Tommy Robinson

What's Hot
I think he’s been made an example, because certain authorities don’t like what he says or what he stands for. I’m not commenting on his words, and regardless of his stand, I am shocked at the effort to silence him.
6reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    I am totally unshocked that you are shocked given previous stances in this forum. 

    There are countless legal folk out there online who can detail why Stephen was a twat. So I'll leave it to Patrick O'Flynn instead. 



    Clarity over quantity.  
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962
    Although there is evidence to backup the OPs comment.

    Tommy Robinson was suspended from Twitter for 7 days (after complaints) for quoting research which found that nearly 90 per cent of convicted grooming gang members in the UK were Muslim.

    Robinson quoted the findings of the Quilliam Foundation think tank, whose founder worked as an adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron on issues around Islam.

    Former government adviser Maajid Nawaz responded by messaging Twitter directly, informing them Mr. Robinson had stated a fact rather than saying anything defamatory, hateful, or untrue.


    He said “Tommy [and] I argue lots, but here he’s quoting a FACT. @TwitterSupport are confused,” he said, before explaining the difference between grooming gang attackers and other types of paedophiles – who are mainly white because the UK is majority white.

    He added: “Type 2 (individuals sexually attracted to children) are 85% white (+majority UK pop. is white). Type 1 (gangs targeting girls) are 84% Muslim compared to just 7% of [the] population.”

    The data he quotes reveals the fact that Muslims are dramatically over-represented in grooming and rape gangs – a fact that some people perceive as offensive and even hateful.

    Muslims are dramatically over-represented in grooming and rape gangs – a fact that some people perceive as offensive and even hateful. Twitter says it supports free speech but there's evidence to the contrary.




    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 7reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • fandangofandango Frets: 1105
    fandango said:
    I think he’s been made an example, because certain authorities don’t like what he says or what he stands for. I’m not commenting on his words, and regardless of his stand, I am shocked at the recent extemely rapid effort to silence him.
    Post edit to my orig comment.

    Anyway, less than 48 hours from arrest to incarceration. Through the courts in record time, which then banned the media from reporting the story.

    It’s the freedom of speech issue, which winds itself up into this kind of spasm, that’s the nub of the point.

    Yes I know there’s a history with TR, but still, whatever happened to due process? This latest episode doesn’t bode well for the whole freedom of speech thing, does it? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    Fretwired said:

    Muslims are dramatically over-represented in grooming and rape gangs – a fact that some people perceive as offensive and even hateful. Twitter says it supports free speech but there's evidence to the contrary.


    I don't view it as offensive or hateful to present facts. Those I do not dispute. 

    There is no free speech. There are always some rules and regulations and legal elements. After all, this forum doesn't have entirely free speech. It's the right of both Twitter and the forum to decide what is acceptable. I'm not disputing the statistics around grooming. So Twitter saying it supports free speech is nonsense just as it is nonsense to claim we have it in society. 




    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ReverendReverend Frets: 1687
    Less than 48 hours? I think you are forgetting that he was on a suspended sentence for contempt of court.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    fandango said:
    fandango said:
    I think he’s been made an example, because certain authorities don’t like what he says or what he stands for. I’m not commenting on his words, and regardless of his stand, I am shocked at the recent extemely rapid effort to silence him.
    Post edit to my orig comment.

    Anyway, less than 48 hours from arrest to incarceration. Through the courts in record time, which then banned the media from reporting the story.

    It’s the freedom of speech issue, which winds itself up into this kind of spasm, that’s the nub of the point.

    No it isn't. The nub is the notion of the fair trial (you may wish to reference Rod Liddle coming close to trouble when writing about the Stephen Lawrence murder trial). 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Jock68Jock68 Frets: 155
    Fretwired said:

    Muslims are dramatically over-represented in grooming and rape gangs – a fact that some people perceive as offensive and even hateful. Twitter says it supports free speech but there's evidence to the contrary.


    I don't view it as offensive or hateful to present facts. Those I do not dispute. 

    There is no free speech. There are always some rules and regulations and legal elements. After all, this forum doesn't have entirely free speech. It's the right of both Twitter and the forum to decide what is acceptable. I'm not disputing the statistics around grooming. So Twitter saying it supports free speech is nonsense just as it is nonsense to claim we have it in society. 




    Free Speech was based in intent in this Nation it is now based on upsetting someone, this is how the Left Wing Fascist took power and everyone is accepting it. We all have the right to upset people, the problem is when you no longer have that right.  
    Jock
    5reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    Jock68 said:
    Free Speech was based in intent in this Nation it is now based on upsetting someone, this is how the Left Wing Fascist took power and everyone is accepting it. We all have the right to upset people, the problem is when you no longer have that right.  
    Good thing the pharmacy is back open again tomorrow, yes? 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    5reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ReverendReverend Frets: 1687
    Apparently he live streamed a victim. 
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • GarthyGarthy Frets: 1892
    Jock68 said:
    Fretwired said:

    Muslims are dramatically over-represented in grooming and rape gangs – a fact that some people perceive as offensive and even hateful. Twitter says it supports free speech but there's evidence to the contrary.


    I don't view it as offensive or hateful to present facts. Those I do not dispute. 

    There is no free speech. There are always some rules and regulations and legal elements. After all, this forum doesn't have entirely free speech. It's the right of both Twitter and the forum to decide what is acceptable. I'm not disputing the statistics around grooming. So Twitter saying it supports free speech is nonsense just as it is nonsense to claim we have it in society. 




    Free Speech was based in intent in this Nation it is now based on upsetting someone, this is how the Left Wing Fascist took power and everyone is accepting it. We all have the right to upset people, the problem is when you no longer have that right.  
    Free speech doesn't mean what you think it does, contrary to popular belief it doesn't mean you can say anything you like without consequence. In a nutshell you can tell the government & her majesty that you wish they could be replaced and they'll thank you for your opinion.

    Go and tell the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia that you think the kingdom should be a republic and the first thing they will do is cut your tongue out.

    @Heartfeltdawn- mostly agree although Twitter's idea of free speech is very fluid and why they use multiple registered HQs and server farms depending on the country they are serving and these chop and change on a whim depending on which court is issuing litigation against the company. I can only guess but the threat of getting machine gunned like Charlie Hebdo also weighs heavily on their minds.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962


    I don't view it as offensive or hateful to present facts. Those I do not dispute. 

    There is no free speech. There are always some rules and regulations and legal elements. After all, this forum doesn't have entirely free speech. It's the right of both Twitter and the forum to decide what is acceptable. I'm not disputing the statistics around grooming. So Twitter saying it supports free speech is nonsense just as it is nonsense to claim we have it in society.


    Although a powerful social media platform like Twitter or Facebook probably puts profits before ethics and thereby ends up endorsing a warped world view. We live in an age where 'no platforming' is common. You can openly criticise Christians and their love of the special friend in the sky but you can't do the same to Muslims as it causes offence. British comedy these days is tame - the only legitimate targets are Christians, Trump and the Tory Party.

    A majority of UK university students support the NUS having a “No Platforming” policy. Around two thirds (63%) say that the NUS is right to have a “No Platforming” policy and half (54%) think the NUS is right to enforce the policy against individuals they believe threaten a safe space. [source: BBC Victoria Derbyshire 'No platform poll']

    Nick Lowles, director of Hope Not Hate, was no platformed at an anti-racism conference at Canterbury Christ Church University. The anti-racism campaigner said he was blocked from attending the event in February by NUS Black Students, a “politically autonomous” wing of the NUS, after he was accused of holding “Islamophobic” views.

    Lowles told the Guardian: “My crime, it seems, has been to repeatedly call on the anti-racist movement to do more to condemn on-street grooming by gangs and campaigning against Islamist extremist groups in the UK and abroad.”

    He added: “It’s amusing in its absurdity but it does reflect the failure of a small section of the left to understand that we have to confront extremism and intolerance in all its forms. My issue is with this small group of political activists and not with NUS itself, who I believe were unaware of this.”

    Germaine Greer also face d the wrath of students. Rachael Melhuish, women’s officer at Cardiff University, called for Greer to be no-platformed last October for her “transphobic” views. Melhuish and her fellow campaigners took particular issue with Greer’s repeated assertion that post-operative transgender women are not women, and 3,000 students signed a petition urging staff to cancel the lecture.

    However, Greer was invited by the university to give her lecture with the caveat: “We in no way condone discriminatory comments of any kind.” She ended up delivering her lecture the following month, after calling the university’s statement “weak as piss”.

    A lot of this is coming from the USA. Erin Ching from Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania (a top US university) wrote: ‘What really bothered me is the whole idea that at a liberal arts college we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion.’ Go for 'group think' and 'safe spaces' so you don't hear anything that might upset you.

    And as Mark Steyn put it:

    "The biggest ‘safe space’ on the planet is the Muslim world. For a millennium, Islamic scholars have insisted, as firmly as a climate scientist or an American sophomore, that there’s nothing to debate. And what happened? As the United Nations Human Development Programme’s famous 2002 report blandly noted, more books are translated in Spain in a single year than have been translated into Arabic in the last 1,000 years. Free speech and a dynamic, innovative society are intimately connected: a culture that can’t bear a dissenting word on race or religion or gender fluidity or carbon offsets is a society that will cease to innovate, and then stagnate, and then decline, very fast.

    "As American universities, British playwrights and Australian judges once understood, the ‘safe space’ is where cultures go to die."



    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    edited May 28
    Fretwired said:

    Although a powerful social media platform like Twitter or Facebook probably puts profits before ethics and thereby ends up endorsing a warped world view. We live in an age where 'no platforming' is common. You can openly criticise Christians and their love of the special friend in the sky but you can't do the same to Muslims as it causes offence. British comedy these days is tame - the only legitimate targets are Christians, Trump and the Tory Party.



    So no different to any other media then. And like newspapers, Twitter is free to publish what it sees fit. Just as the Spectator was free to publish a recent piece by Taki praising the Wehrmacht and the Sunday Times has been on the trail of the new young hip fascist crowd and followed that with Rod Liddle's piece yesterday on Romanians. 

    You talk of British comedy in this way and I dispute it primarily because of the reaction to episode 1 of the new series of New World Order. Frankie Boyle got eviscerated online by the Corbynista crew for making lengthy comments about Corbyn and Labour and anti-semitism (and that's before we talk about the issue of the Beeb censoring his Israel comments). 

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/frankie-boyle-new-world-order-antisemitism-bbc-1.464439

    Their reaction to Boyle is pathetic when you consider his Palestine gag in 2010 and the aftermath of that. I would say that most British comics feel safe to criticise Christianity because that is what they were brought up with. Islamic prayers weren't thrust upon me at school nor did I speak regularly in a mosque with the Cub Scouts (confession: I had an excellent speaking voice as a kid and so got charged with readings at Flag Parades. I could also be called a precocious little prick for actually memorising some passages and reading without the good book in front of me).

    Trump is a target to comics as Corbyn is a target to right-wing newspapers. 

    No platforming is an interesting one when you consider recent British history that essentially no-platformed Sinn Fein and, for many years, did so on Question Time with the BNP. I'd agree that the issue of 'safe spaces'at university is a contentious one. Anecdotally I have an experience which means I oppose complete safe discussion. When I was going through anorexia rehab, I was the only male in the discussion group. One lass took exception to me being there. She was an open misandrist and accepted me in the first meeting under protest. As the weeks went by, she changed. Her past had been littered with sexual abuse at the hands of men. After about three months, she told me by email that being able to talk with me there and to talk to me had really helped her break the very negative view of men that she had grown up with. 

    So I can see the value of not having totally safe spaces. Equally though there are times when safe spaces are needed. The issue I see at universities is that it's the groups themselves who are the arbiters of what is safe and what isn't, and that goes for whatever side of the political spectrum they exist upon. Their own biases come out and dominate rather than any sort of level-headed appraisal of the situation.  

    That safe spacing is a US creation is no surprise. I've said many times here that living on American cable news from 2003-05 when I lived overseas was a real education in polarisation. What reinforced that view is that my wife of the time was going the other way. She introduced me to Fox and CNN, the channels she had always known, and watched as my eyes boggled at the polarisation. Likewise when I introduced her to the BBC World Service as broadcast on PBS, her eyes opened at thew news she had never seen (the night that did it was coming into the lounge and finding her sobbing over pictures of Africa famine: she'd never seen it covered before on North American news. To me, one of the Band Aid generation, that was truly astounding). 

    So this level of polarisation in American society was around way before Twitter and Facebook. Post 9/11 politics, "you're with us and against us", that was the turning point for me. The centrist dream died with that pronouncement, not least as our own centrist PM within 18 months of that fateful date that war would happen. 

    I note the mention of Mark Steyn and your quote is a good one. Islam should not be free from criticism nor is it free from criticism. Some would argue that a safe space is also one that prolongs a culture, not just to die (French nationalism for instance is quite safe spacey). But Steyn as a conservative writer has his own safe space, and that is the National Anthem. His criticism of NFL players taking a knee is quite laughable when placed against his skewering of safe spaces. 

    https://www.steynonline.com/8143/man-un-makyth-manners

    "In this domain," wrote Moulton, "we act with greater or lesser freedom from constraint, on a continuum that extends from a consciousness of duty through a sense of what is required by public spirit to good form appropriate in a given situation."

    Lord Moulton's words have all the solidity to them as the Spirit of Cricket, uncodified laws that someone breaks every now and then, thus causing a load of people to whine without being able to say that any actual law was broken. 

    ---

    PS: An excellent debate point, sir. Much needed during this half term week as the kids are annoying the shit out of me. 

    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962
    edited May 28
    Fretwired said:

    Although a powerful social media platform like Twitter or Facebook probably puts profits before ethics and thereby ends up endorsing a warped world view. We live in an age where 'no platforming' is common. You can openly criticise Christians and their love of the special friend in the sky but you can't do the same to Muslims as it causes offence. British comedy these days is tame - the only legitimate targets are Christians, Trump and the Tory Party.



    So no different to any other media then. And like newspapers, Twitter is free to publish what it sees fit. Just as the Spectator was free to publish a recent piece by Taki praising the Wehrmacht and the Sunday Times has been on the trail of the new young hip fascist crowd and followed that with Rod Liddle's piece yesterday on Romanians. 

    You talk of British comedy in this way and I dispute it primarily because of the reaction to episode 1 of the new series of New World Order. Frankie Boyle got eviscerated online by the Corbynista crew for making lengthy comments about Corbyn and Labour and anti-semitism (and that's before we talk about the issue of the Beeb censoring his Israel comments). 

    https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/frankie-boyle-new-world-order-antisemitism-bbc-1.464439




    Boyle got eviscerated .. that's the point. Once upon a time people just laughed or ranted at the TV ...

    Had Boyle attacked the Tories he wouldn't have been eviscerated ... he would have been praised like everyone's popular arsehole Mr Pie.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    Of political parties, you said only the Tories were legitimate targets: I disagree and so would Boyle, guy who is a self-proclaimed Green voter and whom doesn't spare any political party. I'd say that a lot of comics my age aren't hellbent on ripping the Tories as the like of Ben Elton and Alexei Sayle did in the 1980's. New Labour and Iraq changed that as did the Liberal Democrats and the way they bent over during the coalition. Political humour is now far more about seeing the flaws in all the parties, be it RoboMay, the Kippers, the fawning Corbynistas. An old socialist like Jeremy Hardy is still immensely funny to me but somewhat removed from the younger strain of comedians. 

    In the 80's Thatcher was a target because a) the Conservatives were in power for such a long time and b) she brought in a very different political agenda to Callaghan. It isn't the 80's now. As you rightly say, people would have ranted or laughed back then. Now it becomes far more personal and involved, and that is down to social media and the emergence of identity politics on both sides of the spectrum. 

    Mr Pie the character is indeed an arsehole. I personally can't stand him as he's Chris Morris with a frontal lobotomy. But Tom Walker the man is quite interesting. Owen Jones interviewed him recently and Walker threw up a lot of interesting points. Far more entertaining and thought provoking than any of the routines I've seen involving him.



    Identity politics is a whole new debate. It isn't simply a left-wing element. It crosses over, and Generation Identity is the clearest example. Another thread for that though methinks. 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962
    Of political parties, you said only the Tories were legitimate targets:
    Yes, as in you won't be eviscerated for picking on them.  Frankie Boyle loves controversy and probably finds it odd that he has to attack the left. Just watch  Have I got news for you and they will routinely lampoon Boris and co .. there will be a few anti-Corbyn comments from Hislop but the anti Tory stuff gets all the laughs. The same on FB .. lots of anti-Tory rants and virtue signalling. It doesn't happen the other way round - you're more likely to be attacked. My local FB news groups are totally anti-Tory and if you post anything to support the government you'll be attacked. Criticise Labour or the left and you're worse than a paedophile.

    I'll happily get you some screen grabs ...


    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    Fretwired said:
    Of political parties, you said only the Tories were legitimate targets:
    Yes, as in you won't be eviscerated for picking on them.  Frankie Boyle loves controversy and probably finds it odd that he has to attack the left. Just watch  Have I got news for you and they will routinely lampoon Boris and co .. there will be a few anti-Corbyn comments from Hislop but the anti Tory stuff gets all the laughs. The same on FB .. lots of anti-Tory rants and virtue signalling. It doesn't happen the other way round - you're more likely to be attacked. My local FB news groups are totally anti-Tory and if you post anything to support the government you'll be attacked. Criticise Labour or the left and you're worse than a paedophile.

    I'll happily get you some screen grabs ...



    I doubt Boyle finds it odd to attack the left at all. Defending himself from racism accusations from a left-wing newspaper, joining Labour at 16 and leaving a year later, the problems with the bastion of leftie media (copyright all the usual newspaper) over his 'angry Jew' joke...

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7660232/Frankie-Boyle-letter-about-BBC-in-full.html

    Boris has been lampooned. So has Nick Clegg. Lembit Opik got the piss taken out of him beautifully. Fuck me, even Neil Hamilton survived! It also gets an influential voice like Julia Hartley-Brewer to appear regularly. In fact, for HIGNFY it could well be argued that appearing on there has actually been beneficial for the Conservative cause because it makes them look more human. 

    I dunno, it fascinates me how there's this complaint that goes around about comedy being dominated by left wingers. Should we go for diversity quotas? Actually we already have, Geoff Norcott ended up on QT by virtue of being a right-wing comedian. 

    So -comedy is left-wing, the newspapers can remain dominated by the right wing, telly generally doesn't like Corbyn, and then we have social media...

    As I've said here before, the social media world does have a lot of anti-Tory posting. But it is not the one-way street you regularly portray it to be. You see some of the guys on the supposed alt right spectrum on Youtube, the booming Count Dankula, and the online world is not anti-Tory at all. 

    Your lcoal FB news group is anti-Tory: fair enough. Are there no Conservative groups on there? Is Facebook completely devoid of Conservative presence? 

    So social media is accessible to all apart from one bloke in prison right now who doesn't like Muslims and has been a key part in a real harder right revival, political radio is dominated by LBC (right wing with a token bloke called James), newspapers are dominated by the right wing, our largest media company in owned by a right wing ex-Australia, the righties won Brexit, they're currently in a minority government, the most prominent politician in the world right now is Republican... 

    Christ, if this is worrying right now, fuck knows what'll happen if Corbyn doesn't actually lose the next General Election. 






    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1532
    Unfortunately the right to free speech is diminished by peoples right to not be offended. Irreconcileable. Even more so now that people enjoy taking offence (witness the Rahim Sterling tattoo).

    I would like to say what I think about religion but I'd end up being set upon by indoctrinated fanatics who lack mental faculties.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    hywelg said:
    Unfortunately the right to free speech is diminished by peoples right to not be offended. Irreconcileable. Even more so now that people enjoy taking offence (witness the Rahim Sterling tattoo).

    I would like to say what I think about religion but I'd end up being set upon by indoctrinated fanatics who lack mental faculties.

    The right to free speech is also diminished by people's lack of responsibility when speaking. 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962
    hywelg said:
    Unfortunately the right to free speech is diminished by peoples right to not be offended. Irreconcileable. Even more so now that people enjoy taking offence (witness the Rahim Sterling tattoo).

    I would like to say what I think about religion but I'd end up being set upon by indoctrinated fanatics who lack mental faculties.

    The right to free speech is also diminished by people's lack of responsibility when speaking. 
    And who judges whether someone 'lacks responsibility' when they open their mouths? Obviously the law puts a limit on absolute free speech - for example inciting violence, making racist comments in public, spreading lies about individuals etc.

    I'd have thought giving a platform to the likes of Tommy Robinson is a good thing as allows views like his to be aired in the open and challenged in public.

    In this case he broke the law which was dumb. His going to prison has nothing to do with free speech.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    Fretwired said:
    And who judges whether someone 'lacks responsibility' when they open their mouths? Obviously the law puts a limit on absolute free speech - for example inciting violence, making racist comments in public, spreading lies about individuals etc.

    I'd have thought giving a platform to the likes of Tommy Robinson is a good thing as allows views like his to be aired in the open and challenged in public.

    In this case he broke the law which was dumb. His going to prison has nothing to do with free speech.

    Those decrying TR's prison time as an abuse of the power of a state and a curtailing of free speech are wrong. He has demonstrated a lack of personal responsibility and it is this element which is so sorely missing in a lot of individuals. Personal responsibility is what I was getting at when I said "The right to free speech is also diminished by people's lack of responsibility when speaking." Whereas Count Dankula's sentence was an unjust slap from the justice system, TR's punishment is not. 

    I have no problem with TR airing his views in public just as I had no issue with Nick Griffin appearing on QT. That Robinson continues to gather supporters is more down to current society being somewhat slapdash with facts. 
    Personality responsibility also extends to thought. If you blindly accept every Tweet you read without investigating further, then to me that is a level of personality responsibility that you have tossed away. But we live in a world where the current US President ran with the Obama birther theory for years. A world where Nigel Farage can rail against the EU as being protectionist back in March and then be firmly behind Trump's protectionism with overseas tariffs in the last 24 hours (his LBC show last night was quite ridiculous). 
     
    I can't recall what article I was reading but it was trying to make the case that a belief in socialism was incompatible with a belief in personal responsibility. I find this utterly bizarre. Believing in a collectivist approach to society doesn't automatically mean you want to be mollycoddled. If you are part of that collective, then you still have responsibility for your actions as an individual. 

    This abdication of responsibility is not the sole preserve of the right. It happens time after time on the left. Every shitty Jewish gag sent out by Labour councillors is a failure. Samantha Bee's wretched jibe about a Trump family member, calling her a feckless cunt, is a failure. 

    Writing all of that has made me quite down really. Partly it's because my level of personal responsibility is so much higher since moving to London last November and taking on a parenting role to my partner's two children. There are days when it feels a tad unfair, having to make up in part for a father's fecklessness. But mostly it's down to seeing two sides of the political spectrum arguing and pissing so much instead of finding solutions to make society better. I honestly can't say how I'd vote at the next election. 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962

    Those decrying TR's prison time as an abuse of the power of a state and a curtailing of free speech are wrong. He has demonstrated a lack of personal responsibility and it is this element which is so sorely missing in a lot of individuals.

    Writing all of that has made me quite down really. Partly it's because my level of personal responsibility is so much higher since moving to London last November and taking on a parenting role to my partner's two children. There are days when it feels a tad unfair, having to make up in part for a father's fecklessness. But mostly it's down to seeing two sides of the political spectrum arguing and pissing so much instead of finding solutions to make society better. I honestly can't say how I'd vote at the next election. 
    Totally agree on all counts ... and total respect for taking on your partners kids. Never easy .. I don't know who'd I vote for either. I should be an easy catch for a responsible Tory Party but their lurch to the right under Cameron means they won't be getting my vote. I voted Labour last time but the anti-Semitism really puts me off.

    I'd rather be ruled by a group of wise men and women chosen by an independent body based on their suitability to run things (a senior doctor to run healthcare) with no party allegiance. We vote for polices and they get on with it. Can't be any worse that what we currently have in place.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stevebrumstevebrum Frets: 4185
    edited June 2
    Fretwired said:
    hywelg said:
    Unfortunately the right to free speech is diminished by peoples right to not be offended. Irreconcileable. Even more so now that people enjoy taking offence (witness the Rahim Sterling tattoo).

    I would like to say what I think about religion but I'd end up being set upon by indoctrinated fanatics who lack mental faculties.

    The right to free speech is also diminished by people's lack of responsibility when speaking. 
    And who judges whether someone 'lacks responsibility' when they open their mouths? Obviously the law puts a limit on absolute free speech - for example inciting violence, making racist comments in public, spreading lies about individuals etc.

    I'd have thought giving a platform to the likes of Tommy Robinson is a good thing as allows views like his to be aired in the open and challenged in public.

    In this case he broke the law which was dumb. His going to prison has nothing to do with free speech.
    Exactly but most of his ‘supporters’ lack the mental capacity to understand why he has been incarcerated.

    At the moment it is over 570,000. 

    https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson?recruiter=808151593&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.pacific_abi_share_button_ordering_1.abi_featured_fb
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • TheBigDipperTheBigDipper Frets: 932
    Fretwired said:

    Those decrying TR's prison time as an abuse of the power of a state and a curtailing of free speech are wrong. He has demonstrated a lack of personal responsibility and it is this element which is so sorely missing in a lot of individuals.

    Writing all of that has made me quite down really. Partly it's because my level of personal responsibility is so much higher since moving to London last November and taking on a parenting role to my partner's two children. There are days when it feels a tad unfair, having to make up in part for a father's fecklessness. But mostly it's down to seeing two sides of the political spectrum arguing and pissing so much instead of finding solutions to make society better. I honestly can't say how I'd vote at the next election. 
    Totally agree on all counts ... and total respect for taking on your partners kids. Never easy .. I don't know who'd I vote for either. I should be an easy catch for a responsible Tory Party but their lurch to the right under Cameron means they won't be getting my vote. I voted Labour last time but the anti-Semitism really puts me off.

    I'd rather be ruled by a group of wise men and women chosen by an independent body based on their suitability to run things (a senior doctor to run healthcare) with no party allegiance. We vote for polices and they get on with it. Can't be any worse that what we currently have in place.
    If you were happy to change your last para to "I'd rather the country be run on behalf of the people by a group of...." I think I'd agree with that right now. I've got a problem with being ruled, but I'm happy to be represented. I might feel differently tomorrow, of course.

    As an aside, my generic thought for today. Simple solutions for complex problems generally don't work out well. If the best justification for something is the phrase "But it's obvious..." then it probably isn't and they're wrong. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477

    Two comics of the older generation not afraid to have a pop at Corbyn in recent weeks then on the BBC.


    Clarity over quantity.  
    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • darthed1981darthed1981 Frets: 2118

    Two comics of the older generation not afraid to have a pop at Corbyn in recent weeks then on the BBC.


    That sketch actually hits its target very, very well.
    Warning: this post may contain overtly affectionate references to Mary Spender
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 16962
    edited August 1
    Tommy Robinson has been freed on bail by leading judges after winning his challenge against a contempt of court finding.

    Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett and two other judges in London quashed a finding of contempt made against Robinson at Leeds Crown Court in May when he was sentenced to 13 months in jail.

    Announcing the decision on Wednesday, Lord Burnett said the court was allowing his appeal "in respect of the committal for contempt at Leeds Crown Court".

    He added: "The appellant is granted bail and the matter of contempt at Leeds Crown Court is remitted to be heard again."

    The judges had been urged to overturn two contempt of court findings against Robinson, 35, whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon - made at Leeds Crown Court and at Canterbury Crown Court.

    Lord Burnett, giving reasons for the Court of Appeal's decision relating to the Leeds Crown Court allegation, said that once Robinson "had removed the video from Facebook there was no longer sufficient urgency to justify immediate proceedings".

    The court agreed that the judge at Leeds should not have commenced contempt proceedings that day.

    Lord Burnett said that "no particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant", and there was "a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered".

    "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand. We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge," Lord Burnett said.

    He added: "Where a custodial term of considerable length is being imposed, it should not usually occur so quickly after the conduct which is complained of - a sentence of committal to immediate custody had been pronounced within five hours of the conduct taking place."

    Supporters in the packed courtroom broke into a round of applause as Lord Burnett announced the decision.

    So there you go ....


    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 11477
    Bail then. 

    How long until the interviews come thick and fast? 
    Clarity over quantity.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • UnclePsychosisUnclePsychosis Frets: 5189

    1. Robinson still admits he commited contempt of court and endangered a trial
    2. Free Speech had literally no bearing on what happened

    This is a victory for correct criminal procedure, not for the vile racist and his mates. Watch them spin it otherwise...
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • littlegreenmanlittlegreenman Frets: 3157

    1. Robinson still admits he commited contempt of court and endangered a trial
    2. Free Speech had literally no bearing on what happened

    This is a victory for correct criminal procedure, not for the vile racist and his mates. Watch them spin it otherwise...
    To read some of the press and other media comments on this you'd think he'd been exhonerated and pardoned, as opposed to just bailed and his court date re-scheduled. He'll likely still get another custodial sentence, probably suspended again.

    Still guilty as charged, and admitted it with a guilty plea.

    Wonder when the bullshit compo claim goes in?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • quarkyquarky Frets: 2280
    edited August 2
    Interesting read.
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/britains-hated-man-isnt-hateful/

    Must admit, I don't know much about him. Genuine question, is he actually a racist/fascist (rather than attracting people of that ilk to his cause)? Or is that just the popular press?

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.