Conspiracy Theories

[Cunt]

[rainbow]

Can he cover the other grooming scandal? The one where a teen was groomed and exploited by an adult over forty, then took on the leadership of France?

What about the faked moon landing and the conspiracy to make us believe that the earth is a sphere?

Go on tell us all about it.

[Brian Peacock]

Both threats to free speech exist.

I don't know James O'Brien, but if you'll tell me which country he is from, I can look up what he isn't allowed to say in public, and about which groups.

He's a UK conservative talk radio host, political pundit, and journalist. The pitch of his daily show is pro-free-speech, and critical of the left and the far-right. A centre-right classical liberal in European terms - pro-business and small state and not reflexively anti-Trump. His concern in the video clip over the state censorship of journalists should be seen in the context of his broader concerns about the governmental overreach of Sir Kier Starmer's Labour govt.

So he won't be able to interview Tommy Robinson, or dig into the subject that caused such a hilarious censorship reaction to TR.

He likely also cannot express complaints about islamification in countries that didn't start out that way, or complain about the knife crime surge, with demographic information.

Can he cover the other grooming scandal? The one where a teen was groomed and exploited by an adult over forty, then took on the leadership of France?

True. Tommy Robinson bullying a school boy with a documentary filled with lies or undermining a trial by shouting at defendants as they arrived and streaming their names and faces on social media, probably isn't a high priority for his defence of free speech. He's not a far-right sycophant, but he definitely spotted the problem with censoring journalists. It might start off with intimidating opposing voices into silence, but it generally ends up with even the acolytes of you're own side too scared to say anything either - other than what they're told to say of course.

[Cunt]

So since he was a jerk, no-one is allowed to report on the subject he was covering, eh?

How very predictable. The young girls will have to live with their rapes, druggings and knowing that noone dares defend them OR seek justice after the crimes.

But at least Tommy Robinson isn't free to bully a kid anymore.

[Brian Peacock]

Which girls are you talking about? The one's who bravely gave evidence at the trial Tommy tried to undermine?

[Cunt]

Which girls are you talking about? The one's who bravely gave evidence at the trial Tommy tried to undermine?

No, I mean 'girl a' (among hundreds or thousands of other examples)

https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/19 ... 6189565072

The Crown Prosecution Service under Keir Starmer would often not prosecute the Muslim child rapists.

For example in this case, even though the accused’s DNA was found on the victims underwear, they did not take any further action!

Now as a Prime Minister he wants to block investigations. We can not let him get away with this. Everyone must know what has happened, and what Keir Starmer oversaw while doing nothing.

Is Tommy's inconsiderate behaviour reason to dismiss what he was investigating? If he was twice as horrible as his detractors say, he is still a lot less corrosive to human thriving than covering up rape gangs.

[Cunt]

If Musk/DOGE found 'fraud', wouldn't there be a list of fraud charges somewhere?

[Sean Hayden]

Maybe it’s fraud done by the book.

[Cunt]

Maybe it’s fraud done by the book.

So the Book has become sentient, and is taking action. Fuck.

Are you suggesting that the bureaucracy itself has animated?

Fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck

[Brian Peacock]

Which girls are you talking about? The one's who bravely gave evidence at the trial Tommy tried to undermine?

No, I mean 'girl a' (among hundreds or thousands of other examples)

https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/19 ... 6189565072

The Crown Prosecution Service under Keir Starmer would often not prosecute the Muslim child rapists.

For example in this case, even though the accused’s DNA was found on the victims underwear, they did not take any further action!

Now as a Prime Minister he wants to block investigations. We can not let him get away with this. Everyone must know what has happened, and what Keir Starmer oversaw while doing nothing.

Is Tommy's inconsiderate behaviour reason to dismiss what he was investigating? If he was twice as horrible as his detractors say, he is still a lot less corrosive to human thriving than covering up rape gangs.

It's a faux complaint. Robinson is not concerned with child welfare, they're concerned with race baiting. Theire 'issues' are only with specific cases in which men of South-East Asia heritage were involved in child abuse, exploitation and coercion, and to that end they have to pretend that the Independent Inquiry in Child Sexual Abuse did not take place and that it's recommendations were not accepted by the government in 2023.

As for Sir Kier Starmer. His record on sexual offences is questionable in some regards, as when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions he oversaw changes to the evidence rules in sexual assault and abuse cases that literally saw conviction rates fall off a cliff. However, we have to note that the changes were due to political pressure and followed a sustained press campaign from the right-wing media which focused attention on a very small number of cases in which false allegations of rape had been proven. The right-wing media's 'victory' - for which must surely champion and congratulate their billionaire owners - actually left women and children with functionally less recourse to the law in sexual assault and abuse cases.

[Cunt]

It's a faux complaint.

WHAT is the 'faux complaint'? If you insist on saying something is 'faux', be clear. He has said a lot of things.

Robinson is not concerned with child welfare, they're concerned with race baiting.

So you say. Should I go with your description of your beliefs and what you care about? Or ask him?

Theire 'issues' are only with specific cases in which men of South-East Asia heritage were involved in child abuse, exploitation and coercion, and to that end they have to pretend that the Independent Inquiry in Child Sexual Abuse did not take place and that it's recommendations were not accepted by the government in 2023.

Oh, so there was a bunch of crime, covered up by those who are supposed to be responsible.

I don't believe any of the negative stories about Tommy Robinson, since looking into some of the first ones. If there is sufficient evidence to back a claim maybe, but after facebooks shitty smear job, it was pretty clear there was large monied efforts against whatever he was doing.

As for Sir Kier Starmer. His record on sexual offences is questionable in some regards, as when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions he oversaw changes to the evidence rules in sexual assault and abuse cases that literally saw conviction rates fall off a cliff. However, we have to note that the changes were due to political pressure and followed a sustained press campaign from the right-wing medunchia which focused attention on a very small number of cases in which false allegations of rape had been proven. The right-wing media's 'victory' - for which must surely champion and congratulate their billionaire owners - actually left women and children with functionally less recourse to the law in sexual assault and abuse cases.

BBC is famous for covering up for Saville. Maybe check in what THEY said about this, and assume they are the same gang doing the same stuff...they have what one would call 'credibility', but in reverse.

[Cunt]

Do you think McAfee Epsteined himself? Or did we JFK both of them?

[Brian Peacock]

It's a faux complaint.

WHAT is the 'faux complaint'? If you insist on saying something is 'faux', be clear. He has said a lot of things.

Robinson is not concerned with child welfare, they're concerned with race baiting.

So you say. Should I go with your description of your beliefs and what you care about? Or ask him?

Theire 'issues' are only with specific cases in which men of South-East Asia heritage were involved in child abuse, exploitation and coercion, and to that end they have to pretend that the Independent Inquiry in Child Sexual Abuse did not take place and that it's recommendations were not accepted by the government in 2023.

Oh, so there was a bunch of crime, covered up by those who are supposed to be responsible.

I don't believe any of the negative stories about Tommy Robinson, since looking into some of the first ones. If there is sufficient evidence to back a claim maybe, but after facebooks shitty smear job, it was pretty clear there was large monied efforts against whatever he was doing.

As for Sir Kier Starmer. His record on sexual offences is questionable in some regards, as when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions he oversaw changes to the evidence rules in sexual assault and abuse cases that literally saw conviction rates fall off a cliff. However, we have to note that the changes were due to political pressure and followed a sustained press campaign from the right-wing medunchia which focused attention on a very small number of cases in which false allegations of rape had been proven. The right-wing media's 'victory' - for which must surely champion and congratulate their billionaire owners - actually left women and children with functionally less recourse to the law in sexual assault and abuse cases.

BBC is famous for covering up for Saville. Maybe check in what THEY said about this, and assume they are the same gang doing the same stuff...they have what one would call 'credibility', but in reverse.

What are you on about? Robinson isn't a beleaguered defender of freedom and children, he's Britain's most famous racist - and proud of it.
And don't play that "if you dislike Robinson then you're ok with CSA" nonsense. As I said, these false dichotomies are something you create for your own reasons.

[Cunt]

It's a faux complaint.

WHAT is the 'faux complaint'? If you insist on saying something is 'faux', be clear. He has said a lot of things.

Robinson is not concerned with child welfare, they're concerned with race baiting.

So you say. Should I go with your description of your beliefs and what you care about? Or ask him?

Theire 'issues' are only with specific cases in which men of South-East Asia heritage were involved in child abuse, exploitation and coercion, and to that end they have to pretend that the Independent Inquiry in Child Sexual Abuse did not take place and that it's recommendations were not accepted by the government in 2023.

Oh, so there was a bunch of crime, covered up by those who are supposed to be responsible.

I don't believe any of the negative stories about Tommy Robinson, since looking into some of the first ones. If there is sufficient evidence to back a claim maybe, but after facebooks shitty smear job, it was pretty clear there was large monied efforts against whatever he was doing.

As for Sir Kier Starmer. His record on sexual offences is questionable in some regards, as when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions he oversaw changes to the evidence rules in sexual assault and abuse cases that literally saw conviction rates fall off a cliff. However, we have to note that the changes were due to political pressure and followed a sustained press campaign from the right-wing medunchia which focused attention on a very small number of cases in which false allegations of rape had been proven. The right-wing media's 'victory' - for which must surely champion and congratulate their billionaire owners - actually left women and children with functionally less recourse to the law in sexual assault and abuse cases.

BBC is famous for covering up for Saville. Maybe check in what THEY said about this, and assume they are the same gang doing the same stuff...they have what one would call 'credibility', but in reverse.

What are you on about? Robinson isn't a beleaguered defender of freedom and children, he's Britain's most famous racist - and proud of it.
And don't play that "if you dislike Robinson then you're ok with CSA" nonsense. As I said, these false dichotomies are something you create for your own reasons.

I don't believe his detractors, generally. But if we do accept it all, then who has taken up the important work of investigating what he was bringing to light?

Surely with such a poor reporter spoiling the story, someone sharp and ethical did the job...or maybe was it not important to the BBC/Saville group?

[Cunt]

By the way, what the heck is up with all the knife/machete crimes going on in the UK? Is there demographic info on who is doing it? Or should we just assume far-right-extremists, coached by that Tate chap. (not for his religion, of course)