Tommy Robinson jailed

Annd9

Watched the panorama video and reluctantly found myself on TR'S side . It really goes to show how dishonest all media has become , it's very rare to find true middle ground reporting .

After watching the video autoplay kicked in , a documentary about Saville began . Why are Tommy and his "No Surrender" crew not throwing their weight around for victims of the rape gangs seemingly prevalent in middle class England ?
The argument of whataboutary can be made but surely if he is so concerned for victims of rape gangs he can use his decent sized profile to highlight this further . Plenty of these people have yet to be exposed .

This I'm sure is highly unlikely as Tommy seems to now be a "Free Speech" activist ..... For this month anyway .

Billy86

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

people are too afraid to speak their minds incase people get upset , id love to hear of any irish person who has never had a bad word to say about foreigners , we all have

Look whats happening with a certain ethnic group in balbriggan , people are affraid to say anything incase labeled racist

Did we have this problem 20 years ago with ethnic groups ? Did england ? NO

They don’t integrate that’s what he is against , he has alot of muslim friends , had meetings with loads of muslims , he’s against the ideology of islam and lack of integration , and when you question their religon you get attacked , he can’t set foot in his own town in his own country by these goat ****ers

I can't help but notice how you can't answer whether Tommy should be investigating the EDL and the glorified pedo ring it seems to have become (or may have been from the start, since Tommy started it with a pedophile mate of his).

Be honest, it's because they're white and "not leftists" isn't it?

malinheader

lbc2019 wrote: »

Why are there so many Tommy fanboys in Ireland?

Because we have seen what has happened in the UK and also alot of other European countries. And I for one don't want Ireland following suit.

Seathrun66

OMM 0000 wrote: »

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

Because the jury have to rely on information provided at the trial. Were information outside the evidence to be provided in reporting and the jury see it then the trial would be tainted and the judge forced to call a mistrial.

The defendants may also be involved in other trials. They would not be seen to get a fair trial from the other court if the jury had read about this trial.

To make it simple suppose you were up on trial for bank robbery and also separately for burglary. If the jury for the burglary case read about the bank robbery trial they'd likely be prejudiced against you and see you as a wrong 'un thus hugely increasing the chances of conviction when you may be innocent of both charges.

Tommy Robinson could have been potentially prejudicing the juries against innocent men. It's not his job to interfere in cases and he's more likely to get guilty men freed by his actions. As a retired lawyer I'm completely clear on the need for Robinson to be charged for his actions.

sirmanga

It's quite clear there is a coordinated plan to shut down Robinson, and as far as I'm concerned that's outrageous. People should be allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't incite violence. Saying Islam is an evil religion should not warrant a ban from any platform. Unless of course Facebook are enforcing blasphemy laws? Saying that Muslims should be killed, on the other hand, should obviously warrant a ban (I'm not saying Robinson ever said this, by the way.)

Having said all of this, it's quite clear that Robinson is a thuggish lager lout who now has deluded himself into thinking he's some kind of freedom fighter. Also, if anyone has ever seen videos of him getting into fights, he punches like a 12 year old girl.

Seathrun66

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.

A TV show that has also not been aired so posters cannot be aware of the content.

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

It's quite clear there is a coordinated plan to shut down Robinson, and as far as I'm concerned that's outrageous. People should be allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't incite violence. Saying Islam is an evil religion should not warrant a ban from any platform. Unless of course Facebook are enforcing blasphemy laws? Saying that Muslims should be killed, on the other hand, should obviously warrant a ban (I'm not saying Robinson ever said this, by the way.)

Having said all of this, it's quite clear that Robinson is a thuggish lager lout who now has deluded himself into thinking he's some kind of freedom fighter. Also, if anyone has ever seen videos of him getting into fights, he punches like a 12 year old girl.

would you consider any of this inciting violence?

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

Seathrun66

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, not a source. Best to read your own links first.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sirmanga wrote: »

It's quite clear there is a coordinated plan to shut down Robinson, and as far as I'm concerned that's outrageous. People should be allowed to say what they want as long as it doesn't incite violence. Saying Islam is an evil religion should not warrant a ban from any platform. Unless of course Facebook are enforcing blasphemy laws? Saying that Muslims should be killed, on the other hand, should obviously warrant a ban (I'm not saying Robinson ever said this, by the way.)

Facebook is an independent, private company. They have no duty to provide anyone with free speech - you are bound by the terms and conditions you agree to when you create the account. Same with twitter. Same with boards.ie. Same with indymedia and stormfront for that matter.

Also, they could be held liable for anything libelous written on their platforms. There was a serious case involving this very platform and a major events management company not so long ago.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would you consider any of this inciting violence?

All of those examples are an incitement to violence, apart from the calling Muslim filthy scumbags.

lbc2019

malinheader wrote: »

Because we have seen what has happened in the UK and also alot of other European countries. And I for one don't want Ireland following suit.

What happened? Ugly white men blamed their problems on someone else and voted to leave the EU?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

All of those examples are an incitement to violence, apart from the calling Muslim filthy scumbags.

so you dont have an issue with FB banning him then?

sirmanga

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Facebook is an independent, private company. They have no duty to provide anyone with free speech - you are bound by the terms and conditions you agree to when you create the account. Same with twitter. Same with boards.ie. Same with indymedia and stormfront for that matter.

Also, they could be held liable for anything libelous written on their platforms. There was aver serious case involving this very platform and a major events management company not so long ago.

Indeed. But the problem is they don't enforce their rules fairly. Many people will be banned for saying something about e.g. black people and they will be rightly banned. A black person will say something derogatory about whites and they won't be banned. Just a general example, but I've seen things like this.
Also, if they start banning people for saying nasty things about Muslim they'll have to ban people for making fun of Christians. Or at least they should, to be fair.
The point is that Facebook, if they keep up this selective banning, will one day be forced to admit that they are an editorial website rather than a social media platform.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you dont have an issue with FB banning him then?

If he said those things, then no I don't.

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Indeed. But the problem is they don't enforce their rules properly. Many people will bebanned for saying something about e.g. black people and they will be rightly banned. A black person will say something derogatory about whites and they won't be banned.

The point is that Facebook, if they keep up this selective banning, will one day be forced to admit that they are an editorial website rather than a social media platform.

there was nothing selective about their banning of tommy

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was nothing selective about their banning of tommy

Ok, well I mean in general it tends to be right leaning people who get de-platformed. Alex Jones got banned from Twitter and the Twitter CEO admits he doesn't really know why. (By the way, I think Alex Jones is crazy.)

Yet Peter Fonda tweeted out that he thinks Trump's 12 year old son should be locked in a cage a raped and he didn't even get a suspension.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sirmanga wrote: »

Indeed. But the problem is they don't enforce their rules fairly. Many people will be banned for saying something about e.g. black people and they will be rightly banned. A black person will say something derogatory about whites and they won't be banned. Just a general example, but I've seen things like this.
Also, if they start banning people for saying nasty things about Muslim they'll have to ban people for making fun of Christians. Or at least they should, to be fair.
The point is that Facebook, if they keep up this selective banning, will one day be forced to admit that they are an editorial website rather than a social media platform.

I'd need to see specific examples of selective racism bans, to be honest. Also, saying "nasty things" about one religion and then "making fun" of another; - interesting change of phrase there.

Ultimately, they can claim whatever they want to be. They can be a social media platform and practice whatever rules they want. They ban be a social media platform and be inconsistent. Why would this go against the definition of a "social media platform"?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Ok, well I mean in general it tends to be right leaning people who get de-platformed. Alex Jones got banned from Twitter and the Twitter CEO admits he doesn't really know why. (By the way, I think Alex Jones is crazy.)

Yet Peter Fonda tweeted out that he thinks Trump's 12 year old son should be locked in a cage a raped and he didn't even get a suspension.

maybe because they are the ones spreading the hate

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe because they are the ones spreading the hate

Advocating a child be raped because you don't like his father's policy is not spreading the hate? Okay

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Advocating a child be raped because you don't like his father's policy is not spreading the hate? Okay

i have no idea who the peter fonda you referred to is. I have no idea what sanctions twitter against them assuming they did even tweet what they said. How can i comment on something i have no knowledge of?

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe because they are the ones spreading the hate

Also, it's not about spreading the hate. Right wingers are just as entitled to have an opinion on something as left wingers. It just so happens that all of the social media platforms are based in the ultra liberal California. So to think their is no bias is just silly.

Seathrun66

Eircom_Sucks wrote: »

You mean same edl hes no longer part of ? That one ?

Have you even looked into the good he has done ?

Raised thousands for kids and people in need

That where the mortgage fraud cash went?

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Also, it's not about spreading the hate. Right wingers are just as entitled to have an opinion on something as left wingers. It just so happens that all of the social media platforms are based in the ultra liberal California. So to think their is no bias is just silly.

can you point me to somebody who was banned because they happened to have a different opinion?

sirmanga

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd need to see specific examples of selective racism bans, to be honest. Also, saying "nasty things" about one religion and then "making fun" of another; - interesting change of phrase there.

Ok then, if you get banned for bashing Islam then you should get banned for bashing Christianity. Happy?

malinheader

lbc2019 wrote: »

What happened? Ugly white men blamed their problems on someone else and voted to leave the EU?

This tells me you know sweet fa what your supposed to be debating about.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you point me to somebody who was banned because they happened to have a different opinion?

Alex Jones, like I said. They initially said he was banned for spreading conspiracy theories. Then they said they didn't know why he was banned.

But Minister Farrakhan, a black man in the Nation of Islam, is a horrific anti-Semite and said Jews were termites but he has not been banned or suspended. Which is worse, spreading nutty fake stories or being a disgusting anti-Semite?

Anyway, back to Tommy Robinson. (Who I think is a clown, incidentally. )

ohnonotgmail

sirmanga wrote: »

Alex Jones, like I said. They initially said he was banned for spreading conspiracy theories. Then they said they didn't know why he was banned.

But Minister Farrakhan, a black man in the Nation of Islam, is a horrific anti-Semite and said Jews were termites but he has not been banned or suspended. Which is worse, spreading nutty fake stories or being a disgusting anti-Semite?

Anyway, back to Tommy Robinson. (Who I think is a clown, incidentally. )

sure

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sirmanga wrote: »

Ok then, if you get banned for bashing Islam then you should get banned for bashing Christianity. Happy?

Speaking as an athiest, as long as you're not inciting hatred or violence, I don't think you should be banned at all. But if you're going to demand consistency, you should at least recognise consistency with your own posts first.

sirmanga

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sure

Whatever "sure" means. I just said a few posts back that I think he's a thug who has this notion that he's a freedom fighter, a kind of free speech activist. But underneath it all he's a hooligan.

However, he is only being banned because he is gaining a bit too much influence for the left leaning Facebook's liking.

ancapailldorcha

sirmanga wrote: »

However, he is only being banned because he is gaining a bit too much influence for the left leaning Facebook's liking.

Can you prove that Facebook is left leaning?