Hope Not Hate.

Interesting developments around Tommy Robinson.

His own documentary regarding the Panorama investigation of him raises interesting questions around the Collusion between the Media and the NGO Hope not Hate.

The fact that a BBC correspondent was bragging about talking to Facebook days before Tommy's removal from Facebook and Instagram, shows an amazing amount of collusion between the BBC, Hope not Hate and media platforms.

Hours prior to Tommy's removal from Facebook it was made public. With so much warning that he was able to put up a video announcing his removal, before it was actually removed.

There is an inference that the Panorama operation was linked to the Facebook removal. For instance the Panorama episode smearing Tommy would most likely have aired by now, giving Facebook enough evidence to remove him.  With the removal happening a week or so after the on-air date, which be now.

Or looking at it another way, after Tommy's successful sting operation and the shredding of Panorama's legitimacy regarding their "investigation" of him, a BBC contributor had meetings with Facebook to produce a spiteful retaliation by getting him removed from social media.

The whole saga raises a number of questions, which should really be raised in Parliament.

For instance, why is a supposedly impartial public-funded national broadcaster colluding with Hope Not Hate (HNH) over the Panorama episode?

Even if you are impartial and say that HNH was just facilitating contact between people who had worked with Tommy and the Panorama team, why weren't Panorama investigating these people and contacting them independently in order to remove any and all accusations of bias?

When it comes out that HNH were alleged to be blackmailing some of those "contributors" that they were feeding to the BBC, it looks pretty shitty. Add to that the steering of contributors to say certain things against Tommy, with the allegation that they wanted a fabricated sexual conduct allegation alongside all the others, it stinks to high heaven.

I've commented before I've had dealings with the media before and their sensationalist attitude. One story involving the MOD and a serving soldier was only pulled at the behest of the highest ranks in the MOD. The second story, involving a dominatrix I knew was published and absolutely eviscerated her life. Not that her private life was any concern of the media. But the fact she worked with children by day and was a dominatrix at night somehow made her a risk to children.

But by that standard, being a Muslim male makes you statistically more of a risk regarding the sexual exploitation under-age girls, given the higher percentage of Muslim males of a certain age systematically raping teenage girls in towns across the UK compared to the number of 20-something white female dominatrixes that have abused kids. How many Muslim male teachers do you know that have been "exposed"?

The HNH/Panorama/Facebook collusion is absolutely a free-speech issue. When organisations that are not accountable to the people are removing certain ideas and specific conversations from social media, it smacks of Fascism.

Either we can have open, unbiased and unmolested debate about certain things, or we can't. If we can't, that's censorship. When only one side of the debate gets a hearing, that's propaganda. When that censorship spreads across private platforms, public broadcasters and printed media, that's fascism.