It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Hate Preacher Tommy Robinson has been banned from Facepalm

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Just to put my head above the parapet, I don't condone censorship and am no fan of TR as I have made pretty clear on here, but when you sign up to Facebook like with ATS you sign up to their T & C's.

He was warned by Facebook about breaching them, he went on doing that and got canned. Same as posters on here that breach the site's T & C's.

I watched TR's thing about the BBC and Panorama and that was indeed shocking, though. Extreme bias there, quite obviously.

OK, flame away....




posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

The beauty of intellectual debate is that you shouldn't get flamed for voicing an informed opinion


What you say about him violating T&Cs, I would like to see some examples of this because right up until he released that documentary his account was still active.

So if we can see which T&Cs he violated backed up with some non-edited evidence then you have a very valid point.

until then, unfortunately, you are just repeating what the MSM says, which as we know, cannot be trusted.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Clearly you don't understand the very real & very present danger which insidious, poisonous Islamic fundamentalism represents to the youth of our nation. Tommy Robinson (not his real name) formed the EDL to oppose the murderous protests of hate speech being directed against returning British soldiers & their families by hate-filled Islamists who called for the soldiers to burn in hell, and so on.

Tommy Robinson quit the EDL when fanatical Nazis took over from within by stealth. He has tangled with both Islamists & Antifa almost every day that he was seen out in public back then, and he was targeted & harassed by the British state because they thought he was stirring up trouble with the sleeping dragon which is Islamism in the UK. He was targeted because the state do not want Islam to rise up against the ones who can see through the deceptions of its poison, because they know that Islamists are far better organised than those who oppose them, and if they rise up en masse they will cause chaos across the nation.

Tommy Robinson therefore, was targeted for silencing - because even though he was on the right side of history (one day to be vindicated by the evidence), knowing the truth of the evils of Islam - the state knew that Islam posed a far greater risk to the wellbeing of the nation, if people like Tommy were ever to galvanise enough support that Islam would want to openly challenge that opposition.

The state knows that at least for the moment, it's best to let sleeping dragons lie, and so unfortunately, TR gets victimised & everyone believes the lies which are spoken about him, and none of the sheep realise quite how deadly the sleeping dragons are - currently suppressed by the unseen machinations of the state, but at risk of causing chaos at the drop of a hat. Shame on us all for not seeing through the charade.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Thanks.

I don't do Facebook myself - had an account but wanted to delete it but it turns out it is nigh on impossible to get it off your phone/tablet as it seems to be hard wired in. Grrrr....

I got my info from this article, for what that is worth:

Guardian: TR Banned from Facebook



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

This article you link to by The Guardian uses a popular tactic 'journalists' use.

By the time you finish reading it you think you've been shown evidence of his wrong-doings. However there are no quotes, screenshots or links to source. Just cleverly written conjecture with no facts or evidence to back it up. The entire mass media is doing the same nowadays, it's almost like they can say what they want as a secondary source without referring to a primary source.

A poster showed me this "Off Guardian" - basically ex-Guardian journos who were sick of just this and formed their own website. It of course, has been taken down once, but they have managed to get it back up.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Then why is TR not suing them for libel? If they just made it up.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

I can only give you my opinion on this:

I have a feeling he does have a number of court cases proceeding at the moment, although this is only from memory, from a video I saw on his Youtube channel around a week ago.

There's also the fact that newspapers have been lying for decades. It started with tabloids and now has spread to broadsheets, they can do this because of their huge financial power and experienced solicitors.

Like I say though, that's only my opinion.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that The Guardian are not giving us sources though and we are just expected to believe them? That's not journalism.


He's taking Sky News to court - this was info from Sept 2018, not sure how far that has gone - I cannot acces Duck Duck Go at the moment, only Google.
edit on 28-2-2019 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



edit on 28-2-2019 by and14263 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

They do give sources - eg. Facebook and the article does seem fair and balanced.

As for libel laws here, newspapers are always moaning that our libel laws favour Claimants. The burden of proof is largely put upon the Defendant in our libel laws. Libel tourism is a thing -

Guardian - Nick Cohen: Libel Laws Unfair

Foreign libel claimants often come here to sue because it is easier.

I know - The Grauniad again. I am not really a Guardian reader but there you go.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy
They tell us ‘Facebook said this’, that’s not a piece of evidence. It’s a secondary source.

Guess what? Facebook said you’re a racist and ATS will ban you over this because I told them what Facebook said. I didn’t show them, just told them.

That’s not how evidence works. You have to see the evidence.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   
OP had one hit and run post and that was it.........

Its safe to assume hes a troll and will make no real attempt to explain anything or return to this thread to answer any questions......

Sounds like more "hit job" work by someone in the UK



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Just to put my head above the parapet, I don't condone censorship and am no fan of TR as I have made pretty clear on here, but when you sign up to Facebook like with ATS you sign up to their T & C's.

He was warned by Facebook about breaching them, he went on doing that and got canned. Same as posters on here that breach the site's T & C's.

I watched TR's thing about the BBC and Panorama and that was indeed shocking, though. Extreme bias there, quite obviously.

OK, flame away....


The problem isnt Facebooks or any social medias T and C........

The problem is unequal application of such.......

Go look and see if Jussie Smollette is still able to post on Twitter, despite his hate speech against Trump and lambasting his supporters, in the light that he perpetrated a hate crime that was blamed on them and was fake........yet still ......able to spread hate
edit on 2/28/2019 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: oldcarpy
They tell us ‘Facebook said this’, that’s not a piece of evidence. It’s a secondary source.

Guess what? Facebook said you’re a racist and ATS will ban you over this because I told them what Facebook said. I didn’t show them, just told them.

That’s not how evidence works. You have to see the evidence.


The article links to the Facebook statement (see hyperlinks highlighted as red text)

'In a blogpost, Facebook said: newsroom.fb.com...'



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Yes, I know all about evidence. But this is not a Court of law and the Guardian gave their sources. That's how journalism works. They do not generally publish sworn affidavits to back up news stories.

But ATS would not ban me just on your say-so. Hopefully!

Simple problem here is that we can't see the evidence because - we can't see his Facebook page anymore.

If this is all lies and what Facebook says is just made up then TR will have a pretty solid claim for defamation. Might have a problem establishing his being of good repute though. What with his criminal convictions and all.

Anyways - do you still beat your wife? - answer "Yes" or "No", please.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask




Go look and see if Jussie Smollette is still able to post on Twitter, despite his hate speech against Trump and lambasting his supporters, in the light that he perpetrated a hate crime that was blamed on them and was fake........yet still ......able to spread hate


But this is an American thing and us Brits have little interest in such things. As opposed to all the Americans on ATS that seem to have little else to do but tell us that we live in a socialist Police State and have no right of free speech.




posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

a reply to: bastion

Can neither of you understand that this is not evidence?

Unless of course Facebook is your bastion of trust and you are happy to trust their statement?

That is the whole point of the documentary by TR - you are doing exactly what you are not supposed to do. You are trusting tech giants and MSM to DO YOUR THINKING FOR YOU.

I can't do this anymore. Unless you can show me TR's actual words and statements then you haven nothing - JUST LIKE THE MSM HAS NOTHING... can't you see this??

Those statements by Facebook and The Guardian are exactly what I described above... we're going round in nonsensical circles.

Oh how convenient 'the page is no longer available'. Can you hear yourselves? Do you see what you are sticking up for, what you are supporting? You are supporting censorship off the back of some statements made by the MSM and Facebook.

What on earth is so difficult to grasp???

I'm tired of banging my head against the wall. Sometimes I think we deserve it. Sometimes we, as a human race, lack the initiative to think for ourselves and do the leg work ourselves that we deserve every last bit of false manipulation the MSM are willing to throw at us.

Ignorance most certainly is bliss/


I'll say it once more, and I will not reply unless you can do it:

Unless you can show me TR's actual words and statements which BACK UP THE FACEBOOK AND GUARDIAN STATEMENTS then you haven nothing.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

What was that you were saying earlier about not getting flamed for voicing an informed opinion?

Look at it this way. If you do not trust Facebook and think that they are lying etc then why don't you show us TR's words and statements that back you up? Do some legwork yourself?

It works both ways.

By the way, I am not sticking up for censorship, just trying to provide a bit of balance.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Oh dear. I gather that Youtube is under pressure to ban TR now. Some on here will be having conniption fits.

To be fair, they may have a point.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: oldcarpy

The beauty of intellectual debate is that you shouldn't get flamed for voicing an informed opinion


What you say about him violating T&Cs, I would like to see some examples of this because right up until he released that documentary his account was still active.

So if we can see which T&Cs he violated backed up with some non-edited evidence then you have a very valid point.

until then, unfortunately, you are just repeating what the MSM says, which as we know, cannot be trusted.


They won’t provide examples verbatim, and their credulous followers don’t need them. These are authoritarians. Best to let them immortalized their authoritarianism in their defence of censorship.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Whatever you say, boss.



posted on Feb, 28 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Malak777

"The hate preacher Tommy Robinson"

Stopped reading after that, If you frame him as a hate preacher then you really don't know what you are talking about, or maybe you do and you're pushing an agenda?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join