Rivers of Blood, and censorship.

[Colinjb]

Not sure how many people will have seen, but there has been someoutcry over the BBC's decision to broadcast Ian McDiarmid's reading the infamous'Rivers of Blood' speech originally given by Enoch Powell in the 60's.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43745447

I have been having a quite interesting debate with another forum member over the questions itraises over free speech. Whether controversial items like this should becensored. On what grounds should they be censored, etc

 

My perspective is that censoring ideas like this is not right, only risks driving repellent ideas underground and will prove to be detrimental to society as it lacks that chance to learn from such material.

 

The alternative view was that without having the right level of educational standing or intellectual capability these ideas will only prove dangerous and will be misused.

 

While I have strength in my conviction, I can understand the opposing view. It's not an easy topic.... Which is why it should be discussed.

 

Has the BBC gone too far? Should these ideas be kept out of the mainstream ordo they need to be kept in the open to be debunked?

[Lastman73]

As we are supposed to live in a country of free speech I don’t see why it should be censored. People are then free to agree or disagree, always someone will be offended but that’s normal. You can’t please all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

Grownups allow all ideas airtime so that the racist or poor ones can be refuted by better arguments. Far far better to give commonly held views an airing and watch them lose their attraction to many. Nick Griffin for example was allowed to share his views on Question Time and overnight his parties popularity crumbled. Many so called adults have now been infantalised by some aspects of modern culture and so believe that ideas they disagree with should be censored. The rivers of blood speech should absolutely be heard and then discussed, analysed and challenged. Its bizarre to think that it would encourage racism by being broadcast, particularly because I could find it with a thirty second Google search and also because there are ideas just as insidious and likely to incite division and hatred being given mainstream airtime today- the ideas of intersectionality, white privelege and identity politics for example.

Edited 13 April, 2018 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

As we are supposed to live in a country of free speech I don’t see why it should be censored. People are then free to agree or disagree, always someone will be offended but that’s normal. You can’t please all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We don't live in a country of free speech. See Count Dankula being sentenced later this month for proof of that.

[ecuk268]

It's not being broadcast in isolation. There will be analysis and I'm sure, criticism.

 

It was a significant event so it's right that those who weren't around at the time get the chance to hear it and judge for themselves.

[shurlock]

Grownups allow all ideas airtime so that the racist or poor ones can be refuted by better arguments. Far far better to give commonly held views an airing and watch them lose their attraction to many. Nick Griffin for example was allowed to share his views on Question Time and overnight his parties popularity crumbled. Many so called adults have now been infantalised by some aspects of modern culture and so believe that ideas they disagree with should be censored. The rivers of blood speech should absolutely be heard and then discussed, analysed and challenged. Its bizarre to think that it would encourage racism by being broadcast, particularly because I could find it with a thirty second Google search and also because there are ideas just as insidious and likely to incite division and hatred being given mainstream airtime today- the ideas of intersectionality, white privelege and identity politics for example.

 

Exactly just like Sam Harris getting absolutely destroyed by Ezra Klein. Arguments should be aired and heard.

[Turkish]

Grownups allow all ideas airtime so that the racist or poor ones can be refuted by better arguments. Far far better to give commonly held views an airing and watch them lose their attraction to many. Nick Griffin for example was allowed to share his views on Question Time and overnight his parties popularity crumbled. Many so called adults have now been infantalised by some aspects of modern culture and so believe that ideas they disagree with should be censored. The rivers of blood speech should absolutely be heard and then discussed, analysed and challenged. Its bizarre to think that it would encourage racism by being broadcast, particularly because I could find it with a thirty second Google search and also because there are ideas just as insidious and likely to incite division and hatred being given mainstream airtime today- the ideas of intersectionality, white privelege and identity politics for example.

 

The example of Nick Griffin isn't a particularly good one. He may be a complete tool but the panel and the audience that night was so rigged and bias he never stood a chance. Every time he opened his gob someone was shouting him down not letting him get his point across. It's one thing to debate between a handful of people with different views but when it's an entire audience and panel there with the sole reason to make him look stupid then not really a great example of freedom of speech. Just to clear before I get the likes of Verbal accusing me of being a racist BNP supporter, Griffin doesn't exactly need help to make himself look stupid.

 

As for the rivers of blood speech, of course in a democratic society it should be discussed, the problem is that as usual it'll have the lefties up in arms shouting it down, accusing anyone who makes a valid point of being racist and not actually discussing it. People are happy for freedom of speech and debate as long as it's only something they agree with.

[hypochondriac]

Turkish I do agree regarding nick Griffin and I was going to make that point that he didn't really get a fair crack of the whip- it was more Jeremy Kyle than question time- nevertheless it's true that once his views gained more exposure his parties popularity waned.

[hypochondriac]

Exactly just like Sam Harris getting absolutely destroyed by Ezra Klein. Arguments should be aired and heard.

Not sure I agree with you there- the whole debate was lame- but at least that was a good example of potentially controversial ideas being given a good airing and allowing people to make their own minds up. I'm not a massive fan of Harris anyway.

[Sheaf Saint]

It's not being broadcast in isolation. There will be analysis and I'm sure, criticism.

 

It was a significant event so it's right that those who weren't around at the time get the chance to hear it and judge for themselves.

 

Yeah this is the nub of it for me too. It's obviously controversial but, as with everything, context is the key here.

 

Even taking into account my misgivings about the BBC's impartiality these days, there is no way this is being presented as just propaganda. There will obviously be some kind of critique of it as well.

 

I have to say though, given the connotations of it and the xenophobic message the speech carried, perhaps it might have been a good idea for the Beeb to get someone other than the bloke who played Emperor Palpatine to read it

[hypochondriac]

What's interesting about the rivers of blood speech is that it complains about an influx of immigration that is many times slower than the current levels. It's curious that such low levels caused such alarm fifty years ago- it obviously wasn't just Powell fretting about immigration- yet massively higher levels today barely cause a ripple amongst politicians or those at the top.

 

Certainly the speech has some ideas worth discussing- though the tone and how it comes across is undoubtedly racialist in nature and was more about venting against foreigners than actually trying to solve any problems. Unfortunately it started the polarisation of the issue of immigration to the point that you can't now have sensible discussions about control without being called racist of a nazi so in that sense it was incredibly damaging.

Edited 13 April, 2018 by hypochondriac

[Batman]

Considering leading lefties in the media what the BBC censored, no chance this will be aired without those on that side of the political spectrum losing their shyt

[benjii]

Have people actually read the speech? It's hardly pushing the boundaries by today's standards. There is much more offensive guff uttered by politicians all the time.

[hypochondriac]

Have people actually read the speech? It's hardly pushing the boundaries by today's standards. There is much more offensive guff uttered by politicians all the time.

I think the clear implication of the speech was that it was against black people- or from what I've read that's how people viewed it at the time.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Have people actually read the speech? It's hardly pushing the boundaries by today's standards. There is much more offensive guff uttered by politicians all the time.

 

The establishment dumped on Powell an incredibly clever man, who is now portrayed as a racist moron. He made a speech warning of the dangers of coloured immigration, but the Wilson government actually legislated against coloured East Africans coming in and revoked their rights to settle in the UK during the same era. They let white farmers in but not the coloured ones, despite them holding British passports. The Home Secretary at the time Skate Callaghan allegedly stated that “Powell's antics were a valuable distraction” from the decision he made to abandon these coloured people to their fate. The whole era was a racial powder keg and no sane person would want to go back to that bleak period. But racism was rife throughout society, Powell was a great scapegoat at the time and his speech also enabled the great and the good to close down debate on the subject for a generation.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[View From The Top]

We don't live in a country of free speech. See Count Dankula being sentenced later this month for proof of that.

 

I have little sympathy with him on the grounds he's an alt-right c**t who thinks getting a dog to act on the command "gas the Jews" is some sort of humour.

[View From The Top]

Personally I have no issue with the speech being broadcast and critiqued as it's an important milestone in British 20th century history.

 

Powell, as has been stated, was a very bright chap but even Churchill thought him crackers for wanting put in the tory election manifesto, a commitment to re-colonise India by force.

 

The speech also needs to be viewed from the perspective of the time. When it was given there was still the Black & White Minstrels on the TV, using terms such as ******, coon and darkie were commonplace in all forms of the media and the right wing press were stoking up hysteria.

 

Even my staunch socialist maternal grandparents didn't want "darkies" moving onto the Merry Oak estate and even I can remember the Fox & Hounds in Bitterne having a "No Irish. No Blacks" sign up by the door.

 

I've no issues "no-platforming" the alt-right such as Generation Identity, Tommy Robinson and their ilk but Powell's speech? It's a piece of our history and as such deserves to be heard regardless of what we individually think of the message.

[Jonnyboy]

I have little sympathy with him on the grounds he's an alt-right c**t who thinks getting a dog to act on the command "gas the Jews" is some sort of humour.

 

Don't bother, hypochondriac would probably see far more harm in something like Jeremy Corbyn attending a function with some young, "leftie" socialist Jews.

[hypochondriac]

I have little sympathy with him on the grounds he's an alt-right c**t who thinks getting a dog to act on the command "gas the Jews" is some sort of humour.

Lol! He isn't alt right in the slightest you clearly know nothing about him at all. The content of the joke video he made whilst viewed by many in poor taste is a side issue to the absolutely shocking verdict which ruled that it was for the court to decide the context of a joke.

 

It's summed up well by the always excellent Jonathan Pie character here:

 

[hypochondriac]

Don't bother, hypochondriac would probably see far more harm in something like Jeremy Corbyn attending a function with some young, "leftie" socialist Jews.

The two things are entirely unrelated.

[sadoldgit]

The two things are entirely unrelated.

 

Is Socialism still dangerous?

 

Of course the speech should be broadcast and discussed, especially as Powell was wrong.

[Jonnyboy]

Rivers of Amber Rudd's blood as she takes the fall.

 

Must be about half the cabinet now.

[shurlock]

What are guidos fluffers going to dredge up next to distract attention from this lying shîtshow of a government?

[buctootim]

What are guidos fluffers going to dredge up next to distract attention from this lying shîtshow of a government?

 

It was the snow.

[Sheaf Saint]

What are guidos fluffers going to dredge up next to distract attention from this lying shîtshow of a government?

 

I'm sure they will come up with something. The latest attempt at reality-reversing propaganda comes from the Times headline that the Kremlin tried to get Corbyn elected last year using bots, completely ignoring the huge donations to the Tories from powerful Russians and the fact that the UK Russian embassy Twitter account actually endorsed and supported the Tories in the run up to the election.

 

But on the subject of censorship, I notice that the BBC and the rest of the MSM have so far been completely silent about the calls from the Muslim Council of Britain for an urgent inquiry into rampant Islamophobia in the Tory party, after numerous recent instances of open racism and bigotry in the party.

 

Funny that. It's almost as if the recent outrage over antisemitism in Labour was insincere and just politically motivated.

[buctootim]

Ironic that Rudd has had to resign and it was accepted by the worst Home Secretary in living memory - Theresa May.

[Batman]

Ironic that Rudd has had to resign and it was accepted by the worst Home Secretary in living memory - Theresa May.

 

Very true. That honour would be smashed if Labour win power. Dianne Abbot was abysmal on telly again this morning. This is her open goal.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Ironic that Rudd has had to resign and it was accepted by IN MY BIASED OPINION the worst Home Secretary in living memory - Theresa May.

 

I’ve edited it for you.

 

Reginald Maudling, was basically a crock, and his handling of NI a complete shambles. Jacqui Smith later admitted herself that she was under qualified for the job, fiddled her expenses, lied about it and also charged that tax payers for her porno movies.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 30 April, 2018 by Lord Duckhunter

[ecuk268]

Jacqui Smith later admitted herself that she was under qualified for the job, fiddled her expenses, lied about it and also charged that tax payers for her porno movies.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

She probably thought that those were the qualities that you needed to be an MP.

[Turkish]

In surprised no one has mentioned the arrest and jailing of Tommy Robinson. Whatever you might think of him as an individual what do all you lovely people make of a man being jailed for reporting on the rape of young girls by grooming gangs?

[hypochondriac]

In surprised no one has mentioned the arrest and jailing of Tommy Robinson. Whatever you might think of him as an individual what do all you lovely people make of a man being jailed for reporting on the rape of young girls by grooming gangs?

To be fair, whilst the law is questionable, he did potentially compromise the court proceedings through his careless reporting. I would suggest it wasn't the smartest thing in the world to go live streaming outside a case that has reporting restrictions when he already has a suspended sentence for contempt of court. I have sympathy for him and I think the sentence is incredibly harsh and they've obviously gone after him because of who he is, but he did leave himself open to something like this because technically he did break the law.

[Lord Duckhunter]

To be fair, whilst the law is questionable, he did potentially compromise the court proceedings through his careless reporting. I would suggest it wasn't the smartest thing in the world to go live streaming outside a case that has reporting restrictions when he already has a suspended sentence for contempt of court. I have sympathy for him and I think the sentence is incredibly harsh and they've obviously gone after him because of who he is, but he did leave himself open to something like this because technically he did break the law.

 

Somebody needs to highlight the particular problems and hypocrisy surround Islam, the media and the British establishment, but the problem is It shouldn’t be a moron. Robinson makes it way too easy to be dismissed as a racist bigot, probably because he is one. Therefore any valid points around censorship , and the overindulgence of that medieval culture is easy to dismiss.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

Somebody needs to highlight the particular problems and hypocrisy surround Islam, the media and the British establishment, but the problem is It shouldn’t be a moron. Robinson makes it way too easy to be dismissed as a racist bigot, probably because he is one. Therefore any valid points around censorship , and the overindulgence of that medieval culture is easy to dismiss.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think he's a moron, but he isn't the person who's going to persuade Middle England to his cause due to who he is and how he presents himself. Someone like Douglas Murray has a much better chance considering he's gay, erudite and chooses his words carefully.

[StDunko]

I don't think he's a moron, but he isn't the person who's going to persuade Middle England to his cause due to who he is and how he presents himself. Someone like Douglas Murray has a much better chance considering he's gay, erudite and chooses his words carefully.

 

Are you being serious that you don't think Tommy Robinson is a moron?

 

Have you ever seen the dinlow being interviewed? He tries really hard to come across as being intelligent, but fails dismally. But I suppose we should not expect much sense to emanate from anyone who clearly wants to make what he thinks is a serious political point, but at the same time he goes under the assumed name of a former footy hooligan. He also seems utterly oblivious to the fact that most of his "supporters" are just a bunch of far right nutbars who's sole purpose in life seems to be to desperately seek the kind of violent public confrontations you thankfully can't get away with at football anymore.

 

Although perhaps if he wasn't a moron, he wouldn't have so many followers who identify with him (because they are also morons) and we wouldn't be discussing him now...

[hypochondriac]

Are you being serious that you don't think Tommy Robinson is a moron?

 

Have you ever seen the dinlow being interviewed? He tries really hard to come across as being intelligent, but fails dismally. But I suppose we should not expect much sense to emanate from anyone who clearly wants to make what he thinks is a serious political point, but at the same time he goes under the assumed name of a former footy hooligan. He also seems utterly oblivious to the fact that most of his "supporters" are just a bunch of far right nutbars who's sole purpose in life seems to be to desperately seek the kind of violent public confrontations you thankfully can't get away with at football anymore.

 

Although perhaps if he wasn't a moron, he wouldn't have so many followers who identify with him (because they are also morons) and we wouldn't be discussing him now...

 

Depends on your definition of a moron I suppose. I certainly think he doesn't help his cause with the way he speaks sometimes and he doesn't choose his language carefully enough to ever be acceptable to a mainstream audience, but it is galling when he is wilfully misrepresented by the likes of Piers Morgan. I definitely think it's unfair to characterise "most" of his supporters as a bunch of far right nut bars, certainly he attracts some unsavoury characters but there are a number of perfectly legitimate people that worry about the erosion of free speech in the UK and the prevalence of Muslim rape gang trials etc and who share a common cause with the likes of Tommy Robinson in that respect, yet wouldn't recognise your characterisation of far right at all.

 

Personally I think a bit more respect from both sides would be healthy and it would have probably meant there was less tension and he wouldn't have got himself banged up by some in authority desperate to get rid of him.

[Sheaf Saint]

In surprised no one has mentioned the arrest and jailing of Tommy Robinson. Whatever you might think of him as an individual what do all you lovely people make of a man being jailed for reporting on the rape of young girls by grooming gangs?

 

What do you think of the fact that the grooming gang might now walk free due to his actions?

 

The guy is total f*cking idiot who blatantly broke the strict non-reporting rules that exist for a very good reason. Do you think he should be exempt from that law?

[sadoldgit]

Depends on your definition of a moron I suppose. I certainly think he doesn't help his cause with the way he speaks sometimes and he doesn't choose his language carefully enough to ever be acceptable to a mainstream audience, but it is galling when he is wilfully misrepresented by the likes of Piers Morgan. I definitely think it's unfair to characterise "most" of his supporters as a bunch of far right nut bars, certainly he attracts some unsavoury characters but there are a number of perfectly legitimate people that worry about the erosion of free speech in the UK and the prevalence of Muslim rape gang trials etc and who share a common cause with the likes of Tommy Robinson in that respect, yet wouldn't recognise your characterisation of far right at all.

 

Personally I think a bit more respect from both sides would be healthy and it would have probably meant there was less tension and he wouldn't have got himself banged up by some in authority desperate to get rid of him.

 

What a surprise. No condemnation from you about a far right agitator who was rightly arrested for breaking the law. The reason he will not be accepted by "a mainstream audience" is because of his beliefs, not for the way he chooses his language. It doesnt matter which way he chooses to use his words. a far right bigot is a far right bigot. Nice to see you trying to paint him as misunderstood though.

[rallyboy]

Let's just clarify, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka man-on-the-street Tommy Robinson was not jailed for telling the truth or exposing wrongdoing - do not believe the social media hype, he's no warrior of free speech.

Neither was he silenced to protect offenders - as Bexy points out, his stupidity could have led to alleged rapists walking free, as their defence solicitor could have pointed to his reckless interference in the case.

The style of his Facebooking Live within the precincts of the court could have destroyed the entire police investigation.

 

His actions were the height of so-called citizen journalism stupidity - a man with zero grasp of UK law drives a bus through the restrictions regarding the reporting of court cases, then reverses over the survivors....

On the other point, some might suggest that if a man behaves like a moron and sounds like a moron while repeating the mistakes of history, there's a pretty good chance that he is a touch moronic.

[Verbal]

A neo-Nazi jailed - that rare combo of news that's excellent and hilarious.

[hypochondriac]

What do you think of the fact that the grooming gang might now walk free due to his actions?

 

The guy is total f*cking idiot who blatantly broke the strict non-reporting rules that exist for a very good reason. Do you think he should be exempt from that law?

Will they? Would be a very brave judge who declared a mistrial based on that. I agree though, what he did was stupid.

[hypochondriac]

Here's a very good article on the matter:

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/tommy-robinson-is-no-free-speech-martyr/21448#.Ww6MXsvTWdM

 

"Free speech is too important for us to allow it to be consistently warped and slandered by both left and right. Free speech is about allowing a free and unhindered exchange of ideas. But, at the same time, we must recognise that the reason Robinson has a career is that we have become overly sensitive as a society to the kind of arguments he makes. He is a product not of too much free speech, but of too little. His arrest is not symbolic of a state conspiracy to shut him up. But it is at least connected to our continuing discomfort with discussing certain ideas."

Edited 30 May, 2018 by hypochondriac

[rallyboy]

It's a simple tale which requires no complex analysis.

A man was arrested for breaking laws which apply to everyone.

He repeated the offence and was jailed.

The end.

[Sheaf Saint]

Will they? Would be a very brave judge who declared a mistrial based on that.

 

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

 

The judge considered the content of his broadcast, and the real risk of his actions derailing the trial, and committed him to prison for 3 months, suspended for a period of 18 months.

 

I also found this bit in the final paragraph of that article very interesting...

 

There are two types of people currently propagating the Free Tommy Robinson myths: far-right sympathisers deliberately sowing discord and falsehoods, whose concern for due process is a cipher for hero-worship of a racist cult leader; and good people confused and worried about what they’ve heard about the “threat to free speech” posed by the overbearing English and Welsh justice system.

 

No prizes for guessing which of these categories Hypo falls into.

[hypochondriac]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

 

 

 

I also found this bit in the final paragraph of that article very interesting...

 

 

 

No prizes for guessing which of these categories Hypo falls into.

I don't fall into either but nice try to attempt to falsely pigeon hole me. I already said he only has himself to blame for the conviction. The spiked article I linked already summarises my views clearly. Tommy Robinson is no free speech advocate in this case but neither is he a neo nazi monster that some would have you believe.

[Sheaf Saint]

I don't fall into either but nice try to attempt to falsely pigeon hole me. I already said he only has himself to blame for the conviction. The spiked article I linked already summarises my views clearly. Tommy Robinson is no free speech advocate in this case but neither is he a neo nazi monster that some would have you believe.

 

Aw, poor little Tommy is just misunderstood is he?

 

He's a convicted thug who appeals to ignorance, bigotry and hatred to gain support for his far-right cause. If he isn't a neo-nazi monster then he's doing a very passable impression of one.

 

FFS the guy is so pathetic that he recently staged an attack on himself outside Macdonalds and posted the video online so he could paint himself out to be the poor victim.

[shurlock]

Aw, poor little Tommy is just misunderstood is he?

 

He's a convicted thug who appeals to ignorance, bigotry and hatred to gain support for his far-right cause. If he isn't a neo-nazi monster then he's doing a very passable impression of one.

 

FFS the guy is so pathetic that he recently staged an attack on himself outside Macdonalds and posted the video online so he could paint himself out to be the poor victim.

 

He's preferable to Douglas Murray mind.

[hypochondriac]

Aw, poor little Tommy is just misunderstood is he?

 

He's a convicted thug who appeals to ignorance, bigotry and hatred to gain support for his far-right cause. If he isn't a neo-nazi monster then he's doing a very passable impression of one.

 

FFS the guy is so pathetic that he recently staged an attack on himself outside Macdonalds and posted the video online so he could paint himself out to be the poor victim.

 

So because I don't think he's a neo nazi monster I must totally agree with him or think he's a lovely bloke? It's not a black or white scenario. I've listened to some of his recent media interviews and there are some things he says that are worthy of sensible debate. I don't think he's a neo nazi monster that some people portray him as. I'd prefer to listen to what he says and make up my own mind thanks. Obviously the likes of the Oxford Union felt he had something worth discussing as he was given a platform there. I've already said how he says things and comes across is going to turn many people off and I disagree with a lot of what he says and does too but I'm not going to entirely dismiss someone because he's called a nazi by the guardian and people on twitter.

[Orange]

Last couple of days really has bought home the sheer front a lot of the modern left have. Like posters on here, the same people that mocked and hounded Robinson for speaking out about the grooming issue, years before any one would so much as recognise it, are now deriding him for reporting on said industrial sex abuse. I remember when he went on the Paxman show years back and the look of bafflement and mockery Paxman gave him for suggesting their was a problem in the Muslim community with it. Did he lead an ugly street movement, of course, but it was just a symptom of the absolute failures of the British state to tackle issues.

 

And you don't have to agree with the bloke to recognise he has been persecuted for his beliefs. The whole 'convicted fraudster' thing that every journalist puts in every article relates to him lending his brother in law money for a mortgage deposit, no one was left out of pocket. Because of his politics he was pursued and convicted for it, and thrown in a high security prison where there were several attempts to kill him- fed to the dogs. And of course the left care zilch, or even so much as question why Robinson has had several attempts on his life and has been battered for his beliefs. Just like they don't give a toss about the man who put a bacon sandwich outside a mosque and was murdered in prison a week later.

 

They can masquerade under legal jargon but truth is they're feeling a warm glee because someone on the other side of the political spectrum to them, 'a baddie', has been locked up. Authoritarians to the core.

[sadoldgit]

It's a simple tale which requires no complex analysis.

A man was arrested for breaking laws which apply to everyone.

He repeated the offence and was jailed.

The end.

 

Nail on head. Sadly though his supporters try to make him out as a hero standing up for free speech. He was warned if he did this again he would be jailed. Not exactly rocket science. As for his views, I expect that Hitler said the occasional thing that was worthy of serious attention too. Farage can occasionally sound plausible but it doesnt change their fundamental beliefs and for those these people are rightly castigated. The people who stand up for Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris or whatever name he goes by now are the ones that share his opinions. Try and sugar coat it all you like hypo but you are cut from the same cloth. Your comments such as "thank God my wife isnt a Muslim" and "socialism is dangerous" together with your defence of Katie Hopkins are there as testament to your beliefs. By the way hypo, I am sure that you know that Yaxley-Lennon took the name "Tommy Robinson" from a football thug when he set up the English Defence League, an organisation from which that I am sure you will find a number of things to sympathise with. Carry on supporting alt right thugs and slagging off liberal newspapers hypo, you are doing a fine job of showing yourself in your true colours.

[Sheaf Saint]

Last couple of days really has bought home the sheer front a lot of the modern left have. Like posters on here, the same people that mocked and hounded Robinson for speaking out about the grooming issue, years before any one would so much as recognise it, are now deriding him for reporting on said industrial sex abuse. I remember when he went on the Paxman show years back and the look of bafflement and mockery Paxman gave him for suggesting their was a problem in the Muslim community with it. Did he lead an ugly street movement, of course, but it was just a symptom of the absolute failures of the British state to tackle issues.

 

And you don't have to agree with the bloke to recognise he has been persecuted for his beliefs. The whole 'convicted fraudster' thing that every journalist puts in every article relates to him lending his brother in law money for a mortgage deposit, no one was left out of pocket. Because of his politics he was pursued and convicted for it, and thrown in a high security prison where there were several attempts to kill him- fed to the dogs. And of course the left care zilch, or even so much as question why Robinson has had several attempts on his life and has been battered for his beliefs. Just like they don't give a toss about the man who put a bacon sandwich outside a mosque and was murdered in prison a week later.

 

They can masquerade under legal jargon but truth is they're feeling a warm glee because someone on the other side of the political spectrum to them, 'a baddie', has been locked up. Authoritarians to the core.

 

Not true. We're deriding him for being such a bellend that he went and broke a law that he was already on a suspended sentence for breaking previously, and in doing so caused the very real possibility of mistrial which could have seen the defendants walk free on a technicality. If he really, genuinely cared about bringing those men to justice for their actions then he would have stayed well away. But his actions betray his real agenda, which is to stoke up as much anti-islamic hatred as he possibly can.

 

I'm no authoritarian and I don't want to see him and his ilk silenced. I want to see them given the opportunity to spout their bigoted bile and nonsense because, as both he and his Britain First contemporaries Golding and Fransen have shown, give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. These people are not the brave free speech warriors that some are trying to make them out to be. They are violent, hate-filled morons who fail to see the irony in the fact that they constantly call for immigrants to respect our laws but they can't respect them themselves.

 

And by the way, following your assertion that he was only convicted of fraud because of his beliefs - are you suggesting that he did not get a fair trial because of media bias? There are laws against that you know