Tommy Robinson jailed

RWCNT

Deleted User wrote: »

crazy stuff.

Is it? He repeatedly continued to breach user guidelines even when provided with a written warning. I fully expect him to use this to play up the martyr image he's gotten for himself but I'm past the point of caring about the optics of banning him to be honest.

If you support or sympathise with this guy then you're either a bigot or too naive (and im being charitable by using that term) to see what it is that he's actually up to. As a lot of people just don't get it, the best course of action is to limit his exposure and fundraising abilities as much as possible, so I welcome this move.

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

Is it? He repeatedly continued to breach user guidelines even when provided with a written warning. I fully expect him to use this to play up the martyr image he's gotten for himself but I'm past the point of caring about the optics of banning him to be honest.

If you support or sympathise with this guy then you're either a bigot or too naive (and im being charitable by using that term) to see what it is that he's actually up to. As a lot of people just don't get it, the best course of action is to limit his exposure and fundraising abilities as much as possible, so I welcome this move.

What do you believe he's actually up to?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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.

So you want anarchy?

Tommy Robinson demonstrates with proof my point that you can make any point you want if you're intelligent and know how to debate, because he can't do had to play the victim card

There were reasons for the restrictions - to prevent a mistrial - are you aware of those? Or would you have been happy with a mistrial if Tommy was allowed to 'report' freely.

Free speech comes with responsibities and consequences.

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you want anarchy?

Tommy Robinson demonstrates with proof my point that you can make any point you want if you're intelligent and know how to debate, because he can't do had to play the victim card

There were reasons for the restrictions - to prevent a mistrial - are you aware of those? Or would you have been happy with a mistrial if Tommy was allowed to 'report' freely.

Free speech comes with responsibities and consequences.

Why would there be a mistrial if someone reported on it?

stefanovich

Tommy Robinson is a hero

RWCNT

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What do you believe he's actually up to?

Preying on the concerns of his gullible supporters in order to line his own pockets, while whipping up nothing but hatred in the process. If his sole concerns were truly about grooming gangs, terror attacks etc. then he'd concentrate on that, rather than sharing anything and everything that forms a "Muslims bad" and "They're taking over" narrative - e.g. his sharing of the rape crisis centres leaflet, his sharing a news story about a Muslim doctor struck off when a child in her care died, involving himself in the narrative around a video of a Syrian kid allegedly being bullied, and much more.

I don't know if it's all for the money or if he actually is a crypto-fascist and I don't really care either.

stefanovich wrote: »

Tommy Robinson is a hero

What has he actually achieved in your eyes to be described as such?

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

Preying on the concerns of his gullible supporters in order to line his own pockets, while whipping up nothing but hatred in the process. If his sole concerns were truly about grooming gangs, terror attacks etc. then he'd concentrate on that, rather than sharing anything and everything that forms a "Muslims bad" and "They're taking over" narrative - e.g. his sharing of the rape crisis centres leaflet, his sharing a news story about a Muslim doctor struck off when a child in her care died, involving himself in the narrative around a video of a Syrian kid allegedly being bullied, and much more.

I don't know if it's all for the money or if he actually is a crypto-fascist and I don't really care either.

I think some of the things he says are valid, and he should be allowed say them. I also believe he genuinely believes these things.

But I also think there is a money making aspect to it. Whether that's just a nice side effect, or more, I don't know.

GinAndBitter

The timing of these bans is certainly strange, wonder has it anything to do with the hit piece about to be aired by the lying BBC about him.

OMM 0000

GinAndBitter wrote: »

The timing of these bans is certainly strange, wonder has it anything to do with the hit piece about to be aired by the lying BBC about him.

What bans? Sorry I'm not in the loop.

stefanovich

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

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What bans? Sorry I'm not in the loop.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why would there be a mistrial if someone reported on it?

... Really?

In case you're being serious: to prevent a jury being influenced for a start. Google Levi Belfield and Milly Dowler for a start.

Jonathan Woodgate trial was another.

More recently, Cardinal Pell in Australia.

But your understanding of free speech and the responsibities within seem to be a bit vague to say the least.

Ultimately there IS no such thing as free speech. Would you be comfortable with extremist Islamic clerics having free speech? Or rampant islamophpbia? Or anti-Semitism?

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... Really?

In case you're being serious: to prevent a jury being influenced for a start. Google Levi Belfield and Milly Dowler for a start.

Jonathan Woodgate trial was another.

More recently, Cardinal Pell in Australia.

But your understanding of free speech and the responsibities within seem to be a bit vague to say the least.

Ultimately there IS no such thing as free speech. Would you be comfortable with extremist Islamic clerics having free speech? Or anti-Semitism?

Your examples are not equivalent. Almost no one knew about these rape gangs. There is a strong argument to make that the courts blocking any reporting was business as usual (their rapes had been covered up for decades).

My understanding of free speech is not vague. The issue is most people here have never thought it through, yet for some reason they have strong opinions on it...

Of course extremist Islamic clerics and anti-semites should have free speech. Again, I think you don't understand what free speech is. It doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

To have free speech you have to accept speech you don't like. I understand this is an outrageous concept for some people.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Your examples are not equivalent. Almost no one knew about these rape gangs. There is a strong argument to make that the courts blocking any reporting was business as usual (their rapes had been covered up for decades).

My understanding of free speech is not vague. The issue is most people here have never thought it through, yet for some reason they have strong opinions on it...

Of course extremist Islamic clerics and anti-semites should have free speech. Again, I think you don't understand what free speech is. It doesn't mean freedom of consequences.

To have free speech you have to accept speech you don't like. I understand this is an outrageous concept for some people.

there was a reporting ban in place for the duration of the trials. Note trials, plural. the reporting ban was lifted after all trials had resolved. At the time of the trials the existence of the gangs was well known. And no thanks to tommy. Actual journalists uncovered what was going on.

OMM 0000

stefanovich wrote: »

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

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

coincidentally they happen to be the ones who most abuse the terms of service they agreed to when they joined these services.

mcmoustache

GinAndBitter wrote: »

The timing of these bans is certainly strange, wonder has it anything to do with the hit piece about to be aired by the lying BBC about him.

Really?

You think that Facebook banned him because of something in a TV show? That's actually where your mind went with the information that you have?

You didn't consider that maybe using facebook's platform to spread a lie that had the effect of ddosing the phone lines of a rape crisis centre might have had something to do with it or that maybe he simply failed to heed the warning from facebook?

Yeah, it must be the TV show.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

Almost as if they don't want to be linked to a racist faudster.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Almost as if they don't want to be linked to a racist faudster.

That wasn't my point. My point is how the right are overwhelmingly targeted for bans.

There are all sorts of leftist crazies posting crazy stuff, yet they don't get banned.

I look at some antifa accounts and they're constantly talking about hurting people, doxxing people, etc. Yet they almost never get banned.

Surely you can admit there is political bias amongst the media and tech companies?

Hector Savage

Whatever you think of him, this is an eye opener

https://youtu.be/FeAz9AzF4LA

Really nasty nasty bunch Hope not Hate (oh the irony) and BBC panorama investigative journalists.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That wasn't my point. My point is how the right are overwhelmingly targeted for bans.

There are all sorts of leftist crazies posting crazy stuff, yet they don't get banned.

I look at some antifa accounts and they're constantly talking about hurting people, doxxing people, etc. Yet they almost never get banned.

Surely you can admit there is political bias amongst the media and tech companies?

Refusing to give bigots a platform isn't bias. It's common sense. Legit businesses and advertisers won't want to work with companies that promote filth like Yaxley-Lennon.

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Strange how the accounts banned by Facebook, Instagram, YouTube & Twitter are almost always those on the political right.

Your conflating the mainstream right with the racist far right, either because of dishonesty or ignorance. There's no issue advocating for fiscal responsibility on these platforms but they do have problems with advocating for harassment.

It's not a subtle difference at all.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Refusing to give bigots a platform isn't bias. It's common sense.

Alright, you don't understand my question or didn't read it.

Let me rephrase:

Why are the accounts of the far left, who promote violence and doxxing, rarely banned?

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Why are the accounts of the far left, who promote violence and doxxing, rarely banned?

Source?

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Source?

How about all the accounts calling for the doxxing or killing of the Covington Catholic High School kids? None of those got banned.

Covington Catholic High School = Conservative MAGA hat wearing kids.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

How about all the accounts calling for the doxxing or killing of the Covington Catholic High School kids? None of those got banned.

I asked for a source because I don't believe your claim. This isn't a source.

GinAndBitter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Almost as if they don't want to be linked to a racist faudster.

If that was the reason then I'm sure he would have been banned a long time ago.

ohnonotgmail

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That wasn't my point. My point is how the right are overwhelmingly targeted for bans.

There are all sorts of leftist crazies posting crazy stuff, yet they don't get banned.

I look at some antifa accounts and they're constantly talking about hurting people, doxxing people, etc. Yet they almost never get banned.

Surely you can admit there is political bias amongst the media and tech companies?

Perhaps you could link to some examples of these groups breaking site rules?

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I asked for a source because I don't believe your claim. This isn't a source.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/12/social-media-facebook-twitter-google-youtube-bias-conservatives-republicans-column/1250893002/

GinAndBitter

mcmoustache wrote: »

Really?

You think that Facebook banned him because of something in a TV show? That's actually where your mind went with the information that you have?

You didn't consider that maybe using facebook's platform to spread a lie that had the effect of ddosing the phone lines of a rape crisis centre might have had something to do with it or that maybe he simply failed to heed the warning from facebook?

Yeah, it must be the TV show.

None of that was mentioned as the reasons for the ban. The reasons that were mentioned above in the BBC link, calling for Muslims to be beheaded was one I've never seen him post anything like that although I may have missed it.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/12/social-media-facebook-twitter-google-youtube-bias-conservatives-republicans-column/1250893002/

That's an opinion piece.

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/12/social-media-facebook-twitter-google-youtube-bias-conservatives-republicans-column/1250893002/

That's an opinion piece from some anti-abortion guy. When people ask for a source, they aren't looking for any old page that repeats the claims made by the poster.

ohnonotgmail

GinAndBitter wrote: »

None of that was mentioned as the reasons for the ban. The reasons that were mentioned above in the BBC link, calling for Muslims to be beheaded was one I've never seen him post anything like that although I may have missed it.

You think FB just made up something that is as verifiable as that? You also forget that FB can see posts after tommy thinks he has deleted them.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's an opinion piece.

If you google it, there are tons of articles on this topic.

It's constantly discussed by people like Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, etc.

I'm surprised you've never come account this./

I'm not right wing yet I see articles on this all the time.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

If you google it, there are tons of articles on this topic.

It's constantly discussed by people like Joe Rogan, Tim Pool, etc.

I'm not right wing.

You have nothing then. I'm not going to research an argument that you're too lazy to substantiate.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You have nothing then. I'm not going to research an argument that you're too lazy to substantiate.

Obviously do whatever you want, but if you're too lazy to leave your political bubble, I know I would be wasting my time anyway.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Obviously do whatever you want, but if you're too lazy to leave your political bubble, I know I would be wasting my time anyway.

Ah now. You have to actually formulate an argument. It's not lazy of me to do all your work for you.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ah now. You have to actually formulate an argument. It's not lazy of me to do all your work for you.

I already know where this is going. I've been using the internet for too long.

You have your opinion, and you're going to stick to it.

The fact that you're unaware of this topic tells me you restrict yourself to left wing news sources. Right wing news sources CONSTANTLY talk about this issue.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I already know where this is going. I've been using the internet for too long.

You have your opinion, and you're going to stick to it.

The fact that you're unaware of this topic tells me you restrict yourself to left wing news sources. Right wing news sources CONSTANTLY talk about this issue.

Of course I'm going to stick to it. You've given me no incentive to do otherwise.

You have no idea what media I choose to consume so you just decide for yourself and use that as a cop out.

Telling people to google your argument is just lazy and deserves to be dismissed as such.

GinAndBitter

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I already know where this is going. I've been using the internet for too long.

You have your opinion, and you're going to stick to it.

The fact that you're unaware of this topic tells me you restrict yourself to left wing news sources. Right wing news sources CONSTANTLY talk about this issue.

As I said yesterday, it's ignorance. A video was posted here yesterday of a BBC employee trying to bribe people for fake stories about TR, but no one wants to watch it because it's Tommy Robinson even though it shows the BBC for what they are, lying scumbags.

Leave the idiots in their little bubble.

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course I'm going to stick to it. You've given me no incentive to do otherwise.

You have no idea what media I choose to consume so you just decide for yourself and use that as a cop out.

Telling people to google your argument is just lazy and deserves to be dismissed as such.

You cannot be looking at any right leaning news sources if you're unaware of this issue. It's spoken about almost every day. It's actually one of their main topics, along the lines of the usual nonsense like immigration and transgenders.

Snake Plisken

Paul sums it up nicely
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1100396039893323776?s=19

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You cannot be looking at any right leaning news sources if you're unaware of this issue. It's spoken about almost every day. It's actually one of their main topics, along the lines of the usual nonsense like immigration and transgenders.

Reading right wing sources doesn't mean slavishly agreeing with every single word and frankly, the same drivel is just repurposed over and over again though the left wing outlets do that a lot as well.

Mitch Connor

Yeah, sure, Facebook facilitated Brexit and Trump, but will stop good ol' Tommy from defending himself vs the BBC. Cause that makes loads of sense.

ancapailldorcha

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Paul sums it up nicely
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1100396039893323776?s=19

Be more convincing if he presented some evidence.

GinAndBitter

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Yeah, sure, Facebook facilitated Brexit and Trump, but will stop good ol' Tommy from defending himself vs the BBC. Cause that makes loads of sense.

Facebook are not to be trusted.

Mitch Connor

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Facebook are not to be trusted.

Indeed - but why the fook should we think that they removed him due to the BBC. What evidence is there of them working hand in hand with the BBC? Or similar?

ancapailldorcha

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Facebook are not to be trusted.

But a convicted fraudster is?

RWCNT

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Paul sums it up nicely
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1100396039893323776?s=19

What do you think his angle is with that last line? What's his alternative to the free market?

OMM 0000

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Reading right wing sources doesn't mean slavishly agreeing with every single word and frankly, the same drivel is just repurposed over and over again though the left wing outlets do that a lot as well.

Obviously you don't need to agree with whatever you read, but I am a centrist, and I make an effort to read the news on both sides of the political spectrum, and it is extremely obvious there is strong left wing bias amongst the tech companies and their employees. Even if you don't believe me, surely it's common sense - San Fransicso is overwhelmingly left wing. This is the location of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. So the banings generally follow this political bias.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Obviously you don't need to agree with whatever you read, but I am a centrist, and I make an effort to read the news on both sides of the political spectrum, and it is extremely obvious there is strong left wing bias amongst the tech companies and their employees. Even if you don't believe me, surely it's common sense - San Fransicso is overwhelmingly left wing. This is the location of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. So the banings generally follow this political bias.

Left wing in the US is not remotely the same as being left wing in Europe. Left wing in the US basically means you're not on board the MAGA train.