For someone who speaks 'the truth' he seems to react rather badly when it's reflected back on him. Guess he can dish it out but he can't take it.
Of course he has a right of reply (whether the accusations are justified or not); nobody suggest otherwise. But bringing a gang of your friends to intimidate someone when they're working, and to cut off their escape routes is not the right way to do it. I mean it's pretty worrying if Stephen is planning to act in a way that makes him think 'this guy might want to escape from us so we better make sure he can't'. I mean if McDonald calls him a hooligan and Stephen pulls this kind of crap, he is sort of proving McDonald's point.
Has he ever heard of writing a letter or reaching out remotely? There are non-threatening ways to resolve this but of course he goes straight for the hooligan approach because he does not understand better and he has no respect for other peoples' points of view. He thinks intimidating and scaring his political opponents & detractors into silence is acceptable.
- Stephen's history of criminal behaviour (his criminal record, in other words) is fact, not propaganda;
- The fact Stephen entered a country (the USA) illegally is not propaganda;
- That Stephen and his followers cannot condemn 'brown' child molesters fast enough but consistently turn a blind eye to white child molesters (unless they're using the word 'nonce' as a derogatory sobriquet for anyone who disagrees with them regardless of the reason) (which also shows he is engaging in dogwhistle politics) can be gleaned from observation and is not propaganda;
- The fact that Stephen has no respect for the law is not propaganda;
- The fact he has conned his followers out of substantial amounts of money (remember when he asked everyone to chip in for his court fees then pleaded guilty almost immediately after?) is not propaganda. Last I heard he had become what is known as a 'GoFundMe millionaire';
- The fact that Stephen engages in populism by appealing to peoples' ignorance of the law & how it works as well as stoking prejudice against an entire group of people is observable fact, not propaganda.
On the subject of propaganda, let's look at where it's really coming from:
- The notion that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is some sort of cultural crusader is propaganda he actively tries to perpetuate;
- The notion that he has his finger on the pulse of what the quintessential man on the street thinks is propaganda - he has bigoted opinions against entire groups of people based on hearsay;
- The notion that Stephen is being persecuted by the state because they want to stop him from spreading 'the truth' is propaganda which relies on peoples' ignorance of English Common Law to work. Stephen was given a suspended sentence for contempt of court - specifically for breaching reporting restrictions on a trial which were put in place by a judge. He was told to stop pretending to be a journalist outside courthouses and a year later he committed a similar offence. He was subsequently jailed for it as his suspended sentence became active;
- The notion that Stephen loves his country is propaganda - as evidenced by the fact he doesn't understand England's laws and seems to have a hard time abiding by them;
- The notion that Stephen has had his freedom of speech removed is propaganda - the notion that 'freedom of speech means freedom to say what you want and damn the consequences' is an American definition that has no basis in any of the UK's respective legal systems.
You're quite liberal with the accusation that we who don't buy into the tommunist bull**** are engaging in propaganda and I can see why. You're using your normal tactic of accusing everyone else of doing what you're doing. Deflection, that's all it is.
