mokwit

Silly word games are just that. Same applies to the DDR vs BRD. Not really something that proves anything about Germany 33-45. Hitlers power base was the 'common' people, not the Junkerklasse who despised him.

RotFront, yes and they were Communists. The people in the picture below are not Nazi Brown Shirts they are RedFront. Things got a little confused as to what was Right and what was Left in Germany at that time.

Sorry, but it was Socialism It was however an authoritarian state in that it demanded absolute obedience and subjugation of the individual to the state. The individual existed for the state. Fun fact is that German industry the "means of production" was brought under full Government control. For all those who claim Socialism has never been implemented properly, arguable it was....

He was a Socialist dictator. His party was the National Socialist German Workers Party.

It is not a fact though, it is an opinion of the Solicitor General, the de facto prosecutor and the judge appears not to have accepted his arguments. Rather than answer my points you sidestep and accuse me again of 'sophistry'. Answer my points in such a way as to prove sophistry if you want to make a accusation of sophistry, otherwise it is just a baseless deflection tactic. If my arguments are fallacious you should be able to shred them and publicly and humiliate me, go ahead. eviscerate me, rather than resorting to attacking my arguments without supporting arguments/evidence and just baselessly re asserting your opinion.

I wasn't talking about EU I was talking about whoever it is that really controls the UK. It seems not to be the electorate via elected Governments.

Preceding Labour Government made no mention of its mass immigration policy in either its manifesto or Queens speech opening Parliament. It was done behind our backs with no mandate. Actually, Immigration policy is set supragovernmentally.

Not online, only when done in person. Strict rules on when posted also suggest not possible with post.

I think in these cases you have to look at the information as percent of population, otherwise it is meaningless. They did this in Sweden and the percentage of rapes by immigrants was way in excess of the percentage by population of indigenous Swedes. i.e. - in fact it was worse, much smaller immigrant population accounting for the majority of rapes if I remember rightly. No I can't post a link because I am going from memory of something I read. I don't save the link of everything I read. If I have remebered wrong please feel free to correct me - I am posting this in good faith to the best of my recollection.

Which case are we talking about? If it was the case where the Judge ordered him arrested for saying the names of the accused outside of the court the Judge was wrong, the BBC had already published the names online. Absent this, the judge acting to prevent a retrial is understandable as it would mean young witnesses already being required to testify a second time, it was perhaps well intentioned but in light of the BBC already publishing, wrong. If you are referencing a case other than the historical case I am referencing then I express no opinion as I would have no facts to base any opinion on. Not a fallacious argument at all. You are the one jumping the gun in your head when a judge who heard the full evidence took a different view to you that he ran from justice. How is it that you know better than the Judge? This is no answer to my points. Answer my points rather than just accuse me of fallacious arguments ('sophistry'). If they are fallacious you should be able to shred them and publicly humiliate me, go ahead. eviscerate me, rather than resorting to attacking my arguments without supporting arguments/evidence and just baselessly re asserting your opinion.

It seems he made his money the same way as Sir Kier Starmer and thus according to your simpering post on Starmer must have "earned" it. "Tommy Robinson net worth, comes from various sources, including public speaking engagements, book sales, and merchandise." As for TR running away to avoid facing justice, you are being a little disingenuous here aren't you? You are stating the prosecutor (solicitor general) and avoiding the conclusions the presiding judge drew. He seems not to share your view despite hearing the arguments of the Solicitor General. Even the Guardian does not support your view. 'Tommy Robinson fled Britain on Sunday night to “put himself beyond the reach of authorities” in the UK, where he was due to be in court over alleged contempt proceedings, the hearing was told.' 'The hearing was told', got it, this is the de facto prosecutor. 'The far-right activist, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was arrested on Sunday at the Eurotunnel terminal in Folkestone by police who used counter-terrorism powers, but he was released on unconditional bail. Mr Justice Johnson issued a warrant at the high court for the arrest of Robinson but ordered that it not be carried out until early October to allow the activist time to indicate that he would attend the next hearing voluntarily, or to apply to “set aside” the warrant.' Seems the Judge presiding does not share your view chomper. I temped for 6 months at the CPS and was in court twice a week. If someone doesn't turn up to answer a criminal summons without a reasonable excuse being provided it's "warrant, no bail". Seen it countless imes. Seems we have to defer judgement on the view you are espousing. I mean, the judge was there and heard the arguments and he did, you weren't. Seems the allegations of fleeing justice are parroting of a view by the de factoprosecution. Payter said Robinson returned recently for the purposes of publishing the film and then sought to leave immediately “to put himself beyond the reach of this jurisdiction”. This fleeing to avoid justice is a position taken by the Solicitor General and seemingly not accepted by the judge. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/29/tommy-robinson-flees-uk-on-eurostar-amid-contempt-of-court-proceedings

Support this 100%. Politicians and Councillors who saw their reelection as more important than children being groomed and raped.

So you didn't read it but you have an opinion on it. just confirms that everything of yours is just an opinion without any supporting arguments/data.

How would you know, are you British? You are sitting there in Australia getting your views from the media. How many ordinary British people have you spoken to to form this view?. What TR says/stands for and what the media insinuates he stands for are not the same. He appeals to normal people who never asked for mass immigration to support the political strategy of the Left of top down enforced multiculturalism.

Silly sausage, I am posting it for OTHERS to read so that they can see how empty/biased your supporting links always are. You say my arguments are based on opinion but I actually sat in undergraduate lectures where we covered this type of sampling. Actually what is really going on here is that you are unable to counter any arguments, just post link, name call, or say it is beneath you to engage (a common Leftie tactic when intellectually unable to make a counter argument). Lets let the web board decide for themselves shall we? I am sure your cop out above and lack of counter points will not weigh in your favour.

Obviously been overdoing it on the campaign trail, maybe if he were confined to home as per his parole conditions his condition might improve. He might even find time to play with his grandchildren.

Nothing like locking up opponents for the Left. I am referring to your gloating manner, rather than the law. Don't see how somebody who has stood up for what he believe in like TR can be called a 'sniveling little coward', especially by our resident web board warrior.

More details on the poll but key information needed to draaw any real conclusion is missing. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/guardian-trusted-sun-least-trusted-online-news-brand-pamco-reveals/1492881 Pamco has released digital engagement figures for the first time alongside its reach data, breaking down how readers feel about the content they engage with online. Based on interviews with 35,000 people by Ipsos Mori, the research found that 91% of people considered reading a publication as time well spent, 70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication and 81% trusted what they read. In terms of trust for specific titles online, The Guardian scored highest, with 84% of readers agreeing that they "trust what I see in it", followed by i (83%) and The Independent (82%). Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism. As it says "readers" and does not say "those polled" I have to assume that 84% of GUARDIAN READERS rather than all people polled across all titles. That doesn't really mean anything as it is a poll of people who choose to buy/read the guardian, rather than a representative cross section of the population as a whole. Clearly if it just people who chose to read the Guardian then there is sample bias and it effectively means nothing. I am unable to clarify this from info available/wording. The best indicator is use of the term 'chosen publication' as in: '70% agreed that they felt a close connection to their chosen publication and 81% trusted what they read' To me there is little difference between the *4% for the Guardian and 81% overall. I doubt that it is a statistically significant difference. I am sure if you polled the 982,000 readers of Völkischer Beobachter or 750,000 Das Schwarze Korps readers you might find a similar percentage "trust what they see in it". If we apply your arguments then by extension if 84% of readers trust it, then it must be printing the truth/reliable. Do you think Völkischer Beobachter and Das Schwarze Korps were printing the truth/reliable? If not, then why is it that they were not, but The Guardian is? As detailed already, the above only holds if it is 84% of GUARDIAN READERS rather than all people polled across all titles. What I find particularly interesting is this: Readers of The Sun are the least trusting of their newspaper's digital content, with just 39% saying they trusted what they read. The next worst performer was MailOnline, with just 46% trusting its journalism. My take on this is that their readers are not stupid, they know it is propaganda designed to influence them, whereas The middle class Guardian readers whose salary comes from a transfer payment from the wealth creation of others are too unworldly to see this, and 84% actually think they are getting the truth rather than just buying someone else's propaganda. In other words, 84% of Guardian readers are naive fools. I would not describe that class of people as particularly worldly. What link will you post in response to this rather than counter my arguments directly?

How many previous 30 day Visa Exempt stamps did you have in your passport?

I know. It is actually these filthy tactics that I am railing against, not someone having an alternative view to me on how society may be structured. I believe in debate but am up against the people who believe "it is not necessary to have better arguments, merely to control the media", and that is what these aggressive name callers are doing on this web board, attempting to control it by their tactics. Don't forget the Frankfurt School and their 'critical theory' and the similar ''wedge tactics' of the Left. Deliberate strategies that have nithing to do with democratic debate.

Nope. this applies 100% to you and not to me. No mirror image there.

You are just demonstrating your naivety, sometimes to get the truth/an alternative view you have to go to both the extremes of Left like The Guardian and Right like Breitbart, the mainstream might not want to cover certain truths, particularly with Immigration. Breitbart reported actual data that the MSM with its "families fleeing war" and "doctors and engineers" narrative would not. German court reports for example are facts. I am well aware that Breitbart has an agenda in publishing this data, but it is the data that interests me, not their narrative. Same apples to facts reported by the Left media. This has to be explained?

How am I extreme right wing? Do I just not have to believe Leftist sources with and agenda to be 'extreme right wing'. I am not sure cartoonist of the year, sports photographer of the year and critic of the year are really what you would associate with hard hitting journalism. About 'old news', does the fact that it is old somehow discount it if the facts are the facts and things that were so then are still so? Completely dishonest deflection attempt. The Guardian is not respected by a very large part of the population because of its lack of editorial integrity. It is worse than Breitbart which I have not read since they stooped to the level of the Guardian.

Who knew, what the Left really stands for is a license to hate.

An insult and a link. As usual. This is what is truly pathetic. Every time, an attempted smear and a link. Where is your critical evaluation, where is you own synthesis?