Discussion
Gareth79 said:
From the evidence it seems quite likely he was attacked because of his political views. The articles don't state the reasoning for the judge to decide that his sexuality was also a motive. I think it was a far decision that somebody who a) knew his face well enough to know his name in a pub when drunk, b) has previous convictions for Chelsea football violence, and c) has a collection of far-right memorabilia and birthday cards with symbols drawn, is unlikely to not be aware of his sexuality and LGBT views.
Steady on. He has a conviction for encroaching the pitch at a football game, nothing to do with football violence. The Chelsea Headhunters have always been affiliated with far-right groups, ever since they were around in the 70s. Now, was the far-right memorabilia and cards to do with Chelsea or his own personal views? If he's still kept them then surely he agrees with those views which is obviously ridiculous, but he's more than entitled to have those views. Either way, he was stupid for attacking Jones if it was unprovoked and he deserves his punishment for it.gizlaroc said:
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.
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-07/tommy-robinson...
b
hstewie said:
hstewie 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.
Maybe it's just the way you've worded it but that sounds thoroughly unpleasant.Edited by Thorodin on Saturday 18th January 00:06
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.
rscott said:
Not the best example to use, given the incident where Robinson punched someone just for saying something he disagreed with while at a football match..
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-07/tommy-robinson...
Errr, Robinson punched this man because he was harassing him, nothing to do with him 'saying something he disagreed with'. He approached him more than once and was being an ahttps://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-07/tommy-robinson...
hole. Should he have punched the bloke? Probably not. But don't just lie about the incident. Leicester Loyal said:
Errr, Robinson punched this man because he was harassing him, nothing to do with him 'saying something he disagreed with'. He approached him more than once and was being an ahole. Should he have punched the bloke? Probably not. But don't just lie about the incident.
Is it OK then, to punch someone who is harassing you? I'm really not sure what some are trying to say. There should be 'levels' of assault?..assault is OK under provocation?...the law as it stands is wrong?...hole. Should he have punched the bloke? Probably not. But don't just lie about the incident. Don't get me wrong, I have been more guilty than most perhaps in resorting to violence in the past, but have evolved to a point where I see only futility in doing so. I'm not trying to preach from any kind of moral high horse, that's long bolted. But what are some saying. It was OK to assault Jones because there may have been provocation? (subsequently disproved by both CCTV and statements as far as I know, but IF it was the case), it was OK for Tommy boy to assault the fella because he was harassing him? It is OK for me or thee to assault anyone we feel to be provoking or harassing us? You see where this line of thought goes? I'm not denying I think about such actions on a daily basis, that it would provide instant, if momentary gratification, but I don't succumb to the devil on my shoulder. Neither, I suspect, do most of you. So my surmisation must be simply, for many of you, 'cos...owen Jones'....
garyhun said:
Are we at least all agreed that Jones is still an annoying little turd though 
Yes, I suspect something to do with a gone-wrong mixture of extreme lefty opinions, thin-skinned touchiness, a whining nasal accent like fingernails on a chalk board, hair trigger temper tantrums, and playing of victim card when not a victim, and a loud shouty voice. Apart from that probably a good bloke.
garyhun said:
Are we at least all agreed that Jones is still an annoying little turd though
He can't debate issues like a lot of the Guardian reading lefties. You either agree with his opinion or your a right wing, racist Neo-nazi.That's why a lot of people including people with moderate left wing or liberal views think he's a t
t.The night he stormed off the Sky News Press Preview was hilarious, he just came across as a stroppy kid.
His book 'Chavs' is particularly insightful of his outlook. To sum it up he claims that 'chavs' involved in criminally are not largely responsible for their behaviour, they are bad but because the government has made them that way. It's all societies fault.
Edited by EarlofDrift on Saturday 18th January 13:58
biggbn said:
Leicester Loyal said:
Errr, Robinson punched this man because he was harassing him, nothing to do with him 'saying something he disagreed with'. He approached him more than once and was being an ahole. Should he have punched the bloke? Probably not. But don't just lie about the incident.
Is it OK then, to punch someone who is harassing you? I'm really not sure what some are trying to say. There should be 'levels' of assault?..assault is OK under provocation?...the law as it stands is wrong?...hole. Should he have punched the bloke? Probably not. But don't just lie about the incident. Don't get me wrong, I have been more guilty than most perhaps in resorting to violence in the past, but have evolved to a point where I see only futility in doing so. I'm not trying to preach from any kind of moral high horse, that's long bolted. But what are some saying. It was OK to assault Jones because there may have been provocation? (subsequently disproved by both CCTV and statements as far as I know, but IF it was the case), it was OK for Tommy boy to assault the fella because he was harassing him? It is OK for me or thee to assault anyone we feel to be provoking or harassing us? You see where this line of thought goes? I'm not denying I think about such actions on a daily basis, that it would provide instant, if momentary gratification, but I don't succumb to the devil on my shoulder. Neither, I suspect, do most of you. So my surmisation must be simply, for many of you, 'cos...owen Jones'....
Escapegoat said:
I hope there is never a time when you say that to your sister/daughter. Victim blaming is not on.
You're absolutely right, I'm off to walk around Peckham at 3am tonight flashing my Rolex, wallet in hand and speaking loudly into my new iphone. If I get mugged it certainly won't be my fault and I shouldn't alter my behaviour based on circumstances.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.
Now comparing Owen Jones with Nelson Mandela, suffragettes and Gandhi 
EarlofDrift said:
His book 'Chavs' is particularly insightful of his outlook. To sum it up he claims that 'chavs' involved in criminally are not largely responsible for their behaviour, they are bad but because the government has made them that way. It's all societies fault.
I'm surprised he reported the assault to the police based on that, surely it was societies fault not the braindead nutter?bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 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.
Thank you for the open minded slant on the post in question, you were very close to my meaning. Yes, thank you incidentally, it was probably t'internet misinterpretation followed by the rumble of tumbrills. Intended or otherwise.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.
For the frantic brigade: As expected, the worst possible view is invented and then challenged. "Victim blaming"? Oh please, stop grubbing around and consider the whole post in it's entirety.
A victim? he loves it, a point I made at length. You crusaders for conflict can bleat all you want but the facts speak louder. He is as intentionally famous for his homosexuality as many other public figures are but are so quite unintentionally. He uses that, whether relevant or not, as a promotion bolstering his political adventures.
No, I don't like him, and that's irrelevant. What I dislike is his continual trolling, his deflection to secondary subjects when interviewed, his loud rude and aggressive interruptions when a salient point is being made against him. I thought everybody, political friends or not, could see that in him. My mistake, obviously.
Odious little twerp.cb31 said:
EarlofDrift said:
His book 'Chavs' is particularly insightful of his outlook. To sum it up he claims that 'chavs' involved in criminally are not largely responsible for their behaviour, they are bad but because the government has made them that way. It's all societies fault.
I'm surprised he reported the assault to the police based on that, surely it was societies fault not the braindead nutter?Thorodin said:
Thank you for the open minded slant on the post in question, you were very close to my meaning. Yes, thank you incidentally, it was probably t'internet misinterpretation followed by the rumble of tumbrills. Intended or otherwise.
For the frantic brigade: As expected, the worst possible view is invented and then challenged. "Victim blaming"? Oh please, stop grubbing around and consider the whole post in it's entirety.
A victim? he loves it, a point I made at length. You crusaders for conflict can bleat all you want but the facts speak louder. He is as intentionally famous for his homosexuality as many other public figures are but are so quite unintentionally. He uses that, whether relevant or not, as a promotion bolstering his political adventures.
No, I don't like him, and that's irrelevant. What I dislike is his continual trolling, his deflection to secondary subjects when interviewed, his loud rude and aggressive interruptions when a salient point is being made against him. I thought everybody, political friends or not, could see that in him. My mistake, obviously.
But it was wrong to assault him regardless, and he should be afforded the same 'protection' as the rest of society by the law, yes?For the frantic brigade: As expected, the worst possible view is invented and then challenged. "Victim blaming"? Oh please, stop grubbing around and consider the whole post in it's entirety.
A victim? he loves it, a point I made at length. You crusaders for conflict can bleat all you want but the facts speak louder. He is as intentionally famous for his homosexuality as many other public figures are but are so quite unintentionally. He uses that, whether relevant or not, as a promotion bolstering his political adventures.
No, I don't like him, and that's irrelevant. What I dislike is his continual trolling, his deflection to secondary subjects when interviewed, his loud rude and aggressive interruptions when a salient point is being made against him. I thought everybody, political friends or not, could see that in him. My mistake, obviously.
Leicester Loyal said:
rscott said:
Not the best example to use, given the incident where Robinson punched someone just for saying something he disagreed with while at a football match..
https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-07/tommy-robinson...
Errr, Robinson punched this man because he was harassing him, nothing to do with him 'saying something he disagreed with'. He approached him more than once and was being an ahttps://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-07/tommy-robinson...
hole. Should he have punched the bloke? Probably not. But don't just lie about the incident. gizlaroc said:
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff