demolished’ on 6th Dec 1992, by ‘those in power today’, implying that BJP was behind it. Furthering her hate-mongering, she claimed that demolition of Babri Masjid changed her life and a generation of Muslims who were ‘othered’ overnight.

“I hope my country does not disappoint me tomorrow”, said Ayyub in an attempt to divide the Muslim community and incite them on the eve of Supreme Court’s judgement.


The Uttar Pradesh Police which has been on high alert to clamp down on social media posts which trigger law and order situation took notice of the hate-mongering post of Rana Ayyub and asked her to delete the ‘political’ comment she had made. The Amethi police also warned her of action, if she fails to delete her post.

Amethi police

Rana Ayyub who often preaches morality and democratic values on social media did not delete her hate-mongering tweet. However, Amethi Police did get a lot of trolling by the so-called ‘secular liberals’ for asking Ayyub to delete her tweet. 


While Rana Ayyub seemed unperturbed by Amethi Police’s request to delete her tweet, their social media handle went ahead and deleted their own tweet. If that was not enough, Rana Ayyub further shared a screenshot showing that she had been blocked by Amethi Police. Why would an official social media handle of a District police administration block a journalist, especially one they had just asked to delete her tweet citing law and order issue, is not clear yet.


While Rana Ayyub is still claiming victimhood over the Amethi Police’s tweet, continuously retweeting tweets of her supporters slamming the Amethi Police for ‘threatening a journalist’ it is indeed puzzling why they had first warned, then deleted the tweet and have now blocked her.

1...5,8775,8785,879...7,574Page 5,878 of 7,574