Tommy Robinson is banned from facebook and Insta

No I am saying they are irrelevant to his current postings, which highlight Muslim grooming gangs, the dangers of Muslim immigration, and the bias of the BBC, and are therefore political.

An organisation isn't a person and even if we classed it as such that person can still say what they like, they shouldn't have the right to stop other people saying what they want.

Its a public forum, social media is now where people discuss and talk about anything and everything.

When you have a monopoly of this sort it is a public platform as you don't have another place to go where you can carry out these conversations.

I see it more as whataboutery and dismissal, you see me waving a 'I heart GA' flag? Merely pointing out i'm not aware of him actually being convicted for these things? Don't get me wrong, it seems pretty bloody obvious he was a terrorist and on the council, but was he ever convicted of it? (I honestly don't know for sure)

I get people have different opinions of TA politically, but I personally do worry how those speaking out for him on matters of censorship are so quick to totally whitewash the fact he's a total scumbag and always has been, it's like it isn't even taken into consideration.

This will vary on perspective, but when I think of 'a bit of a hoolie' I think of teenagers getting a sly carryout, smashing some windows and maybe getting a chase from the police'..when you you start getting done for attacking your partner, fraud and organised football hooliganism you're raising the bar a bit.

1. All I've said thus far is that he is a violent criminal and a thug.

2. His track record clearly shows that he has an anti-Muslim bias, call it racism or xenophobia or whatever you like, either way he is most definitely not a neutral source and thus his rantings on these topics are not a particularly useful source of information. This is not to say that grooming gangs, etc. are not an issue, just that Yaxley-Lennon's input is simply worthless in this context. Indeed, most of the real work to uncover and convict these gangs has been in spite of Yaxley-Lennon's effort, not because of it.

3. Facebook do not have a monopoly.

1. Is it therefore your position that only a person with moral probity (as defined by you) can self identify? If a trans person has a criminal record, or has been violent (and no doubt many have and are) then they are not actually the sex they self identify as, and don't need to be addressed as such?

2. You need to do some more research into what happened with those grooming gangs and who said what and when. As for Tommy R's views on the link between mass Muslim immigration and the rise Jihadi terror, he is right.

3. TR had over a million followers. That is not replicable on any other platform yet extant, so yes, it does have a de facto monopoly.

1. Anyone can self-identify all they want. I have no reason to address mister convicted thug Yaxley-Lennon, I wouldn't piss on the guy if he was on fire.



2. In the criminal investigations into these gangs he has been more of a hindrance than a help, I gather. If you have suggestions of any unbiased sources I may find some time to read them, just don't go linking to gutter press like Guido Fawkes again please.



3. That's a pretty weird definition of a monopoly, talk about moving the goalposts. There are tons of websites other than Facebook with over a million users, you're even on one of them right now.

That's a pretty weird definition of a monopoly, talk about moving the goalposts. There are tons of websites other than Facebook with over a million users, you're even on one of them right now.

It's because they want both a voice and an audience.

The TSR equivalent of Tommy Robinson's reach on Facebook would be of you (or Dez) talking your normal boll0cks on here and getting over a million little green thumbs up below your post, and a thousand shiny gems.

Not going to happen is it? You don't have either a voice OR an audience. Neither do I of course, but no-one wants to ban any of us.

The reason Tommy has been banned is that he does and he has.

Er, you do have a voice though?

Tommy has other sites to post his content, in fact he still does. He posts to his Youtube channel multiple times a week so he clearly has both a voice and an audience (and a large one, at that). Even if he didn't he still could post elsewhere on the internet. His audience might shrink massively but nobody's entitled to an audience.

That’s like saying you support free speech but only in your bedroom.,😂

Hilarious the elaborate ways liberals try and justify western censorship. The only real difference between western and non western censorship is that liberal governments get corporations to act as middlemen to do their dirty work for them. The outcomes are the same.

People would have more respect for you if you literally just said ‘I don’t care that TR is not allowed free speech/ I think he should be denied free speech’ .

The TSR equivalent of Tommy Robinson's reach on Facebook would be of you (or Dez) talking your normal boll0cks on here and getting over a million little green thumbs up below your post, and a thousand shiny gems.

Not going to happen is it? You don't have either a voice OR an audience. Neither do I of course, but no-one wants to ban any of us.

The reason Tommy has been banned is that he does and he has.

Of course western and non-western censorship differ only by who the censor is. As we all know, a company deleting Twitter accounts is basically the same thing as mass imprisonment, mass political suppression, execution of individuals and their families, forced labour camps, etc. Plus, people with the same and/or similar opinions to TR definitely never get any exposure to the public, especially not through the media, right?

Good of you to allow anyone to self identify all they want. Most kind. The debate, however, is how everyone else identifies them. If gender is a social construct, someone's name certainly is.

Your side of the debate tries to use hate speech legislation to compel people to address trans people according to their self identified gender. You try and drive anyone who doesn't out of Dodge through vicious social media campaigns, and non platforming. Yet, purely on political grounds, you refuse to allow someone you don't like to self identify his name. Can you not see how absurd that makes your whole ideology appear? We all know it is boll0cks, of course, but it is obvious you do too. You are such a hypocrite.

And intellectually dishonest. You have refused to address my question as to whether a trans person with a criminal record is still a trans person, deserving of being addressed as such? And if he or she is what is the difference with Robinson?

Finally, and this is the biggest joke of all, you (well not you so much, no-one cares what you say, but the msm whose tactic you copy) are putting your finger into a dam in the hope it will stop the flow. This guy is famous all over the world as Tommy Robinson. He has global renown under his pseudonym. And it keeps on growing the more his is attacked.

Censorship is censorship. If the ultimate end goal is the same (the silencing of views critical to the government) , then as unpleasant as the means are these are ultimately superficial differences (in very different countries with very different problems). Besides often the liberal mask will slide, such as the invasion of Iraq, rendition, Guantanamo etc.

As the Alt Right grows in size I expect that just like every other regime does when threatened, our liberal regime Will respond with extra judicial violence, and is indeed starting to do so already.

What do you mean exposure? People know the alt right exist but are often clueless about our actual views which are often purposefully mischaracterised or/ and framed in a negative or/and often misleading light. Which is fine. I can understand why they would do that. It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand.

Er, you do have a voice though?

Tommy has other sites to post his content, in fact he still does. He posts to his Youtube channel multiple times a week so he clearly has both a voice and an audience (and a large one, at that). Even if he didn't he still could post elsewhere on the internet. His audience might shrink massively but nobody's entitled to an audience.

His YouTube channel is about to be cancelled. The Deputy Leader of the free speech Labour Party, Tom Watson just wrote to YouTube threatening them with regulation in the UK if they don’t. (Labour have to form a government for that to happen, obviously).

Actually people are entitled to an audience, you know. Why are these social media behemoths any more than telephone lines? You didn’t get censored by BT landlines on political grounds. Over a million people willingly engaged with Tommy on Facebook. A million human beings, wiped out by some Facebook bureaucrat.

It is absurd.

I personally doubt that Youtube is going to act on the request of a politician who isn't even a member of the government.

And people aren't, sorry. I have to right to be listened to by however many people want to listen to me. Private organisations certainly aren't required (nor should they be) to accommodate for whatever my audience is.