# Tommy Robinson and the new Totalitarianism



## wayneL (7 August 2018)

This happened in the country that gave us the Magna Carta,  inter alia. 

Would be interested in the the thoughts of,  Bas,  Plod,  Darc Knight,  Horace, and other "progressives"  et al.


----------



## Tisme (7 August 2018)

I wonder if the Queen/King will be deposed and replaced by a muslim cleric one day?


----------



## basilio (7 August 2018)

Tommy Robinison riding the horse for a New Totalitarian World Order.

Totally on the cards.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Tommy Robinison riding the horse for a New Totalitarian World Order.
> 
> Totally on the cards.



Your opinion of his treatment bas?


----------



## Macquack (7 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Your opinion of his treatment bas?



What a beat up.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2018)

Macquack said:


> What a beat up.



Would you like to correct any inaccuracies Macquack? 

Feel free to educate us all.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2018)

Interesting silence on this.


----------



## IFocus (7 August 2018)

Didn't bother watching however the Tories are in power what do you expect?

Silence because the bloke is a waste of space lighting rod for all the self absorbed victim playing radicals.

If its a case of law then due process is available to him unlike all the civil rights activists that get locked up every day around the world some never to be seen again.


----------



## Macquack (7 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Would you like to correct any inaccuracies Macquack?
> 
> Feel free to educate us all.



How about the bit that Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner that was subject to physical and psychological TORTURE and could have died in prison because he was deliberately starved. What a crock of ****.


----------



## PZ99 (7 August 2018)

^ Agreed.

I see his claims as vexatious in the absence of proof. Pretending to be a Guantanamo Bay inmate isn't going to evoke much sympathy from anyone other than his fan-base of civil libertarian wanabees. Of course the "facts" will surface soon enough when he finishes his term of solitary confinement with his publisher when the time comes.

Maybe he can get some tips from David Hicks


----------



## moXJO (7 August 2018)

When is the new court case?


----------



## Junior (8 August 2018)

Nice recount of actual events here:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> Nice recount of actual events here:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/



That is inaccurate and AFAIK has been retracted (will check up on that),  its an old,  and obviously a very biased opinion.

Read the appeal summary I posted in the other thread,  the appeal judge nukes the above nonsense.


----------



## Tisme (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> Nice recount of actual events here:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/




That's an article alright, but why has he been let out of jail?

Well appeals Judge  found = 1) fundamentally flawed process, 2) too much haste by the court, not enough scrutiny, 3) muddled contempt particulars, 4) wrongly convicted of a criminal offence instead of contempt.


----------



## basilio (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> Nice recount of actual events here:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/




Very insightful.  He certainly has no time for the mendacious lies of the Paul Westons on this world.

It would be interesting to see and update.


----------



## Junior (8 August 2018)

He has posted updates since:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/


----------



## Tisme (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> He has posted updates since:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/




Good to see he/she is open to the vagaries of  the human stain:

"
_This shows that you know NOTHING, fake barrister. You were wrong, weren’t you?_

Yes. My initial impression, based on the limited information available, was that the summary procedure was appropriate in the Leeds case. As the Court of Appeal explained, it was not."


----------



## PZ99 (8 August 2018)

So he was imprisoned by the new Totalitarianism and released by the new Totalitarianism


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> released by the new Totalitarianism



On a technicality.
Due process hasn't been followed no matter how you look at it. I thought he was done and dusted for 13 months. But there you go.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> So he was imprisoned by the new Totalitarianism and released by the new Totalitarianism



No, under the harsh light of publicity they had to revert to the actual rule of law. In any case you may have noticed that I was specifically referring to the circumstances of his imprisonment, which clearly be breached his human rights under British law.

It is alarming that you guys are actually ignoring this or waving it off as some sort of beat up. Also not the least bit surprised that the likes of basilio are referring to the initial falsehoods of secret barrusterr for the fact of the matter rather than referring to the actual truth of the matter.

****ing sinister.


----------



## PZ99 (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> No, under the harsh light of publicity they had to revert to the actual rule of law. In any case you may have noticed that I was specifically referring to the circumstances of his imprisonment, which clearly be breached his human rights under British law.
> 
> It is alarming that you guys are actually ignoring this or waving it off as some sort of beat up. Also not the least bit surprised that the likes of basilio are referring to the initial falsehoods of secret barrusterr for the fact of the matter rather than referring to the actual truth of the matter.
> 
> ****ing sinister.



Sinister is taking this guys' claim of human rights violations as fact which is what the video has done. If you want to believe it that's your prerogative. I am far more likely to buy the rebuttal by the prison more than a claim from a Youtube video about a criminal with form for being an a-grade bullshidder. 

I await with fervent anticipation for proof of his Guantanamo Bay style torture


----------



## Junior (8 August 2018)

Hi wayneL, are you also a fan of Blair Cottrell?


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> Hi wayneL, are you also a fan of Blair Cottrell?



Wasn't there some (overblown?) reaction after he was on sky?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Wasn't there some (overblown?) reaction after he was on sky?




How Sky can claim to be a serious News organisation and give time to Neo Nazis is beyond me.

If they also gave time to Marxists they may claim to be balanced, but giving exposure to any extremists takes them out of the mainstream and into the looney brigade.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> Hi wayneL, are you also a fan of Blair Cottrell?



Ahh,  the good old Strawman. 

I don't really know enough about  him to make a comment,  however I  support his right to state his views.

Vis a vis, I am not a "fan" of anyone.  I find points of agreement and dsagreement with every person,  to a greater or lesser extent,  including TR. 

However,  Tommy is emblematic of the misrepresentation and demonisation as practiced by the left,  and persecution thereof. 

I say lets listen to reasonable debate from both sides,  discuss and debate those opinions,  and let the chips fall where they may in the broader community. 

So,  I say let Blair Cottrel (rather parodic spoof accounts ) air his ideology.  That way,  we can agree or disagree, to whatever extent we as intelligent humans se fit,  with full cognizance of whatever those views are.

Are you a fan of Joseph Stalin? (Don't answer,  the question was rhetorical)


----------



## McLovin (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> How Sky can claim to be a serious News organisation and give time to Neo Nazis is beyond me.




Middle aged men with failed careers spending their evenings hosting little watched tv shows – pro bono – doesn't sound like the makings of a serious news organisation.

Then again, that is their demographic skew so better the devil you know!


----------



## McLovin (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Ahh,  the good old Strawman.




Saved for posterity.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

McLovin said:


> Middle aged men with failed careers spending their evenings hosting little watched tv shows – pro bono – doesn't sound like the makings of a serious news organisation.
> 
> Then again, that is their demographic skew so better the devil you know!



Oh how puerile. 

I gave you more credit than that.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

McLovin said:


> Saved for posterity.



Bring it on McLovin.

Anytime bro.


----------



## basilio (8 August 2018)

Junior said:


> He has posted updates since:  https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/




I found all the analysis of the secret barrister very illuminating. Lots of law,  lots of exploration of legal procedures. Well worth a read.

I'm not surprised that other posters have excised particular comments that somehow shine a favourable light on the issue on repeated contempt charges against Tommy. For what its worth I'll also add the final comments made by the secret barrister. In my view it puts it all in persepective.

_I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter._


----------



## McLovin (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Bring it on McLovin.
> 
> Anytime bro.




Do as I say, not as I do, ay?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/991054/


----------



## McLovin (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Oh how puerile.
> 
> I gave you more credit than that.




Who do you think is watching that cr@p? It's talkback radio on a TV screen. 



> The channel may have an ageing audience – 23,000 of Bolt's aforementioned 27,000 viewers were in the 55+ age demographic, while 27,000 of Jones' 34,000 were in the same senior bracket – but surely they could handle the odd jolt.


----------



## Tisme (8 August 2018)

basilio said:


> I found all the analysis of the secret barrister very illuminating. Lots of law,  lots of exploration of legal procedures. Well worth a read.
> 
> I'm not surprised that other posters have excised particular comments that somehow shine a favourable light on the issue on repeated contempt charges against Tommy. For what its worth I'll also add the final comments made by the secret barrister. In my view it puts it all in persepective.
> 
> _I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter._




I don't think you can discount what the exemplar appeals judge has said because of some, perhaps qualified, person posting under the cloak of anonymity.... great for conspiracy drones, but inadmissible as evidence in a court.

That "secret barrister" admits he has already been waxing lyrical with untruths of his own making prior to TR's release...... which goes to show how the law is a complex thing even way back when Dicey was leading the charge for rule of law as opposed to unchecked administrative licence.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

McLovin said:


> Who do you think is watching that cr@p? It's talkback radio on a TV screen.



How is that even relevant to the views put forth therein? Either a person has a right to air his or her views as per natural rights of free speech (subject to reasonable caveats) or not.

Censorship of those is counterproductive on a number of levels, whichever wing they come from.

It's obvious that you are unreasonably offended by what you *think my views are, and your responses more emotional than logical. Ipso facto, you have chosen to dislike me based on these online perceptions.

That's childish.

Happy to debate you anytime on actual issues on a reasoned basis, even in person. Ill meet anyone here over a beer or six.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

McLovin said:


> Who do you think is watching that cr@p? It's talkback radio on a TV screen.




About 5,000 so I heard.

Tony Abbott followers probably.


----------



## Tisme (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> About 5,000 so I heard.
> 
> Tony Abbott followers probably.




About 33k and has been televised on Fox News USA, Tommy Tucker's is in the mix now. Only 21 dislikes compared to 4300 likes.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> How Sky can claim to be a serious News organisation and give time to Neo Nazis is beyond me.
> 
> If they also gave time to Marxists they may claim to be balanced, but giving exposure to any extremists takes them out of the mainstream and into the looney brigade.



What was it about, or did they already take it down?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> What was it about, or did they already take it down?




Taken down I think.

This looney was going on about how every school kid should have a picture of Hitler on their desk and other such cr@p.


----------



## Junior (8 August 2018)

At some point freedom of speech becomes hate speech.  Where that line is drawn is always going to be a matter of debate.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> How Sky can claim to be a serious News organisation and give time to Neo Nazis is beyond me.
> 
> If they also gave time to Marxists they may claim to be balanced, but giving exposure to any extremists takes them out of the mainstream and into the looney brigade.



Okay Horace. I can see the guy is anti Islamist.  That is not necessarily a Nazi position. 

Can you detail what his views are that makes him neo Nazi.

Before doing so,  perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the actual policies of Nationalsozialistische, many of which are in common with the modern left,  more than the right.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

basilio said:


> I found all the analysis of the secret barrister very illuminating. Lots of law,  lots of exploration of legal procedures. Well worth a read.
> 
> I'm not surprised that other posters have excised particular comments that somehow shine a favourable light on the issue on repeated contempt charges against Tommy. For what its worth I'll also add the final comments made by the secret barrister. In my view it puts it all in persepective.
> 
> _I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter._



The courts stuffing up on Robinson is a major blunder. Here is a guy fighting the system,  has a huge base and whos platform is basically "government is corrupt and in the pocket of Muslims.

So what does the judge do. Stuff up the case. So now we can legitimize that it was biased because you would have to be stupid to stuff up the case in such a way. On top of that he is sent to a Muslim majority prison which is just handing away ammo.

This was a case that was going to be scrutinized. I think we found the laws early on and I personally thought he was guilty after reading them and still do. But the way it has been handled is like a benny hill episode. 

So they real question is why was it done on such a tinder dry case?


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Taken down I think.
> 
> This looney was going on about how every school kid should have a picture of Hitler on their desk and other such cr@p.



Some cursory investigation revealed that (and the mein kampf comment)  was posted by a parody account, not Cottrel.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Taken down I think.
> 
> This looney was going on about how every school kid should have a picture of Hitler on their desk and other such cr@p.



Ill see if I can find it. Yeah I've heard a bunch of stuff about him like that.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Okay Horace. I can see the guy is anti Islamist.  That is not necessarily a Nazi position.
> 
> Can you detail what his views are that makes him neo Nazi.
> 
> Before doing so,  perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the actual policies of Nationalsozialistische, many of which are in common with the modern left,  more than the right.



Ps,  he may be,  but I can't find enough info to make that determination.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

This is the interview.



I'm not going to bother watching it, but others may be interested.

SMH article about him.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/bla...-hitler-in-the-classroom-20151016-gkbbvz.html


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> This is the interview.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I reckon if hitler came back from the dead,  every news channel would be climbing over each other to get him on.
Haven't we interviewed mass murderers,  rapists, human rights abusers, etc without the outrage.

If they want to hang him socially,  then tear him apart in an interview. Rather then let him get a cult following by making him taboo. Silencing voices rarely works in the social media age. Informed discussion might.

He sounds like a white nationalist.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> If they want to hang him socially, then tear him apart in an interview. Rather then let him get a cult following by making him taboo.




Giving people like that any publicity at all is more than they are worth.


----------



## Lantern (8 August 2018)

Well I hope Tommy sues their bottoms off when he gets back from holiday.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> He sounds like a white nationalist.



Yeah,  probably your fair dinkum "alt right" identitarian. 

I wouldn't say he was a gen-u-wine neo-nazi.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Giving people like that any publicity at all is more than they are worth.



He's not my cup of tea Horace,  but Im just curious; what is it that you find so exceedingly offensive that you don't believe he should be interviewed?


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> He's not my cup of tea Horace,  but Im just curious; what is it that you find so exceedingly offensive that you don't believe he should be interviewed?




Do you think that there should be photographs of Hitler in every classroom wayne ?


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Do you think that there should be photographs of Hitler in every classroom wayne ?



I stand to be corrected Horace,  but I don't think he actually said that. I'm led to believe it was a parody account on Twitter that said that.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> I stand to be corrected Horace,  but I don't think he actually said that. I'm led to believe it was a parody account on Twitter that said that.




Did you read the SMH article about him that I linked ?


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you read the SMH article about him that I linked ?



He certainly seems and unsavoury sort of character, Horace. But the only citation I could find regarding the Hitler comment is the article itself. Forgive me for not trusting the mainstream press but is there some other evidence of these comments being his own words?

I ask as someone who has been completely misrepresented and misquoted in the mainstream press myself.  Nothing like the gravitas being discussed here,  but caused me a fair degree of embarrassment. 

In any case,  *if true,  I am happy that it has been aired,  so I can speak against that. *If not true,  then happy to still disagree with him on a range of other issues, but also on the dishonesty of the media.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Forgive me for not trusting the mainstream press but is there some other evidence of these comments being his own words?




What makes you think they are not ?


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What makes you think they are not ?



He denies it. 

So either Cottrel is lying,  or SMH is lying. 

At this point,  I trust neither,  not one iota. 

So,  will look to actual evidence.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> I wouldn't say he was a gen-u-wine neo-nazi.



More like an angry young man with a soapbox.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> He denies it.
> 
> So either Cottrel is lying, or SMH is lying.




Well then, he should sue the SMH if they defamed him.


----------



## basilio (8 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> He denies it.
> 
> So either Cottrel is lying,  or SMH is lying.
> 
> ...




The evidence for Cottrels original statement and the fact that he is lying when he denies ever saying it ?
Go to SMH article Rumpy  noted and look at the video. Comes up in black and white.

As Rumpy said,  if in fact this is untrue he can do them for defamation. But that is hardly likely because Cottrel is an out and out admirer of Adolf Hitler isn't he ?

https://www.smh.com.au/national/bla...-hitler-in-the-classroom-20151016-gkbbvz.html


----------



## basilio (8 August 2018)

If you want to see part of the reasons behind Cottrel being banned from Twitter for a week as well as the outrage at Sky News you can see the offeding tweets here.  Plenty of free speech here..

Politics
*That Sky News Neo-Nazi Has Been Suspended By Twitter After Tweeting About Raping A Journalist*

http://junkee.com/blair-cottrell-sky-news-twitter/170738


----------



## cynic (8 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> This is the interview.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Did you notice how quickly that video got taken down?
Why would that be happening, I wonder?


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

Ok hard to find but here is a backlog of blairs facebook, or twitter. Turns out he was more nazi after all.

http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=38730

(Assuming this site is legit and that not a fake blair account.)


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2018)

basilio said:


> If you want to see part of the reasons behind Cottrel being banned from Twitter for a week as well as the outrage at Sky News you can see the offeding tweets here.  Plenty of free speech here..
> 
> Politics
> *That Sky News Neo-Nazi Has Been Suspended By Twitter After Tweeting About Raping A Journalist*
> ...



Like I said mate,  unsavoury.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Did you notice how quickly that video got taken down?
> Why would that be happening, I wonder?




Doesn't fit the PC agenda. You aren't allowed to view anything hateful and have an opinion. You might catch Nazism. 

Welcome to "Safe Space" 2018.


----------



## basilio (8 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Doesn't fit the PC agenda. You aren't allowed to view anything hateful and have an opinion. You might catch Nazism.
> 
> Welcome to "Safe Space" 2018.



These days we call it "Hate speech".  

Many people think that alllowing  the robust expression of ideas like "Kill the Jews" "All muslims are terrorists" or other such choice ideas  isn't cool. There are consequences.

But hey this is 2018 and we have someone like Donald Trump as Prez to show that, really, you can say whatever the xxxx you want and as long your big enough, ugly enough and strong enough you can get away with it.  The times are a changing.


----------



## moXJO (8 August 2018)

basilio said:


> These days we call it "Hate speech".
> 
> Many people think that alllowing  the robust expression of ideas like "Kill the Jews" "All muslims are terrorists" or other such choice ideas  isn't cool. There are consequences.
> 
> But hey this is 2018 and we have someone like Donald Trump as Prez to show that, really, you can say whatever the xxxx you want and as long your big enough, ugly enough and strong enough you can get away with it.  The times are a changing.



I think its a representation of the rift forming between left and right fueld by suspect media stories (both sides). Attack groups silencing voices either side, doxing, shaming, calling your boss to get you fired. Each twitter account has their own little social media attack squad.
It then pushes those at the edges further down the rabbit hole. If it gets more poisonous it will lead to more violent attacks. Look at incidents like the Bolt attack. How long till house visits when someone on twitter pushes to far.


----------



## cynic (8 August 2018)

basilio said:


> These days we call it "Hate speech".
> 
> Many people think that alllowing  the robust expression of ideas like "Kill the Jews" "All muslims are terrorists" or other such choice ideas  isn't cool. There are consequences.
> 
> But hey this is 2018 and we have someone like Donald Trump as Prez to show that, really, you can say whatever the xxxx you want and as long your big enough, ugly enough and strong enough you can get away with it.  The times are a changing.



Bas, did you actually watch that particular video before it got taken down?

There seems to be a level of censorship occurring that has nothing whatsoever to do with hate speech.

I am of the impression, labels of convenience are being inappropriately applied, in disengenuous efforts at justifying the censorship and vilification of ideological opposition.


----------



## Tisme (8 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Bas, did you actually watch that particular video before it got taken down?
> 
> There seems to be a level of censorship occurring that has nothing whatsoever to do with hate speech.
> 
> I am of the impression, labels of convenience are being inappropriately applied, in disengenuous efforts at justifying the censorship and vilification of ideological opposition.





I thought it was lame and tame and I failed to hear him say the things that the various articles said what was said,


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2018)

basilio said:


> These days we call it "Hate speech".
> 
> Many people think that alllowing  the robust expression of ideas like "Kill the Jews" "All muslims are terrorists" or other such choice ideas  isn't cool. There are consequences.
> 
> But hey this is 2018 and we have someone like Donald Trump as Prez to show that, really, you can say whatever the xxxx you want and as long your big enough, ugly enough and strong enough you can get away with it.  The times are a changing.



There is none more guilty of hate speech than the extreme  left. Unteneble accusations of Nazism,  Fascism,  Racism etc is in fact hate speech of the highest order, often followed by actual violence. 

The problem with legislating against it, is in defining what is and isn't and seems to be at the whim of one or another bureaucrat.... And totally assymetrical in enforcement... and also simply a matter of stating the truth,  eg re Sud gangs etc. 

Its a bloody quagmire that your side created well before your Trump Anxiety Syndrome.


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

That's a big call Wayne. Got anything to back it up? We've had the self righteous Right trigger a race riot or two right here in THIS country long before they produced their own GAS of Gillard-Anxiety-Syndrome whilst complaining about their own odour...

Rank hypocrisy and hate are a lexicon of the elitist Right and it was only a matter of time before their books get thrown back to the unhappy world where they came from. That's the impetus of change you guys are now complaining about.

Meanwhile all of us neutrals get caught in the cross fire and I reckon Trumps' prezzy reaching its use-by date would be a good time for combatants to chill-the-fugg-out.

It won't happen of course, the Right always have to have the last say


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That's a big call Wayne. Got anything to back it up? We've had the self righteous Right trigger a race riot or two right here in THIS country long before they produced their own GAS of Gillard-Anxiety-Syndrome whilst complaining about their own odour...
> 
> Rank hypocrisy and hate are a lexicon of the elitist Right and it was only a matter of time before their books get thrown back to the unhappy world where they came from. That's the impetus of change you guys are now complaining about.
> 
> ...




Such is the shifting sands of politics that many of the old policies of the Labor Party are now attributed to the right. Arthur Caldwell ring a bell?


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Such is the shifting sands of politics that many of the old policies of the Labor Party are now attributed to the right. Arthur Caldwell ring a bell?



Yeah, they tried to kill him!


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah, they tried to kill him!




but he was the part voice of a nation


----------



## moXJO (9 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That's a big call Wayne. Got anything to back it up? We've had the self righteous Right trigger a race riot or two right here in THIS country long before they produced their own GAS of Gillard-Anxiety-Syndrome whilst complaining about their own odour...
> 
> Rank hypocrisy and hate are a lexicon of the elitist Right and it was only a matter of time before their books get thrown back to the unhappy world where they came from. That's the impetus of change you guys are now complaining about.
> 
> ...



18C laws

Gillard was the great divider.

The right reacts and it takes a lot before they can be bothered to organize. The race riots  (disgusting as they were) came about after a series of "aussie" bashings,  rapes, intimidation and police/political  inaction. A lot of people were hurt before the riot. 
When the riot did happen it was just an angry mess of racism and violence.

At the time funnily enough I had a Lebanese guy and the son of a infamous neo-nazi working for me. The build up of anger to the riots was noticeable.  At the time he was the only white australian working for me out of a crew at the time of 12. He was bought up with his head full of sht from his father. I let him spill out all his fears in a discussion. And we talked. 
When he finally left to start his company he considered all that team as family. And rejected his fathers position. He actually said his fathers teachings messed him up. 

People mellow if you dont isolate them or silence them. Thats why I  believe the current left is dangerous.


----------



## bellenuit (9 August 2018)

wayneL]There is none more guilty of hate speech than the extreme left. Unteneble accusations of Nazism said:


> That's a big call Wayne. Got anything to back it up?




I would think this supports Wayne's assertion perfectly.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/06/politics/conservative-antifa-protests-restaurant/index.html


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

bellenuit said:


> I would think this supports Wayne's assertion perfectly.
> 
> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/06/politics/conservative-antifa-protests-restaurant/index.html




The term "Conservative activist" would seem to be an oxymoron. 

I don't like antifa, too extreme, but the genetically entitled are also annoying when they expect taxpayers to finance their business failures.


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> 18C laws
> 
> Gillard was the great divider.
> 
> ...




Thanks for sharing that. Discussion is all that's required. But Gillard was the target of more hate than Trump will ever experience. According to a Conservative-Right member of the Liberal Party her father had "died of shame". That's the epitome of hate right there. That same member had fueled the race riots by suggesting on his radio show that bikie gangs should bash Lebanese people live on national television. Not to mention all the crap from the Murdoch media - full front pages of anti Gillard hate and lets not get started on Larry Pickerings' efforts. lol

Yes, the current left are dangerous because they were pissed off with stuff like the above and are handing it back. The Right are just going to have to suck it up I'm afraid - live by the sword die by the sword and all that paraphernalia.

All my view of course but Tommy Robinson doesn't exactly have a history of being mellow either, if he did, this thread wouldn't exist.

I reckon the Right have been looking for a decent figurehead to espouse their views in a way that can carry the people rather than insult them. 

But Tommy Robinson isn't that messiah - he's just a norty boy


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Thanks for sharing that. Discussion is all that's required. But Gillard was the target of more hate than Trump will ever experience. According to a Conservative-Right member of the Liberal Party her father had "died of shame". That's the epitome of hate right there. That same member had fueled the race riots by suggesting on his radio show that bikie gangs should bash Lebanese people live on national television. Not to mention all the crap from the Murdoch media - full front pages of anti Gillard hate and lets not get started on Larry Pickerings' efforts. lol
> 
> Yes, the current left are dangerous because they were pissed off with stuff like the above and are handing it back. The Right are just going to have to suck it up I'm afraid - live by the sword die by the sword and all that paraphernalia.
> 
> All my view of course



Well,  I guess you are entitled to have a bogus view... Free speech and all that


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Well,  I guess you are entitled to have a bogus view... Free speech and all that



Yeah, OK.

But which one of us do you think is rewriting history with continual political threads on ASF?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Well,  I guess you are entitled to have a bogus view... Free speech and all that




PZ seems pretty spot on to me.

The Gillard hate campaign was disgusting, and I reckon some people took lessons from it when it came to Hilary Clinton because that was just as bad.

Antifa is a tiny group compared to the rich and outspoken Right and even further Right like Jones, Sandilands et al and their US pals.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah, OK.
> 
> But which one of us do you think is rewriting history with continual political threads on ASF?



Hahaha,  that's funny, rewriting history


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2018)

Every politician cops that,  Gillard just played the misogyny card.... like a good little identitarian.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Every politician cops that,  Gillard just played the misogyny card.... like a good little identitarian.




Nuh, she copped it worse than any Aussie politician I can remember.


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Every politician cops that,  Gillard just played the misogyny card.... like a good little identitarian.



Exactly. Every politician cops it. So why all the crocodile tears for Donald Trump?


----------



## TikoMike (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Nuh, she copped it worse than any Aussie politician I can remember.



Nah pretty sure you're gynocentric. If it was a man copping the same "abuse", you probably wouldn't care. As SHY once said about Pauline Hanson, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. Pity SHY couldn't live up to her own words too. Gillard was an expert in playing the victim card.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Nah pretty sure you're gynocentric. If it was a man copping the same "abuse", you probably wouldn't care.




Don't assume what I would or would not care about.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Nah pretty sure you're gynocentric. If it was a man copping the same "abuse", you probably wouldn't blink an eye.




Yeah... No.  Just can't remember anything like the "Ditch the Witch"   posters which surrounded Tony Abbott when he spoke of her.  Or comments like "Tie her up in a chaff bag and drown her " or the "barren women" jibes were also as misyongist as you'd see. 

Julie Gilliard had a great skills and class.  It needed all the nasty  combined xxxx of the shock jocks, the no conscience Tony Abbott and the usual suspects to beat her down.


----------



## TikoMike (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't assume what I would or would not care about.



Assuming with good reason if you think Gillard has copped it worse than any other Australian politician.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Yeah... No.  Just can't remember anything like the "Ditch the Witch"   posters which surrounded Tony Abbott when he spoke of her.  Or comments like "Tie her up in a chaff bag and drown her " or the "barren women" jibes were also as misyongist as you'd see.
> 
> Julie Gilliard had a great skills and class.  It needed all the nasty  combined xxxx of the shock jocks, the no conscience Tony Abbott and the usual suspects to beat her down.




Don't forget "her father died of shame". Disgusting.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Assuming with good reason if you think Gillard has copped it worse than any other Australian politician.




So your nomination is ?


----------



## moXJO (9 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Thanks for sharing that. Discussion is all that's required. But Gillard was the target of more hate than Trump will ever experience. According to a Conservative-Right member of the Liberal Party her father had "died of shame". That's the epitome of hate right there. That same member had fueled the race riots by suggesting on his radio show that bikie gangs should bash Lebanese people live on national television. Not to mention all the crap from the Murdoch media - full front pages of anti Gillard hate and lets not get started on Larry Pickerings' efforts. lol
> 
> Yes, the current left are dangerous because they were pissed off with stuff like the above and are handing it back. The Right are just going to have to suck it up I'm afraid - live by the sword die by the sword and all that paraphernalia.
> 
> ...



Howard had to wear a bulletproof vest between unions,  gun owners and angry dole bludgers. People forget how hated he was. Tony Abbott took it from the media and his female staffer wore it as well.

Gillard was a professional victim. Her"misogyny" speech was all scripted. One of multiple incidents of media setups. It was made out a lot worse then it was.

How about Barnaby?  He pretty much shat his own daks though. Dutton though,  he cops it from the left.


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Howard had to wear a bulletproof vest between unions,  gun owners and angry dole bludgers. People forget how hated he was. Tony Abbott took it from the media and his female staffer wore it as well.
> 
> Gillard was a professional victim. Her"misogyny" speech was all scripted. One of multiple incidents of media setups. It was made out a lot worse then it was.
> 
> How about Barnaby?  He pretty much shat his own daks though. Dutton though,  he cops it from the left.



All true but they've all dished it out too at some stage. Gillards "misogyny" speech was a response to Tony Abbotts' comment that Gillard's Government should have "died of shame".

Dutton... well he gets as good as he gives. I still remember that text where he called a journalist a "mad f---ing witch" - funny shit 

I noticed Ray Hadley is copping it sweet too. So I guess it all boils down to the original point. Hate breeds hate. No one wins. Tommy has a lot to learn IMO.


----------



## TikoMike (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So your nomination is ?



So Gillard getting called names cops it worse than other politicians? What politician hasn't been called names before or had disgusting personal attacks against them? I wonder what Rudd's chest felt like as could barely hold back the tears in his first leadership spill speech after his trust of Gillard?

By the way I'm not saying that Gillard didn't cop it bad at all, but I wouldn't say worst. If you think she copped it the worst then I just feel that it is the "damsel in distress" reaction most men have.


----------



## moXJO (9 August 2018)

TikoMike said:


> I wonder what Rudd's chest felt like as could barely hold back the tears in his first leadership spill speech after his trust of Gillard?



Yeah I will always remember that. Needed to be done, but I felt for the guy.
Instead that stuck that union slug in there. Bit like the current union slug billy boy. Only he managed to wipe out 2 PMs to get to the leadership.


----------



## TikoMike (10 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Yeah I will always remember that. Needed to be done, but I felt for the guy.
> Instead that stuck that union slug in there. Bit like the current union slug billy boy. Only he managed to wipe out 2 PMs to get to the leadership.



Here you go for the memories. Easy to forget though because Gillard apparently "copped it worse" plus he is a male politician that should just man up right? I never liked him for his policies, but still 4 minutes onwards in that speech makes me feel sick, how could anyone feel sorry for that trash heap called Gillard.


----------



## PZ99 (10 August 2018)

I prefer the doodleburger version of that clip 

Gee whiz, all that hate going right back to the first leadership change in OZ politics 

Therefore Turnbull hates Abbott, Abbott hated Turnbull, Turnbull hated Nelson, they all hated - and were hated by John Howard, Peacock etc. Changing leaders isn't greed or progress, but hate?

And it's all the fault of the Totalitarist Left, yes?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

TikoMike said:


> Here you go for the memories. Easy to forget though because Gillard apparently "copped it worse" plus he is a male politician that should just man up right? I never liked him for his policies, but still 4 minutes onwards in that speech makes me feel sick, how could anyone feel sorry for that trash heap called Gillard.





Most of his party colleagues reckoned that Rudd deserved what he got because he was a psychopathic bully towards his staff and colleagues. Gillard copped it because she was a childless, unmarried woman both of which she had a right to be.

Not that she was perfect, far from it, but the attacks on her focussed on her personally and her lifestyle rather than on her policies. Abbott's Royal Commission into unions never laid a glove her and the "trash heap" comment above reeks of a seething hatred based on nothing of substance.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Gillard copped it because she was a childless, unmarried woman both of which she had a right to be.
> 
> .



That's the feminist/identitarian narrative,  but as I recall,  Labor was looking down the barrel of a pasting in the upcoming election. 

It was the policies bro,  same reason Turnnull should be replaced forthwith.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> same reason Turnnull should be replaced forthwith.




With whom ?


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Most of his party colleagues reckoned that Rudd deserved what he got because he was a psychopathic bully towards his staff and colleagues. Gillard copped it because she was a childless, unmarried woman both of which she had a right to be.
> 
> Not that she was perfect, far from it, but the attacks on her focussed on her personally and her lifestyle rather than on her policies. Abbott's Royal Commission into unions never laid a glove her and the "trash heap" comment above reeks of a seething hatred based on nothing of substance.



They are both union lackeys. Old billy boy is worse. She passed a lot of laws that affected tradies for her mug mates. Guys were put through the wringer because of her.

Barnaby was roasted for his personal life. They interviewed Tony Abbotts neighbors to get dirt on him. And accused him of an affair with his advisor. 
People may not remember but so was Paul Keating. He copped sht for everything. Only he would bite back. Howard copped it for being a little nerd with eyebrows, the signs about him were worse (and pretty funny).

Gillard copped it pfft Cry me a river.
They all cop it. One currently makes money off being a victim now though.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> With whom ?



Well that's a good question. It would depend what the Liberal Party sees itself as, going forward. I would hope it's not another iteration of the Labor party,  as it is now, that's what Mal represents imo. 

Right now, the leader(s) I'd like to see aren't even in the party .


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Well that's a good question. It would depend what the Liberal Party sees itself as, going forward. I would hope it's not another iteration of the Labor party,  as it is now, that's what Mal represents imo.
> 
> Right now, the leader(s) I'd like to see aren't even in the party .




For someone who says he leans Left, I'm surprised that you disparage a Left leaning (in your opinion) Prime Minister.

It sounds like you are looking for someone more like Donald Trump. (Cory Bernadi, Peter Dutton, Mark Latham ?)


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> For someone who says he leans Left, I'm surprised that you disparage a Left leaning (in your opinion) Prime Minister.
> 
> It sounds like you are looking for someone more like Donald Trump. (Cory Bernadi, Peter Dutton, Mark Latham ?)



I guess there is a difference in perception of what left lean means. 

To repeat, I  am a classical liberal with some concessions to social liberalism. You can look these terms up on Wikipedia. As such,  Im an individualist and reject excessive collectivism (recognising there is *some role for it) and absolutely reject identarianism. 

This used to be the core value of the Liberal Party.

However,  I will allow myself a dalliance with the right until such times as our culture centers itself again. At that point,  you will see me bitching about both the right and the left, just like I have in the past on ASF. 

How many times do I have to repeat this?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> However, I will allow myself a dalliance with the right until such times as our culture centers itself again.




The Labor Party moved sharply to the Right after Whitlam when Hawke and Keating took over.

Hawke was a unionist who wanted to hob nob with the rich and famous whereas Keating was a realist who it seemed hated everyone. 

The Labor party has moved too far into the social fabric with all this gender equality stuff that has resulted in some egregious candidates like Husar and ones who just didn't work out like Nova Peris.

However I'll still take their economic policy of the trickle down trash thrown up by the Libs.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> However I'll still take their economic policy *of *the trickle down trash thrown up by the Libs.




However I'll still take their economic policy *over *the trickle down trash thrown up by the Libs.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2018)

I'll take Von Mises,  et al... Again,  with concessions.


----------



## Kerway (12 August 2018)

I am originally from the North of England. An area that has deteriorated in a similar manner to the Luton area where Robinson comes from. There is no doubt in my mind that excessive immigration has played a large part in this deterioration. Robinson is a hero to many amongst the white working classes in the UK who have seen jobs and available housing taken up by a tsunami of immigrants into the UK from the EU and elsewhere.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2018)

Kerway said:


> I am originally from the North of England. An area that has deteriorated in a similar manner to the Luton area where Robinson comes from. There is no doubt in my mind that excessive immigration has played a large part in this deterioration. Robinson is a hero to many amongst the white working classes in the UK who have seen jobs and available housing taken up by a tsunami of immigrants into the UK from the EU and elsewhere.




Unfortunately , Australia is making the same mistakes.


----------



## Lantern (14 August 2018)

I am originally from the North of England. An area that has deteriorated in a similar manner to the Luton area where Robinson comes from.

Me too. I remember what Maggie did to the miners, the three day week cos there was no coal, sitting at home freezing cos we couldn't light the fire, strike lines that divided familys.
Those living in "nice" suburbs in the South haven't got a freaking clue. 
It's also so sad to see that there a whole load of folk who have bee almost brainwashed into believing that there is something wrong with Tommy. He speaks for the British working class.


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

Happy to sympathise with the British working class.

But..... can't they find a law abiding citizen to speak their values?


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Happy to sympathise with the British working class.
> 
> But..... can't they find a law abiding citizen to speak their values?



How is any citizen to be expected to maintain such status, when speaking one's values has become an indictable offence?


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> How is any citizen to be expected to maintain such status, when speaking one's values has become an indictable offence?



It's not an offense to speak values. Has Boris Johnson ever been jailed for speaking his values?

Free speech is a value we all desire. Breaking the law merely diminishes that value and plays right into the hands of the very SJW you are opposing. It's not very smart and it's why idiots like Tommy Robinson are doing more harm than good. 

They need a better player ♠


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> It's not an offense to speak values. Has Boris Johnson ever been jailed for speaking his values?
> 
> Free speech is a value we all desire. Breaking the law merely diminishes that value and plays right into the hands of the very SJW you are opposing. It's not very smart and it's why idiots like Tommy Robinson are doing more harm than good.
> 
> They need a better player ♠



And what of the laws that were violated by those tasked with Tommy's arraignment and subsequent incarceration?

Also what of the laws violated by mainstream media in their persistent misreporting of events?


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> And what of the laws that were violated by those tasked with Tommy's arraignment and subsequent incarceration?
> 
> Also what of the laws violated by mainstream media in their persistent misreporting of events?



They are separate issues that are widespread around the world including here but they have nothing to do with Tommys' criminal history as a fraud, a thug and a previous guilty plea for contempt of court all culminating to porridge. Most people struggle to even get there once. He's been there several times and his latest stint has him quivering in fear about his treatment.

But no doubt he can't wait to re-offend and go back inside 

Maybe he should come out here and join all the thugs making life hell for people all over Victoria, clearly they'll welcome him - after all, he's the good guy, right?


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> They are separate issues that are widespread around the world including here but they have nothing to do with Tommys' criminal history as a fraud, a thug and a previous guilty plea for contempt of court all culminating to porridge. Most people struggle to even get there once. He's been there several times and his latest stint has him quivering in fear about his treatment.
> 
> But no doubt he can't wait to re-offend and go back inside
> 
> Maybe he should come out here and join all the thugs making life hell for people all over Victoria, clearly they'll welcome him - after all, he's the good guy, right?



Are you trying to suggest that these events are unrelated and not the result of concerted censorship efforts?
Are you also suggesting that Tommy was treated with impartiality by the judicial system, and the mainstream media, in relation to their respective management and reporting of these issues?


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Are you trying to suggest that these events are unrelated and not the result of concerted censorship efforts?
> Are you also suggesting that Tommy was treated with impartiality by the judicial system, and the mainstream media, in relation to their respective management and reporting of these issues?



I am stating his unsuitability for being a far right activist based on his *own admissions* of guilt to previous criminal offenses including contempt of court. Blame the media? It's akin to David Hicks starting a movement here and having a support group blaming the media for his past evils 

I shouldn't laugh, this is one country where it might actually happen...

And just for the record, I don't believe half of Tommys' claims of mistreatment. Until I see proof of his claims I think he's either lying, or delusional, or both.


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> I am stating his unsuitability for being a far right activist based on his *own admissions* of guilt to previous criminal offenses including contempt of court. Blame the media? It's akin to David Hicks starting a movement here and having a support group blaming the media for his past evils
> 
> _I shouldn't laugh, this is one country where it might actually happen..._



You seem to be avoiding my actual questions!

Do you understand how a number of your cited reasons, for holding your stated view, seem to be based upon information received via media sources, that were nothing short of highly prejudicial, in their reporting on Tommy?


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> You seem to be avoiding my actual questions!



Nope, you are avoiding my answers by clinging onto something that has zip to do with my original point.
Free speech is not a criminal offense. Violence / fraud / contempt of court is.


cynic said:


> Do you understand how a number of your cited reasons, for holding your stated view, *seem to be based upon information received via media sources*, that were nothing short of highly prejudicial, in their reporting on Tommy?



Please show me what media sources I've used to state my claims?

Unless you are saying the entire internet is faking his criminal history ?


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Nope, you are clinging onto something that has zip to do with my original point.
> 
> 
> Please show me what media sources I've used to state my claims?
> ...



Nope!! It is you who is avoiding a counterpoint that has been made!

Are you saying that your views have been derived without reference to sources originating from the media?


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Nope!! It is you who is avoiding a counterpoint that has been made!



Sorry, but ...irrelevant statements don't constitute a counterpoint.



cynic said:


> Are you saying that your views have been derived without reference to sources originating from the media?



What media? Just using the internet, mate. Prove me wrong, if you can


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Sorry, but ...irrelevant statements don't constitute a counterpoint.
> 
> 
> What media? Just using the internet, mate. Prove me wrong, if you can



Oh!! Such a dependable information source!!

You do of course realise, (and I have it on that most dependable of all authorities - namely left wing opinion consensus), that the only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?!


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Oh!! Such a dependable information source!!
> 
> You do of course realise, (and I have it on that most dependable of all authorities - namely left wing opinion consensus), that the only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?!



Really? Including this thread and your posts in it?
Are you really saying the entire internet, including ASF, is not a library but a Nazi bible? 

Just how dependable is your data???


----------



## cynic (14 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Really? Including this thread and your posts in it?
> Are you really saying the entire internet, including ASF, is not a library but a Nazi bible?
> 
> Just how dependable is your data???



Many SJWs, whose modus operandi is the automatic demonisation of their ideological opponents, are renowned for expressing such sentiments!


----------



## PZ99 (14 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Many SJWs, whose modus operandi is the automatic demonisation of their ideological opponents, are renowned for expressing such sentiments!



But... you don't believe them do you? Don't disappoint us mate 
Tell us you're an independent thinker, like the rest of us here yeah?

Look, it really doesn't matter what the political persuasion of any movement is left, far left, right, far right. alt right, whatever... doesn't matter. The underlying prerequisite for credibility is the ability to convey your message without force, without violence, fear, threats, intimidation etc.

The far left in particular fail this hands down. It's this very attribute that many on this site and others use to condemn their actions. But Tommy Robinson is no different. He has a history of thuggery and violence just like the far left - so it undermines not only his credibility - but also those that support him.

So my point to the far right is simple. Find a better leader. Find a law abiding citizen with credibility.


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> But... you don't believe them do you? Don't disappoint us mate
> Tell us you're an independent thinker, like the rest of us here yeah?
> 
> Look, it really doesn't matter what the political persuasion of any movement is left, far left, right, far right. alt right, whatever... doesn't matter. The underlying prerequisite for credibility is the ability to convey your message without force, without violence, fear, threats, intimidation etc.
> ...



Which brings me back to my very simple counterpoint!

How do you know that what the media is reporting about Tommy's history,( or indeed the history of any "leader"  daring enough to express views contrary to postmodernistic ideology), is a true and accurate representation of facts, when the judiciary and the media have been shown to have behaved dishonestly?


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Which brings me back to my very simple counterpoint!
> 
> How do you know that what the media is reporting about Tommy's history,( or indeed the history of any "leader"  daring enough to express views contrary to postmodernistic ideology), is a true and accurate representation of facts, when the judiciary and the media have been shown to have behaved dishonestly?



Because you don't need to rely on the media to do a check on someones' history. The internet isn't media - it's a library. If you don't agree that's your prerogative. But you do realise that Tommy wrote for the media and his autobiography is by definition a media statement?

It's all BS right? He's _never_ been to jail in your opinion?

and err.... where are you getting your info from if not the internet/media/Nazi bible?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Because you don't need to rely on the media to do a check on someones' history. The internet isn't media - it's a library. If you don't agree that's your prerogative. But you do realise that Tommy wrote for the media and his autobiography is by definition a media statement?
> 
> It's all BS right? He's _never_ been to jail in your opinion?



And libraries often house newspaper and magazine publications!! Does this mean that newspapers and magazines, so housed, are no longer media sources?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> ...
> It's all BS right? He's _never_ been to jail in your opinion?
> 
> and err.... where are you getting your info from if not the internet/media/Nazi bible?



Was he not incorrectly jailed these past few months?
In light of this, what does that say about the dependability of forming character judgments based upon a person's penal history?


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> And libraries often house newspaper and magazine publications!! Does this mean that newspapers and magazines, so housed, are no longer media sources?



No that's a false conclusion. 

Just because a chemist sells dingers doesn't mean it's primarily a sex shop.

Are you saying your last ten posts on ASF are really media statements and therefore fake?



cynic said:


> Was he not incorrectly jailed these past few months?
> In light of this, what does that say about the dependability of forming character judgments based upon a person's penal history?



Easy, a technical error in his last case doesn't constitute a false record of his earlier cases. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks it does.


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> No that's a false conclusion.
> 
> Just because a chemist sells dingers doesn't mean it's primarily a sex shop.
> 
> Are you saying your last ten posts on ASF are really media statements and therefore fake?



Are you saying that information stored on the internet never originates from other sources of media?


> Easy, a technical error in his last case doesn't constitute a false record of his earlier cases. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks it does.



Not so easy!!

Now that you know that the system cannot be relied upon to operate correctly at all times, how do you know that the earlier convictions are correct and dependable?


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Are you saying that information stored on the internet never originates from other sources of media?



Are you saying your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?

Am I having this debate with a ghost?



cynic said:


> Now that you know that the system cannot be relied upon to operate correctly at all times, how do you know that the earlier convictions are correct and dependable?



How do you know they're not? What intel do you have that the internet doesn't ?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Are you saying your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?



No.


> Am I having this debate with a ghost?



Yes.


> How do you know they're not? What intel do you have that the internet doesn't ?



The appeal findings demonstrated the truth of what I am seeking to convey! 
Either the judicial system failed by overturning a rightful conviction of an appellant, or it had earlier failed, by making the wrongful conviction that was being appealed.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Are you saying your last ten posts originated from a source of media rather than your keyboard?
> 
> 
> cynic said:
> ...



So you are now discrediting your earlier statement about the "only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?" (your words)



cynic said:


> The appeal findings demonstrated the truth of what I am seeking to convey!
> Either the judicial system failed by overturning a rightful conviction of an appellant, or it had earlier failed, by making the wrongful conviction that was being appealed.



No argument there. But these appeal findings have nothing to do with (nor do they quash) his earliest convictions of assault and fraud.


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> No argument there. But these appeal findings have nothing to do with his earliest convictions of assault and fraud.



They have relevance to the counterpoint I am making. If someone is suddenly caught telling lies today, does that not cast doubt on all statements made by that person, including those made prior to the more recent discovery of deception?


PZ99 said:


> So you are now discrediting your earlier statement about the "only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?" (your words)



If person A were to post the following:

Don't let the bigots take you down!

And then person B, sometime later, responded with:

Person A has made the statement "let the bigots take you down!"(Person A's words)

How do you think person A would then feel about person B?

For the benefit of those just tuning in, my original post, within its true context:


cynic said:


> Oh!! Such a dependable information source!!
> 
> You do of course realise, (and I have it on that most dependable of all authorities - namely left wing opinion consensus), that the only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?!


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> They have relevance to the counterpoint I am making. If someone is suddenly caught telling lies today, does that not cast doubt on all statements made by that person, including those made prior to the more recent discovery of deception?



Of course it does. But who is this person you speak of?



cynic said:


> If person A were to post the following:
> Don't let the bigots take you down!
> And then person B, sometime later, responded with:
> Person A has made the statement "let the bigots take you down!"(Person A's words)
> ...



I think person A would probably try to pretend they were misquoted when they weren't and they would use that as an excuse to avoid retracting their funny little conspiracy theory when held to account. Person B knows the context in person A's comment is the same FUD with or without the deleted content.
Conspiracy theories might be free but the time taken to read them is not, so I'd like my money back with interest


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Of course it does. But who is this person you speak of?



Errmm Britain, perhaps!


> I think person A would probably try to pretend they were misquoted when they weren't and they would use that as an excuse to avoid retracting their funny little conspiracy theory when held to account. Person B knows the context in person A's comment is the same FUD with or without the deleted content.



No pretense necessary! 

Person A was clearly quoted out of context! 

Furthermore, person B's opinion, about person A's statement, does not entitle person B, to make blatant misrepresentations, about what person A has truly stated!!


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Errmm Britain, perhaps!



Britain is lying? That's what you're saying? On what basis should we accept that assertion?



cynic said:


> No pretense necessary!
> Person A was clearly quoted out of context!
> 
> Furthermore, person B's opinion, about person A's statement, does not entitle person B, to make blatant misrepresentations, about what person A has truly stated!!



Summarising (by saying "about the") in a quote isn't a misquote - it's a reference.

Person A was not quoted out of context and to suggest it was it a naked lie. Furthermore, if person A posts a series of wild conspiracy theories whether in the third person or not then person B has every right to debunk it. Free speech and all that.

For the record, this is the horrendous statement person B has made..

_"So you are now discrediting your earlier statement *about the* "only people posting information on the internet, are either saintly SJWs or demonic Nazis?" (your words)"
_
Obvious TNT trigger there _
_


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Britain is lying? That's what you're saying? On what basis should we accept that assertion?



*Perhaps* I was being a little too liberal, and then again, *perhaps* I wasn't!



> Summarising (by saying "about the") in a quote isn't a misquote - it's a reference.
> 
> Person A was not quoted out of context and to suggest it was it a naked lie. Furthermore, if person A posts a series of wild conspiracy theories whether in the third person or not then person B has every right to debunk it. Free speech and all that.
> 
> ...



Person A was most certainly quoted out of context!!!

To say otherwise is at best misinformed, and at worst intentionally deceitful.
I am undecided as to whether the former, or the latter applies to your repeated misrepresentations of myself.

But you are right on at least one point! 

This is most certainly a TNT moment!!

There are few things I detest more than having my statements misconstrued, even moreso when such misconstruances are intentionally and deliberately reiterated!!!


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> *Perhaps* I was being a little too liberal, and then again, *perhaps* I wasn't!



Perhaps an overreach? It seems to be the gun app in this thread of late...



cynic said:


> Person A was most certainly quoted out of context!!!
> 
> To say otherwise is at best misinformed, and at worst intentionally deceitful.
> I am undecided as to whether the former, or the latter applies to your repeated misrepresentations of myself.
> ...




Person A is either clearly mistaken or attempting to gain fake mileage from false accusations of being misquoted by person B. I would say I'm correct on all points on that subject.

In fact I would say that portion of my reply has a Flesch Reading Ease score of 63.2, a Gunning Fog score of 10.2, a Coleman-Liau Index of 8, an Automated Readability Index of 6.9, a Linsear Write Formula of 8.5 and an accuracy level of around 100.1%

Person A's failure to grasp this level of vocabulary - deliberately or otherwise, is only slightly worse than that of John Howard, which, at first glance doesn't sound too bad...
....until we remember that he lost his seat to an ABC journalist.

Also, when prompted, person A also thinks person B is talking to a ghost, yet person B remains civil and retains his composure by not taking umbrage with 31.5 explanation points.
Even Tommy Robinson could learn from this - gotta be better than beating people up.

Misrepresent that one as you wish


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Perhaps an overreach? It seems to be the gun app in this thread of late...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why would I need to! I have no intention of misrepresenting you and am simply objecting to your repetitious misrepresentations of myself!

If you genuinely cannot recognise what I am saying here, then I suggest that you read my posts again - carefully! And whilst doing so, note just how many of your responses contained presumptions about the existence of viewpoints that I had neither opined nor expressed.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Why would I need to! I have no intention of misrepresenting you and am simply objecting to your repetitious misrepresentations of myself!
> 
> If you genuinely cannot recognise what I am saying here, then I suggest that you read my posts again - carefully! And whilst doing so, note just how many of your responses contained presumptions about the existence of viewpoints that I had neither opined nor expressed.



Oh I know precisely what you're saying - I just don't believe you that's all. Your assertion is both unfair and unjust. But that's your right. And you're wrong 

But OK... let's start with this one...



cynic said:


> How is any citizen to be expected to maintain such status, when speaking one's values has become an indictable offence?



That is an obvious misrepresentation right there. It is *not* an offence to state ones' values and never will be unless you bring in a Kommunist Govt in the UK. So feel free to blow us all over as to how that is anything other than a conspiracy theory.


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Oh I know precisely what you're saying - I just don't believe you that's all. Your assertion is both unfair and unjust. But that's your right. And you're wrong
> 
> But OK... let's start with this one...
> 
> ...



Is the Public order act, 1986 (and associated legislation), a conspiracy theory? Or does it truly exist?


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Is the Public order act, 1986 (and associated legislation), a conspiracy theory? Or does it truly exist?



It exists and has recently been amended. 
What part of the act are you citing when speaking values?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> It exists and has recently been amended.
> What part of the act are you citing when speaking values?



Any expressed value, that is not commonly shared by all people, has the potential to cause offense to those whom happen to hold dearly to a conflicting value.

Edit: altering wording of last sentence:
I understand there to exist several parts of the act, making aforesaid eventualities an offense.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Any expressed value, that is not commonly shared by all people, has the potential to cause offense to those whom happen to hold dearly to a conflicting value.
> 
> Edit: altering wording of last sentence:
> I understand there to exist several parts of the act, making aforesaid eventualities an offense.



OK so has Tommy ever been convicted for offences under any part of this act?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> OK so has Tommy ever been convicted for offences under any part of this act?



To the best of my knowledge, no! But I could be mistaken! (According to the appeal findings, the judge that last convicted him, certainly was - mistaken!)

Anyhow,this doesn't detract from what I was saying (about the expression of one's values, having become an indictable offence).

My use of wording may seem liberal to some, but examination of the contents of that act, coupled with consideration of how that may play in a multicultural society, makes the truth of my statement more than apparent.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> To the best of my knowledge, no! But I could be mistaken! (According to the appeal findings, the judge that last convicted him, certainly was - mistaken!)
> 
> Anyhow,this doesn't detract from what I was saying (about the expression of one's values, having become an indictable offence).
> 
> My use of wording may seem liberal to some, but examination of the contents of that act, coupled with consideration of how that may play in a multicultural society, makes the truth of my statement more than apparent.



Well that's a theory, or at best an opinion. But there's definitely no evidence he was arrested just for expressing his views. As previously mentioned, his tales of woe about prison treatment are in conflict with the prison staff. Take your pick as to who is telling the truth there but Tommy's record as a convicted fraud doesn't exactly help his credibility. His supporters don't add any weight either. I don't believe him at all - especially that solitary confinement stuff.

So I don't think he was ever arrested or jailed because he expressed his views.

And there's nothing about breaches of that particular act.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-grooming-gangs-muslim-protest-a8472566.html


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Well that's a theory, or at best an opinion. But there's definitely no evidence he was arrested just for expressing his views. As previously mentioned, his tales of woe about prison treatment are in conflict with the prison staff. Take your pick as to who is telling the truth there but Tommy's record as a convicted fraud doesn't exactly help his credibility. His supporters don't add any weight either. I don't believe him at all - especially that solitary confinement stuff.
> 
> So I don't think he was ever arrested or jailed because he expressed his views.
> 
> And there's nothing about breaches of that particular act.



Ahem. 25th May 2018!! Did you perchance notice anything irregular happening on that day?

And if these tales of woe, that you have chosen to disbelieve, are true, would you really expect the prison administrators to be forthcoming about such negligence?







P.S. I love it when people say "there's no evidence" because then I know that they are talking total rubbish!


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Ahem. 25th May 2018!! Did you perchance notice anything irregular happening on that day?



Yeah, the sun same up in the east and set in the west.



cynic said:


> And if these tales of woe, that you have chosen to disbelieve, are true, would you really expect the prison administrators to be forthcoming about such negligence?



If, if, if ,if. No I don't think they'll be saying anything anytime soon.
Tommy and his supporters will have more explaining to do


cynic said:


> *P.S. I love it when people say "there's no evidence" because then I know that they are talking total rubbish!*



But you _don't_ know - you're just pretending you know. Unless you were there, you know nothing more than anyone else. Your intel comes from the 'net just like mine does. By claiming you know it's rubbish you're merely trying to shove your opinion down my throat. Good luck with that crap. It's a pathetic tactic used by conspiracy theorists all over the world. People reckon they *know* the twin towers weren't hit by planes. It was a controlled demolition.

If that isn't an insult to someone's intelligence then nothing is


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah, the sun same up in the east and set in the west.
> 
> 
> If, if, if ,if. No I don't think they'll be saying anything anytime soon.
> ...



Exactly what is it, that you are accusing me of, not knowing, but pretending to know?

Have you noticed that it is you who is claiming to *know,* that I am pretending to know, something that you also claim to *know,* that I do not know?
How can you possibly *know* all this? Are you claiming to be clairsentient?



(As for my own opinion. I am pretty confident that I am sufficiently qualified to actually know that, and that no pretense is required.)

Absolute statements, such as "there's definitely no evidence" do merit labelling as trash.

There is in truth, evidence for the existence of many (if not all) conflicting and/or contradictory entities. Hence my assertion that absolute claims, about non existence of evidence, are utter trash. This holds true irrespective of the veracity, or lack thereof, of the concept under discussion.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> (As for my own opinion. I am pretty confident that I am sufficiently qualified to actually know that, and that no pretense is required.)
> 
> Absolute statements, such as "there's definitely no evidence" do merit labelling as trash.
> 
> There is in truth, evidence for the existence of many (if not all) conflicting and/or contradictory entities. Hence my assertion that absolute claims, about non existence of evidence, are utter trash. This holds true irrespective of the veracity, or lack thereof, of the concept under discussion.



That's just a paragraph and a half of white noise derived from dodging my request for proof.



cynic said:


> Exactly what is it, that you are accusing me of, not knowing, but pretending to know?
> 
> Have you noticed that it is you who is claiming to *know,* that I am pretending to know, something that you also claim to *know,* that I do not know?
> How can you possibly *know* all this? Are you claiming to be clairsentient?



Read your last post > _"I love it when people say "there's no evidence" because then I *know* that they are talking total rubbish!"_
I can say with confidence he hasn't breached the public order act so therefore I can safely claim there's no evidence that he had. Which I did. You are now claiming/pretending to *know* that it's rubbish. It's a crack up how you're so busy trying to bait me that you're not seeing the double standards in your replies. No evidence has been produced and until it is it remains non existent. If you are offering a challenge to that - the onus is on you to prove your assertions.


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> It's not an offense to speak values. Has Boris Johnson ever been jailed for speaking his values?
> 
> Free speech is a value we all desire. Breaking the law merely diminishes that value and plays right into the hands of the very SJW you are opposing. It's not very smart and it's why idiots like Tommy Robinson are doing more harm than good.




Number of Government departments protecting British children from islamic grooming gangs for last 10 years or so: *0*

Number of police departments protecting British children from islamic grooming gangs for last 10 years or so: *0*

Number of mass media outlets reporting on islamic grooming gangs for last 10 years or so: *0*



PZ99 said:


> They need a better player ♠




*NO* one else has put their f$$$$n hand up!
(Your ignorance is outstanding)


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

dutchie said:


> Number of Government departments protecting British children from islamic grooming gangs for last 10 years or so: *0*
> Number of police departments protecting British children from islamic grooming gangs for last 10 years or so: *0*
> Number of mass media outlets reporting on islamic grooming gangs for last 10 years or so: *0*
> 
> *NO* one else has put their f$$$$n hand up!



I'm not surprised - they're probably afraid of getting beaten up by bad Tommy in a demarcation dispute. You've actually brought up three very relevant points so maybe it's time for the far right to mobilise in a constructive way. I reckon get behind Boris Johnson for starters. Or Anne Marie Waters?

(Nice move, slipping in that cheap insult at the end. I'll just add it to my trophy cabinet, thanks.)


----------



## dutchie (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> (Nice move, slipping in that cheap insult at the end. I'll just add it to my trophy cabinet, thanks.)




Yes it was a cheap shot. My apologies.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

dutchie said:


> Yes it was a cheap shot. My apologies.



Nah, it's all good


----------



## IFocus (15 August 2018)

Why is " Tommy Robinson" a fake name? Is the bloke jewish of something?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That's just a paragraph and a half of white noise derived from dodging my request for proof.
> 
> 
> Read your last post > _"I love it when people say "there's no evidence" because then I *know* that they are talking total rubbish!"_
> I can say with confidence he hasn't breached the public order act so therefore I can safely claim there's no evidence that he had. Which I did. You are now claiming/pretending to *know* that it's rubbish. It's a crack up how you're so busy trying to bait me that you're not seeing the double standards in your replies.



Even if one has complete confidence that a particular event did not occur, the conclusion that one " can safely claim there's no evidence" remains unsound.

It occurs to me that a person might easily arrive at a similarly erroneous conclusion by neglecting to consider some important distinctions between the meanings of the words "evidence","effect", and"proof".

Consider the enormity of the task of actually demonstrating the "non existence of evidence" for any humanly conceivable event (irrespective of actual occurrence or lack thereof).

Now consider just how little evidence would be required for invalidation of that same assertion!
One meek sliver of evidence, even if it were of the lowliest calibre and issued from a distrusted source, would be all it would take to render totally invalid the "there's no evidence" claim!
It could be just one person's testimony to having witnessed the event! Even if further testimonies, featuring irreconcilable differences were to emerge, all testimonies, no matter how discordant, would still qualify as forms of evidence!!.

What I am trying to highlight here, is that evidence can, and often does exist, independently of the truth of the concept it evidences.

Anyway, do you seriously believe your own conduct in this discourse, to have been so exemplary, as to be beyond reproach?

I seem to recall being asked to prove you wrong, however, I suspect that you are disinterested in such proofs. Anyhow, for reasons of practicability, I seldom acceed to requests for proof, outside of the confines of mathematics.

Perhaps a better understanding of what I definitely am, and definitely am not saying, might have been derived spending just a little more time to openly considering the content, of that which you dismissed, as evasion derived white noise!


> No evidence has been produced and until it is it remains non existent. If you are offering a challenge to that - the onus is on you to prove your assertions.



Why is the onus upon me? I have yet to see you prove all of your assertions!

As it happens, there is a logical fault in the above "No evidence" assertion, rendering it unsound, and as such, easily challenged.

Please note that the following two statements are not synonymous:

(i) Evidence is presented
(ii) Evidence exists

Now consider the following:
If (i) is true then (ii) must also be true.

If (ii) is false then (i) must also be false.

However, when (i) is false, (ii) may be true, or it may be false.

And when (ii) is true, (i) may be true, or it may be false.

A statement akin to "No evidence exists until evidence is presented", has, by neglecting to consider the full range of logically valid possibilities, incorrectly asserted that:

(ii) cannot be true until (i) becomes true


So unless one is intending to exploit the presence of an ambiguity, courtesy of the word "produce",  and suggest that this word was somehow intended to be synonymous with "create", rather than "present", I can confidently state that I have effectively challenged the "no evidence exists until evidence is presented" assertion, via demonstration of the inherently faulty application of logic embedded within same.


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2018)

IFocus said:


> Why is " Tommy Robinson" a fake name? Is the bloke jewish of something?



"Oh,  Steven Steven! Steven Steven Steven Yaxley Lennon!!!", isn't such a melodic refrain.

"Oh Tommy Tommy, Tommy Tommy Tommy Robinson!" flows off the tongue much more sweetly.

Artistic licence bro.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Even if one has complete confidence that a particular event did not occur, the conclusion that one " can safely claim there's no evidence" remains unsound.
> 
> It occurs to me that a person might easily arrive at a similarly erroneous conclusion by neglecting to consider some important distinctions between the meanings of the words "evidence","effect", and"proof".
> 
> ...




It's a pity that such an effort on your long reply is undermined by an inability to accept that Tommy does not have, on his criminal record, a charge for breaching the public order act.
You were challenging that in your first reply in this thread and it appears that in doing so you're  relying on the possibility that some previously undiscovered evidence might produce itself, or be produced and render not only my previously stated version of events, but also the official version, as erroneous. It's a big call and that's why the onus is on you to deliver the goods 

During this discussion I noticed that you've avoided addressing many of my points in order to suit your desired outcome that Tommy had been incarcerated for using his right to speak his values... in your opinion. One example being my question as to whether Boris Johnson ever had been jailed for speaking his values - which you ignored - obviously because he hadn't. 

From there you've used the red herring about the media laws being violated, a theory about concerted censorship and the assertion that I've somehow been conned by this whole event being distorted by prejudicial media sources, and somewhere in there SJWs and/or demonic Nazis have managed to find some relevancy as well  

So to answer your question I have no need to feel any form of reproach for my conduct if I compare it with yours as described above. If you feel you can disprove the official version of events with personal distrust and/or mathematical formulae then that's entirely your prerogative but happily, it's not compulsory for anyone to take it seriously, particularly given the unlikelihood that you were there when Tommy's offences were committed or were present at any of his trials.

If Tommy was some innocent person accidentally caught up in a situation beyond his control or really had been locked away for simply having a viewpoint I would obviously condemn the whole process as would many others all over the UK. But this guy has form for being deceptive and violent and no attempt has ever been made to prove otherwise - least of all by Tommy himself, indeed it appears he wears it as a badge of honour. What a hero. 

So I don't feel in the least bit sorry for him and I stand by my original comments that he was arrested not for speaking his values, but for breaking the law and he now seems to be seeking some form of e-martyrdom. I don't buy it


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2018)

I think you are beholden to the ideological narrative more than the facts _In toto _pz98. 

The fullness of time will reveal more.


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

That sounds like a political promise wayneL. As an independent thinker I don't buy that either.

You are obfuscating PZ99 with pz98 - and you're seeking facts ?

Fact: Toto is a rock band


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> That sounds like a political promise wayneL. As an independent thinker I don't buy that either.
> 
> You are obfuscating PZ99 with pz98 - and you're seeking facts ?
> 
> Fact: Toto is a rock band



No obfuscation pz97, you've just been demoted 

And for your edification -> 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/in-toto


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> No obfuscation pz97, you've just been demoted
> 
> And for your edification ->
> https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/in-toto



Thanks, but I already know what in toto means, waynek


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2018)

You'll want to worry when you get to p76


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

No way. You can haul a lotta arze and a float or two with a p76. Classic not plastic


----------



## SirRumpole (15 August 2018)

PT73 anyone ?


----------



## cynic (15 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> It's a pity that such an effort on your long reply is undermined by an inability to accept that Tommy does not have, on his criminal record, a charge for breaching the public order act.
> You were challenging that in your first reply in this thread and it appears that in doing so you're  relying on the possibility that some previously undiscovered evidence might produce itself, or be produced and render not only my previously stated version of events, but also the official version, as erroneous. It's a big call and that's why the onus is on you to deliver the goods




Note the use of the words "breach of the peace" by one of the arresting officers featured in that video!


> During this discussion I noticed that you've avoided addressing many of my points in order to suit your desired outcome that Tommy had been incarcerated for using his right to speak his values... in your opinion. One example being my question as to whether Boris Johnson ever had been jailed for speaking his values - which you ignored - obviously because he hadn't.



Jaywalking across public roads is an offence. Has every person guilty of doing so been charged for such offence? If not, does that mean none have ever been charged?
I trust that you are intelligent enough to recognise the distinction being made here!


> From there you've used the red herring about the media laws being violated, a theory about concerted censorship and the assertion that I've somehow been conned by this whole event being distorted by prejudicial media sources, and somewhere in there SJWs and/or demonic Nazis have managed to find some relevancy as well



Please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly, or not at all!!


> So to answer your question I have no need to feel any form of reproach for my conduct if I compare it with yours as described above.



If you are talking about the most recent of entries into your annoying series of misconstruances of my postings, then I strongly disagree. I do not consider either of us to be in the position to rightly claim to having such exemplary conduct, as being beyond reproach.


> If you feel you can disprove the official version of events with personal distrust and/or mathematical formulae then that's entirely your prerogative but happily, it's not compulsory for anyone to take it seriously, particularly given the unlikelihood that you were there when Tommy's offences were committed or were present at any of his trials.



Official version of events!!! Which of the official versions remains unproven?!!! Would it be those versions prior to, or those post the release of the findings for Tommy's appeal?


> If Tommy was some innocent person accidentally caught up in a situation beyond his control or really had been locked away for simply having a viewpoint I would obviously condemn the whole process as would many others all over the UK. But this guy has form for being deceptive and violent and no attempt has ever been made to prove otherwise - least of all by Tommy himself, indeed it appears he wears it as a badge of honour. What a hero.



I am unsure as to whether or not I am misunderstanding you here.
Perhaps you could clarify.

Are you saying that you would, or would not, be concerned if a person with "form" was wrongfully convicted?

Also if a person with "form" was rightfully convicted, and subsequently mistreated during incarceration, would you, or would you not, be concerned?


----------



## PZ99 (15 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Note the use of the words "breach of the peace" by one of the arresting officers featured in that video!



So what? Who cares? Free speech and breach of the peace are two separate things.
The arresting officer might even have said "Good morning" so does that mean it's a good morning?



cynic said:


> Jaywalking across public roads is an offence. Has every person guilty of doing so been charged for such offence? If not, does that mean none have ever been charged?
> I trust that you are intelligent enough to recognise the distinction being made here!



How is that analogy even relevant to the comment you were quoting?
Is Boris Johnson a jaywalker or something?
Is your reply an attempt to digress from the point?



cynic said:


> Please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly, or not at all!!



I've quoted your comments exactly as you posted them.
Do you actually read what you're posting?



cynic said:


> If you are talking about the most recent of entries into your annoying series of misconstruances of my postings, then I strongly disagree. I do not consider either of us to be in the position to rightly claim to having such exemplary conduct, as being beyond reproach.



So we're both baddies now? As for misconstructions, see my first point, violated media laws, censorship, prejudicial media sources, SJWs, demonic Nazis are all your inventions, not mine.
Why should I feel reproach for rebutting your continual false claims of being misquoted?



cynic said:


> Official version of events!!! Which of the official versions remains unproven?!!! Would it be those versions prior to, or those post the release of the findings for Tommy's appeal?



Official version of events. Excatly as stated.



cynic said:


> I am unsure as to whether or not I am misunderstanding you here.
> Perhaps you could clarify.



Sure thing. But for the purposes of avoiding misconstructions what actual question are you asking me?



cynic said:


> Are you saying that you would, or would not, be concerned if a person with "form" was wrongfully convicted?
> Also if a person with "form" was rightfully convicted, and subsequently mistreated during incarceration, would you, or would you not, be concerned?



Are you putting words in my mouth are just being obtuse? I said right from the start this dude shouldn't be given the hero status based entirely on his form. So He's a criminal.
These current events - regardless of how they play out - don't change his past. So frankly I don't care whether he gets mistreated or not. That's your hang up - not mine.

Firstly, I don't believe him. Secondly I'm simply stating he doesn't deserve the airtime because he's obviously a prune - based on his history. What part of that don't you understand?


----------



## cynic (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> So what? Who cares? Free speech and breach of the peace are two separate things.
> The arresting officer might even have said "Good morning" so does that mean it's a good morning?



 If you are truly disinterested, then perhaps my time can be better spent elsewhere.


> How is that analogy even relevant to the comment you were quoting?
> Is Boris Johnson a jaywalker or something?
> Is your reply an attempt to digress from the point?



Could I have truly overestimated another's intelligence so greatly? Surely not! You are just pretending to misunderstand the relevance, aren't you?


> I've quoted your comments exactly as you posted them.



That passage is your personal composition, not mine! I trust that you are already well aware of how annoying it can be to have one's opinions misrepresented by another. Hence my insistence, paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!


> Do you actually read what you're posting?



Yes! Do you? Actually read what I am posting?


> So we're both baddies now? As for misconstructions, see my first point, violated media laws, censorship, prejudicial media sources, SJWs, demonic Nazis are all your inventions, not mine.
> Why should I feel reproach for rebutting your continual false claims of being misquoted?



Okay, I am willing to acknowledge, and apologise, for having on occasions made errors in some of my choices of wording. Perhaps "paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!" would be a more correct way of expressing the complaint I have with your penchant for misconstruing my statements.


> Official version of events. Excatly as stated.
> 
> 
> Sure thing. But for the purposes of avoiding misconstructions what actual question are you asking me?
> ...



Okay thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for neglecting to word those questions with greater care.


----------



## dutchie (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Are you putting words in my mouth are just being obtuse? I said right from the start this dude shouldn't be given the hero status based entirely on his form. So He's a criminal.
> These current events - regardless of how they play out - don't change his past. So frankly I don't care whether he gets mistreated or not. That's your hang up - not mine.
> 
> Firstly, I don't believe him. Secondly I'm simply stating he doesn't deserve the airtime because he's obviously a prune - based on his history. What part of that don't you understand?




I'm sure there are lots of little boys and girls ( whether abused or not) who will see him as a hero when they grow up.


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2018)

cynic said:


> If you are truly disinterested, then perhaps my time can be better spent elsewhere.
> Could I have truly overestimated another's intelligence so greatly? Surely not! You are just pretending to misunderstand the relevance, aren't you?
> 
> That passage is your personal composition, not mine! I trust that you are already well aware of how annoying it can be to have one's opinions misrepresented by another. Hence my insistence, paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!
> ...



Ok, so thanks for your self induced indignation, your insult, your disinterest and your apology all rolled into one post. There seems little point in reciprocating all that emotivity so I'll just go with apologies from me as well. Now can I please just go back to my original point before we got into this sideshow of alternative/irrelevant possibilities? I was more interested who the British in working class could use as a figurehead to deal with the deterioration of society as alluded to by some previous posts. I mentioned Anne Marie Waters in a previous post but these must be others ?



dutchie said:


> I'm sure there are lots of little boys and girls ( whether abused or not) who will see him as a hero when they grow up.



I think that would be very unfortunate. You will just end up with yet another generation of violent haters and law breakers. People here complain about union thuggery but that's nothing compared to what would happen if society really deteriorated to such a level where violence is the only possible way of conveying our messages. If anything the response you would end up with is a police state style totalitarianism and quality of life would irreversibly go down the gurgler.

You gotta consider the unintendend consequences as well as the intended ones


----------



## dutchie (16 August 2018)

Re: Tommy Robinson - It's important to target the message not the messenger.


----------



## dutchie (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Fact: Toto is a rock band






"I Know That I Must Do What's Right......" 

Hey Tommy Tommy, Tommy Tommy, Tommy Robinson


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> No, under the harsh light of publicity they had to revert to the actual rule of law. In any case you may have noticed that I was specifically referring to the circumstances of his imprisonment, which clearly be breached his human rights under British law.
> 
> It is alarming that you guys are actually ignoring this or waving it off as some sort of beat up. Also not the least bit surprised that the likes of basilio are referring to the initial falsehoods of secret barrusterr for the fact of the matter rather than referring to the actual truth of the matter.
> 
> ****ing sinister.




For many, save face and spite always gazumps common sense. The neo left won't ever admit they are being manipulated into slavish opinions, they illustrate how easy it is for neo Islam to brainwash that religion's worshippers.

And you are right; no matter how correct (e.g. you and I) one is in hindsight, the same close minded few continue argue the toss to bolster each other's nonsense regardless of fact, preferring to backslap each with "likes" for posting fantasy and Guardian style spin. Dinoptopia is the place for many people.


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

The fix was in:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...find-uk-islamophobia-racist-edl-a8231286.html


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2018)

dutchie said:


> Re: Tommy Robinson - It's important to target the message not the messenger.



Aye, true that. But that's a double edged sword. Earlier in this very thread you'll see condemnation of extreme leftist hate and violence... even going as far as citing an analogue of Sudanese gang violence. That really bad right?

But when Tommy and his supporters do it - it's all glossed over and he's a working class hero?

_“I’m gonna find Mark Rowley,”_

No Tommy, Mark Rowley and a bunch of flowers will find you real quick


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Aye, true that. But that's a double edged sword. Earlier in this very thread you'll see condemnation of extreme leftist hate and violence... even going as far as citing an analogue of Sudanese gang violence. That really bad right?
> 
> But when Tommy and his supporters do it - it's all glossed over and he's a working class hero?
> 
> ...




Last time I used the word "analogue" I got ridiculed for using big words ....watchout PC101


----------



## PZ99 (16 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Last time I used the word "analogue" I got ridiculed for using big words ....watchout PC101



LOL.  thanks for that. Actually considering my last sentence in that post I could've split that one into two separate words


----------



## Tisme (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> LOL.  thanks for that. Actually considering my last sentence in that post I could've split that one into two separate words



 Clever


----------



## Kerway (16 August 2018)

PZ99 said:


> But..... can't they find a law abiding citizen to speak their values?




In this day and age of excessive political correctness, if you criticise the level of immigration you are immediately dubbed "racist" by the bleeding hearts, especially those that have secure jobs and housing.

Professional politicians hate to be associated in any way with accusations of racism so it seems the only people you can turn to are hard nosed people like Trump, a man whose ego I despise, but who I find myself agreeing with more than I disagree with. Farage is another who is constantly unfavourably labelled by the usual do gooders, but who also makes a lot of sense when you hear him interviewed.


----------



## Kerway (16 August 2018)

Lantern said:


> Me too. I remember what Maggie did to the miners




I agree with you on Robinson but not on your criticism of Thatcher. Many of the mines were unprofitable and totally dependent on aid from the British taxpayer. They needed closing. Standing up to militant unionism.... if not defeating it totally with legislation passed by her government paved the way for industries like the British motor industry to recover to a stage where it is now the fourth biggest passenger car manufacturer in Europe, producing as many as France and twice as many as Italy.


----------



## Lantern (17 August 2018)

Can you imagine a political party with Tommy, Nigel and Pat Condell.
Would be worth going back just too see.
When I left in 84 I did feel a bit like a rat leaving a sinking ship.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2018)

Lantern said:


> Can you imagine a political party with Tommy, Nigel and Pat Condell.
> Would be worth going back just too see.
> When I left in 84 I did feel a bit like a rat leaving a sinking ship.




Indeed ! If you dug up Enoch Powell  and Oswald Mosley you could have a full house.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Indeed ! If you dug up Enoch Powell  and Oswald Mosley you could have a full house.



Now we're talking 

...and McCarthy,  just to counter the current "reverse McCarthyism"


----------



## cynic (17 August 2018)

Given that people do attend these events for the primary purpose of (hopefully) being entertained by the game, this CEO's request, does seem (on the surface at least) to be quite reasonable, and I hope that my fears about the potential escalation of that request, into something less than reasonable, prove unfounded:
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...gning-ceo-statement-open-letter-a8492811.html


----------



## PZ99 (17 August 2018)

Seems like a reasonable request to me as well. Barmy Army could be Balmy Army


----------



## dutchie (17 August 2018)

Tommy absolutely destroys a gutless wanker "journalist"


----------



## cynic (17 August 2018)

dutchie said:


> Tommy absolutely destroys a gutless wanker "journalist"




It seems there may be some truth in the saying "be careful what you wish for ,because you might actually get it!"

Presuming that journalist was hoping to get a story, then he certainly "got it", and unfortunately for him, it was nothing like the story he was anticipating.


----------



## fiftyeight (17 August 2018)

I have only read about Tommy through this thread so I may be missing something.

Tommy reminds me of an angry feminist. He may have some valid points but it is completely lost in the delivery of the message, much the same way angry feminists lose validity with their cr@p.

Maybe every movement/cause needs a loud mouth to stir the pot to get a conversation started....for better or worse


----------



## cynic (17 August 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> I have only read about Tommy through this thread so I may be missing something.
> 
> Tommy reminds me of an angry feminist. He may have some valid points but it is completely lost in the delivery of the message, much the same way angry feminists lose validity with their cr@p.
> 
> Maybe every movement/cause needs a loud mouth to stir the pot to get a conversation started....for better or worse



My interest in this situation is not so much with Tommy, but with the manner in which the mainstream media and the courts have conducted themselves in relation to him.

When I see article after article, from the mainstream media, giving near verbatim accounts of all the negative attributes of somebody's character, and making mention of no positives whatsoever, my suspicions of a covert agenda, are automatically aroused.

The speed with which he was convicted and sentenced, following his arrest, (all in a single day) gave me ample cause to believe that my suspicions were indeed warranted.


----------



## Lantern (18 August 2018)

Tommy's court case on the 4th September will be interesting in many ways.


----------



## dutchie (29 September 2018)

Tommy Robinson exposes Sky News - manipulated FAKE NEWS 
Basturds


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

dutchie said:


> Tommy Robinson exposes Sky News - manipulated FAKE NEWS
> Basturds





The Dutch were obviously racially and religiously motivated. If Sky News says it and it's agreeable to the indignation brigade then it must be true.


----------



## CrewBear (30 September 2018)

From someone that is from the UK and that’s known of Tommy and seen his videos for a few years i’d Like to share this.

Many of Tommy’s views are shared by a few of the silent majority. Take his name out and ask people about his policies and many would agree.  Similar to why the pollsters got the US election wrong, the general public were not forthright with their level of support for Trump as to fear of reprocusions, similar to showing support for being a converative in many of the left areas of Melbroune, you’re views simply aren’t welcome. 

In forming these views he’s from an area only 30 mins by train to London in a place called Luton. The fact it’s so close to London is should be far more affluent but it’s cloaked in poverty, disconnected multiculturalism which for reference doesn’t mean intergration it means multiple cultures which is exactly what’s happening there. Separate people leading separate lives, speaking separate languages and separate cultures towards fellow citizen and how they treat people outside of their culture. As a white British boy growing up in that area and seeing dissintergration in his commutnity i’m not surprised he’s giving a warning to the UK. Intact i’m surprised there aren’t more voices with words of support


----------



## Tisme (30 September 2018)

CrewBear said:


> From someone that is from the UK and that’s known of Tommy and seen his videos for a few years i’d Like to share this.
> 
> Many of Tommy’s views are shared by a few of the silent majority. Take his name out and ask people about his policies and many would agree.  Similar to why the pollsters got the US election wrong, the general public were not forthright with their level of support for Trump as to fear of reprocusions, similar to showing support for being a converative in many of the left areas of Melbroune, you’re views simply aren’t welcome.
> 
> In forming these views he’s from an area only 30 mins by train to London in a place called Luton. The fact it’s so close to London is should be far more affluent but it’s cloaked in poverty, disconnected multiculturalism which for reference doesn’t mean intergration it means multiple cultures which is exactly what’s happening there. Separate people leading separate lives, speaking separate languages and separate cultures towards fellow citizen and how they treat people outside of their culture. As a white British boy growing up in that area and seeing dissintergration in his commutnity i’m not surprised he’s giving a warning to the UK. Intact i’m surprised there aren’t more voices with words of support





England has a history of segregation and different languages ... they are called counties n'est pas?


----------



## dutchie (30 September 2018)

CrewBear said:


> From someone that is from the UK and that’s known of Tommy and seen his videos for a few years i’d Like to share this.
> 
> Many of Tommy’s views are shared by a few of the silent majority. Take his name out and ask people about his policies and many would agree.  Similar to why the pollsters got the US election wrong, the general public were not forthright with their level of support for Trump as to fear of reprocusions, similar to showing support for being a converative in many of the left areas of Melbroune, you’re views simply aren’t welcome.
> 
> In forming these views he’s from an area only 30 mins by train to London in a place called Luton. The fact it’s so close to London is should be far more affluent but it’s cloaked in poverty, disconnected multiculturalism which for reference doesn’t mean intergration it means multiple cultures which is exactly what’s happening there. Separate people leading separate lives, speaking separate languages and separate cultures towards fellow citizen and how they treat people outside of their culture. As a white British boy growing up in that area and seeing dissintergration in his commutnity i’m not surprised he’s giving a warning to the UK. Intact i’m surprised there aren’t more voices with words of support




Thanks for an insiders view.


----------



## dutchie (10 October 2018)

The UK must be the laughing stock of the world.
Recently Tommy was at a petrol station along one of the UK's motorways. There was a number of buses there transporting British soldiers.
They took a photo of Tommy and the Soldiers. The photo was shared on line.
The army took the telephones (mobiles) off the soldiers and investigated them.
What a joke.


----------



## dutchie (20 October 2018)

Huddersfield grooming gang: Men convicted of sexually abusing vulnerable girls and jailed for 220 years

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...robinson-reporting-restrictions-a8592176.html

Yes,  Tommy Robinson is the problem.


----------



## Lantern (20 October 2018)

Tommy is back in court on Tuesday 23rd Oct.


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2018)

It is all set up to lock him up and throw away the key.  I think they have misread the public on this one. 

The poo will hit the propeller, but remains to be seen how far and wide it splatters. I feel it's now or never , liberty or dhimmitry and jizya. 

My feeling is that Britain is lost.


----------



## dutchie (20 October 2018)

wayneL said:


> My feeling is that Britain is lost.




Yep, its f#cked. As is western Europe.
Just a matter of time.
It will be a slow painful death, with a minor part of the population putting up any resistance.
France and Sweden will probably die before Britain.


----------



## Lantern (21 October 2018)

I read yesterday that six independent journalists have been crowd funded to come over and do some accurate reporting on this case. Two from Canada, one from Australia and three from the USA, backed up by three cameramen. Should make things a bit more accurate.


----------



## Lantern (24 October 2018)

Tommys statement to the court yesterday

Against the advice of his former lawyers, Tommy Robinson planned to give the following statement during his contempt of court hearing today. The statement was provided to the judge yesterday, which the judge, The Recorder of London, Nicholas Hilliard, QC, cited as playing a significant role in his decision to not hear the case today.

I am the defendant in these contempt proceedings, and the Court has served me with two allegations of contempt against me. This is one more than I faced in the Crown Court at Leeds.

In relation to the first allegation, breaching the order of the court, which requires as I understand it an intention to interfere with the administration of justice, I would like to say this.

Firstly, I would like to assure the court that undermining the court’s authority or interfering with the administration of justice was never my intention. I believed I acted in good faith within the parameters of the section 4 reporting restriction in place. The information I provided was in the public domain, factual and relevant but did not provide any details of the trial proceedings other than what had already been reported previously and was readily available online. I rely on the documents in my bundle as examples of what had previously been reported.

When I arrived at Leeds Crown Court that morning I could not obtain any specific details of the reporting restriction order. I do not believe there is a website which holds such details, so I researched online and reviewed the reporting restriction guidelines provided.  They state that the court should include details of reporting restrictions on the court listings both online and in court and also provide a notice on the door of the court.  My solicitors have photographic evidence to show that the court did not follow these guidelines that day and had no details listed anywhere of a reporting restriction for that case. This is also in the bundle. The only time the notification about reporting restrictions was available was later that afternoon after the Court had convicted me and sent me to prison.  Only then did the Court follow the guidelines and list a reporting restriction against the court listings for both the grooming case and my subsequent case.

After my previous experience with contempt of court in Canterbury I went out of my way to ensure I would not fall foul of the law again. I privately paid for training with one of London’s leading law firms, Kingsley Napley, to cover all details regarding contempt of court.  There is documentation in relation to this in my bundle.

On that morning at Leeds Crown Court I had knowledge of the verdicts of the first phase of this grooming trial and many of the specific details discussed in court for this particular trial. I did not talk about these in my livestream on that day.  I had understood based on my training that the specifics of the case and the verdicts were off limits for reporting restrictions.

Having been unable to obtain any details from the court on the conditions of the reporting restriction I decided to review the guidelines for reporting restrictions. On the Judiciary’s website there is a practical guide aimed at judges and the media on the statutory and common law principles that should be applied with regards to reporting restrictions.  The paper was called ‘Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015 (Revised May 2016)’.  In this paper it stated that *Courts have no power under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain (see page 27 of this document).*

I followed my training and this guidance to the letter. I did not divulge any of the previous case verdicts, did not detail any specifics mentioned in the trial, did not assume guilt and refrained from entering court property.  I even asked the officer outside the court where the court boundaries were and that I was ok to film where I was to which he confirmed.

I also followed that guidance document issued on the Judiciary website informing me that I could only reference information that was already in the public domain. Every single thing I said that day was already in the public domain.  I actually read charges and names of the defendants from a BBC article which to this day is still live on their website.  I also made sure not to film anyone other than the defendants, I was calm and respectful throughout.

It is my understanding that there is no individual in the last 60 years that has been sentenced to prison for a publication breach of a reporting order.  It would appear to me that my punishment is exceptional.  I would ask that I am treated in the same manner as every other journalist who has been charged with these allegations. The journalist Rod Liddle was writing for the Spectator magazine in relation to the Stephen Lawrence murder trial, and when he was sentenced for breaching the section 4 order, and risking prejudice to the trial, was given a fine.  Journalists at the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror published highly prejudicial material on the trail of Levi Bellfield who abducted and murdered an 11-year-old child.  This contempt of court led to the collapse of the entire case and discharge of the jury and robbed one of his victims of the chance for justice.  The reporters in this instance were not prosecuted and instead their employers were found guilty of contempt and fined £10,000.

I have reviewed the transcripts from Leeds Crown Court where the Judge was discussing various reporting order breaches.  The judge and the CPS discuss the fact that multiple news sources breached the very same order placed on my trial with some breaching both the reporting orders by mentioning the grooming trial as well as my arrest and prison term.  Lizzie Dearden the home affairs correspondent at the Independent actually refused to remove the article when provided with the order stating that the effect of social media voids reporting restrictions, so she could not be held in contempt of court.  The CPS and the judge agreed that these breaches of the order were a matter for the Attorney General to review.

When I was informed of the blanket order, I offered to delete my video immediately. Despite the multiple breaches of the order by different newspapers that weekend and the flat refusal of Lizzie Dearden to take her article down, not one of those journalists or the editors of those publications, were ever arrested or prosecuted for s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act.

According to the court transcript the newspaper breaches of the reporting order was a matter for the Attorney General.  My case was not referred to the Attorney General for review and instead I was hauled into court immediately, refused my own choice of legal representation, prosecuted, and convicted in a matter of minutes in what the Court of Appeal regarded as a flawed trial.  I was then imprisoned for over 2.5 months in solitary confinement until I won the appeal.  I was held against my categorisation, moved to the highest Muslim population Cat C prison, subjected to mental torture and constant threats and abuse and had all of my rights removed in the interest of prison safety.

It is clear to me that my continued prosecution and heavy-handed tactics from the state is because of ‘who I am’ rather than ‘what I did’.

In relation to the second allegation, the strict liability allegation, I would like to say this.

It is only since my original trial that there has been an additional charge added suggesting that the contents of my livestream were prejudicial to this case.  The case completed, the jury concluded, and the verdicts were given.  I would like to state clearly that in the transcript from the original trial the judge discussed my video with Mr Wright QC, prosecution counsel.  Having reviewed the content of my video Mr Wright stated in court: ‘_There is nothing they could have seen that could in any way prejudice them against the defendant_s’. Judge Marson agreed on the record.

For this reason, (a) I cannot see why I should face two charges when the core of the allegation in front of Judge Marson was the breach of the section 4(2) order, other than because I am regarded as a political activist and the charges are motivated by my political activism, and (b) I do not accept that the material that was livestreamed  created either a real or substantial risk of prejudice to the Leeds proceedings. The prosecution counsel and the Judge both agreed on the court transcript that my live stream could not have prejudiced the jury.

Everything I reported that morning was fair and accurate and published in good faith within the constraints of the judiciary’s guidelines for the media.

I will address each point in the allegations drafted by the Advocate to the Court.

The first allegation is that I suggested the defendants were involved in wider criminal activity. This is not correct. I was referring to two reports, one on the radio and one in the Huddersfield Examiner which set out the allegations relating to the 29 individuals. I cannot find the original references but a similar report on the BBC relating to the allegations is in the defence bundle.

The second allegation is that stating that those of the same ethnicity and religion as the defendants were disproportionally likely to commit the crimes for which the defendants were being tried could prejudice the trial.

This statement is factually correct.  The Quilliam foundation who are a Muslim run anti extremism think tank have produced a research paper looking at convictions of this type 1 street grooming from 2005 – 2017. This is in the defence bundle. They found that 84% of all convictions were south Asian with the significant majority of those being Pakistani Muslim.  All of these victims were white children.

Sajid Javid the Home Secretary himself announced on BBC news this year that in these types of street grooming trials the individuals convicted are from a disproportionately Pakistani background.

Nazir Afzal is the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the north west of England and a lead prosecutor on child sexual abuse and he also publicly stated on Channel 4 News that Asians and Pakistanis in particular are disproportionately involved in this type of street grooming.  He also presented these facts in front of Parliament.

I merely stated factual insight into the ethnicity and religious make up of perpetrators of these types of crimes. I repeated publicly available research papers from the Quilliam Organisation, testimony from the former head of Crown Prosecution Service in the Northwest and a statement from the Home Secretary himself all three of which are in fact Pakistani Muslims themselves.

I do not accept that reporting facts on the ethnicity or the make-up of particular offender groups could be categorised as contempt of court given the number of grooming gang trials currently in progress across the United Kingdom and the commentary on those facts which are widely discussed in the media.

The third allegation is that highlighting as significant the sexual references of the abuse that I had elicited from the defendants could prejudice the trial.

I asked each of the defendants what their views were on their verdict they were expecting to hear that day. All 3 of them separately made aggressive vulgar sexual references or sexual threats against both my mother and my wife.  I did not ask the defendants to comment on their views of my wife and mother, they did this out of the blue.  Repeating what they actually said in the video has no relevance or prejudice on the trial itself.

The fourth allegation is that I made derogatory comments about the ethnic or religious backgrounds of the defendants.

I would like to point out I was not talking about the specific defendants on trial I was referring to reaction I had received by family and friends of previous convicted grooming gangs. By derogatory comments it appears to mean telling the truth that under Islamic law, the “age of consent” coincides with puberty. In Islam there is no set age for marriage. The Islamic Prophet Muhammad, who is said to serve as a role model for every Muslim, is reported by Sunni Hadith sources to have married Aisha when she was six or seven years old, with the marriage consummated when she was nine years old and he was 56 years old.  The prosecution may not like to hear the truth but there is no way that sharing the truth and facts about a particular religion on social media can lead to prejudice on a trial.

In relation to the fifth allegation, a number of the comments relied on were made by other people, and my comments related to grooming trials generally across the country rather than the particular case (e.g. the exchange at page 8 of the transcript of the livestream related to Rotherham, and Oxford). I made it clear throughout that the trial concerned allegations.

The nature and number of these ongoing trials, prosecutions and investigations is highly alarming and I believe it is in the public’s interest to hear the details and know of the complexities and connections amongst the previous prosecutions.

The future safety of vulnerable children at risk is my concern here not the perceived prejudice towards the defendants because of their ethnicity or religion. If 29 white Christian priests were on trial on such charges with reporting restrictions, I would feel exactly the same.

When I initially went to report on the Canterbury trial I did so in what I felt was the public interest.  The police had DNA evidence on all four of the now convicted child rapists, yet the decision was made to grant these individuals bail.  They were still running the same take away shop and coming into contact with young school children.  One of the defendants absconded to Afghanistan.   With DNA evidence on each of the now convicted child rapists it was my belief that they should have been remanded to prison until trial in order to protect vulnerable children in the surrounding area.  Instead the decision was made to release them back into the community on bail.

The same danger was placed on the children in case in question. The now convicted child gang rapists on trial in Leeds that day were also free to walk the streets on bail.  There were 18 different witness statements detailing the rape and torture of those children and yet the justice system decided that they did not pose a risk to the public and granted them bail.

Just like the Canterbury case one of these child rapists in the Leeds trial on also absconded before his verdict was reached.  I believe he has fled to Pakistan and according to the court transcripts he was last seen leaving his house with a large bag.  That is a convicted child rapist free to roam the streets because he was deemed no risk to the public and granted bail.

I have previously been charged with a non-violent offence, and I was remanded straight to prison to await trial.  At Leeds Crown Court in May this year, the police whisked me from the streets, I was subjected to a fundamentally flawed trial and then sent straight to prison inside 5 hours.   This is all whilst the very same system allows alleged child rapists with multiple prosecution witness statements and DNA evidence implicating them in the crime to continue to walk the streets.

The court has a duty to the victims and the public to protect them and telling them could help stop ongoing child sexual exploitation and maybe prevent future vulnerable children from falling victim to it.

Again I would like to reiterate that undermining the judge, the court, the proceedings, the supremacy of the law or the administration of justice was never my intention, but I truly believe the reporting restrictions on this trial and subsequent connected trials are detrimental to the public and should never have been imposed so the public could hear the details, and use the knowledge of the proceedings to help prevent further cases such as these coming before the courts.

The jurors are given a responsibility. They are aware of the consequences of researching the cases they sit on. It should be upon them and we should trust them to do the task with honesty and integrity; it should not be for the public to be kept purposely in the dark just in case they do not.

Tommy Robinson’s witness st… by on Scribd


Posted in Blog - Tagged Tommy Robinson, United Kingdom
*Post navigation*
← Who is Tommy Robinson?
I overheard how reporters talk about Tommy Robinson →
andrew@andrewlawton.ca
Facebook

Twitter

Instagram


----------



## dutchie (24 October 2018)

Dear Tommy
We don't give a #### about the girls.
We just don't want to upset those "who cannot be named".
So stop interfering.
Signed
Judge


----------



## Lantern (24 October 2018)

The Judge referred the case up to the Attorney-General.
Pretty sure that that means he will be in front of a Jury.
I reckon this has turned and will soon bite the judiciary in the A**.


----------



## dutchie (12 February 2019)

Tommy has the evidence to show how corrupt and bias the BBC is.

Video to be shown on Saturday 23rd February 2019


----------



## Lantern (12 February 2019)

He is so over the moon about this. Really looking forward to it.


----------



## wayneL (12 February 2019)

Possibly a watershed moment. Looking forward to this.


----------



## IFocus (12 February 2019)

*Wiki*

*Criminal convictions*
Robinson was jailed for assault in 2005, has convictions for drugs offences and public order offences, was jailed in 2012 for illegally entering the United States using a false passport[121] and jailed again in 2014 for a £160,000 mortgage fraud.[122]

His 2005 sentence was for assaulting an off-duty police officer[123] who had come to the rescue of his girlfriend, now wife, during a drunken confrontation. Robinson said "I've kicked him in the head" and "I felt like I shouldn't of gone to jail for what I did".[17]

He was convicted in 2011 of leading a brawl involving 100 football fans.[27]

*False passport*
In October 2012, Robinson was arrested and held on the charge of having entered the United States illegally. Robinson pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to using someone else's passport to travel to the United States in September 2012, and was sentenced in January 2013 to 10 months' imprisonment.[124][125]

Robinson had used a passport in the name of Andrew McMaster to board a Virgin Atlantic flight from Heathrow to New York.[121] He had been banned from entering the US due to a drugs offence. When he arrived at New York’s JFK Airport, customs officials who took his fingerprints realised he was not Mr McMaster. He was asked to attend a second interview but left the airport, entering the US illegally. He stayed one night and returned to the UK the following day using his own legitimate passport - which bears the name Paul Harris.[126]

Judge Alistair McCreath told him: "What you did went absolutely to the heart of the immigration controls that the United States are entitled to have. It's not in any sense trivial."[121]

He was released on electronic tag on 22 February 2013.[127]

*Fraud*
In November 2012, Robinson was charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by misrepresentation in relation to a mortgage application, along with five other defendants.[128] He pleaded guilty to two charges and in January 2014 was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.[129][125]

Robinson's fraud amounted to £160,000 over a period of six months. Judge Andrew Bright QC described him as the "instigator, if not the architect" of a series of frauds totalling £640,000. "This was an operation which was fraudulent from the outset and involved a significant amount of forward planning." He described Robinson as a "fixer" who had introduced others to fraudulent mortgage broker Deborah Rothschild. Rothschild had assisted some defendants by providing fake pay slips and income details.[122]

Robinson was attacked by several fellow prisoners in HM Prison Woodhill.[130][131] Following news of the attack, Maajid Nawaz wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling, asking for Robinson's situation to be urgently addressed.[131][132] Shortly after this incident, Robinson was moved to HM Prison Winchester. Robinson told Jamie Bartlett, a director of the think tank Demos: "In Woodhill, I experienced Islam the gang. [...] In Winchester, I have experienced Islam the religion." Robinson made friends with several Muslim prisoners, referring to them as "great lads [...] I cannot speak highly enough of the Muslim inmates I'm now living with".[133] In June 2014 Robinson was released on licence. The terms of his early release included having no contact with the EDL until the end of his original sentence in June 2015.[133] He was due to talk to the Oxford Union in October 2014, but was recalled to prison before the event for breaching the terms of his licence.[134] He was ultimately released on 14 November 2014.


----------



## wayneL (13 February 2019)

Ho hum. We all know that matey. 

Whats worse?  That, or the pedophile rape gangs/culture he's trying to fight against?

Tommy goes into bat for the poor little girls, while you're oh so upstanding pillars of society turned a blind eye for decades soas "not to offend".

Disgusting


----------



## dutchie (13 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> Ho hum. We all know that matey.
> 
> Whats worse?  That, or the pedophile rape gangs/culture he's trying to fight against?
> 
> ...




We cannot afford to offend the pedophiles, but we can certainly offend the man pointing them out.

Hypocrites.


----------



## Lantern (14 February 2019)

Well said WayneL.
Tommy is giving the real English men and women something to believe in after no one heard them for decades.
I seriously hope he stands for election in my lifetime.

Seriously though. I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I'll keep on saying it until my days on this planet are over. The UK needs a "Hillsborough" type inquiry into all this. As far reaching as is required so that ALL the people involved in sweeping the details under the carpet, hiding the truth and just hoping it will go away, are made to answer for their crimes. Many heads need to roll.
I seriously hope it happens in my lifetime. But I won't hold my breath.
I do feel though the tide is slowly changing, and there are a small handful of brave people starting to speak a little louder than they were doing.
The authorities are not running scared yet, and won't for a while. All we can do is live in hope or join the ones speaking out. 
The Hillsborough enquiry took 27 years, let's not let these kids wait that long for justice.


----------



## IFocus (14 February 2019)

If there is a law an order issue then it needs addressing politicising / idolising a wife bashing criminal as Robyn Hood is disgusting , nave and really stupid IMHO.


----------



## dutchie (14 February 2019)

IFocus said:


> If there is a law an order issue then it needs addressing politicising / idolising a wife bashing criminal as Robyn Hood is disgusting , nave and really stupid IMHO.



Yes, lets forget about all the little girls that have been or will be raped and go after the messenger.


----------



## Lantern (14 February 2019)

If there is a law an order issue then it needs addressing politicising / idolising a wife bashing criminal as Robyn Hood is disgusting , nave and really stupid IMHO.

If I was a betting man I would guess you are in the South Yorkshire Police farce.


----------



## Darc Knight (14 February 2019)

IFocus said:


> *Wiki*
> 
> *Criminal convictions*
> Robinson was jailed for assault in 2005, has convictions for drugs offences and public order offences, was jailed in 2012 for illegally entering the United States using a false passport[121] and jailed again in 2014 for a £160,000 mortgage fraud.[122]
> ...




I just found that on Wiki myself, was about to post it until I saw you already had. What is going on in this thread. 

_*"Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon* (born 27 November 1982),[12] known as *Tommy Robinson*, and having previously used thepseudonyms *Andrew McMaster*, *Paul Harris*and *Wayne King*,["_
_https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

_


----------



## Knobby22 (14 February 2019)

Wayne King (chortle)


----------



## wayneL (15 February 2019)

There is no question Tommy is working class, a soccer fan,  a bovver boy and a chancer.

But the far left, intersectional, postmodern cultural Marxists miss what is going on.

For them it is all about the smear,  especially if male, white, and in England where the toxic class system still exists,  working class.  In their circles they get some prestige,  some bizarre brownie points if they can smear someone they percieve as a non-Komrade. 

For people like Tommy,  it's about the issues, the Islamisation of their country,  and the pedaphile,  largely Muslim, pedophile rape gangs,  targetting children. 

Little girls, Komrades. 

If you do your research properly,  Komrades,  instead of believing the mendacious hit pieces from the Guardian, you will realise you've been played. (willingly by my observation)

We all know the dirt file on Tommy,  every petty leftist drags it all up,  ad nauseum,  in every thread. 

Lets instead,  deal with the issues he is addressing,  and why the establishment is trying to sweep it under the carpet.

That's what's important.


----------



## Darc Knight (15 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> There is no question Tommy is working class, a soccer fan,  a bovver boy and a chancer.
> 
> But the far left, intersectional, postmodern cultural Marxists miss what is going on.
> 
> ...






Morning Komrade. I like you Wayne, you bring mirth and merriment to my day.  
Do you really think a person with a rap sheet which includes "convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court" is really a person who should be an advisor to Politicians? Sounds like his character hasn't changed.


----------



## dutchie (15 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> Lets instead,  deal with the issues he is addressing,  and why the establishment is trying to sweep it under the carpet.
> 
> That's what's important.




Sorry Wayne but that's not how it works.

You cannot debate/reason with a leftist.

You cannot debate/reason with a communist or socialist.

You cannot debate/reason with antifa (and that *they* are acting as nazi's and fascists ), other than with violence.

You cannot debate/reason with a radical feminist (hi Clem).


----------



## wayneL (15 February 2019)

dutchie said:


> Sorry Wayne but that's not how it works.
> 
> You cannot debate/reason with a leftist.
> 
> ...



It seems you are absolutely correct.


----------



## IFocus (15 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Morning Komrade. I like you Wayne, you bring mirth and merriment to my day.
> Do you really think a person with a rap sheet which includes "convictions for violence, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court" is really a person who should be an advisor to Politicians? Sounds like his character hasn't changed.




DK your missing the point its more important to discuss the evils of "leftest" and politicise than to actually address the claimed problem.

Far more important to down play the behaviour of a narcissistic attention seeking name changing convicted wife bashing violent criminal............sheez next thing people will be supporting the election of a man bragging about sexually assaulting women and lying about......hang on


----------



## wayneL (15 February 2019)

IFocus said:


> DK your missing the point its more important to discuss the evils of "leftest" and politicise than to actually address the claimed problem.
> 
> Far more important to down play the behaviour of a narcissistic attention seeking name changing convicted wife bashing violent criminal............sheez next thing people will be supporting the election of a man bragging about sexually assaulting women and lying about......hang on



And still not a single stern word for the pedophile gangs from the Komrades. 

Interesting.


----------



## Darc Knight (15 February 2019)

Dem Commies!!!

I thought this thread was about some person of dubious character being kept in solitary, fed a tin of Tuna daily, waterboarded, flogged etc not about some Paedophiles?

P.S. By the sounds of it this Tommy Robinson/Wayne King has quite a big mouth, not a good thing at all in Jail I'm told. Probably upset the wrong people in there.
Any evidence of his claims?


----------



## IFocus (15 February 2019)

If I can just help out Wayne here.

For the uninitiated when creating a label and attaching negative connotations to it then applying to any one that may question please be sure you pronounce the word correctly.

Lets take "leftest" be sure you add some spittle at the correct junction as in "left-spittle-est" it requires practice alto comes naturally to some 

Hope this helps.


----------



## dutchie (15 February 2019)

SWIM Wayne SWIM !


----------



## Darc Knight (15 February 2019)

Yeah

RUN Forrest RUN!


----------



## wayneL (15 February 2019)

Ah so we've regressed to the juvenile.

Well done children, keep ignoring the issue.


----------



## explod (15 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> And still not a single stern word for the pedophile gangs from the Komrades.
> 
> Interesting.



What's this Wayne, had a friend suicide from the abuse from a Christian Brother.  Please in this case explain yourself CLEARLY Wayne.


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2019)

explod said:


> What's this Wayne, had a friend suicide from the abuse from a Christian Brother.  Please in this case explain yourself CLEARLY Wayne.



You really haven't been following along, Plod,  have you?
I am reticent to explain because as Bruce and Ifocus have adequately shown, it is futile, the left is just not prepared to listen to the issues, preferring to smear the messenger instead.

The fact is the grooming, rape, and torture of underage English girls by Muslim grooming gangs has been happening on an industrial scale for 30 years.

As to why the authorities have essentially turned a blind eye to this for so long is a matter of conjecture and I will hold my opinion to myself on this matter but nevertheless,  this is not Urban Legend, it is real it has happened and continues to happen.

Meanwhile the idiots think the misdemeanors of Tommy Robinson are a big issue than that.

So join a side sir, figure out whether you think the rape of little girls or Petty intersectional politics is the bigger  issue.


----------



## bellenuit (16 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Any evidence of his claims?




Not sure which claims you are referring to, but if it is the grooming and rape of teenage girls by mainly Muslim groups in Huddersfield, there has been plenty of reporting:

*https://www.google.com/search?ei=lI....2887.2-11j1......0....1..gws-wiz.5mab_uZPrc4

This refers to places other than Huddersfield:

Grooming gangs abused more than 700 women and girls around Newcastle after police appeared to punish victims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-sanctuary-shelter-muslim-asian-a8225106.html
*


----------



## Lantern (16 February 2019)

There are three parts to this.


----------



## basilio (16 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> You really haven't been following along, Plod,  have you?
> I am reticent to explain because as Bruce and Ifocus have adequately shown, it is futile, the left is just not prepared to listen to the issues, preferring to smear the messenger instead.
> 
> The fact is the grooming, rape, and torture of underage English girls by Muslim grooming gangs has been happening on an industrial scale for 30 years.
> ...




This is where I really don't like where your going Wayne...

Has there been "industrial scale" grooming, rape and torture of underage girls by Muslim grooming gangs for 30 years ? Really ? How many in fact ? The article from The Independent explores a very wide range of  abuse.

Not for a minute would I dispute the fact that some of this behaviour has occurred. As Bellenuit pointed out it has been raised and tackled as it must be.
*What I find ................  is the way the far right ratbags have seized on these behaviours by particular people to demonise the whole Muslim religion and community and used these events to create an atmosphere of fear and loathing against  all Muslims. 
*
Let's be clear about our world. We now* know* that tens of thousands on children have been abused by religious people  for  many years in churches and schools and that this behaviour was systematically covered up by these authorities.
We *know* that this behaviour also happened in State run institutions, sporting groups, seemingly all religious groups, the BBC.  How far do you want to dig when looking for the evils of pedophilia ?

*It is all abhorrent.* But it seems that the particular group of nasties you admire  want to demonise an entire culture for the crimes of a few.

How would we respond if such an attack was made on all the above institutions that have also allowed such behaviours ?


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> For people like Tommy, it's about the issues, the Islamisation of their country, and the pedaphile, largely Muslim, pedophile rape gangs, targetting children.




Ever thought that he really doesn't care about the issues but is just stirring up trouble for his own purposes like paid media appearances, books tv series ("The Life of Tommy perhaps), etc etc. ?


----------



## wayneL (16 February 2019)

basilio said:


> This is where I really don't like where your going Wayne...
> 
> Has there been "industrial scale" grooming, rape and torture of underage girls by Muslim grooming gangs for 30 years ? Really ? How many in fact ? The article from The Independent explores a very wide range of  abuse.
> 
> ...



A/ I couldn't give two sh1ts about where you think I'm going.

B/ If you were across the this issue as you clearly believe you are, you would know that Tommy has *always disavowed the extreme right.

Get yourself educated on this if you have any balls,  a good start would be the videos @Lantern posted above. 

Dare ya.


----------



## Macquack (16 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Ever thought that he really doesn't care about the issues but is just stirring up trouble for his own purposes like paid media appearances, books tv series ("The Life of Tommy perhaps), etc etc. ?



I thought it was just me that viewed Thomas as a self indulged, self serving, self promoting buffoon. Apart from being the fraud that he is, I can't stand his personality as betrayed in his own videos. Is this part of his agenda, to have people hate him? One thing I can't tolerate is fake people.


----------



## basilio (16 February 2019)

wayneL said:


> A/ I couldn't give two sh1ts about where you think I'm going.
> 
> B/ If you were across the this issue as you clearly believe you are, you would know that Tommy has *always disavowed the extreme right.
> 
> ...




What absolute rot...
I pointed out one xxxxing simple point.  Pedophilia is a scourage that  has been exposed across many institutions and organizations. It is *absolutely clear *that it has been far more  widespread and devastating in churches and other social organisations than the the actions of some nasty men who happen to be Muslim.

So why does "Tommy Robinson" and his associated  the toe rags  decide to  froth at the mouth over the Muslim menace?

Your videos ?  Sophisticated in the exact sense of the word.


----------



## dutchie (16 February 2019)

Unbelievable.


----------



## Macquack (16 February 2019)

basilio said:


> This is where I really don't like where your going Wayne...
> 
> Has there been "industrial scale" grooming, rape and torture of underage girls by Muslim grooming gangs for 30 years ? Really ? How many in fact ? The article from The Independent explores a very wide range of  abuse.
> 
> ...



Good post, I never really thought about it that way before. Why aren't all the f*cking do-gooders like Tommy demonising ALL Catholics for the sins of a few extremist priests?


----------



## Darc Knight (17 February 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Not sure which claims you are referring to, but if it is the grooming and rape of teenage girls by mainly Muslim groups in Huddersfield, there has been plenty of reporting:
> 
> *https://www.google.com/search?ei=lI....2887.2-11j1......0....1..gws-wiz.5mab_uZPrc4
> 
> ...




Wayne's O.P. was about claims Tommy Robinson was mistreated in Jail. NOT about Paedophiles.
Now the discussion has shifted.


----------



## dutchie (17 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Wayne's O.P. was about claims Tommy Robinson was mistreated in Jail. NOT about Paedophiles.
> Now the discussion has shifted.




A common tactic of the left.


----------



## basilio (17 February 2019)

_Wayne's O.P. was about claims Tommy Robinson was mistreated in Jail. NOT about Paedophiles.
Now the discussion has shifted.  Darc Knight_

_A common tactic of the left.    Dutchie.
_
Really ?  I was responding to Wayne's posts which wanted to  take the discussion into questions of the "industrial scale grooming"  sexual abuse an torture of under age girls by fiendish Muslims. These seem to be the excuse to justify Tommy Robinsons arch angels vilifying the entire Islamic community.




wayneL said:


> You really haven't been following along, Plod,  have you?
> I am reticent to explain because as Bruce and Ifocus have adequately shown, it is futile, the left is just not prepared to listen to the issues, preferring to smear the messenger instead.
> 
> The fact is the grooming, rape, and torture of underage English girls by Muslim grooming gangs has been happening on an industrial scale for 30 years.
> ...


----------



## basilio (17 February 2019)

And Wayne was quite clear about what "Tommy Robinson" saw as the issues.

_For people like Tommy, it's about the issues, the Islamisation of their country, and the pedaphile, largely Muslim, pedophile rape gangs, targetting children.  Wayne L_


----------



## Darc Knight (17 February 2019)

dutchie said:


> A common tactic of the left.




 What do people regularly respond with "Wayne's OP was about Tommy Robinson''s incarceration"?

Wayne's OP and at least the entire first page of this thread was about Tommy Robinson's incarceration. That's what I and most others in this thread were responding to. Wayne and his cronies switched the subject when they realised Tommy Robinson's jail claims were difficult to believe.

@dutchie of course everyone finds Paedophilia disgraceful and the perpetrators should dealt with harshly.


----------



## Darc Knight (17 February 2019)

Wayne, when will you resign your commission as ASF's Sith Lord and come join the path of righteousness and bodaciousness?


----------



## wayneL (18 February 2019)

Darc Knight said:


> Wayne, when will you resign your commission as ASF's Sith Lord and come join the path of righteousness and bodaciousness?



Everyone knows right wing chicks are the most bodacious, Bruce. This alone, despite arguments of Sith or Jedi, keeps me from the radical left of perpetually outraged self haters.

As for righteousness,  watch for the plot twist bro.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 February 2019)

Yea, it has gone off track. Didn't realise Tommy got contempt of court for, according to Wikipedia, almost causing a void trial that would lead to the girls involved not getting justice.  Read the thread but unsure why his jailing was considered wrong. Or was it the sentence was thought to be too severe? Reminds me of Hinch.


----------



## dutchie (19 February 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> almost causing a void trial that would lead to the girls involved not getting justice.




Doubt very much if those girls will ever get "justice", no matter what happens in the court system.
British society has let them down badly. They should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Lantern (19 February 2019)

Didn't realise Tommy got contempt of court for, according to Wikipedia, almost causing a void trial that would lead to the girls involved not getting justice. Read the thread but unsure why his jailing was considered wrong.

All Tommy did was read the names out from a published newspaper. The charge was trumped up. This is why people started getting angry.


----------



## wayneL (19 February 2019)

The first charge at Canterbury was technically valid, wvwn if it reeked of double standard. 

The second charge was objectively a travesty at every level and deeply concerning in a liberal democracy, no matter your political bent.  Even more alarming,  is that the leftist twats refuse to see that. 

In fact,  they are giving the extreme right,  should they ever get power,  license to persecute them. That is in no way a good thing.

Just imagine Owen Jones recieving the same treatment.

As much as I despise the little lying commie pissant, he should be challenged an an intellectual basis and properly debated, not persecuted by the state.


----------



## Lantern (26 February 2019)

Panodrama. Can't comment as I haven't watched it yet, but will on Saturday.


----------



## Lantern (27 February 2019)

And today we learn both Farcebook and Insaneagram have deleted his accounts.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=381971441938916


----------



## dutchie (27 February 2019)

PANODRAMA


----------



## dutchie (28 February 2019)

Tommy exposes BBC - gets banned from Facebook.


----------



## dutchie (8 March 2019)

Tommy Robinson is recharged.
Why don't they just drag him out of his house and shoot him and be done with it?
RIP UK


----------



## dutchie (8 March 2019)

The Gulags are not far away now.


----------



## wayneL (8 March 2019)

dutchie said:


> RIP UK



Very sad... and very true if the Poms don't wake up.


----------



## Darc Knight (9 March 2019)

Thanks for the morning lols lads, comedy is always welcome


----------



## dutchie (14 March 2019)

Tommy goes back to court to face the "establishment" again on the 22nd March.
If Tommy goes down we all go down. In the UK Tommy is the last line of resistance.
If the British succumb to the corrupt "establishment" it is only a matter of time for us.


----------



## bellenuit (11 July 2019)




----------



## basilio (5 August 2019)

Why are young men imitating the  Christchurch massacres ?
Some food for thought.
 
* What induces men to imitate the Christchurch massacre? *
Jeff Sparrow

After Christchurch and El Paso we need an open discussion – without euphemisms and evasions – about what fascism is and how it works

“In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto.”

That’s how the man accused of shooting at least 20 people in a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, began the document he posted on 8chan.

The atrocity comes in the wake of a murderous attack on the Chabad of Poway synagogue in California on 27 April. The man detained for that crime also posted a manifesto to 8chan and also described the Christchurch shooter as a catalyst, saying: “‘He showed me that it could be done.”

What might induce people to imitate the Christchurch massacre, an atrocity in which a self-identified fascist allegedly murdered 51 innocents in cold blood?

To answer that question, we must grasp the historical evolution of fascism in the 21st century.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...uces-men-to-imitate-the-christchurch-massacre


----------



## moXJO (5 August 2019)

basilio said:


> Why are young men imitating the  Christchurch massacres ?
> Some food for thought.
> 
> * What induces men to imitate the Christchurch massacre? *
> ...



Brain dead article.


----------



## moXJO (5 August 2019)




----------



## moXJO (5 August 2019)

Maybe Obama made him do it

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/20...-satanist-antifa-and-democrat/comment-page-1/

Take a good look at the tweets to realize the extreme left, is basically the extreme right, who are both basically authoritarians...


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2019)

moXJO said:


> Maybe Obama made him do it
> 
> http://www.occidentaldissent.com/20...-satanist-antifa-and-democrat/comment-page-1/
> 
> Take a good look at the tweets to realize the extreme left, is basically the extreme right, who are both basically authoritarians...



Exactly, both authoritarian, identitarian, anti free speech and anti democratic.


----------



## basilio (5 August 2019)

I'll revisit this topic

1 . The  Texan killer was absolutely clear about his admiration for the Christchurch murderer and  said he also held his views about migrants and race 

2. The other killer  wasn't on the face of it  a right wing nationalist.  No one quite knows where his  murderous ideas came from but there was an indication from school mates that he was a nasty bully

3. 8 Chan and co are  sites that promote and celebrate  these sorts of  behaviours.  Maybe people might say something about that site and the behaviour they celebrate and spread.

 Print  Email  Facebook  Twitter  More
*El Paso shooting prompts 8chan founder to call for site to be shut down over links to massacre*

The founder of 8chan, Fredrick Brennan, who has since cut ties with the site, told PM's Sally Sara that he created a "monster".

"It really just seems like they think all these shootings are funny, like they really don't care … and it just seems like they're just going to keep allowing this to happen over and over," he said. 

Mr Brennan launched the message board in 2013 as a space that welcomed all speech — no matter how extreme.

It has since become a host to some of the most vitriolic content online.

"People say, 'you have created kind of like a Frankenstein's monster, you were not really thinking about the effects this could have on society … and now it's come back to haunt you,'" he said.

"I can see the comparison … I feel like maybe I did create a monster. But their administration is making it much more monstrous than it has to be."

Mr Brennan said he thought the current administrators should do more to shut down hate speech.

"I'm not saying they could prevent these attacks from happening, but there are things they could do to show that it's not appropriate to post a manifesto from a shooting on that site," he told the ABC.

"They could shut down the boards that are known for being places where people celebrate mass shooters after a mass shooting occurs — that would be a good first step."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08...te-should-be-shut-down-after-el-paso/11383582


----------



## basilio (5 August 2019)

_The El Paso shooter begins his text by writing: “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.”_


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2019)

basilio said:


> I'll revisit this topic
> 
> 1 . The  Texan killer was absolutely clear about his admiration for the Christchurch murderer and  said he also held his views about migrants and race
> 
> ...



Shutting  8chan down won't do much. They will just shift. Look at groups like Isis. Same kind of fundamentalism in a weird kind of way. And they are willing to die for a cause. 

Shutting it down and silencing voices is what fueled it in the first place.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2019)

FYI @basilio the Ohio shooter was a supporter of antifa and Mike stutchbury

As a few have tried to say on this thread the extremists on both sides are idiots.

If we shut down 8chan we then should shut down the Twitter accounts of antifa or wherever else they infest.

In my opinion no platform should be shut down, free speech reigns, but there should be strong action were there are calls to violence which valid caveat to free speech.


----------



## moXJO (6 August 2019)

wayneL said:


> FYI @basilio the Ohio shooter was a supporter of antifa and Mike stutchbury
> 
> As a few have tried to say on this thread the extremists on both sides are idiots.
> 
> ...



We can't say that though can we. Messes with the group think narrative of yelling at clouds.
Antifa are just as big of a threat,  if not more simply through their huge network. 
And look at the non stop media and Hollywood  support.


----------

