Religious hate-speech in the UK or fearless speaker of truth?

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

If some anonymous post on boards is defaming a named person in real life, then effectively boards.ie is guilty of committing libel.
That's different to a journalist reporting that Joe Bloggs said such and such. Because in the latter situation, its Joe Bloggs who is guilty.
Its a fine line, I know, but its worth understanding the concept.

I get the concept, but it is poor journalism, something that is becoming more common, not to investigate the statement. Printing statements without fact checking lends legitimacy to potentially false statements. A good journalist would not print verbatim but print, with clarifications such as researching was the statement true or false, or where did the idea or justification for the statement come from and do the facts bare this out.

As above. So in this case the duty of the journalist is to make sure Joe Bloggs did actually say the controversial thing, before reporting that he said it. And retain the evidence

It is simply, not just that, something some so called journalists have forgotten. They can print he said it but they should add in whether it's been verified, can it be verified or if seen to be false, add that in. Otherwise they could add legitimacy to a false statement.

A minor incident, yes. If an "English" kid was beaten up in the same school by an asian gang, that would also be relatively minor IMO, and should have been dealt with internally by the school. Which is presumably why the media are not too interested in researching that aspect (fair enough).

I'd hate to see what you think is non minor. That was a traumatic experience, to call it minor is concerning but then you misrepresented a choke hold and being basically waterboarded as a push into a puddle so maybe your view of the world is skewed.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

It is simply, not just that, something some so called journalists have forgotten. They can print he said it but they should add in whether it's been verified, can it be verified or if seen to be false, add that in. Otherwise they could add legitimacy to a false statement.

That would be high quality journalism alright. But all that verification is not a necessary component to covering one's ass. Attributing the dodgy allegation to the source is a necessary component.

CramCycle wrote: »

I'd hate to see what you think is non minor. That was a traumatic experience, to call it minor is concerning but then you misrepresented a choke hold and being basically waterboarded as a push into a puddle so maybe your view of the world is skewed.

Well, something similar could happen on the rugby or GAA pitch (accidentally) and nobody would even notice it had happened.
What has made the incident so notorious is the assumed intent, who did it to whom, and some tenuous social media links to TR.

All of which can be harnessed by a particular type of person; the liberal but outraged social justice warrior.

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

Well, something similar could happen on the rugby or GAA pitch (accidentally) and nobody would even notice it had happened.
What has made the incident so notorious is the assumed intent, who did it to whom, and some tenuous social media links to TR.

All of which can be harnessed by a particular type of person; the liberal but outraged social justice warrior.

Just to be clear, are you telling me that if Johnny Sexton pinned a smaller player to the ground, held his throat in a vice, while giving vocal abuse, then grabbed a bottle of water and started dousing his face, akin in a fashion to water boarding, it would be shrugged off? This is what you are saying, just to be clear, I need to understand that this is how you think the world operates.

CramCycle

By the way, was what was done was not or could not be construed as accidental.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Attributing the dodgy allegation to the source is a necessary component.

And what happens when Yaxley-Lennon quotes an obviously satirical news website in the mistaken belief that it's a real news website?

I don't know about you, but this really suggests that Yaxley-Lennon has a fairly serious degree of difficulty separating truth from fiction.

https://southendnewsnetwork.net/news/tommy-robinson-just-fell-for-another-southend-news-network-story/

smacl

robindch wrote: »

And what happens when Yaxley-Lennon quotes an obviously satirical news website in the mistaken belief that it's a real news website?

I don't know about you, but this really suggests that Yaxley-Lennon has a fairly serious degree of difficulty separating truth from fiction.

https://southendnewsnetwork.net/news/tommy-robinson-just-fell-for-another-southend-news-network-story/

Alternatively, he doesn't give a damn about the accuracy of what he says and is more concerned about keeping the vitriol pumping forth at a steady rate to maintain an optic that portrays his preferred narrative in the correct light. I suspect many of his fans have the collective attention span of a goldfish don't delve too deep into the truth of the matter.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you telling me that if Johnny Sexton pinned a smaller player to the ground, held his throat in a vice, while giving vocal abuse, then grabbed a bottle of water and started dousing his face, akin in a fashion to water boarding, it would be shrugged off? This is what you are saying, just to be clear, I need to understand that this is how you think the world operates.

CramCycle wrote: »

By the way, was what was done was not or could not be construed as accidental.

It was not accidental. You misunderstand me. I'm saying the same "injuries" sustained in another way would hardly be noticed. If you saw the state of some players emerging from underneath a collapsed scrum on a waterlogged schools rugby pitch, you'd know what I mean.
Its not the minor injuries that have caught the attention of the media, its who was involved, and why (and they don't even know the full backstory)

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

It was not accidental. You misunderstand me. I'm saying the same "injuries" sustained in another way would hardly be noticed. If you saw the state of some players emerging from underneath a collapsed scrum on a waterlogged schools rugby pitch, you'd know what I mean.
Its not the minor injuries that have caught the attention of the media, its who was involved, and why (and they don't even know the full backstory)

It was the intention that got the attention. If Johnny Sexton grabs some one round the neck, it is sometimes accidental, and sometimes not but the intention is never fear or intimidation, it is to stop the man and complete a tackle or similar.

The injuries are not the issue either, I am not sure why this isn't getting across.

A better example might be WWE or WWF, depending on your age and if you still or ever watched it. If a wrestler grabs another wrestler, mid match, and choke slams them, there is a risk of injury. The thing is though, it is expected, it is trained for, there is no malicious intent, it is expected and part of the sport. While the injuries might be similar to those experienced by the child in the video, they are in no was as traumatic from a mental perspective. That kid had no idea how far it would go, would anyone stop him, whether he would stop and so on. There is simply no comparison, and trying to compare it to a sports scenario where no ill intent of that nature was intended, nor was there any risk of it continuing is ludicrous.

Imagine playing GAA I go for a ball, try and slap it out of the oppositions hands, but I slip and accidentally hook the player. Whistle gets blown, I walk off, player takes a free, if a more serious injury has occurred, I may get sent off, the player may need treatment but it is a reasonable assumption that I am not going to grab a water bottle from the team physio and start drowning him on the pitch.

If you think the only reason this is getting widespread attention is because of race or religion and that no one would be horrified if the child was of different ethnic background or faith, then I worry those people, I would be horrified if this happened to anyone.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

I don't know about you, but this really suggests that Yaxley-Lennon has a fairly serious degree of difficulty separating truth from fiction.

Poe's Law is a thing, and whether truth and fiction look the same can sometimes depend very much on where you are standing.


I'm all for free speech and satire, but sometimes its a very fine line between Fake News and satire. Take this latest Waterford Whispers story, the reader might very well assume the surgeon and the radio show were real. If they are not real, then what is the point of the story?



Not surprising then that they are falling foul of Facebooks fake news filters.

Irish satirical website Waterford Whispers News (WWN) is worried for the future after Facebook announced last week that it would crack down on fake news.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

It was the intention that got the attention. ..
The injuries are not the issue either, I am not sure why this isn't getting across.

Now we have turned full circle, because that's what I was saying in the first place.
But you took issue when with my quote..

If the courts sentence the perp, it won't be because of "what he did". It will be because "who did it to who". And that of course, will only make tensions worse.

So what do you think the motivation and the intention was, and what if anything, happened before this incident to spark it?
Because I don't know, but I'd be interested to hear your facts.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Now we have turned full circle, because that's what I was saying in the first place.
But you took issue when with my quote..

If the courts sentence the perp, it won't be because of "what he did". It will be because "who did it to who". And that of course, will only make tensions worse.

So what do you think the motivation and the intention was, and what if anything, happened before this incident to spark it?
Because I don't know, but I'd be interested to hear your facts.

If the court sentences him it will be precisely because of what he did. His motivations are irrelevant. He was not defending himself.

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

Now we have turned full circle, because that's what I was saying in the first place.
But you took issue when with my quote..

You said it wasn't a big deal, that the attack was minor and the injuries were minor. Every indication is that this is far from the truth.

So what do you think the motivation and the intention was, and what if anything, happened before this incident to spark it?
Because I don't know, but I'd be interested to hear your facts.

I don't know what the motivation was, but the evidence, on the video is that a child was verbally, physically and mentally assaulted. The video shows that child was non confrontational, and was actively trying to not get involved. I could make up theories about the motivation, others here and elsewhere have but they just cloud and muddy a pretty straight forward crime.
There are no mitigating circumstances here, there was a child, on the video, who was walking past and not engaging with the crowd who were being led, clearly, by one individual. These are the facts, nothing else matters.

I once got punched by a small kid, about 13 I think, used to run his mouth all the time, proper little sh1t. I ignored it, laughed it off, walked away and he kept doing it day after day. One day he got annoyed and hit me across the head from behind, left me with a swollen face. All my mates asked why I didn't hammer the sh1t out of him, I wanted too, there were a few laughs at my expense that I was bet up by a kid. Nonetheless, he was smaller, weaker and had issues, I could have easily hammered the runt into the ground but then I would be guilty. The only thing I done wrong was not reporting him, beating the **** out of a kid smaller than you has no excuses, no matter whether provocation exists or not. The fact that some people think there are excuses is truly worrying.

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Its not the minor injuries that have caught the attention of the media, its who was involved, and why (and they don't even know the full backstory)

Hi, sorry. I know you have trouble seeing and answering these questions directly...
But...

Why did this catch the attention of the media, in your mind?
Why, in recedite world, is the media reporting on it and not other incidents and for what benefit?

I understand that you are trying to imply something here, but perhaps it would be best if you just outlined what you were accusing the media of.

recedite

The gist of it is "racist white bully egged on by Tommy Robinson attacks innocent Syrian refugee kid".
Wouldn't you agree? I know you seldom reply, but anyway...

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

The gist of it is "racist white bully egged on by Tommy Robinson attacks innocent Syrian refugee kid".
Wouldn't you agree? I know you seldom reply, but anyway...

Nope, at best that's a dishonest oversimplification.

So why are the media doing this exactly?

Also, since you bring up me apparently not replying:

King Mob wrote: »

But what you are doing is suggesting a racist conspiracy theory that certain people are being let off because they share the same race/culture/whatever with various judges etc.

Your only is that some judges etc do share the same race/culture/whatever.
Nothing else.

If it isn't racist, you're going to have to stop being vague and coy and actually explain how it's not.
Cause it really, really looks like it is.

Also, if that the reason for the titles?
It's a very silly reason...

Could you point out where you responded to that?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

So why are the media doing this exactly?

Sensationalism sells stories.

King Mob wrote: »

Also, since you bring up me apparently not replying:Could you point out where you responded to that?

You created this strawman which is coy about its own racism, and then expected me to identify with, and defend it?
AFAIK the judge who wrongfully sent TR to jail was white, though I'm not sure. So that seems a false premise, straight away.


You misconstrued my earlier comments which were about the natural tendency of divided communities to be biased towards their own community. Added to the undeniable fact that British Asians/Muslims/Pakistanis have, through their own hard work (and quite a few "diversity placings") managed to get themselves into a large number of influential public office positions in recent years.
Added to the undeniable reluctance of many in the native community's "elite" to tackle any problems emanating from within the "asian" community, for fear of being attacked themselves and labelled racist. Which you are attempting to do to me, right now.


If you want to read more about these general issues which have occurred again and again in the northern English towns, do so here.

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Sensationalism sells stories.

And your pal Tony Robinson is immune to this because...?

recedite wrote: »

AFAIK the judge who wrongfully sent TR to jail was white, though I'm not sure. So that seems a false premise, straight away.

Ok, there's the problem. I asked you previously why they were picking on poor old Tony.
Again, could you detail this conspiracy theory? Particularly in the areas of motivation and evidence?

You misconstrued my earlier comments which were about the natural tendency of divided communities to be biased towards their own community. Added to the undeniable fact that British Asians/Muslims/Pakistanis have, through their own hard work (and quite a few "diversity placings") managed to get themselves into a large number of influential public office positions in recent years.
...
labelled racist. Which you are attempting to do to me, right now.

But you have to understand that it looks exactly like a racist conspiracy theory.

Do you have any examples of any Muslim/Asian judges using their power to let some other muslims/asians off? Or otherwise abused their power to benefit their community?
Otherwise, what are you using to conclude that such people are doing so
other than, ya know, their race?

If it's nothing, then it's a racist conspiracy theory.

Perhaps you could outline an example of what you think is a "real" racist conspiracy theory and explain how yours is different?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Poe's Law is a thing, and whether truth and fiction look the same can sometimes depend very much on where you are standing.

I gather that Mr Yaxley-Lennon describes himself as "a journalist".

The Southend News Network, on the other hand describes itself as having "no real aims or objectives in mind other than to add a satirical/spoof-like touch to issues that people are passionate about in Southend On Sea". This isn't hidden on the SNN's website, but easily clickable from the main SNN webpage in such an obvious fashion that even a young child should be able to establish whether or not the SNN is publishing facts or jokes. That it's publishing jokes should be doubly obvious from the string of crazy stories on the site's front page.

Since Yaxley-Lennon posted material from the Southend News Network believing it to be real, we can conclude - quite safely, it seems - that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is either unaware of, or chooses to ignore, one of the most basic premises of journalism - checking one's sources.

Given that, wouldn't you agree he's a rather crap "journalist"?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Since Yaxley-Lennon posted material from the Southend News Network believing it to be real, we can conclude - quite safely, it seems - that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is either unaware of, or chooses to ignore, one of the most basic premises of journalism - checking one's sources.

Given that, wouldn't you agree he's a rather crap "journalist"?

Did he repost the material from an intermediate source?
Anyway, he is a crap journalist, but he's the only one brave enough to operate in his field.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Sensationalism sells stories.

You created this strawman which is coy about its own racism, and then expected me to identify with, and defend it?
AFAIK the judge who wrongfully sent TR to jail was white, though I'm not sure. So that seems a false premise, straight away.


You misconstrued my earlier comments which were about the natural tendency of divided communities to be biased towards their own community. Added to the undeniable fact that British Asians/Muslims/Pakistanis have, through their own hard work (and quite a few "diversity placings") managed to get themselves into a large number of influential public office positions in recent years.
Added to the undeniable reluctance of many in the native community's "elite" to tackle any problems emanating from within the "asian" community, for fear of being attacked themselves and labelled racist. Which you are attempting to do to me, right now.


If you want to read more about these general issues which have occurred again and again in the northern English towns, do so here.

Taking over, are they?

recedite

King Mob wrote: »

Perhaps you could outline an example of what you think is a "real" racist conspiracy theory and explain how yours is different?

Can't think of any. So, I'll just repeat the wiki quote, and you can tell me if its only a CT, and why you think that.

The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Can't think of any. So, I'll just repeat the wiki quote, and you can tell me if its only a CT, and why you think that.

And this above incident was due to Asian/muslim people in power?
If not, I fail to see the relevance.
I also fail to see how that would address any of my other points.

I will repeat the most important one for your convience:

Do you have any examples of any Muslim/Asian judges using their power to let some other muslims/asians off? Or otherwise abused their power to benefit their community?
Otherwise, what are you using to conclude that such people are doing so other than, ya know, their race?

If it's nothing, then it's a racist conspiracy theory.

recedite

Its more a case of having the wrong people in high office, with other people being afraid to challenge any wrongdoing. This guy got away with it for a long time simply by shouting "racist" at anyone who challenged him.

Following the latest dismissal Dizaei said the Met was "in denial and remains an institutionally racist organisation".
In a statement he said he was "proud" that he had spent the past 27 years challenging police racism and would now focus his time assisting members of the public to do the same.

So why do you reckon the 30 burly Pakistani gentlemen were allowed to protest outside Jamal's school, until they were let inside to have a word with the headmaster? And why such solidarity between British Pakistanis and a Syrian family?

TomSweeney

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1070676781911429120


So what do you think of Majiid Nawaz ?

An anti Muslim extremist ?

Is he correct above ?

How to you deal with him stating these facts?



Is he a self loathing Muslim ? (even though he is a practising Muslim)


We need more like him, willing to tackle extremism - not defending and apologising for it.

smacl

TomSweeney wrote: »

So what do you think of Majiid Nawaz ?

An anti Muslim extremist ?

Is he correct above ?

How to you deal with him stating these facts?



Is he a self loathing Muslim ? (even though he is a practising Muslim)


We need more like him, willing to tackle extremism - not defending and apologising for it.

I think he's asking reasonable questions but am of the opinion that Perigrinus' post here dealt with this well when I raised a similar question. The problem is one of assuming that the correlation is direct and unique. So for example the above post is concerned about over representation of Pakistanis in sex crime, whereas there may well be very many other common social factors that correlate to sex crime, e.g. education levels, employment levels, low income etc... which may also correlate at similar or higher rates. If these other social factors are more prevalent among Pakistanis than non-Pakistanis, Pakistanis will be over represented in this type of crime. Having an anti-Islamic group such as Pegida suggesting it is because they are Muslim is an unusual and clearly biased assertion that demands rather more proof to be taken seriously. In my opinion, the likes of Tommy Robinson seek to demonise and ghettoise all Muslims in the UK, which in turn pushes them into the demographic that is more likely to commit crime. Have a read up on the race riots in the Paris banlieus to get an idea of how this is likely to pan out if people take heed of these far right bigots. Even in the UK, they have that before in Brixton and Toxdeth, and I'd imagine very few people want to see it repeated.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

I think he's asking reasonable questions but am of the opinion that Perigrinus' post here dealt with this well when I raised a similar question. The problem is one of assuming that the correlation is direct and unique...

Ah yes, the old Nazir Afzal explanation for the lack of prosecutions by the crown prosecution service (where he pulled the strings).

Where there is involvement of Asian men or men of Pakistani origin, he points to a practical, rather than cultural explanation – the fact that in the areas where grooming scandals have been uncovered, those controlling the night-time economy, people working through the night in takeaways and driving minicabs, are predominantly Asian men. He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”

Victim-blaming at its finest.
By the man who was Chief Prosecutor for the northern region and named Legal Personality of the Year in 2013 by the Society of Asian Lawyers.


Here's another question I posed in this thread that still remains unanswered...

recedite wrote: »

If Nazir Afzal's hypothesis is correct, and if he is going to suggest that one religious/ethnic group is more nocturnal than another (which assertion itself is questionable) then where are all the Chinese rape gangs? If any group habitually works antisocial hours its the Chinese.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Ah yes, the old Nazir Afzal explanation for the lack of prosecutions by the crown prosecution service (where he pulled the strings).

Victim-blaming at its finest.
By the man who was Chief Prosecutor for the northern region and named Legal Personality of the Year in 2013 by the Society of Asian Lawyers.


Here's another question I posed in this thread that still remains unanswered...

Where is the "victim blaming" in that quote? Or did you just see "asian lawyers" and lose the run of yourself?

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Where is the "victim blaming" in that quote? Or did you just see "asian lawyers" and lose the run of yourself?

Their own miserable existence "caused them to seek out warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food" as supplied to them by certain charitable Pakistani gentlemen.

magicbastarder

to spare me reading over 200 posts - has there been any consensus reached over whether tommy robinson is a hateful **** stirrer or not?

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Their own miserable existence "caused them to seek out warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food" as supplied to them by certain charitable Pakistani gentlemen.

Yes. thats 'exploiting vulnerabilty'. Thats what grooming is.