Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tommy Robinson, the court case and (guffaw) 'free speech'

My youngest whose 13 is very into conspiracy theories, the fringes of reasonable politics including the alt-right, Jordan Peterson type people, the world of organised crime and famous villains and con artists, and the out there bits of religions. Some of the shit he comes out with is proper bonkers and he’ll try and argue black is white just for the kicks. I try to get him to think critically about stuff, but sometimes I just laugh.

Sounds like a bit of a scattergun approach. The alt-right does seem to have a certain appeal for teenage boys.
 
Sounds like a bit of a scattergun approach. The alt-right does seem to have a certain appeal for teenage boys.
It’s just exploring ideas tbh, going from one video to another. If he was only doing that with the alt-right stuff it’d be more concerning, but it’s as likely to be anything that catches his interest.
 
No, because you normalise his racist narrative. They are literally trying to look like humans and you help this racist by reacting in this way.
Jesus fucking Christ he’s 13 years old, he’s not a racist. He’s just exploring the internet like every other kid his age. You think kids don’t watch alt-right and david ike and Jordan Peterson etc? Of course they do. He’s not a racist though, your dead wrong about that.
 
Jesus fucking Christ he’s 13 years old, he’s not a racist. He’s just exploring the internet like every other kid his age. You think kids don’t watch alt-right and david ike and Jordan Peterson etc? Of course they do. He’s not a racist though, your dead wrong about that.

You saying that this Rsf twat is your 13 year old son?

Maybe you should consider blocking his internet access for a while and having a chat with him...
 
You saying that this Rsf twat is your 13 year old son?

Maybe you should consider blocking his internet access for a while and having a chat with him...
Wtf of course I’m not saying that. As if rsf is a 13yo they are clearly an adult. This is getting both confusing and a bit nasty so I’m out of this debate.
 
Crossed wires, butchers quoted one post by mistake then changed it. Regardless I think I’m better just reading.
 
Soft thatcher voice.

Even if that were true, would that really mean that everything I said could just be disregarded without consideration and that anyone considering something I said could be called stupid or worse? That would be closed minded bigotry in my book...
 
Do you think there should be consequences for what people say? What do you think you "can't say"?

In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:

You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.

You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.

You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).

The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.

This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.

And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.
 
Even if that were true, would that really mean that everything I said could just be disregarded without consideration and that anyone considering something I said could be called stupid or worse? That would be closed minded bigotry in my book...


That view about gangs you posted few page ago and said people should read the link and support a group that was linked.

Who were they again?
 
In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:

You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.

You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.

You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).

The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.

This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.

And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.

What's you take on the right to screw up the outcome of an ongoing court proceedings?
 
In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:

You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.

You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.

You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).

The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.

This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.

And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.
So what is being said outside of these parameters that is unfairly treated and being stopped from saying what they want to say?
 
In my opinion what you shouldn’t be allowed to say is as follows:

You should not be allowed to make a creditable threat to do something that is illegal. As, if the treat is credible, you are expressing the intention of committing a crime.

You should not be allowed to incite/encourage anyone to commit a crime on your behalf.

You should not be allowed to cause fear or alarm without reason (I.e shouting fire in a crowded theatre, unless there is a fire).

The only other restriction on free speech that I agree with is our liable laws.

This is what I believe the law should be, not what the law is. I believe free speech should be legalised in the UK.

And to return to my point, social consequences and legal consequences are not the same thing. If speech has legal consequences then, by definition, your are not “free” to do it.

You think the contempt of court laws that Tommy broke are just a waste of time, then?
 
Just a little bit more on some of the strange alliances around the TR campaign

There's a rally today opposite New Scotland Yard organised by a number of Justice Campaigns :

The main campaign is Fighting for Justice which is the three boys who were tragically killed by a driver who the campaign alleges was a terrorist attack. For what ever reason the campaign has allied its self and been influenced by the alt right. Key activist is a pro Trump, anti Islam gobshite called James Goddard who uses a couple of White Pendragon people as 'common law' advisers.

The speakers list for the rally includes: Justice4 Ambrose whose twitter acount retweets allegations that Thomas Mair didn't murder Jo Cox,Tim Scott who was leader of Perdiga for 2 days and who actually fought against ISIS, a Speaker from the White Pendragons ,Danny Tommo another TR activist, Justice4Jack a campaign for an investigation into the death of a convicted drug smuggler in a prison in Indonesia,Amy 'Bacon lady ' an anti Islam activist who used to go on Britain First marches and attends speakers corner, Eddie Isok another Speakers Corner activist.

There's been a very recent falling out which led to Luke Nash Jones ,( a UKIP activist who runs Make Britain Great Again including merchandising and who was one of the contributors to the Free TR event) , pulling out from speaking. The video's worth a watch if only for his realisation how poisonous and volatile this section of politics is and the somewhat bizarre ending


There is a mixture of very hurt damaged people mourning the loss of loved ones convinced that there has been a cover up or that the Police and state has failed them and far right/alt right political activists who believe that the state is corrupt and is covering things up . The further there are no answers to their desperate questions the more they get drawn into conspiracy theory.
 
so the Main rally has been arranged because 3 boys were run over by a drunk/stoned driver and they are trying to say it was a terrorist attack

the driver was Hindu btw



:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
 
Just a little bit more on some of the strange alliances around the TR campaign

There's a rally today opposite New Scotland Yard organised by a number of Justice Campaigns :

The main campaign is Fighting for Justice which is the three boys who were tragically killed by a driver who the campaign alleges was a terrorist attack. For what ever reason the campaign has allied its self and been influenced by the alt right. Key activist is a pro Trump, anti Islam gobshite called James Goddard who uses a couple of White Pendragon people as 'common law' advisers.

The speakers list for the rally includes: Justice4 Ambrose whose twitter acount retweets allegations that Thomas Mair didn't murder Jo Cox,Tim Scott who was leader of Perdiga for 2 days and who actually fought against ISIS, a Speaker from the White Pendragons ,Danny Tommo another TR activist, Justice4Jack a campaign for an investigation into the death of a convicted drug smuggler in a prison in Indonesia,Amy 'Bacon lady ' an anti Islam activist who used to go on Britain First marches and attends speakers corner, Eddie Isok another Speakers Corner activist.

There's been a very recent falling out which led to Luke Nash Jones ,( a UKIP activist who runs Make Britain Great Again including merchandising and who was one of the contributors to the Free TR event) , pulling out from speaking. The video's worth a watch if only for his realisation how poisonous and volatile this section of politics is and the somewhat bizarre ending


There is a mixture of very hurt damaged people mourning the loss of loved ones convinced that there has been a cover up or that the Police and state has failed them and far right/alt right political activists who believe that the state is corrupt and is covering things up . The further there are no answers to their desperate questions the more they get drawn into conspiracy theory.

I've been recently reading 'Strange Days Indeed,' Francis Wheen's book about the 1970s. I was only 16 when the seventies ended, but I can say with confidence that the decade was definitely no stranger than the one we're living in now.
 
I've been recently reading 'Strange Days Indeed,' Francis Wheen's book about the 1970s. I was only 16 when the seventies ended, but I can say with confidence that the decade was definitely no stranger than the one we're living in now.
I'll have to read that.
 
Just a little bit more on some of the strange alliances around the TR campaign

Thanks very much for posting that. The Luke Nash Jones video is exactly the sort of thing I had feared, the real far right mingling with a wider nationalist/patriotic movement. Obviously as a member of UKIP Luke has to be careful with the company he keeps as he would be slung out of UKIP for sharing a stage with actual racists. But I think many people are just ignoring these warnings about actual BNP type racists now because they have heard so many people unjustly smeared as racist in the past that they no longer believe any of it. I read that the violent and fascist far left had been smearing and threatening Sarah Champion now to the point where she needs police protection from these thugs.

I believe Tommy’s appeal has been heard by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and two of his associates so perhaps he will be released from prison soon? Any predictions how that will go? My own is that he is guilty of contempt but tommy is treated by the criminal justice system far harsher than anyone else (nobody else gets locked up for lending a family member money for a deposit) and a very senior judge will say he was treated unfairly harshly and free him.

I have no idea if there is any merit at all in these claims that death by dangerous driving was actually a terrorist attack but when so many people in power have covered up grooming gangs just the past and are still clearly trying to silence those like Sarah Champion speaking about them its no wonder trust has broken down so badly. David Kurten was speaking to RT about it recently. I agree with pretty much everything he said:


One of the large YouTubers that joined UKIP (Sargon of Akkad) published a video this weekend called ‘Western Sharia Police’ that has had over 200,000 views already with a like to dislike ratio of over 100 to 1.


It seems to me that lots of people no longer trust the U.K. police to apply the same law equally to everyone with total unbiased impartiality. In these conditions many people will suspect conspiracy even if there is no evidence of one. I think political correctness, censorship and the criminalisation of speech is a large part of how we got here. It’s a truly depressing state of affairs. I also believe we are about 9 years into a forth turning cycle of history when trust in institutions is at its lowest.
 
so the Main rally has been arranged because 3 boys were run over by a drunk/stoned driver and they are trying to say it was a terrorist attack

the driver was Hindu btw



:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
Do you have a link about the driver being a Hindu? That seems too crazy to believe, even for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom