I had no idea who Young Bob was until a video of him in the front lines of the rioting in Southampton and then being interviewed by Owen Jones in Makerfield. He's certainly not a British Charlie Kirk: has zero charisma, couldn't understand Jones' (pretty basic) questions and struggled to articulate coherent answers. Jones had to continuously repeat and simplify his questioning and even then Young Bob couldn't comprehend. He's the big, loud-mouthed rightwinger who sits in Year 11 classes who won't stop giving his racist and misogynist views and everyone hates.
post
Anyone who aspires to be like Charlie Kirk should enjoy the exact same ending as Charlie Kirk.
No, we are British. Stabbed and left to bleed out on the floor is more of our style.
It really is best if fascists around the world experience a wide and diverse range of mechanims of finding out
By a chav on a bicycle, right?
Aren't most 'chavs' just 30 something millenials now? I don't think the youth still use that word.
Is it “roadman” now? Is that the same thing?
From what I've gathered no, as 'roadman' means a hard guy who deals drugs and that sort of dangerous machismo is appealing to young men, hence so many of them emulating the look.
Chav wasn't gender or age specific, so had a much wider catchment for who it could describe.
I really don't know what the new 'chav' is though, you'd have to ask a teenager.
And just like Charlie Kirk I'd never heard of him until he got beaten up. If the media would just stop talking about these idiots they wouldn't be famous they'd just be random Twitter racists and we could all ignore them. But now the little dweeb has got a following.
Under a banner that read ‘Reform should be more radical’, he argued that subjects of the British Empire shouldn’t necessarily be welcome in the UK.
As a crowd gathered behind him, he said: ‘All of you who throw water are cowards. You don’t actually want to fight for what you believe in.’
. . . That was when he was kicked to the floor before his phone was smashed and his camera and banner were stolen.
. . . Eventually, a Black man he had been debating with steps in to protect him.
. . . Moffitt also hinted that he would return to the same spot for further debates on ‘remigration’ – the forced return of migrants and their descendants – but next time would bring a ‘team of lads’ for security.
You missed the best quote from this little piss stain. "One responded: ‘I’ll fight you, b****’, before telling Moffitt to get a job. He said he had one, but was fired from McDonald’s for his political views."
Right-wing politics is dominated by losers turned grifters.
Having worked in McDonald's I can guarantee that he was actually fired for been lazy and difficult to work with. If you just do the job and don't mount off you can have whatever political view you want.
Fuck me, to get fired for your views at McDonald's you must have really been an obnoxious little cunt.
The idiot, even after working in the hospitality sector, does not realise that this whole sector depends on the immigrants, among others. He is probably the kind of idiot that goes to a curry house after an anti-immigrant march.
subjects of the British Empire
He's gonna lose his shit when he finds out about Suez.
Takes a special level of suicidal to go to a city with a location called The Curry Mile and say British subjects shouldn't be welcome.
I love that for Manchester.
Bell end. For those not from our beloved Manchester, this is a traditional "tough love" term of endowment for someone, who, despite the multitude failures of their logic, debate weaknesses, lack of corroborative evidence will persevere nonetheless.
If he returns, let's promise 20 quid for the first person to de-bag him. For those not familiar with Manchester phraseology, this is a raconte driven loss of your trousers.
If we can find five people who at school with this chap, queued to copy this gentleman's homework, I will desist from further mockery. Until such time, he remains on the open season list for candid ridicule of his arguments
Nah mate, let's pick him up, dump him in a canal, and then pelt him with bits of broken brick as he tries to swim and climb out whilst calling him an absolute melt.
‘If I were… ever able to have the opportunity to speak to Erika [Kirk], I would firstly give huge admiration towards her husband on the formula and ideas that I [drew] great inspiration from’.
He can save his breath, she's utterly ecstatic that her husband is dead.

okay which one of you was this. i need to pay you for the beans
No recompense for the urine?
That's the neat part it's free
The whole thing is so weird.
So here I am just minding my own business and this little skid mark turns up, so I just throw the can of beans that I carry with me at all times at him.
Also if somebody was hit in the head buy a can of beans they'd be dead. That's a lot of weight.
When he says 'chucked in my face' (rather than 'at' my face), I figured loose, wet, saucy beans.
so like, did someone open the can of beans first and then throw the beans?
I was all out of whoopass
dude. i ordered a can of whoopass on doordash. what the hell. you take that for yourself?
It's possible there could be more then 1 can of whoopass at a time. I don't whoop and drive.
dude, this you? you whoop everywhere
That's what I figured by his wording, but I doubt either option actually happened.
I've seen the videos that no one throws anything at him. He does get punched out but that's it. I am wasting beans on him.
So the UK news will refer to you by your chosen online name? Interesting.
This rag is doing some heavy lifting for this piece of shit. I hope he sees the error of his ways or ceases to be able to vote or interact with anyone.
So is OP...
They quoted the shit stain saying the cops told him he was high profile.
The quote is Moffat telling the media that he says the police said that it's high profile. I highly doubt they did because it doesn't really make sense.
It can't be a high profile attack because no one knows who he is. Anyone who went to where he went, and said the things he said, would have got punched, his celebrity or lack thereof is it irrelevant.
And OP choose to highlight that without context
No they didn't, that's the byline from the source. OP hasn't added anything to the body.
I can't tell if you're just blatantly lying, or don't understand what most of the words mean ...
Moffitt also hinted that he would return to the same spot for further debates on ‘remigration’ – the forced return of migrants and their descendants – but next time would bring a ‘team of lads’ for security.
He said: ‘This is England. I do not want to become a demographically replaced hellhole. What I saw that day was a group of migrant lads being egged on by left-wing agitators.’
Oh, buddy, you just don't get it.
He said: ‘This is England. I do not want to become a demographically replaced hellhole. What I saw that day was a group of migrant lads being egged on by left-wing agitators.’
" … and then I would cum in my pants cause I was led to all this hate by a corridor of online voices telling me that it was everyone else's fault that I can't talk to girls like a regular person." [he didn't really say that part, your slander laws are stupid UK]
Though I am anti-violence, I found this delightful. Fascists getting what fascists deserve. Sorry, "lads."
Hopefully he does come back and does it again, he keeps filming himself and his band of idiots committing crimes. He's the best CI there is.
That dude is so never getting any.
You clearly do not understand these right wing conservatives fucks.
I mean look at Erika Kirk who seems to be completely okay with her shitbag husband. Her actions paint her as every bit the supporter and champion of these held beliefs that her husband and her shared
I don't like these types any more than most sane people do, but I'm not really a fan of stooping to their level, either.
Anyone who is advocating for "remigration" is advocating for the use of violence to remove racial minorities.
If you are a pacifist and you don't believe in violence in any circumstance, then fine. But if ever there is a time to use violence in defence of ourselves and the vulnerable in our society, I believe it's now, before the state is captured by fascists. I think that if we had another Battle of Cable Street instead of a counter-protest at the next few "Unite the Kingdom" rallies (or whatever they call them these days) then we'd sort this shit out real fast.
The
anti‐Semitefascist has chosen hate because hate is a faith; at the outset he has chosen to devaluate words and reasons. How entirely at ease he feels as a result. How futile and frivolous discussions about the rights ofthe Jewothers appear to him. He has placed himself on other ground from the beginning. If out of courtesy he consents for a moment to defend his point of view, he lends himself but does not give himself. He tries simply to project his intuitive certainty onto the plane of discourse...
...Never believe that
anti‐ Semitesfascists are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. Theanti‐Semitesfascists have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
- Jean-Paul Sartre
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
Fascists don't care about words or reasoning. They spread hate, discrimination, and lies and when challenged spout more lies to justify it. Even if presented with cold hard, unrefutable, facts.
When words, debate, and diplomacy can no longer prevent the calls to violence, the bigotry, the intolerance, then there is but one option; to speak the language they do understand.
The paradox of tolerance is a philosophical concept suggesting that if a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of tolerance.
But it's back to the arguement about the paradox of tolerance. If you don't beat these people they'll keep doing it. Given that they're calling for the lives of others to be destroyed inaction is not really an option.
Someone's going to suffer either way, might as well be the little skid mark that's causing the problem to begin with.
So I would love to know what your proposed solution is.
The "paradox of tolerance" implies that you need constitutional guarantees against threats to democracy, not that you can go around beating people up for being anti-immigrant loudmouth prick.
We have legal prohibitions against hate speech and incitement that have been arrived at democratically: deciding that they don't go far enough so you're going to take matters into your own hands is not just violent and lawless but supremely arrogant.
It also plays into the fascists' desire for violence. It's wrong morally, legally and practically.
All of this is true, and this guy is still a shitstain who ought to shut up.
We have legal prohibitions against hate speech and incitement that have been arrived at democratically: deciding that they don't go far enough so you're going to take matters into your own hands is not just violent and lawless but supremely arrogant.
Your naivety is profound. The law is defined by the victors who subsequently imbue in law, the rights and privileges they fought for with violence. But that happens after the fact. The Nazis were not defeated because we went "no you can't do that, look at this law here", they were defeated by shooting them with bullets until they gave up. In Germany it's illegal to be a Nazi, and yet they're coming back, so clearly the law itself is not enough, it must be enforced by someone.
Labour are clearly not going to do it, so what do you recommend?
It also plays into the fascists' desire for violence.
Actually this is incorrect. They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it. If they knew they would get attacked every time they stuck their heads up above the parapet, we wouldn't hear from them any more. They want it all their own way, they want to be able to attack people and set fire to buildings with impunity, they cannot tolerate even the most mild of pushbacks. In this guy's case I suspect we won't hear as much from him. Yes he's got his footage of being attacked, which I'm sure he'll whine him out online for a while, but I also suspect that he won't be pulling stunts like that again.
It's wrong morally, legally and practically.
Morality is your own judgement it's not an absolute that you can point to, so this comment is meaningless. It's definitely illegal, I'm not sure if that makes a difference though since the law isn't being enforced so what the law says is also meaningless. Practically I think I've explained why it's actually worked, the skid mark has been scared off. I know he's threatened to come back with a bunch of lads but I doubt he will. They're still going to be far more of us than there is of them.
I missed the part where all the Nazis did was debate people. I thought they also did some worse things, which maybe the principles I outlined above would permit. Maybe they did some things which are already illegal under UK law.
They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it.
The communists tried street violence in nazi Germany and the Nazis absolutely did take it. Why are Farage, Lowe and the rest of them all so rabid about the prospect of civil war?
Right so those riots the other day you didn't see that? These people are not only debating.
I don't know what your goal is but it isn't working here, just give it up.
Naivety = / = morality. Get out of here with that bullshit.
Then you're a part of the problem, namby-pamby fence sitters
Yeah waiting it out and seeing them realize the error of their ways through slow social isolation has definitely happened and there definitely aren't any ramifications to letting themselves simply spew their hate speech out into the world.
Nothing bad ever happened to us when we stayed out of the mud, except for, you know, fucking everything, you asshat.
The next time someone you love is murdered and/or harassed because the murderer/harasser was inspired by a Charlie Kirk wannabe, remember to be the "bigger person" and don't stoop to their level. 🖕🏽
They didn't stoop to his level, he's a racist, fascist piece of shit. I'd say they were patient and kind, all things considered.
Considering he wants people's lives destroyed, I'd say beating his ass was a kindness. It's the closest thing to effective communication you can get with a Nazi without doing even worse to them.
I think there’s a tiny subsection of humanity where it’s unfortunately easier to explain things with a closed fist than an open mouth. “Strength” is the only language they understand - so how else can we communicate?
I don’t advocate violence but I see it like presents - it’s better to give then receive.
I don't mind conservatives. They're not the cists and phones they get thrown around


top 95 comments