Ann Widdecombe

[CPFCSaturn]

From what we hear so far.....and the lack of official details doesn't speak well of the authorities when compared to how freely they speak on claims of 'far right' crimes.....this guy appears to be a kind of 'Hope Not Hate' type....and it should be remembered that Burnham has just promoted an ex director of HNH into the senior communications role.

As an aside I'll note here that Hope Not Hate, are receivers of public funds from the government and have been given passes for breaking the law.....this is public record.

In relation to Wisbech and Dan.....from their commentary I regard both of them as having anti white politics....possibly for different reasons. However, neither support violence, so that's fair to point out.

However did not Dan make a post after that welsh truck driver drove over Muslims that associated our belief system with being responsible for what he did? I seem to recall something like that.

Wisbech himself appears to be a fiscal conservative (at least for his own finances)....which is amusing considering what's coming down the pipe for him from Burnham, but these were the guys he supported so you get what you deserve......Dan....Well, he has his magical near 100 employees to worry about in his tax business.

You yourself incorrectly connected the murder of Kirk with the American far right.....You had zero reluctance with making those claims...upon the basis of very weak evidence that was shot full of holes.

Also, as you yourself stated on here you aren't an objective commentator so how you feel that you can make a call for balance for others....well look in the mirror perhaps.

There are people and organisations who can be looked at for Ann Widdlecombe's murder......However, I'm also not fond of the censorship that would be required to change anything....and Widdlecombe was a strong critic of freedom of speech restrictions herself. However, I think the number of people actually wanting to incite people to attack politicans they don't like are small.....and on the extremes....then again that's where I view HNH activists to be.

Ding ding ding - Kirk and objectivity all in one go - you couldn't even make it one post 🤣 🤣

Embarrassing.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Ding ding ding - Kirk and objectivity all in one go - you couldn't even make it one post 🤣 🤣

Embarrassing.

Both statements you made on here.

If you find the truth embarrassing then that's a 'you' problem.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Both statements you made on here.

If you find the truth embarrassing then that's a 'you' problem.

Your inability to debate me on any topic without reverting back to the same thing is what's embarrassing.

Do you understand how thick a point it is to say "you're not objective" to someone on a forum where people express their points of view..? Like fundamentally, you understand that is incredibly dumb?

Do you think you're objective? Do you think anyone on this website is objective? Should we cease all debate and just endlessly type to each other "well that wasn't objective"..?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

From what we hear so far.....and the lack of official details doesn't speak well of the authorities when compared to how freely they speak on claims of 'far right' crimes.....this guy appears to be a kind of 'Hope Not Hate' type....and it should be remembered that Burnham has just promoted an ex director of HNH into the senior communications role.

As an aside I'll note here that Hope Not Hate, are receivers of public funds from the government and have been given passes for breaking the law.....this is public record.

In relation to Wisbech and Dan.....from their commentary I regard both of them as having anti white politics....possibly for different reasons. However, neither support violence, so that's fair to point out.

However did not Dan make a post after that welsh truck driver drove over Muslims that associated our belief system with being responsible for what he did? I seem to recall something like that.

Wisbech himself appears to be a fiscal conservative (at least for his own finances)....which is amusing considering what's coming down the pipe for him from Burnham, but these were the guys he supported so you get what you deserve......Dan....Well, he has his magical near 100 employees to worry about in his tax business.

You yourself incorrectly connected the murder of Kirk with the American far right.....You had zero reluctance with making those claims...upon the basis of very weak evidence that was shot full of holes.

Also, as you yourself stated on here you aren't an objective commentator so how you feel that you can make a call for balance for others....well look in the mirror perhaps.

There are people and organisations who can be looked at for Ann Widdlecombe's murder......However, I'm also not fond of the censorship that would be required to change anything....and Widdlecombe was a strong critic of freedom of speech restrictions herself. However, I think the number of people actually wanting to incite people to attack politicans they don't like are small.....and on the extremes....then again that's where I view many HNH activists to be.....when you read their commentary the hatred is off the charts.

Just to tackle the meat of this heap of nonsense - I connected the murder of Kirk with a very specific, fringe movement of the American far-right.

You're equating that with connecting the murder of Ann Widdecombe, by name, with posters on this forum, based on vaguely belonging to 'the left'.

Good job.

 

[georgenorman]

What 'extreme' views do either of them hold?

Support for the abuse of so called trans-children immediately springs to mind.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Your inability to debate me on any topic without reverting back to the same thing is what's embarrassing.

Not embarrassing for me.

I've never made the statements you've made....especially the Kirk stuff....that was so incredibly misguided I have no idea how you feel there's a base that people can take your statements seriously.

Do you understand how thick a point it is to say "you're not objective" to someone on a forum where people express their points of view..? Like fundamentally, you understand that is incredibly dumb?

You literally stated you weren't objective on a previous point a few weeks back when I complained about your lack of objectivity.

Objectivity exists as a word because it describes a state of being....and that state of being can exist in every person who has biases dependent upon personality and circumstance. Pure objectivity is impossible to measure, however objectivity by degree can be assumed by actions.

I'd would never make the rather unfortunate statement as you did, that I'm not objective purely because in many instances I actually try to be. Where I have bias I will explain it if asked.

I have biases like everyone. However, there are people who will allow those biases to over-ride what is true and there are those who won't. It's a measure of how conscientious someone is and how important truth is to them. I've met people of all politics and seemingly none who are conscientious.....that's how trust is built.

If someone proves you wrong on something it's also a commitment to that truth to admit personal error and get your ego out of the way......We saw the contrast with yourself over Kirk didn't we. Because you had many opportunities but never apologised for making claims that were so obviously poorly thought out.

So when you come on here criticising others it takes the biscuit.

Do you think you're objective? Do you think anyone on this website is objective? Should we cease all debate and just endlessly type to each other "well that wasn't objective"..?

I've already answered this....essentially pure objectivity is a concept and impossible to measure like many other concepts. However, by actions we can see that some people are more objective than others.....usually dependent upon how important they regard truth over bias. Some people have very little objectivity due to personality defects...low self esteem, resentment and all the rest of it.

Everyone should strive to have objectivity while also recognising their biases where they have them.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Just to tackle the meat of this heap of nonsense - I connected the murder of Kirk with a very specific, fringe movement of the American far-right.

You're equating that with connecting the murder of Ann Widdecombe, by name, with posters on this forum, based on vaguely belonging to 'the left'.

Good job.

Didn't he say 'flock', meaning type......As I've stated, the left have done this many times, citing I think one example on here.

I don't recall Jordan saying that Dan and Wisbech supported this murder or any murder.....I don't want to speak for people but I seriously doubt anyone actually thinks they do.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Not embarrassing for me.

I've never made the statements you've made....especially the Kirk stuff....that was so incredibly misguided I have no idea how you feel there's a base that people can take your statements seriously.,



You literally stated you weren't objective on a previous point a few weeks back when I complained about your lack of objectivity.

Objectivity exists as a word because it describes a state of being....and that state of being can exist in every person who has biases dependent upon personality and circumstance. Pure objectivity is impossible to measure, however objectivity by degree can be assumed by actions.

I'd would never make the rather unfortunate statement as you did, that I'm not objective purely because in many instances I actually try to be. Where I have bias I will explain it if asked.

I have biases like everyone. However, there are people who will allow those biases to over-ride what is true and there are those who won't. It's a measure of how conscientious someone is and how important truth is to them. I've met people of all politics who are conscientious.

If someone proves you wrong on something it's also a commitment to that truth to admit personal error and get your ego out of the way......We saw the contrast with yourself over Kirk didn't we. Because you had many opportunities but never apologised for making claims that were so obviously poorly thought out.

So when you come on here criticising others it takes the biscuit.



I've already answered this....essentially pure objectivity is a concept and impossible to measure like many other concepts. However, by actions we can see that some people are more objective than others.....usually dependent upon how important they regard truth over bias. Some people have very little objectivity due to personality defects...low self esteem, resentment and all the rest of it.

Everyone should strive to have objectivity while also recognising their biases where they have them.

Corr the arrogance on this is stomach churning - us mere mortals succumbing to our biases while the arbiter of truth manages to suppress his. What a deluded load of bollocks - I can’t believe you take yourself so seriously.

If you think the way you interpret information and the conclusions you reach are anything close to objective, you are comically delusional.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Corr the arrogance on this is stomach churning - us mere mortals succumbing to our biases while the arbiter of truth manages to suppress his. What a deluded load of bollocks - I can’t believe you take yourself so seriously.

If you think the way you interpret information and the conclusions you reach are anything close to objective, you are comically delusional.

Arrogant....to a degree yes.

Do I think I interpret information and conclusions closer to objectivity than you?

By some margin yes.

I'll repeat you are on Hol literally stating you aren't objective.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Arrogant....to a degree yes.

Do I think I interpret information and conclusions closer to objectivity than you?

By some margin yes.

I'll repeat you are on Hol literally stating you aren't objective.

Quite right, because I’m not deluded enough to think otherwise - the fact you think that’s some sort of gotcha is what I find bizarre.

It’s more troubling that you have taken issue, over months and months, with such an admission, because it speaks to the extent of your delusion and indeed arrogance.

I am very comfortable in my in-objectivity. You are insecurely lying to yourself.

One hallmark of faux-intellectualism is believing you’ve largely overcome your own biases while remaining convinced that other people’s thinking is driven by theirs - it’s proper rookie stuff.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Quite right, because I’m not deluded enough to think otherwise - the fact you think that’s some sort of gotcha is what I find bizarre.

It’s more troubling that you have taken issue, over months and months, with such an admission, because it speaks to the extent of your delusion and indeed arrogance.

I am very comfortable in my in-objectivity. You are insecurely lying to yourself.

One hallmark of faux-intellectualism is believing you’ve largely overcome your own biases while remaining convinced that other people’s thinking is driven by theirs - it’s proper rookie stuff.

If objectivity by degree doesn't exist then that's the whole justice system gone.

As well as many other areas.

While as I state this is a measurement of conscientiousness, which varies by level of importance by individual....your lack of acknowledgement of simple realities exposes much of what we can determine from your postings already.

Intellectual? I don't believe I've ever made that claim. Maybe compared to you lad, but not to proper ones.

As for myself, where I can be shown an error that I've made, I'm happy to accept it.....The Kirk situation proved you can't.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

If objectivity by degree doesn't exist then that's the whole justice system gone.

As well as many other areas.

While as I state this is a measurement of conscientiousness, which varies by level of importance by individual....your lack of acknowledgement of simple realities exposes much of what we can determine from your postings already.

Intellectual? I don't believe I've ever made that claim. Maybe compared to you lad, but not to proper ones.

As for myself, where I can be shown an error that I've made, I'm happy to accept it.....The Kirk situation proved you can't.

I’ve never made that claim at all.

I am simply pointing out that one of the biggest predictors of poor reasoning is believing you’ve largely overcome your own biases. It’s called the ‘bias blind spot’ - look it up; it’s a common thing amongst the delusional.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I’ve never made that claim at all.

I am simply pointing out that one of the biggest predictors of poor reasoning is believing you’ve largely overcome your own biases. It’s called the ‘bias blind spot’ - look it up; it’s a common thing amongst the delusional.

As I state, your reasoning would invalidate the justice system.

I suggest that you think again as objectivity by degree is my whole argument and you've been opposing it.

It's also amusing that what you present with the 'bias blind spot' is itself a circular argument as it would have to accepted that their argument itself had objectivity in order to be trusted.

I've already stated that objectivity is a concept and can only be measured by degree and via action.

Also, again I'm open to my arguments being contested.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

As I state, your reasoning would invalidate the justice system.

I suggest that you think again as objectivity by degree is my whole argument and you've been opposing it.

It's also amusing that what you present with the 'bias blind spot' is itself a circular argument as it would have to accepted that their argument itself had objectivity in order to be trusted.

I've already stated that objectivity is a concept and can only be measured by degree and via action.

Also, again I'm open to my arguments being contested.

You’ve introduced objectivity by degree recently, despite it dispelling your own initial argument - the extension of objectivity by degree is an acceptance of my initial point: no one is objective and so trying to dismiss arguments based on the poster ‘not being objective’ is nonsense.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You’ve introduced objectivity by degree recently, despite it dispelling your own initial argument - the extension of objectivity by degree is an acceptance of my initial point: no one is objective and so trying to dismiss arguments based on the poster ‘not being objective’ is nonsense.

There has been no dispelling of my argument.

Objectivity is always a 'by degree' argument as it's a concept, not a tangible.

You state, 'objectivity by degree is an acceptance of my initial point'

No, it isn't, for a start you never introduced the objectivity by degree point, I did.

You stated that you weren't objective and are comfortable as such. You made the claim that no one is objective...which again is nonsense as by degree they are and can be described as such.

A measurement of 'pure objectivity' is impossible. However without it a justice system couldn't exist.

You can have the last word as this has bored me and no doubt most people to tears.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

just type the name of Ann Widdicombe into Twitter and get the story the mainstream won't tell us.

 

[eaglesdare]

Ann Widdecombe murder suspect charged as police provide major update

Counter Terrorism Policing South East are leading the ongoing investigation

www.gbnews.com

"Joshua Kerry, has been charged with the murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Crown Prosecution Service has said"

"Police enquiries into the defendant's motives are ongoing, including a potential political or terrorist connection."

Everyone knows what the motives were why don't the police? Or perhaps they do and won't release them.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Ann Widdecombe murder suspect charged as police provide major update

Counter Terrorism Policing South East are leading the ongoing investigation

www.gbnews.com

"Joshua Kerry, has been charged with the murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Crown Prosecution Service has said"

"Police enquiries into the defendant's motives are ongoing, including a potential political or terrorist connection."

Everyone knows what the motives were why don't the police? Or perhaps they do and won't release them.

Confirms what we suspected, that he won't talk about motive....or probably anything.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Well Said.

 

[Spiderman]

Confirms what we suspected, that he won't talk about motive....or probably anything.

Is there a possibility that there is a wider network here of which this scumbag, is a small part? Therefore very little information is being released at this stage.