Owen Jones

[Vanden Saab]

psi310398 said:

biggbn said:

If the conviction is not in question, and the accused pleaded guilty...why do you doubt the evidence? And yes, I know he pleaded guilty, my post was exaggerating a point to make a point. This thread is ridiculous.

He emphatically did not plead guilty to the alleged aggravated element, did he? So, on the basis of a farrago of circumstantial bits and bobs, he's going to have his sentence increased.

At the end of the day this may well backfire as everybody who though Jones was a bit of a tool now knows he is a deeply obnoxious snivelling little tt. The guy pleaded guilty, that he couldn't just leave it at that but did everything in his power to get him into deeper trouble says so much about the sort of person he is...

[biggbn]

psi310398 said:

biggbn said:

If the conviction is not in question, and the accused pleaded guilty...why do you doubt the evidence? And yes, I know he pleaded guilty, my post was exaggerating a point to make a point. This thread is ridiculous.

He emphatically did not plead guilty to the alleged aggravated element, did he? So, on the basis of a farrago of circumstantial bits and bobs, he's going to have his sentence increased.

Wow. You know better than a court of law. A court of law that had to hand all the facts. All the information. But you know better. I will step away from this one now, I think I also know all I need too.

[psi310398]

biggbn said:

Wow. You know better than a court of law. A court of law that had to hand all the facts. All the information. But you know better. I will step away from this one now, I think I also know all I need too.

You could actually read what people write before coming back.

But, yes, let's leave it there.

Neither of us is going to change our minds.

[otolith]

Vanden Saab said:

At the end of the day this may well backfire as everybody who though Jones was a bit of a tool now knows he is a deeply obnoxious snivelling little tt. The guy pleaded guilty, that he couldn't just leave it at that but did everything in his power to get him into deeper trouble says so much about the sort of person he is...

Isn't charging a decision for the CPS and not for the victim?

[otolith]

psi310398 said:

I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality.

I wonder how many of those taking an instant dislike to his personality would have done so had he not been saying things they disagree with? And enough to want to beat him up? I'm not alone in not being a fan of Shmee's public persona, but I wouldn't expect anyone to batter him for it.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

psi310398 said:

I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality.

I wonder how many of those taking an instant dislike to his personality would have done so had he not been saying things they disagree with? And enough to want to beat him up? I'm not alone in not being a fan of Shmee's public persona, but I wouldn't expect anyone to batter him for it.

You’re not a polarised thinking reactionary though.

[amusingduck]

otolith said:

psi310398 said:

I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality.

I wonder how many of those taking an instant dislike to his personality would have done so had he not been saying things they disagree with? And enough to want to beat him up? I'm not alone in not being a fan of Shmee's public persona, but I wouldn't expect anyone to batter him for it.

If you compare OJ and Ash Sarkar, I think the case makes itself that it's his conduct, not his opinions, that people find so objectionable.

[otolith]

amusingduck said:

otolith said:

psi310398 said:

I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality.

I wonder how many of those taking an instant dislike to his personality would have done so had he not been saying things they disagree with? And enough to want to beat him up? I'm not alone in not being a fan of Shmee's public persona, but I wouldn't expect anyone to batter him for it.

If you compare OJ and Ash Sarkar, I think the case makes itself that it's his conduct, not his opinions, that people find so objectionable.

What is it about his conduct that is problematic?

[Triumph Trollomite]

Vanden Saab said:

At the end of the day this may well backfire as everybody who though Jones was a bit of a tool now knows he is a deeply obnoxious snivelling little tt. The guy pleaded guilty, that he couldn't just leave it at that but did everything in his power to get him into deeper trouble says so much about the sort of person he is...

Watch his sky TV meltdown.

If a gay was killed by a hit and run driver, it would be a homophobic killing.

[bitchstewie]

Vanden Saab said:

At the end of the day this may well backfire as everybody who though Jones was a bit of a tool now knows he is a deeply obnoxious snivelling little tt. The guy pleaded guilty, that he couldn't just leave it at that but did everything in his power to get him into deeper trouble says so much about the sort of person he is...

Jones not only managed to get himself beaten up he managed to get the Police to find all the evidence they found and then Jones persuaded the judge that the attack was homophobic and politically motivated.

That's quite some influence don't you think?

[amusingduck]

otolith said:

amusingduck said:

otolith said:

psi310398 said:

I, and many others, could quite readily understand why someone could take an instant dislike to the man. So there is the most probable motive: Jones' personality, rather than his politics or his sexuality.

I wonder how many of those taking an instant dislike to his personality would have done so had he not been saying things they disagree with? And enough to want to beat him up? I'm not alone in not being a fan of Shmee's public persona, but I wouldn't expect anyone to batter him for it.

If you compare OJ and Ash Sarkar, I think the case makes itself that it's his conduct, not his opinions, that people find so objectionable.

What is it about his conduct that is problematic?

I wouldn't say problematic, I think that implies that his behaviour needs to be fixed. It doesn't, he's perfectly entitled to behave like that.

If memory serves, the interview he stormed out of would be a good example. If that doesn't tickle your bellend button, maybe you'll never "get it". I'd imagine there's other people where you will "get it" and I won't

[otolith]

I've seen that interview. He was undoubtedly very angry about the attack, and about what he rather oddly perceived as attempts to frame it as something other than an attack on the LGBT community. He lost it, and then stormed out. He came across badly there, but not badly enough for me to want to find him in a pub and batter him. It's not as if he's the only person ever to do such a thing.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=storms+out+of+in...

I would be amazed if the same people found him equally annoying had they agreed with him.

[Randy Winkman]

Triumph Trollomite said:

Vanden Saab said:

At the end of the day this may well backfire as everybody who though Jones was a bit of a tool now knows he is a deeply obnoxious snivelling little tt. The guy pleaded guilty, that he couldn't just leave it at that but did everything in his power to get him into deeper trouble says so much about the sort of person he is...

Watch his sky TV meltdown.

If a gay was killed by a hit and run driver, it would be a homophobic killing.

Is that what he said? Genuine question by the way, I don't know anything about his TV meltdown.

[Triumph Trollomite]

Randy Winkman said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

Vanden Saab said:

At the end of the day this may well backfire as everybody who though Jones was a bit of a tool now knows he is a deeply obnoxious snivelling little tt. The guy pleaded guilty, that he couldn't just leave it at that but did everything in his power to get him into deeper trouble says so much about the sort of person he is...

Watch his sky TV meltdown.

If a gay was killed by a hit and run driver, it would be a homophobic killing.

Is that what he said? Genuine question by the way, I don't know anything about his TV meltdown.

He made the gay club shooting a homophobic attack rather than the Islamic terrorist attack that it was.

It was nothing to do with terrorism and the fact it was done in the name of isis/Islam had nothing to do with it. It was a pure homophobic attack.

His left arse cheek has a W his right has KE

[amusingduck]

otolith said:

I would be amazed if the same people found him equally annoying had they agreed with him.

I probably wouldn't find him annoying at all if I agreed with him. Massive s aren't particularly annoying, people with (imv) ridiculous political opinions aren't particularly annoying, hypocrites aren't particularly annoying. People who score highly in more than one category rapidly become very annoying (for me).

[anonymous-user]

Triumph Trollomite said:

He made the gay club shooting a homophobic attack rather than the Islamic terrorist attack that it was.

It was nothing to do with terrorism and the fact it was done in the name of isis/Islam had nothing to do with it. It was a pure homophobic attack.

His left arse cheek has a W his right has KE

Of course it was a homophobic attack. It was an attack on a gay club because the attacker disagreed with people being homosexuals.

You think it was a terrorist attack that just happened to be in one of the few known gay clubs in the area?

[otolith]

El stovey said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

He made the gay club shooting a homophobic attack rather than the Islamic terrorist attack that it was.

It was nothing to do with terrorism and the fact it was done in the name of isis/Islam had nothing to do with it. It was a pure homophobic attack.

His left arse cheek has a W his right has KE

Of course it was a homophobic attack. It was an attack on a gay club because the attacker disagreed with people being homosexuals.

You think it was a terrorist attack that just happened to be in one of the few known gay clubs in the area?

For a certain sort of worldview, the perpetrator being a Muslim is much more exciting than the victims being gay.

[Triumph Trollomite]

El stovey said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

He made the gay club shooting a homophobic attack rather than the Islamic terrorist attack that it was.

It was nothing to do with terrorism and the fact it was done in the name of isis/Islam had nothing to do with it. It was a pure homophobic attack.

His left arse cheek has a W his right has KE

Of course it was a homophobic attack. It was an attack on a gay club because the attacker disagreed with people being homosexuals.

You think it was a terrorist attack that just happened to be in one of the few known gay clubs in the area?

Yes I know that, I know that there was a selection criteria for the attack but Owen was wanting (as it suits his view on the rest of every Islamic terrorist attack not actually being an Islamic attack) it to be seen purely as a homophobic attack - it was a mixture of two - the primary driver being a warped religious view on homosexuality. He wanted to completely remove that from the argument and got all petulant on the programme as he couldnt see this.

He was wrong.

[gizlaroc]

otolith said:

El stovey said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

He made the gay club shooting a homophobic attack rather than the Islamic terrorist attack that it was.

It was nothing to do with terrorism and the fact it was done in the name of isis/Islam had nothing to do with it. It was a pure homophobic attack.

His left arse cheek has a W his right has KE

Of course it was a homophobic attack. It was an attack on a gay club because the attacker disagreed with people being homosexuals.

You think it was a terrorist attack that just happened to be in one of the few known gay clubs in the area?

For a certain sort of worldview, the perpetrator being a Muslim is much more exciting than the victims being gay.

And nothing to do with the fact Islamic extremists think gay people should not exist?
Hence murdering them.


It is this inability to be able to look at the whole picture that make Jones come across as such a tt.

[otolith]

gizlaroc said:

otolith said:

El stovey said:

Triumph Trollomite said:

He made the gay club shooting a homophobic attack rather than the Islamic terrorist attack that it was.

It was nothing to do with terrorism and the fact it was done in the name of isis/Islam had nothing to do with it. It was a pure homophobic attack.

His left arse cheek has a W his right has KE

Of course it was a homophobic attack. It was an attack on a gay club because the attacker disagreed with people being homosexuals.

You think it was a terrorist attack that just happened to be in one of the few known gay clubs in the area?

For a certain sort of worldview, the perpetrator being a Muslim is much more exciting than the victims being gay.

And nothing to do with the fact Islamic extremists think gay people should not exist?
Hence murdering them.

It is this inability to be able to look at the whole picture that make Jones come across as such a tt.

He thought the important thing to recognise was that it was an attack on gay people. Social conservative sorts think the important thing to recognise is that it was an attack by Muslims - because they hate Muslims even more than they hate gays.