Owen Jones

[gizlaroc]

otolith said:

Why do you think that what he does when he’s being paid to gob off represents how he behaves when he goes for a pint?

I don't.

But, that gobbing off is who he has decided he is going to market himself. When people then see him out that is what they think of.

OK, so spin this around, Tommy Robinson, he portrays himself in a certain way, when he goes out and people he opposes see him he often gets 'wrong' with them. While he is out he is not gobbing off. Do you think that attacks on him are unexpected?


You can't demonise people and then act shocked when those people do something about it.

[Ayahuasca]

otolith said:

Why do you think that what he does when he’s being paid to gob off represents how he behaves when he goes for a pint?

He comes across as one who gobs off more after a pint.

[Esceptico]

cb31 said:

That's what pisses me off about these kind of cases, was it really a homophobic politically motivated attack or was it just an attack that happened to be on a gay political activist? The supposed right-wing racist knuckledragger is probably a bit dim, would he recognise Owen Jones as a gay labour journalist or would he just have a fight with a gobby bellend? I would probably veer towards the latter if I had to guess.

Can't have been much of a nutjob or fight given the injuries, a slight bruise on his back seems more like handbags rather than a full-on kicking. Anyway some good will come out of this on both sides, the attacker will be taken off the streets and Owen Jones will probably not shoot his mouth off to idiots without thinking of the possible results.

According to the court evidence and CCTV footage, OJ did not mouth off. The football hooligan with a penchant for white supremacy and violence asked OJ to confirm who he was in the pub (apparently pleasantly). There was no argument. When OJ tried to leave the CCTV footage showed him being attacked from behind. There was no fight. Is was just a plain odd assault because the guilty party is a homophobic ultra right wing individual and wanted to hurt OJ.

Sounds like he has a few friends and people of similar political leanings on PH based on some of the posts here.

[cb31]

Escapegoat said:

Yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out: you and cb31 are on the same page. It's the same page where 'short skirts', 'drinking' and 'consequences' are also used in a single sentence.

You mean common sense? I managed to learn in the playground that some people are just utter wkers and are best left alone. It may not do my manhood much good sometimes but it if preferable to ignore or back down rather than to trying to reason with a loon. It is easier to not put yourself in bad situations than get out of them.

[bitchstewie]

Thorodin said:

The preconceived opinions of commentators are well founded. Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain. He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him. He revels in it and sees it as helping his political cause, confirming his opinion of himself. A thoroughly unpleasant individual, it's not surprising he attracts violence. It's difficult to see how he expects to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby by continually drawing criticism.

Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 18th January 00:06

Maybe it's just the way you've worded it but that sounds thoroughly unpleasant.

I don't follow him and I don't agree with most of what he says but I don't recall seeing or hearing him do anything to draw attention on himself around "homosexual rights".

Maybe it's just the way I'm reading what you wrote.

[Bill]

Thorodin said:

The preconceived opinions of commentators are well founded. Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain. He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him. He revels in it and sees it as helping his political cause, confirming his opinion of himself. A thoroughly unpleasant individual, it's not surprising he attracts violence. It's difficult to see how he expects to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby by continually drawing criticism.

Wow! I know I shouldn't be surprised by the depths some on PH will plumb, but that's amazing.

He should keep his gay, lefty mouth shut, right? Otherwise he's just asking to have people beat him up.

Obviously, Farage et Al are also asking to be milkshaked, or is that in some way different??

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

Thorodin said:

The preconceived opinions of commentators are well founded. Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain. He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him. He revels in it and sees it as helping his political cause, confirming his opinion of himself. A thoroughly unpleasant individual, it's not surprising he attracts violence. It's difficult to see how he expects to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby by continually drawing criticism.

Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 18th January 00:06

Maybe it's just the way you've worded it but that sounds thoroughly unpleasant.

I don't follow him and I don't agree with most of what he says but I don't recall seeing or hearing him do anything to draw attention on himself around "homosexual rights".

Maybe it's just the way I'm reading what you wrote.

It's easiiy done, on t'internet. I don't agree with violence based on any of the characteristics in this case be they leftism or gay issues or being prone to writing for The Guardian on any topic, and fwiw I interpreted the post as something less unpleasant. On the matter of "the way it's worded" take Bill's reply. That 'wow' and what follows could be read as tolerance of opinions except those opinions which differ from Bill's opinions. It's quite likely that wasn't intended, and t'internet strikes again. Health warning: this post is also open to misinterpretation if somebody tries hard enough.

[bitchstewie]

Perhaps.

I'm probably struggling with the pleasant interpretation of "Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain".

As for the rest "He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him" when a judge has literally ruled yesterday that homophobia was a contributing cause of the attack against him

Christ.

[Bill]

turbobloke said:

On the matter of "the way it's worded" take Bill's reply. That 'wow' and what follows could be read as tolerance of opinions except those opinions which differ from Bill's opinions. It's quite likely that wasn't intended, and t'internet strikes again.

Yes, that's definitely the most important thing to take away from this, that I think victim blaming is pretty low.

[anonymous-user]

Thorodin said:

The preconceived opinions of commentators are well founded. Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain. He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him. He revels in it and sees it as helping his political cause, confirming his opinion of himself. A thoroughly unpleasant individual, it's not surprising he attracts violence. It's difficult to see how he expects to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby by continually drawing criticism.

Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 18th January 00:06

That’s pretty disgusting

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

Thorodin said:

The preconceived opinions of commentators are well founded. Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain. He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him. He revels in it and sees it as helping his political cause, confirming his opinion of himself. A thoroughly unpleasant individual, it's not surprising he attracts violence. It's difficult to see how he expects to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby by continually drawing criticism.

Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 18th January 00:06

Maybe it's just the way you've worded it but that sounds thoroughly unpleasant.

I don't follow him and I don't agree with most of what he says but I don't recall seeing or hearing him do anything to draw attention on himself around "homosexual rights".

Maybe it's just the way I'm reading what you wrote.

It's easiiy done, on t'internet. I don't agree with violence based on any of the characteristics in this case be they leftism or gay issues or being prone to writing for The Guardian on any topic, and fwiw I interpreted the post as something less unpleasant. On the matter of "the way it's worded" take Bill's reply. That 'wow' and what follows could be read as tolerance of opinions except those opinions which differ from Bill's opinions. It's quite likely that wasn't intended, and t'internet strikes again. Health warning: this post is also open to misinterpretation if somebody tries hard enough.

Both yours and thorodins posts sound pretty unpleasant. His is classic victim blaming and yours is supporting him because it reflects your views too.

This thread is a new low for PHs and people like you are leading the way with your ‘I don’t agree with violence but he was asking for it’ type posts.

It’s very like the thread where protesters were run over in America and again the same posters like you are making the same kind of posts.

Your irrational hatred of lefties, is again completely skewing your moral compass how on earth you can make that conclusion about Bill’s post is baffling. He’s pointing out thorodin’s victim blaming and you’re trying to defend it.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th January 08:55

[turbobloke]

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

bhstewie said:

Thorodin said:

The preconceived opinions of commentators are well founded. Using a deliberately high profile role in public support of homosexual rights he encourages that exposure to further attention on himself for what he sees as political gain. He then is usually the first to claim homophobia as a contributing cause of attacks against him. He revels in it and sees it as helping his political cause, confirming his opinion of himself. A thoroughly unpleasant individual, it's not surprising he attracts violence. It's difficult to see how he expects to advance the interests of the homosexual lobby by continually drawing criticism.

Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 18th January 00:06

Maybe it's just the way you've worded it but that sounds thoroughly unpleasant.

I don't follow him and I don't agree with most of what he says but I don't recall seeing or hearing him do anything to draw attention on himself around "homosexual rights".

Maybe it's just the way I'm reading what you wrote.

It's easiiy done, on t'internet. I don't agree with violence based on any of the characteristics in this case be they leftism or gay issues or being prone to writing for The Guardian on any topic, and fwiw I interpreted the post as something less unpleasant. On the matter of "the way it's worded" take Bill's reply. That 'wow' and what follows could be read as tolerance of opinions except those opinions which differ from Bill's opinions. It's quite likely that wasn't intended, and t'internet strikes again. Health warning: this post is also open to misinterpretation if somebody tries hard enough.

Both yours and thorodins posts sound pretty unpleasant.

In the same way your post and Bill's sound like intolerant and self-righteous virtue signalling? But may or may not be?

What's unpleasant about "I don't agree with violence based on any of the characteristics in this case be they leftism or gay issues or being prone to writing for The Guardian on any topic"?

There are situations such as legitimate self-defence in which I would condone violence.

You're protesting too much and must have missed the health warning in your dash for the five minute (or full half hour) argument, which could be seen as unpleasant.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

In the same way your post and Bill's sound like intolerant and self-righteous virtue signalling? But may or may not be?

What's unpleasant about "I don't agree with violence based on any of the characteristics in this case be they leftism or gay issues or being prone to writing for The Guardian on any topic"?

There are situations such as legitimate self-defence in which I would condone violence.

You're protesting too much and must have missed the health warning in your dash for the five minute (or full half hour) argument, which could be seen as unpleasant.

Your post is unpleasant because you’re defending thorodin’s victim blaming because you agree with his post and then hilariously trying to compare that kind of intolerance to people pointing out your intolerance.

As I said it’s very like your posts about the guy running over protestors in America. You’re saying you don’t agree with violence but he’s asking for it because you hate lefties.

[Bill]

Classic TB. Double down on your defence of the indefensible with a mealy mouthed ad hom.

[bitchstewie]

Bill said:

Classic TB. Double down on your defence of the indefensible with a mealy mouthed ad hom.

Yeah but Bill you did bring it on yourself with the way you said "wow".

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Bill said:

Classic TB. Double down on your defence of the indefensible with a mealy mouthed ad hom.

Yeah but Bill you did bring it on yourself with the way you said "wow".

. . . he was asking for it with his wowing and misinterpretation of the internet “and self-righteous virtue signalling” and intolerance of intolerance!

[Escapegoat]

cb31 said:

Escapegoat said:

Yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out: you and cb31 are on the same page. It's the same page where 'short skirts', 'drinking' and 'consequences' are also used in a single sentence.

You mean common sense? I managed to learn in the playground that some people are just utter wkers and are best left alone. It may not do my manhood much good sometimes but it if preferable to ignore or back down rather than to trying to reason with a loon. It is easier to not put yourself in bad situations than get out of them.

I hope there is never a time when you say that to your sister/daughter. Victim blaming is not on.

And in politics, there's a long history of social progress that only happened because people were willing to put themselves in "bad situations", knowing they risked - and often got - violence as a result.

[Cold]

Escapegoat said:

And in politics, there's a long history of social progress that only happened because people were willing to put themselves in "bad situations", knowing they risked - and often got - violence as a result.

I'm not convinced you could call Jones a leading light of social progression.

[anonymous-user]

Lentilist said:

Esceptico said:

At times the lack of basic humanity shown on PH threads is really depressing.

Comparing this event to the recent incident with couple on the bus, there does seem to be a definite pattern...

Didn't happen
Did happen, suggest "more to this than is being reported"
Blame victim - race/ gender / other "card", or just character in general
Charges brought - "waste of time", criticise police / CPS
Admission of guilt - commence whataboutery, false equivalence
Conviction - criticise judiciary
Claim verdict is politically motivated
Liberal elite
Blame everyone but the perpetrators

Proven completely right.

[Escapegoat]

Cold said:

Escapegoat said:

And in politics, there's a long history of social progress that only happened because people were willing to put themselves in "bad situations", knowing they risked - and often got - violence as a result.

I'm not convinced you could call Jones a leading light of social progression.

You don't need to be convinced, just let him have his say, and condemn those who use or forgive violence because they don't like it.