Stephen15 wrote: » Look I don't agree with everthing they say but they say what the mainstream media is too afraid to say at times due to the PC brigade.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You think tommy is responsible for these people being taken to court?
Mutant z wrote: » He's helped to highlight the pc sickness thats been inflicting the UK if they had their way it would never have been reported on all those abused girls have been let down by the ignorant authorities shame on them all.
Captain Obvious wrote: » It's not about agreeing with what they say, it's about them making stuff up. Or do you believe Sandy Hook was not real?
Stephen15 wrote: » No I believe it was real. They tell the truth about Islam and mass immigration but I don't agree with some of their conspiracy theories.
Captain Obvious wrote: » You know they are liars but you accept their evidence on the stuff you already believe to be true.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I think you are confused. the story in Rotheram was investigated by an actual journalist not Tommy. Tommy did not expose this story and the coverup. He is just using it for publicity.
Stephen15 wrote: » So you have agree or disagree with everthing a person or organisation says. You can't agree with some times and disagree with others.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » But you would label anybody from the community who spoke about it as racist before the 'actual journalist' exposed it. Do you think the journalist found out about it by just thinking 'hmmm i wonder are there are any muslim rape gangs', or is it more likely that people of similar ilk to Tommy and people in the sikh community highlighted that there might be something going on. Your attitude seems to support the idea that you would not have wanted the journalist to investigate based on the racist ramblings of some working class bigots.
Captain Obvious wrote: » No. It's not really about agreement. You accept them as sources even though you know they are liars. The only reason you accept them as a source is because they are saying something you already believe.
Stephen15 wrote: » Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media
omta wrote: » Hi FTAxx which parts of his personal story are fictitous? Sounds very much like you are quoting from second and third hand sources - you need to go to the original and watch the video of him speaking at the Oxford Union.... then make up your own mind.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » I would venture he went to a reliable source. In this instance, Ann Cryer I believe.
nicedryturf wrote: » Listened yesterday to the wonderful Antonia Fraser talk about her book about Catholic emancipation in Britain in the early 19th century. There's very little new about the wave of anti-Islam fervor. Anti-papist hysteria in the 18th century was even more extreme and widespread. Just as some would equate all muslims with sharia law, for centuries Catholics were viewed as agents of Britain's eternal enemies Spain and France and, as subjects of the Pope, they were generally suspected of disloyalty. An attempt to roll back some of the more extreme anti-papist measures in 1780 led to the murderous Gordon Riots. While some of Yaxley-Lennon's minions might actually think they're crusaders at some kind of cultural precipice, they're just another gaggle of dummies on the conveyor belt of history.
FTA69 wrote: » thebull85 wrote: » Whats your point? That people who are giving Nazi salutes are marching alongside supposed supporters of Israel is a massive contradiction and that it highlights the dopey nature of many of those attending. In fairness, the ones in Belfast were Loyalist types who have always been prone to bigotry and stupidity anyway so probably not big news there.
thebull85 wrote: » Whats your point?
Omackeral wrote: » This is bang on the money. It’s perfectly reasonable for people with a shoddy past or even a shady present to tell truths. You can understand, agree with or even sympathise with some of what Robinson says without absolutely subscribing to all of his ideologies. Those who are dead set against him either can’t or won’t accept that as a possibility. To them, you’re far-right, alt-right, a facist, a nazi or their favourite... a racist.
pitifulgod wrote: » There's not a single reputable news resource that claim 911 was an inside job, sandy Hook was fake and that fema operate death camps... So I've never faced such an odd balancing of awful views.
Taytoland wrote: » Most of it was true which kind of defeats the purpose of your post.
Sand wrote: » I think its enlightening to compare the UK's reaction to Tommy Robinson, Umar Razaq and Joanna Simons. Simons oversaw Oxfordshire's 'care' programme during a decade in which hundreds of girls were groomed, gang raped and at least one branded with the initials of her 'owner'. She presided over a system so toxic that the care home a rape victim escaped to actually sent her back to her abuser to be gang raped again. Umar Razaq was found guilty of child sex offences in the Rotheram trial, along with his brother Razwan. He and his accomplices were branded sexual predators. Umar's offences in particular were in relation to his abuse of a 13 year old girl. Tommy Robinson is a former football hooligan, now a political activist against the impact of radical Islamic groups on his home town and towns like them, overseen by people like Simons. He has been the subject of repeated physical attacks. He has angered the powers that be and any mention of him is sure to draw vitriolic hate. Simons faced no charges or even any official reprimand for her absolute failure. She received a total compensation package of £651,000 from the UK taxpayers in the period 2013-2015. She has recently been appointed head of an Oxfordshire tourism organisation, which cited her experience on the council.Umar Razaq served less than a year for sexual abuse of a 13 year old. He has shamelessly bragged about this. Tommy Robinson was jailed for 13 months, in less than 5 hours without his own lawyer present. He was (initially at least) put in the memory hole, disappeared from public view until social media made it impossible to maintain. He will serve more time than Umar Razaq. And the UK authorities will continue to pursue Robinson seeking any cause to arrest and charge him. Robinson is a dissident. There is a term for this sort of society which arbitrarily punishes some crimes and ignores or minimises others: its anarcho-tyranny. The state ceases to apply the law to protect the public, and instead applies it to attack dissent. Simons and Razaq do not dissent from the order of things in the UK. Robinson does dissent. There is a method to the madness.
jooksavage wrote: » Incorrect. British Catholics, even at the time of the 1780 riots, were, by and large, loyal British subjects. Many served in the military and enjoyed the personal friendship of King George and his successor (who even illegally married a Catholic widow). This didnt stop sectarians like the Protestant Assocation from drumming up unfounded prejudice. Much like Robinson will be, they found themselves on the scrapheap of history.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
