Tommy Robinson jailed

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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.

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).

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?