Facebook is Dangerous! Delete Your Acount Now!

baza52

hollydays wrote: »

The sad footsoldiers of TR have followed his commands to try to cause a storm now he's banned from Facebook.
The far right is hijacking the grooming issue,to recruit the proletariat
in fact it seems it's the main thing they talk about.Not healthy imho.

I dont remember being commanded by anyone.
Where did you get this info from?

At least you recognise that there IS an issue with grooming

OTTNATH

The replies to this really made me angry. Of course Tommy Robinson didn’t say that. The people who hate Tommy Robinson are just too heavily influenced by the media. Don’t be a sheep and think that everything you hear in the news is true because it isn’t. He proves that on his BBC exposure - Panodrama. We’re told that we have freedom of speech but we don’t have freedom of speech at all, if your views upset people or it goes against the agenda that the elites are trying to enforce, you will be silenced! Just like they’re trying to do to Tommy Robinson and just like they have done to many other people who you wouldn’t know about because they don’t have as big of a platform as he does. Wake up people, stop falling for fake news!

hollydays

baza52 wrote: »

I dont remember being commanded by anyone.
Where did you get this info from?

At least you recognise that there IS an issue with grooming

It's not exactly an issue. With the far right it's their main topic.
But equally I'm glad you recognise there's an issue with the abuse of women and girls.
Is that something the far right have on their list of things to" talk about"?

Comms69

Guerillatoker wrote: »

That is a matter for the court and not a reason for people not privy to court proceedings to kick up a fuss about.

EDIT: I suppose it depends what baza52 means by "investigated" - the police will investigate all factors relevant to the case, so it will be investigated if it is relevant. It isn't necessary to secure a conviction for the sex offences so will just be supplied to the prosecution to be included in arguments during sentence mitigation.

Youve misunderstood. Try reading what I wrote.

The law requires that offences, where the motivation is aggravated by race, be punished as such.

I made NO comment on ANY case.

baza52

hollydays wrote: »

It's not exactly an issue. With the far right it's their main topic.
But equally I'm glad you recognise there's an issue with the abuse of women and girls.
Is that something the far right have on their list of things to" talk about"?

Yes recognise there is an issue with women and girls being abused, why wouldn't it?
I might follow TR and share his views but im no monster.
Its a bit weird that you try and mock me for it though.

I must admit i find it funny that you think there is a list of things TR supporters can talk about.
Judging by your posts i can only assume that your own views only allow you to have an opinion on certain subjects and anything that TR brings up is taboo.

Out of interest would you class yourself as "far left"?
I bet a pound to a penny you think we should stay in the EU as well lol

Guerillatoker

Comms69 wrote: »

Youve misunderstood. Try reading what I wrote.

The law requires that offences, where the motivation is aggravated by race, be punished as such.

I made NO comment on ANY case.

You appeared to be trying to support baza52's point which is a common TR talking point that is, in my view, nothing but a dog whistle, hence I replied as such - apologies if not the case.

There are no offences under the Crime and Disorder Act that would cover a racially-motivated sexual assault, therefore they are simply going to have to convict under regular sex offence law. "Racially aggravated" crimes generally carry lower sentencing guidelines than sex offences, making it counter productive if you want greatest punishment possible. They can argue that racism was the motive but a sexual motive is obviously more likely and easier to prove to a jury.

baza52 wrote: »

Yes recognise there is an issue with women and girls being abused, why wouldn't it?
I might follow TR and share his views but im no monster.
Its a bit weird that you try and mock me for it though.

I must admit i find it funny that you think there is a list of things TR supporters can talk about.
Judging by your posts i can only assume that your own views only allow you to have an opinion on certain subjects and anything that TR brings up is taboo.

Out of interest would you class yourself as "far left"?
I bet a pound to a penny you think we should stay in the EU as well lol

You talk as if you are enlightened but your statements appear rote learned.

baza52

Guerillatoker wrote: »

You appeared to be trying to support baza52's point which is a common TR talking point that is, in my view, nothing but a dog whistle, hence I replied as such - apologies if not the case.

There are no offences under the Crime and Disorder Act that would cover a racially-motivated sexual assault, therefore they are simply going to have to convict under regular sex offence law. "Racially aggravated" crimes generally carry lower sentencing guidelines than sex offences, making it counter productive if you want greatest punishment possible. They can argue that racism was the motive but a sexual motive is obviously more likely and easier to prove to a jury.



You talk as if you are enlightened but your statements appear rote learned.

I think this post proves one thing about you.
You dont pay attention to whats written or there in front of you as your view is blinkered.
You then turn it round to me saying my views are "rote learned"
Obviously im too dim to know what that meant but i used google

Guerillatoker

baza52 wrote: »

I think this post proves one thing about you.
You dont pay attention to whats written or there in front of you as your view is blinkered.
You then turn it round to me saying my views are "rote learned"
Obviously im too dim to know what that meant but i used google

Powerful post, really brought me round to your way of thinking.

Actually it just reeks of intellectual cowardice, a refusal to defend the dross you voluntarily came here to post about.

You're not a vanguard for free speech, you're a lapdog for Stephen Yaxley-Yennon.

Comms69

Guerillatoker wrote: »

You appeared to be trying to support baza52's point which is a common TR talking point that is, in my view, nothing but a dog whistle, hence I replied as such - apologies if not the case.

There are no offences under the Crime and Disorder Act that would cover a racially-motivated sexual assault, therefore they are simply going to have to convict under regular sex offence law. "Racially aggravated" crimes generally carry lower sentencing guidelines than sex offences, making it counter productive if you want greatest punishment possible. They can argue that racism was the motive but a sexual motive is obviously more likely and easier to prove to a jury.



You talk as if you are enlightened but your statements appear rote learned.

I was simply referring to something like this- https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

Certainly not a TR fanboy

RuthnJasper

Guerillatoker wrote: »

You appeared to be trying to support baza52's point which is a common TR talking point that is, in my view, nothing but a dog whistle, hence I replied as such - apologies if not the case.

There are no offences under the Crime and Disorder Act that would cover a racially-motivated sexual assault, therefore they are simply going to have to convict under regular sex offence law. "Racially aggravated" crimes generally carry lower sentencing guidelines than sex offences, making it counter productive if you want greatest punishment possible. They can argue that racism was the motive but a sexual motive is obviously more likely and easier to prove to a jury.



You talk as if you are enlightened but your statements appear rote learned.

Good points well made.