Tommy Robinson and the new Totalitarianism

[PZ99]

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...

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]

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...


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.

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

 

[PZ99]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.
Tommy and his supporters will have more explaining to do

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

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]

(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.

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]

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

They need a better player ♠

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

 

[PZ99]

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]

(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]

Yes it was a cheap shot. My apologies.

Nah, it's all good

 

[IFocus]

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

 

[cynic]

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]

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]

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!

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.
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!

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.

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]

I think you are beholden to the ideological narrative more than the facts In toto pz98.

The fullness of time will reveal more.