Tommy Robinson jailed

chuky_r_law

Danzy wrote: »

They are on the lunatic fringe of that movement.

Have had problems with targeting Jews, homophobia etc

Really don't like Jews.

Not just your normal Labour level of Jew baiting either.

you are not up to speed apparently...tommy loves israel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js-d8J_05Pg

GinAndBitter

chuky_r_law wrote: »

you are not up to speed apparently...tommy loves israel


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js-d8J_05Pg

This is what happens when people jump in without bothering to read the thread.

Nobody said he disliked Israel.

Snake Plisken

Billy86 wrote: »

You seem to be mistaking me with someone else, but all the same thank you for proving my point for me. I can't help but notice how eager you are to immediately want to change the subject from all the pedophiles cultivated in the same EDL Tommy Robinson founded, that he (and you) have zero interest in looking at.

You really are like clockwork. And you give zero sh*ts about that were victims in all of this, that much is very clear.

You should check up the facts about Pakistani grooming gangs and stop trying to divert I can find mention of only one EDL member convicted vs the hundreds of Muslim men convicted of child grooming you should read up on the Quilliam report into it
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=undefined&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjt5IiR89zgAhWFuHEKHfhzCNsQzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fquilliam-grooming-gangs-report-asian-abuse-rotherham-rochdale-newcastle-a8101941.html&psig=AOvVaw2Bp11R_oDlFKTDfb_a0OAd&ust=1551390774104355

RWCNT

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Speaking of pesky Muslims as you put it Billy how are all your old pals over at the Clonakeagh Mosque? Is our dear friend and fan of FGM Dr Ali Salim keeping well?
Btw the Pakistani Pedos gangs in the UK for out number one or two Pedos in the EDL, not that you or the rest of your pals on here care one bit about their victims!
Still waiting for the screen grabs of the supposed comments Tommy made?

To be fair, you blatantly don't care about the victims yourself.

Im curious about the no screenshots myself, the only thing I can think of apart from FB lying is that they were made in a closed group. FB still moderates comments and posts in closed groups and groups/profiles can get deleted over breaches of ToS in private groups. The fact that Raheem Kassam's account was removed then restored - with FB explaining it was deleted in error as he was an admin for a group which breached ToS - supports my theory and explains the lack of receipts, but they should release screenshots. I don't see why they'd need to lie tbh, Im sure his regular carryon using those platforms has something passable as an excuse to tank his account anyway. All the same people would be annoyed and all the same people would be happy, so don't see why they'd b bother lying.

gw80

Billy86 wrote: »

You never said one of those sites was biased, you just said "those sites" were biased, which would mean both linked to in the post you quoted... one of those two sites was Google.

Can we agree google is not somehow biased against Tommy robinson?

I don't know if Google is biased against Tommy Robinson, I haven't looked into it so I couldn't really agree with you.

jeremyj1968

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Speaking of pesky Muslims as you put it Billy how are all your old pals over at the Clonakeagh Mosque? Is our dear friend and fan of FGM Dr Ali Salim keeping well?

The thing that always confused me about Ali Salim is how he can go on national with radio with Ray D'Arcy, say that being gay is "a sin" and that a gay man should give up his ways, and not a condeming word is said about it from any TD/reporter/newspaper/Liveline. If it had been said by a Catholic priest it would have been leading the news on all stations.

Snake Plisken

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

The thing that always confused me about Ali Salim is how he can go on national with radio with Ray D'Arcy, say that being gay is "a sin" and that a gay man should give up his ways, and not a condeming word is said about it from any TD/reporter/newspaper/Liveline. If it had been said by a Catholic priest it would have been leading the news on all stations.

Yes and that's the hypocrisy of the left, The Doc can say that he wants,he can keep his cushy position in Trinity even though he came out in support of FGM, he can threaten to sue anyone in the media here who published the cover of the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cover. I doubt he would be seen going for pints with Leo in the George

GinAndBitter

There is a drama on RTE at the moment called Three girls, 3 part series about the Rochdale rapes, absolutely sickening what happened to those children and the amount of people that knew about it and done nothing.

Auntie Semite

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

The thing that always confused me about Ali Salim is how he can go on national with radio with Ray D'Arcy, say that being gay is "a sin" and that a gay man should give up his ways, and not a condeming word is said about it from any TD/reporter/newspaper/Liveline. If it had been said by a Catholic priest it would have been leading the news on all stations.

One of the leaders of this Mosque Hussain Halawa (father of Ibrahim) was reported by Norwegian media in 2011as advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals and this did not seem to bother Irish Liberals or the Irish media.

AllForIt

Snake Plisken wrote: »

You should check up the facts about Pakistani grooming gangs and stop trying to divert I can find mention of only one EDL member convicted vs the hundreds of Muslim men convicted of child grooming you should read up on the Quilliam report into it
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=undefined&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwjt5IiR89zgAhWFuHEKHfhzCNsQzPwBCAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fhome-news%2Fquilliam-grooming-gangs-report-asian-abuse-rotherham-rochdale-newcastle-a8101941.html&psig=AOvVaw2Bp11R_oDlFKTDfb_a0OAd&ust=1551390774104355

Won't be long before someone says you don't really care about the victims.


Edit: Oh yeah just noticed, the post directly after yours. Didn't take long.

dd973

Can't work out Robbie Tominson's accent, it veers between regular Southern English and these weird wurzelly yokel twangs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AllForIt wrote: »

Won't be long before someone says you don't really care about the victims.


Edit: Oh yeah just noticed, the post directly after yours. Didn't take long.

Not at all - I just wish he'd decry Christian pedophiles with the same vigour. It's not like he's not aware of any.

rgossip30

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A few here

https://resistinghate.org/tommy-robinson-and-his-hate-tweets/

Few more here

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tommy+robinson+racist+tweets&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZh-e4x9zgAhVXSBUIHXHJBqwQ_AUoAnoECAwQAg&biw=360&bih=512&dpr=3

Got anything from Facebook ? The tweets I can see that are inflamatory are from 2013 many posts are not from him.

OMM 0000

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, they would want everyone to have an 50-50 chance of attaining these positions. BIG difference.

Again, you keep having a very aggressive opinion about something you don't understand.

Please try to think through your arguments before posting them here.

Giving everyone a 50/50 chance of attaining a position, is exactly what I described.

Equality means everyone is given the opportunity to apply for the job. That means an 18 year old man with no education and skills can apply, and a 30 year old woman with a masters and 6 year's work experience can apply. They do not have a 50/50 chance of attaining the position. Why? Because the hiring process is based on education/experience/skills/other factors related to their ability to do the job. So it's highly like the woman is going to get the job.

So there is equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome.

Equity means the same man and woman have a 50/50 chance of getting the job. That's because the hiring process is not based on education/experience/skill/other factors related to their ability to do the job, but rather immutable qualities like sex, race, sexual orientation, etc.

So there is equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome.

Equality means, generally, the most suitable person will get the job.

Equity means people are employed, generally, due to their sex, race, sexual orientation, and other items which have nothing to do with your ability to do the job.

It should be noted equity often leads to discrimination of white males and Asians. For example, white males and Asians have to get higher scores to get into Harvard. This is one of the main reasons the supporters of equity are typically white and black females. They want more, without having to do the work.

This is going to be my last post here, because it's clear I'm talking to people who don't understand this issue.

Boggles

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is going to be my last post here,

Fantastic, you have dragged this so off topic at this stage I have literally no idea what you are banging on about, I suspect you don't either.

Have a good one.

---

Quick question.

Has anyone here given Stephen money?

Danzy

Auntie Semite wrote: »

One of the leaders of this Mosque Hussain Halawa (father of Ibrahim) was reported by Norwegian media in 2011as advocating for the death penalty for homosexuals and this did not seem to bother Irish Liberals or the Irish media.

The modern Left will happily share a platform with people who think the holocaust was a good thing, advocate wife beating killing gays honour killings etc etc.

Ken Livingstone and Corbyn being 2 prominent ones.

It is so run of the mill at thus stage that no one takes note.

seamus

So I see this "HUGE" expose on the BBC that he claimed to be releasing on 23rd Feb, turned out to be nothing.

Like I said, a complete con-man. Taking all the gullible fools along for the ride so long as he can get some likes and ad revenue.

seamus

seamus wrote:

So I see this "HUGE" expose on the BBC that he claimed to be releasing on 23rd Feb, turned out to be nothing.

I wouldn't say that at all. It was fascinating to see the journalist collude with someone and not do any rudimentary checks on the legitimacy of a text message.

The fact that they offered to cut an audio clip to take it out of context to suit their agenda is damning.

The use of slurs by the very people who were willing to destroy a man for using similar slurs in what was intended as a private conversation was eye opening.

Granted, it wasn't a home run but it was certainly enough to raise doubt in the legitimacy of BBC reporting and their methods of gathering facts.

I suppose if you don't find any of the above interesting, I don't know what you were expecting.

It may not have been earth-shattering but it certainly wasn't nothing.

Boom_Bap

seamus wrote: »

So I see this "HUGE" expose on the BBC that he claimed to be releasing on 23rd Feb, turned out to be nothing.

Like I said, a complete con-man. Taking all the gullible fools along for the ride so long as he can get some likes and ad revenue.

There was some stuff in it like how people were being steered by the BBC in how they wanted to report their stories, and the people involved in the interviews. That needs some sort of investigating by the BBC.



But the whole jumping on keywords that yer man said and shouting racist/islamaphobe/homophobe as loud as he could demonstrates the juvenile approach that Tommy takes.

Not allowing for rebuttable either doesn't show Tommy in a good light.
And he used entrapment to get the interview by not not sending the text message.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

There was some stuff in it like how people were being steered by the BBC in how they wanted to report their stories, and the people involved in the interviews. That needs some sort of investigating by the BBC.



But the whole jumping on keywords that yer man said and shouting racist/islamaphobe/homophobe as loud as he could demonstrates the juvenile approach that Tommy takes.

Not allowing for rebuttable either doesn't show Tommy in a good light.
And he used entrapment to get the interview by not not sending the text message.

I agree with all that apart from the last bit. I think the entrapment was necessary to prove that they were willing to use evidence without verification. Also the only way he could prove that.

Boom_Bap

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with all that apart from the last bit. I think the entrapment was necessary to prove that they were willing to use evidence without verification. Also the only way he could prove that.

Well, the way I see it, the source showed them a message on their phone from Tommy......how else does it get verified?
I'm pretty sure they can't go to the service provider and Tommy knows that.

Mitch Connor

Danzy wrote: »

The modern Left will happily share a platform with people who think the holocaust was a good thing, advocate wife beating killing gays honour killings etc etc.

Ken Livingstone and Corbyn being 2 prominent ones.

It is so run of the mill at thus stage that no one takes note.

BS.

The outcry and recent resignations from the Labour party over anti-semitism is clear proof of that. Yes, there are people who look to defend Corbyn as some cult of personality, but to say the modern left are happy with the crap aspects of the Labour Party - including bringing Livingstone back in, is utter rubbish. There are some extremists who just won't find fault in the Labour party, but it is not the entirety of the modern left.

That would be like saying the modern right is happy with the forced removal of kids from their family, the losing of those kids and the deaths of kids in ICS custody. That the right is happy with the 'fine folks' of the KKK and other white supremacist organizations preaching the murder of non-whites. that the right is happy with anti-gay/LGBT rhetoric. That the right are happy with the characterisation of immegrants as a plague and/or cockroaches. Sure, there are certainly some on the right who are happy with all of that - but being on the right doesn't define you as that.

ancapailldorcha

The other issue is the neo-Nazis marching in America who were described by Trump as "Very fine people". No complaints here about that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is going to be my last post here, because it's clear I'm talking to people who don't understand this issue.

Equality - having the same chance as everyone else
Equity - the act or quality of being impartial

Point being: you can invite equality - allowing everyone to apply; but not promote equity - dismiss some applications based on background.

So. As, by lack of a challenge, you agree with the three points below (having gotten the fourth one wrong) then I think this being your last post is the wisest action.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problems you have are that you:
1 - have absolutely NO clue what left means
2 - are completely unable to determine the difference between "moderate" and "exteme" when it comes to political stances.
3 - do not know the difference between equity and equality.
4 - appear to think that identity politics incorporates an entire political position.
.

QED.

(Right, where were we? Oh yes... Tommy...)

Cienciano

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

The thing that always confused me about Ali Salim is how he can go on national with radio with Ray D'Arcy, say that being gay is "a sin" and that a gay man should give up his ways, and not a condeming word is said about it from any TD/reporter/newspaper/Liveline. If it had been said by a Catholic priest it would have been leading the news on all stations.

It's not newsworthy enough. The news reports what generates most sales.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Yes and that's the hypocrisy of the left, The Doc can say that he wants,he can keep his cushy position in Trinity even though he came out in support of FGM, he can threaten to sue anyone in the media here who published the cover of the Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cover. I doubt he would be seen going for pints with Leo in the George

Newspapers deciding what will generate most sales/clicks/viewers is the "hypocrisy of the left"?

RWCNT

Danzy wrote: »

Industrial levels of sexual assault on girls ignored for years because they were white working class girls.

Many of the victims weren't white so I disagree that the victim's race was relevant to the inaction of the authorities, but I agree with you on the class point and it's rarely brought up for some reason.

For all the talk of the rapists being let away with it because of their race/religion and the authorities not wanting to be seen as prejudice, I think people miss the fact that the victims were primarily from a working class/poor/vulnerable background. If it was the children of elites getting raped Im sure the authorities wouldn't have hesitated to act, muslims or not.

GinAndBitter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The other issue is the neo-Nazis marching in America who were described by Trump as "Very fine people". No complaints here about that.

Don't be trying to drag the thread off topic, if you want to whine and bitch about Trump you know where to go.

RWCNT

Cienciano wrote: »

Newspapers deciding what will generate most sales/clicks/viewers is the "hypocrisy of the left"?

It can be argued that it shows the hypocrisy of the liberal establishment media, which I contend any leftist worth their salt would take issue with as well.

Too many people seem to have this confused idea of "the left" as a monolith that includes everyone from communists and anarchists to liberals and even neoliberals who supposedly all share the same values. I'm unsure if it's down to shoddy understanding of political terminology or if it's done purposefully.

Grayson

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Don't be trying to drag the thread off topic, if you want to whine and bitch about Trump you know where to go.

I believe their point was that people here on the right weren't complaining.

ancapailldorcha

Grayson wrote: »

I believe their point was that people here on the right weren't complaining.

Exactly. There's a poster who consistently censures both the Catholic Church and grooming gangs for molesting children. I often disagree with this person on other things but I respect their sincerity and consistency.