Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike E

News Thread Attempt 394

Recommended Posts

It's great to see Al here, I don't usually see him around much. I read that website "biasedbbc", just websearch for that. We've already seen threads closed around here. I don't push it nor do I care to have confrontations with some. Maybe better to go to an echo chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone thinks the BBC is biased against what they believe, I only read it for the football fixtures tbh as it's one of the first results in a Google search....

Edited by K-Hod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

.... and you still haven't answered it. 

The answer is that I am not a follower and don't know what he says but whatever he says he has a right to say it. When you start answering all the questions that are put to you it is then the time to badger others into answering yours. What he says is irrelevant to the issue of his arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Al said:

The answer is that I am not a follower and don't know what he says but whatever he says he has a right to say it. When you start answering all the questions that are put to you it is then the time to badger others into answering yours. What he says is irrelevant to the issue of his arrest.

 

There's so many things wrong with the above.

1. If I were defending someone's right to "free speech", I'd first check what they said.

2. If you are such a defender of the right to "free speech, presumably you would also have no problem with radical cleric, the hook-handed Abu Hamza's right to incite murder and racial hatred when he lived in Britain? 

3. The vile utterances of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – his real name, not “Tommy Robinson”, a name he took from another football hooligan when he founded the far-right English Defence League, are pivotal to the case

4. To say "you are not a follower and don't know what he says" is a cop-out to hide the fact you do not want to or cannot answer my original question. 

To sum up, Yaxley-Lennon is not a martyr to freedom of speech as the alt-right claim him to be, just a career criminal with a history of racist abuse, mortgage fraud, football hooliganism and assault whose craving for publicity put a critical court case at risk.

That is why he is now in jail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/05/2018 at 15:15, Norbert Rassragr said:

say nothing about the white paedophile gangs like the infamous trio Corrigan, Savile and Jaconelli in Scarborough. Nor have I seen them standing outside condemning this grooming gang. I suppose it only counts if you're a brown person molesting innocent white, Aryan maidens.

Weren't (aren't) the BBC champions of the sadistic Saville paedo cover-up?

The same BBC that some (naïve prats) champion as a bastion of squeaky clean independent news. . . Hmmm, it makes one think.

As they've been shown time and again to be little more than a government propaganda station that has increasingly been pushing the governments 'pro islamic agenda' in recent years.  . .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Husky said:

Weren't (aren't) the BBC champions of the sadistic Saville paedo cover-up?

The same BBC that some (naïve prats) champion as a bastion of squeaky clean independent news. . . Hmmm, it makes one think.

As they've been shown time and again to be little more than a government propaganda station that has increasingly been pushing the governments 'pro islamic agenda' in recent years.  . .

 

That would be the same BBC that photoshopped a photograph of and is consistently biased against Jeremy Corbyn.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Husky said:

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson

The 'petition' is closing in on 564,000 supporters. That's some going for something that's been kept off the mainstream.

Heck! That's twice as many people than voted for the current Conservative Government isn't it? 😅

By what do you mean Mainstream? It has been widely reported on TV and by all the newspapers once reporting restrictions were lifted. 

 I am sure the tories got more than 282,000 votes as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

 

There's so many things wrong with the above.

1. If I were defending someone's right to "free speech", I'd first check what they said.

2. If you are such a defender of the right to "free speech, presumably you would also have no problem with radical cleric, the hook-handed Abu Hamza's right to incite murder and racial hatred when he lived in Britain? 

3. The vile utterances of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – his real name, not “Tommy Robinson”, a name he took from another football hooligan when he founded the far-right English Defence League, are pivotal to the case

4. To say "you are not a follower and don't know what he says" is a cop-out to hide the fact you do not want to or cannot answer my original question. 

To sum up, Yaxley-Lennon is not a martyr to freedom of speech as the alt-right claim him to be, just a career criminal with a history of racist abuse, mortgage fraud, football hooliganism and assault whose craving for publicity put a critical court case at risk.

That is why he is now in jail. 

I take it you don't believe in free speech then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Al said:

I take it you don't believe in free speech then.

I believe in free speech but not when it's against the law.

So now that you've been provided with information about Yaxley-Lennon (which apparently you didn't know about but has been well known for years and has been all over the media for the past few days, I' ll ask the quesion again.

Are willing to condemn Robinson and everything he says, does and stands for ?  

Edited by jim mk2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jim mk2 said:

Yes, but not when it's against the law.

So now that you've been provided with information about Yaxley-Lennon (which apparently you didn't know about but has been well known for years and has been all over the media for the past few days, I' ll ask the quesion again.

Are willing to condemn Robinson and everything he says, does and stands for ?  

Not from your say so. I am normally directly opposed to your Trotkyist views so I am not prepared to answer any of your loaded questions, nor am I about to condemn anybody on what you tell me in your opinion.

Edited by Al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, for the benefit of Bald Eagle, this forum absolutely despises anti-Semitic views and any would be removed on here. If you ever see any poster sharing them, report them and said poster will be banned. As it happens, I can’t ever recall anyone sharing anti-Semitic views, but if they have, point the moderation team in the direction of them, or stop bringing such accusations up without foundation. 

Thanks.

Edited by K-Hod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: The new campaign by Lush and the manner of it, I think it's fair to say that whatever you think about Lush, they're being complete bastards at the moment.

Re: Tommy Robinson: Free Speech =/= Speech without consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be helpful if people understood what freedom of speech in the UK is. From wiki:

British citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law. In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening or abusive words or behaviour intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),[2][3][4]sending another any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),[5][6][7] incitement,[8] incitement to racial hatred,[9] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,[8][10][11] glorifying terrorism,[12][13] collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,[14][15] treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,[16][17][18][19][20] sedition,[17] obscenity,[21] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,[22] defamation,[23] prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,[24][25] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,[25] time, manner, and place restrictions,[26] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

Therefore if Tommy is using behaviour that constitutes a breach of the peace, then his freedom of expression can be removed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody here absolutely foaming at the mouth about this? If you have Twitter, check out the replies if you want to be sick in your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Biz said:

Nobody here absolutely foaming at the mouth about this? If you have Twitter, check out the replies if you want to be sick in your mouth.

Isn’t this quite an old case?

The judgement looks about right to me. Difficult case simply because of the ‘r’ word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/06/2018 at 00:58, Biz said:

Nobody here absolutely foaming at the mouth about this? If you have Twitter, check out the replies if you want to be sick in your mouth.

Clickbait title that is very misleading.

Its rape because she is under the age of consent which means even if she consents, the man is breaking the law. He never actually raped her as she gave consent and the confusion is that she lied about her age to the boy and even the taxi driver, the police and other witnesses that night said that she looked like she was 20-years old.

What the hell are two 12/13 year old girls doing in a taxi queue at 4am in the morning and going to nightclubs? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/06/2018 at 13:51, K-Hod said:

Ironically that could end up being the best thing he's ever done. If he's been 'chased OUT of Burnley' his life is already looking up.

Obviously he's got some issues - dead parents, a baby that died etc.

Incidentally what was he charged with? As looking at the cold facts rather than being governed by bleach drinker type emotions, he actually sent a private message to another person. It wasn't like he sought out a tribute or memorial page on which to write trolling nasty shit.

Perhaps we should all watch what we are saying in private? Don't be insulting the 6 fingered lot etc. or you could be next.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.