Tommy Robinson jailed

FTA69

Omackeral wrote: »

At least you'll concede maybe not a Nazi.

Not a Nazi, but definitely a fascist and a supporter of racists.

Stephen15

Tommy must be freed now. He committed a crime that shouldn't be a crime. The reporting restrictions were put in place to suit The BBC and The Guardian so that people wouldn't seek alternative sources of media which tell the truth. The liberal media don't want people knowing the truth about Muslim Grooming Gangs or Islam in general. It suits the government that people like Tommy who expose the truth about Islam are locked up as otherwise people might go against their mass immigration agenda.

Stephen15

FTA69 wrote: »

Not a Nazi, but definitely a fascist and a supporter of racists.

Evidence please?

FTA69

Stephen15 wrote: »

Evidence please?

I provided links a number of posts back, and I’m sure it was you who asked for them too. Former member of the BNP, current supporter of Generation Identity.

Captain Obvious

Stephen15 wrote: »

Tommy must be freed now. He committed a crime that shouldn't be a crime. The reporting restrictions were put in place to suit The BBC and The Guardian so that people wouldn't seek alternative sources of media which tell the truth. The liberal media don't want people knowing the truth about Muslim Grooming Gangs or Islam in general. It suits the government that people like Tommy who expose the truth about Islam are locked up as otherwise people might go against their mass immigration agenda.

Which truthful alternative sources are you referring to?

ohnonotgmail

Stephen15 wrote: »

Tommy must be freed now. He committed a crime that shouldn't be a crime. The reporting restrictions were put in place to suit The BBC and The Guardian so that people wouldn't seek alternative sources of media which tell the truth. The liberal media don't want people knowing the truth about Muslim Grooming Gangs or Islam in general. It suits the government that people like Tommy who expose the truth about Islam are locked up as otherwise people might go against their mass immigration agenda.

you are spectacularly uninformed. Spectacularly.

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Which truthful alternative sources are you referring to?

stormfront.org?

thebull85

FTA69 wrote: »

I provided links a number of posts back, and I’m sure it was you who asked for them too. Former member of the BNP, current supporter of Generation Identity.

He has said before he doesnt agree with everything GI say, he delivered Martin Selners speech at speakers corner because he supports freedom of speech. There was nothing hateful in that speech either.

Stephen15

FTA69 wrote: »

I provided links a number of posts back, and I’m sure it was you who asked for them too. Former member of the BNP, current supporter of Generation Identity.

Generation Identity aren't fascist and nor are the BNP. Like saying that a bunch of Chlesea supporters doing the nazi salute now makes Chelsea a Fascist club.

Stephen15

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Which truthful alternative sources are you referring to?

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

ohnonotgmail

Stephen15 wrote: »

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

Man that is funny.

Stephen15

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Man that is funny.

How?

Omackeral

Stephen15 wrote: »

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

Ah come on. I'm a massive card carrying BNP and EDL member and Tommy supporter (not really, just think some of what he says holds merit :P) but listing those as credible sources is barmy.

Mutant z

The logic of the left you either stand with us or you're a far right neo nazi bigot like there's no other alternative its perfectly rational to have concerns about immigration without being a neo nazi in fact the majority aren't they are just sick of being ignored by the politicians who claim to represent them does anyone think they want whats best for this country because i sure as hell don't they are only in it for themselves to screw the rest of us over.

Stephen15

Omackeral wrote: »

Ah come on. I'm a massive card carrying BNP and EDL member and Tommy supporter (not really, just think some of what he says holds merit :P) but listing those as credible sources is barmy.

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

Mutant z wrote: »

The logic of the left you either stand with us or you're a far right neo nazi bigot like there's no other alternative its perfectly rational to have concerns about immigration without being a neo nazi in fact the majority aren't they are just sick of being ignored by the politicians who claim to represent them does anyone think they want whats best for this country because i sure as hell don't they are only in it for themselves to screw the rest of us over.

It is perfectly rational. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But we are talking about tommy robinson and rational does not apply to him. He is a far right thug who has taken up this "cause" because it attracts publicity for him.

Stephen15

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is perfectly rational. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But we are talking about tommy robinson and rational does not apply to him. He is a far right thug who has taken up this "cause" because it attracts publicity for him.

And you the man some time to change his ways? Which he is, but he's still a thug because he continues to criticize Islam.

Mutant z

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is perfectly rational. Nobody has suggested otherwise. But we are talking about tommy robinson and rational does not apply to him. He is a far right thug who has taken up this "cause" because it attracts publicity for him.

What actual evidence have you got for that i see all this mud throwing coming his way without solid proof i mean he isnt keen on islam so what so most of us with our heads screwed on aren't if the police did their jobs in the first place you wouldn't need to worry about him. Someone had to stand up for what was happening no one else was willing to but Tommy Robinson maybe the establishment shouldn't be so ignorant to what is happening around them in future if it takes TR to achieve that then its a job well done as far as im concerned.

ohnonotgmail

Stephen15 wrote: »

And you the man some time to change his ways? Which he is, but he's still a thug because he continues to criticize Islam.

He continues to associate with fascists and thugs so perhaps he has not changed as much as you think he has.

ohnonotgmail

Mutant z wrote: »

What actual evidence have you got for that i see all this mud throwing coming his way without solid proof i mean he isnt keen on islam so what so most of us with our heads screwed on aren't if the police did their jobs in the first place you wouldn't need to worry about him. Someone had to stand up for what was happening no one else was willing to but Tommy Robinson maybe the establishment shouldn't be so ignorant to what is happening around them in future if it takes TR to achieve that then its a job well done as far as im concerned.

You think tommy is responsible for these people being taken to court?

Captain Obvious

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.

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?

Mutant z

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You think tommy is responsible for these people being taken to court?

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.

ohnonotgmail

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.

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

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?

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

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.

You know they are liars but you accept their evidence on the stuff you already believe to be true.

Stephen15

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You know they are liars but you accept their evidence on the stuff you already believe to be true.

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

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.

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.

20Cent

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.

Infowars is entertainment.
Alex Jones said it himself under oath in court.

ohnonotgmail

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.

now you're just making **** up. I like that you put actual journalist in quotes, like it is not a real thing.

Captain Obvious

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail

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.

Yeah i could never understand that mentality.

super_furry

Stephen15 wrote: »

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

Not sure what’s funnier, that list or you claiming the BNP aren’t fascist. You should try stand up.

jooksavage

Stephen15 wrote: »

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

Wow, that is a toxic speedball of gobbledygook non-information. And it goes to show that for all the bubble-dwelling the ...*yawn*... "leftists" get accused of, no one cowers in the darkness of their safe spaces quite like the people who have let Alex Jones and Lauren Southern into their brains.

omta

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.

Grayson

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.

You don't believe some conspiracy theories but believe others?

There's a problem with conspiracy theories. That's that they are unprovable. Most depend on secrets that the government/deep state don't want you to know. Evidence that proves it wrong is planted and can't be trusted.

Think of flat earthers. You can throw whatever evidence you want at them and they won't believe it. It's completely irrational. many think the government is hiding the truth from them. You go into space and take a photo and they think it was photoshopped.

Because of this you simply can't trust a source like Alex Jones. he's come up with so much crazy crap and has such little respect for the truth that quite often you'd be safer to automatically disbelieve him. The best tactic is to completely ignore him and go to other reliable sources.

Grayson

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.

So when he says Tommy is lying in a video your advice to disprove it is to watch the original video? Fair enough to ask for details on why he feels that Tommy is lying about, but you can't point at the video who's veracity is debated as proof of the video's accurateness.

Ulysses Gaze

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.

I would venture he went to a reliable source.

In this instance, Ann Cryer I believe.

ohnonotgmail

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I would venture he went to a reliable source.

In this instance, Ann Cryer I believe.

and i imagine he didnt feel the need to livestream himself as he did so.

Ulysses Gaze

Stephen15 wrote: »

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

You're just missing Rense and David Icke there....

Taytoland

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.

Most of it was true which kind of defeats the purpose of your post.

Taytoland

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.

Any Loyalist who does a Nazi salute or supports Nazism are absolute scum and badly need educated. A lot of Loyalists went off to fight Adolf Hitler and his tyrannical regime and suffered greatly alongside nationalists with the Belfast blitz. I find it utterly unacceptable for any Loyalist to do that. All they are doing is spitting on the graves of Loyalist ancestors. 

I have a great book which shows some fantastic pictures after the Germany surrender with a Hitler effigy in 1945 hanging from a noose with British flags and bunting. If you told them some Loyalists would do such a thing 70 years later they would be disgusted who actually felt the full brunt of Nazism unlike some other states.

AfterLife

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.

Which one are you picking? If you had to pick one like?

pitifulgod

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.

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.

Stephen15

Also I think people fail to realise that Tommy has left both The BNP and The EDL. People who some on this thread would call fascists in these organisations called him a traitor and a sell out.

Stephen15

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.

And when did I say they were reputable news sources

jooksavage

Taytoland wrote: »

Most of it was true which kind of defeats the purpose of your post.

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.

Sand

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.

AfterLife

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.

I hope you're joking. You mentioned various crimes the other two engaged in but failed to mention any of the many crimes Robinson has engaged in.

nicedryturf

Taytoland wrote: »

Most of it was true which kind of defeats the purpose of your post.

This is just wrong. Educate yourself before making stupid assertions like this.

nicedryturf

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.

This. Small point - Catholics werent officially* allowed serve in the military until the reliefs of 1778. When Waterloo came around, many of the British officers judged their catholic soldiers to have tipped the scales towards a British victory. Still, bigotry and suspicion persisted. My point was that at almost any point in European history you have a group of people who think they need to save civilization from Catolics/Jews/Muslims/take your pick, theyre always ignorant of their antecedents and they always end up in the dickhead category with the benefit of a few decades of hindsight.