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

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

And as TR said, that was "well out of order".
Nevertheless its not particularly severe; far worse happens in school yards every day of the year.
But as soon as he discovered the photos related to a different incident, he took them down and apologised for reposting them, which happened within hours.

BTW this does not mean that the photos werent real, just that they did not relate to this particular. Nor does it mean that the serious incidents alleged to have been perpetrated by the asian gangs in the same school did not happen.


What it means is this;

1. Facebuke Tommy Robinson is not a great source of facts.
2. Anyone wanting to be a journalist must be careful to use the phrase "it was reported to me by Joe bloggs..." or "sources say.." before repeating any allegations being made by Joe. Even if the allegations seem to be legit.

FYP

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

And as TR said, that was "well out of order".
Nevertheless its not particularly severe; far worse happens in school yards every day of the year.
If the courts sentence the perp, it won't be because of "what he did". It will be because "who did it to wh"o. And that of course, will only make tensions worse.
But as soon as he discovered the photos related to a different incident, he took them down and apologised for reposting them, which happened within hours.

BTW this does not mean that the photos werent real, just that they did not relate to this particular. Nor does it mean that the serious incidents alleged to have been perpetrated by the asian gangs in the same school did not happen.


What it means is this;

1. Facebuke is not a great source of facts.
2. Anyone wanting to be a journalist must be careful to use the phrase "it was reported to me by Joe bloggs..." or "sources say.." before repeating any allegations being made by Joe. Even if the allegations seem to be legit.

I take it that the only linkage between the Syrian boy and "asian gangs" is the fact they are implied to both be muslim? It has to be said that this kind of thing underlines your (and lennons) bigotry more than anything else.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

I take it that the only linkage between the Syrian boy and "asian gangs" is the fact they are implied to both be muslim? It has to be said that this kind of thing underlines your (and lennons) bigotry more than anything else.

How is it bigoted to ask that question? What do you think yourself, or would you care to comment on it?
As mentioned earlier, it seems a bit odd to me. We can only speculate. Different part of the world, different language. But there you go.

recedite wrote: »

.. if this was one kid attacking another kid purely because the victim was Syrian, then it was "well out of order" as TR said.
But he is also right to ask why 30 burly bearded Pakistani gentlemen protested at the school gates and wouldn't go away until they were allowed to barge in and "have a word" with the school principal. Why have the Syrians come under the protection of these Pakistanis anyway? Its a long way from Syria to Pakistan, Syria is far closer to Europe than it is to the Indian subcontinent. The obvious connection is Islam, of the strict Sunni variety...

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

How is it bigoted to ask that question?

Because its not just one question, its "muslims, muslims, muslims" on and on and on. "but look at what the muslims did" is the classic cry of those with an islamophobic agenda.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I have no idea whether those reports were true or not. If they were, they should get equal or more coverage.

That say's it all really. You have one piece of information that we know to be true which you're comparing against another piece of anecdotal evidence of unknown veracity and you're suggest the latter should be given the same or even greater weight on the basis of your own personal biases. Seriously Rec?

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

Because its not just one question, its "muslims, muslims, muslims" on and on and on. "but look at what the muslims did" is the classic cry of those with an islamophobic agenda.

But you are avoiding it now. What do you think the connection is? This is a discussion, after all.

smacl wrote: »

That say's it all really. You have one piece of information that we know to be true which you're comparing against another piece of anecdotal evidence of unknown veracity and you're suggest the latter should be given the same or even greater weight on the basis of your own personal biases. Seriously Rec?

No. Did you not notice the bit where I said "If they were true".

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He claims to be a journalist. he published photos claiming to be those of a victim from the same school. the photos were taken from a completely different incident in a different town. No attempt to check his sources. He published them without question because they suited his agenda. He doesnt realise that others are not as thick as him and his supporters.

Journalist? Good lord :pac:

Here's the bold Chris-Tommeh winding himself up not once, but twice, about stories published by the excellent news satire site, Southend News Network:

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

Poor little Tommy - isn't life just so unfair!!!

TomSweeney

https://twitter.com/phil_smith197/status/1070044490495352834

This is just fine though .... wonder will this girl get 150k on a gofundme ?

recedite

Fake News is a funny old thing alright.
But whether its a good or a bad thing, well that depends...

robindch wrote: »

stories published by the excellent news satire site..

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

..published lies..

Odhinn wrote: »

"It says what I like so I like it"

smacl wrote: »

.. a bunch of unsupported and entirely anecdotal claims... how do you support that asserted truth?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

anti-fact bollixology.

TomSweeney wrote: »

professional troll..

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Journalist? Good lord :pac:

Here's the bold Chris-Tommeh winding himself up not once, but twice, about stories published by the excellent news satire site, Southend News Network:

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

Poor little Tommy - isn't life just so unfair!!!

Thats what he calls himself. What i call him is not fit to print.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Fake News is a funny old thing alright.
But whether its a good or a bad thing, well that depends...

so you think tommy posting made up stories is possibly a good thing? interesting.

smacl

TomSweeney wrote: »

This is just fine though .... wonder will this girl get 150k on a gofundme ?

Maybe she should, seems to be plenty of anti-Muslim bigots out there with deep pockets. Maybe Tommy could 'divert' a few bob from Pegida given his form. :rolleyes:

Odhinn

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Thats what he calls himself. What i call him is not fit to print.

He's not entirely thick. He didn't hang around for the attempted launch of an irish branch of pegida for instance.

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you think tommy posting made up stories is possibly a good thing? interesting.

You're right, point negated completely, everything he posts is totally made up with zero truth in them.

TomSweeney

Odhinn wrote: »

He's not entirely thick. He didn't hang around for the attempted launch of an irish branch of pegida for instance.

Yeah, I do remember all those 'anti fascist' peaceful tolerant protesters beat up people that dared to have different opinions.


Fair play to them

Odhinn

TomSweeney wrote: »

Yeah, I do remember all those 'anti fascist' peaceful tolerant protesters beat up people that dared to have different opinions.


Fair play to them

Gas though. You would have thought the "master race" would have embraced the simple darwinian clash of "tooth and claw" and emerged the victor.

TomSweeney

Odhinn wrote: »

Gas though. You would have thought the "master race" would have embraced the simple darwinian clash of "tooth and claw" and emerged the victor.

I don't know I wasn't there, but whats this about a "master race" ?

is that what they were claiming ??



Don't think so.

ohnonotgmail

TomSweeney wrote: »

I don't know I wasn't there, but whats this about a "master race" ?

is that what they were claiming ??



Don't think so.

Yeah those white supremacists dont believe in that at all.

robindch

Odhinn wrote: »

You would have thought the "master race" would have embraced the simple darwinian clash of "tooth and claw" and emerged the victor.

Have people who self-describe as white supremacists and/or the alt-right generally used the term "master race"?

I don't immediately recall that they have, though they have recycled a lot of other racist, supremacist and isolationist nonsense.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Have people who self-describe as white supremacists and/or the alt-right generally used the term "master race"?

I don't immediately recall that they have, though they have recycled a lot of other racist, supremacist and isolationist nonsense.

whte supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other races. So even if they do not use the phrase Master Race outright it is implied.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

whte supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to other races. So even if they do not use the phrase Master Race outright it is implied.

Implied, yes, but used - not. I'd avoid using the quotation marks then as that implies that the phrase is being actively used (unless they're scare quotes which should probably have their own separate characters these days ).

recedite

While we are on this race obsessed tangent, did I hear somewhere that throatgrabber kid's half brothers, or stepbrothers or whatever, are black?
I'm not sufficiently interested myself to research it.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

While we are on this race obsessed tangent, did I hear somewhere that throatgrabber kid's half brothers, or stepbrothers or whatever, are black?
I'm not sufficiently interested myself to research it.

Then why raise it?

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Implied, yes, but used - not. I'd avoid using the quotation marks then as that implies that the phrase is being actively used (unless they're scare quotes which should probably have their own separate characters these days ).

Is that an instruction or just what you would do yourself?

CramCycle

First of all, what has this thread got to do with A&A?

recedite wrote: »

The incident involving the Syrian lad being pushed into a puddle got extensive media coverage, leading to a nice payout for him.

He had his throat held and a version of water boarding. Hardly pushed in a puddle.

But when TR reported that parents in the school had contacted him about much more serious injuries inflicted by "Asian gangs" previously in the same school, those reports were dismissed as lies.

Something he has refused to verify or produce any evidence of, almost as if there was no truth to it.

That is to say, the publisher of the report is not necessarily responsible for the veracity of the original claim, they are merely reporting that Joe Bloggs made the claim.

Actually no, he is to blame if acting in a journalistic capacity. The same reason boards pulls down unverified claims because they could be liable if brought to court over it and they made no attempt to take it down.

recedite wrote: »

And as TR said, that was "well out of order".
Nevertheless its not particularly severe; far worse happens in school yards every day of the year.

Where did you go to school, thats pretty traumatic and brutal.

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.

It will be because of what he did, do you really think this was minor?

2. Anyone wanting to be a journalist must be careful to use the phrase "it was reported to me by Joe bloggs..." or "sources say.." before repeating any allegations being made by Joe. Even if the allegations seem to be legit.

no wonder journalism has gone ot hell if this is what people believe. Journalists have a duty of care to fact check and verify claims. It is one of the core tenants of good journalism.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

The same reason boards pulls down unverified claims because they could be liable if brought to court over it and they made no attempt to take it down.

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.

CramCycle wrote: »

Journalists have a duty of care to fact check and verify claims. It is one of the core tenants of good journalism.

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

CramCycle wrote: »

It will be because of what he did, do you really think this was minor?

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).

TomSweeney

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yeah those white supremacists dont believe in that at all.

White supremacists were there aswell ?



It's as retarded as calling all Muslims radical terrorists...

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

First of all, what has this thread got to do with A&A?

My 2c, because it is a discussion on incitement to hatred of a group of people based on their religion and/or encouragement of sectarianism depending on how you look at it. This forum regularly discusses many issues surrounding religion and secularism.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is that an instruction or just what you would do yourself?

Certainly not an instruction - more of a suggestion really as it's not clear in English whether one is using quotation marks to refer to a quotation by a third party or just to separate out some phrase or other. Personally, and if I remember to, I use double-quote marks to indicate quotation and single-quote marks to separate out text though I don't think there's any universal convention on any of that.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

If some anonymous post on boards is defaming a named person in real life, then effectively 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.


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

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).

your knowledge of libel law is shockingly poor. Nearly as poor as tommys knowledge of journalism.