Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

He knows that technically he is. He made some serious errors of judgement.
6
He's technically guilty, and he knows it. He's made two basic journalistic mistakes in a country where the press is very constrained by the law. But that doesn't mean he's guilty of anything else.
5
@theimperialist2686 It certainly was a mistake, as events have proved. I don't think he can have realised the seriousness of what he was doing. When I say "mistake" I mean an error of judgement, not an accident. His greatest error though was to believe his sources without checking them thoroughly, and keeping records of those checks. A rookie mistake.
4
Speaking from experience?
3
Put another record on.
3
@GreenMachine-u3n He's guilty of ignoring a court injunction, and of defamation, according to the law.
3
@alanpage3973 I don't see how. He represents a very real and potent working class movement, and is prepared to suffer bankruptcy and imprisonment as a result.
2
@keithsquawk He is not a racist. He has friends of all races. What he is opposed to is extreme Islamism. He has earned money in various ways - but the state keeps taking it off him! Shame he isn't mates with Lord Ali, eh?
2
@theimperialist2686 He was trying it on. What his thought processes were I can't really say. The film has had, I think, well over 50million views and is a pretty slick piece of work. But it is flawed in that some of the allegations made are hearsay. It contains apparent inaccuracies and these undermine the potential veracity of the whole. I think though that he was so pleased with it that some kind of artistic pride led him to have it shown, despite the court order.
2
@theimperialist2686 I don't disagree. He took on the law and the law won, as the song goes.
2
There's always been a divide. Farage and Tice want to take away all those nice middle-class voters from the Tories and Tommy has them clutching at their pearls - much like you guys!
1
@RoofLight00 If you can't make mistakes you can't make anything!
1
@GreenMachine-u3n The whole of law is a "technicality". All I am meaning to imply is that there is difference between the judgements of courts and moral guilt.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n This seems to be descending into a mere semantic discussion. The law is undoubtedly a compilation of technicalities, and therefore all its decisions can be said to be technical. By highlighting this aspect of the law anyone who has any doubts about the morality of a decision can point out, quite politely, that there may be some divergence between the judgement accorded by the law and an individual objective assessment of the matter at hand. This is all I sought to do.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n That's rather my point.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n "Semantics is rather important in the law. Decisions involving life and death have hinged on how words are interpreted." That's rather my point. There is a difference between technical veracity and truth, and the law often has the difficult task of deciding between the two. Quite often it gets this wrong, since technical veracity is far easier to pin down than the truth - which is a slippery customer at the best of times.
1
@billpugh58 No. Yours is.
1
@garagenigel A bit of creating accounting, that's all! He's a wide boy - no doubt of that. But this doesn't necessarily detract from his capabilities in other directions.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n He made a couple of rookie mistakes. Having laboured in that vineyard myself for a good many years I realise that his enthusiasm has outweighed his reason. The point, though, is that the truth lurks somewhere between his version of events and that presented by the voice of authority. The original incident was nothing more than a playground brawl in which a self-appointed arbiter of decency punished the immigrant lad for what was seen as poor behaviour. There was nothing racist in this, as all seem now agreed. The difficulty lies in deciding just how bad - if at all - the immigrant lad's behaviour was. Robinson, in his enthusiasm, has taken on board an extreme version in which his sources have tarted their accounts up in such a way as to undermine the truth of his narrative. He should have checked, checked and checked again - but he didn't. The story was too good.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n I did mean "creative accounting". Tommy Robinson is a Very Naughty Boy, of that there is little doubt. All the same, he does represent a generally unrepresented section of the community and allowances should be made.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n I think TR is pretty clever. What do you mean by "you people", by the way? The phrase has an awful suburban ring to it.
1
@GreenMachine-u3n The section that is the largely ignored and largely white working class. The vineyard I laboured in was journalism.
1
@billpugh58 Totally untrue.
1