ChatterBank1 min ago
Tommy Robinson
481 Answers
Tommy Robinson has had his facebook and instagram account terminated. Facebook says he has continually violated its community standards with hate speech against Muslims.
Is you use social media in ways that violate their policies around organised hate then surely you're a bad person?
Is you use social media in ways that violate their policies around organised hate then surely you're a bad person?
Answers
retrocop - // Naomi
I would hate to play Poker with some on AB. Their Trump (what he allegedly said) out trumps what he disclosed i.e. th systematic grooming by Muslim/Asian gangs on vulnerable young children plus the complicity of the Rochdale Labour predominant Muslim Council and cover up by the Chief Constable of the Police Authority. The threats made to social sevice whistleblowers etc etc.
That counts for nothing for those who preside at the Kangaroo courts and cannot cite anything specific except what they heard. //
I think we are in danger of drifting off the point of the OP here -
we are not debating what Tommy Robinson has done or said in the past, or the rights and wrongs of what he believes.
The debate is about whether or not his being banned from Facebook and Instagram makes him a bad person or not.
The thrust of the posts thus far seems to be arguing about what posts have caused this response, although I believe that this is not relavent.
Facebook's authorities have decided to delete 'Tommy Robinson's accounts because he has breached their rules of conduct.
The issue of what he has said is not what the OP addressed, and so far no-one seems to know which specific posts are involved.
But again, that is not relevant. It is not for us to decide if Facebook were right or wrong, it is a matter for them as the site owners to act as they see fit to protect their site legally and morally from unwelcome posts, and this they have done.
People can think that 'Tommy Robinson' is a mis-treated hero grievously wronged, or that he is a gobby idiot who got what he deserved, neither matters. The action has been taken, and as I have pointed out, an individual as habitually litigious as 'Tommy Robinson' will waste no time in gearing up a robust and very public legal defence of his good name.
We shall see.
I would hate to play Poker with some on AB. Their Trump (what he allegedly said) out trumps what he disclosed i.e. th systematic grooming by Muslim/Asian gangs on vulnerable young children plus the complicity of the Rochdale Labour predominant Muslim Council and cover up by the Chief Constable of the Police Authority. The threats made to social sevice whistleblowers etc etc.
That counts for nothing for those who preside at the Kangaroo courts and cannot cite anything specific except what they heard. //
I think we are in danger of drifting off the point of the OP here -
we are not debating what Tommy Robinson has done or said in the past, or the rights and wrongs of what he believes.
The debate is about whether or not his being banned from Facebook and Instagram makes him a bad person or not.
The thrust of the posts thus far seems to be arguing about what posts have caused this response, although I believe that this is not relavent.
Facebook's authorities have decided to delete 'Tommy Robinson's accounts because he has breached their rules of conduct.
The issue of what he has said is not what the OP addressed, and so far no-one seems to know which specific posts are involved.
But again, that is not relevant. It is not for us to decide if Facebook were right or wrong, it is a matter for them as the site owners to act as they see fit to protect their site legally and morally from unwelcome posts, and this they have done.
People can think that 'Tommy Robinson' is a mis-treated hero grievously wronged, or that he is a gobby idiot who got what he deserved, neither matters. The action has been taken, and as I have pointed out, an individual as habitually litigious as 'Tommy Robinson' will waste no time in gearing up a robust and very public legal defence of his good name.
We shall see.
retrocop - // //That's an utterly meaningless, and frankly bizarre analogy! //
// Only if you are in obtuse mode and act dumb. //
Neither of those apply to me, but please don't waste time and derail the thread pursuing it.
// Like you are unaware of the meaning of hearsay. //
I'm not, but again, let's not pursue that, it takes the thread off course.
// I think my analogy is perfectly clear to those who are 'not het up at the heat of the moment' //
Good for you, but again that doesn't apply to me, and again, please let's not get bogged down in a personal spat, it's not helpful.
// Only if you are in obtuse mode and act dumb. //
Neither of those apply to me, but please don't waste time and derail the thread pursuing it.
// Like you are unaware of the meaning of hearsay. //
I'm not, but again, let's not pursue that, it takes the thread off course.
// I think my analogy is perfectly clear to those who are 'not het up at the heat of the moment' //
Good for you, but again that doesn't apply to me, and again, please let's not get bogged down in a personal spat, it's not helpful.
Issue is, you have supporters of Tommy, and you have people who utterly despise him.
If i was a Muslim man, then yes my opinion may be warped by his actions. But the fact is i'm not.
I even recently watched a doc on netflix titled "three girls" about the Rochdale grooming gangs. (it's really good by the way peeps)
Anyhow, as said, i'm not Muslim, and i don't like Muslim extremists, so i should be in support of TR.. Right?
Well i'm not. Because how he articulates is stupid, he doesn't differentiate between normal muslim society and radicalised extremists. He is a danger. I see people using TR as some kind of source for reason for being a xenophobe and he should be used as an example of how information is important and how perspective shouldn't be blinded by one minority of an already minority.
If i was a Muslim man, then yes my opinion may be warped by his actions. But the fact is i'm not.
I even recently watched a doc on netflix titled "three girls" about the Rochdale grooming gangs. (it's really good by the way peeps)
Anyhow, as said, i'm not Muslim, and i don't like Muslim extremists, so i should be in support of TR.. Right?
Well i'm not. Because how he articulates is stupid, he doesn't differentiate between normal muslim society and radicalised extremists. He is a danger. I see people using TR as some kind of source for reason for being a xenophobe and he should be used as an example of how information is important and how perspective shouldn't be blinded by one minority of an already minority.
No personal spat. I am answering your observations that is all
Earlier you complained that I had not elaborated what I meant so you wouldn't bother to reply.
Having to explain to you everytime I post is becomming tiresome so I will leave you to argue to an empty room and retire to the local hostelry where I can converse with some who are more informed than you appear to be today.
Earlier you complained that I had not elaborated what I meant so you wouldn't bother to reply.
Having to explain to you everytime I post is becomming tiresome so I will leave you to argue to an empty room and retire to the local hostelry where I can converse with some who are more informed than you appear to be today.
As his page has been removed, the only way we'll have any idea what the 'last straw' was would be if someone archived or screenshotted the offending material before it was taken down.
He does have past form with inciting violence and with joining groups that advocate or use violence. So it would not be terribly surprising if he's been at it again. But the offending material in this particular case has not surfaced so there isn't really much to discuss.
I'm sure his brand won't suffer and he'll continue to rake in donation money.
He does have past form with inciting violence and with joining groups that advocate or use violence. So it would not be terribly surprising if he's been at it again. But the offending material in this particular case has not surfaced so there isn't really much to discuss.
I'm sure his brand won't suffer and he'll continue to rake in donation money.
Spath's definition of "a normal Muslim": "Muslims living in the UK who do not agree or think sharia law should be applied to the UK".
Well, I think we can agree that there are plenty of "normal" Muslims by this definition. Trouble is that the word "normal" implies "most".
And the evidence for that is not strong, is it?
Well, I think we can agree that there are plenty of "normal" Muslims by this definition. Trouble is that the word "normal" implies "most".
And the evidence for that is not strong, is it?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Does The Punishment Fit The Crime ?
News15 mins ago
Crosswords16 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|