FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Tommy Robinson 2
Tommy Robinson 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a new movie? " Tommy Robinson 2: Jihadi this! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about all the liberal lefties don’t fuel this thread so we can spot all his supporters in one place "People are two busy on young guys new thread. This one will have to wait for now | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about all the liberal lefties don’t fuel this thread so we can spot all his supporters in one place
People are two busy on young guys new thread. This one will have to wait for now "Tommy is losing his followers to the young guy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see your point about tell me Robson and the celebrities not picking on him where was he when the celebrities hacked the head off of Lee Rigby where was he when the celebrities blew up that concert in Manchester killing children where was he when the celebrities blew up the buses in London and the trains I think I've made my point I could go on a lot more about killing people and everything but you know it's one group of people " I can only assume that you’re making fun of people who would support Tommy Robinson. No one is genuinely this stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see your point about tell me Robson and the celebrities not picking on him where was he when the celebrities hacked the head off of Lee Rigby where was he when the celebrities blew up that concert in Manchester killing children where was he when the celebrities blew up the buses in London and the trains I think I've made my point I could go on a lot more about killing people and everything but you know it's one group of people " Yeah, because only one group of people have ever carried out terrorist attacks in the UK... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see your point about tell me Robson and the celebrities not picking on him where was he when the celebrities hacked the head off of Lee Rigby where was he when the celebrities blew up that concert in Manchester killing children where was he when the celebrities blew up the buses in London and the trains I think I've made my point I could go on a lot more about killing people and everything but you know it's one group of people " speaking as someone who was inadvertantly caught up in the last manchester bomb attack before the one you mentioned (try being in an old station when the sound of a bomb basically brings an old glass roof down on you!), i am actually quite offended by your remarks..... you seem to be suffering from "selective amnesia"....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bloody hell I only just got through reading the last thread and there's a second "Crack on  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bloody hell I only just got through reading the last thread and there's a second
Crack on "It's made my brain bleed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is..." Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on "People are bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad? "You are bad! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad? "M'kay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?"Milton Keynes is bad! North is bad! Wales is bad! London is good! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
You are bad! "I'm an  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on "What about Michael Jackson? Was he Bad?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Milton Keynes is bad! North is bad! Wales is bad! London is good! "Nah, London is bad. Full of bloody foreigners! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
What about Michael Jackson? Was he Bad? "Michael Jackson was bad! Harvey Whienstein is bad! Bill Cosby is bad! Jimmy Saville is bad! Priests are bad! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Milton Keynes is bad! North is bad! Wales is bad! London is good!
Nah, London is bad. Full of bloody foreigners!"London is bad! Foreigners are okay! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Milton Keynes is bad! North is bad! Wales is bad! London is good!
Nah, London is bad. Full of bloody foreigners!
London is bad! Foreigners are okay! "Rosanne Barr is bad! Darlene is good! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Milton Keynes is bad! North is bad! Wales is bad! London is good!
Nah, London is bad. Full of bloody foreigners!
London is bad! Foreigners are okay!
Rosanne Barr is bad! Darlene is good!"Katy Hopkins is bad! Queen is bad! Nigel Farage is bad! Brexitiers are bad! Economy is bad! Expensive retail chains are bad! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on ". You usually do but your not as interesting as you think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on .
You usually do but your not as interesting as you think"Tommy Robinson is bad! Edl is bad! BF is bad! Nationalism is bad! Racism is bad! Ice cream is bad! Alcohol is bad! Meat is bad! Vegans are good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is..." . Not really, Peter tatchell has been banging on about the Catholic church for decades without anybody calling him a bigot and a racist!. Most people when he stared couldn't believe a religious ideology could hide and deny the obvious, nobody ever said all Catholics are kiddy fiddlers, however there's become a snowball effect of Catholic priests that they are all "kiddy fiddlers", obviously it's a smallish minority that need routing out. I don't have any problem with Peter tatchell banging on about Catholic priests, more power to him | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on .
You usually do but your not as interesting as you think
Tommy Robinson is bad! Edl is bad! BF is bad! Nationalism is bad! Racism is bad! Ice cream is bad! Alcohol is bad! Meat is bad! Vegans are good ". If you say so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on .
You usually do but your not as interesting as you think
Tommy Robinson is bad! Edl is bad! BF is bad! Nationalism is bad! Racism is bad! Ice cream is bad! Alcohol is bad! Meat is bad! Vegans are good .
If you say so"You are an angel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really, Peter tatchell has been banging on about the Catholic church for decades without anybody calling him a bigot and a racist!. Most people when he stared couldn't believe a religious ideology could hide and deny the obvious, nobody ever said all Catholics are kiddy fiddlers, however there's become a snowball effect of Catholic priests that they are all "kiddy fiddlers", obviously it's a smallish minority that need routing out. I don't have any problem with Peter tatchell banging on about Catholic priests, more power to him" It feels like you're just making my argument for me here if I'm honest...you're right; nobody has said that all Catholics are kiddy-fiddlers, and yet there are plenty of people willing to level that accusation at Muslims or Islam in general | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on .
You usually do but your not as interesting as you think
Tommy Robinson is bad! Edl is bad! BF is bad! Nationalism is bad! Racism is bad! Ice cream is bad! Alcohol is bad! Meat is bad! Vegans are good .
If you say so
You are an angel ". No like I said, your just not as interesting as you think!. You surround yourself in an echo chamber and think everybody thinks like you, it's black or white, right and wrong, the EDL exists, I didn't create it or want it, to swipe away thousands of people as racist despite thousands of people joining it for varying reasons shows you as the bigot not me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on .
You usually do but your not as interesting as you think
Tommy Robinson is bad! Edl is bad! BF is bad! Nationalism is bad! Racism is bad! Ice cream is bad! Alcohol is bad! Meat is bad! Vegans are good .
If you say so
You are an angel .
No like I said, your just not as interesting as you think!.
You surround yourself in an echo chamber and think everybody thinks like you, it's black or white, right and wrong, the EDL exists, I didn't create it or want it, to swipe away thousands of people as racist despite thousands of people joining it for varying reasons shows you as the bigot not me"Why do you feel the need to tell me that I’m not interesting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really, Peter tatchell has been banging on about the Catholic church for decades without anybody calling him a bigot and a racist!. Most people when he stared couldn't believe a religious ideology could hide and deny the obvious, nobody ever said all Catholics are kiddy fiddlers, however there's become a snowball effect of Catholic priests that they are all "kiddy fiddlers", obviously it's a smallish minority that need routing out. I don't have any problem with Peter tatchell banging on about Catholic priests, more power to him It feels like you're just making my argument for me here if I'm honest...you're right; nobody has said that all Catholics are kiddy-fiddlers, and yet there are plenty of people willing to level that accusation at Muslims or Islam in general " . No I'm countering your argument because you think it's about race to everybody, sure there's some racists that think it is, to deny that is silly, but there's an awful lot of people who just like the Catholic church priests don't think it's"everybody" but do however think there's an element of Catholic culture involved in its ongoing problems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on .
You usually do but your not as interesting as you think
Tommy Robinson is bad! Edl is bad! BF is bad! Nationalism is bad! Racism is bad! Ice cream is bad! Alcohol is bad! Meat is bad! Vegans are good .
If you say so
You are an angel .
No like I said, your just not as interesting as you think!.
You surround yourself in an echo chamber and think everybody thinks like you, it's black or white, right and wrong, the EDL exists, I didn't create it or want it, to swipe away thousands of people as racist despite thousands of people joining it for varying reasons shows you as the bigot not me
Why do you feel the need to tell me that I’m not interesting ". Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. I suspect you have a confidence problem, but that's just my own observations of your inane writings and threads | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. " you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case......". I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!. I can give you a whole list of people found guilty by courts and later found innocent, however I also added that I didn't personally know whether he was guilty or not as contempt of court issues are beyond my remit. I've got no problem with him being imprisoned for unlawful acts and I'm certainly not going on a march for him as I stated in the first thread. That doesn't mean I can't show any sympathy for him or his cause, in fact as I stated I'm all for outing grooming gangs, I'm all for more publicity on them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
I can give you a whole list of people found guilty by courts and later found innocent, however I also added that I didn't personally know whether he was guilty or not as contempt of court issues are beyond my remit.
I've got no problem with him being imprisoned for unlawful acts and I'm certainly not going on a march for him as I stated in the first thread.
That doesn't mean I can't show any sympathy for him or his cause, in fact as I stated I'm all for outing grooming gangs, I'm all for more publicity on them"Outing grooming gangs? Their faces and names are always published once the case has been closed and the gangs are sentenced.. surely they don’t publish anything if the cases are still on going until the verdict... what he did that day was for him self and to gain more publicity and it seems to have worked for him, his silly sentence has made him out to be some sort of a saviour.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
"the birmingham six pleaded not guilty at trial... and proclaimed their innocence until they were finally released... tommy robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges at canterbury crown court, got a suspended jail sentence....... did the same thing again, and then he pleaded guilty to another charge of contempt of court at leeds crown court!!! thats the difference...... people are trying to make a martyr of someone admitted their own guilt...twice!!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
I can give you a whole list of people found guilty by courts and later found innocent, however I also added that I didn't personally know whether he was guilty or not as contempt of court issues are beyond my remit.
I've got no problem with him being imprisoned for unlawful acts and I'm certainly not going on a march for him as I stated in the first thread.
That doesn't mean I can't show any sympathy for him or his cause, in fact as I stated I'm all for outing grooming gangs, I'm all for more publicity on them
Outing grooming gangs? Their faces and names are always published once the case has been closed and the gangs are sentenced.. surely they don’t publish anything if the cases are still on going until the verdict... what he did that day was for him self and to gain more publicity and it seems to have worked for him, his silly sentence has made him out to be some sort of a saviour.... ". I've no idea why he did what he did, I don't know him. However the more publicity the cases get the better chance we have of solving the problem. Or you could listen to the report wrote by a Pakistani man on Rotherham that said sweeping shit under the carpet has never worked out well!. Nobody ever complained about fred West getting the publicity he did nor Harold shipman, surely the publicity went someway to stop future similar crimes, people became more aware?. When did this become a bad thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
the birmingham six pleaded not guilty at trial... and proclaimed their innocence until they were finally released...
tommy robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges at canterbury crown court, got a suspended jail sentence....... did the same thing again, and then he pleaded guilty to another charge of contempt of court at leeds crown court!!!
thats the difference......
people are trying to make a martyr of someone admitted their own guilt...twice!!!!!". He pleaded guilty on the advise of his country appointed barrister I'm lead to believe, not his own barrister that was denied him!. Somebody above was taking about the case Robinson was talking about and how slow courts go in an attempt to get things right, well they certainly weren't slow with him,I read his case lasted 6 minutes. Maybe his barrister was right and he was bang to rights, plead guilty and you'll get away with a month or less, maybe his barrister was wrong and gave him bad advice, who knows? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he felt so strong regarding his cause he would have not pleaded guilty but he pleaded guilty to get a quick sentence so he could get a public reaction and he did I.e #freetommy “Free tommy” might aswell be “free willy” Why does he call him self Tommy Robinson? His name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon.. Any one know why? " Because he's a twat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he felt so strong regarding his cause he would have not pleaded guilty but he pleaded guilty to get a quick sentence so he could get a public reaction and he did I.e #freetommy “Free tommy” might aswell be “free willy” Why does he call him self Tommy Robinson? His name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon.. Any one know why? Because he's a twat "Lol although that is a good reason I’m not sure if it’s the right one.. anyone really know why? Who is Tommy Robinson b | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is..." I have never, ever seen or heard anything anywhere from anyone that kiddie fiddling is OK when it's involving the Catholic Church. Quite why you would even say that is strange. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see your point about tell me Robson and the celebrities not picking on him where was he when the celebrities hacked the head off of Lee Rigby where was he when the celebrities blew up that concert in Manchester killing children where was he when the celebrities blew up the buses in London and the trains I think I've made my point I could go on a lot more about killing people and everything but you know it's one group of people speaking as someone who was inadvertantly caught up in the last manchester bomb attack before the one you mentioned (try being in an old station when the sound of a bomb basically brings an old glass roof down on you!), i am actually quite offended by your remarks..... you seem to be suffering from "selective amnesia"......." it seems funny that you're offended by this but you haven't condemned it I would sooner be offended and a dead child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nobody ever complained about fred West getting the publicity he did nor Harold shipman, surely the publicity went someway to stop future similar crimes, people became more aware?. When did this become a bad thing?" You are still yet to explain why you think this is likely to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future, and exactly how? It's all well and good making these kind of assertions, but at least try and provide some kind of justification or rationale? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have never, ever seen or heard anything anywhere from anyone that kiddie fiddling is OK when it's involving the Catholic Church. Quite why you would even say that is strange. " Nobody has overtly stated it's okay, but my point being the usual suspects that bang on about Islam and paedophilia as if they're synonymous with each other never seem to mention Catholicism, even though there is every bit as much of a connection between them. I suspect because they don't actually give that much of a shit about the kids, and just want an excuse to bash Muslims | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a new movie? Tommy Robinson 2: Jihadi this!" Tommy Robinson 3 : Attack of the muslamic rayguns | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have never, ever seen or heard anything anywhere from anyone that kiddie fiddling is OK when it's involving the Catholic Church. Quite why you would even say that is strange. It is all bad I I couldn't all acts against children but when you're going into women mutilation killing people running gangs slaving people it just seems to be one all the people Nobody has overtly stated it's okay, but my point being the usual suspects that bang on about Islam and paedophilia as if they're synonymous with each other never seem to mention Catholicism, even though there is every bit as much of a connection between them. I suspect because they don't actually give that much of a shit about the kids, and just want an excuse to bash Muslims" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have never, ever seen or heard anything anywhere from anyone that kiddie fiddling is OK when it's involving the Catholic Church. Quite why you would even say that is strange. Nobody has overtly stated it's okay, but my point being the usual suspects that bang on about Islam and paedophilia as if they're synonymous with each other never seem to mention Catholicism, even though there is every bit as much of a connection between them. I suspect because they don't actually give that much of a shit about the kids, and just want an excuse to bash Muslims" Grooming gangs (majority british-pakistani crime) are different to paedophilia (majority white crime) and the Catholic scandal was different too because they weren't even paedophiles in the technical definition. Honestly, your powers of analysis and ability to spot nuance are embarassing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
the birmingham six pleaded not guilty at trial... and proclaimed their innocence until they were finally released...
tommy robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges at canterbury crown court, got a suspended jail sentence....... did the same thing again, and then he pleaded guilty to another charge of contempt of court at leeds crown court!!!
thats the difference......
people are trying to make a martyr of someone admitted their own guilt...twice!!!!!.
He pleaded guilty on the advise of his country appointed barrister I'm lead to believe, not his own barrister that was denied him!.
Somebody above was taking about the case Robinson was talking about and how slow courts go in an attempt to get things right, well they certainly weren't slow with him,I read his case lasted 6 minutes.
Maybe his barrister was right and he was bang to rights, plead guilty and you'll get away with a month or less, maybe his barrister was wrong and gave him bad advice, who knows?"So you are giving tommy the benefit of the doubt.... after pleading guilty to the same offence twice.... gotcha!!! You really are clutching at straws.... So a couple of things about what you posted..... 1) cases don’t tend to take very long when you plead guilty... because it takes away the need for all that “trial” nonsense 2) he had a suspended sentence hanging over him from his guilty plea and sentence from case 1, so any barrister would have told him that any guilty plea would have revoked that He knew he would have been going to jail (3 months for the guilty plea from case 1) And yet he still pleaded guilty.......... The only thing this judge did in case 2 was to give him a 10 month sentence as he wasn’t a 1st time offender... and he still obviously hadn’t learnt his lesson from case 1! So they think they are marching for his freedom of speech, but in fact they are marching and showing up his complete stupidity and lack of awareness The same thing could be levelled at his supporters .. the lack of awareness is stunning | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
the birmingham six pleaded not guilty at trial... and proclaimed their innocence until they were finally released...
tommy robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges at canterbury crown court, got a suspended jail sentence....... did the same thing again, and then he pleaded guilty to another charge of contempt of court at leeds crown court!!!
thats the difference......
people are trying to make a martyr of someone admitted their own guilt...twice!!!!!.
He pleaded guilty on the advise of his country appointed barrister I'm lead to believe, not his own barrister that was denied him!.
Somebody above was taking about the case Robinson was talking about and how slow courts go in an attempt to get things right, well they certainly weren't slow with him,I read his case lasted 6 minutes.
Maybe his barrister was right and he was bang to rights, plead guilty and you'll get away with a month or less, maybe his barrister was wrong and gave him bad advice, who knows?
So you are giving tommy the benefit of the doubt.... after pleading guilty to the same offence twice.... gotcha!!!
You really are clutching at straws....
So a couple of things about what you posted.....
1) cases don’t tend to take very long when you plead guilty... because it takes away the need for all that “trial” nonsense
2) he had a suspended sentence hanging over him from his guilty plea and sentence from case 1, so any barrister would have told him that any guilty plea would have revoked that
He knew he would have been going to jail (3 months for the guilty plea from case 1)
And yet he still pleaded guilty..........
The only thing this judge did in case 2 was to give him a 10 month sentence as he wasn’t a 1st time offender... and he still obviously hadn’t learnt his lesson from case 1!
So they think they are marching for his freedom of speech, but in fact they are marching and showing up his complete stupidity and lack of awareness
The same thing could be levelled at his supporters .. the lack of awareness is stunning ".1 the judges sentencing was looking out the window laughing he should not have been allowed to judge him if he seen the crime committed point to his standing up for abuse against children in this country which you seem to be ok with free solicitor phone to say that she was coming up but the police lied to her and said no need we are releasing him they seem to do that all the time persecuting why do they persecute him because he's standing up for people none of you lot none of you lot on here seem to criticise what's going on on how to stop it when people do you call it left and right wing or racist how pathetic is that why not come up with the solution why don't people say I know who the gangs are and stop it now they just joining or let them get on with it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
the birmingham six pleaded not guilty at trial... and proclaimed their innocence until they were finally released...
tommy robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges at canterbury crown court, got a suspended jail sentence....... did the same thing again, and then he pleaded guilty to another charge of contempt of court at leeds crown court!!!
thats the difference......
people are trying to make a martyr of someone admitted their own guilt...twice!!!!!.
He pleaded guilty on the advise of his country appointed barrister I'm lead to believe, not his own barrister that was denied him!.
Somebody above was taking about the case Robinson was talking about and how slow courts go in an attempt to get things right, well they certainly weren't slow with him,I read his case lasted 6 minutes.
Maybe his barrister was right and he was bang to rights, plead guilty and you'll get away with a month or less, maybe his barrister was wrong and gave him bad advice, who knows?
So you are giving tommy the benefit of the doubt.... after pleading guilty to the same offence twice.... gotcha!!!
You really are clutching at straws....
So a couple of things about what you posted.....
1) cases don’t tend to take very long when you plead guilty... because it takes away the need for all that “trial” nonsense
2) he had a suspended sentence hanging over him from his guilty plea and sentence from case 1, so any barrister would have told him that any guilty plea would have revoked that
He knew he would have been going to jail (3 months for the guilty plea from case 1)
And yet he still pleaded guilty..........
The only thing this judge did in case 2 was to give him a 10 month sentence as he wasn’t a 1st time offender... and he still obviously hadn’t learnt his lesson from case 1!
So they think they are marching for his freedom of speech, but in fact they are marching and showing up his complete stupidity and lack of awareness
The same thing could be levelled at his supporters .. the lack of awareness is stunning "I don't think anyone is claiming tommy is the sharpest tool in the tool kit. He started his whole thing because his cousin got sexually abused. He then found that certain types of sexual abuse were way more common in certain groups. He then found that pointing this out within the Labour party gets you outcast and so people weren't dealing with it. He tried to deal with it in the way a fairly dumb person does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are we still giving this idiot forum space? " because people like you are willing to let because people like you are happy for a children to be assaulted and as long as we got someone out there letting us know what's going on because the media won't do it they're happy to have a go Rolf Harris and other people Max Clifford you know that the names are endless 1400 in one town and you're ok with that you're not saying it's terrible anything you just saying why are you letting an idiot do it well I don't think he's an idiot if you let us know when we're willing to stand up and stop it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see your point about tell me Robson and the celebrities not picking on him where was he when the celebrities hacked the head off of Lee Rigby where was he when the celebrities blew up that concert in Manchester killing children where was he when the celebrities blew up the buses in London and the trains I think I've made my point I could go on a lot more about killing people and everything but you know it's one group of people " I'm not sure what you are saying but picking up on the Lee Roby death Robinson amd hus followers caused chaos by design ending on Woolwich that night and meaning the police had to deal with public disorder at a crime scene. What did that achieve? Other than fuel Robinson's ego? Still not quite as despicable as the BF am scum who repeatedly ignore requests from hus family to stop using his memory to fuel their hateful agenda. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is this a new movie? " Hey celebrity celebrate this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Rather than just screaming insults, maybe the looney left could actually steal 'tommy's' thunder by calling for charges against the people whose jobs were to stop grooming gangs and chose not to. Those gangs are centred in a very specific ethnic group, that's a fact. I know lefties struggle with facts and think exceptions prove the rule, they don't. When Tony Blair has a nice war in Iraq then the looney left protest for years that he need to go to jail. Can't they show the same attitude to all those people who turned a blind eye to grooming scandals? 'Tommy' is like trump. He wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for all the retarded left wingers and PC crowd. Look in the mirror if you hate him. " Heh, there's something deliciously ironic (read massively hypocritical) about starting off with: "Rather than just screaming insults, maybe the looney left..." Having this in the middle: "I know lefties struggle with facts" And then finishing with: "if it wasn't for all the retarded left wingers and PC crowd. Look in the mirror if you hate him." But anyway, to address the salient point (if we can be as generous as to call it that) I've got no issue with the people responsible for the cover up getting severely reprimanded and losing their jobs. I've got no issue with people pointing out that the grooming gangs were predominantly Muslim. I've got no issue with people stating that within some of the communities there is a huge problem with misogyny etc - I've got friends who were on the receiving end of it, beaten by their husbands and ostracised by the community for getting divorced. However - here is my issue, and it links into your final bit about Trump and 'Tommy' being a reaction to the PC crowd - which, for what it's worth, I think has some validity about it. Years of being told "you can't say that" has produced a "fuck you" backlash. To me, political correctness is like health and safety - fundamentally they are sound principles (treat people equally, stop injuries and death) but there are those that have taken it to the nth degree that have undermined what they actually stand for by just being ridiculously OTT. So - I do have *some* sympathy for the sentiment. However, it cuts both ways - do you think the people covering up the grooming scandals would have been so terrified of being accused of being racist if it wasn't for people espousing the same kind of views as 'Tommy' - Muslims are terrorists, Muslims are paedophiles etc. Every reaction causes an equal and opposite reaction. People loudly banging the drum about how their culture doesn't fit in our culture and they shouldn't even be here and they should all fuck off back hone creates an environment in which people don't want to be associated with those views or attitudes, but because the drum was banged so very loud the people shying away from it go too far, so afraid of being tarred with the same brush... This is the problem with peopke like 'Tommy' - they purport to be 'tackling the problem' where no-one else will - actually they are just part of the problem. People like him are a radicaliser's wet dream - he's doing their job for them. I mean if you think about it - it's easy to understand (not advocate for mind you, but understand) why some in Iraq or Gaza or Syria or something like that become jihadis - what have they got to look forward to? Fuck all, the country is fucked, their future is fucked, they've probably lost friends and family, life is cheap. Compare that to someone born here. In a global context, if you were born in the UK, you won the fucking lottery - even if you're in the bottom decile on earnings, stuck in poverty, you can turn on a tap and have clean drinking water and will get treated for free in the hospital if you get sick. In the grand scheme of things you're one of the luckiest people on the planet. So how do people born into such good fortune, with so much to live for, end up in the same "nothing to live for, this is worth dying for" frame of mind as those from no-hope shitholes? Because those radicalisers tap into a lifetime of being an outcast, being ostracised, feeling dislocated and without a true home and feed that - "This is not your country, their culture and our culture can never coexist, these are not your people" and offer them belonging and purpose - and then they them down the path of "this radical Islam is the only true Islam" All the while, people like 'Tommy' are singing exactly the same song - that it's not their country, there's a clash of cultures, that 'real' Islam is violent and radical. Has it never seemed slightly odd to you that his message is so closely aligned with those he purports to be against? Because the truth is - he's not against them, because he needs them just as they need him. 'Tommy' doesn't give a shit about girls being abused, else he'd be making a stand against all abuse. He gives a shit about himself, and the character he's created, because he's a self-aggrandising narcissist whose agenda is to be somebody, by any means necessary - and making the situation better would put him out of a 'job' if you can call it that. He pretends to be against them, but actually if you think about it beyond a superficial level and ignoring the sensationalism, he's on the same side. And *that* is why he's a cunt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Grooming gangs (majority british-pakistani crime) are different to paedophilia (majority white crime) and the Catholic scandal was different too because they weren't even paedophiles in the technical definition. Honestly, your powers of analysis and ability to spot nuance are embarassing." Turning it into a semantic argument does nothing. Ultimately the issue is the same - kids getting fucked. Call it what you want, but it's the same thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he felt so strong regarding his cause he would have not pleaded guilty but he pleaded guilty to get a quick sentence so he could get a public reaction and he did I.e #freetommy “Free tommy” might aswell be “free willy” Why does he call him self Tommy Robinson? His name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon.. Any one know why? " He's named himself after a notorious 80s/90s football hooligan. Also sounds a bit more 'English working class' than the double barreled Yaxley-Lennon. Smoke and mirrors | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think anyone is claiming tommy is the sharpest tool in the tool kit. He started his whole thing because his cousin got sexually abused. He then found that certain types of sexual abuse were way more common in certain groups. He then found that pointing this out within the Labour party gets you outcast and so people weren't dealing with it. He tried to deal with it in the way a fairly dumb person does. " He's actually nowhere near as stupid as his persona makes out. I watched his Oxford Union address and it was a pretty considered and nuanced argument that I found myself largely agreeing with. Were he to put himself across like that all the time, I'd not have an issue with him. But of course, he doesn't... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he felt so strong regarding his cause he would have not pleaded guilty but he pleaded guilty to get a quick sentence so he could get a public reaction and he did I.e #freetommy “Free tommy” might aswell be “free willy” Why does he call him self Tommy Robinson? His name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon.. Any one know why? He's named himself after a notorious 80s/90s football hooligan. Also sounds a bit more 'English working class' than the double barreled Yaxley-Lennon. Smoke and mirrors" He's also a cowardly shit trying to benefit from someone else's reputation. Allegedly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?"The funniest comment on here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, it cuts both ways - do you think the people covering up the grooming scandals would have been so terrified of being accused of being racist if it wasn't for people espousing the same kind of views as 'Tommy' - Muslims are terrorists, Muslims are paedophiles etc. Every reaction causes an equal and opposite reaction. People loudly banging the drum about how their culture doesn't fit in our culture and they shouldn't even be here and they should all fuck off back hone creates an environment in which people don't want to be associated with those views or attitudes, but because the drum was banged so very loud the people shying away from it go too far, so afraid of being tarred with the same brush... And *that* is why he's a cunt" No it doesn't cut both ways, here's why. There's objective truth in the world and only cowards are afraid to speak it. So if you're getting paid over £150k a year to protect children, then you should have the balls to call out abuse when you see it and it doesn't matter who is doing it. You don't need to worry about being called racist because that's not true and can be defeated. There is no excuse for ignoring child abuse. Tommy is a cunt and more of what he said is bullshit than truth. However, he's become a necessary evil for the time being because he is willing to speak truth where those on the left are not. Not that they have any trouble talking frankly about Jewish people, i'll point out... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think anyone is claiming tommy is the sharpest tool in the tool kit. He started his whole thing because his cousin got sexually abused. He then found that certain types of sexual abuse were way more common in certain groups. He then found that pointing this out within the Labour party gets you outcast and so people weren't dealing with it. He tried to deal with it in the way a fairly dumb person does. He's actually nowhere near as stupid as his persona makes out. I watched his Oxford Union address and it was a pretty considered and nuanced argument that I found myself largely agreeing with. Were he to put himself across like that all the time, I'd not have an issue with him. But of course, he doesn't..." He's hardly an intellectual heavyweight. I've seen maajid nawaz run rings around him and maajid is hardly mensa material. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Grooming gangs (majority british-pakistani crime) are different to paedophilia (majority white crime) and the Catholic scandal was different too because they weren't even paedophiles in the technical definition. Honestly, your powers of analysis and ability to spot nuance are embarassing. Turning it into a semantic argument does nothing. Ultimately the issue is the same - kids getting fucked. Call it what you want, but it's the same thing" No it isn't. This is your problem. Since you can't distinguish these crimes properly, you can't identify the right solutions. The way you stop a creepy isolated white middle age peado is not the same way you stop a gang of sexually frustrated pakistani men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No it doesn't cut both ways, here's why. There's objective truth in the world and only cowards are afraid to speak it. So if you're getting paid over £150k a year to protect children, then you should have the balls to call out abuse when you see it and it doesn't matter who is doing it. You don't need to worry about being called racist because that's not true and can be defeated. There is no excuse for ignoring child abuse. Tommy is a cunt and more of what he said is bullshit than truth. However, he's become a necessary evil for the time being because he is willing to speak truth where those on the left are not. Not that they have any trouble talking frankly about Jewish people, i'll point out..." Who said anything about it being an excuse? Of course there is no excuse for ignoring child abuse, but nobody is trying to provide an excuse - I'm merely looking at the factors which led to the situation in which it was allowed to happen. And it's undeniable that the vitriol towards Muslims and overt racism that is disturbingly prevalent is one of those factors. It's not about making excuses, nor should it be about apportioning blame - because that is trite and ineffective. It's treating the symptom rather than addressing the root cause, and that isn't going to prevent it from happening again. If we genuinely want a solution to this problem, then we cannot go about it in a simplistic fashion and we cannot pretend that there is an easy fix - it needs to be considered in a wider context, because it is more complex than "Muslims are paedos, let's kick 'em out!" which seems to be the default answer | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think anyone is claiming tommy is the sharpest tool in the tool kit. He started his whole thing because his cousin got sexually abused. He then found that certain types of sexual abuse were way more common in certain groups. He then found that pointing this out within the Labour party gets you outcast and so people weren't dealing with it. He tried to deal with it in the way a fairly dumb person does. He's actually nowhere near as stupid as his persona makes out. I watched his Oxford Union address and it was a pretty considered and nuanced argument that I found myself largely agreeing with. Were he to put himself across like that all the time, I'd not have an issue with him. But of course, he doesn't... He's hardly an intellectual heavyweight. I've seen maajid nawaz run rings around him and maajid is hardly mensa material. " I'm not saying he's smart. I'm just saying he's nowhere near as dumb as he seems | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
"Two legs bad! Four legs good! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No it doesn't cut both ways, here's why. There's objective truth in the world and only cowards are afraid to speak it. So if you're getting paid over £150k a year to protect children, then you should have the balls to call out abuse when you see it and it doesn't matter who is doing it. You don't need to worry about being called racist because that's not true and can be defeated. There is no excuse for ignoring child abuse. Tommy is a cunt and more of what he said is bullshit than truth. However, he's become a necessary evil for the time being because he is willing to speak truth where those on the left are not. Not that they have any trouble talking frankly about Jewish people, i'll point out... Who said anything about it being an excuse? Of course there is no excuse for ignoring child abuse, but nobody is trying to provide an excuse - I'm merely looking at the factors which led to the situation in which it was allowed to happen. And it's undeniable that the vitriol towards Muslims and overt racism that is disturbingly prevalent is one of those factors. It's not about making excuses, nor should it be about apportioning blame - because that is trite and ineffective. It's treating the symptom rather than addressing the root cause, and that isn't going to prevent it from happening again. If we genuinely want a solution to this problem, then we cannot go about it in a simplistic fashion and we cannot pretend that there is an easy fix - it needs to be considered in a wider context, because it is more complex than "Muslims are paedos, let's kick 'em out!" which seems to be the default answer" Well again, this is why he is 'popular' in some circles. Because it is about apportioning blame, which is not something lefties normally have a problem doing. We do want heads to roll. It's not good enough that people simply lost their jobs. They should be in prison or sued for gross negligence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Grooming gangs (majority british-pakistani crime) are different to paedophilia (majority white crime) and the Catholic scandal was different too because they weren't even paedophiles in the technical definition. Honestly, your powers of analysis and ability to spot nuance are embarassing. Turning it into a semantic argument does nothing. Ultimately the issue is the same - kids getting fucked. Call it what you want, but it's the same thing No it isn't. This is your problem. Since you can't distinguish these crimes properly, you can't identify the right solutions. The way you stop a creepy isolated white middle age peado is not the same way you stop a gang of sexually frustrated pakistani men. " I'm not talking about solutions - obviously they will be different. I'm talking about the problem. The deep-seated, underlying problem. What is it we actually have an issue with here? Fundamentally, what we find abhorrent is kids being fucked by older men. *That* is the problem. How it occurs and how we deal with it are obviously wildly different, but in essence, the problem is the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well again, this is why he is 'popular' in some circles. Because it is about apportioning blame, which is not something lefties normally have a problem doing. We do want heads to roll. It's not good enough that people simply lost their jobs. They should be in prison or sued for gross negligence." Fine, I don't have a problem with them going to prison or whatever. But that doesn't solve things, does it? The horse has already bolted... Prevention is better than cure, so how do we tackle this in the future? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Two legs bad! Four legs good!"Four legs good, two legs better! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well again, this is why he is 'popular' in some circles. Because it is about apportioning blame, which is not something lefties normally have a problem doing. We do want heads to roll. It's not good enough that people simply lost their jobs. They should be in prison or sued for gross negligence. Fine, I don't have a problem with them going to prison or whatever. But that doesn't solve things, does it? The horse has already bolted... Prevention is better than cure, so how do we tackle this in the future?" Let's start by making an example out of them so that future people in their position will be more emboldened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Two legs bad! Four legs good!"Everything is bad, but some things are more bad than others... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Grooming gangs (majority british-pakistani crime) are different to paedophilia (majority white crime) and the Catholic scandal was different too because they weren't even paedophiles in the technical definition. Honestly, your powers of analysis and ability to spot nuance are embarassing. Turning it into a semantic argument does nothing. Ultimately the issue is the same - kids getting fucked. Call it what you want, but it's the same thing No it isn't. This is your problem. Since you can't distinguish these crimes properly, you can't identify the right solutions. The way you stop a creepy isolated white middle age peado is not the same way you stop a gang of sexually frustrated pakistani men. I'm not talking about solutions - obviously they will be different. I'm talking about the problem. The deep-seated, underlying problem. What is it we actually have an issue with here? Fundamentally, what we find abhorrent is kids being fucked by older men. *That* is the problem. How it occurs and how we deal with it are obviously wildly different, but in essence, the problem is the same" Semantic nonsense. They are different problems with different solutions. You trying to boil it down to the same eventual act is why i said you lack nuance and analysis skills. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think anyone is claiming tommy is the sharpest tool in the tool kit. He started his whole thing because his cousin got sexually abused. He then found that certain types of sexual abuse were way more common in certain groups. He then found that pointing this out within the Labour party gets you outcast and so people weren't dealing with it. He tried to deal with it in the way a fairly dumb person does. He's actually nowhere near as stupid as his persona makes out. I watched his Oxford Union address and it was a pretty considered and nuanced argument that I found myself largely agreeing with. Were he to put himself across like that all the time, I'd not have an issue with him. But of course, he doesn't..." Do you think his YouTube fame/infamy went to his head? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@brokenbrilliance and @will inbetweeners: Good argument. Intersting reading (if a little convoluted...). BB - how can you assert that somebody has a lack of nuance and analytical skills whilst simultaneously labelling the entire Left as Loony? I don't understand. I find it interesting that you've conflated the issue with binary politics. I think that confuses the issue. How is somebodies political persuasion a factor in the actions of TR? If his political persuasion is a factor, we should probably discuss the EDL - which I doubt would garner the same level of tacit sympathy. " To clarify, the looney left is a specific branch of the left, not representative of the broader left at all. The looney left is the the ideological hardcore that submit all their personal judgement and morals to ideology, which results in "looney" conclusions. For example "it's worse to potentially be perceived as racist, than protect children from grooming gangs". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because what you write shows a distinct lack of thought!. You just trot out the standard bullshit of society in the vain hope of somebody liking you!. you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
see..... we can all use lines and then say "well how about practising what you are preaching?"....... but i wouldn't try to use superiority to make your case.......
I used that as a point when somebody said he's guilty and that's end of it!.
the birmingham six pleaded not guilty at trial... and proclaimed their innocence until they were finally released...
tommy robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court charges at canterbury crown court, got a suspended jail sentence....... did the same thing again, and then he pleaded guilty to another charge of contempt of court at leeds crown court!!!
thats the difference......
people are trying to make a martyr of someone admitted their own guilt...twice!!!!!.
He pleaded guilty on the advise of his country appointed barrister I'm lead to believe, not his own barrister that was denied him!.
Somebody above was taking about the case Robinson was talking about and how slow courts go in an attempt to get things right, well they certainly weren't slow with him,I read his case lasted 6 minutes.
Maybe his barrister was right and he was bang to rights, plead guilty and you'll get away with a month or less, maybe his barrister was wrong and gave him bad advice, who knows?
So you are giving tommy the benefit of the doubt.... after pleading guilty to the same offence twice.... gotcha!!!
You really are clutching at straws....
So a couple of things about what you posted.....
1) cases don’t tend to take very long when you plead guilty... because it takes away the need for all that “trial” nonsense
2) he had a suspended sentence hanging over him from his guilty plea and sentence from case 1, so any barrister would have told him that any guilty plea would have revoked that
He knew he would have been going to jail (3 months for the guilty plea from case 1)
And yet he still pleaded guilty..........
The only thing this judge did in case 2 was to give him a 10 month sentence as he wasn’t a 1st time offender... and he still obviously hadn’t learnt his lesson from case 1!
So they think they are marching for his freedom of speech, but in fact they are marching and showing up his complete stupidity and lack of awareness
The same thing could be levelled at his supporters .. the lack of awareness is stunning
.1 the judges sentencing was looking out the window laughing he should not have been allowed to judge him if he seen the crime committed point to his standing up for abuse against children in this country which you seem to be ok with free solicitor phone to say that she was coming up but the police lied to her and said no need we are releasing him they seem to do that all the time persecuting why do they persecute him because he's standing up for people none of you lot none of you lot on here seem to criticise what's going on on how to stop it when people do you call it left and right wing or racist how pathetic is that why not come up with the solution why don't people say I know who the gangs are and stop it now they just joining or let them get on with it"see... that is almost "next level" conspiracy shit.......... so lets play a game of "who said this!" “you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court." the answer is the judge from case 1 to........ tommy robinson!!!!!!!! so lets try not to plead that he didn't know, because maybe with foresight... she explained explicitly what would happen!!!!! so unless you want to say that message when to one ear of tommy robinson, and flew straight out of the other..... or you want to claim he suffers from selective amnesia.... then stop defending the indefensable!!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"i am also going to put up the summing up notes from the judge to tommy robinson at the end of case 1 when he did escape jailtime.... because i think it is absolutely relevent to a lot of the arguements that are trying to be used to defend this idiot..... "“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”" Yet the fact remains, Tommy is an offensive cunt who triggers people online. He's not doing the EDL shit anymore. He's in jail. Hundreds of people turned a blind eye to child abuse and zero are in prison for it. Another group of cunts were allowed to wreck the economy and give the whole country ten miserable years of stagnant living standards and none of them have gone to prison for it. It's not necessarily that the judge made the wrong decision. It's more about where the fuck priorities are at. It's like a joke in south park the movie that most people miss, when kyles mum says "horrific deplorable violence is ok, as long as you don't say any naughty words, that's what this war is all about". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Let's start by making an example out of them so that future people in their position will be more emboldened? " And this is the kind of simplistic nonsense that does nothing to actually resolve the problem. Again, ironic considering you're accusing me of a lack of nuance and analytical skills. In the interests of clarity, I'm not disputing the fact that there needs to be action taken against these people. However, if you think that solves the issue, then you're sadly mistaken. In order to understand how the situation arose in the first place, we have to comprehend the wider context in which these people became afraid to speak out, and that is going to encompass all manner of factors, such as the psychology behind how people react under the perceived threats of career-ending accusations, the political landscape and state of discourse within our society. These are complex, multi-faceted things that cannot be resolved with simple easy answers, and yet that is what the populace, the government and media are all baying for. As an example of what I mean, we need only look at the reaction to the Brass Eye paedophile special; anyone with an ounce of intelligence could watch that and realise that it was biting satire with a deeper purpose - an exposé on the reactionary way in which society and the media respond to controversial subjects that make it impossible to have a grown-up and rational discussion about how to tackle the problem. And society and the media gleefully proved his point by banging on about how disgusting and vile it was. Examples of that same mode of thinking are on display in this thread - whereby anyone criticising 'Tommy' are by default in favour of covering up grooming. It's facile and immature, and it prevents any meaningful action being taken, because it creates a landscape in which people cannot make a cogent argument about it without being accused of one thing or another (be that being a racist, paedophile enabler or whatever.) And so people go looking for a snappy, neat, one-time solution that is superficially appealing due to its simplicity and ease of understanding, yet utterly ineffective due to its crudity and lack of sophistication. If we are to truly tackle this problem then it requires a root-and-branch consideration of where we are as a society, and that's not something people are willing to do, because it's messy, it's complicated, and it reveals some uncomfortable truths. We actively celebrate stupidity. I say this not as some baseless accusation, but taking all the available evidence. We laud interminable and talentless fuckwits as if they have achieved something because they made a cunt of themselves for our entertainment. We use 'intellectual' as a pejorative term. The rhetoric and narrative created by our media promotes and sustains the continual dumbing-down of our people. If we are to tackle the problems that we face, then there are conversations that need to take place that we as a society simply aren't mature or considered enough to have, and punishing people for their fuck-ups isn't going to make a blind bit of difference, it's just going to make them more fearful and less rational. There is science behind this, by the way - these are not just wild speculations. As a species we haven't yet evolved to catch up with our modern lives, from a genetic and biological point of view, we aren't much more evolved than our ancestors that were hunting on the savannah. When we experience threat, our bodies create that fight-or-flight response that triggers the parts of our brains wholly unrelated to analytical decision-making, and so people make bad decisions when they are fearful. So pinning them between a rock and a hard place whereby on the one hand they're worried about being labelled racist and on the other concerned they might go to prison is probably not going to achieve some kind of panacea in terms of good outcomes. Rather, we need to create the environment in which sensible and rational conversations can take place, and good judgements made, without fear of reactionary and sensationalist repercussions. As much as we may want the solution to be neat and simple, it isn't - and pretending like it is only perpetuates the problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Semantic nonsense. They are different problems with different solutions. You trying to boil it down to the same eventual act is why i said you lack nuance and analysis skills. " If you think *I* am indulging in semantics I think you need to check your understanding of the word. You're the one trying to pin labels on things and define them as one thing or another. I'm saying that fundamentally, when you strip it back to the bare bones, what is it that we *actually* have a problem with in both these cases? What is it that disgusts us? What is it we find morally offensive? The answer is (or should be) the same - the abuse of children. Fundamentally when you get rid of all of the noise and distill it down to its pure essence, that is the problem here - we are disgusted by children being abused. Whether they are being abused by grooming gangs or by priests does not change the underlying source of our disgust, even if the mechanism by which it takes place is different. I'm not the one making the semantic argument here... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm here and it's friendly it's a great atmosphere and I'm proud to be British and then a scumbag that wants to stick up for the so-called grooming gang let them because we're out to get you " And ignorant! No one is sticking up for 'so calked grooming gangs'..... Not ever! Just because we think Tommy Robinson or what ever he chooses to call himself is a twat doesn't mean we stick up for child abusers. Your logic on this argument is severely twisted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Semantic nonsense. They are different problems with different solutions. You trying to boil it down to the same eventual act is why i said you lack nuance and analysis skills. If you think *I* am indulging in semantics I think you need to check your understanding of the word. You're the one trying to pin labels on things and define them as one thing or another. I'm saying that fundamentally, when you strip it back to the bare bones, what is it that we *actually* have a problem with in both these cases? What is it that disgusts us? What is it we find morally offensive? The answer is (or should be) the same - the abuse of children. Fundamentally when you get rid of all of the noise and distill it down to its pure essence, that is the problem here - we are disgusted by children being abused. Whether they are being abused by grooming gangs or by priests does not change the underlying source of our disgust, even if the mechanism by which it takes place is different. I'm not the one making the semantic argument here..." Another poor attempt. I don't know why I'm continuing this but i'll have one last stab since some other people reading seem to get it. Right, you're wrong (again) because it isn't just men fu**ing kids that repulsed us. In the grooming gangs case we are also repulsed that vulnerable girls were specifically targeted and had their families threatened with violence. We are also outraged that people in authorities wrote these girls off as trouble making slags who were somehow consenting. They were often given illegal drugs and alcohol. That is different to paedos who typically will be related to the victim in some way and rarely use violence, drugs or alcohol. Instead they emotionally manipulate the child into a pseudo-consent. Usually the parents as well. This is again different to the priests who are obviously not related to the victims and abused their positions of power to get to victims. So what repluses us is multi-faceted, requires different frameworks to unpick and understand in order to prevent. Your simplistic view could make tennis and football sound similar because they are both sports with a ball.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" you mean like your inane comparison between protest marches for tommy and protest marches for the birmingham six in the last thread dave?????
"Somebody actually said that? I'm going to read that thread now. This is going to be as good as the scene in American History X where Danny Vinyard gets pulled up for writing an essay arguing Hitler was a civil rights activist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@brokenbrilliance and @will inbetweeners: Good argument. Intersting reading (if a little convoluted...). BB - how can you assert that somebody has a lack of nuance and analytical skills whilst simultaneously labelling the entire Left as Loony? I don't understand. I find it interesting that you've conflated the issue with binary politics. I think that confuses the issue. How is somebodies political persuasion a factor in the actions of TR? If his political persuasion is a factor, we should probably discuss the EDL - which I doubt would garner the same level of tacit sympathy. To clarify, the looney left is a specific branch of the left, not representative of the broader left at all. The looney left is the the ideological hardcore that submit all their personal judgement and morals to ideology, which results in "looney" conclusions. For example "it's worse to potentially be perceived as racist, than protect children from grooming gangs". " The problem is, there is no loony left. It is a media construct of the right. There is no one on the left that would prefer children get abused rather than being called a racist. It is only the right that split it down racial lines. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@brokenbrilliance and @will inbetweeners: Good argument. Intersting reading (if a little convoluted...). BB - how can you assert that somebody has a lack of nuance and analytical skills whilst simultaneously labelling the entire Left as Loony? I don't understand. I find it interesting that you've conflated the issue with binary politics. I think that confuses the issue. How is somebodies political persuasion a factor in the actions of TR? If his political persuasion is a factor, we should probably discuss the EDL - which I doubt would garner the same level of tacit sympathy. To clarify, the looney left is a specific branch of the left, not representative of the broader left at all. The looney left is the the ideological hardcore that submit all their personal judgement and morals to ideology, which results in "looney" conclusions. For example "it's worse to potentially be perceived as racist, than protect children from grooming gangs". The problem is, there is no loony left. It is a media construct of the right. There is no one on the left that would prefer children get abused rather than being called a racist. It is only the right that split it down racial lines." A common feature of the looney left is to categorise all criticism of them as right wing smear attacks. Back in the real world, there was a formal investigation into the rotherham council abuse scandal that found case workers who were told by their managers not to record the pakistani heritage of the abusers. Adele Weir was a researcher for the Home Office who had her career sidelined for pointing the ethnicity of the abusers out to police. So it is a fact and matter of public record that some people were more concerned about being called racist, than protecting children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another poor attempt. I don't know why I'm continuing this but i'll have one last stab since some other people reading seem to get it. Right, you're wrong (again) because it isn't just men fu**ing kids that repulsed us. In the grooming gangs case we are also repulsed that vulnerable girls were specifically targeted and had their families threatened with violence. We are also outraged that people in authorities wrote these girls off as trouble making slags who were somehow consenting. They were often given illegal drugs and alcohol. That is different to paedos who typically will be related to the victim in some way and rarely use violence, drugs or alcohol. Instead they emotionally manipulate the child into a pseudo-consent. Usually the parents as well. This is again different to the priests who are obviously not related to the victims and abused their positions of power to get to victims. So what repluses us is multi-faceted, requires different frameworks to unpick and understand in order to prevent. Your simplistic view could make tennis and football sound similar because they are both sports with a ball. "I suggest you trace this thread back to its roots. It started off with me making a rather facetious point about people taking umbrage with grooming gangs but by comparison acting seemingly sanguine about abuse with the Catholic church. Throughout, my point has been that if one act disgusts us and creates outrage, then so should the other, because ultimately the situation for the victim is the same - years of abuse that obviously leads to all kinds of other problems. I'm sure from their perspective, they don't really care who it was that abused them, what colour their skin was or which made-up magicman in the sky they believe in...it's more the 'what' than the 'who'. So - my point being that ultimately, what we *should* be disgusted by is the act of abusing children, and who it was and how they did it should not be a factor in determining how outraged we are. Yet when we look at the reactions, it seems that these *are* a factor in how outraged we are because the noise around the grooming gangs is exponentially larger than that around other situations. Now yes - *if* there were an equal amount of outrage apportioned, *then* we could start to get into the individual details of each scenario and be specifically disgusted by particular failings of those with a duty of care or the modus operandi of one set of abusers vs another. However, until there is that level playing field where an equal amount of disgust is displayed for each of these situations, then it comes across as disingenuous and lacks credibility. It smacks of faux outrage that is appropriating a tragedy to further an agenda. The point being - if it *isn't* men fucking kids that repulses us more than anything else, then it bloody well *should* be. Once we are equally repulsed by kids being fucked by men, regardless of background, skin colour or religion THEN we can start to get fucked off about the details of how they did it and the cover ups and so on. However, as long as we're mainly bitching about one type of abuse then it comes across as though the concern is not truly for the welfare of the victims. That's the big picture argument you're either missing or wilfully ignoring, preferring instead the semantic approach (which by the way, doesn't even make sense, as you seem to be defining paedophilia in some strangely constrained way - I mean sure, if we really wanted we could split it and talk about hebephilia, ephebophilia and pederasty, but colloquially everyone knows what we mean - people fucking kids) which totally bypasses the point I'm trying to make. Do you get it yet? Because until you do, your arguments are irrelevant. You're trying to address the details when we haven't even resolved the basics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Another poor attempt. I don't know why I'm continuing this but i'll have one last stab since some other people reading seem to get it. Right, you're wrong (again) because it isn't just men fu**ing kids that repulsed us. In the grooming gangs case we are also repulsed that vulnerable girls were specifically targeted and had their families threatened with violence. We are also outraged that people in authorities wrote these girls off as trouble making slags who were somehow consenting. They were often given illegal drugs and alcohol. That is different to paedos who typically will be related to the victim in some way and rarely use violence, drugs or alcohol. Instead they emotionally manipulate the child into a pseudo-consent. Usually the parents as well. This is again different to the priests who are obviously not related to the victims and abused their positions of power to get to victims. So what repluses us is multi-faceted, requires different frameworks to unpick and understand in order to prevent. Your simplistic view could make tennis and football sound similar because they are both sports with a ball.
I suggest you trace this thread back to its roots.
It started off with me making a rather facetious point about people taking umbrage with grooming gangs but by comparison acting seemingly sanguine about abuse with the Catholic church.
Throughout, my point has been that if one act disgusts us and creates outrage, then so should the other, because ultimately the situation for the victim is the same - years of abuse that obviously leads to all kinds of other problems.
I'm sure from their perspective, they don't really care who it was that abused them, what colour their skin was or which made-up magicman in the sky they believe in...it's more the 'what' than the 'who'.
So - my point being that ultimately, what we *should* be disgusted by is the act of abusing children, and who it was and how they did it should not be a factor in determining how outraged we are.
Yet when we look at the reactions, it seems that these *are* a factor in how outraged we are because the noise around the grooming gangs is exponentially larger than that around other situations.
Now yes - *if* there were an equal amount of outrage apportioned, *then* we could start to get into the individual details of each scenario and be specifically disgusted by particular failings of those with a duty of care or the modus operandi of one set of abusers vs another.
However, until there is that level playing field where an equal amount of disgust is displayed for each of these situations, then it comes across as disingenuous and lacks credibility. It smacks of faux outrage that is appropriating a tragedy to further an agenda.
The point being - if it *isn't* men fucking kids that repulses us more than anything else, then it bloody well *should* be. Once we are equally repulsed by kids being fucked by men, regardless of background, skin colour or religion THEN we can start to get fucked off about the details of how they did it and the cover ups and so on.
However, as long as we're mainly bitching about one type of abuse then it comes across as though the concern is not truly for the welfare of the victims.
That's the big picture argument you're either missing or wilfully ignoring, preferring instead the semantic approach (which by the way, doesn't even make sense, as you seem to be defining paedophilia in some strangely constrained way - I mean sure, if we really wanted we could split it and talk about hebephilia, ephebophilia and pederasty, but colloquially everyone knows what we mean - people fucking kids) which totally bypasses the point I'm trying to make.
Do you get it yet? Because until you do, your arguments are irrelevant. You're trying to address the details when we haven't even resolved the basics"I don't remember any lack of outrage over any paedophile or paedophile scandal whether it was the Catholic Church, the BBC or anyone on shows like "to catch a predator". Paedophiles are unanimously hated, they are even the bottom of the prison hierarchy. So i think you've created a strawman there. The grooming gangs are overwhelmingly pakistani heritage. So it's not all muslims, not all asians and obviously not all pakistanis either. But the majority of people in grooming gangs came from a very specific ethnic group that is tiny in this country. Something is going wrong in their community for that to happen. It clearly doesn't self regulate so people want something done. Do you acknowledge that in the main, that the problem came from that specific ethnic group? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't remember any lack of outrage over any paedophile or paedophile scandal whether it was the Catholic Church, the BBC or anyone on shows like "to catch a predator". Paedophiles are unanimously hated, they are even the bottom of the prison hierarchy. So i think you've created a strawman there." Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because I've yet to see anything remotely similar to the kind of reaction to the grooming gangs as there was to the other scandals. Obviously if you ask someone directly about each individual situation they are going to express disgust - because the vast majority of people are rightly disgusted by those things and the tiny minority that aren't are not so stupid as to admit it. However, when you look at the prevalence of people that shout loudly and often about the paedophile grooming gangs both in real life and online, when you see it heralded as evidence that their culture is fundamentally incompatible with theirs, when you see Facebook pages banging on about it, high profile columnists making a living off the back of sensationalising it, front page stories that keep making reference to it every time there is something vaguely 'Muslimy' in the news, then I think the only way you can claim there is a similar level of outrage is if you are either delusional or dishonest. Obviously nobody is in favour or supportive of paedophiles. Obviously everyone hates them. The question is - why is it seemingly so much worse when it's a case like Rotherham vs a scandal emanating from the Catholic church? It's a no-brainer that if you actually asked someone if one was worse than the other they'd say of course not, and yet the overwhelming evidence, measured in airtime, column inches and the amount that people rant about it, is that somehow we are more aggrieved by kids being fucked by one type of person compared to another. You can deny the undeniable if you want, but it's gonna stifle an honest discussion about this. "The grooming gangs are overwhelmingly pakistani heritage. So it's not all muslims, not all asians and obviously not all pakistanis either. But the majority of people in grooming gangs came from a very specific ethnic group that is tiny in this country. Something is going wrong in their community for that to happen. It clearly doesn't self regulate so people want something done. Do you acknowledge that in the main, that the problem came from that specific ethnic group? " Of course. To try and do otherwise would be fucking ridiculous. Do you acknowledge that there are swathes of people that cannot distinguish the differences between them, and are happy to claim it is all Pakistanis, all Muslims, or even all Asians (or rather, more likely, to see brown skin and assume Muslim)? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't remember any lack of outrage over any paedophile or paedophile scandal whether it was the Catholic Church, the BBC or anyone on shows like "to catch a predator". Paedophiles are unanimously hated, they are even the bottom of the prison hierarchy. So i think you've created a strawman there. Then I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because I've yet to see anything remotely similar to the kind of reaction to the grooming gangs as there was to the other scandals. Obviously if you ask someone directly about each individual situation they are going to express disgust - because the vast majority of people are rightly disgusted by those things and the tiny minority that aren't are not so stupid as to admit it. However, when you look at the prevalence of people that shout loudly and often about the paedophile grooming gangs both in real life and online, when you see it heralded as evidence that their culture is fundamentally incompatible with theirs, when you see Facebook pages banging on about it, high profile columnists making a living off the back of sensationalising it, front page stories that keep making reference to it every time there is something vaguely 'Muslimy' in the news, then I think the only way you can claim there is a similar level of outrage is if you are either delusional or dishonest. Obviously nobody is in favour or supportive of paedophiles. Obviously everyone hates them. The question is - why is it seemingly so much worse when it's a case like Rotherham vs a scandal emanating from the Catholic church? It's a no-brainer that if you actually asked someone if one was worse than the other they'd say of course not, and yet the overwhelming evidence, measured in airtime, column inches and the amount that people rant about it, is that somehow we are more aggrieved by kids being fucked by one type of person compared to another. You can deny the undeniable if you want, but it's gonna stifle an honest discussion about this. The grooming gangs are overwhelmingly pakistani heritage. So it's not all muslims, not all asians and obviously not all pakistanis either. But the majority of people in grooming gangs came from a very specific ethnic group that is tiny in this country. Something is going wrong in their community for that to happen. It clearly doesn't self regulate so people want something done. Do you acknowledge that in the main, that the problem came from that specific ethnic group? Of course. To try and do otherwise would be fucking ridiculous. Do you acknowledge that there are swathes of people that cannot distinguish the differences between them, and are happy to claim it is all Pakistanis, all Muslims, or even all Asians (or rather, more likely, to see brown skin and assume Muslim)? " Yes i acknowledge that. I just think you have it completely the wrong way around. The overwhelming majority of people are equally disgusted by the paedophilia done by white people and the grooming gangs that were mainly not white. I think the majority of people would not share the opinion that pakistani heritage people can't fit into British society and there is so much evidence they can and most do. But the police and local government didn't try and cover up the Catholic or BBC abuse. The people who did try and cover it up were inside those organisations. That is totally different to the police and council covering up for gangs they had nothing to do with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes i acknowledge that. I just think you have it completely the wrong way around. The overwhelming majority of people are equally disgusted by the paedophilia done by white people and the grooming gangs that were mainly not white. I think the majority of people would not share the opinion that pakistani heritage people can't fit into British society and there is so much evidence they can and most do. But the police and local government didn't try and cover up the Catholic or BBC abuse. The people who did try and cover it up were inside those organisations. That is totally different to the police and council covering up for gangs they had nothing to do with." You say that people were equally disgusted, but where are the headlines? Where are the numerous opinion pieces? Where are the constant discussions? Where are the vigilante groups? Where are the Facebook rants? There is far more attention and coverage devoted to the problems with grooming gangs than any other type of abuse, and although you say that the cover-ups took place within the organisation rather than by the police and council, if you follow the timeline of the historic child sex abuse allegations there are far worse things going on there. The Dickens paedo file (sorry, couldn't resist) that got handed to Home Secretary Leon Brittan (himself a suspected paedophile) that was mysteriously 'lost' by the Home Office, the other files on the alleged Westminster paedophile ring that were 'accidentally destroyed' and the numerous allegations against several very high-ranking government figures across the years...the links to the Elm Guest House and Kincora Boys Home scandals and government figures. The fucking Paedophile Information Exchange! You've got whips openly admitting they used dirt about politician's penchants for little boys to keep them in line and vote the right way. Add to that, you've got probably the most prolific child abuser we've ever recorded, Jimmy Saville, who was close friends with the Prime Minister, other prominent politicians and the Royal Family... Do you think that our security services are so fucking incompetent as to be unaware of his proclivities, given that it was pretty much an open secret within the entertainment industry? Do you have any idea how intrusive and detailed the investigation into someone's background is, just to get clearance for an admin position in a government department? You think they didn't know what he was up to, given he was meeting the Royal Family and Prime Minister? And if MI5 knew, you think they'd just keep it to themselves and fail to mention it? Now obviously there was a huge hoohaa about Saville - but it ends there, and doesn't delve much deeper into his associations and how he managed to get away with it for so long. These are far more shocking and scandalous, because it goes to the heart of who represents us and holds power - yet the outrage around this is virtually non-existent. Whitewashing reports are produced, the heads of the inquiry come and go, the victims and survivors who were brave enough to come forward and tell their stories in the hope of justice watch as their chance for closure get kicked further and further into the long grass, and yet there are no angry diatribes, no Daily Mail headlines...indeed, you're more likely to find hatchet jobs casting doubt on the credibility of the victims. I'm not one to 'pull the race card' and it annoys the fuck out of me when people do, because it makes tackling genuine real racism that much harder...but tell me what conclusions should be drawn when the media and society make very little fuss about politicians and so on blatantly covering up their misdeeds and closing ranks, and it barely registering, but as soon as any brown bastard touches one of our kids oooh there'll be hell to pay! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes i acknowledge that. I just think you have it completely the wrong way around. The overwhelming majority of people are equally disgusted by the paedophilia done by white people and the grooming gangs that were mainly not white. I think the majority of people would not share the opinion that pakistani heritage people can't fit into British society and there is so much evidence they can and most do. But the police and local government didn't try and cover up the Catholic or BBC abuse. The people who did try and cover it up were inside those organisations. That is totally different to the police and council covering up for gangs they had nothing to do with. You say that people were equally disgusted, but where are the headlines? Where are the numerous opinion pieces? Where are the constant discussions? Where are the vigilante groups? Where are the Facebook rants? There is far more attention and coverage devoted to the problems with grooming gangs than any other type of abuse, and although you say that the cover-ups took place within the organisation rather than by the police and council, if you follow the timeline of the historic child sex abuse allegations there are far worse things going on there. The Dickens paedo file (sorry, couldn't resist) that got handed to Home Secretary Leon Brittan (himself a suspected paedophile) that was mysteriously 'lost' by the Home Office, the other files on the alleged Westminster paedophile ring that were 'accidentally destroyed' and the numerous allegations against several very high-ranking government figures across the years...the links to the Elm Guest House and Kincora Boys Home scandals and government figures. The fucking Paedophile Information Exchange! You've got whips openly admitting they used dirt about politician's penchants for little boys to keep them in line and vote the right way. Add to that, you've got probably the most prolific child abuser we've ever recorded, Jimmy Saville, who was close friends with the Prime Minister, other prominent politicians and the Royal Family... Do you think that our security services are so fucking incompetent as to be unaware of his proclivities, given that it was pretty much an open secret within the entertainment industry? Do you have any idea how intrusive and detailed the investigation into someone's background is, just to get clearance for an admin position in a government department? You think they didn't know what he was up to, given he was meeting the Royal Family and Prime Minister? And if MI5 knew, you think they'd just keep it to themselves and fail to mention it? Now obviously there was a huge hoohaa about Saville - but it ends there, and doesn't delve much deeper into his associations and how he managed to get away with it for so long. These are far more shocking and scandalous, because it goes to the heart of who represents us and holds power - yet the outrage around this is virtually non-existent. Whitewashing reports are produced, the heads of the inquiry come and go, the victims and survivors who were brave enough to come forward and tell their stories in the hope of justice watch as their chance for closure get kicked further and further into the long grass, and yet there are no angry diatribes, no Daily Mail headlines...indeed, you're more likely to find hatchet jobs casting doubt on the credibility of the victims. I'm not one to 'pull the race card' and it annoys the fuck out of me when people do, because it makes tackling genuine real racism that much harder...but tell me what conclusions should be drawn when the media and society make very little fuss about politicians and so on blatantly covering up their misdeeds and closing ranks, and it barely registering, but as soon as any brown bastard touches one of our kids oooh there'll be hell to pay!" I can only conclude we read very different media because i don't recognise the world are you describing... at all. I'm not on facebook though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
People are bad?
M'kay?
Milton Keynes is bad! North is bad! Wales is bad! London is good!
Nah, London is bad. Full of bloody foreigners!
London is bad! Foreigners are okay!
Rosanne Barr is bad! Darlene is good!" Racists bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
What about Michael Jackson? Was he Bad? "And the whole world has to answer right now, just to tell you once again who's bad | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can only conclude we read very different media because i don't recognise the world are you describing... at all. I'm not on facebook though. " Okay, simple two-part question then: Do you hear people moaning (whether in real life, in the media or online) about grooming gangs, Rotherham, the council cover-up etc: A) never B) rarely C) sometimes D) often And the follow-up question; do you hear people moaning about the Westminster paedophile scandal, cover-up and so on: A) never B) rarely C) sometimes D) often I'd like to think this is an easy couple of questions and you'd answer honestly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is... Because Muslims are bad! Russia is bad! China is bad! Saudi Arabia is bad! Single guys are bad! Immigrants are bad! Europeans are bad! I can go on
What about Michael Jackson? Was he Bad?
And the whole world has to answer right now, just to tell you once again who's bad"This thread is still going | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I can only conclude we read very different media because i don't recognise the world are you describing... at all. I'm not on facebook though. Okay, simple two-part question then: Do you hear people moaning (whether in real life, in the media or online) about grooming gangs, Rotherham, the council cover-up etc: A) never B) rarely C) sometimes D) often And the follow-up question; do you hear people moaning about the Westminster paedophile scandal, cover-up and so on: A) never B) rarely C) sometimes D) often I'd like to think this is an easy couple of questions and you'd answer honestly" 1 - it's rare now, it was huge at the time. Most people think of abuse scandal when you say "rotherham" because it's an otherwise shit town with no better reason to mention it. 2 - rarely to sometimes. Because personally i watch a lot of YouTube channels that comment on people like Alex Jones who never shuts up about how many paedophiles there are in politics. Or aliens in politics. Or alien paedophiles there are in politics. How often do i personally hear about the Catholic scandal, often. Most weeks of my life it'll come up. But then again i did personally know a paedophile priest so that'll do it. I bet you that if you start a thread on Catholicism and Pakistani guys, then someone will mention paedophile priests first. Jimmy Savile is the butt of a lot of jokes i hear so in all honesty i am reminded of the BBC and Catholic scandal way more than the Rotherham one. But i wouldn't think you were lying if you said your life was the reverse. As i said, we clearly watch /read different media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1 - it's rare now, it was huge at the time. Most people think of abuse scandal when you say "rotherham" because it's an otherwise shit town with no better reason to mention it. 2 - rarely to sometimes. Because personally i watch a lot of YouTube channels that comment on people like Alex Jones who never shuts up about how many paedophiles there are in politics. Or aliens in politics. Or alien paedophiles there are in politics. How often do i personally hear about the Catholic scandal, often. Most weeks of my life it'll come up. But then again i did personally know a paedophile priest so that'll do it. I bet you that if you start a thread on Catholicism and Pakistani guys, then someone will mention paedophile priests first. Jimmy Savile is the butt of a lot of jokes i hear so in all honesty i am reminded of the BBC and Catholic scandal way more than the Rotherham one. But i wouldn't think you were lying if you said your life was the reverse. As i said, we clearly watch /read different media. " I think the first one is unlikely, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt. The second one, I'm afraid I straight up don't believe you. I did specifically say the Westminster scandal. Whilst I'm sure that Alex Jones probably bangs on about Pizzagate or whatever the fuck it was, I doubt he goes on about our politicians. I think it's interesting also that your mention of Saville reflects societal attitudes, in that the association is drawn between him and the BBC rather than him and the politicians (such as Edwina Currie) who were far more instrumental in enabling his activities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1 - it's rare now, it was huge at the time. Most people think of abuse scandal when you say "rotherham" because it's an otherwise shit town with no better reason to mention it. 2 - rarely to sometimes. Because personally i watch a lot of YouTube channels that comment on people like Alex Jones who never shuts up about how many paedophiles there are in politics. Or aliens in politics. Or alien paedophiles there are in politics. How often do i personally hear about the Catholic scandal, often. Most weeks of my life it'll come up. But then again i did personally know a paedophile priest so that'll do it. I bet you that if you start a thread on Catholicism and Pakistani guys, then someone will mention paedophile priests first. Jimmy Savile is the butt of a lot of jokes i hear so in all honesty i am reminded of the BBC and Catholic scandal way more than the Rotherham one. But i wouldn't think you were lying if you said your life was the reverse. As i said, we clearly watch /read different media. I think the first one is unlikely, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt. The second one, I'm afraid I straight up don't believe you. I did specifically say the Westminster scandal. Whilst I'm sure that Alex Jones probably bangs on about Pizzagate or whatever the fuck it was, I doubt he goes on about our politicians. I think it's interesting also that your mention of Saville reflects societal attitudes, in that the association is drawn between him and the BBC rather than him and the politicians (such as Edwina Currie) who were far more instrumental in enabling his activities. " Ok, well since I'm a liar then we'll leave it there. As i say, whenever the looney left hear something that doesn't fit their world view then it's a lie / fake news or a right wing smear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, well since I'm a liar then we'll leave it there. As i say, whenever the looney left hear something that doesn't fit their world view then it's a lie / fake news or a right wing smear. " I didn't accuse you of being a liar, I just pointed out that I was specifically referring to the Westminster scandal as opposed to generic 'politicians' - if you wanna come back and tell me that you hear more about the Westminster scandal than Rotherham, feel free to post your viewing history and the links to all of these videos you've been watching about them and I'll happily retract, but I'll be more than amazed if you do... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I can say is got you thinking and got you talking let's think about what happened to the poor children not about race religion Creed or colour or what we're going to do to stop this happening to our children" You don't want us to think about how we can stop it happening?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes i acknowledge that. I just think you have it completely the wrong way around. The overwhelming majority of people are equally disgusted by the paedophilia done by white people and the grooming gangs that were mainly not white. I think the majority of people would not share the opinion that pakistani heritage people can't fit into British society and there is so much evidence they can and most do. But the police and local government didn't try and cover up the Catholic or BBC abuse. The people who did try and cover it up were inside those organisations. That is totally different to the police and council covering up for gangs they had nothing to do with. You say that people were equally disgusted, but where are the headlines? Where are the numerous opinion pieces? Where are the constant discussions? Where are the vigilante groups? Where are the Facebook rants? There is far more attention and coverage devoted to the problems with grooming gangs than any other type of abuse, and although you say that the cover-ups took place within the organisation rather than by the police and council, if you follow the timeline of the historic child sex abuse allegations there are far worse things going on there. The Dickens paedo file (sorry, couldn't resist) that got handed to Home Secretary Leon Brittan (himself a suspected paedophile) that was mysteriously 'lost' by the Home Office, the other files on the alleged Westminster paedophile ring that were 'accidentally destroyed' and the numerous allegations against several very high-ranking government figures across the years...the links to the Elm Guest House and Kincora Boys Home scandals and government figures. The fucking Paedophile Information Exchange! You've got whips openly admitting they used dirt about politician's penchants for little boys to keep them in line and vote the right way. Add to that, you've got probably the most prolific child abuser we've ever recorded, Jimmy Saville, who was close friends with the Prime Minister, other prominent politicians and the Royal Family... Do you think that our security services are so fucking incompetent as to be unaware of his proclivities, given that it was pretty much an open secret within the entertainment industry? Do you have any idea how intrusive and detailed the investigation into someone's background is, just to get clearance for an admin position in a government department? You think they didn't know what he was up to, given he was meeting the Royal Family and Prime Minister? And if MI5 knew, you think they'd just keep it to themselves and fail to mention it? Now obviously there was a huge hoohaa about Saville - but it ends there, and doesn't delve much deeper into his associations and how he managed to get away with it for so long. These are far more shocking and scandalous, because it goes to the heart of who represents us and holds power - yet the outrage around this is virtually non-existent. Whitewashing reports are produced, the heads of the inquiry come and go, the victims and survivors who were brave enough to come forward and tell their stories in the hope of justice watch as their chance for closure get kicked further and further into the long grass, and yet there are no angry diatribes, no Daily Mail headlines...indeed, you're more likely to find hatchet jobs casting doubt on the credibility of the victims. I'm not one to 'pull the race card' and it annoys the fuck out of me when people do, because it makes tackling genuine real racism that much harder...but tell me what conclusions should be drawn when the media and society make very little fuss about politicians and so on blatantly covering up their misdeeds and closing ranks, and it barely registering, but as soon as any brown bastard touches one of our kids oooh there'll be hell to pay!" . 30 years ago I was on march after march in Ireland marching against the Catholic church and it's covering up of paedophilic priests and I can absolutely tell you that the Catholic church was protected by the state of Ireland and the Vatican. I'm a devout secularist,, religion has its place but there's no room for it in government and there's absolutely no room for it to be free from ridicule,inquiry or prosecution just because somebody holds it dear.... Even if there brown .
There is a distinction between Islam and Muslims, Islam is political and it's why you see it ruling most Islamic countries, like any organisation it will seek to expand and influence no different than Google or Apple or Microsoft, it will cover up its misdeeds and bad behaviour just like Google Apple, Microsoft... Or BP, royal Dutch shell, cigarette manufacturers.. The list is endless.
If we were having this conversation 500 years ago the one religion we were having "problems" with was Catholicism, today not so much as criticism and enquiry has curtailed them somewhat.
Today the problem is Islam and just because most of its followers are brown should not stop us from criticism or ridicule.
No organisation in the world today except religions could get away with printing manuals and indoctrinating it's "staff" with the utter filth of what religions do.
It is no coincidence when you examine the grooming scandals that you see the symptoms of "religious tentacles" just like Catholic priests were synonymous with young boys, you have to ask yourself why "young boys"and not equal amounts of young girls.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All I can say is got you thinking and got you talking let's think about what happened to the poor children not about race religion Creed or colour or what we're going to do to stop this happening to our children You don't want us to think about how we can stop it happening?! "yes I do | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember seen him in interview with piers Morgan who was prick to him and wouldn't let him get word in " The best way to interview these cretins... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember seen him in interview with piers Morgan who was prick to him and wouldn't let him get word in The best way to interview these cretins..." was like he just gave Tommy a interview just so he could abuse him on TV live lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember seen him in interview with piers Morgan who was prick to him and wouldn't let him get word in The best way to interview these cretins..." If you remember nick griffin and the BNP, the 'worst' thing that ever happened to his career was that he went on question time and was allowed to speak... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember seen him in interview with piers Morgan who was prick to him and wouldn't let him get word in The best way to interview these cretins... was like he just gave Tommy a interview just so he could abuse him on TV live lol " And probably the best interview that cockwomble of a man gave too in that respect... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I see your point about tell me Robson and the celebrities not picking on him where was he when the celebrities hacked the head off of Lee Rigby where was he when the celebrities blew up that concert in Manchester killing children where was he when the celebrities blew up the buses in London and the trains I think I've made my point I could go on a lot more about killing people and everything but you know it's one group of people Yeah, because only one group of people have ever carried out terrorist attacks in the UK..." The IRA did a very good job years ago, or did you mean another group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh yeah, by the way, for those who like to go on about Islam being a religion of paedophiles, led by a paedophile prophet - fun fact: until 2013, the age of consent in the Vatican was 12. In addition, the scandals involving the Catholic church and kiddy-fiddling encompass most of the globe, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Guam, India, Ireland, Norway, Poland, the United States and the UK, and many stretch back over decades. Strangely, that seems to be okay though? I wonder why that is.... Not really, Peter tatchell has been banging on about the Catholic church for decades without anybody calling him a bigot and a racist!. Most people when he stared couldn't believe a religious ideology could hide and deny the obvious, nobody ever said all Catholics are kiddy fiddlers, however there's become a snowball effect of Catholic priests that they are all "kiddy fiddlers", obviously it's a smallish minority that need routing out. I don't have any problem with Peter tatchell banging on about Catholic priests, more power to him" Going off topic a bit, but hasn't Billy Connolly touched on this subjectin several of his shows over the years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's funny Tommy Robinson doesn't like immigrants but his parents are immigrants the fucking gobshite " So was his best man and kids god father so maybe your wrong and talking shit Just saying | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police? "Because they're complete and utter fuckwits. But then, we knew this before... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police? "The police are part of the establishment. Therefore part of the problem. (Just to make it clear, this is not what I think). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police?
The police are part of the establishment. Therefore part of the problem.
(Just to make it clear, this is not what I think)."It's funny how the far left and far right both thing the police are part of the establishment / patriarchy / Rothschild conspiracy / shape shifting alien paedophile new world order. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police?
The police are part of the establishment. Therefore part of the problem.
(Just to make it clear, this is not what I think).
It's funny how the far left and far right both thing the police are part of the establishment / patriarchy / Rothschild conspiracy / shape shifting alien paedophile new world order. "That would be because there isn't much difference in the proper far left (the loony lefties you keep referring to are not far left - as I stated before, media construct) and the far right. Political spectrum isn't a straight line, it's almost a circle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police?
The police are part of the establishment. Therefore part of the problem.
(Just to make it clear, this is not what I think).
It's funny how the far left and far right both thing the police are part of the establishment / patriarchy / Rothschild conspiracy / shape shifting alien paedophile new world order.
That would be because there isn't much difference in the proper far left (the loony lefties you keep referring to are not far left - as I stated before, media construct) and the far right.
Political spectrum isn't a straight line, it's almost a circle."Oh i agree. I'm just saying that their cognitive dissonance amuses me. Anyone who hasn't heard an Alex Jones rant is missing out on some serious comedy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police?
The police are part of the establishment. Therefore part of the problem.
(Just to make it clear, this is not what I think).
It's funny how the far left and far right both thing the police are part of the establishment / patriarchy / Rothschild conspiracy / shape shifting alien paedophile new world order.
That would be because there isn't much difference in the proper far left (the loony lefties you keep referring to are not far left - as I stated before, media construct) and the far right.
Political spectrum isn't a straight line, it's almost a circle.
Oh i agree. I'm just saying that their cognitive dissonance amuses me. Anyone who hasn't heard an Alex Jones rant is missing out on some serious comedy. "Far left is Communism. Not Alex Jones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police? "It's odd. I mean standard protocol at anything to do with the EDL is get d*unk. Fight each other. Get arrested. Maybe they decided to save tone by merging the second 2? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police?
It's odd. I mean standard protocol at anything to do with the EDL is get d*unk. Fight each other. Get arrested. Maybe they decided to save tone by merging the second 2?"Isn't the EDL default to attack the police? Even on their "normal" marches? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police?
The police are part of the establishment. Therefore part of the problem.
(Just to make it clear, this is not what I think).
It's funny how the far left and far right both thing the police are part of the establishment / patriarchy / Rothschild conspiracy / shape shifting alien paedophile new world order.
That would be because there isn't much difference in the proper far left (the loony lefties you keep referring to are not far left - as I stated before, media construct) and the far right.
Political spectrum isn't a straight line, it's almost a circle.
Oh i agree. I'm just saying that their cognitive dissonance amuses me. Anyone who hasn't heard an Alex Jones rant is missing out on some serious comedy.
Far left is Communism. Not Alex Jones."Correct, i like to laugh at both the far right and far left though. They are equally ridiculous but not equally dangerous, at this present time, in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just saw the Free Tommy Robinson March - why were they attacking the police? "Because they were armed to the teeth with muslamic rayguns | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mr Lennon. Use to sell lots of matching. Powder from his sun bed shops, so I'm led to believe. By a fellow export importer" Interesting! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. " Sarcasm? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? " No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much" Yeah! It did! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much" They feel threatened by something that's outside their experience and thus don't understand. They're insecure anyway and they have an easy target to focus their bullying on, which has been legitimised by successive govts. Ignorant cunts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did!" What happened? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did! What happened? " His second cousin was groomed by a gang of British-pakistanis... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did! What happened? His second cousin was groomed by a gang of British-pakistanis... " Makes sense.. and what happened to Paul and Jayda? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did! What happened? His second cousin was groomed by a gang of British-pakistanis... Makes sense.. and what happened to Paul and Jayda? " Dunno who they are! Maybe something happened to them, maybe they are cunts, probably both. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did! What happened? His second cousin was groomed by a gang of British-pakistanis... Makes sense.. and what happened to Paul and Jayda? Dunno who they are! Maybe something happened to them, maybe they are cunts, probably both. " Co- founders of Britain First | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did! What happened? His second cousin was groomed by a gang of British-pakistanis... Makes sense.. and what happened to Paul and Jayda? Dunno who they are! Maybe something happened to them, maybe they are cunts, probably both. Co- founders of Britain First " Ah! My membership has lapsed so i haven't been getting the newsletters to keep up with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much Yeah! It did! What happened? His second cousin was groomed by a gang of British-pakistanis... Makes sense.. and what happened to Paul and Jayda? Dunno who they are! Maybe something happened to them, maybe they are cunts, probably both. Co- founders of Britain First Ah! My membership has lapsed so i haven't been getting the newsletters to keep up with them. " And apparently you don't read anything in any newspaper either. Their names are splashed on all the newspapers enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sometimes I wonder that something bad must have happened to people like Tommy, Jayda and other in order for them to hate Muslims.. Sarcasm? No, seriously something had to happen for them to hate someone or everyone from one group that much They feel threatened by something that's outside their experience and thus don't understand. They're insecure anyway and they have an easy target to focus their bullying on, which has been legitimised by successive govts. Ignorant cunts." Aye they are. Irony of it is that Jayda herself is a second / third generation immigrant. So she helps run a group that wants to send people like her home. HMP Bellmarsh is the best place for her, her ilk and followers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I discovered today that Trump has been lobbying on behalf of Robinson. Britain First, now Robinson. Anyone see a pattern in the White House? "Trump's ambassador lobbied Britain on behalf of jailed right-wing activist Tommy Robinson" Reuters - https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K331J?__twitter_impression=true " I read some American websites a little while ago. According to them, he has been jailed for merely speaking out against the government. They either don't understand or haven't been told the rest of the story. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I discovered today that Trump has been lobbying on behalf of Robinson. Britain First, now Robinson. Anyone see a pattern in the White House? "Trump's ambassador lobbied Britain on behalf of jailed right-wing activist Tommy Robinson" Reuters - https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K331J?__twitter_impression=true " . Yes The right wing vote and lobby for right wing stuff and the left wing vote and lobby for left wing stuff, it might be just me but I think this has been the case for awhile | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I discovered today that Trump has been lobbying on behalf of Robinson. Britain First, now Robinson. Anyone see a pattern in the White House? "Trump's ambassador lobbied Britain on behalf of jailed right-wing activist Tommy Robinson" Reuters - https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K331J?__twitter_impression=true I read some American websites a little while ago. According to them, he has been jailed for merely speaking out against the government. They either don't understand or haven't been told the rest of the story. " Hopefully he’ll be out soon... total stitch up IMHO | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"CeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE cunt" . I think they like to use the word cunt, it saves them having to actually think about something | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I discovered today that Trump has been lobbying on behalf of Robinson. Britain First, now Robinson. Anyone see a pattern in the White House? "Trump's ambassador lobbied Britain on behalf of jailed right-wing activist Tommy Robinson" Reuters - https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K331J?__twitter_impression=true I read some American websites a little while ago. According to them, he has been jailed for merely speaking out against the government. They either don't understand or haven't been told the rest of the story. Hopefully he’ll be out soon... total stitch up IMHO " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well said that man.....The powers to be were trying everything to shut him up....Freedom of speech...My arse." he wasn't suppressed he broke a law..applicable to us all...it was simple swift n sorted. READ this shit up...before making shit up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if people believe robinson was doing anything other than stirring racial hatred, they need their heads looked at. HE DELIBERATELY BROKE A LAW TO PROVE A POINT.. he was (lets say he went 'SOFT'), he broke away from britain first and other such groups... these are the groups that hat gays,blacks,or anything other than white english(lets call them cunts). they will continue..i can take anything thrown..but an example(she's a lovely woman), my manager say's hullo ma wee sambo(as I approached to tell her aa sales clinch).. I didnt stand aghast...but I could have said....YOU FUCKING LITTLE FUCKING WHORE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LIL M...then i thought...well she pays ma wage " . It was the EDL but hey your the expert | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if people believe robinson was doing anything other than stirring racial hatred, they need their heads looked at. HE DELIBERATELY BROKE A LAW TO PROVE A POINT.. he was (lets say he went 'SOFT'), he broke away from britain first and other such groups... these are the groups that hat gays,blacks,or anything other than white english(lets call them cunts). they will continue..i can take anything thrown..but an example(she's a lovely woman), my manager say's hullo ma wee sambo(as I approached to tell her aa sales clinch).. I didnt stand aghast...but I could have said....YOU FUCKING LITTLE FUCKING WHORE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LIL M...then i thought...well she pays ma wage " Thanks for you contribution.. as usual you didn’t disappoint... well done and now please fuck off.. thanks x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if people believe robinson was doing anything other than stirring racial hatred, they need their heads looked at. HE DELIBERATELY BROKE A LAW TO PROVE A POINT.. he was (lets say he went 'SOFT'), he broke away from britain first and other such groups... these are the groups that hat gays,blacks,or anything other than white english(lets call them cunts). they will continue..i can take anything thrown..but an example(she's a lovely woman), my manager say's hullo ma wee sambo(as I approached to tell her aa sales clinch).. I didnt stand aghast...but I could have said....YOU FUCKING LITTLE FUCKING WHORE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LIL M...then i thought...well she pays ma wage Thanks for you contribution.. as usual you didn’t disappoint... well done and now please fuck off.. thanks x" bit d*unk but ... please fuck off? am hurt...instead why don't YOU fuck off...you possibly cuntuish cunt. note I said possible.cunt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if people believe robinson was doing anything other than stirring racial hatred, they need their heads looked at. HE DELIBERATELY BROKE A LAW TO PROVE A POINT.. he was (lets say he went 'SOFT'), he broke away from britain first and other such groups... these are the groups that hat gays,blacks,or anything other than white english(lets call them cunts). they will continue..i can take anything thrown..but an example(she's a lovely woman), my manager say's hullo ma wee sambo(as I approached to tell her aa sales clinch).. I didnt stand aghast...but I could have said....YOU FUCKING LITTLE FUCKING WHORE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LIL M...then i thought...well she pays ma wage " And yet again we see another well reasoned argument... I’ll sum up the response guys... TWAT | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if people believe robinson was doing anything other than stirring racial hatred, they need their heads looked at. HE DELIBERATELY BROKE A LAW TO PROVE A POINT.. he was (lets say he went 'SOFT'), he broke away from britain first and other such groups... these are the groups that hat gays,blacks,or anything other than white english(lets call them cunts). they will continue..i can take anything thrown..but an example(she's a lovely woman), my manager say's hullo ma wee sambo(as I approached to tell her aa sales clinch).. I didnt stand aghast...but I could have said....YOU FUCKING LITTLE FUCKING WHORE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LIL M...then i thought...well she pays ma wage Thanks for you contribution.. as usual you didn’t disappoint... well done and now please fuck off.. thanks x bit d*unk but ... please fuck off? am hurt...instead why don't YOU fuck off...you possibly cuntuish cunt. note I said possible.cunt." . I take offense of the phrase "white English" (let's call them cunts). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"if people believe robinson was doing anything other than stirring racial hatred, they need their heads looked at. HE DELIBERATELY BROKE A LAW TO PROVE A POINT.. he was (lets say he went 'SOFT'), he broke away from britain first and other such groups... these are the groups that hat gays,blacks,or anything other than white english(lets call them cunts). they will continue..i can take anything thrown..but an example(she's a lovely woman), my manager say's hullo ma wee sambo(as I approached to tell her aa sales clinch).. I didnt stand aghast...but I could have said....YOU FUCKING LITTLE FUCKING WHORE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LIL M...then i thought...well she pays ma wage Thanks for you contribution.. as usual you didn’t disappoint... well done and now please fuck off.. thanks x bit d*unk but ... please fuck off? am hurt...instead why don't YOU fuck off...you possibly cuntuish cunt. note I said possible.cunt." Cheers. Appreciate your well reasoned response.. cheers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I discovered today that Trump has been lobbying on behalf of Robinson. Britain First, now Robinson. Anyone see a pattern in the White House? "Trump's ambassador lobbied Britain on behalf of jailed right-wing activist Tommy Robinson" Reuters - https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1K331J?__twitter_impression=true I read some American websites a little while ago. According to them, he has been jailed for merely speaking out against the government. They either don't understand or haven't been told the rest of the story. Hopefully he’ll be out soon... total stitch up IMHO " So why did the scumbag plead guilty then? He got what he deserved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
