Talk:Traditional Britain Group

Total bias
It is beyond all belief that Wikipedia can carry such an article as this only citing far-left journalists and communist "anti-fascist" groups as legitimate sources. Thank God we have Metapeda where we can see the facts.2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:8047:32D1:34AC:623D (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

You cite the Daily Mirror and Nick Lowles, a former communist, as credible sources in this article. Has to be blatant bias.2A00:23C4:B63A:1800:4F7:3110:9D82:ADCA (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

“Far-right”
TBG denies being a far-right group. The IBTimes article sourced for the first sentence initially describes TBG as simply ‘right-wing’. The paragraph that soon follows in the Wikipedia article which mentions how the group is described by Private Eye should be more than enough. The BBC even describes TBG as simply ‘right-wing’ in it’s Rees-Mogg article. This clearly shows that there is no factual basis for TBG to be described as ‘far-right’, it is simply the opinion of the center-left IBTimes and a few disgruntled Wikipedia contributors. AlexMcCarter (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You can take your pick of the Guardian, Private Eye and others too. If your policy is for non-whites to be sent "home", you are far-right. Simple as that. The BBC say it's GLF denying being far-right, it would not be neutral to present his viewpoint as being factual, what with his Nazi sympathies and criminal past, in the words of the Independent.TPF 1951 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you point me to where TBG states it’s policy on immigration as deporting ‘non-whites’? Are you not just listing known left-wing publications now? AlexMcCarter (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * For starters, TBG don't oppose "non-European immigration". The exact phrase they use is "European stock" which is a different thing entirely, as "European stock" includes Americams, Australians and various other white immigrants. This has been correctly described as "non-white" by various sources, two of which I have added next to the sentence. This label was upheld by IPSO when GLF tried, and failed miserably, to complain to them. Furthermore you can add Daily Record, Channel 4, ITV, Jacobin Magazine, New Statesman, Belfast Telegraph, Open Democracy, The Newsletter to the list that correctly state TBG is far right, and I have added an academic source. The label has not been rejected by "many" editors, only GLF and his many sock and meatpuppets. There is no consensus for your change at present, so please stop edit-warring. TPF 1951 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Gregory Lauder-Frost has "Nazi sympathies". One Channel Four Far-Left journalist said that in the Independent based upon GLF saying he opposed the bombing of civilian populations. No-one other than this ridiculous journalist has ever called him this. It is beyond the pale. Is this your idea of enhancing Wikipedia's auhoritative encyclopaedic status? Citing one far-left bunch after another? 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:8542:1A60:9E5C:B030 (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference to where TBG states that it's policy on immigration is to deport 'non-whites'? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As said above their dogwhistle is that they want to deport people who are not of "European stock", which reliable sources correctly translate as non-white or equivalent. TPF 1951 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Include conviction for racist abuse
I see there's been another attempt to add bias to the article. Oddly geolocates to Berwick-upon-Tweed, where founder member Gregory Lauder Frost was living in 2017.
 * Along with another 20,000 people? 193.201.64.107 (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How many of them have a documented history of attempting to whitewash Frost's lengthy criminal record? We know Frist has a history of doing just that. TPF 1951 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Should the article include his recent racial abuse conviction? See for example The Daily Record and The National.TPF 1951 (talk) 17:1 4, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey there, good spot there! I've added the information to the article; I was a bit dubious about it at first as it seemed more relevant to Lauder-Frost himself than the TBG, but since he doesn't have his own WP article (yet) and both the sources mention this group in them it seemed relevant to include. --Bangalamania (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

In my view it is probably not important enough for the lead section. The lead should only be a summary of the main content, as per WP:LEAD. However, I have left the content in the lead for the time being. The content is also more relevant to Lauder-Frost himself than the TBG. I'm a bit surprised that Lauder-Frost doesn't yet have his own Wikipedia article, as there has been media coverage about him in various reliable sources and I think he meets the general notability requirements for having his own WP article. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I went over for this hearing and the charge was abusive or threatening behaviour which may or not be racially aggravated. The Sheriff decided (upon being led by the Procurator it should be said) that his behaviour was "racist", which in fact is not against the law. The fine was for him threatening to put this anti-British student activist "on the list". The fact that she was an Indian amazingly made it "racially aggravated". But according to the evidence presented at no time did he mention her race. Nor did he say anything which by the dictionary's definition could be construed as "abuse". Just saying you don't get the full story from newspapers who target Lauder-Frost for good measure. Also it seems to me that this was a personal matter and had absolutely nothing to do with the Traditional Britain Group. He voluntarily served our community here for 20 years. 2A00:23C4:B607:CF00:6CE2:50E9:2A77:5E41 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

He was not fined for "racial abuse". He was fined for saying to the accuser that "we'll be putting you on the list" which was interpreted by the Sheriff as threatening. because the accuser was an Indian the perceived threat was seen as "racially aggravated". So it was not "racial abuse" and if Wikipedia is to be regarded for accuracy this is what should be shown. that said, what it has to do with the Traditional Britain Group is anyone's guess as this was 100% personal to Lauder-Frost. 193.201.64.107 (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I was at the trial too. GLF, in the social media altercation, did mention the victim's race several times and went even further to say she had no right to be "arguing with a superior race", called her an "alien" and told her to "go home" several times. He made many racist comments including speculating about her lineage then proceeded to threaten her. The screenshots of the altercation is available publically - were we at the same trial? The victim was in no way anti-British and that was clear in the trial; the victim even clearly stated she was very proud to be British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.198.105 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you were not at the court hearing at all as apart from the journalist there were only two others, his daughter and me, a friend. He never once mentioned the accuser's race or her lineage. That is a lie. He certainly said she should 'go home', something many MPs and even a former Director of MI6 have said. Alien, another word used by a great many people, simply means someone 'who does not belong here'. The accuser was an Indian born and brought up in Hong Kong. She told the court she had lived in the UK for 10 years. The screenshots were those provided to the prosecution by the accuser who said in her evidence that she and a close friend had "worked upon" before taking them to the police. Now what does that mean? They are most definitely NOT publicly available. Lauder-Frost was virtually unrepresented by his useless solicitor who should have been struck off for taking a single penny for his defence. He should have asked Facebook for original copies of this conversation which, one should add, the accuser had deliberately removed from the Facebook thread they were originally in. So apart from the images she had "worked upon" there was no primary evidence. Had the solicitor had any credibility he would have researched the accuser and found out that she was a radical student union activist who campaigns against "racists". This was a stitch up and more than the accuser had their credibility exposed. It was a travesty of justice. 2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:450A:D8D:3C30:DB7F (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The fairness of noting richard spencer attended in 2013?
I think it would be unfair not to draw attention to the fact that Richard Spencer was not known as a 'white supremacist' until 2014 The bare statement of facts is, here, I think malicious in its scarcity of context. CantingCrew (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)