Facebook bans Tommy Robinson's page

[Tom4784]

Facebook has taken down anti-Islamic leader Tommy Robinson's official page and Instagram profile for violating its policies on hate speech.

The former English Defence League leader was deemed to have been engaged in "organised hate".

A number of posts on his page had violated the social network's community standards, Facebook said in a blogpost.

It said that it had not taken the decision to remove his page lightly but added he would not be allowed back.

"When ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain groups in society - in some cases with potentially dangerous offline implications - we take action," Facebook said in a post.

"Tommy Robinson's Facebook page has repeatedly broken these standards, posting material that uses dehumanising language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims.

"He has also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organised hate."

The ban means that Tommy Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, will not be allowed to set up an official Facebook page or Instagram profile in future.

According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:

a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims
multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied
In January, YouTube suspended adverts on Mr Robinson's account, saying he had broken the site's advertising rules.

At the time, Mr Robinson denied they contained any "hateful" content and said he was the victim of censorship.

In November, PayPal said it would no longer process payments for Mr Robinson.

In May, Mr Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court. The 13-month sentence sparked a series of #freetommy protests. The conviction was later quashed after procedural concerns.

The case has now been referred to the attorney general.

In March 2018, Mr Robinson was banned from Twitter. It is understood that his account was suspended for breaking its "hateful conduct policy".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47371290

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/01/20/39/012039611b2c775bc84c906695b4c734.gif

I wonder how long it'll take him to completely misunderstand and represent censorship again and claim he's been a victim of it? I hope Facebook doesn't cave to his uninformed horde of gammon and undo the decision.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i am sure he is devastated

:joker:

[Tom4784]

He certainly was when Twitter banned him.

[Mitchell]

Good riddance

[Jordan.]

Good luck using Myspace as a platform

[Alf]

Imagine if William Wilberforce had been censored from giving his opinions.

If people in positions of power need to censor other human beings, then they'd be my biggest concern, what do they have to hide?

[Twosugars]

hate speech from Tommy? what a surprise

[SherzyK]

bY1omVmQTW0

[Crimson Dynamo]

hate speech from Tommy? what a surprise

no from people posting on his page it says

[Mitchell]

Imagine being banned from Facebook for constantly breaking rules?

[Crimson Dynamo]

i mean, if only there was some way to get around this complex technical issue...

https://ochmonek.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/columbo.jpg

[Alf]

hate speech from Tommy? what a surpriseHate speech needs to be defended more than any other speech.

You don't need to defend other speech, it's free as should hate speech be.

[Twosugars]

Imagine if William Wilberforce had been censored from giving his opinions.

If people in positions of power need to censor other human beings, then they'd be my biggest concern, what do they have to hide?

Luckily Tommy is no Wilberforce
Also, he's got no earth-shattering secrets to impart, just plain vile hate
so no need to despair, Alf

[Alf]

Luckily Tommy is no Wilberforce
Also, he's got no earth-shattering secrets to impart, just plain vile hate
so no need to despair, AlfWilberforce was hated by people who didn:t agree with him, because he was saying the wrong things at the time. Just like Tommy is today.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Luckily Tommy is no Wilberforce
Also, he's got no earth-shattering secrets to impart, just plain vile hate
so no need to despair, Alf

can you give the thread an example of two of this so called hate speech from him?

[Twosugars]

Hate speech needs to be defended more than any other speech.

You don't need to defend other speech, it's free as should hate speech be.

libertarian are we?
Disagree, Alf. There's no need to hear people calling for murder. He could still make any conciveable point he wishes without inciting murder.

[The Slim Reaper]

Weirdly, I partly agree with Alf. However, free speech is not consequence-free speech. No one is curbing his ability to give his opinions on any subject he wishes, he just doesn't have the right for those opinions to be given a public platform.

[Tom4784]

Imagine if William Wilberforce had been censored from giving his opinions.

If people in positions of power need to censor other human beings, then they'd be my biggest concern, what do they have to hide?

Who has censored Tommy Robinson?

[Elliot]

what a mess!

[Alf]

Who has censored Tommy Robinson?Facebook and Twitter for a kick off.

[arista]

He Broke the the New Facebook
inforced Hate Rules
so you would expect him to be banned.

They are setting up other Sites
to carry on.

So many will no longer see what he posts.

[arista]

Facebook and Twitter for a kick off.


also banned today on Instagram

[arista]

Weirdly, I partly agree with Alf. However, free speech is not consequence-free speech. No one is curbing his ability to give his opinions on any subject he wishes, he just doesn't have the right for those opinions to be given a public platform.



But Facebook has new Hate Rules
you can not ignore that
he would have had warnings

[reece(:]

Rest in piss

[The Slim Reaper]

But Facebook has new Hate Rules
you can not ignore that
he would have had warnings

Yeah, which is why I said he doesn't have the right to a public platform for his free speech.

[Tom4784]

Facebook and Twitter for a kick off.

Facebook and Twitter are not government bodies, they are privately owned platforms in which uses are granted access to if they accept a code of conduct.

If you agreed to rent a flat from someone and you disregarded the rules, could you blame the owner for throwing you out? No because you broke the rules you agreed to follow. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is not being censored, he can shout his views from the rooftops and no one can stop him doing so but they can remove him if he breaks the rules of the platform he is using.

To call it censorship is to misunderstand what censorship is in the first place. You are entitled to your views, you are entitled to share them but you aren't entitled to use a platform that you don't own if you can't follow the rules of that platform.

[Alf]

Facebook and Twitter are not government bodies, they are privately owned platforms in which uses are granted access to if they accept a code of conduct.

If you agreed to rent a flat from someone and you disregarded the rules, could you blame the owner for throwing you out? No because you broke the rules you agreed to follow. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is not being censored, he can shout his views from the rooftops and no one can stop him doing so but they can remove him if he breaks the rules of the platform he is using.

To call it censorship is to misunderstand what censorship is in the first place. You are entitled to your views, you are entitled to share them but you aren't entitled to use a platform that you don't own if you can't follow the rules of that platform.They may have started as private companies, but they are now the biggest public square for debate.

[arista]

Yeah, which is why I said he doesn't have the right to a public platform for his free speech.


He is setting up their own Sites
so those that are loyal & follow him
will carry on.

[Crimson Dynamo]

He can use all the UKIP channels if he needs to

[Tom4784]

They may have started as private companies, but they are now the biggest public square for debate.

Wrong.

Social Media platforms were privately owned platforms when they're created and they are still privately own platforms now. None of us are entitled to use social media without limits, we all have to abide by a code of conduct we agreed to when we signed up. Nothing has changed and popularity of a platform doesn't change the facts.

Nobody is telling Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon that he can't have his own opinions, nobody is punishing him for having those views but that doesn't mean he can break the rules that he agreed to when he signed up to those websites. He is entitled to his views but he isn't entitled to use a platform that he doesn't own.

Trying to make out that Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is being censored is just factually incorrect and by continuing to do so you are spreading misinformation.

[Toy Soldier]

i am sure he is devastated

:joker:

Given that he's built literally his entire "political" career around Social Media-outrage and winding people up into a frenzy online... being banned from Social Media platforms does represent a bit of a problem for him.

[Beso]

Good....makes more room for the paedos to work in....well done facebook, loving the stability.

[Scarlett.]

Imagine if William Wilberforce had been censored from giving his opinions.

If people in positions of power need to censor other human beings, then they'd be my biggest concern, what do they have to hide?

He's not being censored, he was banned for breaking the terms of service on a website.

[Toy Soldier]

Good....makes more room for the paedos to work in....well done facebook, loving the stability.

Paedophiles can't be having much luck on Facebook these days though... I don't think anyone under 40 uses it any more :think:.

[Beso]

Paedophiles can't be having much luck on Facebook these days though... I don't think anyone under 40 uses it any more :think:.



https://www.statista.com/statistics/507417/number-of-facebook-users-in-the-united-kingdom-uk-by-age-and-gender/

[Crimson Dynamo]

Paedophiles can't be having much luck on Facebook these days though... I don't think anyone under 40 uses it any more :think:.

i cant see it lasting too much longer its an awful platform, literally the worst useability one can imagine

dreadful technological dinosaur

[Underscore]

Great stuff

and can we also ban folk like Katie Hopkins at the same time

[LukeB]

Good news.

Banned from Australia and now facebook. good stuff

[Elliot]

Great stuff

and can we also ban folk like Katie Hopkins at the same time

yes pls

[Alf]

He's not being censored, he was banned for breaking the terms of service on a website.The problem with that is that they're not consistent with this, and it looks, to the observing eye, that these rules are enforced by partisan political leanings.

[Elliot]

and yeah Facebook is 100% not used by younger people anymore. everyone from my high school, college and all my irl friends haven't posted on it in years lmfao its a wasteland filled with boomer memes

[Oliver_W]

While islam as an ideology is disgusting and should be kept away from the West, I don't think Robinson is the best advocate against it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

While islam as an ideology is disgusting and should be kept away from the West, I don't think Robinson is the best advocate against it.

I just hope that more people have the courage to speak out against it and its hideous lies and ways and hopefully one day it will be eradicated in the UK

[Tom4784]

The problem with that is that they're not consistent with this, and it looks, to the observing eye, that these rules are enforced by partisan political leanings.

Based on what? He broke their guidelines and he got banned for it. You're just pulling out a political motivation out of nowhere to try and paint Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon as a victim when he made his own bed.

It wasn't censorship, it wasn't a targetted attack on him, he broke the rules he agreed to and got banned because of it.

This is no one's fault but his own.

[Alf]

Based on what? He broke their guidelines and he got banned for it. You're just pulling out a political motivation out of nowhere to try and paint Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon as a victim when he made his own bed.

It wasn't censorship, it wasn't a targetted attack on him, he broke the rules he agreed to and got banned because of it.

This is no one's fault but his own.I bet I can go on there and break their guidelines and nothing will happen.

Now if that turned out true, would you then agree?

[Marsh.]

I bet I can go on there and break their guidelines and nothing will happen.

Now if that turned out true, would you then agree?

You're basically asking "If the facts you have provided did not exist would you agree with me?" :laugh2:

[Alf]

You're basically asking "If the facts you have provided did not exist would you agree with me?" :laugh2:You'd never make a good mind reader.

[AnnieK]

I've known people to get temporary bans on facebook for posting and sharing inappropriate content. It does happen. People report posts and if it breaks their rules they issue bans.

[Beso]

I'm hoping the persons who wrote this stuff on tommy Robinson wall have been exposed and had thier facebook accounts removed....arista?

[Alf]

One day the gun could be turned on you. I'd hope someone would defend you.

[Marsh.]

You'd never make a good mind reader.

I read your post, not your mind.

You don't make a good reader. Period.

[Alf]

I read your post, not your mind.

You don't make a good reader. Period.I get by.

[Tom4784]

I bet I can go on there and break their guidelines and nothing will happen.

Now if that turned out true, would you then agree?

It would if someone reported you, I've known people to be banned before. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon has a following and a presence, if he breaks the guidelines, everyone is aware of it. The same would happen to you if you were prominent.

He had warnings prior to this and he knew what he was doing was wrong but he carried on. This is no one's fault but his own.

Also Marsh said it best when it comes to your last sentence, you're asking me if I'd agree with you if I disregarded the facts, yes I probably would because that's what most of his defenders do. They disregard parts of reality that don't fit their narrative.

[Alf]

Anybody know his full real name?

[Tom4784]

One day the gun could be turned on you. I'd hope someone would defend you.

Lol, so dramatic.

He broke the rules and got booted off Facebook because of it. He's not a victim, no one else is to blame for this but himself.

[Lostie!]

The sooner he fades back into obscurity the better

and yeah Facebook is 100% not used by younger people anymore. everyone from my high school, college and all my irl friends haven't posted on it in years lmfao its a wasteland filled with boomer memes

It's still as active as ever from my experience :shrug:

[Beso]

It would if someone reported you, I've known people to be banned before. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon has a following and a presence, if he breaks the guidelines, everyone is aware of it. The same would happen to you if you were prominent.

He had warnings prior to this and he knew what he was doing was wrong but he carried on. This is no one's fault but his own.

Also Marsh said it best when it comes to your last sentence, you're asking me if I'd agree with you if I disregarded the facts, yes I probably would because that's what most of his defenders do. They disregard parts of reality that don't fit their narrative.

This isn't a mods meeting about the truth, :nono:

[Withano]

Thank ****. Hopefully YouTube will follow suit so we (quite genuinely) will never hear from him again.

[Oliver_W]

https://scontent.flhr6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/52708422_2531083666919105_6649208556505530368_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_eui2=AeE9wO_-NbXpa9I1AMA_YtzoPZ9tWxesExRenyPYQF0E5IddClE9qBaIb5 Gezcth5qpkEN4kFb23tW789HRPLL1mgzJ7gOJnXa9hCKM1z5TH cg&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr6-1.fna&oh=20ba6004c8ada79fd3cf9baebbbb8c76&oe=5D1F285F
Interesting timing!

Anybody know his full real name?
"Dean Smith" might

[Crimson Dynamo]

A lot of hate and anger in this thread

Not nice

[Matthew.]

Hate speech needs to be defended more than any other speech.

You don't need to defend other speech, it's free as should hate speech be.

:facepalm:

[Beso]

I'm expecting another BBC paedo outing soon, smells off deflection to me.

[Matthew.]

Fantastic news that he’s been banned though, at least it’s some sort of barrier to prevent his pish verbal diarrhoea being spouted :clap1:

And like Underscore said, Katie Hopkins next :fc:

[Alf]

Thank ****. Hopefully YouTube will follow suit so we (quite genuinely) will never hear from him again.If you was in control and capable of running your own life, then you wouldn't need people to censor other people for you.

It's as simple as just turning him off yourself. You can do it. But remember to defend his freedom at all costs. Because one day, there might be people in positions of power that don't agree with you, and will take away your freedoms, and who will defend you, when you don't want to defend freedom yourself?

[Alf]

Fantastic news that he’s been banned though, at least it’s some sort of barrier to prevent his pish verbal diarrhoea being spouted :clap1:

And like Underscore said, Katie Hopkins next :fc:It's a hit list is it?

Talk about hate. You seem to have a lot.

[Matthew.]

It's a hit list is it?

Talk about hate. You seem to have a lot.

I dislike bigoted people, yes :suspect:

Is that not a normal opinion to have :suspect:

[Oliver_W]

I dislike bigoted people, yes :suspect:

Is that not a normal opinion to have :suspect:

Then don't follow their pages, or block/mute them - it will have the same effect as them being banned, as far as your timeline is concerned.

[Alf]

I dislike bigoted people, yes :suspect:

Is that not a normal opinion to have :suspect:You can have any opinion you want, and so should Robinson be able to.

Agree with him, disagree with him, debate him, ignore him. But don't censor him.

[Beso]

If you was in control and capable of running your own life, then you wouldn't need people to censor other people for you.

It's as simple as just turning him off yourself. You can do it. But remember to defend his freedom at all costs. Because one day, there might be people in positions of power that don't agree with you, and will take away your freedoms, and who will defend you, when you don't want to defend freedom yourself?

But what if you don't want to turn him off...not him imo....but like some real nasty natzi bastards like Hitler. ...what if people don't want to turn it off...


Only group atm, Imo, that are anything like the nazis is isis..


But I can still watch folk getting butchered on the web.

[Matthew.]

Then don't follow their pages, or block/mute them - it will have the same effect as them being banned, as far as your timeline is concerned.

I don’t follow any of them

I’m trying to say that it takes away one of his platforms to spout his bigoted views

[reece(:]

There's no place in the world for hate speech and bigotry, it should be stamped out and is rightly being done

[Matthew.]

You can have any opinion you want, and so should Robinson be able to.

Agree with him, disagree with him, debate him, ignore him. But don't censor him.

If he is going to say racist things then he should be banned

[Crimson Dynamo]

If he is going to say racist things then he should be banned

What race are Muslim s?

[Beso]

There's no place in the world for hate speech and bigotry, it should be stamped out and is rightly being done

It will never be, Tommy Robinson was popular cause he says what many families say around their table at dinner time...that is a fact.

[Crimson Dynamo]

There's no place in the world for hate speech and bigotry, it should be stamped out and is rightly being done

Like in the labour party

Have you posted about that?

[Oliver_W]

If he is going to say racist things then he should be banned

I re-read the op, he wasn't banned for saying racist things. I don't agree with what he said, but none of it was racist.

[Matthew.]

I re-read the op, he wasn't banned for saying racist things. I don't agree with what he said, but none of it was racist.

a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Quran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims

Are you telling me these wouldn’t be racist posts :skull:

[Alf]

There's no place in the world for hate speech and bigotry, it should be stamped out and is rightly being doneHate speech should be defended with everything we got.

Long live the first amendment

[Matthew.]

It will never be, Tommy Robinson was popular cause he says what many families say around their table at dinner time...that is a fact.

If you say those things around your dinner table then that is a little bit concerning tbh

And he’s not popular

[Oliver_W]

a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Quran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims

Are you telling me these wouldn’t be racist posts :skull:

If he'd have directed those posts to members of race, they'd be racist. Sure, they're bigoted, but followers of islam aren't a particular race.

[Matthew.]

Hate speech should be defended with everything we got.

Long live the first amendment

So you’re saying that Islamophobia is acceptable?

[Alf]

Like in the labour party

Have you posted about that?Not only has not posted about it, but probably voted for them to be in power.

[Alf]

So you’re saying that Islamophobia is acceptable?Depends on the crime.

Talking about it should definitely be acceptable.

[reece(:]

Like in the labour party

Have you posted about that?

My post was regarding any hate speech, but I see you trying to play semantics :unsure:

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not only has not posted about it, but probably voted for them to be in power.

Yep

Incredible

[Matthew.]

Depends on the crime.

Talking about it should definitely be acceptable.

That’s not what I asked, I asked, do you think that Tommy Robinson’s Islamophobic comments are acceptable?

(a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Quran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims)

[Beso]

If you say those things around your dinner table then that is a little bit concerning tbh

And he’s not popular

What things?

[Matthew.]

What things?

The things that Tommy Robinson says

[Beso]

The things that Tommy Robinson says

What's that then? ...cause he never said anything that's been posted in this thread.

[Matthew.]

What's that then? ...cause he never said anything that's been posted in this thread.

Can I direct you back to your previous post

It will never be, Tommy Robinson was popular cause he says what many families say around their table at dinner time...that is a fact.

Do you say the same things as Tommy Robinson does around your table?

[Alf]

That’s not what I asked, I asked, do you think that Tommy Robinson’s Islamophobic comments are acceptable?

(a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags"
a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Quran
a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims)I'd have to see the posts with my own eyes first, is there any knocking about to view?

Calling people filthy scumbags is fine. The second one you mention is not an acceptable thing to do, and it doesn't sound like something he'd say, so I'd need to see it.

[Beso]

Can I direct you back to your previous post



Do you say the same things as Tommy Robinson does around your table?


Oh, you are assuming I say these things that I now have to guess what they are.?.you ain't making it easy mathew....but to simplify for my own mind....


.in a family of four I would.like to think one person is saying stuff about the dangers of the liberal ilite.

[Matthew.]

I'd have to see the posts with my own eyes first, is there any knocking about to view?

Calling people filthy scumbags is fine. The second one you mention is not an acceptable thing to do, and it doesn't sound like something he'd say, so I'd need to see it.

Oh you like that phrase eh

[Withano]

If you was in control and capable of running your own life, then you wouldn't need people to censor other people for you.

It's as simple as just turning him off yourself. You can do it. But remember to defend his freedom at all costs. Because one day, there might be people in positions of power that don't agree with you, and will take away your freedoms, and who will defend you, when you don't want to defend freedom yourself?

I dont have control of what other people put on their social media, hence I still see his face and the ****-tonne of hate messages that come alongside of it about. Its not quite as simple as ‘turning him off’....

Gonna be more pleasant without him and if YouTube follow suit, it will be virtually impossibile to ever see him. This is a good thing for everybody (apart from Tommy but maybe he can concentrate on getting an actual job instead now).

[Beso]

Thing is though, that's all it is...forced social media....pretty easy to switch off unless you share the same ideals, then you just keep clicking.....do people stop reading certain sites when they see a post about how tommy Robinson should be shot or something like that..Or do they just skip on by to the next less extreme one.....

[Greg!]

Hate speech should be defended with everything we got.

Long live the first amendment

We live in the UK sis, no such thing as the 1st amendment here

[Alf]

We live in the UK sis, no such thing as the 1st amendment hereThanks for that bit of useless information, that could come in handy to me if I ever go on Mastermind.

[Greg!]

Thanks for that bit of useless information, that could come in handy to me if I ever go on Mastermind.

You brought it up loov.

[Alf]

Oh you like that phrase ehSo you don't have any evidence that he said these things then? We just have to go by the reporters word, just like in the Jussie case?

You seem adamant that he said these things, so I'm guessing you've actually seen these posts?

[Matthew.]

So you don't have any evidence that he said these things then? We just have to go by the reporters word, just like in the Jussie case?

You seem adamant that he said these things, so I'm guessing you've actually seen these posts?

No but I’m more likely to trust the BBC (which says that he did say them), than you.

[Tom4784]

https://scontent.flhr6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/52708422_2531083666919105_6649208556505530368_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_eui2=AeE9wO_-NbXpa9I1AMA_YtzoPZ9tWxesExRenyPYQF0E5IddClE9qBaIb5 Gezcth5qpkEN4kFb23tW789HRPLL1mgzJ7gOJnXa9hCKM1z5TH cg&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr6-1.fna&oh=20ba6004c8ada79fd3cf9baebbbb8c76&oe=5D1F285F
Interesting timing!


"Dean Smith" might

Conspiracy theories just obscure the very simple truth. BBC has no power over facebook and vice versa, the idea that facebook might be retaliating against a BBC 'expose' that has no worldwide impact is fairly ridiculous. That Twitter user is reaching to absolve that prick of his own blame.

If you was in control and capable of running your own life, then you wouldn't need people to censor other people for you.

It's as simple as just turning him off yourself. You can do it. But remember to defend his freedom at all costs. Because one day, there might be people in positions of power that don't agree with you, and will take away your freedoms, and who will defend you, when you don't want to defend freedom yourself?

You keep saying censorship, why? We've already established it's not censorship and you can pretend it isn't by ignoring the facts. He has not been censored, he has never been censored, neither or his fans understand the concept of censorship.

Peoople are allowed a negative opinion on him, free speech after all.

Also stop trying to make out that he's been targetted, he got warned multiple times and he still insisted on breaking the rules that he agreed to follow. He's not a martyr, he's not innocent, he's a prick that can't follow basic rules and nothing more. He only has himself to blame.

[Marsh.]

"Dean Smith" might

Is this meant to be clever or threatening? :joker:

[Alf]

Conspiracy theories just obscure the very simple truth. BBC has no power over facebook and vice versa, the idea that facebook might be retaliating against a BBC 'expose' that has no worldwide impact is fairly ridiculous. That Twitter user is reaching to absolve that prick of his own blame.



You keep saying censorship, why? We've already established it's not censorship and you can pretend it isn't by ignoring the facts. He has not been censored, he has never been censored, neither or his fans understand the concept of censorship.

Peoople are allowed a negative opinion on him, free speech after all.

Also stop trying to make out that he's been targetted, he got warned multiple times and he still insisted on breaking the rules that he agreed to follow. He's not a martyr, he's not innocent, he's a prick that can't follow basic rules and nothing more. He only has himself to blame.It doesn't matter how many times you say it's not, I'm telling you it's 100% censorship.

And I'm gonna say that he didn't even post any of these comments, because if he had, they'd be available to see. It's more likely that some other person posted them in his comments section, if they were posted at all.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you can.

[Beso]

Facebook banning someone for failing to keep their page free from hatred....ehhh.....hellooooooooo facebook.

[Beso]

No but I’m more likely to trust the BBC (which says that he did say them), than you.

You trust a company that knowingly allowed Paedophiles to run amok in its studios for years whilst silencing anyone who dared speak about it.....says a lot about you.

[Oliver_W]

While the worse of the statements don't sound like things Robinson typically would say, I wouldn't be gigantically surprised if they turned out to be true.

[bots]

Robinson is a grade a twat, he has been pushing his luck for years. I'm hoping that the posters on here supporting him are trying to be edgy and think they are being funny because if they agree with his bigoted views I will be blocking them right now.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Robinson is a grade a twat, he has been pushing his luck for years. I'm hoping that the posters on here supporting him are trying to be edgy and think they are being funny because if they agree with his bigoted views I will be blocking them right now.

which views specifically are you referring too?

[Toy Soldier]

Robinson is a grade a twat, he has been pushing his luck for years. I'm hoping that the posters on here supporting him are trying to be edgy and think they are being funny because if they agree with his bigoted views I will be blocking them right now.Robinson classically has quite a bit of support on here; there were a lot of people coming down on his side during his relatively recent imprisonment.

[bots]

I was watching a documentary on the BBC only last night where they followed a group of young muslim women in Iraq who had been raped and tortured by ISIS, saw their family members murdered by ISIS. Some were as young as 17 and they created their own army, trained, and then went to the front line to fight ISIS and get their country back. These are the types of people Robinson includes in his hatred speech.

[The Slim Reaper]

https://scontent.flhr6-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/52708422_2531083666919105_6649208556505530368_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&_nc_eui2=AeE9wO_-NbXpa9I1AMA_YtzoPZ9tWxesExRenyPYQF0E5IddClE9qBaIb5 Gezcth5qpkEN4kFb23tW789HRPLL1mgzJ7gOJnXa9hCKM1z5TH cg&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr6-1.fna&oh=20ba6004c8ada79fd3cf9baebbbb8c76&oe=5D1F285F
Interesting timing!


"Dean Smith" might

Robinson held a public event in Salford at the weekend to broadcast his preemptive response to the BBC program, live to 3000 mouthbreathers. He has that same program on YT.

Is this really what people consider as "being silenced?"

[Crimson Dynamo]

I was watching a documentary on the BBC only last night where they followed a group of young muslim women in Iraq who had been raped and tortured by ISIS, saw their family members murdered by ISIS. Some were as young as 17 and they created their own army, trained, and then went to the front line to fight ISIS and get their country back. These are the types of people Robinson includes in his hatred speech.

Where did he refer to these women specifically?

[The Slim Reaper]

Where did he refer to these women specifically?

When you set out the parameters like this you can pretty much hide what you don't want to see. That said, he was recently responsible for a women's rape crisis center receiving abuse and threats from his knuckledraggin' followers (no offence to you).

This poster, aimed at encouraging minority victims of sexual abuse/assault to come forward in communities where family protection and shame often prevent victims from reporting these events. Because of his post, his fanboys bombarded the call line to make threats and prevent any actual victims from being able to get through.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzb2gbbX4AAKPY6.jpg:large

[Beso]

I was watching a documentary on the BBC only last night where they followed a group of young muslim women in Iraq who had been raped and tortured by ISIS, saw their family members murdered by ISIS. Some were as young as 17 and they created their own army, trained, and then went to the front line to fight ISIS and get their country back. These are the types of people Robinson includes in his hatred speech.


Great program, she really is making a name for herself that young lass.

[The Slim Reaper]

I've known people to get temporary bans on facebook for posting and sharing inappropriate content. It does happen. People report posts and if it breaks their rules they issue bans.

Nobody wants to see your nudes, Annie. Stop it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

When you set out the parameters like this you can pretty much hide what you don't want to see. That said, he was recently responsible for a women's rape crisis center receiving abuse and threats from his knuckledraggin' followers (no offence to you).

This poster, aimed at encouraging minority victims of sexual abuse/assault to come forward in communities where family protection and shame often prevent victims from reporting these events. Because of his post, his fanboys bombarded the call line to make threats and prevent any actual victims from being able to get through.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzb2gbbX4AAKPY6.jpg:large

that has nothing to do with my question im afraid

[The Slim Reaper]

that has nothing to do with my question im afraid

Don't be afraid; like I said, when you set the parameters in the way that you did, you can avoid whatever uncomfortable issues you want to. Any comment on my post, or is it better to pretend it's not relevant and move along? I'm good with either approach, it's just that one of those paths will tell us more about you.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Don't be afraid; like I said, when you set the parameters in the way that you did, you can avoid whatever uncomfortable issues you want to. Any comment on my post, or is it better to pretend it's not relevant and move along? I'm good with either approach, it's just that one of those paths will tell us more about you.

I asked bots a specific question so I am not sure what point you are trying to attach onto it and why?

[Elliot]

When you set out the parameters like this you can pretty much hide what you don't want to see. That said, he was recently responsible for a women's rape crisis center receiving abuse and threats from his knuckledraggin' followers (no offence to you).

This poster, aimed at encouraging minority victims of sexual abuse/assault to come forward in communities where family protection and shame often prevent victims from reporting these events. Because of his post, his fanboys bombarded the call line to make threats and prevent any actual victims from being able to get through.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzb2gbbX4AAKPY6.jpg:large

lmao he's such a moron

[The Slim Reaper]

I asked bots a specific question so I am not sure what point you are trying to attach onto it and why?

Let me ask you a specific question then. What do you think of TR's attacks on a women's rape crisis center and the fallout it caused?

[bots]

I asked bots a specific question so I am not sure what point you are trying to attach onto it and why?

i'm not playing those games LT, you know fine well the reasons Robinson was banned from FB.

[Crimson Dynamo]

i'm not playing those games LT, you know fine well the reasons Robinson was banned from FB.

yes as i read it for comments from other people?

i may have got the wrong end of the stick

[Livia]

This is my feeling... I am against Robinson. However, if I say anything that criticises Facebook for not enforcing their laws with an even hand, I will once again be assumed to be a card-carrying racist... because that's how this forum is now. You either agree, or you're a bigot. No debate. Just attacks and assumptions. So I'll body-swerve this particular question.

[Beso]

yes as i read it for comments from other people?

i may have got the wrong end of the stick

No it is correct....and I don't even think he would have been able to delete any comments as I think the poster can only do it....I may be wrong but I think the only way is to delete the original post.

[Kazanne]

This is my feeling... I am against Robinson. However, if I say anything that criticises Facebook for not enforcing their laws with an even hand, I will once again be assumed to be a card-carrying racist... because that's how this forum is now. You either agree, or you're a bigot. No debate. Just attacks and assumptions. So I'll body-swerve this particular question.

Same,if your opinion doesn't match ,you are all sorts of a monsterous person:wavey:

[The Slim Reaper]

Oh oh, if the facebook ban upsets you, the amazon ban is going to really make you lose your ****.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0Z0Ds1XQAA84Wh.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0Z0FFbWwAAOFpu.png

[Livia]

Oh oh, if the facebook ban upsets you, the amazon ban is going to really make you lose your ****.




No one's upset. Although if it makes you feel a little more virtuous, if that's even possible... you can think we are.

[Alf]

Robinson is a grade a twat, he has been pushing his luck for years. I'm hoping that the posters on here supporting him are trying to be edgy and think they are being funny because if they agree with his bigoted views I will be blocking them right now.Like the edgy posters who hold Gemma Collins up as a role model?

[Alf]

Robinson held a public event in Salford at the weekend to broadcast his preemptive response to the BBC program, live to 3000 mouthbreathers. He has that same program on YT.

Is this really what people consider as "being silenced?"He probably promoted that event on Facebook, can't do that anymore. Why? because he's been silenced.

[Alf]

When you set out the parameters like this you can pretty much hide what you don't want to see. That said, he was recently responsible for a women's rape crisis center receiving abuse and threats from his knuckledraggin' followers (no offence to you).

This poster, aimed at encouraging minority victims of sexual abuse/assault to come forward in communities where family protection and shame often prevent victims from reporting these events. Because of his post, his fanboys bombarded the call line to make threats and prevent any actual victims from being able to get through.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzb2gbbX4AAKPY6.jpg:largeHow is Robinson responsible for other people's actions?

[Alf]

Oh oh, if the facebook ban upsets you, the amazon ban is going to really make you lose your ****.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0Z0Ds1XQAA84Wh.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0Z0FFbWwAAOFpu.pngBeen burnt as it?

How very fascist.

[The Slim Reaper]

He probably promoted that event on Facebook, can't do that anymore. Why? because he's been silenced.

Marcus Garvey organised more than 6 million people, and he died in 1940. I think Robinson should still be able to get his message out. His speech is not prevented, it's just not being given as public a platform (which no one has a right to).

[The Slim Reaper]

Been burnt as it?

How very fascist.

I'm not sure if you understand the difference between burning/banning and a private corporations decision not to sell a product.

Who would step in and force a privately owned company to sell a citizens book? The state? Do you really want to talk about fascist actions in this context?

[The Slim Reaper]

How is Robinson responsible for other people's actions?

I partly agree with you here, but are you telling me with his history of acting as a provocateur (I'm trying to be kind), he didn't know how his merry band of troglodyte followers/supporters would react?

If you could provide a post from TR, whereby, upon hearing about the attacks on a woman's rape crisis center (yes, that's really the place that was attacked), he called for cooler heads and to not clog up their phone lines, I'd happily say I may have misjudged his intent with this situation.

[Marsh.]

He probably promoted that event on Facebook, can't do that anymore. Why? because he's been silenced.

You're being deliberately ignorant now.

[Tom4784]

It doesn't matter how many times you say it's not, I'm telling you it's 100% censorship.

And I'm gonna say that he didn't even post any of these comments, because if he had, they'd be available to see. It's more likely that some other person posted them in his comments section, if they were posted at all.

I'm happy to be proved wrong, if you can.

I've proved that the very idea of calling it censorship is plain wrong, you just believe that if you don't acknowledge that, then it's not true. You'll do the same for anything anyone provides to prove you wrong because you won't accept anything that goes against your world view no matter how factually true it is.

Facts are facts, this is not censorship.

[Alf]

I've proved that the very idea of calling it censorship is plain wrong, you just believe that if you don't acknowledge that, then it's not true. You'll do the same for anything anyone provides to prove you wrong because you won't accept anything that goes against your world view no matter how factually true it is.

Facts are facts, this is not censorship.He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

[Alf]

You're being deliberately ignorant now.Are you still mind reading?

[Marsh.]

Are you still mind reading?

You posted it on a public forum honey.

[Marsh.]

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

For breaking the terms of the platforms service.

Do you call getting banned from TiBB for breaking the rules "censorship"? :joker:

[Toy Soldier]

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

Facebook is not a public space where people have the right to freedom of speech. It is a privately owned website that can pick and choose it's content literally however it wants. When you sign up to a Facebook account you agree to the terms of service. I've picked out the relevant parts to save you the trouble.

From Facebook T&Cs

2. What you can share and do on Facebook

We want people to use Facebook to express themselves and to share content that is important to them, but not at the expense of the safety and well-being of others or the integrity of our community. You therefore agree not to engage in the conduct described below (or to facilitate or support others in doing so):

You may not use our Products to do or share anything:

That breaches these Terms, our Community Standards and other Terms and Policies that apply to your use of Facebook.

That is unlawful, misleading, discriminatory or fraudulent.

That infringes or breaches someone else's rights.

You may not upload viruses or malicious code, or do anything that could disable, overburden or impair the proper working or appearance of our Products.

You may not access or collect data from our Products using automated means (without our prior permission) or attempt to access data that you do not have permission to access.

We can remove content that you share in breach of these provisions and, if applicable, we may take action against your account.

The relevant section, if you're wondering, comes under "community standards", which I've also looked up for you. If you want to check for yourself, it's under section 3, "objectionable content";

12. Hate speech

We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define "attack" as violent or dehumanising speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation.*

When Tommy created his Facebook account, he ticked a box that said "I agree to these terms and conditions". Do most of us read though them? Of course not. It doesn't matter. He signed a contract, the contract explicitly outlines the reasons ones account might be cancelled, it's there in black and white.

Sorry Alf you've missed the mark this time. It's not censorship. It's a private contact between individual and company that's been broken. They have every right to remove him.

[chuff me dizzy]

Our grandparents died for our freedom of speech ,only for it to be stopped ,but I see the Muslim hate preachers are still spewing their hatred !!

[Mitchell]

Facebook is not a public space where people have the right to freedom of speech. It is a privately owned website that can pick and choose it's content literally however it wants. When you sign up to a Facebook account you agree to the terms of service. I've picked out the relevant parts to save you the trouble.

From Facebook T&Cs



The relevant section, if you're wondering, comes under "community standards", which I've also looked up for you. If you want to check for yourself, it's under section 3, "objectionable content";



When Tommy created his Facebook account, he ticked a box that said "I agree to these terms and conditions". Do most of us read though them? Of course not. It doesn't matter. He signed a contract, the contract explicitly outlines the reasons ones account might be cancelled, it's there in black and white.

Sorry Alf you've missed the mark this time. It's not censorship. It's a private contact between individual and company that's been broken. They have every right to remove him.

This, if he wanted to be on Facebook, maybe he should’ve adhered to the rules.

[arista]

Alf
Tommy
can go on GMBHD itv.
BBCnewsHD , SkyNewsHD,
Ch4HDnews , Ch5HDnews
and all radio.

They could interview him about the ban.
Lets have a proper debate with a Facebook advisor
is on soon.

[Marsh.]

Our grandparents died for our freedom of speech ,only for it to be stopped ,but I see the Muslim hate preachers are still spewing their hatred !!

Your grandparents died for you to do what you please on Facebook?

How disrespectful to what was actually fought for.

[AnnieK]

Tommy can still say whatever he wants - he just needs to find a new platform on which to do it

[Alf]

For breaking the terms of the platforms service.

Do you call getting banned from TiBB for breaking the rules "censorship"? :joker:Ask James if I call that censorship, he'll tell you that I always do.

[Beso]

Your grandparents died for you to do what you please on Facebook?

How disrespectful to what was actually fought for.

Oh shut up Marsh, nt once has chuff mentioned facebook.....you are the disrespectful one here, using chuff dead grandparents to mock her...shame on you.

[Alf]

Facebook is not a public space where people have the right to freedom of speech. It is a privately owned website that can pick and choose it's content literally however it wants. When you sign up to a Facebook account you agree to the terms of service. I've picked out the relevant parts to save you the trouble.

From Facebook T&Cs



The relevant section, if you're wondering, comes under "community standards", which I've also looked up for you. If you want to check for yourself, it's under section 3, "objectionable content";



When Tommy created his Facebook account, he ticked a box that said "I agree to these terms and conditions". Do most of us read though them? Of course not. It doesn't matter. He signed a contract, the contract explicitly outlines the reasons ones account might be cancelled, it's there in black and white.

Sorry Alf you've missed the mark this time. It's not censorship. It's a private contact between individual and company that's been broken. They have every right to remove him.My argument to that is easy. There terms and conditions mean little, when they're not consistent with their rules and handing out punishment.

Sorry but they're not getting away with being accused of censoring with that old chestnut.

[Marsh.]

Oh shut up Marsh, nt once has chuff mentioned facebook.....you are the disrespectful one here, using chuff dead grandparents to mock her...shame on you.

:facepalm:

So she's either off topic or completely misunderstands what's actually happening.

As do you, so you know, shut up. :shrug:

[Marsh.]

Ask James if I call that censorship, he'll tell you that I always do.

Well then you're wrong about that too.

Ridiculously so.

[AnnieK]

My argument to that is easy. There terms and conditions mean little, when they're not consistent with their rules and handing out punishment.

Sorry but they're not getting away with being accused of censoring with that old chestnut.

A lot of it comes down to how many people push the report button though Alf......whether it is him or not actually posting if his page is reported they will remove it.

[Alf]

Well then you're wrong about that too.

Ridiculously so.And that's why they get away with censoring, because they rely on people like you to defend them

[Beso]

:facepalm:

So she's either off topic or completely misunderstands what's actually happening.

As do you, so you know, shut up. :shrug:

Your rudeness and downright disregard for people's personal life is the only thing I understand clearly...pretty low and downright nasty imo.

[Marsh.]

Your rudeness and downright disregard for people's personal life is the only thing I understand clearly...pretty low and downright nasty imo.

The only person who's come in here and got rude and personal is you.

Spoiling for a fight again.

Count to 10. Breathe.

[Marsh.]

And that's why they get away with censoring, because they rely on people like you to defend them

Who? James?

If you agree to, for example, not use swear words on a message board and then get blocked for saying "twat" you haven't been censored, you've broken a rule you agreed to follow to use a service/platform provided by someone else.

[Alf]

Who? James?

If you agree to, for example, not use swear words on a message board and then get blocked for saying "twat" you haven't been censored, you've broken a rule you agreed to follow to use a service/platform provided by someone else.When you get banned for a week for a telling a joke, it makes me think otherwise.

Stop defending the establishment, you're supposed to be one of us little people, get back on side.

[Marsh.]

When you get banned for a week for a telling a joke, it makes me think otherwise.

Stop defending the establishment, you're supposed to be one of us little people, get back on side.

:suspect: That's the point though. James isn't the establishment. :hehe:

[Alf]

:suspect: That's the point though. James isn't the establishment. :hehe:He is in Tibb world.

[Northern Monkey]

Well,FB is a private company and can ban who they want.However they should stick to their own rules.
If it was Robinson that posted the comments then fair do’s.

If it was other people though then surely it’s them that should’ve got the ban hammer not him.

They may have just been looking for an excuse to get rid of him due to his reputation.It wouldn’t surprise me tbh.
Or maybe it was him that posted the racist stuff.That wouldn’t surprise me either.
Whoever it was that posted the incitment to violence definitely deserves to be banned without a doubt.

[bots]

Well,FB is a private company and can ban who they want.However they should stick to their own rules.
If it was Robinson that posted the comments then fair do’s.

If it was other people though then surely it’s them that should’ve got the ban hammer not him.

They may have just been looking for an excuse to get rid of him due to his reputation.It wouldn’t surprise me tbh.
Or maybe it was him that posted the racist stuff.That wouldn’t surprise me either.
Whoever it was that posted the incitment to violence definitely deserves to be banned without a doubt.

Robinson has admin rights on his fb page to delete anyone's posts. If its his fb page, he is responsible for all its content

[Alf]

Robinson has admin rights on his fb page to delete anyone's posts. If its his fb page, he is responsible for all its contentWell that's just stupid. Isn't it?

His enemies could just post Sh!t on his page all day, pretending to be a supporter, if he's the one who gets punished.

[Northern Monkey]

Robinson has admin rights on his fb page to delete anyone's posts. If its his fb page, he is responsible for all its content

So rather than having to do the work of sifting through thousands of posts themselves they basically pass the buck to the one person who may not have broke the rules personally.

Thing is.Within those accounts that replied there could be all kinds of white supremacists or would be terrorists etc.FB should be looking into the accounts that actually post the bad stuff and banning them.It seems lazy to do otherwise and not addressing the problem users.Surely if it’s their multi billion dollar site then it should be their job to clean it up.

[Tom4784]

He's had the ability to talk to his millions of followers taken away from him. He's been censored.

I will accept things if I'm proven wrong, but on this occasion, I'm right.

You aren't right, you've shown yourself to be repeatedly wrong.

He was using someone else's platform and he misused it often and it was taken away from him because of his own actions. He can still air his views, they are his own but social media is a privately owned platform that's up to it's owners' discretion to set the rules.

Everyone has the right to an opinion but they don't have the right to use platforms that they don't own without terms and conditions in place. You are not entitled to use Facebook, it's not a human right. He has no been silenced, he just can't use Facebook because he misused it.

You do not understand what censorship is, that much is apparent. Tommy Robinson can still speak to his followers, he just can't do it on Facebook. His opinions have not been silenced and he has not been censored.

All this is just a silly convoluted attempt to absolve him of his own blame. It's dumb, I hate how his followers blame the world for his own mistakes although it's senseless to do so and takes leaps of logic to even force yourself to believe he's a victim.

He's a grown ass man responsible for handling his own ****, only children blame the world for their problems and if he's crying about being banned and calling it censorship then he is nothing but a huge manbaby crying about having to deal with the consequences of his own actions, he's pathetic.

[Northern Monkey]

Well that's just stupid. Isn't it?

His enemies could just post Sh!t on his page all day, pretending to be a supporter, if he's the one who gets punished.

True.

[Alf]

You aren't right, you've shown yourself to be repeatedly wrong.

He was using someone else's platform and he misused it often and it was taken away from him because of his own actions. He can still air his views, they are his own but social media is a privately owned platform that's up to it's owners' discretion to set the rules.

Everyone has the right to an opinion but they don't have the right to use platforms that they don't own without terms and conditions in place. You are not entitled to use Facebook, it's not a human right. He has no been silenced, he just can't use Facebook because he misused it.

You do not understand what censorship is, that much is apparent. Tommy Robinson can still speak to his followers, he just can't do it on Facebook. His opinions have not been silenced and he has not been censored.

All this is just a silly convoluted attempt to absolve him of his own blame. It's dumb, I hate how his followers blame the world for his own mistakes although it's senseless to do so and takes leaps of logic to even force yourself to believe he's a victim.

He's a grown ass man responsible for handling his own ****, only children blame the world for their problems and if he's crying about being banned and calling it censorship then he is nothing but a huge manbaby crying about having to deal with the consequences of his own actions, he's pathetic.So basically, Zuckerberg is king of the World? and he will control what people can and can't say?

I don't think he should have that responsibility and power.

[Tom4784]

Well that's just stupid. Isn't it?

His enemies could just post Sh!t on his page all day, pretending to be a supporter, if he's the one who gets punished.

You seem to be confused, this isn't a personal account in which he's been targetted by trolls. This is his fan page, a group page that he is in charge of. Those kind of pages are ripe for deletion if they break the rules and it seems like Robinson was banned after receiving warnings about his own conduct as well. This came a month after a final warning, after all.

Group owners have a responsibility to make sure their groups follow the rules and act accordingly and according to what's been said, Tommy cultivated a lot of the rule breaks his pages incurred. He's a repeat offender and he wouldn't have been banned if it was a case of other people breaking the rules, at worst, his page might have been shut down but he'd be able to make another.

[Alf]

You seem to be confused, this isn't a personal account in which he's been targetted by trolls. This is his fan page, a group page that he is in charge of. Those kind of pages are ripe for deletion if they break the rules and it seems like Robinson was banned after receiving warnings about his own conduct as well. This came a month after a final warning, after all.

Group owners have a responsibility to make sure their groups follow the rules and act accordingly and according to what's been said, Tommy cultivated a lot of the rule breaks his pages incurred. He's a repeat offender and he wouldn't have been banned if it was a case of other people breaking the rules, at worst, his page might have been shut down but he'd be able to make another.Freedom is miles more fun than all these oppressive rules.

But if it is as you say a fan page group, then that means that people must have joined it just so that they could pretend to be offended and try to get him censored. When if they don't like what he says, they were free to ignore him.

[Tom4784]

So basically, Zuckerberg is king of the World? and he will control what people can and can't say?

I don't think he should have that responsibility and power.

Your reading skills are very....interesting... if you got that from what I wrote. It takes a lot of imagination to disregard what you've read like that and come up with a load of bull**** in it's place.

Facebook isn't the be all and end all, it's one social network, one website. He can speak to thousands of people through other means, people did so before Facebook after all and they do so without facebook.

Robinson is free to say what he wants to say, his opinion is his own but he's not entitled to someone else's platform. When you rent a home or when an act books a stage, you abide by the owner's rules or you'll be thrown out of that home or off that stage. You don't have a right to it if you can't abide by the rules.

All you are doing here is spreading falsities and lies, He wasn't banned for his views or because of the BBC or any other bull****, he was banned because he broke the rules. You can either accept the facts or look foolish for denying reality.

[Tom4784]

Freedom is miles more fun than all these oppressive rules.

But if it is as you say a fan page group, then that means that people must have joined it just so that they could pretend to be offended and try to get him censored. When if they don't like what he says, they were free to ignore him.

Robinson has the freedom to his views but both you and him are very self entitled to think that you have a god given right to misuse things that aren't yours.

Do you wander into people's houses and do what you want because you believe you are entitled to do so? No, because it's another person's property. Facebook essentially leases out a free page to it's members as long as it follows the rules.

You are not automatically entitled to use things that you don't own. If you or Tommy don't like it, create your own platform with whatever rules you please but you can't demand access without limits to things that aren't yours.

[Alf]

Robinson has the freedom to his views but both you and him are very self entitled to think that you have a god given right to misuse things that aren't yours.

Do you wander into people's houses and do what you want because you believe you are entitled to do so? No, because it's another person's property. Facebook essentially leases out a free page to it's members as long as it follows the rules.

You are not automatically entitled to use things that you don't own. If you or Tommy don't like it, create your own platform with whatever rules you please but you can't demand access without limits to things that aren't yours.But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World, things need to be changed. Because as I say, it looks like Zuckerberg is king of the World, with a monopoly on what people can and can't say.

[Toy Soldier]

But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World.

No, that would be Twitter. It's not 2010 Alf, Facebook died :(

[Alf]

No, that would be Twitter. It's not 2010 Alf, Facebook died :(I did think that when I was typing. But you get my gist, so stop splitting hairs.

[Tom4784]

But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World, things need to be changed. Because as I say, it looks like Zuckerberg is king of the World, with a monopoly on what people can and can't say.

Wrong on all accounts, again.

Facebook does not have the monopoly on debate or discussion, Robinson has a youtube channel, he could use Twitch and other streaming sites to interact with fans. There are people who aren't active on facebook that have massive followings everywhere else. Facebook isn't the only place for discussion and you're just making out that it is to fuel a silly point about censorship which has been ripped to shreds by multiple people in this thread.

You keep trying to make this about censorship although you've been blown up by multiple people in this thread who has shredded the censorship argument completely and the freedom of speech argument doesn't pan out either since his opinion hasn't been forced to change, he hasn't been thrown in prison or deprived of his rights for his opinions. He's just been banned from using someone else's platform for breaking the rules too much.

There are plenty of far right leaning people on facebook who are more prominent than he is that are still on the platform because they don't break the rules, it's not an issue of freedom of speech or censorship, it's an issue of sticking to the rules.

What part of that are you struggling to understand?

[Toy Soldier]

My argument to that is easy. There terms and conditions mean little, when they're not consistent with their rules and handing out punishment.



Sorry but they're not getting away with being accused of censoring with that old chestnut.It's irrelevant whether or not the apply the rules equally because, again, they're not providing a public service. They run a private business that they allow people to post in, in exchange for signing a document that says they can delete your content and remove your account as they see fit if you violate the terms and conditions. It doesn't mean they HAVE to, it just means they can, and if they choose not to apply the rules equally and fairly... that's entirely their business, too.

The irony is that believing that this should not be the case - that Facebook as a company should NOT be able to make that decision and that there should be rules on what they can and can't do with their site - is "Lefty-Liberal" thinking :think:

[Alf]

Wrong on all accounts, again.

Facebook does not have the monopoly on debate or discussion, Robinson has a youtube channel, he could use Twitch and other streaming sites to interact with fans. There are people who aren't active on facebook that have massive followings everywhere else. Facebook isn't the only place for discussion and you're just making out that it is to fuel a silly point about censorship which has been ripped to shreds by multiple people in this thread.

You keep trying to make this about censorship although you've been blown up by multiple people in this thread who has shredded the censorship argument completely and the freedom of speech argument doesn't pan out either since his opinion hasn't been forced to change, he hasn't been thrown in prison or deprived of his rights for his opinions. He's just been banned from using someone else's platform for breaking the rules too much.

There are plenty of far right leaning people on facebook who are more prominent than he is that are still on the platform because they don't break the rules, it's not an issue of freedom of speech or censorship, it's an issue of sticking to the rules.

What part of that are you struggling to understand?Tommy isn't far-right, if he was, the media would love him. They do try to make him out as far-rigjt, because that's what they want.

[Toy Soldier]

Wrong on all accounts, again.



Facebook does not have the monopoly on debate or discussion, Robinson has a youtube channel, he could use Twitch and other streaming sites to interact with fans. There are people who aren't active on facebook that have massive followings everywhere else. Facebook isn't the only place for discussion and you're just making out that it is to fuel a silly point about censorship which has been ripped to shreds by multiple people in this thread.



You keep trying to make this about censorship although you've been blown up by multiple people in this thread who has shredded the censorship argument completely and the freedom of speech argument doesn't pan out either since his opinion hasn't been forced to change, he hasn't been thrown in prison or deprived of his rights for his opinions. He's just been banned from using someone else's platform for breaking the rules too much.



There are plenty of far right leaning people on facebook who are more prominent than he is that are still on the platform because they don't break the rules, it's not an issue of freedom of speech or censorship, it's an issue of sticking to the rules.



What part of that are you struggling to understand?To be fair, YouTube and (especially) Twitch tend to have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to bans etc. too... However, really the main point should be, if he really wanted to he could set up TommyRobinson.com and post whatever videos, blogs, etc. and allow whatever comments he wants... Because that would be his own site to do what he wants with, just like FaceBook can do whatever they want and James can do whatever he wants with Tibb :shrug:.

I find it a bit bizarre when people start to think that websites belong "to the masses"... I mean, they could literally shut the whole of Facebook down tomorrow and some people would utterly kick off, perhaps understandably, but when it comes down to it, it's theirs to shut down.

[Marsh.]

But as Facebook is the biggest public square for debate in the World, things need to be changed. Because as I say, it looks like Zuckerberg is king of the World, with a monopoly on what people can and can't say.

What needs to be changed?

Facebook needs to be forced to not have rules around what they accept and do not accept on their own website?

Are you suggesting censoring their right to do what they want with their own property? :conf:

[Elliot]

Tommy isn't far-right, if he was, the media would love him. They do try to make him out as far-rigjt, because that's what they want.

He’s pretty far right lol

[Toy Soldier]

He’s pretty far right lolNot really to be honest. Similar prejudices but very different at the roots ... the usage of the term has become a bit twisted recently. His political ideologies are nowhere close to being developed enough to consider him anything "wing". His ranting is emotional and reactionary, not based on any sort of rationale, twisted or otherwise.

In short; one doesn't have to be "right wing" to be thick and racist, and Tommy is mainly the latter. He doesn't have a well thought out reasoning for why he's right; he just doesn't understand why he's wrong.

[Alf]

What needs to be changed?

Facebook needs to be forced to not have rules around what they accept and do not accept on their own website?

Are you suggesting censoring their right to do what they want with their own property? :conf:Let me ask you an hypothetical question.

Would you support and defend Zuckerberg and tell us he's in the right, if he said, "I dislike homosexual people, and I'm banning them all from my platform, because I can"?

[Marsh.]

Let me ask you an hypothetical question.

Would you support and defend Zuckerberg and tell us he's in the right, if he said, "I dislike homosexual people, and I'm banning them all from my platform, because I can"?

Would I say he's right? No.

Would I say he can do whatever the **** he wants with his own website? Yes.

This over exaggerated hypothetical doesn't change the facts.

[Alf]

Would I say he's right? No.

Would I say he can do whatever the **** he wants with his own website? Yes.

This over exaggerated hypothetical doesn't change the facts.Fair do's

I think I'd be totally against people being silenced just for being gay.

[Toy Soldier]

Let me ask you an hypothetical question.

Would you support and defend Zuckerberg and tell us he's in the right, if he said, "I dislike homosexual people, and I'm banning them all from my platform, because I can"?



Would I say he's right? No.

Would I say he can do whatever the **** he wants with his own website? Yes.

This over exaggerated hypothetical doesn't change the facts.

Actually, sexuality (along with age, sex, gender, race, religion and belief, disability and pregnancy status) are protected characteristics so in that case - as a profit-making business venture - they cant just do whatever they want.

However the difference is in action vs characteristic. Religion is the easiest example use here. You can't fire (or ban) someone because of their personal religion but you CAN fire or ban someone for actively pushing their religion when your terms and conditions ask them not so do so.

Likewise, in this case, Tommy Robinson wasn't banned because of his personal beliefs - he was banned for pushing those personal beliefs in ways that the T&C's explicitly said not to.

I guess if we're trying to compare like for like with sexuality; Facebook can't ban someone "for being a homosexual" but they CAN ban someone for, say, posting homosexual erotica if the T&C's say not to do so.

In Tommy's case; personal beliefs are a protected characteristic. Sharing them in a manner that could be considered hateful is not. If he wants to do that he'll need to find another platform, or build one himself.

[The Slim Reaper]

tXswSY9j3ok

[Crimson Dynamo]

great vid by some random with a TR obsession slim

I note he has like 4 vids and one is Why Shamima Begum Should Be Returned To The UK

oh and the chap calls his channel

The Cognitive Society



:facepalm:

[The Slim Reaper]

great vid by some random with a TR obsession slim

I note he has like 4 vids and one is Why Shamima Begum Should Be Returned To The UK

oh and the chap calls his channel

The Cognitive Society



:facepalm:

Not sure what any of that has to do with the content of the video?

When your first reaction is to try and discredit the source rather than anything else, then that only speaks about you.

:facepalm:

[Crimson Dynamo]

You need better sources

[Alf]

Not sure what any of that has to do with the content of the video?

When your first reaction is to try and discredit the source rather than anything else, then that only speaks about you.

:facepalm:Does he tell any jokes in the video? If not I'm not watching.

[The Slim Reaper]

Does he tell any jokes in the video? If not I'm not watching.

He did say something about Everton being a top half club...

[Alf]

He did say something about Everton being a top half club...I said jokes, not factual statements.

[arista]

tXswSY9j3ok


Why can this not go on BBC or ITV news?

[Crimson Dynamo]

He did say something about Everton being a top half club...

:joker:

[Alf]

Why can this not go on BBC or ITV news?They're the dinosaur media, the Legacy media. A dying breed.

YouTube and the tinternet is the future. Once the battle is won.

[The Slim Reaper]

Why can this not go on BBC or ITV news?

Because it is specifically about Tommy Robinson and not the BBC or ITV.

[arista]

They're the dinosaur media, the Legacy media. A dying breed.

YouTube and the tinternet is the future. Once the battle is won.


SkyNewsHD
BBCnewsHD
ITVHD /Ch4NewsHD

are all on Internet feeds



The News Channels are alive and well
on every media

[arista]

Because it is specifically about Tommy Robinson and not the BBC or ITV.



No it's because
he is a fecking no body


He does not work for the main media

[Tom4784]

Most sensible people know of how Tommy Robinson twists **** and frames things in a certain way to get clicks and attention.

It's no different to all those youtube channels that laugh all the way to the bank by telling right wing people what they want to hear by banging on about snowflakes and lefties and all that bull****. The people who subscribe to those kind of videos, that are devout when it comes to Tommy Robinson ultimately desire to be told what they want to hear whether it's the facts or not. As long as it suits their world view and it's something they want to hear, they'll believe the lies and spin.

[Alf]

Most sensible people know of how Tommy Robinson twists **** and frames things in a certain way to get clicks and attention.

It's no different to all those youtube channels that laugh all the way to the bank by telling right wing people what they want to hear by banging on about snowflakes and lefties and all that bull****. The people who subscribe to those kind of videos, that are devout when it comes to Tommy Robinson ultimately desire to be told what they want to hear whether it's the facts or not. As long as it suits their world view and it's something they want to hear, they'll believe the lies and spin.They're just people.

[arista]

Dezzy At his arrest
There was a Court Case of Muslim Men
who groomed and raped young white girls

That was on Every news after the block on it

[Tom4784]

Dezzy At his arrest
There was a Court Case of Muslim Men
who groomed and raped young white girls

That was on Every news after the block on it

And he tried to spin it that he was arrested for reporting on the case when he doing more than that and was risking a mistrial by ignoring the restrictions placed on the press to protect the victims.

He wasn't saying anything special, nothing unique but he risked justice for those victims for his own benefit. **** him.

[Alf]

And he tried to spin it that he was arrested for reporting on the case when he doing more than that and was risking a mistrial by ignoring the restrictions placed on the press to protect the victims.

He wasn't saying anything special, nothing unique but he risked justice for those victims for his own benefit. **** him.If it wasn't for people like Tommy speaking out, those victims might not of had any justice at all. The authorities were happy to turn a blind eye to this for years.

[arista]

And he tried to spin it that he was arrested for reporting on the case when he doing more than that and was risking a mistrial by ignoring the restrictions placed on the press to protect the victims.

He wasn't saying anything special, nothing unique but he risked justice for those victims for his own benefit. **** him.


Yes but it was still a Fact
Muslim Men Gang groomed and raped
white girls. Were in Court
And it was banned from the media


That's what get's all the British that Follow Tommy
angry,

[Crimson Dynamo]

If it wasn't for people like Tommy speaking out, those victims might not of had any justice at all. The authorities were happy to turn a blind eye to this for years.

yep for fear of upsetting the paedos that did it

because they were asian and we cant call anyone asian or black bad or someone will call us a racist and we will get the blame :worry:

meanwhile hundreds of young girls were disgusting abused by Pakistani men

[Kazanne]

yep for fear of upsetting the paedos that did it

because they were asian and we cant call anyone asian or black bad or someone will call us a racist and we will get the blame :worry:

meanwhile hundreds of young girls were disgusting abused by Pakistani men

Very true LT, the word black will be banned soon

[Vicky.]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-hearing-appeal-geoffrey-cox-a8812361.html?fbclid=IwAR13YIfWRf-VauYLoeKhSBU_Q_DGSJcoTcqUpFNeXRYHQByV5rqSD3j6if4

More possible contempt of court charges, so prepare for more 'he was wrongfully imprisoned'. And more Schrodingers Muslims. Simultaneously getting let off with everything be cause racism, but surrounding him in prison!

[Liam-]

I think a lot more people would be behind his actions if he targeted all nonces, not just the Muslim variety, when’s the last time he waited outside of a courtroom for a white suspect?

People are naive in my eyes if they believe he cares about any of the cases he targets, all he cares about is strengthening his agenda and that’s plainly obvious.

[Jack_]

1102742877342482433

1102744386125918210

1102744966445629440

1103342205031366662

1103343352207065088

1103345513007587328

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is disgusting and so are his vacuous followers.

[Liam-]

God he’s the highest level of scumbag, him and his followers deserve to rot

[arista]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-hearing-appeal-geoffrey-cox-a8812361.html?fbclid=IwAR13YIfWRf-VauYLoeKhSBU_Q_DGSJcoTcqUpFNeXRYHQByV5rqSD3j6if4

More possible contempt of court charges, so prepare for more 'he was wrongfully imprisoned'. And more Schrodingers Muslims. Simultaneously getting let off with everything be cause racism, but surrounding him in prison!


Yes just on TV news
BBC said he could get 2 years

[Crimson Dynamo]

He does seem to get under people skin, probably why he is so popular?

[Alf]

1102742877342482433

1102744386125918210

1102744966445629440

1103342205031366662

1103343352207065088

1103345513007587328

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is disgusting and so are his vacuous followers.Stuchbery knows the games he's playing, he goads people and then when he gets a response, he plays the victim, just like he is here.

I used to follow him on twitter myself, thinking he had something to say, but over time realised he's just a mouthy trouble causer.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Tommy is Live NOW

-RYmnsDeYTg

[Elliot]

Lmao disgusting cesspit

[Shaun]

He does seem to get under people skin, probably why he is so popular?

An interesting choice of words for 'sends people round to detractors' houses to intimidate them'

[Twosugars]

is he still bleating on? what a twat

[Crimson Dynamo]

I dont mind shaun

[Tom4784]

If it wasn't for people like Tommy speaking out, those victims might not of had any justice at all. The authorities were happy to turn a blind eye to this for years.

Oh please, Tommy Robinson had **** all to do with getting the victims justice, in fact he endangered it for his own benefit so he can **** out his hero narrative and his gullible fans ate it up because they don't question anything he does.

He did nothing to help that case but increase the odds of a mistrial because he decided he wanted the views and likes by flouting the media ban. He was saying that was not already said or known. He just wanted to put his face in front of it all because he is a parasite.

Yes but it was still a Fact
Muslim Men Gang groomed and raped
white girls. Were in Court
And it was banned from the media


That's what get's all the British that Follow Tommy
angry,

They got angry because they lack the faculties to think for themselves and just take everything Robinson says as fact.

It was banned for the media just like all coverage of trials involving minors are. The ban is for the benefit of the victims but trust Tommy Robinson to make it all about him.

[Tom4784]

Very true LT, the word black will be banned soon

A ridiculous post.