Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "the grooming gangs, musk, starmer and farage and the "truth"" video.

And when you add to this that he cannot eat the food for fear of being poisoned, not mix with other prisoners for fear of being beaten up or stabbed, then his situation looks very much like the torture of a political prisoner.
4
Which ones?
3
Though incorrect. The algorithms don't recognise nuance, they reward compliance.
3
@VaucluseVanguard He didn't lie. He made a basic journalistic mistake of believing sources without question - though only a few of them. The main thrust of his film is entirely correct.
2
@trevordodd2019 The media did a bad job in trying to build up the incident as racially motivated, and a splash of water as "water-boarding." TR tried to contradict this assessment, but went too far in that he included testimony which he didn't check, and which was ,in fact, exaggerated. Bad journalism on both sides.
2
Because there isn't one?
2
Where does this idea come from that Tommy Robinson is in jail for actions which might undermine a court case against Moslem child rapists? My understanding is that he has been jailed for contempt of court for showing a film about a different matter which was considered to defame a particular individual, after being forbidden to do so. Grooming gangs were not involved, nor was rape. It related to a scuffle in a schoolyard which was wrongly blown up by the media and the Left to be racist. The simple fact is that the Establishment- notably the Labour establishment- is seeking to divert attention from its scandalous failure to deal with decades of rape and exploitation of very young white working-class girls by Pakistani Moslem criminals. Whatever Elon Musk's motives are he is to be commended for forcing this pathetic government to face up to this gruesome failure of duty - even though their response will be -and already is - just as pathetic and egregious as anything that has gone before.
1
@nickryder9669 He was guilty of making a good film with some bad bits in it. Some of his witnesses exaggerated the bad behaviour of the boy at the centre of the row, and he included their testimony without checking it. This was his initial error. His crime was to continuing showing the film unaltered after being forbidden by a court to do so.
1