Death of free speech in the UK.

The resistance is building.


Count Dankula went from a microscopic youtube shitposter to a well spoken free speech political figurehead with over a quarter million followers.

 
Robert said:
Two members of banned neo-Nazi group National Action jailed
Christopher Lythgoe and Matthew Hankinson found guilty of membership of group that backed murder of Jo Cox
Click to expand...
I'm a bit uncomfortable about that sort of ruling. I think being convicted on the grounds of actual criminal activity that they have participated in is reasonable, but making membership of a banned group a crime is dangerous and convoluted. Any group that the government doesn't like could theoretically be banned and the membership thereby arrested for being members. This throws an overly wide net - imagine if Trump could have such power and ban Islam as a group. I think if you don't want Trump to have a power like that then you should probably not want anyone to have it.
Imagine that the government wanted to dismantle some socialist or communist party - all they would have to do is plant a few bombs, say it was the reds and ban them (not like that has ever happened). Hold people to account for their crimes, not the crimes of the people they know.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
I'm a bit uncomfortable about that sort of ruling. I think being convicted on the grounds of actual criminal activity that they have participated in is reasonable, but making membership of a banned group a crime is dangerous and convoluted. Any group that the government doesn't like could theoretically be banned and the membership thereby arrested for being members. This throws an overly wide net - imagine if Trump could have such power and ban Islam as a group. I think if you don't want Trump to have a power like that then you should probably not want anyone to have it.
Imagine that the government wanted to dismantle some socialist or communist party - all they would have to do is plant a few bombs, say it was the reds and ban them (not like that has ever happened). Hold people to account for their crimes, not the crimes of the people they know.
Click to expand...

Maybe the article was just poorly written, or I just don't already know anything about this case. The article seemed to imply direct involvement.
 
redrumloa said:
Maybe the article was just poorly written, or I just don't already know anything about this case. The article seemed to imply direct involvement.
Click to expand...

It's the start of the third paragraph.

"Matthew Hankinson, 24, of Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, was also found guilty of belonging to National Action and jailed for six years."

That's the bit that makes me queasy. Throw the book at a person for everything that they actually do, fine - but for associating? Hmm.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
It's the start of the third paragraph.

"Matthew Hankinson, 24, of Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, was also found guilty of belonging to National Action and jailed for six years."

That's the bit that makes me queasy. Throw the book at a person for everything that they actually do, fine - but for associating? Hmm.
Click to expand...

That's true if that's the case. To be a member of a group but having zero part in any violence? That is troubling. As much as I hate Antifa, I'm sure not every member is there for violence. Even a group as despicable historically as the Klan in the US. There have been people briefly associated with groups like this who realize the error of their ways and leave. It's also a slippery slope. Here in the US the SJW liberals would love to see the GOP labeled a "hate group".
 
It seems the ongoing "anti-semitism scandal" will ultimately destroy Corbyn as Labour leader but much of it appears to very flimsy indeed.
This latest example appears to be no exception with Willsman being roundly vilified for, as far as I can tell, fairly innocuous comments (unless I've missed something?):
Labour under pressure over Peter Willsman's antisemitism remarks
NEC member said Jewish claims of antisemitism were based on ‘duff information’
4590.jpg

The Labour party is under growing pressure to reconsider its decision not to formally discipline one of Jeremy Corbyn’s allies after he accused Jewish “Trump fanatics” of making up allegations of antisemitism in the party.

Jewish community leaders reacted furiously to remarks made by Peter Willsman at a meeting of Labour’s national executive committee (NEC) earlier this month. The meeting resulted in the party refusing to fully adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.
Willsman, an activist on the “JC9” Momentum-backed slate for re-election to the party’s ruling body, was taped saying he would “not be lectured” over antisemitism and accused rabbis of “making up duff information without any evidence at all”.

-EDIT-
He's now apologised* for what he said:
Not all of what I said has been accurately reported. But I accept that what I did say, and the way I said it, fell short of the requirement, which I accept, for discussions of contentious issues to be conducted in a fully civil and respectful way.

I deeply apologise for any offence caused to those present and those to whom my remarks were reported.
Click to expand...

*Sort of.

-EDIT 2-
Turns out I had missed something - what he actually said. I've finally found a quote (audio recording) and I suppose it sounds off, even if it turns out to be accurate:
“Some of these people in the Jewish community support Trump - they are Trump fanatics and all the rest of it. So I am not going to be lectured to by Trump fanatics making up duff information without any evidence at all. So I think we should ask the 70 rabbis: where is your evidence of severe and widespread antisemitism in this party?"
Click to expand...

Not sure it warranted such a hysterical reaction though.
Moreover, the thrust of his point has some merit; much of the "anti-semitism" rhetoric aimed at Corbyn appears to be baseless mud-slinging, devoid of any evidence. OTOH, Corbyn hasn't dealt with it at all and it's been gaining more traction over the last few weeks.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
Jewish community leaders reacted furiously to remarks made by Peter Willsman
Click to expand...
So what. That only matters is Jews have political or economic power - like if Jews blindly follow "leaders", and if the press cow-tows to them.
But more than that, who the flip cares what they think. People can have their own opinions outside of what "leaders" think.

Turns out I had missed something - what he actually said. I've finally found a quote (audio recording) and I suppose it sounds off, even if it turns out to be accurate:
Click to expand...
So, what was the anti-semitic part? Was it the part where Trump supporters are smearing Corbyn, or was it the bit about some Jews support Trump?
Not sure it warranted such a hysterical reaction though.
Click to expand...
It isn't but the hysterical reaction isn't being created by the people in general but by a small and vocal cadre of "opinion shapers" - so basically political operatives and PR companies.
Corbyn should just be doing the "Fake News" gambit at the moment to undermine the media frenzy - say what you like about Trump and his "Fake News" meme but it works with his base and it is basic mudslinging - throw enough and it does undermine the media the same way that yelling anti-semite often enough is supposed to undermine Corbyn.

Corbyn needs some zingy insults to throw. Psychology studies have repeatedly shown that insults and smears are more effective in swaying opinion than reason and argument. Maybe it's better to go after the smear mob by calling them a bunch or rich bastards who will stoop to any dirty trick to steal the National Health away from the decent working class heroes that built it.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
So, what was the anti-semitic part?
Click to expand...

There wasn't one but the optics of a politician claiming "some members of <insert demographic> are <insert derogatory claim>" are never particularly good.
Especially when discussing claims of discrimination against said demographic.
It's this type of sloppy word choice which is being pounced upon more and more.

It's perception versus reality for Labour at the moment and the anti-semitic claims, which have been bubbling away for several months, have been gaining a lot more traction in the last few weeks. As I said, it's mostly baseless mud-slinging but Corbyn's silence is being held up as tacit approval of mostly-non-existent bigotry and his position looks increasingly impotent.

Corbyn should just be doing the "Fake News" gambit at the moment to undermine the media frenzy
Click to expand...

Perhaps. I'm not so sure that tactic would work but it would probably play better than the recent strategy (if there even is one).
His approach thus far has been to more or less ignore it and that certainly doesn't appear to be helping his image.
 
Robert said:
Perhaps. I'm not so sure that tactic would work but it would probably play better than the recent strategy (if there even is one).
His approach thus far has been to more or less ignore it and that certainly doesn't appear to be helping his image.
Click to expand...

Well, he needs to start hitting back, I think. I don't know what works in the UK these days - call it gutter press, lies, fake news, or ... maybe American journalism or Trump style politics. Maybe start calling everyone else anti-semitic. just wear the word out (if it isn't already).

We say support the poor, they say that's anti-semitic; we say save the National Health, they say that's anti-semitic; we say stand up for minorities, they say that's anti-semitic. We say we're against anti-semitism, they say that's anti-semitic.

Or get a Muslim member to say something and then condemn all the people that yell anti-semite as Islamophobes.

How long will people stand for this divide and conquer? Pretty damn long, probably.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Well, he needs to start hitting back, I think.
Click to expand...

He certainly needs to be seen to be doing something.

I don't know what works in the UK these days
Click to expand...

To be fair, neither do I and I still live here.
If recent years are anything to go by, a combination of scare-mongering, outlandish promises that can never be kept and plain, old-fashioned bullshitting seems to be a winning approach.
Unfortunately for Corbyn (a) I just don't think he has much of any of those in his locker and (b) even if he did it probably wouldn't play well with a large chunk of those who currently idolise him so he'd win bunch of supporters whilst simultaneously losing others.

In short, unless other events intervene (i.e. the Tories making even more of an arse of things than now) he's humped.

How long will people stand for this divide and conquer? Pretty damn long, probably.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I gave up hope of anything really positive happening in UK politics over two decades ago. Apart from a tantalisingly brief glimpse of what could be about four years ago, I've had little reason to rekindle that hope and don't foresee it returning any time soon.
 
Man accused of identifying rugby rape case woman to be prosecuted

A man accused of revealing on social media the identity of the woman at the centre of a high-profile rugby rape trial is to be prosecuted.

The Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland said the man, who has not yet been named, was to face a charge of breaching the lifetime ban on reporting the identity of an alleged victim. If convicted, he faces a fine of up to £5,000.

Ulster rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were both cleared of rape at Belfast crown court in March following a nine-week trial. They had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman at Jackson’s home following a night out in Belfast in June 2016.

Complainants in rape cases are entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and it is an offence to publish their identity.
 
Robert said:
Man accused of identifying rugby rape case woman to be prosecuted

A man accused of revealing on social media the identity of the woman at the centre of a high-profile rugby rape trial is to be prosecuted.

The Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland said the man, who has not yet been named, was to face a charge of breaching the lifetime ban on reporting the identity of an alleged victim. If convicted, he faces a fine of up to £5,000.

Ulster rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were both cleared of rape at Belfast crown court in March following a nine-week trial. They had been accused of sexually assaulting a woman at Jackson’s home following a night out in Belfast in June 2016.

Complainants in rape cases are entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and it is an offence to publish their identity.
Click to expand...

Wow.. So women who make false rape allegations are still protected under this ridiculous law?
 
redrumloa said:
Wow.. So women who make false rape allegations are still protected under this ridiculous law?
Click to expand...
I understand why the accuser's identity should be kept secret - after all, "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "didn't happen" - but the same courtesy should be extended to the accused at least until proven guilty.
 
He wasn't murdered in prison! Thank goodness for that!

Tommy Robinson Released on Bail by Court of Appeal

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett quashed the contempt of court conviction handed to the former English Defence League leader in May, which saw the activist going from arrest to trial, and to prison in just five hours and under a blanket of enforced media silence.

The court’s written judgement stated the speed with which the original conviction was made “gave rise to unfairness”, and that there was a “lack of clarity” over evidence for the charge of contempt given to Robinson.

Further, the document states the original judge should have resisted “the temptation” to rule on Robinson’s behaviour there and then, as after he had offered to delete the video he created from Facebook the “urgency went out of the matter”. Instead, the judge should have referred the matter to the Attorney General rather than acting immediately.

In all, the judgement found, the original case had the opportunity to “have avoided the risk of sacrificing fairness on the altar of [haste]”, but failed to take it.
 
Robert said:
I understand why the accuser's identity should be kept secret - after all, "not guilty" doesn't necessarily mean "didn't happen" - but the same courtesy should be extended to the accused at least until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

If it was extended to the accused I'd accept the argument a little bit more. I still think there should not be a blanket protection for women. In too many incidents women make false allegations simply as a weapon to harm men or to get a financial windfall. Even if a man is found not guilty, such a charge will follow him the rest of his life. Men should have equal protection under the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top