Free Tommy Robinson

[superfrank]

Respect to those supporting TR.

Sadly, apathy is rife, and the vast majority don't give a stuff about things that don't affect them directly (as evidenced in this thread and a recent thread on London).

Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, should be basic freedoms that underpin everything else we do in life in a civilised society.

For those who haven't got their head stuck in the sand, read 1984 and Brave New World.

[BetScalper]

Respect to those supporting TR.

Sadly, apathy is rife, and the vast majority don't give a stuff about things that don't affect them directly (as evidenced in this thread and a recent thread on London).

Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, should be basic freedoms that underpin everything else we do in life in a civilised society.

For those who haven't got their head stuck in the sand, read 1984 and Brave New World.

+ 1

[Kafkaesque]

Respect to those supporting TR.

Sadly, apathy is rife, and the vast majority don't give a stuff about things that don't affect them directly (as evidenced in this thread and a recent thread on London).

Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, should be basic freedoms that underpin everything else we do in life in a civilised society.

For those who haven't got their head stuck in the sand, read 1984 and Brave New World.

I hope the reference to those two books is just a party trick, you pull out every once in a while to sound smart. They are so vastly different works of art, visions of the future, and take on human frailty, with pretty much the only common thing being the dystopian theme, that it's a dead giveaway that anyone throwing them in together to make a point hasn't actually read them (or if they have, they understood very little). If you've actually read them, and think the morale from either applies to the issues debated in this and the London thread, well oh dear.

[Emmson]

Respect to those supporting TR.

Sadly, apathy is rife, and the vast majority don't give a stuff about things that don't affect them directly (as evidenced in this thread and a recent thread on London).

Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, should be basic freedoms that underpin everything else we do in life in a civilised society.

For those who haven't got their head stuck in the sand, read 1984 and Brave New World.

-1

[superfrank]

Respect to those supporting TR.

Sadly, apathy is rife, and the vast majority don't give a stuff about things that don't affect them directly (as evidenced in this thread and a recent thread on London).

Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, should be basic freedoms that underpin everything else we do in life in a civilised society.

For those who haven't got their head stuck in the sand, read 1984 and Brave New World.

I hope the reference to those two books is just a party trick, you pull out every once in a while to sound smart. They are so vastly different works of art, visions of the future, and take on human frailty, with pretty much the only common thing being the dystopian theme, that it's a dead giveaway that anyone throwing them in together to make a point hasn't actually read them (or if they have, they understood very little). If you've actually read them, and think the morale from either applies to the issues debated in this and the London thread, well oh dear.

Your sad contribution to both this and the London thread is to appeal to get them shut down.

Ignore the threads if you can't face an opposing view.

[spreadbetting]

Ignore the threads if you can't face an opposing view.

[Kafkaesque]

Respect to those supporting TR.

Sadly, apathy is rife, and the vast majority don't give a stuff about things that don't affect them directly (as evidenced in this thread and a recent thread on London).

Freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, should be basic freedoms that underpin everything else we do in life in a civilised society.

For those who haven't got their head stuck in the sand, read 1984 and Brave New World.

I hope the reference to those two books is just a party trick, you pull out every once in a while to sound smart. They are so vastly different works of art, visions of the future, and take on human frailty, with pretty much the only common thing being the dystopian theme, that it's a dead giveaway that anyone throwing them in together to make a point hasn't actually read them (or if they have, they understood very little). If you've actually read them, and think the morale from either applies to the issues debated in this and the London thread, well oh dear.

Your sad contribution to both this and the London thread is to appeal to get them shut down.

Ignore the threads if you can't face an opposing view.

Yeah, you also didn't understand what you were reading, while doing so with my first post in this thread. I explicitely said, that people can have at it. Only suggested something to make the forum a better fit for those not interested.

Don't worry, I'm out of this one. Just couldn't bear having two of the, imo, greatest books ever written being held to ransom as posters for a cause that would make both authors sick.

[BetScalper]

Would be funny if we were all on the same jury case.

Never mind the defendant, the judge would go nuts.

[BetScalper]

I hope the reference to those two books is just a party trick, you pull out every once in a while to sound smart. They are so vastly different works of art, visions of the future, and take on human frailty, with pretty much the only common thing being the dystopian theme, that it's a dead giveaway that anyone throwing them in together to make a point hasn't actually read them (or if they have, they understood very little). If you've actually read them, and think the morale from either applies to the issues debated in this and the London thread, well oh dear.

Your sad contribution to both this and the London thread is to appeal to get them shut down.

Ignore the threads if you can't face an opposing view.

Yeah, you also didn't understand what you were reading, while doing so with my first post in this thread. I explicitely said, that people can have at it. Only suggested something to make the forum a better fit for those not interested.

Don't worry, I'm out of this one. Just couldn't bear having two of the, imo, greatest books ever written being held to ransom as posters for a cause that would make both authors sick.

What cause would that be ?

[superfrank]

Just couldn't bear having two of the, imo, greatest books ever written being held to ransom as posters for a cause that would make both authors sick.

The cause is irrelevant. Do you think either would approve of the suppression of freedom of speech or thought of a British subject? No, and neither would they appeal for the suppression of debate.

[BetScalper]

Just couldn't bear having two of the, imo, greatest books ever written being held to ransom as posters for a cause that would make both authors sick.

The cause is irrelevant. Do you think either would approve of the suppression of freedom of speech or thought of a British subject? No, and neither would they appeal for the suppression of debate.

Well said...

[spreadbetting]

Just couldn't bear having two of the, imo, greatest books ever written being held to ransom as posters for a cause that would make both authors sick.

The cause is irrelevant. Do you think either would approve of the suppression of freedom of speech or thought of a British subject? No, and neither would they appeal for the suppression of debate.

Yet, you're the one telling him to ignore a thread on the freedom of speech because he has an opposing view to yours

[Kafkaesque]

Just couldn't bear having two of the, imo, greatest books ever written being held to ransom as posters for a cause that would make both authors sick.

The cause is irrelevant. Do you think either would approve of the suppression of freedom of speech or thought of a British subject? No, and neither would they appeal for the suppression of debate.

Huxley was not an advocate of modern democracy, he was not a defender of free speech, and he was not necessarily opposed to many of scientific developments in Brave New World. He was describing what he felt would happen, regardless, with scientific progress in generel terms and more specifically how it would be exploited, if the "wrong" people got to use the new science for their purposes.

More than anything he was fearful that a right-wing nutter like Ford would be the one to do so.

If letting the "right" elite run things and hindering free speech was required to keep the right-wing at bay, then so be it (although it became a more utopian democracy later, as LSD and Eastern philosophy among other things came into his life).

Brave New World is a, early-Huxley, view into a future with a right-wing philosophy running the world, so please stop using him as a poster boy, smearing his name, and kicking yourself in the proverbial nuts.

[BetScalper]

One man's villain is another man's hero.

I would think the centre/left should be more worried about the following statistics for the UK.

- 58,000 Police Officers
- 82,000 Soldiers

Assume for one moment that they are all armed (There not).

As of 2017.

- The number of private citizens holding a firearms/SGC certificate was 1.3 million
- The same number above between them hold 2.43 million firearms

By there nature most private citizens holding 1 or more firearms tend to be centre/right.

According to the maths, the government's followers (assuming they all are) are out numbered 10 to 1.

Therefore, my question to the centre/left is...

Do you feel lucky punk ?

:lol

[Kafkaesque]

One man's villain is another man's hero.

I would think the centre/left should be more worried about the following statistics for the UK.

- 58,000 Police Officers
- 82,000 Soldiers

Assume for one moment that they are all armed (There not).

As of 2017.

- The number of private citizens holding a firearms/SGC certificate was 1.3 million
- The same number above between them hold 2.43 million firearms

By there nature most private citizens holding 1 or more firearms tend to be centre/right.

According to the maths, the government's followers (assuming they all are) are out numbered 10 to 1.

Therefore, my question to the centre/left is...

Do you feel lucky punk ?

:lol

Even if that's said with a big wink, wink then turning the talk to armed revolution akin to civil war is just going off the deep end!

Great use of your freedom of speech, arguing for pushing aside democracy with violence. But nice attempt to guide the conversation away from you continiously saying "well said" to uninformed BS, when I called it as such.

Oh, and Nato forces are 2 million plus, so I think, it'll be fine.