nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tommy Robinson jailed

[Deleted User]

Apparently according to Lauren Southern, Tommy has been sentenced to 13 months but there is a UK wide embargo on reporting.

Anyone else got any info?

Edit. Not too sure about the authenticity of the embargo. I'm assuming that it's for this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html?amp

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cienciano

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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?

He deleted the tweet and issued an apology. Has Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson done the same?

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Think through your argument.

Twitter is absolutely full of tweets which say white people should be killed, men are scum, heterosexuals are scum, etc.

There were loads of people asking for the Covington High School kids to be doxxed or killed.

These are leftist opinions (intersectionality).

These accounts don't get banned.

Have you links to these accounts or tweets? Have you reported any?

ohnonotgmail

rgossip30 wrote: »

I don't see any direct quotes just generalisations , incitement to hate and those he associates with..

They all relate to specific posts of tommys. Or do you think that FB just made them up? Do you think that he did not post the things that FB mentioned?

[Deleted User]

mcmoustache wrote: »

Of course. Victims of the alt-right grift feel compelled to support the various supplement salesmen and basement youtubers online whenever they appear in a thread.

The only problem is that despite the compulsion to defend, they often lack the expertise to form a coherent argument in favour of their favourite youtube personality.

This leaves them with very little room to manoeuvre so what you get are slogans such as "Tommy is a Legend", "Tommy's not afraid", "Tommy won't be censored", "Tommy's being censored" etc and of course, the inevitable video of a youtuber.

This argument by youtube is really popular among Jordan Peterson fans but other youtube grifters perform the same trick - they make the viewer feel clever without having educated them in any meaningful way. As a consequence, the fans of these videos often have no option but to insist that you watch a video - if they could form a coherent opinion, they would.

The problem is that they can't and they know this. To address these shortcomings, they offer up a video knowing that they watched it and it made them feel clever. If you would only watch this three-hour video Jordan Peterson shoving a dildo up his ass, you too would be convinced that he's a genius and all the other alt-right shíte and, as a bonus, you too could feel clever.

Again, they won't summarise the video because the grift is all about making the viewer feel clever while saying nothing of substance. If there was anything of substance in the video, it could be summarised and the important points could be written in such a way that didn't look stupid when put in the form of text. But there isn't.

And that's why we now have the lads who hover around threads on race like flies to shíte putting up videos of their favourite supplement salesman or basement video producer.

Listening to other peoples opinions about events and putting them there for people to view themselves is hardly a crime.

I would prefer to watch a video that people with opposing views found enlightening or interesting and make up my own opinion.

I presume (and I could be wrong) that if people summarised a video for you, you would pick arguments out of context due to the fact that a)you haven't seen the video and b) have demonstrated that you have no intention on being open minded that you could be proven wrong.

I know that I base my opinions after hearing as much information as possible. If you don't want to watch a video, don't. But to slate people for providing them to people who do want to watch them is a little silly.

I get that people hate Tommy Robinson. Some people don't. They both aren't necessarily wrong.

rgossip30

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you're going to ignore the examples of hate speech and incitement to violence that FB quoted when they banned him?

I don't see any direct quotes just generalisations , incitement to hate and those he associates with..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason they are considered oppressed (by leftists) is because they want equity.

That means there is an equal amount of everyone in a position.

So if there are 100 CEOS, it should be broken down as follows:

50% are male, 50% are female

Each 50% is broken up as follows:

x% white, x% black, x% brown, etc., based on demographic data.

Because these people aren't able to think properly, they haven't thought it through.

What % should be heterosexual and gay?

What % should be tall and short?

What % should be fat and slim?

What % should be bald and non-bald?

Etc.

It goes on forever.

No, they would want everyone to have an 50-50 chance of attaining these positions. BIG difference.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Leftist usually means extreme left.

It doesn't mean normal folk.

Oh. Right. In the same way right usually means Nazi, correct?

The problem is these extremists are getting into positions of power.

The problems you have are that you:
1 - have absolutely NO clue what left means
2 - are completely unable to determine the difference between "moderate" and "exteme" when it comes to political stances.
3 - do not know the difference between equity and equality.
4 - appear to think that identity politics incorporates an entire political position.

Here's one for you: identity politics have never attempted genocide or started a world war.

mcmoustache

RWCNT wrote: »

Why are we supposed to care what Carl of Swindon thinks?

Of course. Victims of the alt-right grift feel compelled to support the various supplement salesmen and basement youtubers online whenever they appear in a thread.

The only problem is that despite the compulsion to defend, they often lack the expertise to form a coherent argument in favour of their favourite youtube personality.

This leaves them with very little room to manoeuvre so what you get are slogans such as "Tommy is a Legend", "Tommy's not afraid", "Tommy won't be censored", "Tommy's being censored" etc and of course, the inevitable video of a youtuber.

This argument by youtube is really popular among Jordan Peterson fans but other youtube grifters perform the same trick - they make the viewer feel clever without having educated them in any meaningful way. As a consequence, the fans of these videos often have no option but to insist that you watch a video - if they could form a coherent opinion, they would.

The problem is that they can't and they know this. To address these shortcomings, they offer up a video knowing that they watched it and it made them feel clever. If you would only watch this three-hour video Jordan Peterson shoving a dildo up his ass, you too would be convinced that he's a genius and all the other alt-right shíte and, as a bonus, you too could feel clever.

Again, they won't summarise the video because the grift is all about making the viewer feel clever while saying nothing of substance. If there was anything of substance in the video, it could be summarised and the important points could be written in such a way that didn't look stupid when put in the form of text. But there isn't.

And that's why we now have the lads who hover around threads on race like flies to shíte putting up videos of their favourite supplement salesman or basement video producer.

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

Leftist doesn't mean extreme left, "Extreme leftist" would cover that, and what is considered "extreme" will vary in definition depending on context.

The left, including the extreme left, is not a monolith. There are many squabbles and disagreements. Your understanding of equity is fine but there's far more to the oppression/privilege argument than that. What kind of sources do you use to get your understanding of these topics?

It seems like you've taken on a lot of the talking points of the right wing/"centrist" youtube talky men that you often get posters on here posting up rather than bothering to articulate their own opinions (shoutout to Snake, DS & the army of posters that spammed AH with that Stefan Molyneux Ireland 2030 video). These kind of commentators generally tend to oversimplify things and construct an idea of "leftists" to suit their current argument.

I hope that doesn't come off as patronising, I disagree with much of what you've put forward in this thread but you seem to demonstrate a desire to understand different points of view, fair play.

I am fine to accept leftist doesn't necessarily mean extreme left, but colloquially it commonly does. In my experience anyway.

A lot of my knowledge comes from the amazingly painful debates I have with a group of friends of mine who studied gender studies. I really cannot emphasise how painful it is. Their arguments are at least 80% emotion. So I've spent a lot of time googling things, thinking things through, etc. We're now at a stage where they criticise me for always using data.

I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux. He's certainly intelligent, but I've always sensed a dishonesty from him. He makes it doubly worse by frequently claiming he's impartial. He's definitely not impartial. He's biased like everyone else. He does make some good points though.

RWCNT

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Leftist usually means extreme left.

It doesn't mean normal folk.

The problem is these extremists are getting into positions of power.

Surely you've heard the term "equity" banded about? It doesn't mean equality. It means exactly what I explained above.

Leftist doesn't mean extreme left, "Extreme leftist" would cover that, and what is considered "extreme" will vary in definition depending on context.

The left, including the extreme left, is not a monolith. There are many squabbles and disagreements. Your understanding of equity is fine but there's far more to the oppression/privilege argument than that. What kind of sources do you use to get your understanding of these topics?

It seems like you've taken on a lot of the talking points of the right wing/"centrist" youtube talky men that you often get posters on here posting up rather than bothering to articulate their own opinions (shoutout to Snake, DS & the army of posters that spammed AH with that Stefan Molyneux Ireland 2030 video). These kind of commentators generally tend to oversimplify things and construct an idea of "leftists" to suit their current argument.

I hope that doesn't come off as patronising, I disagree with much of what you've put forward in this thread but you seem to demonstrate a desire to understand different points of view, fair play.

OMM 0000

lbc2019 wrote: »

Who are the extreme leftist in power?

They have a lot of power in universities, HR departments, and they're creeping into politics.

The keyword you need to fear is "equity".

ohnonotgmail

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Sargon gives his view on the situation and why it's a disgrace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0

so you're going to ignore the examples of hate speech and incitement to violence that FB quoted when they banned him?

lbc2019

Who are the extreme leftist in power?

OMM 0000

RWCNT wrote: »

I must have been in the jax when we voted on that at the annual leftists conference.

Leftist usually means extreme left.

It doesn't mean normal folk.

The problem is these extremists are getting into positions of power.

Surely you've heard the term "equity" banded about? It doesn't mean equality. It means exactly what I explained above.

RWCNT

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The reason they are considered oppressed (by leftists) is because they want equity.

That means there is an equal amount of everyone in a position.

So if there are 100 CEOS, it should be broken down as follows:

50% are male, 50% are female

Each 50% is broken up as follows:

x% white, x% black, x% brown, etc., based on demographic data.

Because these people aren't able to think properly, they haven't thought it through.

What % should be heterosexual and gay?

What % should be tall and short?

What % should be fat and slim?

What % should be bald and non-bald?

Etc.

It goes on forever.

I must have been in the jax when we voted on that at the annual leftists conference.

OMM 0000

The reason they are considered oppressed (by leftists) is because they want equity.

That means there is an equal amount of everyone in a position.

So if there are 100 CEOS, it should be broken down as follows:

50% are male, 50% are female

Each 50% is broken up as follows:

x% white, x% black, x% brown, etc., based on demographic data.

Because these people aren't able to think properly, they haven't thought it through.

What % should be heterosexual and gay?

What % should be tall and short?

What % should be fat and slim?

What % should be bald and non-bald?

Etc.

It goes on forever.

OMM 0000

Trump Is Right wrote: »

@OMM 0000

Those stats don't really give you an accurate picture of who is in control in a country like the USA... just because more Indian American families have slightly higher per household income, than say British Americans... this does not mean that there are lots of influential Indians in powerful positions within American society!

The top end wealthiest people and families in the USA, are overwhelmingly white. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that... just pointing it out)

Extreme wealth is where the real power is in the USA... this is a very small club, and the vast majority are white and male! But that won't necessarily show up in certain statistics, depending on which ones you decide to use...

It is true the highest power is generally with white families, but the data clearly shows non-white people are doing quite well in the US.

There are similar results for women.

This idea of "oppression" in the US (or Ireland) is absurd.

Does oppression or racism or bigotry exist every now and then? Yes. But everyone is the target.

Trump Is Right

@OMM 0000

Those stats don't really give you an accurate picture of who is in control in a country like the USA... just because more Indian American families have slightly higher per household income, than say British Americans... this does not mean that there are lots of influential Indians in powerful positions within American society!

The top end wealthiest people and families in the USA, are overwhelmingly white. (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that... just pointing it out)

Extreme wealth is where the real power is in the USA... this is a very small club, and the vast majority are white and male! But that won't necessarily show up in certain statistics, depending on which ones you decide to use...

batgoat

Trump Is Right wrote: »

The left are totally and spectacularly shooting themselves in the foot by banning certain political or social commentators/activists from social media sites.... all it does it highlight how biased and unethical they are, when faced with opposing viewpoints to their own!

Ultimately this will only speed up the development of more social media platforms that cater for greater variety and greater equity. Most people want to hear all sides of the argument... even things they might find mildly offensive or highly disagreeable. Because it all helps to better form your own viewpoints on subjects... censorship never wins in the long run. It's only a stop-gap measure. Like the boy that picks up his ball and storms off the pitch... there will be other balls and other pitches! The game always supersedes the players!

Like Gab which failed miserably with exception of hosting a spree killer.

Trump Is Right

The left are totally and spectacularly shooting themselves in the foot by banning certain political or social commentators/activists from social media sites.... all it does it highlight how biased and unethical they are, when faced with opposing viewpoints to their own!

Ultimately this will only speed up the development of more social media platforms that cater for greater variety and greater equity. Most people want to hear all sides of the argument... even things they might find mildly offensive or highly disagreeable. Because it all helps to better form your own viewpoints on subjects... censorship never wins in the long run. It's only a stop-gap measure. Like the boy that picks up his ball and storms off the pitch... there will be other balls and other pitches! The game always supersedes the players!

OMM 0000

For the record, I'm not in any way anti-muslim. But I am anti-extremist. It's divisive and dishonest.

OMM 0000

Just to add a bit more data, muslims are above average in the US when it comes to income:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/

The intersectionality hierarchy is not based on data, but rather on feelings.

Surprise surprise.

OMM 0000

List of ethnic groups in the United States by household income

Indian American (2016) : $122,026 [2]
Taiwanese American (2016) : $101,450 [3]
Chinese American (2016) : $90,221 [3]
Jewish American (2016) : $88,745 [2]
Korean American (2016) : $79,872[3]
Singaporean American (2016) : $78,127[3]
British American (2016): $77,841[3]
Japanese American (2016): $77,636[3]
Bulgarian American (2016): $76,861[3]
Lithuanian American (2016) : $76,694[3]
Israeli American (2016) : $76,584 [3]
Slovene American (2016) : $75,940[3]
Lebanese American (2016): $75,337[3]
Croatian American (2016): $73,991[3]
Sri Lankan American: $73,856[3]
Scandinavian American (2016): $73,797[3]
Belgian American (2016) : $73,443[3]
Malaysian American (2016): $72,827[2]
(excluding Taiwanese American)
Swiss American (2016) : $72,823[3]
Iranian American (2016) : $72,733[3]
Italian American (2016) : $72,586[3]
Ukrainian American (2016): $72,449 [3]
Romanian American (2016): $72,381[3]
Greek American (2016): $72,291[3]
Scottish American (2016): $71,925[3]
Danish American (2016) : $71,550[3]
Swedish American (2016): $71,217 [3]
Polish American (2016): $71,172[3]
Slavic American (2016) : $71,163[3]
Norwegian American (2016): $71,142[3]
Canadian American (2016) : $70,809[3]
Welsh American (2016): $70,351[3]
Czech American (2016) : $70,454[3]
Czechslovakian American (2016) : $70,084[3]
Finnish American (2016) : $70,045[3]
Serbian American (2016) : $70,028[3]
Hungarian American (2016): $69,515[3]
French Canadian American (2016) : $68,075[3]
Portuguese American (2016): $67,807[3]
English American (2016) : $67,663[3]
Slovak American (2016) : $67,471[3]
Armenian American (2016): $67,450[3]
German American (2016): $67,306[3]
Filipino American : $66,737[2]
Irish American (2016) : $66,688[3]
Ghanaian American (2016): $66,571[3]
Turkish American (2016) : $66,566[3]
Palestinian American (2016): $65,170[3]
Egyptian American (2016) : $64,728[3]
Vietnamese American : $64,191[4]
Scotch-Irish American (2016) : $64,187[3]
Yugoslavian American (2016) : $63,765[3]
Dutch American (2016) : $63,597[3]
French American (2016) : $63,471[3]
Syrian American (2016): $63,096[3]
Nepali American : $62,848[5][6]
Albanian American (2016) : $62,624[3]
Indonesian American : $61,943[5]
Guyanese American (2016) : $60,968[3]
Nigerian American (2016): $60,732[3]
British West Indian American (2016): $60,407[3]
Vietnamese American : $58,700[7]
(Foreign Born)
Cuban American : $57,000[8]
West Indian American : $56,998[3]
Brazilian American (2016): $56,151[3]
Barbadian American : $56,078[3]
Argentine American: $55,000[9]
Laotian American : $53,655[5]
Thai American : $53,468[5]
Cambodian American : $53,359[5]
Cajun American : $52,886[3]
Jamaican American (2016): $52,669[3]
Trinidadian and Tobagonian American : $55,303[3]
Moroccan American (2016) : $52,436[3]
Peruvian Americans : $52,000[3]
American (2016): $51,601[3]
Jordanian American (2016): $51,552[3]
Pennsylvania German American (2016): $48,955[3]
Ecuadorian American : $49,000[3]
Colombian American : $48,000[9]
Haitian American (2016): $47,990[3]
Cape Verdean American (2016) : $47,281[3]
Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac American (2016): $44,733[3]
Pakistani American : $44,677[5]
Bangladeshi American : $44,512[5]
Afghan American : $43,838[3]
Arab American (2016): $42,204[3]
Bahamian American : $42,000[3]
Ethiopian American (2016) : $41,357[3]
Puerto Rican American : $40,000[9]
Mexican American : $38,000[9]
Burmese American : $35,016[5]
Iraqi American (2016) : $32,818[3]
Dominican American : $32,300[9]
Somali American (2016): $24,185[3]

OMM 0000

rgossip30 wrote: »

The presception being that the left are on the side of humanity they are just as capeable of being an ugly angry mob.

They are as extreme as the right.

The problem really is intersectionality.

There is a hierarchy of victims.

Generally speaking:

The left hate white heterosexual males.

The right dislike muslims.

Using the hierarchy of victims, white heterosexual males are in the oppressor category, and muslims are in the victim category.

Obviously this is stupid, and anyone who is able to think things through can see it makes no sense (e.g. white males on a whole are one of the least successful groups in the US), but intersectionality is like a religion, so no amount of logic will change its followers minds.

Because the tech companies have signed up to this intersectionality belief system, it means hate towards white heterosexual males is fine, whereas hate towards muslims results in a ban.

They are private companies, so they can do what they want. I would prefer they were fair. Either ban anyone who speaks hate, or ban no one.

rgossip30

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Think through your argument.

Twitter is absolutely full of tweets which say white people should be killed, men are scum, heterosexuals are scum, etc.

There were loads of people asking for the Covington High School kids to be doxxed or killed.

These are leftist opinions (intersectionality).

These accounts don't get banned.

The presception being that the left are on the side of humanity they are just as capeable of being an ugly angry mob.

OMM 0000

Cienciano wrote: »

You seriously think it's strange that the groups that practice all the hate speech are the ones who are banned?

Think through your argument.

Twitter is absolutely full of tweets which say white people should be killed, men are scum, heterosexuals are scum, etc.

There were loads of people asking for the Covington High School kids to be doxxed or killed.

These are leftist opinions (intersectionality).

These accounts don't get banned.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RWCNT wrote: »

Why are we supposed to care what Carl of Swindon thinks?

Well, they're already caring what Tommy from Luton thinks, so...

RWCNT

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Sargon gives his view on the situation and why it's a disgrace
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0

Why are we supposed to care what Carl of Swindon thinks?

donkeykong5

Moghead wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Support for Tommy Robinson all over the internet is amazing. Delighted. Real man standing up for real people.

If he's a real man why doesn't he use his real name?

He does when hes in prison for sweet fA.!

Snake Plisken

Sargon gives his view on the situation and why it's a disgrace

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVngunV-wi0

AllForIt

Would anyone have quotes from his alleged 'calls for violence targeted at Muslims' ?

Moghead wrote: »

If he's a real man why doesn't he use his real name?

This is just silly. Everyone knows who he is so what difference does his name make?

sirmanga

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Support for Tommy Robinson all over the internet is amazing. Delighted. Real man standing up for real people.

I wouldn't call him a real man at all. He actively goes looking for trouble in his YouTube videos. If you've ever seen them, whenever he gets set upon by pissed off Muslims (usually in Luton) he throws these wild, girly punches and then afterwards talks to the camera about how he's a fighter. Some kinda hard nut. Oh please.