By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Not surprised by anything I saw in that documentary. The BBC has been blatantly biased for decades, no ethics at all. just a lynch mob mentality, and imposing their political beliefs on a largely unsuspecting electorate. The BBC was once justifiably respected throughout the world, It's now a complete shambles with no standards at all.
Well done Tommy Robinson for exposing some of the BBC scum to the country.
I was gobsmacked when I chanced upon the covert video of John Sweeney at work. Whether it was the £220 expense account-funded drinks bill to loosen the tongue of a young woman, or the cynical priming to get her to allege a sexual angle or Sweeney's racism, what one saw amounted to a parody of a liberal hack with no moral compass.
I thought the BBC's rebuttal of the claim that its approach was unacceptable was pathetic, and as far as I can see that statement has now been taken down. All I could find to post here is a third-party report.
Regardless of what Yaxley-Lennon says or thinks, he is still a far right buffoon with the intelligence of a slug.
Well he doesn’t speak in a ‘posh’ accent, Eb. Neither do I, or you. All three of us come from the working class. I’d like to flatter myself in thinking I’m marginally more intelligent than a slug, I know you are and there would be cold comfort in watching his address to the Oxford Union for anybody who thinks he’s stupid.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
Regardless of what Yaxley-Lennon says or thinks, he is still a far right buffoon with the intelligence of a slug.
Not stupid. A violent, racist, rapist-supporting, fraudster and serial criminal who's well briefed and supported. But not stupid. Or at least more intelligent than the people he's managed to persuade that he's some kind of liberal patriot.
Regardless of what Yaxley-Lennon says or thinks, he is still a far right buffoon with the intelligence of a slug.
And how do you base this opinion ? On how he speaks or the fact he's been able to gain voice and support not only in the UK but all over the world and make plenty of cash in the process ?
No matter what you think of him or his opinions the big picture here is how freedom of speech is being controlled to the point where before long sensible people will start to become radicalized or will move to a more extreme point of view purely because the right to debate is shut down completely . 2019 is becoming 1984 .
If people cannot say what they think and their opinion is shut down, it will just move underground where it will become harvested and hate will prosper.
"He is a far right buffoon with the intelligence of a slug" he isn't actually far right or a buffoon, people such as yourself seem far too short sighted to understand it's not what he says but his right to say it, which is the crux of why Lennon is gaining support.
And how do you base this opinion ? On how he speaks or the fact he's been able to gain voice and support not only in the UK but all over the world and make plenty of cash in the process ?
No matter what you think of him or his opinions the big picture here is how freedom of speech is being controlled to the point where before long sensible people will start to become radicalized or will move to a more extreme point of view purely because the right to debate is shut down completely . 2019 is becoming 1984 .
If people cannot say what they think and their opinion is shut down, it will just move underground where it will become harvested and hate will prosper.
"He is a far right buffoon with the intelligence of a slug" he isn't actually far right or a buffoon, people such as yourself seem far too short sighted to understand it's not what he says but his right to say it, which is the crux of why Lennon is gaining support.
He's not having his freedom of speech controlled though. What's happening is he's refusing to accept the consequences of his speech when he breaks the law, and then whining like a baby and playing the martyr. The law applies to him as it does to anyone else.
Not far right? He's an extreme nationalist. He led a far right party, campaigns with far right parties, promotes far right views, is funded by the far right....etc. If it smells like sh*t, it probably is!
Not stupid. A violent, racist, rapist-supporting, fraudster and serial criminal who's well briefed and supported. But not stupid. Or at least more intelligent than the people he's managed to persuade that he's some kind of liberal patriot.
You are Leanne Wood and I’d like to present you with your ticked option of a Methuselah of Gordon’s Gin...
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
And how do you base this opinion ? On how he speaks or the fact he's been able to gain voice and support not only in the UK but all over the world and make plenty of cash in the process ?
No matter what you think of him or his opinions the big picture here is how freedom of speech is being controlled to the point where before long sensible people will start to become radicalized or will move to a more extreme point of view purely because the right to debate is shut down completely . 2019 is becoming 1984 .
If people cannot say what they think and their opinion is shut down, it will just move underground where it will become harvested and hate will prosper.
"He is a far right buffoon with the intelligence of a slug" he isn't actually far right or a buffoon, people such as yourself seem far too short sighted to understand it's not what he says but his right to say it, which is the crux of why Lennon is gaining support.
Free speech comes with great responsibility. He has abused that responsibility time and time again to label and smear and fill the heads of the 'hard of thinking' with utter lies and outrageous claims.
He's not having his freedom of speech controlled though. What's happening is he's refusing to accept the consequences of his speech when he breaks the law, and then whining like a baby and playing the martyr. The law applies to him as it does to anyone else.
Not far right? He's an extreme nationalist. He led a far right party, campaigns with far right parties, promotes far right views, is funded by the far right....etc. If it smells like sh*t, it probably is!
”He's not having his freedom of speech controlled though.”
If you managed to keep a straight face typing that you’re a rock, sir, an island.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
”He's not having his freedom of speech controlled though.”
If you managed to keep a straight face typing that you’re a rock, sir, an island.
He's free to say whatever he wants within the law. If he breaks the law or policies of platforms like Facebook then he has to face the consequences. It's not an impingement on his freedom of speech - just the consequence of him being a twåt. If he wasn't a professional provocateur we wouldn't even be having this conversation. He doesn't care about the issues he pretends to champion - the only person he cares about is Stephen Yaxley Lennon. He's the partner cheek to Abu Hamza in the arse of hatred and division.
He's free to say whatever he wants within the law. If he breaks the law or policies of platforms like Facebook then he has to face the consequences. It's not an impingement on his freedom of speech - just the consequence of him being a twåt. If he wasn't a professional provocateur we wouldn't even be having this conversation. He doesn't care about the issues he pretends to champion - the only person he cares about is Stephen Yaxley Lennon. He's the partner cheek to Abu Hamza in the arse of hatred and division.
Facebook met with representatives of the Moslem Council of Britain last week, Leon. Remember them? The monobrowed dolts behind the book burnings in Bradford and the hounding of Ray Honeyford. The day after Robinson’s deplatformed.
Now I could parade a series of glib cliches about the importance of free expression but there would be no point as I’d like to think that anybody reading this already accepts the argument. I may be hoping for too much but I’ll assume it anyway and instead issue the reminder that if ‘legitimate’ means of expression is curtailed then the only avenue left open is the ‘illegitimate.’ The political atomsphere across the West is combustible enough as it is, now is not the time to be playing with matches.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
Facebook met with representatives of the Moslem Council of Britain last week, Leon. Remember them? The monobrowed dolts behind the book burnings in Bradford and the hounding of Ray Honeyford. The day after Robinson’s deplatformed.
Now I could parade a series of glib cliches about the importance of free expression but there would be no point as I’d like to think that anybody reading this already accepts the argument. I may be hoping for too much but I’ll assume it anyway and instead issue the reminder that if ‘legitimate’ means of expression is curtailed then the only avenue left open is the ‘illegitimate.’ The political atomsphere across the West is combustible enough as it is, now is not the time to be playing with matches.
I wish you would use the term "Muslim" not "Moslem". We are in the 21st century after all.
I wish you would use the term "Muslim" not "Moslem". We are in the 21st century after all.
Ha! It was ‘Moslem’ when I was in school, Eb. It was before we had computers and mobile phones, granted, but most of us had indoor toilets and the wireless by that stage...
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
It seems to me that the majority of the posters on the thread don't want to talk about the BBC and are going for the easy target. I have no regard for Robinson, but I am horrified to see what our national broadcaster is getting up to. There is absolutely no defence for what Sweeney did, and behind him there are others who believe the end justifies the means.
He's not having his freedom of speech controlled though. What's happening is he's refusing to accept the consequences of his speech when he breaks the law, and then whining like a baby and playing the martyr. The law applies to him as it does to anyone else.
Not far right? He's an extreme nationalist. He led a far right party, campaigns with far right parties, promotes far right views, is funded by the far right....etc. If it smells like sh*t, it probably is!
What law did he break then ? There was no influencing of the trail as he only reported the same as local media not more.
EDL wasn't a far right party when he formed it, it was later highjacked by BNP which is when he left, and what the actual fook is an extreme nationalist ? Loving your own country too much? Your just spouting the same utter nonsense as MSM,do you work in the media by any chance ?
I couldn't care less about Lennon, but it's clear to see by anyone who is brave enough to be objective that he is being targeted while others are allowed to carry on and spew real hate without consequence .
He is not being being treated fairly, no matter which way you try and slice it up. Racist,bigot,far right,thug etc,etc.
How about we go back to allowing people to actually say what think once again.
Not having his freedom of speech controlled yet banned off face book, twitter,PayPal, etc etc.
What law did he break then ? There was no influencing of the trail as he only reported the same as local media not more.
EDL wasn't a far right party when he formed it, it was later highjacked by BNP which is when he left, and what the actual fook is an extreme nationalist ? Loving your own country too much? Your just spouting the same utter nonsense as MSM,do you work in the media by any chance ?
I couldn't care less about Lennon, but it's clear to see by anyone who is brave enough to be objective that he is being targeted while others are allowed to carry on and spew real hate without consequence .
He is not being being treated fairly, no matter which way you try and slice it up. Racist,bigot,far right,thug etc,etc.
How about we go back to allowing people to actually say what think once again.
Not having his freedom of speech controlled yet banned off face book, twitter,PayPal, etc etc.
Free speech comes with great responsibility. He has abused that responsibility time and time again to label and smear and fill the heads of the 'hard of thinking' with utter lies and outrageous claims.
Responsibility ? ok, tell me how to quantify that then please, Muslim extremists can shout at dead soldiers families as they carry their coffins and thats ok, 80% of muslim fmilies in a Birmingham school remove their children because they refuse to have their kids follow the policy set out by local education athorities in making kids being aware of LGBT rights and taught about homosexuality, that's ok also.
But have somebody highlight the short comings of a form of an extreme stone age idiology in a 1st world western culture and they are the ones lacking responsibility ??
But besides that please tell me what Tommy Robinson has actually said that irresponsible ? what has he actually said that has been factually wrong ? and compare that with how MSM goes about it's business these days. who is the least responsible ?
Laughable!
Like i said in my first post, i couldn't give a fook for Lennon, but i respect his right to say what he thinks, in the same way Salmon Rushdie was protected in his right to say what he thought, you don't have to agree with the content but we must respect his right to say it1 it's crucial to how we will move forward, amazing how people seem to be too dull to realize this !
If his argument doesn't hold water, his time will pass quickly, if his argument is being shut down it just fans the flames and puts legitmacy to his argument without it being debated/debunked or agreed with !
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
