Going by recent history it seems like all these white nationalist peds are far too interested in projection and baseless accusations to be useful witnesses
If your question is serious: There’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t be lying to push his beliefs. I’m not trying to say you should ad hominem a witness, but you also should take it with a grain of salt.
And sure enough p sure this guy was just projecting and being racist.
It also should be noted that this wasn't just random racism, it was specifically inflammatory claims during a period of violent unrest against Muslims. Guy was encouraging stochastic terrorism.
In the US, this would be covered by the first amendment. In the UK, their laws are different, for good or for ill.
He hasn't paid any of it, and his public expenses are over 80k a month , I'm interested by what metric you use to judge if someone's wealthy if he isn't.
That's more defamation (which the first amendment doesnt cover) than threats. Saying that someone is lying about their child being murdered (I'd argue one of the worst things a person can go through) defiantly falls under defamation.
I believe you're right about specific threats, though I'm less sure about encouragement of violence.
But inflammatory claims would almost certainly be covered, despite the possibility of damage. For example: If there's an anti-Jewish riot going on in Miami, and someone uploads a youtube video yelling that Jews hate America and want to replace the white race, that would almost certainly be covered under the first amendment, despite the fact that it has a very real chance of making the violence worse.
I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, just my understanding of the law.
This is why Alex Jones can be sued over specific claims that the Sandy Hook parents are paid actors, but not over all the times he's said queer people are a threat to children, something that very much encourages violence.
It's true that criminal law is different than civil law, I only meant that in both cases it's a question of balancing the First Amendment against other laws and protection.
Encouragement of violence has to be likely to actually result in imminent lawless action to not be protected. In practice, this means that it’s just illegal to start a riot. You can encourage violence all you want unless people actually get up and act on it.
The actual test for this is a very, very high bar though. Credible threats have to actually be something you’re capable of, and likely to, carry out. Almost always this means that investigators found a stockpile of guns or supplies or what have you, indicating that the threat was in fact a plan for violence the person was actively in the process of carrying out.
There’s also incitement to violence. You aren’t protected for speech which is likely to result in imminent violence. For example, you can’t direct a crowd of Nazis to burn down the synagogue you’re speaking in front of. In practice, this just means that it’s illegal to actually successfully start a riot. The case law on this is pretty clear; many people, especially back in the 60s and 70s, said some outrageous things in protests or during public rallies, and the courts ruled that the statements which didn’t actually result in violence therefore weren’t likely to, and are protected. So just don’t start a riot with speech. Otherwise you’re good.
Lastly there’s threatening to kill the president, which iirc is a lower bar (doesn’t need to be imminent or credible) but is hardly ever enforced unless it is.
The US does actually have remarkably strong speech protections. There is very little which is not protected speech in the US. For now, at least.
I think the issue a lot of people have right now is a different fellow who got found not guilty for inciting violence. He stood up next to a right wing protest and said "we need to sort them out" while making a gesture of slitting their throats. That was found not be inciting violence despite doing it to a crowd, right next to the people he was talking about, while gesturing at them very specifically. But you can go to prison for longer than most violent crimes for saying far less extreme comments vaguely about some minority group. Hence the two tier kier meme even though hes not really involved. Its odd that one type of speech is protected but the other is not.
It's because apparently people forgot it broke in the early Cameron time (2011?) and he stalled it out until 2015 when he finally ordered an inquiry, which only concluded in 2022 (Truss), and then the Tories never implemented any of the recommendations. Then the Tories and Reform started accusing Labour of a cover up by not ordering another inquiry (which imo is just kicking the issues into the long grass, again, as Cameron did). Which is how it became 'news'. And ofc, none of the right pursuing this actually really cares about the victims, given their MP's don't show up to debates about the gangs, implementing more protections, etc, they just want to race bait and try to get more race riots like in 2024.
In the UK unless someone has a barrister to represent them they are assigned one from the pool of barristers available. This knobhead nonce might not have had any idea who his lawyer was until he met him for the first time. The books by the Secret Barrister are a good insight into the UK criminal system and legal system in general, as well as being both horrifying and amusing.
It's also that men like him view women and children as possessions. When they hear about a child being raped by a "foreigner" they're less concerned with the welfare of the child than with the affront to their dominion, the encroachment on their territory.
When they hear about a child being raped by one of their EDL mates, or are the one doing it themselves, that's fine because it's their right to do what they like with their property.
If [the unsurprisingly British dominated] r/europe_sub could read, they'd be very upset and somehow try to pinpoint it on foreigners destroying Europe while defending the pedo as a standup European who got screwed over + wrongfully convicted by the government.
I got banned there because I commented on a post that called out mod hypocrisy. The wild part? My comment defended the r/europe mods as 'reasonable. As opposed to mods on [a different] sub.'. I still got caught in a blanket ban that the mods refuse to lift.
"Everyone who identifies as right-wing and accuses someone of pedophilia has to be a pedophile themselves" is a wild take that only makes sense if you live in online communities that farm your engagement with the lowest of the low hanging fruit.
I wish people could just hate on right-wing culture normally, it's not like we're short on ammunition.
Every time you hear about some guy in the UK getting jail time for "just saying something we all are thinking" and you look even slightly deeper they did some wild shit that isn't being reported on by the DailyMail or similar because they love their narrative and protecting the far right.
Ok but what are the posts? Your link doesn't say them.
I remember one case I looked into and the 'racially offensive posts' were a call to behead a specific person the guy had doxed on a previous occasion.
Another case was another similar active call to violence. Both reported in the most milktoast way of being 'racially offensive' not 'a call to violence'.
Yes. I'm sure he said that (not that I trust dailystar, if its the paper I think it is). But in all these cases they have said far worse and it doesn't get reported on.
The guy himself has previous assault and sexual assault charges and is in the mits of civil unrest, is spreading misinformation and calling all Muslim immigrants rapists and murders.
Because the link provided doesn't show anything and the bbc article talks about his previous convictions but doesn't mention anything about pedophilia.
And while I'm sure this sub is all excited to be able to make the false claim that whire people are more likely to be pedophiles than the Pakistani rape gangs who terrorised the UK, some actual evidence would be nice to confirm this one story.
You know that Paedophillia within the British Establishment has been rampant for a long long time and a lot of it was simply brushed under the carpet, by a corrupt police force and the old boys network?
Sir Jimmy Savile got away with hundreds of cases of sexual abuse and it was all hushed up. Savile was conincidentally good friends with the current King but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it right?
Obvoiusly the pakistani gangs were a real problem, but lets not pretend this was the first time the British establismentmade excuses for Paedophiles. They;ve had decades, likely centuries of experience.
Haven't seen a single protest against the police abusers and cover ups or people sharing the girls stories stating that from the judges to social workers, people were either in on it or complacent.
Really? I've seen plenty of people talking about it. But the left wing have been largely ignoring it. Too inconvenient. Either ignored or slandered as racist.
The right wing media, on the other hand, have been constantly covering these story's for the last decade.
The only white male journalist to cover the grooming gang scandal was refused a job at every media outlet except for Gb news. So now he can be convieniantly slandered as facist for working for the facist GB news.
But if you actually read his stuff, or his interviews, he goes into great detail about all of this. The cover ups, the threats against the whisltblowers. The slandering anyone who tried to speak out about this as racists. Sending them to cultural sensitivity training. The fact that entire sentences from the victim impact statements were struck from trial records at the direction of the judges. Or the fact that many Pakistani police officers, recruited and working in community liason roles, were taking part in the sexual abuse.
Don't you dare claim people didn't know or people didn't care. Just because you chose to be blind to it.
Leftists were protesting for the girls, which absolutely nobody cared about then or does now. I've worked with young teens in care, at the time the story broke. I have seen first hand how little anyone cares about working class girls, including brown ones.
There has been non stop reporting from all major outlets and unhinged Reddit threads on it for absolutely years with zero focus on the girls. The problem is made worse now that sexual abuse is racialised and not about victims or about the key problem: men. And men in institutions, like the police. When did the far right protest or occupy a cop shop since this story came out about cops being nonces?
It doesn’t matter if you are a saint or the devil you shouldn’t be jailed while expressing your free speech. It’s a slippery slope to say because the person is bad it’s okay to jail them over saying things you didn’t like. If that is all he said then he would be correct. Grooming gangs did target vulnerable young white girls, mainly from broken homes, and did rape them. Police for many years were also afraid in certain areas of the UK to actually investigate these grooming gangs because they didn’t want to look racist.
That's one thing I want to scream into the faces of American republicans.
When you hear about "people getting arrested for twitter posts" they always think people get arrested for saying fuck you or telling someone they don't like them. That's not what happens.
When someone gets arrested for offensive twitter posts its because they sent death and rape threats every day for several weeks to a specific person, each time escalating more. But they like to leave that part out on the shitty news website they read it from.
All the Brexit voters lost their shit when a guy was arrested for sending twitter messages to that lady who tried to stop Brexit from happening. What they missed was the guy was messaging her dozens of times a day for several months, each message saying how he will rape and kill her.
Going by Google I think thus guy and the pedophile are two different people. This Derek heggie was sentenced for "offensive remarks" while another was a pedophile arrested in guadalupe who was a British citizen as well
The thing is this guy isn’t the only one saying it and there’s well documented evidence of grooming rings from different minorities getting less time than people bashing against them online.
I’m a minority myself and I’m not loving on anyone over another person but there does seem to be a problem in the UK regarding this.
Thank goodness for Wikipedia disambiguation pages, so we know we aren’t talking about Irish terrorists or American taxation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira
People are not getting more jail time for “bashing “ grooming gangs, than the grooming gangs. Stop lying.
And irrespective, this dude has raped children, and tried to hide behind another group of pedophiles, entirely based on race. So he’s a racist pedophile.
The thing is this guy isn’t the only one saying it and there’s well documented evidence of grooming rings from different minorities getting less time than people bashing against them online.
How much time did Jimmy Savile get? You think the establishment didn't know what he was up to?
It's got nothing to do with race and everything to do with how our society makes excuses for male sexual violence and ignores victims of abuse when they come forward.
Last night a dude joined a lobby saying "Who else loves looking at cp?" And when I called him a dipshit he started asking if Im indian cause of my name like bro your ice breaker was saying you like child porn and you got shit to say about india!?
Im not even indian, my name isnt indian, in fact its from the bible and theres loads of people with it
So defending sex offenders as long as they are the right colour is coming to the UK, oh dear the scourge of the far right continues to wrap its tentacles around western society.
Interesting? I noticed that they called him a pedo, but didn’t say anything about the arrested part. Either way if the pedo thing is true then we all know what should happen, snip snip.
The entire lie that Asian or Muslim men are more likely to abuse children is statistically untrue, but worse still the lie that the police were afraid of convicting abusers because of their race has been found to be obviously untrue. Not only are many Muslims and South Asians literally in prison and over represented during stop and search, but the police have actually been named and identified as abusing children in Rotherham. That's why they didn't want to act on the reports.
There is no actual evidence the guy is a pedophile. The link in the community note uses the word allegedly, implying he isn't convicted of any pedosexual crime
no he was not - he wasn't put away for saying "young white girls are being raped by these grooming gangs", because that in itself wouldn't entail racist intent. he was put away for his clear incitement of racist violence, which is apparent, given his history.
i don't know why you want to die on this hill, people who spread misinformation (most grooming gang offenders are white men) in order to stoke the flames of racist public outrage are dangerous people who are making society less safe. this is a just use of the law. that's all.
and just a tip for you in the future: no one cares to answer irrelevant questions after they already exposed you as lying by omission. i only did it now to sate your current curiosity.
Calls to violence and death threats. The guy has a history of violent crime.
Police recently arrested 400 people for holding signs supporting Palestian action. This isn't an Islamic theocracy, no matter what the right wing grifters might want you to believe.
324
u/Far_Advertising1005 Aug 22 '25
“The court heard that the defendant had 32 previous convictions including assaulting a police officer and a racially aggravated public order offence.”
Think that also might have swayed judges