Tommy Robinson

[BlueFox]

I haven't worked out how to quote small parts of a message yet

Highlight he part you want to quote using your mouse (or finger on a mobile).
A box will pop up saying "+ quote | reply".
Click/touch reply. It's as easy as that.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Apologies I haven't worked out how to quote small parts of a message yet!

Don't worry about it, I did kind of catch on in the end. Usually I just delete the irrelevant parts of quotations or embolden them.

 

[bnm]

Labour’s Sarah Champion was aware of this issue for years, Jeremy Corbyn’s response to her speaking out was to sack her and pretend the issue doesn’t exist (she has also received death threats from Islamic fundamentalists and far left agitators).

She resigned.

 

[Sickandtired]

Do you really think people here are happy to accept child abuse out of 'political correctness'?

(The obvious answer is that I am sure just about everyone thinks that child abuse is the more serious problem, and only someone with a quite warped point of view would claim otherwise.)

I think the labour mp who said the victims "should shut up for the sake of diversity" would indicate that the left do indeed not care about the things the public do. Their will be more trumps farages etc.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think the labour mp who said the victims "should shut up for the sake of diversity" would indicate that the left do indeed not care about the things the public do. Their will be more trumps garages etc.

The least biased news source I could find with regards to this story was the Metro unfortunately, and it said that she actually liked and retweeted the said quote that was written on a parody account of Owen Jones. Evidently this could've been either the MP in question misunderstanding the quote and retweeting it with malicious intent, or actually knew it was a joke and decided to share it anyway for a laugh. Not sure of the intentions really, but still, it's nothing particularly pleasing. I mean the fact they might even consider Owen Jones as credible is one thing, but to share a tweet like that is even more so.

 

[bnm]

I think the labour mp who said the victims "should shut up for the sake of diversity" would indicate that the left do indeed not care about the things the public do.

She didn't say it. She mistakenly liked and shared a tweet, then quickly removed it.

 

[Bromley boy]

And Jimmy Saville wasn't 'swept under the carpet until very recently'? Or Peter Ball? Or Max Clifford? Or Chris Denning? Or Jonathan King? Or Gary Glitter? Or Stuart Hall? Or Ian Watkins?
Robinson and his ilk have been silent on all of these, as well as a senior figure from the EDL, Leigh McMillan.

No. The people you mention were wealthy celebrities who were able to “hide in plain sight”, with victims afraid to come forward/disbelieved due to their high profile. Of course, that’s absolutely dreadful in its own right, but it’s a different problem altogether.

The grooming gangs are organised groups of men from a particular culture and religion, who specifically target mainly white children on the basis that they view them as less than human and sex objects. This abuse has taken place on an industrial scale, for many years, with thousands of victims.

It has been allowed to continue, at least in part, because relevant authorities turned a blind eye for fear of being branded racist or threatening the diversity agenda. That is settled fact following the Jay report.

The leader of the opposition has denied the existence of the problem and sacked the person who blew the whistle, which says it all about the current Labour Party.​

 

[Bromley boy]

She resigned.

.... because Jezza told her he would sack her if she didn’t.

Potato potada.

 

[fowler9]

No. The people you mention were wealthy celebrities who were able to “hide in plain sight”, with victims afraid to come forward/disbelieved due to their high profile. Of course, that’s absolutely dreadful in its own right, but it’s a different problem altogether.

The grooming gangs are organised groups of men from a particular culture and religion, who specifically target mainly white children on the basis that they view them as less than human and sex objects. This abuse has taken place on an industrial scale, for many years, with thousands of victims.

It has been allowed to continue, at least in part, because relevant authorities turned a blind eye for fear of being branded racist or threatening the diversity agenda. That is settled fact following the Jay report.

The leader of the opposition has denied the existence of the problem and sacked the person who blew the whistle, which says it all about the current Labour Party.​

Hmmmm, yeah, so you you reckon the left want the continuation of child sex grooming gangs?

 

[AlterEgo]

Hmmmm, yeah, so you you reckon the left want the continuation of child sex grooming gangs?

No, but the alternative is to say that there is a big problem in some areas with Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim men raping white children. It can be said as dispassionately as you like yet never sounds pleasant and leads to a lot of accusations of racism.

I think some - not all - on the left would rather have a multicultural society where nobody dared criticise anyone of an ethnic minority for fear of being a massive racist, than tackling this specific problem head on and risk all the political ramifications.

None of this has anything to do with Tommy Robinson, who is a tool.

 

[bnm]

with Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim men raping white children

And Turkish, and Iraqi, and non religious, and British enablers, male and female...

No forgetting the non-white victims too.

 

[EM2]

No. The people you mention were wealthy celebrities who were able to “hide in plain sight”, with victims afraid to come forward/disbelieved due to their high profile. Of course, that’s absolutely dreadful in its own right, but it’s a different problem altogether.​

But people did come forward. That's why all of them (except Saville) went to trial and were convicted. Where was Robinson's protest at those trials? Where was his protest at Leigh McMillan's trial?

 

[Geezertronic]

But people did come forward. That's why all of them (except Saville) went to trial and were convicted. Where was Robinson's protest at those trials? Where was his protest at Leigh McMillan's trial?

Not all of them, Cliff Richard was not convicted was he? Nor was Freddie Starr?

 

[EM2]

Not all of them, Cliff Richard was not convicted was he? Nor was Freddie Starr?

Did I mention either of them?

 

[Bromley boy]

But people did come forward. That's why all of them (except Saville) went to trial and were convicted. Where was Robinson's protest at those trials? Where was his protest at Leigh McMillan's trial?

Nowhere, because those trials didn’t fit into his agenda.

None of that changes the fact that:

- Asian grooming gangs are an enormous problem which has been swept under the carpet due to
political correctness;
- the left continues to ignore/deny the problem, despite overwhelming evidence;
- Robinson has been able to tap into the resulting anger to legitimise his far right agenda.

 

[DarloRich]

- Asian grooming gangs are an enormous problem which has been swept under the carpet due to
political correctness;
- the left continues to ignore/deny the problem, despite overwhelming evidence;
- Robinson has been able to tap into the resulting anger to legitimise his far right agenda.

Some that is true - However Tommeh doesn't seem to "report" on trials of his EDL chums when they get sent down for noncing. Why is that?

 

[Bromley boy]

Some that is true - However Tommeh doesn't seem to "report" on trials of his EDL chums when they get sent down for noncing. Why is that?

Quite simply because it doesn’t fit into his agenda (which is very much a far right, racist one). To be clear I think Robinson is a bellend of the highest order and I hope he’s soon back where he belongs.

If you lived in Rochdale, felt left behind by the establishment, saw Naz Shah tweeting about how abuse victims should shut up for the sake of diversity (accidentally my a**), Corbyn denying the issue, you might start to think Robinson etc. are the only ones listening. That is the danger.

Credit to Javid for acknowledging there is a problem - the Labour MP who blew the whistle has received death threats for speaking the truth and Corbyn’s response was to sack her - shameful.

 

[DarloRich]

Quite simply because it doesn’t fit into his agenda (which is very much a far right, racist one). To be clear I think Robinson is a bellend of the highest order and I hope he’s soon back where he belongs.

If you lived in Rochdale, felt left behind by the establishment, saw Naz Shah tweeting about how abuse victims should shut up for the sake of diversity (accidentally my a**), Corbyn denying the issue, you might start to think Robinson etc. are the only ones listening. That is the danger.

Credit to Javid for acknowledging there is a problem - the Labour MP who blew the whistle has received death threats for speaking the truth and Corbyn’s response was to sack her - shameful.

I am not disagreeing with you that the whole thing was handled terribly! I think situation is a lot more complex than presented by many people a cover up designed to protect muslims

I was simply making the point about the selective view presented by people like Robinson. Noncing is colour blind and not based on any one religion.

 

[Bromley boy]

I am not disagreeing with you! I was simply making the point about the selective view presented by people like Robinson. Noncing is colour blind and not based on any one religion.

No, I know you’re not disagreeing, and I agree with your above point. Robinson clearly has an agenda.

It seems that a lot of people on this thread (not you!) struggle to cope with the simultaneous viewpoints that

- Robinson is a tool;

- there is a big problem with Asian grooming gangs that he has been able to exploit, due to failure of child protection authorities and mainstream politicians.

These positions are not mutually exclusive.

 

[DarloRich]

No, I know you’re not disagreeing, and I agree with your above point. Robinson clearly has an agenda.

It seems that a lot of people on this thread struggle to cope with the simultaneous viewpoints that

- Robinson is a tool;

- there is a big problem with Asian grooming gangs that he has been able to exploit, due to failure of mainstream politicians.

These positions are not mutually exclusive.

I am not sure how big the problem actually is ( that doesn't mean there isn't a problem) but I agree Robinson and his ilk exploit it for their own purposes and that exploitation makes it harder to fix the problem!

 

[Bromley boy]

I am not sure how big the problem actually is ( that doesn't mean there isn't a problem) but I agree Robinson and his ilk exploit it for their own purposes and that exploitation makes it harder to fix the problem!

None of us know the extent of the problem, but certainly Rochdale alone has around 1500 victims, over many years, so it’s clearly significant.

The best way to deal with Robinson would be for mainstream* politicians on all sides to acknowledge the problem and address it.

But inevitably, the far left cry racism on a hair trigger in order to stifle debate, politicians increasingly walk on eggshells around the issue, and leave people like Robinson to fill the void.

Morally superior circle jerks where people vie with each other to attack Robinson completely miss the point. They are not his target audience.

*One (formerly) mainstream political party is letting the side down at the moment!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The best way to deal with Robinson would be for mainstream* politicians on all sides to acknowledge the problem and address it.

The issue, of course, is that convicted fraudster Yaxley-Lennon is neither interested in the problem nor the solution. He's interested in being a racist.

But inevitably, the far left cry racism on a hair trigger in order to stifle debate, politicians increasingly walk on eggshells around the issue

But Yaxley-Lennon IS a racist.

The Rochdale grooming gangs may have 1000 victims. It sounds a lot. But the Late Liberal MP for Rochdale has an estimated 300 victims. I dont hear Yaxley-Lennon give a single tiny toss about Cyril Smith's victims. Why do we think that is?

 

[mmh]

The issue, of course, is that convicted fraudster Yaxley-Lennon is neither interested in the problem nor the solution. He's interested in being a racist.

Almost certainly, but ignoring why he's become a poster-boy for both the far right and people who are far from that helps no-one.

But Yaxley-Lennon IS a racist.

I think it's likely most of think he is, and think he's abhorrant. Ignoring why he has so much support feels pretty dangerous to me - I posted on here months ago that I thought people insisting on calling him Yaxley-Lennon were unfortunately misguided if they thought that made any difference whatsoever. It's Tommy Robinson, being pedantic about his pseudonym won't help in the slightest, more likely the opposite. It's preaching to the converted, I'm afraid.

The Rochdale grooming gangs may have 1000 victims. It sounds a lot. But the Late Liberal MP for Rochdale has an estimated 300 victims. I dont hear Yaxley-Lennon give a single tiny toss about Cyril Smith's victims. Why do we think that is?

I think (hope) we're all agreed that none of us think there should be any difference. He might be a racist thug, that's, I'm afraid, almost irrelevant. It's not an either/or whether or between who's worse between Cyril Smith and anyone now, if they did it, they did it, I don't care who they are. This whataboutery style stuff helps nobody, other than the extremists.

 

[AlterEgo]

Some people are picking up on the fact Tommy Robinson has only been “covering” cases where the perpetrators were Muslim, and then asking “well where’s Tommy Robinson when white people rape children?”.

How about let’s turn it around and say there’s a Muslim outside a courtroom where a white man raped a young Muslim child. Would you turn to him and say “where are you when Muslims are raping white kids? Do you not care about those?”

Or do we turn to Muslims protesting about the fact they got attacked at Finsbury Park and ask them where their condemnation of Islamic State is? And ask them to renounce bombing?

Robinson is an agitant and a bellend but don’t fall into the trap of demanding something from him you wouldn’t demand from other groups. A lot of Muslims have organised to rape a lot of kids; that’s a problem that needs sorting. The whataboutery isn’t helpful.

 

[EM2]

How about let’s turn it around and say there’s a Muslim outside a courtroom where a white man raped a young Muslim child. Would you turn to him and say “where are you when Muslims are raping white kids? Do you not care about those?”

Yes.

Or do we turn to Muslims protesting about the fact they got attacked at Finsbury Park and ask them where their condemnation of Islamic State is? And ask them to renounce bombing?

Yes.

If you have a concern about an issue, you should be concerned no matter who the perpetrators are.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you have a concern about an issue, you should be concerned no matter who the perpetrators are.

Sorry, but the prevailing direction is exactly as I outlined. It’s wrong to demand of Muslims to condemn others in their community.

It’s wrong to demand of Robinson to condemn others in his.

I very much doubt you’d agree with a white British non-Muslim person confronting Muslims and asking them where their condemnation of Islamic State and child rapists is.

 

[EM2]

I very much doubt you’d agree with a white British non-Muslim person confronting Muslims and asking them where their condemnation of Islamic State and child rapists is.

99%* of white British non-Muslims know that 99%* of Muslims do not agree with Islamic State and child rape. They wouldn't feel it necessary to ask them to condemn those things, because they know that anyone with any sense would.
But if a Muslim (or anyone, to be quite honest) is protesting about one particular aspect of an issue, wouldn't you be interested in their views on other aspects of the same issue?

*exaggerated for effect

 

[AlterEgo]

99%* of white British non-Muslims know that 99%* of Muslims do not agree with Islamic State and child rape. They wouldn't feel it necessary to ask them to condemn those things, because they know that anyone with any sense would.

I think we all know that no matter how unpleasant he is, Tommy Robinson doesn’t agree with child rape either. It doesn’t stop people from asking where he is when “his kind” go up in front of the judge.

The double standard is wrong. Just because someone’s making a point about one thing doesn’t mean to say they need to make a point about another.

The whataboutery is unhelpful.

 

[bnm]

Some people are picking up on the fact Tommy Robinson has only been “covering” cases where the perpetrators were Muslim, and then asking “well where’s Tommy Robinson when white people rape children?”.

How about let’s turn it around and say there’s a Muslim outside a courtroom where a white man raped a young Muslim child. Would you turn to him and say “where are you when Muslims are raping white kids? Do you not care about those?”

Or do we turn to Muslims protesting about the fact they got attacked at Finsbury Park and ask them where their condemnation of Islamic State is? And ask them to renounce bombing?

Robinson is an agitant and a bellend but don’t fall into the trap of demanding something from him you wouldn’t demand from other groups. A lot of Muslims have organised to rape a lot of kids; that’s a problem that needs sorting. The whataboutery isn’t helpful.

You're right that whataboutism isn't helpful.

Yet you're preceding paragraphs are all whataboutism.

 

[yorkie]

One of his supporters was spouting racist rubbish on a train last night he was staring at people looking for reactions; I shook my head and as a result got sworn at.

He was going on about the EDL and how he didn't want people like me and the other people I was with in this country and how he wanted to knock us out.

He really showed himself up and demonstrated perfectly what the far right are like. Unfortunately I didn't have my camera in video mode to get the worst of his actions.

How anyone can do anything other than condemn the actions of his ilk I will never really comprehend but I've accepted the unfortunate fact that there are several thousand thick, obnoxious individuals out there and that some people do appear to at least partially condone their actions/views. It's disappointing.