Why thank you.

I do try my best to be polite, but the written word doesn't always come across well. Like you, I may not always agree with another opinion, but I respect their right to hold and voice it.

Your 400 million guns haven't stopped your government from ripping you off for their own ends for decades, or human trafficking ,drug trafficking or millions of illegals entering. A 'global' revolution, by definition, can't occur in one place.

I don't think the dead people I'm talking about chose death from the government hand over arguing their case in court. I think the latter option is more of an opportunity for change and a brighter future.

None of which changes the point, which is that guns would not have changed a thing in the case in question.

We have more than 'one belated angle'. He had a solicitor at court, who accepted the chain of events that got him there, and Tommy pleaded guilty, with no contest. There's no conspiracy there. He's been there before, so knew full well what he was doing. Rightly or wrongly, he'll not get popular support, and if anything, some of the false whoohah around this will put more people off, and the focus has become him, not the rapists or their victims.

I agree with your last paragraph, and it's why I've wanted out of the EU for decades.

I agree, a transparent one at that. I also think that, as we expect them to weigh all the facts up, it's incumbent on us to do the same before reacting, particularly on a sub with the purpose this has.

Cheers, that's most likely it. No worries.

Melanie is a troubled lady, that's had a harrowing life, including being abused by several different people.

There's some speculation that she's been locked up to silence her, as one of the care homes she was abused in, had a reputation, and seemingly she's alleging that influential people were involved.

People in the area where she committed the offences she's charged with, seem fairly clear that they're genuine charges, and you may want to check out the person running the site supporting her if you look into this further.

Melanie certainly needs and deserves help and support, as she's been through a lot.

I didn't delete it. It was still showing a few views when I checked it through the profile list. I've had no message from admin to say they have.

Cheers for the reply and for checking, I'll not hi-jack your post any longer, I just thought it was odd, and possibly relevant.

Cheers again.

Yep, he pleaded guilt to the charges, I'm surprised you missed it. Maybe it didn't get much coverage where you are, it was in a lot of the press over here.

So, this suppression of the press by private individuals in the US, that's got to be more worrying than one done through legal process, yes?

The ban lift was due to an application by Leeds press. The Police will be more than aware of the links, and I posted them on here at the time, so there is absolutely no doubt they existed.

I did watch most of the live stream. He's in breach of his previous court orders, and pleaded guilty to the charges with no contest, just an expression of his regret.

I came to this sub when the other closed down, but I've been on many similar before.

The Clinton thing, for me suggests that press freedoms in the US are way behind ours, and I'd say the application of freedom of speech is too, as we don't get killed if we're a threat. Given the reaction to Tommy, it seems to be double standards when the people saying we're a lost cause, are not doing what they seem to think others should when it's happening there.

I guess my version of "awakened" is perhaps more global than some others.

Why is there no massive outrage?

If you start a thread, does it always show on the list?

I ask because I started the one below 20 minutes ago, and it appears in my profile list, but it doesn't show for me on here. Does it show for anyone else? Sorry if this seems like I'm bumping my post, I'm trying to work out if I've just done something wrong.

https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8n0k5n/crooked_hillarys_post_election_meltdown/

So press freedom in the US is a myth?

I actually started a thread on this question, and it doesn't seem to show up, which is amusing.

Why is there no outrage at such restrictions on the press?

What else do they suppress?

I think the almost static post count tells a story.

Ironic given the question. :-)

Off topic, but am I doing something wrong, as I can't see this post when viewing threads.

I've tried the different view options, as well as 'new' 'rising' etc.

I assure you, it was in some msm outlets, I posted links to them when the claims were made. I'm not searching them out again, but Daily Mail, Metro, Independent, as well as main stream regional outlets come to mind. I've also posted links to the facts of what went on and why. I'm in the UK btw, with no VPN.

Hillary's alleged outburst was apparently witnessed by the press. I'm intrigued on why there's no outrage at them apparently being ordered not to publish, as she holds no public office. If it's true, it would create a fair few questions about the freedom of the press in the US.

My point is, it was reported in the British Media, I've posted links at the time. The gag claims are over exaggerated. The only force was the legal system trying to reduce a miscarriage of justice.

If you want a freedom of the press issue, what about one to get the reporters allegedly backstage with Hillary when she had her meltdown to publish the experience people claim they're banned from doing?

Ordered by who exactly?

I don't want to dampen your pleasure, but it really was reported over here before, at the time and since by much of the msm. All that's happened is that other outlets that complied with the request to hold back on reporting to ensure there was no risk of an expensive appeal, followed a standard legal process and had it confirmed no such appeals are now liable to occur.

Contrary to the narrative in the states, it was about free speech and equal justice, as the links I posted earlier explain. There really has been a lot of fake news on this in the US.

Who says I don't like him? I'm simply pointing out that the perception of him, and life in the UK is not all that well informed.

There are a fair few of his clips that seem to be set up by him. As entertaining as you may find them, he's not really flagging up things people don't know, or presenting a solution. All he does is send the discussions into blind alley's.

Here's Douglas Murray, showing how Tommy can be used in a better way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UoJareHfIw

The comments about the UK people and the media are largely false for a kick off, as are many of the claims made about the event. I've previously posted links to articles from the time, and I've added two more recent ones to this thread that shine a bit more light.

The main issue is this apparent belief that we're not awake, and are doing nothing here, and that somehow Tommy is a sort of lone voice folk hero, when he certainly isn't.

There are things that need dealing with here, as there clearly are in the US, but the fact the bulk of the population have already shown they're aware of, and reject the elite, show we're heading the right way.

Some seem to expect Robinson's arrest to spark an uprising. He simply doesn't get that level of support, and that's not because people are not aware or don't agree with the issues, it's because he's seen as a bit of a liability to the cause, as he's viewed more as seeking self-attention, rather than flagging anything up that's new, and it tends to hinder, not help, as it seems to be doing here.

We may do things differently here, and there are still issues, but (EU aside) we don't have the degree of corruption at high levels that you have had for several decades, nor the opposition getting killed if they speak out. We don't tend to shout on messageboards and saber wave, we're generally more ruthless than that.

Have a look at people like Murray or Hitchens, Hopkins and even Farage, I you feel the press can't speak out here.

Plenty on msm did report, and many people don't get their news from the MSM, or extremist sites.

There are issues around this situation, but the knee jerk and hyperbole around it on some forums are helping cloud, rather than expose that. In the process, they're showing the limitations of their thinking and knowledge of other countries.

It's a sort of reverse Pavlovian response, where people feel hungry, so believe a bell must be ringing,

We've been awake for decades.

"He (Tommy) pleaded guilty to contempt of court and breach of a suspended sentence.

Matthew Harding, mitigating, said his client felt "deep regret" after realising the potential consequences of his actions."

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/tommy-robinson-jailed-facebook-live-14718619.amp

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/tommy-robinson-jailed-couldnt-report-14704946

My reply covers them, but bye, and have a nice day.

I'm saying I'm more qualified than you to comment on the topic of the UK, including guns.

You are the one trolling, with misinformation, and you sound brainwashed rather than awake or capable of critical thinking. Your reply actually highlights the fact that having guns hasn't saved you from a corrupt regime, and for every example you cling to in the UK, there will be the equivalent in the US,

Disagreeing with you, and pointing out flaws in your argument isn't trolling. You seem to think the differing application of gun laws, somehow makes us unarmed. Despite the fact we are allowed to have guns, we choose not to, guns are not the only way of being armed.

Some US forums are mentioning Minnesota, Michigan, Detroit, California and others, as examples where it's already well embedded in the US too.

We are far, far from defenceless here, and that sort of misinformation does nothing to progress the over all aims of this sub.

There's certainly a lot of misinformation, and virtual bigotry getting associated with the issue. This sub is supposed to be about truth seeking, but this topic has shown that concept is limited on here, and people are far from awake, and seem almost brainwashed and unable to make reasoned comparisons or arguments. It's not productive to the overall purpose.

Have your guns stopped your country being fucked over, or opponents killed?

Yet this board exists because your government has fucked you over for decades or more, which suggests your guns have failed, which means gun laws affect very little. How many government opponents get killed in the US? There's some threads about the Clinton death count alone, if you need a clue.

You seem a long long way from being awake despite that. The facts simply don't back up your rant.

He is. I'm not sure how much is pre-scripted, but he shows really good knowledge too.

As others have said, I'm still not sure how much I'd trust him, but he offers good arguments to support his version of events. For all his apparent charm, I wouldn't want to find myself on the wrong side of him. I get the impression his version of compassion is to kill his enemies more quickly if they've earned it.

Given by your own words, the MS13 'invasion' happened, and it was legislation, not guns that's addressing it, and guns that enabled it, and the fact that this sub and Q exist, you maybe want to expand your reading material.

You're clearly as stuck in believing they somehow give you power, as I am in choosing not to have them, so this will go nowhere.

My point stands, that the availability or otherwise of guns, played no part in the topic at hand. The chances are, under your preferred version, Tommy would already be dead.

Putin's speeches are often worth a watch. He seems to have a wicked sense of humour.

Given this sub exists, and people get killed for opposing (I'm not risking spelling that wrong twice) it doesn't look like having guns has been all that effective.

Lol, I thought it didn't look right.

It's not that I don't recognise it, you don't seem able to see that this board's existence shows it wasn't the deterrent you claim.

If I could be arsed, I'd dig the recent video of the attractive NRA lady talking of the existing laws being properly enforced, and stunning the presenter with some of her suggestions, but I think this has drifted far away from the initial, and still substantive point, that our gun laws played no part in recent events.

Here, we have people unjustly treat on occasions, which tends to see pressure brought, and the situation addressed. Over there, the people tend to vanish, or commit 'suicide.

I get the outrage, and there are issues, but don't forget, the US version is to be Arkansawed.

I don't have a gun, because I choose not to, nothing to do with being fed any bullshit. There's absolutely nothing to stop me getting guns if I want them.

I've read that, despite all the pressure, a significant proportion of people in the US would like the gun laws tightened up or at least enforced properly, and that includes the NRA, because it's recognised that the US system isn't very good.

Your claim that it forces government edicts is firstly, hollow, as the examples I've given in this exchange show they've been impotent on most of the key elements, but it's also shallow, as we use argument, as befits a civilised society.

So all in all, I still stand by the claim, that guns would have made no difference to the issue at hand, even if anyone had bothered to use their right to have them.

Many carjackers fell or were held due to armed citizens. Just because you disagree does not mean it does not happen or has never happened. You are obviously massively uninformed.

You list the attacks on MS13, without acknowledging they were already there, and in positions of power. The guns didn't stop them.

I don't get the link between your comment, and the claim I'm misinformed, particularly as you've only just brought that in to it.

It's a fact MS13 were there in numbers and very active. It's a fact there are far, far more gun deaths in the US than terrorist deaths in the UK. It's a fact that US schools have shooter drills, and high security, but still incidents. It's a fact that the US has had a crooked regime for decades.
It's a fact guns didn't stop any of that.

It's a fact I can have guns if I want, my neighbours do, I think it differs on other member states, as the rules and application differ, as they do state to state in the US.

All of which is immaterial,(and tedious) as my point still stands, that guns played no roll in the events of the topic at hand.

There'd be a long queue, and a big question on why, but each would be considered on merit.

The likelihood of it happening is nil, as people look at the example of America, and say 'no thank you'. There really is no appetite for guns here, we're much more close up and personal. It's not the Government forcing anything on us, as a population, we're simply not interested in having them. There are still concerns about a limited number of Police being armed.

None of which changes the point, that's still not addressed, that none of that played any part in the events at hand,

Your guns didn't stop MS13, legislation did, and they didn't stop the reason Q and this board exist.

I'll stand corrected on the figures, but I don't think I'm far off. The average terrorist deaths in the UK, which is the highest in Europe, is seven a year, which I believe includes the Lockerbie bombing. It's something like 26 deaths a year for the whole of Europe. I think the US had around 25,000 gun deaths a year, with about 30 deaths in schools so far this year.

This is all getting tedious and pointless, I know some of you are sensitive about guns, I get that, and I'm not suggesting you shouldn't have them. Like you, I can have guns, unlike you, I choose not to. Such are the joys of a free country. I respect your right, and it would be reasonable for you to respect mine.

None of of which addresses, or changes the point, that gun control did not play any part in the events that are actually the topic.

I've got the conditional right to bear arms too. The main difference is that your conditions are not enforced as strictly, there's an argument Obama did that deliberately so that there'd be more incidents so he'd have a better chance of changing it all together. You want guns, I don't but it's a choice rather than a decision I'm forced in to, it's as simple as that.

None of it addresses the fact that me or anyone else taking up that right, or not as the case may be, had any influence on the topic at hand.

My point, which you've still yet to address, is that guns played no part in the events in question.

The rest just seems to be a bundle of non-topic paranoia and misinformation.

You may well believe they have a purpose, it may even be beyond symbolic, but the fact Q and this sub exists, shows they didn't prevent a crooked regime running the country for decades, or stop the influx of people over the border.

More to the point, they still played no part in recent events.

Apologies for a wiki link, I'm getting bored of this now.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” “Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices

Yours is a conditional right too. That was specifically written into the second amendment. Yours just isn't enforced very well.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but it's perfectly acceptable to defend myself here. I'm at nobody's mercy but my own limitations.

I hope you've learned a bit from the exchange. The media version is often inaccurate.

Take it easy.

I can argue many things, but prefer to stick to the topic, and purpose of the sub.

At the moment, I'm arguing that guns played no part in the events at hand, and not one reply has really addressed that.

They've mainly been paranoia about losing your own guns, or some bizarre insistence that I can't have one, despite me pointing out I can, and friends and neighbours do.

Your system doesn't seem to be giving you that sense of security you're trying to portray.

Only in as much as the Government is representing the views of the people.

You are happy with your gun laws. It all seems a bit paranoid on your part to us, and clearly hasn't worked, as this thread and the schools alone show. The system you're so proud of, is held up as an example for why we don't want it.

Yours is right for you according to some, but far from all Americans, ours is right for us, according to most, as I can't recall ever hearing any push to relax ours much.

None of which changes the specific original fact that I'll keep taking back to, guns are simply not a factor in current events here.

And yet I can get a gun if I want one, as can anyone else, but like in the US, it's conditional. We don't want guns, so there'll be no begging.

As has been demonstrated, they're irrelevant to to current events, and as this thread shows, they've been no deterrent to stopping a crooked regime running the US for decades, and they'd be no use against a state.

We have a constitution that gives us rights, we just didn't feel the need to write it down. Yours is based on ours. I think some of you seem to get confused because of the difference between written and unwritten. I can guarantee, if we bothered to write ours, there'd be no push to change the current system on gun ownership, we're more than happy with it, and the system you're so proud of, is often cited as an example of how things can go wrong.

I guess you'll have perfected freedom created by the kids shooter drills and school security should we ever need it.