Should A Passenger Dictate What Other...
News2 mins ago
Robinson Sued
// Lawyers representing a Syrian boy who was attacked at school have served a legal letter at Tommy Robinson’s home in an attempt to sue him for defamation.
The anti-Islam activist posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in the months before the incident, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. //
One of the drawbacks of accepting £millions in donations from gullible far right but jobs, he is now worth suing.
The anti-Islam activist posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in the months before the incident, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. //
One of the drawbacks of accepting £millions in donations from gullible far right but jobs, he is now worth suing.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And there’ll be gallant defenders of the truth scuttling upstairs to empty their piggy backs and look under their mattresses to help The Cause. To help Tommy fight the evil.
Once you develop a myth such as the one he’s built up it’s pretty much unassailable. One built on victimhood, very ironically. You try and question or counter it and the victim mentality grows.
Once you develop a myth such as the one he’s built up it’s pretty much unassailable. One built on victimhood, very ironically. You try and question or counter it and the victim mentality grows.
//Once you develop a myth such as the one he’s built up it’s pretty much unassailable. One built on victimhood, very ironically. You try and question or counter it and the victim mentality grows.//
Exactly.
It never fails to amaze me quite how many people there are online all claiming to be lone wolves speaking truth to power, and every last one being hounded in their own way by 'the establishment.' Of course the main thing interrupting their speech is typically the shake of the donations tin.
Exactly.
It never fails to amaze me quite how many people there are online all claiming to be lone wolves speaking truth to power, and every last one being hounded in their own way by 'the establishment.' Of course the main thing interrupting their speech is typically the shake of the donations tin.
AGChristie
Robinson wealth increased no overnight, but very quickly. When he quit the EDL and went solo,he got to keep all the donations to himself.
// Tommy Robinson, the far-right leader, was bankrolled until recently by a US tech billionaire whose company’s British clients include the supermarket giant Asda.
Robert Shillman, founder and chairman of the Nasdaq-listed multinational Cognex, helped to pay Robinson’s high-five-figure salary, in the latest example of American cash flowing into the British hard right. The disclosure comes as Robinson’s former assistant, also paid by a Shillman-funded group, told The Sunday Times that the anti-Islam activist practised a form of “panto journalism” that was “leading people down a dark path”. //
Robinson wealth increased no overnight, but very quickly. When he quit the EDL and went solo,he got to keep all the donations to himself.
// Tommy Robinson, the far-right leader, was bankrolled until recently by a US tech billionaire whose company’s British clients include the supermarket giant Asda.
Robert Shillman, founder and chairman of the Nasdaq-listed multinational Cognex, helped to pay Robinson’s high-five-figure salary, in the latest example of American cash flowing into the British hard right. The disclosure comes as Robinson’s former assistant, also paid by a Shillman-funded group, told The Sunday Times that the anti-Islam activist practised a form of “panto journalism” that was “leading people down a dark path”. //
"How many times do we hear about successful claimants who state 'it was never about the money'?"
I don't disagree, but even taking a case to court requires time and money. Unless someone has a plentiful supply of both it is a risky undertaking. If Robinson paid an amount into court beforehand, for example, and the agreed payout is less, the claimant can be liable for the defendant's legal fees (unless someone with legal experience corrects me?)
It would be very risky indeed, in that example, to have a less imposing legal team than Robinson's. A solicitor can act pro bono, but Robinson would not turn up with the duty solicitor from his last arrest.
I don't disagree, but even taking a case to court requires time and money. Unless someone has a plentiful supply of both it is a risky undertaking. If Robinson paid an amount into court beforehand, for example, and the agreed payout is less, the claimant can be liable for the defendant's legal fees (unless someone with legal experience corrects me?)
It would be very risky indeed, in that example, to have a less imposing legal team than Robinson's. A solicitor can act pro bono, but Robinson would not turn up with the duty solicitor from his last arrest.
Gromit, //. Perhaps Robinson is not bothered that an illustration he used is false, because by the time the deception is noticed, the post has already served its purpose to his followers.//
That doesn’t make sense either because once the deliberate lie is exposed all it does is subject him to further criticism and doubtless his supporters see that too. As will be seen from many of these posts people are only too willing to believe the worst – even if it isn’t true – so that would be potty.
That doesn’t make sense either because once the deliberate lie is exposed all it does is subject him to further criticism and doubtless his supporters see that too. As will be seen from many of these posts people are only too willing to believe the worst – even if it isn’t true – so that would be potty.
naomi - // … because once the deliberate lie is exposed all it does is subject him to further criticism and doubtless his supporters see that too. //
Given that 'Tommy Robinson's' criminal record and his constant odious self-agggradaistement - dressed up in the attention-seeking nonsense he calls 'journalism don't put off his supporters, and he will always use any and all attacks to fuel the pyre of his endlessly burning martyrdom, it's doubtful that his supporters can or will see any wrong in anything he ever does or says.
The facile nonsense that 'Robinson is attacked for 'telling the truth' has served him very well so far, no sign it will not do so again.
Given that 'Tommy Robinson's' criminal record and his constant odious self-agggradaistement - dressed up in the attention-seeking nonsense he calls 'journalism don't put off his supporters, and he will always use any and all attacks to fuel the pyre of his endlessly burning martyrdom, it's doubtful that his supporters can or will see any wrong in anything he ever does or says.
The facile nonsense that 'Robinson is attacked for 'telling the truth' has served him very well so far, no sign it will not do so again.
How many times has a demonstrable lie spread around before it's been discredited? And why is it so hard to believe that TR might have either lied deliberately or got his facts wrong? It would hardly be the first time that someone has spread nonsense on the internet, maliciously or through carelessness, and it will not be the last either.
Put another way, I am not even sure what the point you are making is -- if, as in the case in question, the photo *was* mistaken, and TR shared it anyway, then either he knew it was misattributed (in which case it's a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation in the -- frankly, quite reasonable -- hope that his supporters won't bother to check and don't care anyway); or he did not, in which case *he's* the one who needs to check his sources more carefully. It doesn't matter, then, whether this was neglect or malice.
Put another way, I am not even sure what the point you are making is -- if, as in the case in question, the photo *was* mistaken, and TR shared it anyway, then either he knew it was misattributed (in which case it's a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation in the -- frankly, quite reasonable -- hope that his supporters won't bother to check and don't care anyway); or he did not, in which case *he's* the one who needs to check his sources more carefully. It doesn't matter, then, whether this was neglect or malice.
Oh -- and let's add to that the obvious and sadly successful defence that any attempt to point out these mistakes (or lies) just gets lumped in with a general conspiracy theory, and you should surely see the problem. It's difficult if not impossible to have objective conversations about some topics with people who have already made their minds up.
jim - // How many times has a demonstrable lie spread around before it's been discredited? And why is it so hard to believe that TR might have either lied deliberately or got his facts wrong? It would hardly be the first time that someone has spread nonsense on the internet, maliciously or through carelessness, and it will not be the last either.
Put another way, I am not even sure what the point you are making is -- if, as in the case in question, the photo *was* mistaken, and TR shared it anyway, then either he knew it was misattributed (in which case it's a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation in the -- frankly, quite reasonable -- hope that his supporters won't bother to check and don't care anyway); or he did not, in which case *he's* the one who needs to check his sources more carefully. It doesn't matter, then, whether this was neglect or malice. //
You really can't expect 'Tommy' to spend valuable time checking facts which no-one he wants to influence cares about anyway - someone has to count the money!
Put another way, I am not even sure what the point you are making is -- if, as in the case in question, the photo *was* mistaken, and TR shared it anyway, then either he knew it was misattributed (in which case it's a deliberate attempt to spread disinformation in the -- frankly, quite reasonable -- hope that his supporters won't bother to check and don't care anyway); or he did not, in which case *he's* the one who needs to check his sources more carefully. It doesn't matter, then, whether this was neglect or malice. //
You really can't expect 'Tommy' to spend valuable time checking facts which no-one he wants to influence cares about anyway - someone has to count the money!
Naomi - // Bearing in mind he's watched constantly by people waiting to bite, why would he lie deliberately? //
Because the people who support is arrant nonsense don't care if what he says is true or not - they just love what he says, so notions of truth don't really trouble 'Tommy' too much, and indeed, why should they?
Because the people who support is arrant nonsense don't care if what he says is true or not - they just love what he says, so notions of truth don't really trouble 'Tommy' too much, and indeed, why should they?
jim360
How many times has a demonstrable lie spread around before it's been discredited?
And why is it so hard to believe that TR might have either lied deliberately or got his facts wrong?
waterboarding
noun
an interrogation technique simulating the experience of drowning, in which a person is strapped head downwards on a sloping board or bench with the mouth and nose covered, while large quantities of water are poured over the face.
https:/
I will ask again.
Can the boy who attacked the Syrian boy sue the MSM?
How many times has a demonstrable lie spread around before it's been discredited?
And why is it so hard to believe that TR might have either lied deliberately or got his facts wrong?
waterboarding
noun
an interrogation technique simulating the experience of drowning, in which a person is strapped head downwards on a sloping board or bench with the mouth and nose covered, while large quantities of water are poured over the face.
https:/
I will ask again.
Can the boy who attacked the Syrian boy sue the MSM?
"Why would he lie?" seems to be one of your favourite defences, and it rarely stacks up. The answer is invariably quite simple: because the liar thinks they can get away with it, if not universally then certainly with the people that matter.
This isn't particularly directed at Tommy Robinson, either: it's just part of the human condition. People lie, either to themselves or to others, because the lie fits better with their message and resonates more strongly with their supporters. There's no mystery to this.
With respect to Tommy Robinson, then, what does it matter if he lies and those people who are already his opponents point this out? They *would* say he's lying, wouldn't they...
This isn't particularly directed at Tommy Robinson, either: it's just part of the human condition. People lie, either to themselves or to others, because the lie fits better with their message and resonates more strongly with their supporters. There's no mystery to this.
With respect to Tommy Robinson, then, what does it matter if he lies and those people who are already his opponents point this out? They *would* say he's lying, wouldn't they...
Jim, I’m guessing you’re talking to me.
//With respect to Tommy Robinson, then, what does it matter if he lies and those people who are already his opponents point this out? They *would* say he's lying, wouldn't they...//
Sad to say in that case his opponents are as dishonest as they claim him to be. Yes, there's a lot of it swirling around certain public figures, but it's nothing for liars to be proud of.
//With respect to Tommy Robinson, then, what does it matter if he lies and those people who are already his opponents point this out? They *would* say he's lying, wouldn't they...//
Sad to say in that case his opponents are as dishonest as they claim him to be. Yes, there's a lot of it swirling around certain public figures, but it's nothing for liars to be proud of.
