Well, no, they haven’t been, have they?

Blackpool activists jailed for anti-fracking protest
Three protesters given prison sentences for blocking Cuadrilla lorry convoy

No, not really.

Three environmental activists are believed to be the first people to receive jail sentences for an anti-fracking protest in the UK.

Nope, all of that is their own justification for what they’ve done. What they’ve been jailed or is something different:

Simon Roscoe Blevins, 26, and Richard Roberts, 36, were given 16 months in prison and Richard Loizou, 31, got 15 months on Wednesday after being convicted of causing a public nuisance by a jury at Preston crown court in August. Another defendant, Julian Brock, 47, was given a 12-month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to the same offence.

They’ve been jailed for causing a public nuisance.

Their justification of it being something the jury didn’t find to be a justification. Yes, yes, we don’t have jury nullification in England, they decide purely and only on points of law and fact. And here’s the bridge in Brooklyn I’ve for sale…..by the way, on Tuesday, the Guardian was telling us that conviction rates of young men for the crime of rape were low because juries didn’t like to convict young men with their lives ahead of them. No no, we’ve not got jury nullification at all.

118 comments on “Well, no, they haven’t been, have they?

  1. I bet those mouthy anarchists will go down a storm in prison .

    It’s not just protestors and severely greentarded councillors who have been a public nuisance .

    Our MP’s have been on a deliberate go slow w.r.t. UK onshore oil and gas exploration and production .

    This is regardless of whether hydraulic fracturing is involved or not , e.g. Egdon Resources recent East Midlands “Wressle” discovery .

    The odds are always massively against discovering commercial hydrocarbons and when they do the party which granted them the license says they can’t produce it for no reason .

    What a pity we can’t jail them too for their delaying tactics and lack of authentic support .

  2. We don’t? huh, i believe you, but what goes on in the jury room is still private. I’ll look it up but i suppose the judge just won’t allow the arguments to be made, or the lawyers will be professionally embarassed and excuse themselves if they are asked to go down that line.

  3. Kirsty Brimelow QC, the head of the international human rights team at Doughty St Chambers, representing Roberts on a pro-bono basis, told the judge it had been a peaceful and political protest. She said the right to freedom of speech went beyond “simply standing and shouting” and extended to non-violent direct action.

    Dumb bitch, someone should go and sit in her office as a form of non-violent, direct action.

  4. CM eco-freak scum. “Progressives” who are enemies of progress.

    Rather than jail the frackers should have battered the Marxian scum on-site as self-defence.

  5. I assume that everyone here who was up in arms over Tommy Robinson’s prosecution will be equally outraged over this.

  6. I never hear of civil actions for damages taken in cases like this.

    Given our useless inadequate or non-existent criminal sanctions these days perhaps the better punishment for anyone who has any assets or income?

  7. Matthew L–In what twisted fantasy is being persecuted for speaking out about mass rape ignored by the scummy state equal to 3 eco-freak scumbags trying to destroy Western Civilisation by obstructing resource prospecting and telling grotesque marxist created lies about technology.

    The three are evil cunts who–had CM madness existed then–would have been at Kitty Hawk trying to stop the Wright brothers.

    That said I already disapproved of the jail time–the eco-freaks should have been bashed by those they were attempting to harass. That would have been better justice and far less expensive.

  8. Yep, MatthewL. This lot prevented people going about their lawful business & cost the public purse a lot of money. And it’s taken 2 years to bring them to court.
    TR was prevented going about his lawful business, would have cost the public purse zero if they hadn’t troubled him & got bundled through court in a hurry.
    On that basis, public executions wouldn’t seem inappropriate..

  9. ‘They decide purely and only on points of law and fact.’

    Uhh . . . I think the jury decides on points of fact, the court points of law.

  10. “TR was prevented going about his lawful business, would have cost the public purse zero if they hadn’t troubled him…”

    TR could have got the paedo rapists let off all charges and released back into the community if the judge decided the coverage meant that a fair trial had become impossible. Alternatively, a mistrial would result in having to start all over again, at considerable cost to the public purse.

    If TR had waited until all the trials were over, there would have been no problem. But terms like “fair trial” and “presumption of innocence” mean nothing to people with a political axe to grind, and he couldn’t wait.

    Political partisans support protests purely based on whose side they’re on. Protest for a cause we like, and you can do no wrong. Protest for a cause we don’t like, and any punishment is insufficient. That’s not justice, that’s political tyranny.

    The interesting thing about this story is that environmentalists usually fall into the ‘can do no wrong’ category – they routinely get let off for things like destroying GM crops or climbing up Kingsnorth power station. It’s interesting that in this case they didn’t. But it might just be a local thing – fracking brings in money, and lots of other people besides the frackers were affected by them blocking the traffic for days.

  11. The jury decides on whatever basis seems good to them. Hence jury nullification is possible and has happened for centuries. In the days when people were transported for stealing less than £2 and executed for more, there was a surprising amount of very cheap diamonds stolen, at least according to the Jury’s valuation.
    TR was convicted without a jury.

  12. NiV is right.
    Yaxley-Lennon was asking for trouble and no excuse is accepted for “contempt of court”, not even eco-loonery.

  13. @Niv – as far as i am aware Tr was reading out what was on the bbc website at the time of his arrest and secondly the court of appeal couldn’t actually say what he had been convicted of as it appears the court didn’t tell him what he was charged with – so all the bollocks about him pleading guilty was leftist cockrot. The crime if any was embarrassing the british state and the rest of the media.

  14. TomJ – ooh nice, but also what’s the world come to when a beautiful squirrel is oppressed by societal expectations to cover up their natural colouring.

  15. “TR was convicted without a jury.”

    TR (through his barrister) admitted doing it.

    “The crime if any was embarrassing the british state and the rest of the media.”

    The crime at Canterbury Crown Court was breach of section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, and behaviour capable of prejudicing an ongoing trial, which is contempt of court. He admitted it, and got a 3 month suspended sentence.

    At Leeds Crown Court he livestreamed a report on a trial subject to a “postponement order” under s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. He got arrested for breach of the peace, and brought before the judge where it was dealt with as contempt of court. TR didn’t dispute what had happened. The judge correctly ordered that the video be taken down immediately (which it was), but then erred in passing sentence immediately – 10 months for the new offence added to the now activated 3 month suspended sentence. The appeal judged that this was unnecessarily quick, and the Leeds Crown Court judge should have either paused to ‘take stock’, or referred it to the Attorney General for a full trial. They note that given the seriousness of the contempt, it’s quite possible that the sentence ought to be increased.

    Since in the process of the proceedings TR has admitted to the crime, and has not (in court) disputed the validity of the postponement order, the only question still to be decided is the proper sentence.

    If he’d waited until the end of the linked trials, there would have been no problem. As it was he put the ongoing trials at risk, which could have resulted in a mistrial/retrial, forcing all the vulnerable witnesses to have to testify again, all at considerable expense, or at worst could have resulted in them escaping justice altogether!

  16. I think they have the right to try to protest, but I don’t think they have the right to succeed. A bit of CRS-style policing early on would have nipped this in the bud, and the cops could then just have threatened them with the public nuisance charge. But then we no longer have a fit-for-purpose police force for this kind of thing.

  17. You are full of shit NiV.

    The stuff was in the public domain. All names and charges had been printed in the local paper the fucking year before.

    Shame the same oh-so-fine concern for “fair trials” wasn’t shown by the scum of Courts when the old white slebs were getting triad by media.

  18. “Activists” – what the Guardian calls extremists who are on their side.
    “Extremists” – what the Guardian calls activists who aren’t.

  19. “The stuff was in the public domain. All names and charges had been printed in the local paper the fucking year before.”

    Doesn’t matter. The law allows the court to bar any “contemporary reports of proceedings” until the trials end.

    In any such proceedings the court may, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose.

    He live-streamed a Facebook video in which he made various comments about the defendants, including reading out their names and referring to their religion, ethnicity and questioning the need for reporting restrictions. He encouraged people to share the video, which many did.

    At his previous trial, he was told in no uncertain terms what would happen if he did it again.

    “[Y]ou should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.

    In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?”

    He did it. He admitted to it. End of story.

    As I said, the only question remaining is the proper sentence. What sort of sentence do you think someone should get for potentially allowing a bunch of child-abusing paedo-rapists to get off scot free?

  20. Shhh! We do have jury nullification in England, but publically declaring that you know it exists may be enough to bar you from sitting on a jury.

  21. Kirsty Brimelow QC, the head of the international human rights team at Doughty St Chambers, representing Roberts on a pro-bono basis,

    There’s your problem. Nobody likes Bono, the pint-sized Hibernian twat.

    told the judge it had been a peaceful and political protest. She said the right to freedom of speech went beyond “simply standing and shouting” and extended to non-violent direct action.

    Interesting argument. How can you “peacefully” take away other people’s property rights? It might not be violent to stand in someone else’s doorway and stop them entering their own house – but it’s not peaceful.

    TR could have got the paedo rapists let off all charges and released back into the community

    Yeah, I’ve heard that one and don’t believe it.

    First off, many (most?) of the Rotherham Muslim rapists are already back in the “community”. They must be laughing all the way to the mosque at British “justice”. So it doesn’t seem like their brothers in Leeds have to worry about growing old in prison.

    Second off, I think it’s pretty obvious that the real reason we get to see live, televised helicopter raids of Cliff Richard’s house and LOOK AWAY, NOTHING TO SEE HERE! on Muslim rape gangs is because the authorities don’t want you to know about the latter.

    Did you even know there was a trial going on before Robinson got arrested? The media had effectively quashed all coverage outside the local papers, far as I can tell.

    The idea that a guy talking on FaceTime outside a courtroom is a threat to criminal proceedings is as much of a lie as the official line (constantly repeated by police and judges) that Muslim rape gangs don’t prey on little white girls for racial reasons.

    Not that Tommy Robinson isn’t more than a bit thick, but he’s done nothing wrong.

  22. @ niv – what a load of cock. he didn’t admit anything or plead guilty – as he wasn’t told what the charges were. Read the appeal documents. I note that yet again the new trial has been postponed – the punishment being the process.

  23. Plus the whole *POINT* of public protest is that you are risking your right to liberty in order to make a point. If there was no risk of loss of liberty the protest would have no meaning. The very fact that you are risking your liberty *****IS****** the protest.

    Are these morons morons?

  24. “Did you even know there was a trial going on before Robinson got arrested? The media had effectively quashed all coverage outside the local papers, far as I can tell.”

    That’s because there was a fucking postponement order in place! The media quashed all coverage because they didn’t want to be responsible for getting them all let off by triggering a mistrial!

    “The idea that a guy talking on FaceTime outside a courtroom is a threat to criminal proceedings is as much of a lie as the official line (constantly repeated by police and judges) that Muslim rape gangs don’t prey on little white girls for racial reasons.”

    It’s as much a ‘lie’ as the ‘official line’ that Catholic rape gangs don’t prey on little boys for religious reasons.

    That was all TR and crew cared about – that they could generate some hostile publicity against Muslims. They’re not interested in any other sort of paedophile/rapist. They’re not interested in giving anyone a fair trial – as far as they’re concerned they’ve already decided they’re guilty. The Rotherham victims are just useful ammunition in their political war.

  25. http://www.judiciary.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F08%2Fyaxley-lennon-full-judgment-1.pdf

    ” In this case, no particulars of the scope of the alleged contempt were ever formulated, let alone in writing, or put to the appellant. ”

    Niv – i know you think the sun shines out of muslims arseholes so I’m wasting my time. Perhaps you can discuss this matter with the ummah at your local mosque.

    And yes the goatfuckers were found guilty so tr was right all along.

  26. “@ niv – what a load of cock. he didn’t admit anything or plead guilty – as he wasn’t told what the charges were.”

    Yes, there was also a subsidiary technicality about whether he was told what the new charges were. However, it turns out that his legal defence team spotted the problem at the time and chose not to say anything about it for tactical reasons, in the hope that it would later cast the judgement in doubt. When his new legal team at the appeal found out what they’d done, they reported it promptly to the court, and the matter of the charges was dismissed. He could easily have got the court to tell him what the charges were, but deliberately chose not to.

    “Plus the whole *POINT* of public protest is that you are risking your right to liberty in order to make a point.”

    No, the point is to make your case in the public debate to a wider audience by attracting more publicity. Protest is supposed to be a form of public *debate*.

    People should only be at risk of losing liberty for breaking the rules. Public protest is not against the rules. Simply protesting – as opposed to rioting, damaging, obstructing, or harming – should never result in a loss of liberty.

  27. That’s because there was a fucking postponement order in place! The media quashed all coverage because they didn’t want to be responsible for getting them all let off by triggering a mistrial!

    NiV, I’m genuinely unsure if you’re actually stupid, or just dishonest.

    Why was there a postponement order? Obviously the idea that reporting on a trial in progress will cause a mistrial is bullshit, the media reports on sex crime trials all the time. It’s only the (many, many) trials involving Muslims that are soft-pedalled.

    Wonder why?

    It’s as much a ‘lie’ as the ‘official line’ that Catholic rape gangs don’t prey on little boys for religious reasons.

    This must be the official line in your head. The reason there’s so many boy-buggering priests is because the seminaries are full of homosexuals. It’s not a bloody mystery.

    But you’ll note that there aren’t any postponement orders or strange media silences when it comes to reporting on Fr. McFeely, and the cops aren’t trawling social media to arrest critics of Catholicism.

  28. “Niv – i know you think the sun shines out of muslims arseholes so I’m wasting my time.”

    On the contrary. There are a lot of things in Islamic doctrine that I don’t agree with. They’re a prescriptive, authoritarian religion that enforces its social norms on others and is intolerant of differences. They’re slowly getting better, but they’re a very long way from good.

    However, Islamic doctrine is very clear on forbidding absolutely what these gangs did. It’s totally contrary to Islamic orthodoxy – Muslim mullahs are fanatically opposed to any form of sexual interaction outside marriage, and very strict on sexual propriety. They don’t even allow men to *look* at women they’re not married to!

    It’s nothing to do with Islam, any more than the Catholic rape gangs have anything to do with Catholic orthodox beliefs, or your average Catholic.

    Truth is truth.

  29. “Why was there a postponement order? Obviously the idea that reporting on a trial in progress will cause a mistrial is bullshit, the media reports on sex crime trials all the time.”

    The problem in this case was that there was a large number of defendants and they can’t all be tried at once. They wouldn’t all fit in the court. And as you have to link each individual defendant to the crimes in question (maybe one or two of innocents could have got swept up with the rest by mistake), which would result in a horrendously long and complex trial.

    So they split it up into sections. And because earlier sections can give away information that later sections may need to present in a particular order or with particular caveats, they ban *all* contemporary reporting until all the sections have completed to prevent any possibility of cross-contamination.

    It’s nothing to do with them being Muslim. It’s because the number of defendants involved requires a split trial.

  30. Muslim mullahs are fanatically opposed to any form of sexual interaction outside marriage, and very strict on sexual propriety.

    Because they told you so? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    In the real world, rape is incredibly common in Islamic countries, as is beating the shit out of women or murdering your Mum for leaving the house without a male chaperone. It’s just part n parcel, innit?

    How do you reconcile your bizarre twin obsessions with trannyism and taqiyya? You must know these guys will chuck you off a building, right? Or are your last words fated to be:

    But Islam is a religion of peeeeeeeaaaaa–

    If that happens, I’ll definitely write a letter of complaint to my MP.

  31. Irrespective of the merits or not of the TR situation, the authorities are concerned only that the procedures and processes of the administration of justice are followed and respected. For actual justice they care not a whit.

  32. “Because they told you so?”

    Islamic orthodoxy is all written down, and widely available.

    “In the real world, rape is incredibly common in Islamic countries, as is beating the shit out of women or murdering your Mum for leaving the house without a male chaperone. It’s just part n parcel, innit?”

    Rape is against the rules. The main reason it’s so common is that normal relationships are forbidden, which results in young males getting frustrated, seeing women as impersonal sex objects rather than real people, and having no experience in how to start a consensual relationship.

    Beating women *is* in the rules, as is forbidding your wife from going out without a chaparone (that’s part of the strict sexual propriety thing). However, the penalty for that isn’t death.

  33. “All of them condone sex with slaves.”

    They do. But the Rotherham victims were not slaves in Islamic law. It doesn’t apply. Their actions were still forbidden.

  34. Who gives a monkey’s fuck what Islamic law is? It certainly doesn’t apply in the UK & ragheads only abide by it when it suits them.

  35. NiV – But the Rotherham victims were not slaves in Islamic law

    Just de facto slaves of Muslims.

    I’m sure this is of considerable comfort to the (tens of thousands?) of little girls across Britain who’ve been raped, beaten, drugged and pimped because Diversity.

  36. NiV

    I agree with you on Yaxley-Lennon. His behaviour could easily had resulted in a mistrial. That said, the liberal establishment’s doctrine of community cohesion means they are not above trying to keep such trials out of the public eye.

    I disagree that “Islamic orthodoxy is all written down, and widely available.” There is no central authority in Islam, so there is no orthodoxy, because there is no agreed interpretation of the texts. Every imam or mullah can have a slightly different interpretation. More than a few imams and mullahs have claimed divine authority for the view that western girls are degenerate infidels who can be treated as sex slaves.

  37. But the Rotherham victims were not slaves in Islamic law. It doesn’t apply. Their actions were still forbidden.

    They were kaffirs, and at a stretch they were captives, in which circumstances the Koran would allow their rape.

    What happened originally is that, after capturing a number of women, the men said: “hey, Mo, we’re horny as hell, can we screw the captives?” Mo replied: “hang on a mo, I’ll check with Allah.” Mo went in doors and told Khadijah that the men were a bit restless due to being horny and asked her what should he do. She said, not being big on the sisterhood thing, that, given that they were unbelievers, he should go and tell them that Allah said it was fine to shag away to their hearts’ content. Allah is very much one of the lads.

  38. “They were of a different faith or tribe. Again, the three books state they are fair game for slavery.”

    Nope. The rules are quite clear. Slaves can be bought in from beyond the reach of Islam, enslaved by being a non-Muslim captured in formal Jihad (and in the case of males, with the Caliph’s decision), or born into slavery.

    And in any case, you’re only allowed to have sex with your own slaves, not whore them out to multiple men in orgies.

    Under Islamic law, both the men and the girls (if they didn’t have witnesses) would be subject to being publicly flogged.

    “I disagree that “Islamic orthodoxy is all written down, and widely available.” There is no central authority in Islam, so there is no orthodoxy, because there is no agreed interpretation of the texts.”

    There are variations of interpretation, but these are a lot more minor than is commonly claimed, and there are manuals of Sharia that combine rulings from the four schools, and specify where they’re different.

    The best available in the English language is Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. It was the first English language Sharia manual to be endorsed as complete and accurate by the Al Azhar university theology college, and has also been endorsed by senior scholars in each of the other schools.

    There are undoubtedly many legal subtleties that are not covered in the book (it’s only 1200 pages!), and there are other complexities and exceptions listed in the book that I’ve skated over here, but on most of the stuff we’re talking about here the rules are straightforward and widely agreed.

    I’ve got no objection to criticising Islam for stuff that Islam actually requires of believers – and there’s certainly plenty deserving of criticism! But it threatens our credibility to accuse it of saying things it provably does not say or support. That’s the sort of thing that gets *all* the criticisms dismissed as know-nothing racist propaganda – and which results in genuine accusations made against muslims being ignored. Don’t cry ‘wolf!’.

  39. Steve

    Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is his real name.

    He uses the pseudonym Tommy Robinson – taking the name of a prominent member of the “Men In Gear” (MIG) football hooligan crew, which follows Luton Town Football Club.

    His other aliases include Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris.

  40. Dunno why, but this NiV cvnt seems to be leading you all up a garden path, again. It’s simple. It’s similar to the trannies. It doesn’t matter what ragheads believe or what their book says. What matters is what you think. Because there are, thankfully, still a lot more of you than them & they’re on your turf. Whether they think it’s all right to screw little girls is irrelevant. Not worth discussing. They don’t have an opinion.needs paying attention to..

  41. Theo (Your real name?)–call it what it is–snobbery. Whatever his name and whatever petty crime–and cocaine for Christ’s sake , him and half the City of London–TR may have been involved in he has suffered and is still suffering because he stood up for British girls. Had you shared a cell with him by reason of also standing for those girls you might have some grounds or at least the moral equivalence to be so full of disdain. But your girls are nice and middle-class and–so far–no beardies have tried to touch them. That will change as NiV’s dickless import-em-all plans are carried thro by the British state. Not that NiV has anything to do with it–his ideas are even more stupid than the WOMIs selling us out. Said WOMIs never heard of the idiot and likely never will.

    It is odd that snobbery still has the power that it has –that so many otherwise sound people turn dumb as a result of it–but that is life I suppose.

  42. “Dumb bitch, someone should go and sit in her office as a form of non-violent, direct action.”

    DocBud, thank you for that, I got a snort and a snigger from it.

    Question: agreeing as I do with almost everything I’ve read above*: why couldn’t young Tommy wait a few days until the outcome of the trial?

    I mean, point is, there are very good reasons for drawing attention to Muslim rape gangs, but he would’ve lost nothing by waiting until the outcome of the trial. And speaking as someone who wants this stuff highlighted, discussed and actioned-on, tomorrow, what was gained by acting as he did (even assuming he got away with it) *when* he did? He could’ve waited a few more days, then let rip. And sure, Steve, compare and contrast Sir Richard – fair point. But the fact was, even if for reasons which cannot respectably be justified, Sir Richard did not have a reporting restriction in place.

    What was gained by young R behaving as he did? A dimwit is martyred, and the cause of dealing with Muslim rape gangs, by association with the dimwit, is set back.

    We have to be cleverer than this.

    * Definition: “intellectual”, doncha know.

  43. Steve–Homer Simpson’s selection of “Max Power” –off Marge’s hairdrier– was the best alias ever.

    “R E Mann” would be my choice as an alias.

  44. I once knew a criminal, a fat, dumb Turkish bloke, whose aliases included ‘James Oscar le Bond’. Happy days.

  45. “Question: agreeing as I do with almost everything I’ve read above*: why couldn’t young Tommy wait a few days until the outcome of the trial?”

    He would have had to wait for the end of the third trial. This happened during trial 2 out of 3, IIRC.

  46. Sheesh. It’s not as if he lacked other material in the meantime though, was it? As usual, you’re missing the point. He did not need to do what he did in order to make the point that needed to be made.

  47. “Sheesh. It’s not as if he lacked other material in the meantime though, was it?”

    Agreed.

    “As usual, you’re missing the point. He did not need to do what he did in order to make the point that needed to be made.”

    I wasn’t disagreeing with the sentiment of what you said. Just striving for accuracy. It would probably have been a longer wait than a few days – but yes, he could and should have waited a little longer.

  48. NiV

    “Just striving for accuracy.”

    That makes a change. Keep it up!

    We might then be able to have a sensible discussion on here about your delusion that you have a female brain in a male body without your endless equivocations, evasions, non sequiturs and untruths….

    Pip, pip!!

    Ecksy

    But your girls are nice and middle-class and–so far–no beardies have tried to touch them. That will change as NiV’s dickless import-em-all plans are carried thro by the British state.

    *sigh*… So not competely approving of Yaxley-Lennon (and/or siding with NiV when he is right) is equivalent to being indifferent to Muslims abusing young girls in Rotherham? And somehow merits a class-based jibe?

    Have you read my post at 4:32? Do you even know what ‘nuance’ means? And, as I’ve stated often on here, I am strongly anti-islamic and in favour of repatriating the vast majority of muslims in the UK.

    My doubts about Yaxley-Lennon are that he has a long list of convictions (for violence – repeatedly!!, mortgage fraud, travelling on someone else’s passport, drugs, contempt of court etc). He was also a member of a socialist party – the BNP.

    As far as opposition to Islam in the UK goes, he is at best a loose cannon and at worst a liability – which is not to say that I disagree with everything he says. Our learned friend, Mr Lud, rightly says of Yaxley-Lennon’s recent caper: “He did not need to do what he did in order to make the point that needed to be made.” Yaxley-Lennon is not a martyr: he’s just dim.

    Meanwhile the liberal Establishment will use him to caricature anti-islamic opinion. Horses for courses, perhaps; but we also need someone who can galvanize middle class concerns about Islam…

  49. – “Islamic orthodoxy is all written down, and widely available.”

    By the same token, the constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed human rights and freedoms. Strangely, nothing about slavery, torture, destroyed lives, persecution and genocide.

    – “I’ve got no objection to criticising Islam for stuff that Islam actually requires of believers – and there’s certainly plenty deserving of criticism! But it threatens our credibility to accuse it of saying things it provably does not say or support.”

    Likewise, one cannot criticise the apocalyptic disaster that was Communism, given its very fine constitution.

  50. As Niv totters on the edge of the roof, pleading not to be thrown to his death, will he think it could be worse – it could be the commentators on tim’s site or even tommy robinson ? As he desperately tells his muslim executioners that he thinks Islam is a religion of peace and he’s always defended them, he begins to realise that they are enjoying this and his entreaties are in vain. He makes one last effort , telling them that he’ll give them his/her Levis and the latest iphone and that surely will make reconsider and become civilised. They laugh in his/her face calling him a dirty kuffar as they throw him off the roof. As he plummets to his doom, he wonders if it’s Islamophobic to hate them

  51. Surely the only criticism of Muslims that really matters is that their faith is self-evidently made up bollocks by a bloke who was a real git and by no stretch the “Perfect Man”. Quite rightly, Muslims are free to believe whatever cock rot they choose, but no rational person should be obliged to respect their pathetic beliefs or in anyway adjust their lives to accommodate the sensitivities of Muslims. Most certainly, in a free society, nobody should be constrained from ridiculing the beliefs of Muslims.

  52. “We might then be able to have a sensible discussion on here about your delusion that you have a female brain in a male body…”

    Wait, what – did I miss something? Are you saying NiV is actually one of these trans persons and not just an avid fan?

    Pippa / Philip will feel even more abandoned.

  53. There are two things going on here: 1) what Islamic doctrine in the Koran and sunna and hadith embodies and 2) how Islamoids behave given half the chance. The answers are, respectively: howling barbarism and like howling barbarians. Neither really have any place in a society in which it is reasonable to want to live.

  54. DocBud

    “Muslims are free to believe whatever cock rot they choose”

    I’ll raise a glass of Adnam’s to that.

    Likewise, those who believe they have been abducted by aliens, or that their cats communicate with them telepathically, or that they were born with a female brain in a wholly male body, or that they are fried eggs, must endure our tolerant scepticism and not expect any special treatment.

  55. @moqifen, September 27, 2018 at 1:36 pm

    @ niv – what a load of cock. he didn’t admit anything or plead guilty – as he wasn’t told what the charges were. Read the appeal documents. I note that yet again the new trial has been postponed – the punishment being the process.

    +1

    The punishment being the process – @18m 50s

    Related:

    UKIP party leader Gerard Batten tells Sky News that Muslim ideology “legitimises sex slaves” and says he stands by his belief that Islam is a “death cult”.

    Mr Batten, Well done for telling the truth

  56. “By the same token, the constitution of the Soviet Union guaranteed human rights and freedoms. Strangely, nothing about slavery, torture, destroyed lives, persecution and genocide.”

    Sigh. If you read the orthodox Islamic scripture, you will find it very open about the slavery, torture, and destroyed lives. That’s my point.

    You don’t need to make false nonsense up. The real think is quite horrifying and effective by itself. The problem is that if you make false nonsense up, and the Islamic apologists can trivially *prove* you’re making stuff up, they can very effectively dismiss and discredit all their critics, and you’ve just destroyed everything you’ve been striving for. Nobody believe you, because they know you make shit up and spout it as if it was true.

    The big problem is that a large proportion of the opposition to Islam is made up of intellectual defectives who routinely make shit up. Hence, nobody takes the threat of Islam seriously, and nobody believes any accusations of wrongdoing made against Muslims. They just assume it’s more of the same made-up shit.

    “As he desperately tells his muslim executioners that he thinks Islam is a religion of peace and he’s always defended them”

    You’re an idiot. Islam isn’t a religion of peace, and I don’t defend it. What I attempt to do is not tell easily provable lies about it. That’s an entirely different thing.

    “Surely the only criticism of Muslims that really matters is that their faith is self-evidently made up bollocks by a bloke who was a real git and by no stretch the “Perfect Man”.”

    The only criticism of Islam that matters is that they consider belief/compliance compulsory, and impose the death penalty for apostasy.

    ‘Freedom of belief’ means that they’re free to believe that Mo, or Jesus, or Moses, or whoever was ‘the perfect man’. But they can’t impose penalties on other people if they don’t. People can volunteer to subject themselves to all the rules and restrictions of Islam if they choose, believe all the things you have to believe if they choose, but you can’t force anyone else to.

    It doesn’t matter one whit that it’s not true – the only thing that matters is that it should not be compulsory, either to believe or not believe.

    “Wait, what – did I miss something? Are you saying NiV is actually one of these trans persons and not just an avid fan?”

    No, you didn’t miss anything. Dr Theo is just making shit up again, as usual.

    “There are two things going on here: 1) what Islamic doctrine in the Koran and sunna and hadith embodies and 2) how Islamoids behave given half the chance.”

    Sure. But 1) you don’t blame the former for the latter, and 2) 99% of people who claim to be Muslim are, by orthodox definitions, not. But pointing that out doesn’t help, since it results in the non-orthodox getting killed.

    As I’ve pointed out before – there are more than 2.6 millions Muslims in Britain, and their all-out Jihad to subdue the infidel manages to kill an average of 6 people a year. Somebody’s not trying hard enough!

    ““Muslims are free to believe whatever cock rot they choose” I’ll raise a glass of Adnam’s to that.”

    Quite so. And the same for you.

    “UKIP party leader Gerard Batten tells Sky News that Muslim ideology “legitimises sex slaves” and says he stands by his belief that Islam is a “death cult”.”

    You’re wasting your time – I already know. I was arguing that case 20 years ago.

    But Islam doesn’t endorse rape outside of slavery/jihad. Saying so, when it’s very easy for apologists to produce authentic citations proving this to be a lie, destroys the credibility of everyone who tells the truth about Islam being a death cult.

  57. “As I’ve pointed out before – there are more than 2.6 millions Muslims in Britain, and their all-out Jihad to subdue the infidel manages to kill an average of 6 people a year. Somebody’s not trying hard enough!l”

    That’s only one measure of their pernicious effects. The more worrying, but difficult to measure, is the self censorship they have imposed on they MSM. Newspapers that are happy to lampoon Christianity and our political class run a million miles when it comes to Islam and their political class.

    I tend to be on your side in this argument, but you doesn’t solve the problem with your pedantic points. People who raise legitimate concerns about the effects of Muslims on their communities are shouted down as thick, racist, bigots in the same way that those that complained about unrestricted immigration are, and that led to quite a backlash. Being inarticulate doesn’t make someone a racist and yet those who complained they were suffering the consequences of unlimited immigration had a point.

    I first became aware of the issue of Muslims abusing young white girls around 2005. It appeared regularly on BBC R5’s forums, but any discussion was quickly shut down. I understand why in a strict legal sense, but it didn’t help the frustrations and alienation of the local white populations and the belief that they weren’t being listened to – they weren’t. Ten years later they were proved right in both ways, there was a lot of Muslim rape of white girls and they weren’t listened to.

    Last week when the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) published their report and lo and behold we have this, without any irony, in the Economist (fast becoming an SJW cheerleader):

    Yet ($) the MAC also identifies problems. Although migration has little overall impact on wages, it pushes down the pay of the poorest somewhat, while raising that of the better off. Estimates in the report imply that EU migration since 2004 has left the wages of the poorest tenth about 3% lower than otherwise would have been the case, and those of the richest tenth 3% higher. As for the public finances, the MAC is unconvinced that the surplus that migrants produce is always directed to the right places; it also notes that migrants’ contribution could be greater if they were accepted on a more selective basis.

    We haven’t seen that splashed around the MSM nor apologies from Gordon Brown to Gillian Duffy.

    Again, those communities have been shown to have a point so we shouldn’t be surprised when they turn to the likes of Robinson and Batten who are listening and what do they see, no platforming on what are perceived to be pedantic points of law (they aren’t) and outrage in the MSM.

    The problem isn’t those local communities or even Robinson and Batten, they are victims and symptoms. The problem is the establishment that refuses to listen and have grown up debates.

  58. @NiV “there are more than 2.6 millions Muslims in Britain, and their all-out Jihad to subdue the infidel manages to kill an average of 6 people a year. Somebody’s not trying hard enough”

    A bewilderingly shit argument.

    ‘average of 6 a year’ – They managed 52 in a day back in 2005 and 22 in a day last year. You really ought to make your speech to one of the relatives or emergency service workers involved.

    How many dead would it take before you said there was something to worry about?

    How many Asian grooming gangs would be OK? How many raped white teenagers is acceptable.

    10,000 Muslims in the UK in 1951, 50,000 in 1971 2.6 million today. Is there any number that would worry you? Which country with a Muslim majority population would you hold up as a beacon or model for the UK you’d like to see?

    Every single exploiter rapist and bomber is excused by you as an outlier.

    This country hasn’t seen demographic changes like it’s had over the last 50 years for at least a thousand years, if ever.

    And your response is to keep bleating that anyone who’s worried must be a thick racist cause there’s noting to worry about.

  59. You are talking to NiV –the King of Jihadi Conversion–who by his own moronic admission has managed to convert exactly none.

    He is an moron whose smug sanctimony goes so far as to verge on evil. By accident likely as he is all intellectual bullshit and hasn’t the blood in him to choose to be amongst the enemies of mankind.

    He followed his ego and it just lead him there. Which makes him just a bog standard wrong’un I suppose.

  60. – “The more worrying, but difficult to measure, is the self censorship they have imposed on they MSM.”

    Exactly.

    It’s the same with the 1000 a year (or whatever) who are arrested in Britain each year for “offensive” speech. The real effect is the cowing of the entire population.

  61. “That’s only one measure of their pernicious effects. The more worrying, but difficult to measure, is the self censorship they have imposed on they MSM. Newspapers that are happy to lampoon Christianity and our political class run a million miles when it comes to Islam and their political class.”

    They used to be afraid to lampoon Christianity, too! It’s progress, of a sort.

    I agree, except I’d say that the problem is not specific to Muslims, and not a new one. Society has always had ‘in’ groups and ‘out’ groups, and imposes a social penalty on the ‘out’ group. The current fashion is to count racists as very much an ‘out’ group, and nobody wants to risk being seen as a member of such and facing the penalty. So they self-censor.

    You can see that battle in two ways: either you can argue about which groups should be ‘in’ and which ‘out’, but retain the system of imposing a particular viewpoint on society by the means of social and sometimes legal penalties. Or you can try to get rid of the system.

    That’s where we differ. As far as I’m concerned, all the groups – ‘in’ or ‘out’ – are much the same, and you can’t have such a system without there being ‘out’ groups who get stomped on, and therefore without ever finding yourself a member of such an ‘out’ group. Anyone who supports such a system has to accept the consequence that they’ll sometimes be on the receiving end of it. By contrast, a number of you guys seem to be arguing that your own ‘in’ groups cannot survive without being enforced by social rules and penalties, and so the fight can only be about making sure your own identity groups stay ‘in’.

    “I tend to be on your side in this argument, but you doesn’t solve the problem with your pedantic points.”

    Partly that’s because we disagree on what the problem actually is, and partly that’s because you don’t believe my solutions would solve your problem, and think your proposed solutions will.

    It’s the same problem I have arguing for free markets against protectionists. The protectionist sees a problem – they’re facing competition from outsiders and losing trade – and they see only one simple solution – raise legal and economic barriers to exclude the competition. It has exactly the same difficulty – that with a system of barriers dividing ‘in’ from ‘out’, you find yourself outside everybody else’s barriers and what you gain from being ‘in’ one protectionist enclave you lose from being locked ‘out’ of everyone else’s.

    It’s extremely difficult to persuade them. Partly because people seem to have a blindness to the symmetry of the situation. In their version of the system, they can only see themselves as being ‘in’. And to be fair to them, it’s partly because in a lot of cases they genuinely cannot survive the competition operating as they are. Current numbers of French farmers cannot survive in business without subsidies. And thus, it’s very hard to explain to them why it’s ultimately to their economic advantage to drop them!

    I understand the concerns of communities, and sympathise – just as I understand perfectly well what motivates protectionists, and sympathise. I just disagree on what the best solution to their problem is.

    “I first became aware of the issue of Muslims abusing young white girls around 2005. It appeared regularly on BBC R5’s forums, but any discussion was quickly shut down. I understand why in a strict legal sense, but it didn’t help the frustrations and alienation of the local white populations and the belief that they weren’t being listened to – they weren’t.”

    Yes, because they made it about Muslim/Asian-versus-white rather than simply about child abuse. Because there are thick racists who will make any random, unfounded accusations up, who operate on rumour, and are careless of their sources and evidence, it became impossible to distinguish the genuine cases from the background noise of racist slander. It’s the story of the boy who cried ‘Wolf!’

    One of the things that came out of the Rotherham enquiry is that the Muslim women in the community had also been complaining for years about their own daughters being abused, but nobody listened – it was ‘all about the white girls’, and they got ignored.

    “Although migration has little overall impact on wages, it pushes down the pay of the poorest somewhat, while raising that of the better off.”

    Wages are the wrong way to measure it. The primary way free markets make people better off is to reduce prices, not raise wages.

    Suppose we invent an AI robot factory – an ‘immigrant’ to the labour force – that can make an infinite supply of everything we want for free. What would that do to wages? What would that do to wealth?

    And incidentally, did they also measure the change in circumstances of the immigrants? Didn’t their wages go up as a result of migrating? What if you drew a line around any other population subset and asked the same question? (Like, do union members wages rise if you allow in non-union workers? Do Londoner’s wages rise if you allow people to move in from the country? etc.)

    “The problem isn’t those local communities or even Robinson and Batten, they are victims and symptoms. The problem is the establishment that refuses to listen and have grown up debates.”

    Agreed. Largely, it seems, because the establishment don’t understand the problems with protectionism either, and so cannot or will not explain.

  62. @NIv – and you call me an idiot – you, a person who believes women can have penises, Muslims can be persuaded to stop killing unbelievers by exposure to western culture which they despise (and take every available opportunity to tell us) and there’s an acceptable death rate we have to accept from the third world savages that only the terminally deluded wanted in the first place.
    You are a MORON.

  63. Anyhoo, I look forward to a decent documentary, aired on primetime, on the subject of the epidemic of brown on white rape. Of children. And serious reflections on the country that allows it to happen.

    In the meantime, I propose a rule. NiV doesn’t get the last word.

    This is the last word.

    Actually, ‘word’ is the last word.

  64. “That wss part of a whole paragraph, so no.”

    A paragraph that simply restated the conclusions of *my* arguments, yes?

  65. ”A paragraph that simply restated the conclusions of *my* arguments, yes?”

    Ah yes, of course; quite right. moqifen should have included the possibility of your being insane.

  66. “Ah yes, of course; quite right. moqifen should have included the possibility of your being insane.”

    Or the possibility that moqifen had got it wrong…?

    No, I was suggesting that he should have included a logical argument to support his claim – preferably one that hadn’t been demolished on any of the previous dozen times people have come out with the same nonsense.

    But no, the best argument he can come up with is: “You are a MORON.” Duh! I mean, don’t you find it embarassing to be applauding that sort of thing?

  67. “But no, the best argument he can come up with is: “You are a MORON.” Duh! I mean, don’t you find it embarassing to be applauding that sort of thing?”

    I didn’t applaud it.

    You should be embarrassed to just make shit up about what people say, but then make believe is central to your philosophy so, no, you won’t be.

  68. “You should be embarrassed to just make shit up about what people say”

    And this in a thread where we see:

    “you, a person who believes […] there’s an acceptable death rate we have to accept from the third world savages that only the terminally deluded wanted in the first place.”

    “Niv – i know you think the sun shines out of muslims arseholes so I’m wasting my time.”

    “As he desperately tells his muslim executioners that he thinks Islam is a religion of peace and he’s always defended them,”

    “We might then be able to have a sensible discussion on here about your delusion that you have a female brain in a male body…”

    “Wait, what – did I miss something? Are you saying NiV is actually one of these trans persons and not just an avid fan?”

    It’s a good question. *Did* we miss something?

  69. “And this in a thread where we see:”

    …a bunch of stuff written not by me – except for a question about (what turned out to be some shit made up about) you.

    I called you out for making shit up about me, and, typically, you divert onto something else.

    Thing is, most people here are just imperfect, lazy old farts ranting on a blog comments section. But you choose to present yourself as an intellectual; a great debater who demolishes arguments with facts; nothing less than an “authority”.

    So yes, you should be embarrassed by resorting to cheap, shitty tricks.

    But you can’t seem to help yourself. Well, that’s OK, it’s all part of the entertainment.

  70. ” *Did* we miss something?”

    You paying attention to Pippa / Philip. You’re missing presumed deserted on that.

  71. “Yes This”

    An interview with Tommy where he says the rape gangs are not asians, and we should stop smearing the whole of those poor innocent asian communities with these terrible crimes?

    What’s your point?

    “Thing is, most people here are just imperfect, lazy old farts ranting on a blog comments section. But you choose to present yourself as an intellectual; a great debater who demolishes arguments with facts; nothing less than an “authority”.”

    Thank you! I’ll take that as a compliment.

    Except that no, I’m definitely not an “authority”, and I’m just as lazy and imperfect as anyone else. I like to rant, and I enjoy arguing. I’ve got opinions, same as anyone else. I’m just having fun and passing the time debating ideas on blogs. I don’t see why the standards expected should be any different for me than anyone else here.

    So my opinions are different to yours. So what? We all believe in free speech here, yes?

    “Applaud” was probably not quite the right word for what I meant – maybe “support” would be better. What I’m talking about is that I got a comment basically calling me a “moron”, on the basis of some strawman nonsense that I think anyone here could see the holes in (which is presumably the reason no supporting argument was presented, just “You are a MORON.”). I comment on the quality, and I get two opposing comments back – the first pointing to the rest of the paragraph as if that contained the actual argument which I was unfairly ignoring, and the second basically extending “moron” to “insane”.

    Seriously? You choose not to make any comment critical of the arguments ranged against me, you can see for yourself they’re based on bad arguments full of holes (you’re not stupid!), you could probably reconstruct all my arguments against them for yourself. You know I’m right, you know perfectly well I’m not a ‘moron’, and you know it was an atrocious argument, but you choose to join in on the same side as it anyway. To ‘cheer it on’ with more of the same.

    Why would you deliberately pick the worst argument to throw your support to? And with such a weak sally as extending “moron” to “insane”? I’m presuming it’s because it’s not about the validity of the arguments, but seen as a competition/fight between two ‘sides’, and the audience are simply voicing support for their own side. They’re applauding even a crap move on the part of their team simply because that’s what supporters do.

    “But you can’t seem to help yourself. Well, that’s OK, it’s all part of the entertainment.”

    Oh, I could easily refrain from it if I wanted. But I’m just joining in the fun! Why should *you* all get to enjoy cheap shitty tricks and not me?!

    It’s very nice of you to say I’m better than that – it’s a lot different to “moron” and “insane”! – but no, I’m not accepting different rules. If you don’t want “cheap, shitty tricks”, then don’t use them, and don’t support them.

    You are better than that, too.

  72. @NiV, September 29, 2018 at 11:36 am

    The point being it’s perverting truth. Gov’t, MSM etc should be open, accurate, specific and honest by saying the:

    Child rape gangs are overwhelmingly (>90%) Muslim Pakistanis, Indians & Bangladeshis and their decendants.

    Even Sajid Javid now admits this is the case.

    If ~3% of a population commit >90% of a certain crime and that ~3% belong to a specific group that group is a problem and a danger.

    You know this, but choose to ignore it and prattle on about some non-group rape children too.

  73. “The point being it’s perverting truth. Gov’t, MSM etc should be open, accurate, specific and honest”

    And so should we.

    I can’t emphasise this enough – if we “Cry ‘Wolf!'” and get caught perverting the truth, we lose all credibility for our warnings. Sure, it feels great to have a little rant about it with some made-up numbers, but the *consequence* is that nobody believes the stories when a *real* case turns up. As we’ve seen, that can be truly horrific.

    “Child rape gangs are overwhelmingly (>90%) Muslim Pakistanis, Indians & Bangladeshis and their decendants.”

    I don’t believe that’s true.

    The best two sources of statistics I can find on a quick search are here and here. See also here for statistics from the USA.

    The latest data we have on this is from the 2013 CEOP study. It reports 57 cases of Type 1 group abuse in 2012, and police provided ethnicity data on 52 of these.

    Half of those Type 1 cases involved all-Asian groups. 21 per cent were all-white groups, and 17 per cent were groups containing multiple ethnicities.

    75 per cent of recorded Type 1 group abusers, who target victims based on their vulnerability, were Asian. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5 per cent of the UK’s population are Asian.

    17 per cent of Type 1 offenders were white, compared to 86 per cent of the UK population.

    There were six recorded cases of Type 2 group abuse.

    100 per cent of recorded Type 2 group offenders, who abuse children because of long-standing paedophilic interest, are white.

    “If ~3% of a population commit >90% of a certain crime and that ~3% belong to a specific group that group is a problem and a danger.”

    If 3% of a population commit a crime (and 3% of the Muslim population would be 78,000 rapists, which I don’t think is quite the number they caught…), then that means that 97% don’t. If you pick a member of the group at random, it’s 97% certain that they’re *not* a problem/danger. And this is the issue that users of the ‘Group A Group B trick’ keep on glossing over. (And incidentally, why politicians hate giving such people more ammunition for their games.)

    It’s also worth noting that if the crime is extremely rare, then ‘90%’ is 90% of a very small number. That’s not to dismiss its seriousness, but you do need to be aware of the context and keep things in proportion.

    As I’ve pointed out numerous times 90% of convicted criminals and 100% of rapists are men, but only 50% of the population as a whole are men. That’s grossly disproportionate, too. Therefore – say the Radical Feminists – men are a problem and a danger. They all need to be jailed or deported as a precaution. (Or more realistically, that we need to take away the presumption of innocence – see Title IX Rape Trials in the US.)

    That, I hope you would agree, would be nuts – the vast majority of men are neither criminals nor rapists, and not deserving of being treated as such. But such is the Group A Group B trick. Certainly, one should be *aware* of the disproportionate correlation, and take it into account in policy regarding Group B. But it’s a lot more dangerous to start applying policy broadly to all of Group A on that basis. Somebody can always find a way to redraw the lines so as to include *you* in it. Given the chance, progressive and SJW lawmakers *will*.

    Blackstone’s Formulation has been a cornerstone principle of British Justice since 1470. As Blackstone put it: “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.” (People like Otto von Bismarck and Pol Pot tended to reverse the ratio.) It’s for our own protection. And isn’t this sort of thing precisely the sort of liberal British principle that makes our culture worth fighting for? That we ought to be fighting to keep and uphold?

    “You know this, but choose to ignore it”

    I know it but I’m not ignoring it. I’m instead explaining why it’s so extremely dangerous to use it that way.

  74. “I’m presuming it’s because it’s not about the validity of the arguments, but seen as a competition/fight between two ‘sides’, and the audience are simply voicing support for their own side.”

    You’re reading too much into things. I was on a short break at work, spotted some low hanging fruit and took a quick potshot. Clues were there – time of post, length of post, uncorrected typo.

    I’m not much into taking sides; I don’t know moqifen from Adam (I assume from his focus that there is some historical dispute). I do tend to target pomposity – so I’m afraid it’s going to seem like you’re being picked on disproportionately.

    “…I’m definitely not an “authority”…”

    I put that in quotes because it is a quote. You shouldn’t say you’re an authority if you’re not. I even picked you up on it since you’re always throwing around the authoritarian label.

  75. @NiV, September 29, 2018 at 11:36 pm

    …If 3% of a population commit a crime (and 3% of the Muslim population would be 78,000 rapists…

    ~3% of UK population are muslim – not ~3% of muslims are child rapists – you know that yet choose to be pedantic and misinterpret.

    You did the same with ONS stats by substituting muslim with Asian which was the point TR made.

    As I said, Javid accepts this; your refusal to indicates a distinct & obvious refusal to accept unpleasant facts.

    Alternatively, you’re trolling

  76. Fixed

    @NiV, September 29, 2018 at 11:36 pm

    …If 3% of a population commit a crime (and 3% of the Muslim population would be 78,000 rapists…

    ~3% of UK population are muslim – not ~3% of muslims are child rapists – you know that yet choose to be pedantic and misinterpret.

    You did the same with ONS stats by substituting muslim with Asian which was the point TR made.

    As I said, Javid accepts this; your refusal to indicates a distinct & obvious refusal to accept unpleasant facts.

    Alternatively, you’re trolling

  77. “I put that in quotes because it is a quote. You shouldn’t say you’re an authority if you’re not. I even picked you up on it since you’re always throwing around the authoritarian label.”

    I’ve done a text search and I can’t find where I’ve said I’m an authority. I can’t imagine me ever saying it, either. Can you give me a more specific pointer?

    “~3% of UK population are muslim – not ~3% of muslims are child rapists – you know that yet choose to be pedantic and misinterpret.”

    What you said was “If ~3% of a population commit >90% of a certain crime and that ~3% belong to a specific group that group is a problem and a danger.” I assume that if you say 3% of a population commit a crime, you mean 3% are committing the crimes. When you say the 3% ‘belong’ to a specific group, I assume you mean the ‘3%’ and the ‘specific group’ are distinct. (Or why say it? Why wouldn’t you say the 3% *are* the specific group?) Assuming the “specific group” we’re talking about is either Asians or Muslims, and assuming you’re not saying *all* Muslims are rapists, then the 3% of ‘a population’ who are rapists must be 3% of either Muslims or Asians. They’re the only other populations we’re talking about. 3% of Asians would be an even bigger number.

    I see now that what you was trying to say was “If 0.02% of a specific group that make up ~3% of a population commit >90% of a certain crime…” OK, let’s see if that makes any more sense.

    That means that if we pick a member of this group at random, it is now 99.98% certain that they’re not a problem and a danger. How does that make your argument any stronger?

    “As I said, Javid accepts this; your refusal to indicates a distinct & obvious refusal to accept unpleasant facts.”

    I don’t consider Javid to be an authority. Where’s the data? Where’s the evidence? And why, when I go looking for evidence from more credible sources, do I immediately find a different answer?

    I’m disputing your claim that this is a “fact”. Consider it an invitation to prove it, by providing the evidence it’s based on.

    I’m making two points, neither of which you answer. I’m saying that like the government we have a duty to get our numbers correct, and very often we don’t. This particular statistic being a case in point – it’s easily refuted by anyone who performs a 5 minute search for data, and this sort of thing is exactly why the public and the authorities dismiss all racists as liars who are not to be believed. That you’ll credulously believe and spread any false rumour, theory, or statistic without checking if it trashes any of your hate groups.

    And secondly, I’m pointing out that it’s a logically invalid argument. When even your own statistics show that 97%, or 99.98% of the group in question are not criminals, but you are trying to treat them *all* as if they are: saying “that group is a problem and a danger”. That’s insane! And it goes against our liberal British traditions of justice.

    Quit nit-picking about trivia (I’m allowed to read comments quickly/casually and take potshots, too) and address the actual points I made. Do you agree that, like the government, we too need to be accurate? Do you agree the 90% figure quoted is incorrect, or do you have a valid source for it? (I don’t have a problem if you do – it was only a quick search on my part.) And do you agree that the ‘Group A Group B trick’ for judging innocent people guilty, whether it’s being applied to a group that is 97% innocent or 99.98% innocent in this case, stands in opposition to core British principles and traditions of law and justice? Not to mention everyday morality, fairness, logic, and sanity?

    I mean, what is it with that? Do you not recognise the ‘Group A Group B trick’ when you see it used? Do you not see that you’re using it? Do you think it’s somehow logically valid? Are you thinking that since the other side uses it, so can you? Or do you think it’s only OK when you’re doing it – that supporting your side’s ends justifies the use of any means? What’s going on in your head when you use it?

  78. “Not on most other subjects.”

    So when you say you’re “definitely not an authority” it means you actually are an authority – and on more than one subject.

    This ability to imagine two diametrically opposed positions – on yourself – within adjacent comments of the same thread – goes some way to explain how it is possible for you to fervently believe that things which are not real somehow are.

  79. There are several different meanings and emphases to the word ‘authority’.

    On certain subjects, I’m an ‘authority’ in the sense that I know a lot about them. I spent about 5 years arguing Islamic theology with Muslim fanatics, and I got to know what they believed in some depth. Quite a few people pick me to come to with any questions they have about it.

    I only used the word in that previous post because that was the word used for it in the comment I was replying to – in other circumstances I’d more likely say I know a lot about it, or something of the sort. Normally, I don’t bother to tell people what subjects I’m an expert in – they’re perfectly capable of figuring that out for themselves from what I say – but sometimes it’s useful to do so.

    However, another sense of the word is as in ‘Argument from Authority’, in which people argue that one should believe simply because such-and-such an ‘authority’ said so. This sense I reject completely. I don’t expect anyone to take my word for it, just as I don’t expect to have to take anyone else’s word for it. If you want to know, ask, and I’ll try to give you my references and sources.

    Both of these meanings are quite distinct from its meaning in ‘Authoritarian’. That’s a political system in which society dictates and enforces social norms on its members. It’s an ‘authority’ in the sense of having a right to command, rather than being an expert, or a trustworthy expert. I’ve argued vehemently against that since I’ve been here – there’s no way you could have thought I meant it in that sense.

    “This ability to imagine two diametrically opposed positions – on yourself – …”

    This tendency to project your own misunderstandings and assumptions onto me goes some way to explain why you think what you do about me, and why I get all this hostility!

    At one time I claimed to be an authority on Islam, when it was suggested I was only pretending to know about it. I didn’t make a claim there to know about any other subject or all subjects generally; it can’t be inferred that I did. In this thread I claimed not to be an authority in the sense related to a “great debater who demolishes arguments with facts” – i.e. as in ‘Argument from Authority’. How are these positions ‘diametrically opposed’? You know I’m not stupid, so if you see a conflict between two places I use a word, would it not occur to you that I might be using different meanings of the word in the two different contexts?

    But all of this is a neat distraction from the topic of discussion. I was asking about whether you agree that like the government we too have a responsibility not to get caught “perverting truth”? And whether you understand that using the ‘Group A Group B trick’ is both counter to logic, and stands against a basic principle of British justice?

    “… goes some way to explain how it is possible for you to fervently believe that things which are not real somehow are.”

    You keep on asserting that they’re not real, but when I ask, seem unable to give your evidence or arguments to prove they are. I don’t consider myself a “great debater who demolishes arguments with facts” – I believe that *any* debater should be capable of providing arguments and facts! Those are the rules of the ‘debate’ game.

    Alternatively, your view may be that “most people here are just imperfect, lazy old farts ranting on a blog comments section”. OK. Me too. I get to rant about stuff, and express my opinion. If you want to argue, I’ll argue. If you want to hurl incoherent streams of invective-laden insults, I’ll cheerfully hurl insults back. If you want to be able to dodge topics and avoid answering points, so I can I. If you want to assert the shibboleths of your political faith without having to back it up, I get to do the same too.

    Just because I *can* usually back my opinions up doesn’t mean I should always have to. The rules and standards expected are no different for me than for you.

    My opinion on what’s ‘real’ differs to yours. Who’s right? If you want to debate it and find out, then bring your own facts and arguments along and we’ll see. If you don’t, don’t.

    I enjoy debating stuff, and at great length, I like facts and figures and new ideas, insights, or ways of looking at things, but I’m not forcing anyone else to join in. It’s your choice.

  80. “There are several different meanings and emphases to the word ‘authority’.”

    I laughed out loud at work when I saw that (and the essay).

    Yes, nobody thought you meant you were king, or Lincolnshire County Council. Everybody knew you meant you were an expert; someone with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject.

    “…so if you see a conflict between two places I use a word, would it not occur to you that I might be using different meanings of the word in the two different contexts?”

    Not when it’s obvious that that isn’t what you’ve done.

    Above – October 1, 2018 at 1:10 pm:
    “…I can’t find where I’ve said I’m an authority. I can’t imagine me ever saying it, either.”

    Then your next – October 2, 2018 at 10:38 pm
    “OK, on Islamic orthodoxy, yes.”

    From can’t imagine yourself saying so, ever, to saying so. In adjacent comments. Fantastic. And now, having had it pointed out, dodging and dancing with drawn-out digressions. Classic NiV.

    “You know I’m not stupid…”

    There are several different meanings and emphases to the word “stupid”.

  81. “Yes, nobody thought you meant you were king, or Lincolnshire County Council. Everybody knew you meant you were an expert; someone with extensive or specialized knowledge about a subject.”

    Somebody (like you) looking at the earlier thread, yes. But I didn’t remember saying it, and all I had to go on was *this* thread, where the context led me to think you meant the second or third meanings. (“I even picked you up on it since you’re always throwing around the authoritarian label” is clearly using the third meaning, for example.) I’d not use it of myself in either of those two senses.

    Quote single words out of context, without citation, and it’s no surprise people will misunderstand!

    “From can’t imagine yourself saying so, ever, to saying so. In adjacent comments.”

    Because initially I interpreted it as meant in the second sense of the word, which was the only one that made sense in this context. In the second comment, I was pointing out the explanatory context you had so casually omitted, making clear it was the first meaning – I had assumed deliberately, and so expected you to know what I meant. When it became apparent that you didn’t, I explained with the ‘essay’, as you put it.

    It’s an informal fallacy called “equivocation“.

    “and now, having had it pointed out, dodging and dancing with drawn-out digressions.”

    Ha! You’re still dancing and dodging the questions I asked with this long digression, I see.

    I’ll try again.

    ut all of this is a neat distraction from the topic of discussion. I was asking about whether you agree that like the government we too have a responsibility not to get caught “perverting truth”? And whether you understand that using the ‘Group A Group B trick’ is both counter to logic, and stands against a basic principle of British justice?

    Are you still going to dance around the point?

  82. ”…the topic of discussion.”

    How very odd. I haven’t been discussing this topic with you at all, so it can hardly be said I’m dancing around the point.

    We also haven’t been discussing thick vs thin cut marmalade. I expect an essay on the subject by the time I get home.

  83. We’ve been discussing it since 8:36 pm Saturday, when you initially made the claims and used the technique – and you’re still dodging the point.

    You made the claim the government/MSM/etc. should be “open, accurate, specific and honest”. Do you agree that we have the same responsibility?

    Do you have a reliable statistical source for your 90% claim, and an explanation for why I found an apparent refutation of it within minutes of looking? Did you have one when you first said it? Do you understand how this is connected to your answer to the question above about ‘honesty’ and ‘perverting the truth’?

    Do you understand that you used the ‘Group A Broup B trick’, that this is a logical fallacy commonly used by authoritarians to justify their persecutions that can be applied just as easily against you, that in this case winds up classifying the whole of a group known to be 99.98% innocent of the crime as “a problem and a danger”, and that this is diametrically opposed to Blackstone’s Formulation, which is widely regarded a cornerstone principle of British justice? Do you have any justification for doing so?

    I think we both know why your dodging.

  84. “I think we both know why your dodging.”

    Good grief.

    I know I’m not dodging – and you only think I’m dodging because you haven’t been paying attention.

  85. You made the claim the government/MSM/etc. should be “open, accurate, specific and honest”. Do you agree that we have the same responsibility?

    Do you have a reliable statistical source for your 90% claim, and an explanation for why I found an apparent refutation of it within minutes of looking? Did you have one when you first said it? Do you understand how this is connected to your answer to the question above about ‘honesty’ and ‘perverting the truth’?

    Do you understand that you used the ‘Group A Broup B trick’, that this is a logical fallacy commonly used by authoritarians to justify their persecutions that can be applied just as easily against you, that in this case winds up classifying the whole of a group known to be 99.98% innocent of the crime as “a problem and a danger”, and that this is diametrically opposed to Blackstone’s Formulation, which is widely regarded a cornerstone principle of British justice? Do you have any justification for doing so?

    I suspect the answers are that you consider yourselves to be “most people here are just imperfect, lazy old farts ranting on a blog comments section” and people “short break at work, spotted some low hanging fruit and took a quick potshot”, and therefore have NO responsibility to be “open, accurate, specific and honest”. Standards are for the other side. And anyone who tries to get you to follow them is being “pompous” and someone who “demolishes arguments with facts”. Which is weird! Why would anyone think we’re required to use facts?!

    And therefore no, you don’t have any credible source for the 90% claim. You got it from another bunch of “lazy old farts ranting on a blog comments section”, who probably made it up, and because they say somebody called “Sajid Javid” didn’t dispute it, so that’s good enough for you. You have no responsibility to be “open, accurate, specific and honest” when taking “potshots” on a break.

    And because you’re not spending any time thinking about these opinions, you don’t really understand what I’m talking about with this ‘Group A Broup B trick’ thing I keep going on about. Every now and then, I point to an argument and say ‘Group A Broup B trick’, but you don’t know what that is, or what’s wrong with it, but you don’t really want me to explain again, especially when it’s likely that I’m going to use more than one paragraph to do so and you “imperfect, lazy old farts” find reading more than one paragraph to be soooo exhaaaauusting. (“I’m too lazy to read NiV’s contributions, they’re way too long for my attention span.”)

    And no, you’ve got no respect for bits of British culture like Blackstone’s Formulation if that means that people you’ve decided are guilty on less than no evidence ‘get away with it’, just as people like Tommy Robinson and his supporters seem utterly oblivious to British legal concepts like presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial. (Nor any need to be “open, accurate, specific and honest” in their reporting of events.)

    That’s what I suspect. But you haven’t said so specifically, so I’m giving you the opportunity to explain your side of the story. Given what I suspect, though, I don’t find it very surprising that you prefer to dodge the question.

    Still dodging?

  86. “…I’m giving you the opportunity to explain your side of the story.”

    I’ve already explained it, NiV.

    October 4, 2018 at 3:29 pm:
    “I haven’t been discussing this topic with you at all…”

    October 4, 2018 at 9:59 pm:
    “…you only think I’m dodging because you haven’t been paying attention.”

    October 5, 2018 at 12:47 pm:
    “Still failing to see your most basic of blunders…”

    October 5, 2018 at 4:10 pm:
    “Go back to the 8:36 pm Saturday comment and try again.”

    I’ve told you the nature of the misunderstanding, that the error is yours, that it is very simple, and where in the comment thread you can see the boldly obvious source of it.

    You’ve told me that I know you’re not stupid, so I presume your next comment will show that you’ve finally spotted where you went wrong. Though I suspect you’ll spend paragraphs rationalising and spinning it so that it’s somehow everyone else’s fault.

  87. “I haven’t been discussing this topic with you at all”

    Obviously. That’s the *definition* of dodging the question!

    How was it you described it earlier…?

    Ha! You’re still dancing and dodging the questions I asked with this long digression, I see.

    And you still are.

  88. “How was it you described it earlier…?”

    No, you’ve just quoted yourself, NiV – because you’re not paying attention.

    And therein lies a big clue to your obvious cockup that you are evidently too stupid to see.

  89. You’re quite right – dodging and dancing is so much better than dancing and dodging!

    And you still are.

  90. All gone quite over there, so perhaps the penny has dropped and you’ve learned the usefulness of keeping track of who says what.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.