Tommy Robinson jailed

WinnyThePoo

Seathrun66 wrote: »

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Didn't think so.

No response on the connected cases causing the reporting restrictions. Why?

And to the fair-minded posters here, do you really have to put up with the Robinson-supporters' reactionary nonsense quite regularly on here? Fair dues to you for staying relatively calm.

It's hard to determine whether they are just trolls such as ginandbitter. Trying to get a reaction and people carded.

Other people do believe in Tommy and utterly refuse to acknowledge all his poor behaviours.

In the end. I choose mostly to read this thread for a laugh. Not very funny when a poster such as ginandbitter starts taking the piss out of a rape crisis centre though.

As someone who has had family and a friend who have had to use these services. There's fcukin line.

GinAndBitter

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No response on the connected cases causing the reporting restrictions. Why?

And to the fair-minded posters here, do you really have to put up with the Robinson-supporters' reactionary nonsense quite regularly on here? Fair dues to you for staying relatively calm.

I need to read a bit more on the case I asked for a source earlier and I didn't get one but I'll look for something myself. As for your 2nd question nobody has to put up with anything on here we all make a choice to click into the thread, id go as far as to say the thread would be dead without the Tommy haters.

No one deserves praise for staying calm, it's a discussion forum we all have lives away from this. Letting stuff on boards bother you is not good for anyone.

WinnyThePoo

WinnyThePoo wrote:

In the end. I choose mostly to read this thread for a laugh. Not very funny when a poster such as ginandbitter starts taking the piss out of a rape crisis centre though.

Bit of a misrepresentation there. Not losing sleep is hardly taking the piss.

GinAndBitter

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bit of a misrepresentation there. Not losing sleep is hardly taking the piss.

More nonsense from winnythepoo.

WinnyThePoo

Deleted User wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote:

In the end. I choose mostly to read this thread for a laugh. Not very funny when a poster such as ginandbitter starts taking the piss out of a rape crisis centre though.

Bit of a misrepresentation there. Not losing sleep is hardly taking the piss.

Boring... Take that **** somewhere else.

GinAndBitter

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Boring... Take that **** somewhere else.

Sorry someone in your family got raped, didn't mean to offend you. I said I wouldn't lose sleep over it, and a couple of your buddy's jumped on it straight away but when I asked them if they'd lose any sleep over it they wouldnt answer me. That tells you all you need to know.

Nobody really cares.

Seathrun66

GinAndBitter wrote: »

I need to read a bit more on the case I asked for a source earlier and I didn't get one but I'll look for something myself. As for your 2nd question nobody has to put up with anything on here we all make a choice to click into the thread, id go as far as to say the thread would be dead without the Tommy haters.

No one deserves praise for staying calm, it's a discussion forum we all have lives away from this. Letting stuff on boards bother you is not good for anyone.

No sources if there are reporting restrictions. That's the whole point of them.

And if you or anyone else think there's any long-term censorship on cases then please quote any where restrictions weren't lifted.

GinAndBitter

Seathrun66 wrote: »

No sources if there are reporting restrictions.

So how do you know? I'm not disagreeing with you id just like to see for myself.

Seathrun66

GinAndBitter wrote: »

So how do you know? I'm not disagreeing with you id just like to see for myself.

Serious question? If there are certain restrictions on a case the media can't report on it hence you won't have any sources until the restrictions are lifted. This often happens with grooming gangs/terrorist/political cases where defendants can be involved in a web of charges across courts.

Short answer - no sources if restrictions until the case is over.

GinAndBitter

The documentary for anyone that wants to watch, I must stress that I do not expect anybody to watch it. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2bvLvyk4

GinAndBitter

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

It's hard to determine whether they are just trolls such as ginandbitter. Trying to get a reaction and people carded.

Other people do believe in Tommy and utterly refuse to acknowledge all his poor behaviours.

In the end. I choose mostly to read this thread for a laugh. Not very funny when a poster such as ginandbitter starts taking the piss out of a rape crisis centre though.

As someone who has had family and a friend who have had to use these services. There's fcukin line.

Nice edit to the post. I must not be a troll after all thanks for taking it back.

OMM 0000

GinAndBitter wrote: »

The documentary for anyone that wants to watch, I must stress that I do not expect anybody to watch it. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNd2bvLvyk4

That was interesting, although Tommy was definitely taking a lot of Sweeney's comments/jokes out of context. For example, saying they went for a drink with the working class guy working at the BBC, because no one like that works at the BBC, so it was like meeting a cannibal. He obviously didn't mean working class people are like cannibals - he meant the BBC hardly ever hire working class people.

Seeing how easy it would be to destroy someone with a fake text was an eye opener.

I do believe the BBC had no intention of being impartial, but I'm not sure this is as big an expose as Tommy thinks it is.

GinAndBitter

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That was interesting, although Tommy was definitely taking a lot of Sweeney's comments/jokes out of context. For example, saying they went for a drink with the working class guy working at the BBC, because no one like that works at the BBC, so it was like meeting a cannibal. He obviously didn't mean working class people are like cannibals - he meant the BBC hardly ever hire working class people.

Seeing how easy it would be to destroy someone with a fake text was an eye opener.

I do believe the BBC had no intention of being impartial, but I'm not sure this is as big an expose as Tommy thinks it is.

Yeah that's pretty much my take on it. It was hilarious watching Sweeney squirm in the chair though I must say. It must have been the most uncomfortable few minutes of his life.

I wouldn't call the man a racist, he made few comments while drunk, that shouldn't be held against him.

OMM 0000

GinAndBitter wrote: »

I wouldn't call the man a racist, he made few comments while drunk, that shouldn't be held against him.

I think he was just being silly, trying to be flirty and funny to a pretty girl. Still doesn't look great though.

I feel like Tommy has ADHD or something. His mind is constantly jumping all over the place.

GinAndBitter

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I think he was just being silly, trying to be flirty and funny to a pretty girl. Still doesn't look great though.

I feel like Tommy has ADHD or something. His mind is constantly jumping all over the place.

He probably does, he could just be on edge a lot of the time. I found it funny that guy Sweeneys political hero was Danny McGuinness. He comes across as a serious piss artist.

OneEightSeven

Accusing him of being racist against Asians and anti-Irish is clutching at straws, but the poofter comment might land Sweeney in trouble.

BBFAN

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've explained this already.

I believe in free speech. And by this I mean anything should be fair game, although I agree with the US restriction on a call to violence.

So I think Tommy should be allowed talk about the things he wants to talk about, even if I don't agree with him.

I do not think it is good to live in a society where (for example, in the UK) you can be convicted for saying something which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

I think Tommy should be allowed say the things he wants to say, and people can debate him if they disagree with him.

So when there are restrictions in naming children who have been raped you think that should be allowed?

That a child who was raped should be named in public in the name of free speech and have that forever out there on the internet?

That's why there are restrictions on free speech and rightly so.

batgoat

GinAndBitter wrote: »

He probably does, he could just be on edge a lot of the time. I found it funny that guy Sweeneys political hero was Danny McGuinness. He comes across as a serious piss artist.

The reason he classified Martin McGuinness as a hero was because of his involvement in the Peace Process..... Robinson twisted as he has throughout this little smear piece by looks of things. Meanwhile Panorama is rather respected for its exposés, so I like forward to it's piece on Robinson. Doubt any of his supporters will change their minds as they seem to gloss over all the **** he does.

SKILFUL

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Yeah that's pretty much my take on it. It was hilarious watching Sweeney squirm in the chair though I must say. It must have been the most uncomfortable few minutes of his life.

I wouldn't call the man a racist, he made few comments while drunk, that shouldn't be held against him.

That was absolute Kino

SKILFUL

SKILFUL wrote: »

That was absolute Kino

And fair play to tommys ex employee for being a true mate when it really matters
She was class

BBFAN

The amount of brand new posters on here who are also on the Rooskey thread and Balbriggan one is actually hilarious. Giving me a great laugh of a Monday.

"Come on lads, I know we've been banned before, just re-reg and get on all these threads". :D:D:D:D:D

Don't know how they get away with it.

kowloon

Sweeney doesn't come out of that looking good at all. A lot of it is just poor humour and he might have been putting on an act to try and appeal to Lucy Brown, but his excuse for the gender thing seems like total BS.
The fake SMS goes both ways. I think with some networks you can identify when the spoofed part of the SMS comes from a different source to the content.

GinAndBitter

batgoat wrote: »

The reason he classified Martin McGuinness as a hero was because of his involvement in the Peace Process..... Robinson twisted as he has throughout this little smear piece by looks of things. Meanwhile Panorama is rather respected for its exposés, so I like forward to it's piece on Robinson. Doubt any of his supporters will change their minds as they seem to gloss over all the **** he does.

Yeah his hero, that he couldn't even remember the name of. Did you watch the video? Obviously not.

Panorama were caught rapid trying to pay people for fake stories.

GinAndBitter

BBFAN wrote: »

The amount of brand new posters on here who are also on the Rooskey thread and Balbriggan one is actually hilarious. Giving me a great laugh of a Monday.

"Come on lads, I know we've been banned before, just re-reg and get on all these threads". :D:D:D:D:D

Don't know how they get away with it.

How have you gotten away with it so long ?

batgoat

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Yeah his hero, that he couldn't even remember the name of. Did you watch the video? Obviously not.

Panorama were caught rapid trying to pay people for fake stories.

Since I'm not into watch racist loon's YouTube videos, I'm not going to watch it. Meanwhile panorama have an established track record of high quality investigative journalism.

SKILFUL

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Yeah his hero, that he couldn't even remember the name of. Did you watch the video? Obviously not.

Panorama were caught rapid trying to pay people for fake stories.

I wonder do the group hope not hate actualy pay people to shill against Tommy online

Sometimes it looks like it

SKILFUL

batgoat wrote: »

Since I'm not into watch racist loon's YouTube videos, I'm not going to watch it. Meanwhile panorama have an established track record of high quality investigative journalism.

30 cents has been added to your a/c

GinAndBitter

SKILFUL wrote: »

I wonder do the group hope not hate actualy pay people to shill against Tommy online

Sometimes it looks like it

Ignorance is bliss.

BBFAN

GinAndBitter wrote: »

How have you gotten away with it so long ?

Cause I'm not a re-reg and don't post on purely racist threads. :rolleyes:

OMM 0000

BBFAN wrote: »

So when there are restrictions in naming children who have been raped you think that should be allowed?

That a child who was raped should be named in public in the name of free speech and have that forever out there on the internet?

That's why there are restrictions on free speech and rightly so.

That's not why there are restrictions on free speech.

How is making it illegal to say something "offensive" or "could cause anxiety" about protecting children who have been raped?

What about making it illegal to misgender someone - how is that protecting children who have been raped?

To use your specific example:

I think in cases like this, where there is no grey area, it is acceptable to restrict reporting. Also, in general, I think children should be exempt from a lot of laws which affect adults.

But something vague - like you can't report on a case because it might offend some people - I believe that is very anti free speech.

Again, my issue is with vagueness. How do you define what's offence, indecent, or anxiety causing? And you'll often find the definitions are used against a certain group of people. I want a level playing field, where no one can be attacked based on some political ideology.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That's not why there are restrictions on free speech.

How is making it illegal to say something "offensive" or "could cause anxiety" about protecting children who have been raped?

What about making it illegal to misgender someone - how is that protecting children who have been raped?

To use your specific example:

I think in cases like this, where there is no grey area, it is acceptable to restrict reporting. Also, in general, I think children should be exempt from a lot of laws which affect adults.

But something vague - like you can't report on a case because it might offend some people - I believe that is very anti free speech.

Again, my issue is with vagueness. How do you define what's offence, indecent, or anxiety causing? And you'll often find the definitions are used against a certain group of people. I want a level playing field, where no one can be attacked based on some political ideology.

How is this in any way irrelevant to tommy? He wasn't locked up for saying something offensive.

Boggles

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But something vague - like you can't report on a case because it might offend some people - I believe that is very anti free speech.
.

Are you just taking the píss at this stage? Honest question?

Reporting restrictions on not imposed because someone might be offended.

You do know that, right?

ohnonotgmail

Boggles wrote: »

Are you just taking the píss at this stage? Honest question?

Reporting restrictions on not imposed because someone might be offended.

You do know that, right?

they clearly dont.

OMM 0000

Boggles wrote: »

Are you just taking the píss at this stage? Honest question?

Reporting restrictions on not imposed because someone might be offended.

You do know that, right?

Right now they're not, but if it's illegal to say something offensive (this is currently the case in the UK), it's not a stretch to say reporting on something could be restricted due to offending people.

You have to think long term. We are at peace now, but that's not normal. Throughout our history we've almost always had tyrannical governments.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Right now they're not, but if it's illegal to say something offensive (this is currently the case in the UK), it's not a stretch to say reporting on something could be restricted due to offending people.

You have to think long term. We are at peace now, but that's not normal. Throughout our history we've almost always had tyrannical governments.

so your argument has nothing to do with tommy. Perhaps go and create a thread of your own instead of dragging this one down.

Boggles

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Right now they're not,

Great, we both agree with reality then. You had me worried.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

but if it's illegal to say something offensive (this is currently the case in the UK), it's not a stretch to say reporting on something could be restricted due to offending people.

You have to think long term. We are at peace now, but that's not normal. Throughout our history we've almost always had tyrannical governments.

I imagine there has been quite a few threads setup on the back of 1984, but by all means go and setup another one, it may gain traction.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Right now they're not, but if it's illegal to say something offensive (this is currently the case in the UK), it's not a stretch to say reporting on something could be restricted due to offending people.

If that was the case, the courts would be swamped people saying offensive thing. There's a difference between causing offense and inciting hatred, but admittedly with a very grey area thanks for the rise of so-called snowflakes* who really should think twice before calling the police because they read something "phobic" on twitter.


*whatever you want to call them - you know who I mean.

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If that was the case, the courts would be swamped people saying offensive thing. There's a difference between causing offense and inciting hatred, but admittedly with a very grey area thanks for the rise of so-called snowflakes* who really should think twice before calling the police because they read something "phobic" on twitter.


*whatever you want to call them - you know who I mean.

You should look at how it's changing in the UK. Misgendering someone is now getting you a police caution.

Freedom of speech is continuously getting restricted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You should look at how it's changing in the UK. Misgendering someone is now getting you a police caution.

Freedom of speech is continuously getting restricted.

No, harassment is getting someone a police caution, but then harassment always got people police cautions. Also, going off topic.

Mr. Robinson has never, to the best of my knowledge, had a problem with the trasngender community (obviously, open to correction on this).

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, harassment is getting someone a police caution, but then harassment always got people police cautions. Also, going off topic.

Mr. Robinson has never, to the best of my knowledge, had a problem with the trasngender community (obviously, open to correction on this).

No. If you make a twitter post which says "Transgender women are not biological women", you will get a police caution. There are two cases of this happening recently.

You're helping prove my point:

A tweet which says "Transgender women are not biological women" is considered harassment by some, and obvious fact by others.

This is why we need free speech. Are you really comfortable letting someone else dictate what is offensive or indecent? How do you know they're not some extremist?

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No. If you make a twitter post which says "Transgender women are not biological women", you will get a police caution. There are two cases of this happening recently.

You're helping prove my point:

A tweet which says "Transgender women are not biological women" is considered harassment by some, and obvious fact by others.

This is why we need free speech. Are you really comfortable letting someone else dictate what is offensive or indecent? How do you know they're not some extremist?

Can you link to a case where somebody only tweeted "Transgender women are not biological women" and got a police caution just for that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No. If you make a twitter post which says "Transgender women are not biological women", you will get a police caution. There are two cases of this happening recently.

You're helping prove my point:

A tweet which says "Transgender women are not biological women" is considered harassment by some, and obvious fact by others.

This is why we need free speech. Are you really comfortable letting someone else dictate what is offensive or indecent? How do you know they're not some extremist?

He did a bit more than just make a statement and got a caution which officially states harassment.

The law hasn't changed. It always banned offensive behaviour. But offensive behaviour =\= saying something deemed offensive.

But again - wrong thread.

Am I comfortable? Yes. Totally. Beacuse I know how to frame my opinions and argue my points without needing to be sensationalist, offensive, hate/fearmongering or appealing to base levels.

ArmaniJeanss

TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

He did a bit more than just that and got a caution which officially states harassment.

The law hasn't changed. It always banned offensive behaviour. But offensive behaviour =\= saying something deemed offensive.

But again - wrong thread.

It's not black and white though. What is considered offensive is getting watered down. Look at this for example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html. That's from 2 weeks ago.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's not black and white though. What is considered offensive is getting watered down. Look at this for example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html. That's from 2 weeks ago.

again you have not read past the headline

High Court papers obtained by The Mail on Sunday detail how Mrs Scottow is accused of a 'campaign of targeted harassment' against Miss Hayden, allegedly motivated by her 'status as a transgender woman'.

She is also alleged to have used accounts in two names to 'harass, defame, and publish derogatory and defamatory tweets' about Miss Hayden, including referring to her as male, stating she was 'racist, xenophobic and a crook' and mocking her as a 'fake lawyer'.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

crazy stuff.

ohnonotgmail

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

TR/SYL banned from facebook and instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47371290

According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:

• a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
• a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
• a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims
• multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied

Tommy is not big on learning.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

It's not black and white though. What is considered offensive is getting watered down. Look at this for example: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6687123/Mother-arrested-children-calling-transgender-woman-man.html. That's from 2 weeks ago.

Just realised I was about to highlight the save paragraph as the poster above: this appears to be blatant harassment. It's YOU who's making MY point.

I could also argue that people who transition frequently argue that they are not changing gender (as Scottow States is impossible) they are the same gender to begin with.

But AGAIN - Tommy Robinson thread!!!! I'm started and proven my point, I'm not going to reply to any more posts that are not about Robinson

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Just realised I was about to highlight the save paragraph as the poster above: this appears to be blatant harassment. It's YOU who's making MY point.

Calling a transgender woman a biological male should not be considered harrassment. It is a fact.

If you google this topic, you'll find tons of examples. I just gave one. The UK police are more and more frequently visiting people's homes for things they said on twitter.

My point is this:

Speech is continuously being curbed.

This is because governments will always try to take more power.

If we continue on this path, it is only a matter of time before something you consider inoffensive could get you a police caution.

If you're not aware, the muslim pedophile gangs in the UK were covered up for decades. That's the main reason Tommy wanted to report on it. He felt the courts were continuing to cover up the story.

I believe he should have been allowed cover the story.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Calling a transgender woman a biological male should not be considered harrassment. It is a fact.

If you google this topic, you'll find tons of examples. I just gave one. The UK police are more and more frequently visiting people's homes for things they said on twitter.

My point is this:

Speech is continuously being curbed.

This is because governments will always try to take more power.

If we continue on this path, it is only a matter of time before something you consider inoffensive could get you a police caution.

If you're not aware, the muslim pedophile gangs in the UK were covered up for decades. That's the main reason Tommy wanted to report on it. He felt the courts were continuing to cover up the story.

I believe he should have been allowed cover the story.

They continually harassed somebody using multiple accounts because they were transgender. Again, your understanding of events is as shallow as a puddle.