This is a letter to the clearly leftist biased overlords at Wikipedia,
The ones with the master golden fucking administrator key or whatever it’s called. The “Ultimate Vanguard Sagacious editors” or whatever ridiculous invented title you all call yourselves. Yes you lot. You keep giving yourselves loads of fake badges. What for exactly? Censorship? Rewriting history in leftists’ favour? Perhaps you should add the red star hero of the Soviet Union medal at the very top of that list then?
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, better known as Tommy Robinson, identifies an English anti-islamist activist and self-described alternative independent journalist.
Tommy Robinson often speaks about grooming gangs operated by members of the predominantly Pakistani community (and the police coverup and subsequent scandal), knife crime in London and other English cities not covered by the BBC news, two tier policing of muslims and non-muslim communities within the UK, illegal immigration into the United Kingdom as well as trans and other woke issues. And now we can add to that politically motivated biased judging. That’s pretty much it. Is what he does so bad?
So those are the key issues he talks about. You keep focusing the article on what is in effect, slander. Leftists seem to think that because someone has been arrested multiple times, “they must be a bad person”. Or because people talk about taboo topics, “they must be a bad person”. Grow up!
The actual key issues that Tommy talks about in his interviews and documentaries are usually buried somewhere on the official wikipedia page. Anyone that tries to update the reference list and link to tommy directly soon finds themselves on the receiving end of global wikipedia IP ban.
So you keep deleting and expunging the reasons surrounding Tommy Robinson’s arrests, you keep hiding the key issues that Tommy actually talks about, and you keep censoring references to not only Tommy’s social media channels but also his documentaries.
That’s very interesting and very revealing. So Tommy can only be referenced through the now leftist biased legacy news media channel websites, is that it? Why is that? Do you not want more people knowing what he has to say? Straight from the horse’s mouth. Why is that? Does what he say bother you that much, or what?
You keep mentioning drug use, and “mortgage fraud” and passports and “libel” and “stalking”. As if we care. But none of this is really relevant to what he actually talks about is it? So you are still trying to do a cheap and nasty Tommy Robinson character assassination. All because he has the balls to criticise islam. That’s what this is really all about.
Why don’t you mention that Hope not Hate has been stalking Tommy? Why don’t you mention The Guardian and BBC slandering and defaming Tommy at each and every single opportunity?He has a bigger case against them for defamation! Have you bothered to mention that both National Scot and Daily Mail newspapers are now openly doxxing Tommy?
You want to be careful wikipedia editors. One of those documentaries has now been seen by a lot of people. 44.5 million people to be exact. 44.5 million people in the space of only three weeks.The world is not the same place as it was last month.
#JamalGate I call it. So you’re only really digging yourselves into an ever-deeper hole here. Will you ever be able to crawl out of it? The truth has a way of catching up with people, and it finally caught up with Jamal, the little fucker. We all know he was in fact, nothing more than a misogynistic lying little violent-prone Syrian bully.
Julian Assange never had to face censorship from you lot as well as persecution by the state. But in Julian’s case, he released a whole trove of secret intelligence documents.
What Tommy reveals makes the UK government look bad. And that’s why they’re out to get him. That and they can’t really do anything to turn the situation around easily. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
You leftist wikipedia editors and administrators really should be taking a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror at this point. Does Wikipedia stand for a truthful version of history and recent events? Or does it not? It really is that simple. It seems to me that the real problem is that you don’t rely on truth but consensus:
“Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.”
Do you enjoy hiding the truth? Do you enjoy lying? Do you smirk behind your computer screen as you revert factual information we have painstakingly typed about Tommy with your mere one click of a mouse button? Do you enjoy being what I can only describe as traitors to your own Western Civilisation?
“The [Wikipedia] community does not enforce its own rules effectively or consistently. Consequently, administrators and ordinary participants alike are able essentially to act abusively with impunity, which begets a never-ending cycle of abuse.” — Larry Sanger
Every single time people add relevant information, you claim the changes and updates articles are “not neutral”. But instead of actually making them more neutral, all you do is press the “undo” button. So if nothing else, you are lazy.
You then claim people are “tampering” or “vandalising” the page, and issue them with a global IP ban, so that they can’t edit any other Wikipedia articles either. How convenient! That you can rewrite history with the single click of a button!
A common excuse given is that the page is being “tampered with” or “vandalised”. This should tell readers a great deal about the neutrality of wikipedia today on controversial issues. Whatever reference supplied to Tommy is always filtered and manipulated through other channels. Tommy is never linked to directly; this has made it difficult to hear Tommy’s side of the story, the real version of events.
You don’t bother researching anything, any of the references that we have constantly, repeatedly tried to add. Probably because if you did you would have a core meltdown or get cognitive dissonance.
When what you realise he’s been saying all along has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. Sticking your fingers in your ears won’t change it. Revoking edits won’t change it. You need to deal with it. Own it. We don’t live in the year 1980 anymore. We live in the year 2024.
What’s happened, has happened. Yes, Tommy Robinson finally made a documentary video that went viral. You need to do the right thing and include a link to that documentary video in your wikipedia pages about Tommy, because that video tries to uncover the truth. It is relevant to his upcoming court case on October 27th and 28th yes. Will the next judge rule against Tommy? Will Tommy go to jail for two years for essentially… telling the truth?
The whole reason I am writing this here is because you even seem to relish expunging anything and everything you don’t like from Tommy’s wikipedia talk pages. Sometimes you remove the edit history from the wikipedia database, to make it look like the page is not contentious. To hide the edit wars that you partake in. To make it harder for people to see what is going on. Well done. That’s exactly the sort of thing Stalin would do too. Manipulate history.
Worse, sometimes you even go so far as to occasionally hide your own tracks about what it is you have deleted on the Tommy Robinson edit history page. Previously you were literally deleting changes we have made to Tommy’s page from the database, so that it doesn’t look like there had been any changes. Or so that people can’t see them any longer. And the same goes for, not just Tommy’s page, but any of the pages surrounding Tommy. Like “Justice” Matthew James Nicklin’s wikipedia edit history. You literally strikeout the previous edits you don’t like, so nobody can ever read what was written there! Congratulations! Roskomnadzor would be proud of you.
So I’m going to say it here. You keep calling Tommy “far right”. Well he may be far right. But what does that mean exactly? I think it means that he won’t compromise on his core values, his core principles, that’s what. And in that case, that makes me “far right” too. A far right centrist. A far right centrist former science researcher with a PhD level qualification. Just so you know.😉
No matter what you rewrite in Wikipedia, Tommy Robinson is now probably best known in the Zeitgeist for being slandered unfairly by legacy English media channels such as the BBC News and the Guardian. He has probably THE biggest defamation libel case brewing that the world has ever seen. Probably it is too big to even contemplate.
On 27th July 2024 Tommy Robinson posted his documentary “Silenced” on the social media platform 𝕏. Within three weeks it had already reached 44.5 million views. Judge Matthew James Nicklin had previously placed an injunction on this documentary. His upcoming trial is on the 27th and 28th of October 2024.
So the cat is partly out of the bag. There’s no stuffing it back in now. The media was caught out telling porkies. Yet here you are, you still keep deleting references to that very important documentary video. Even if someone goes in and just adds that one single reference, no words at all, you then go in and quickly delete it. Within the space of a few hours. Or sometimes minutes, if one of you fat bastards happens to be behind your keyboard. Well done. But you won’t be able to delete this article on my website, will you? 🙂
Other videos and documentaries by Tommy Robinson include “LAWFARE: A Totalitarian State“, “Panodrama” and “Hope not hate exposed“. His best-selling books have been removed by Amazon. He’s been deplatformed, debanked, assaulted, censored, cancelled. Enough!
None of these documentary video references are ever linked directly to their original source in the Tommy Robinson (activist) wikipedia page and neither are there any direct links to any of his other remaining social media accounts either.
Which has typically meant that they are not as easy to find in order to form your own opinions about Tommy Robinson. Rather, they have always been referenced through third-party biased legacy news media websites such as the BBC or The Guardian. That’s why I’m sharing all these links here, to give Tommy a fighting chance of clearing his name one day. To make it easier for you, the astute reader to find more facts about Tommy. Less misinformation. Less disinformation. And more facts. Isn’t that wonderful?
Tommy has been arrested on multiple occasions, yes. And so was Alexei Navalny. The question is though, were they fair? Were these arrests warranted? If you believe everything the legacy news media say about Tommy, then you are no better than an everyday Russian who believes everything that Channel 1 state media said about Alexei Navalny.
One time he was arrested when he was sitting in a pub having lunch with his family. Another time he was arrested for crossing the road when about to pay his respects for the murder of Lee Rigby. The reason given was that he was about to “breach the peace”. Police code for “the other side won’t be able to control themselves”, and rather than deal with them, we’ll deal with you.
Another time he was arrested for attending a demonstration in support of Jewish people. For livestreaming on facebook outside a courtroom on a public street with information already in the public domain. There was the time that he was arrested after his own daughter was groped by a muslim at a local swimming pool.
And yes he has been arrested for assault. But really, muslims have often assaulted him. A lot of these scuffles were in self-defence.
All of this reeks of political persecution by the state government. He was most recently arrested under “terrorism” charges for failing to hand over pin access code to his smartphone (he did not comply for privacy reasons).
Larry Sanger, one of the original co-founders of Wikipedia, departed Wikipedia, describing it in 2007 as being “broken beyond repair”. He has argued that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility and accuracy due to a lack of respect for expertise and authority. Since 2020, he has criticized Wikipedia for what he perceives as a left-wing and liberal ideological bias in its articles.
I now agree with him.
Leave a Reply