[News] Yaxley-Lennon Libel case.

[Cheshire Cat]

If you read the full judgement, it is a completely damning indictment of the defendant and his evidence.

Even more so of his claim to be a "journalist'.

 

[Sheebo]

Lots of tree hugging comments on my post but not one person has said which part they don’t agree with.. says it all. Too scared to have a voice and slate others for having one and saying ‘I agree with this video’ - and that’s where a number of posters have blinkers on. Don’t care on anyone’s motives - I said I agree with what he says on the subject and I always will - no point even debating it Opinions eh…

 

[Sheebo]

Thanking you kindly for this.
Please share with us where this fascist shares with us his thoughts about far right terrorism -- the fastest growing form of terrorism in the world - you might want to watch it as clearly haven’t - just throw around the word facist without actually listening to the argument - he can be right on some things and wrong on others - you clearly just got red mist, like many who discard him because it’s the done thing that far left - he doesn’t - where have I mentioned far right terrorism except say I condemn it? Listen to the words I said - I agree with his points on Islamic terrorists - you know the ***** that kill children. Completely going off track already.

Please share with us where this Islamophobe highlights the terrorism perpetrated by the west on the Muslim world - see above - again you can’t just stick to the subject matter I said.

If you can't do this, pause and reflect, and don't make such ridiculous claims again - I can’t do it as it’s not the subject I was talking about. So how is my claim ridiculous - and because I can’t give his opinions on other forms of terrorism that makes it wrong. Again, I’ll invite you or anyone to state which bit of his views on Islamist extremists (the most brutal terrorists of today’s world who have killed innocent people all over the world in hate crimes) you don’t agree with - which bit? If you can’t answer you clearly agree with me and him on islamist extremists right?

I had to dissect this as you seem quite angry and missing the point…

 

[W.C.]

Lots of tree hugging comments on my post but not one person has said which pet they don’t agree with.. says it all. Too scared to have a voice and slate others for having one and saying ‘I agree with this video’ - and that’s where a number of posters have blinkers on. Don’t care on anyone’s motives - I said I agree with what he says on the subject and I always will - no point even debating it Opinions eh…

Plenty of comments about your post and all you can reply with is tree huggers? That's pathetic. Didn't have you down as a TR follower.

 

[Sheebo]

Well, yeah. But it's a shame that [MENTION=457]sheebo[/MENTION] couldn't get there first. Normally a decent poster on here too.

Also you missed

3. 7 letter word beginning with "R"

Again, listen to what I said. No other context or his lifestyle or money made - which bit of the views and solutions offered don’t you agree with? If you don’t agree with it you’re essentially condemning someone for trying to stop innocent kids and people being killed by utter scum surely? It seems anyone with an opinion that relates to someone they don’t like must be wrong - on this isolated subject, I agree with every word. And it seems that we all do as everyone who’s answered can’t stick to the subject I raised It’s like saying Jimmy Saville never said anything I agreed with because of who he is - I bet he did - he may have said ‘I like crumpets’ once it’s a shame people haven’t listened to my actual words - and I stand by them 100% - his views on the culture and breeding ground of Islamist extremists and how we can try to stop it are bang on - from everyday people (eg stand up and don’t be scared to speak out), to good ‘normal’ Muslims peacefully practicing their faith to SPEAK OUT if they see something dodgy at their place of worship (I noticed an arrest the other day where they thankfully did) - hardly rocket science - the bloke is correct on this subject. If it was someone you’d never heard of by a different name you’d all be nodding along and agreeing - you can’t take the subject or the mans views in isolation and have to bring up every other possible thing about him to justify… absolutely nothing on THIS SUBJECT that he says. I even said I condemn certain actions of his - I’m not a ‘supporter’ or anything - the terrorists (who were all Islamic extremists) who commuted 9/11 7/7 Manchester, Paris etc etc happen to be a subject I’m interested in as it sickens me and I don’t want our children growing up in fear or dying - does that make me a ‘bad person or poster’ suddenly?

 

[Sheebo]

Plenty of comments about your post and all you can reply with is tree huggers? That's pathetic. Didn't have you down as a TR follower.

Erm I’m not a ‘follower’ whatsoever. So I’m meant to sit here and take all sorts of flack and because I used the words ‘tree huggers’ to describe the intolerable far left (I’d use racist scum for far right), that makes me pathetic? I think I explained my opinions quite eloquently, yet others jumped on it like I’d ran over their cat keep the abuse coming - it’s hard to debate with those so brainwashed to not be able to break down comments in isolation. Thanks god I didn’t say anything offensive or get abusive as you just have

 

[Sheebo]

Plenty of comments about your post and all you can reply with is tree huggers? That's pathetic. Didn't have you down as a TR follower.

Again, I’ve asked multiple times but nobody has given an answer - FEEL FREE TO STATE WHICH PART OF TR’s VIEWS ON PREVENTING MORE ISLAMIST TERROR ATTACKS YOU DONT AGREE WITH? Unless someone can state which part, (as many don’t bother actually watching the videos) I will bow out of this thread, with my head held high, knowing I stick to what my ears hear on a subject and don’t just write an idea off because of who says it and pre conceived negativity about them!

 

[Eeyore]

Plenty of comments about your post and all you can reply with is tree huggers? That's pathetic. Didn't have you down as a TR follower.

I don't think he is. And the point he makes is actually quite salient It's just not put in a way that is endearing. See below.

Lots of tree hugging comments on my post but not one person has said which pet they don’t agree with.. says it all. Too scared to have a voice and slate others for having one and saying ‘I agree with this video’ - and that’s where a number of posters have blinkers on. Don’t care on anyone’s motives - I said I agree with what he says on the subject and I always will - no point even debating it Opinions eh…

First of all: Yaxley-Lennon. It is clear that he is obsessed with race, aggressive and regards himself as a victim. This needs to be split up to gain some understanding. The primary reason why folk don't want to know is because of the atmosphere that surrounds him. He attracts the most dangerous, vicious and, above all, racist of people. He is their poster boy- and he plays the role well. That is why you will receive hostility if you champion any of his thoughts. It's understandable.

This is not to say that he is incapable of presenting his fears, or, if he presents them in a reasoned manner, they shouldn't be heard like anyone else. Very little is achieved in cultural progression if only one side of the 'divide' is allowed to offer thoughts on its direction. I have long since come to the conclusion that to jaw is indeed better than to war. And sometimes that means listening to unsavory characters of influence. He is one, purely because of his appeal. Harsh words on an internet forum won't make the problem go away. They will ferment it. As it stands, a view I have held since 2016, there is a culture war in many European nations. Slow to burn, especially here, but burning nonetheless. Not helped by a government that will give thinly veiled credence to it when it helps the 40% target they need. Not helped by a media that subtly tests the waters.

That video has been around a while. I did watch it some time back. He looked calm and at times quite articulate and I listened to what he had to say. I was intrigued. Although I felt he was tempered. There was clearly a lot of anger below the surface and a covered ugliness in his thinking. It was clear that his bad experiences in (Luton ?) had led to his mission. But he couldn't see beyond his experiences.

His point was that within Islam there are some pretty bad folk operating in a political way. In isolation that is true. But in isolation. His concern was that some wish to zealously impose an Islamic form of political control over parts of the country. In isolation that is true. He is not the only person to have observed it. More reasoned commentators have done so. He points out that such an attitude leads to a clash of cultures. It does. But there is a problem here.

What is he trying to achieve ?

If his intention is to protect society from such excesses there are already laws in place to do so. There are national and localised conflicts in many parts of our society that go beyond religious beliefs. Hardly anyone who uses NSC will be Muslim, yet debate rages about all aspects of social practice and reform. So Islam is not the 'issue'. Remember the school lessons on inclusion that were miss-represented in parts of the country that led to demonstrations and opposition where homosexuality was concerned ? Some folk believed it was the Muslims who were playing up. Not entirely true. There were a number of players involved.

The conflicts that some aspects of old religious doctrine, in the hands of its most fervent followers, may present in society at large are just one in a huge number of thorns that we have to live with. Yaxley-Lennon has chosen to amplify and avenge his own perceived injustices by making it his singular crusade. As a result he has the company he keeps- and as a result many folk don't want to hear him- and some who are just as extreme as those he calls out do.

So, yes, he may have made some interesting points. And, yes, sometimes it is good to listen to someone who you may not like to get a wider perspective and understand what is their heart. In doing so it can provide a resource towards healing a problem. If someone feels they are being listened to it makes them calmer. That video was an example.

But ultimately, it's not so much what people say as the heart it comes from.

And I don't like his heart.

 

[clapham_gull]

He is clearly eloquent (at times) and I'd imagine has quite a high IQ, but unfortunately you can't take a single video of him talking at Oxford University at face value.

He is a career criminal who has a history of violence and not telling the truth. Prior to the Oxford appearance he had left the EDL and seemingly re-invented himself as being against all forms of extremism (including the far right), proclaiming he wanted to fight terrorism "not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.."

However, it soon became clear he was paid to do so and was back "on track" very quickly when the cash ran out, aligning himself with a variety of far right political parties and organisations both here and abroad. Their agendas quite often extending beyond their concerns about a single religion.
Many were quite happy to pay him thousands of dollars or assist him in raising funds from supporters.

And that in a nutshell is the problem with Tommy and the same with Katie Hopkins. Their output extends beyond immigration concerns, but they know their audience.

Their respective careers are little more than click bait internet fuelled money making ventures. Their returns on investment are diminishing as their audience requires harder content.

There are a number of respected journalists and writers that construct valid arguments around the concerns of extremist forms of ideology and religion that fuel terrorism.

Unfortunately Tommy Robinson isn't one of them. He libelled a schoolboy of a different colour because of a fight in the playground and spent a remarkable amount of effort to erroneously prove that he didn't. What that spat had to do with Radical Islamic Terrorism is anyone's guess.

On that basis alone his talk at the Oxford Union is simply invalid for two reasons.

1) It's impossible to tell when he is telling the truth.

2) It's impossible to separate his clear motivation for making the speech from the speech itself.

 

[Eeyore]

He is clearly eloquent (at times) and I'd imagine has quite a high IQ, but unfortunately you can't take a single video of him talking at Oxford University at face value.

He is a career criminal who has a history of violence and not telling the truth. Prior to the Oxford appearance he had left the EDL and seemingly re-invented himself as being against all forms of extremism (including the far right), proclaiming he wanted to fight terrorism "not with violence but with better, democratic ideas..".

However, it soon became clear he was paid to do so and was back "on track" very quickly when the cash ran out, aligning himself with a variety of far right organisations both here and abroad.

And that's the problem with Tommy and it's the same with Katie Hopkins. Their respective careers are little more than internet fuelled money making ventures with diminishing returns on investment as their audience requires harder content.

There are a number of respected journalists and writers that construct valid arguments around the concerns of extremist forms of ideology and religion that fuel terrorism.

Unfortunately Tommy Robinson isn't one of them but it's clear what he actually is. He libelled a schoolboy of a different colour because of a fight in the playground and and spent a remarkable amount of effort to erroneously prove that he didn't. What that has to do with Radical Islamic Terrorism is anyone's guess.

On that basis alone his talk at the Oxford Union is simply invalid for two reasons.

1) It's impossible he is telling the truth about his personal experiences.

2) It's impossible to separate his clear motivation for making the speech from the speech itself.

1 I'd say it's impossible to know if he is telling the truth, a part truth, or just lying. We weren't there.
2 Yes, I agree. He is an angry and violent man. And his singular mission reveals racial motives.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Only a certain "type" does feel the need to bang on endlessly about both subjects

Sounds like a bunch of people on here.

Only here they are known as 'knitters'.

 

[Dick Head]

 

[BadFish]

I don't think he is. And the point he makes is actually quite salient It's just not put in a way that is endearing. See below.



First of all: Yaxley-Lennon. It is clear that he is obsessed with race, aggressive and regards himself as a victim. This needs to be split up to gain some understanding. The primary reason why folk don't want to know is because of the atmosphere that surrounds him. He attracts the most dangerous, vicious and, above all, racist of people. He is their poster boy- and he plays the role well. That is why you will receive hostility if you champion any of his thoughts. It's understandable.

This is not to say that he is incapable of presenting his fears, or, if he presents them in a reasoned manner, they shouldn't be heard like anyone else. Very little is achieved in cultural progression if only one side of the 'divide' is allowed to offer thoughts on its direction. I have long since come to the conclusion that to jaw is indeed better than to war. And sometimes that means listening to unsavory characters of influence. He is one, purely because of his appeal. Harsh words on an internet forum won't make the problem go away. They will ferment it. As it stands, a view I have held since 2016, there is a culture war in many European nations. Slow to burn, especially here, but burning nonetheless. Not helped by a government that will give thinly veiled credence to it when it helps the 40% target they need. Not helped by a media that subtly tests the waters.

That video has been around a while. I did watch it some time back. He looked calm and at times quite articulate and I listened to what he had to say. I was intrigued. Although I felt he was tempered. There was clearly a lot of anger below the surface and a covered ugliness in his thinking. It was clear that his bad experiences in (Luton ?) had led to his mission. But he couldn't see beyond his experiences.

His point was that within Islam there are some pretty bad folk operating in a political way. In isolation that is true. But in isolation. His concern was that some wish to zealously impose an Islamic form of political control over parts of the country. In isolation that is true. He is not the only person to have observed it. More reasoned commentators have done so. He points out that such an attitude leads to a clash of cultures. It does. But there is a problem here.

What is he trying to achieve ?

If his intention is to protect society from such excesses there are already laws in place to do so. There are national and localised conflicts in many parts of our society that go beyond religious beliefs. Hardly anyone who uses NSC will be Muslim, yet debate rages about all aspects of social practice and reform. So Islam is not the 'issue'. Remember the school lessons on inclusion that were miss-represented in parts of the country that led to demonstrations and opposition where homosexuality was concerned ? Some folk believed it was the Muslims who were playing up. Not entirely true. There were a number of players involved.

The conflicts that some aspects of old religious doctrine, in the hands of its most fervent followers, may present in society at large are just one in a huge number of thorns that we have to live with. Yaxley-Lennon has chosen to amplify and avenge his own perceived injustices by making it his singular crusade. As a result he has the company he keeps- and as a result many folk don't want to hear him- and some who are just as extreme as those he calls out do.

So, yes, he may have made some interesting points. And, yes, sometimes it is good to listen to someone who you may not like to get a wider perspective and understand what is their heart. In doing so it can provide a resource towards healing a problem. If someone feels they are being listened to it makes them calmer. That video was an example.

But ultimately, it's not so much what people say as the heart it comes from.

And I don't like his heart.

Brilliant post. It appears to me that Sheebo is presenting us with Yaxley Lennon at his most articulate, intelligent and reasonable and then asking us to disregard anything and everything else that Yaxley Lennon has said and done before or since.

I also remember watching this video, the views presented are reasonable and logical (from what I remember). The problem with the bloke is 'the other stuff' and simply refusing to accept it as part of the discussion does not discount its importance.

As you say jaw , jaw is far better that war war, but for me that jaw jaw should include a wide range of relevant information on the topic of discussion.
[MENTION=457]sheebo[/MENTION] is right, if you watch the video you may see a reasonable person of decent intellect and genuine heartfelt concerns.

Unforunately, if you add in the rest of the 'Tommy Robinson' experience. You see pond life who has let his hatred run away with him and cloud his judgement.

 

[Justice]

Thanking you kindly for this.
Please share with us where this fascist shares with us his thoughts about far right terrorism -- the fastest growing form of terrorism in the world
Please share with us where this Islamophobe highlights the terrorism perpetrated by the west on the Muslim world

If you can't do this, pause and reflect, and don't make such ridiculous claims again

Yet the major threats still come from Islamic terrorists. Although the right wing terrorist groups maybe recruiting more prominently recently the groups are easier for the intelligence agencies to infiltrate than the Islamic cells hence threats are dealt with before they get off the ground.

I don’t get your dig at Sheebo tbh, he’s clearly stated he’s not a Robinson follower and only agrees with the mans view on Islamic terror. Are you saying if he also has knowledge of right ring terror his point will then be valid in your mind

 

[Uh_huh_him]

A racist who likes to whip up fear of a section of our society based on a minimal threat.
Hundreds more people die from drink driving each year than terrorism.

No-one becomes a millionaire from whipping up hatred of drink drivers.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Again, listen to what I said. No other context or his lifestyle or money made - which bit of the views and solutions offered don’t you agree with? If you don’t agree with it you’re essentially condemning someone for trying to stop innocent kids and people being killed by utter scum surely? It seems anyone with an opinion that relates to someone they don’t like must be wrong - on this isolated subject, I agree with every word. And it seems that we all do as everyone who’s answered can’t stick to the subject I raised It’s like saying Jimmy Saville never said anything I agreed with because of who he is - I bet he did - he may have said ‘I like crumpets’ once it’s a shame people haven’t listened to my actual words - and I stand by them 100% - his views on the culture and breeding ground of Islamist extremists and how we can try to stop it are bang on - from everyday people (eg stand up and don’t be scared to speak out), to good ‘normal’ Muslims peacefully practicing their faith to SPEAK OUT if they see something dodgy at their place of worship (I noticed an arrest the other day where they thankfully did) - hardly rocket science - the bloke is correct on this subject. If it was someone you’d never heard of by a different name you’d all be nodding along and agreeing - you can’t take the subject or the mans views in isolation and have to bring up every other possible thing about him to justify… absolutely nothing on THIS SUBJECT that he says. I even said I condemn certain actions of his - I’m not a ‘supporter’ or anything - the terrorists (who were all Islamic extremists) who commuted 9/11 7/7 Manchester, Paris etc etc happen to be a subject I’m interested in as it sickens me and I don’t want our children growing up in fear or dying - does that make me a ‘bad person or poster’ suddenly?

This is exactly why you've missed the point. You seem to be stating that if you are against Yaxley-Lennon then you are in favour of Islamic terror. It's a false dichotomy. I've already said earlier in the thread that it is a natural default for more or less everyone to be against terrorism. The only people who are FOR it are terrorists

I would like my anti terror spokesperson to not be a convicted criminal.
I would like my anti terror spokesperson to not be a racist (then they can also talk about terror in Northern Ireland, far right terror groups and the wars and poverty that cause extremism as well as the culture)
I would like my anti terrorism spokesperson not to lie about individuals on Facebook for personal gain.
I would like my anti terrorism spokesperson not be a former football hooligan
I would like my anti terrorism spokesperson not to harass legitimate journalists.

If you're impressed with a speech and a video that he probably had written for him then that's up to you. I'll spend my time looking for advocates who cover all sides of the argument and who understand (since you mention Savile) that there are powerful white men who interfere with children as well as brown ones in kebab shops.

So he's not wrong to condemn terror but he's making money out of something that 95% of us think anyway.

Real change will come from inside the moderate Islamic community. Real change will come when we stop contributing to the wars and poverty that kill Islamic children unless they escape - at which point we fish them out of an overcrowded dinghy, throw them in prison and stigmatise them. Let's fight for that and not the "rights" of a convicted criminal and liar and suspected fraudster and coke addict.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

It’s never a great look to be agreeing with a violent hate spreading racist no matter what they’re saying to be honest. End of chat for me.

 

[Sheebo]

Brilliant post. It appears to me that Sheebo is presenting us with Yaxley Lennon at his most articulate, intelligent and reasonable and then asking us to disregard anything and everything else that Yaxley Lennon has said and done before or since.

I also remember watching this video, the views presented are reasonable and logical (from what I remember). The problem with the bloke is 'the other stuff' and simply refusing to accept it as part of the discussion does not discount its importance.

As you say jaw , jaw is far better that war war, but for me that jaw jaw should include a wide range of relevant information on the topic of discussion.
[MENTION=457]sheebo[/MENTION] is right, if you watch the video you may see a reasonable person of decent intellect and genuine heartfelt concerns.

Unforunately, if you add in the rest of the 'Tommy Robinson' experience. You see pond life who has let his hatred run away with him and cloud his judgement.

Thank you. Fair post and I accept your criticism of my opinion completely and yes I am disregardingnotber things, although my initial post did actually condemn his behaviour on this poor school kid and turning up to court jeopardising a case of scumbags. At least if you watched this video - and to be fair there are many, where actually the cultural divides and issues are explained. Silly example of sorts, but there was a problem with scout leaders being nonces - I went to scouts - do i feel offended - no…

But yes, thank you for actually understanding my point. Many others haven’t actually and haven’t actually watched the subject matter - just disregarded it because their ideology (left wing) tells them to. I think just don’t be afraid to judge people and subjects in isolation - simple.

 

[Sheebo]

This is exactly why you've missed the point. You seem to be stating that if you are against Yaxley-Lennon then you are in favour of Islamic terror. It's a false dichotomy. I've already said earlier in the thread that it is a natural default for more or less everyone to be against terrorism. The only people who are FOR it are terrorists

I would like my anti terror spokesperson to not be a convicted criminal.
I would like my anti terror spokesperson to not be a racist (then they can also talk about terror in Northern Ireland, far right terror groups and the wars and poverty that cause extremism as well as the culture)
I would like my anti terrorism spokesperson not to lie about individuals on Facebook for personal gain.
I would like my anti terrorism spokesperson not be a former football hooligan
I would like my anti terrorism spokesperson not to harass legitimate journalists.

If you're impressed with a speech and a video that he probably had written for him then that's up to you. I'll spend my time looking for advocates who cover all sides of the argument and who understand (since you mention Savile) that there are powerful white men who interfere with children as well as brown ones in kebab shops.

So he's not wrong to condemn terror but he's making money out of something that 95% of us think anyway.

Real change will come from inside the moderate Islamic community. Real change will come when we stop contributing to the wars and poverty that kill Islamic children unless they escape - at which point we fish them out of an overcrowded dinghy, throw them in prison and stigmatise them. Let's fight for that and not the "rights" of a convicted criminal and liar and suspected fraudster and coke addict.

Fair post too - I don’t disagree with much of it - and I’m not saying he’s a spokesperson as such - I like what he says on the subject - I also like what many other say. I’ve heard ‘normal’ Muslims giving some views on it I totally agree with. If you listen to people in isolation on a subject you can agree or disagree - I actually consider it a strength of mine and also proud I make my own opinions and speak up even if others won’t agree. Anyway, enough of this, the bottom line is we all agree there’s got to be ways to protect our kids and their generation and beyond from mental nut case scum all over the world, who will kill innocent people. The NZ mosque attack is obviously just as sickening as the Manchester bombings. We have to look at all ways to stop these monsters.
I really wasn’t trying to say anyone not agreeing with it supports terrorism - that’s just plain silly - maybe I can’t get the point across - if it was a calm debate in a pub I would do so much better.

But life’s too short to argue difference of opinions for long on this when fundamentally, all we want is a safer world

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Erm I’m not a ‘follower’ whatsoever. So I’m meant to sit here and take all sorts of flack and because I used the words ‘tree huggers’ to describe the intolerable far left (I’d use racist scum for far right), that makes me pathetic? I think I explained my opinions quite eloquently, yet others jumped on it like I’d ran over their cat keep the abuse coming - it’s hard to debate with those so brainwashed to not be able to break down comments in isolation. Thanks god I didn’t say anything offensive or get abusive as you just have

Am I a tree hugger because I don’t want to endorse a convicted wife beater, football thug, etc reading out a script at a debate?
Yes, there is Islamist terrorism, and generally MI5 are doing a great job fighting it. Many of those involved are arrested & convicted before they get too far. Just buying ingredients for bomb making for example.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon calls himself Tommy Robinson after a convicted football thug, to make himself sound like a man of the people. He is manufactured, but the paymasters realised he was becoming a liability, despite donations coming in, when lots of it was being wasted on drugs.

Don’t let a video kid you, nor label others intolerable far left tree huggers because they see him for what he is.
He is a wrong ‘un.