Tommy Robinson jailed

Taytoland

nicedryturf wrote: »

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.

So Bloody Mary didn't exist and the burning of Protestants didn't happen. Of course it happened. One of the reasons Guy Fawkes happened is because he wanted to return England back to the one true faith and get rid of the heretics. You had Catholic resistance for centuries.

ohnonotgmail

Stephen15 wrote: »

And when did I say they were reputable news sources

You described them as truthful. Are truthful news sources not normally reputable?
Is that not the basis of a news sources reputation?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Which truthful alternative sources are you referring to?

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

Sand

AfterLife wrote: »

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.

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

ohnonotgmail

Sand wrote: »

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

I dont see anybody here defending the other two. I do see plenty defending tommy.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

Nobody suggested equivalence. That's just a strawman.

Sand

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody suggested equivalence. That's just a strawman.

Even the UK state doesnt believe the crimes are equivalent. Umar Razaq served less than a year for raping a 13 year old. Razaq expresses no remorse and is clearly an ongoing threat to children.

Tommy Robinson will serve 13 months for standing outside a court. The UK establishment will continue to pursue Tommy Robinson for any charge they can drum up for as long as he continues to dissent.

The UK state (and indeed the people who despise Robinson) views Robinson as the greater criminal, so there is no equivalence. You are correct.

jooksavage

Taytoland wrote: »

So Bloody Mary didn't exist and the burning of Protestants didn't happen. Of course it happened. One of the reasons Guy Fawkes happened is because he wanted to return England back to the one true faith and get rid of the heretics. You had Catholic resistance for centuries.

We were drawing parallels between todays anti-Islam hysteria and 18-19TH CENTURY anti-Catholicism. You've dragged us all the way back to 1605 to support your argument.... which, FUNNILY ENOUGH, is exactly what the ringleaders of the Gordon riots reached for (and it was considered reaching even then). Turf mentioned Antonia Fraser earlier. Her book is the King and the Catholics. Recommended.

Sand

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see anybody here defending the other two. I do see plenty defending tommy.

The UK state paid one £651,000 and released the other after less than a year. The UK state relentlessly pursues Tommy Robinson for every misdemeanour, not matter how petty.

Do you really think I'm talking about who defends who on this thread? This thread is irrelevant.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

Even the UK state doesnt believe the crimes are equivalent. Umar Razaq served less than a year for raping a 13 year old. Razaq expresses no remorse and is clearly an ongoing threat to children.

Tommy Robinson will serve 13 months for standing outside a court. The UK establishment will continue to pursue Tommy Robinson for any charge they can drum up for as long as he continues to dissent.

The UK state (and indeed the people who despise Robinson) views Robinson as the greater criminal, so there is no equivalence. You are correct.

So let's clarify. Umar was sentenced to 3 and half years (originally four and a half but reduced on appeal). He was released after nine months because he had already served time while remanded in custody for his trial. Robinson was only sentenced to three months for his actions outside the court that day. The other ten are from his 10 month suspended sentence from before. And there is no way you can definitively say he will serve the full 13 months. It's very likely he won't. It seems like you've either got your facts wrong or deliberately misrepresented the facts. I'm open to correction though.

Omackeral

AfterLife wrote: »

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

Honestly? I've no issue with anyone following any customs/religion/way of life if it doesn't impact on anyone else's way of life. I've lived next door to Sri Lankans, people of the Muslim faith and only two weeks ago had a gay couple move in across the street. All of them have been fantastic folks so far. I love chatting about different languages, cuisines and sports etc from all different walks of life. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same experience. Thus far I honestly have had and I've enjoyed it.

Apparently that's not the case in parts of the UK though if you're to believe reports. There are others living over there better equipped to speak on their experiences. I'm sure there are plenty of scumbags that are inherently against anything and anyone different to themselves, you'll get that everywhere.

Anyway, I personally couldn't give a rats if you're white, black, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, from Cork, homosexual, straight whatever once you're a decent person.

Irish Praetorian

nicedryturf wrote: »

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.

1793 - pet topic

Unofficially a degree of illict recruiting had been going on since the first institution of the Penal Laws and by the 1770s Irish Catholics could even manage as junior officers (with the collusion of their superiors) but official permission was not granted until 1793.

nicedryturf

jooksavage wrote: »

Turf mentioned Antonia Fraser earlier. Her book is the King and the Catholics. Recommended.

Read this book!

Sand

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So let's clarify. Umar was sentenced to 3 and half years. He was released after nine months because he had already served time while remanded in custody for his trial. Robinson was only sentenced to three months for his actions outside the court that day. The other ten are from his 10 month suspended sentence from before. And there is no way you can definitively say he will serve the full 13 months. It's very likely he won't. It seems like you've either got your facts wrong or deliberately misrepresented the facts. I'm open to correction though.

I've not misrepresented any facts. Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old and was released in less than a year, free to pursue other children and taunt his victim on social media. He does not face a hostile environment from the UK state.

Tommy Robinson on the other hand is consistently pursued by UK authorities for any cause to arrest and imprison him.

There is a very clear distinction in the UK states approach to both. Of course, the real winner is Simons who not only faced no punishment but received £651,000 from UK tax payers.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

I've not misrepresented any facts. Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old and was released in less than a year, free to pursue other children. He does not face a hostile environment from the UK state.

Tommy Robinson on the other hand is consistently pursued by UK authorities for any cause to arrest and imprison him.

There is a very clear distinction in the UK states approach to both. Of course, the real winner is Simons who not only faced no punishment but received £651,000 from UK tax payers.

So you did it on purpose.

Sand

Point out what is untrue? Umar Razaq appealed his sentence, and was released less than a year after being convicted of raping a 13 year old girl. That is how little the UK state thinks of his crime. As I said, the UK state is very good at punishing dissent. Not so good at preventing children from being gang raped.

AfterLife

Sand wrote: »

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

Nothing. I'm also not bringing up Jack the Ripper in a thread that has **** all to do with him.

Sand

AfterLife wrote: »

Nothing. I'm also not bringing up Jack the Ripper in a thread that has **** all to do with him.

So let me ask you a question. Who do you think poses the greater risk to the UK public? Tommy Robinson or Umar Razaq?

nicedryturf

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

1793 - pet topic

Unofficially a degree of illict recruiting had been going on since the first institution of the Penal Laws and by the 1770s Irish Catholics could even manage as junior officers (with the collusion of their superiors) but official permission was not granted until 1793.

Thanks for the correction and the info! The more you know... :-)

AfterLife

Sand wrote: »

So let me ask you a question. Who do you think poses the greater risk to the UK public? Tommy Robinson or Umar Razaq?

In this case Razaq.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Robinson should be left unpunished for threatening a very serious court case?

dense

Interesting thoughts.

Irish Praetorian

nicedryturf wrote: »

Thanks for the correction and the info! The more you know... :-)

Al-right you've twisted my arm Ill explain more

In short, the ban was initially instituted in the early 1700s as a reaction to the defection of Irish Catholics in British service to the armies of European powers (predominately France) with Jacobite Irish units. Like a lot of the Penal Laws it tended only to be zealously enforced in times of peril like the Jacobite invasion of Scotland for example. As the cause of the Stuarts waned so did its necessity and by the time of the 7 Years war Catholics started to be enlisted covertly and quietly. As the decades proceeded you could even become a low ranking officers with a bit of collusion and assistance from your fellow officers. The early efforts to enlist Catholics in the 1770s were actually just changes in policy to not enquire about a soldier's religion. Then in 1793 it becomes nice and legal, which is the same time many of the army's historically Irish regiments trace their foundation to.

Ok enough learning, everyone back to talking about TR.

jooksavage

dense wrote: »

Interesting thoughts.

Kevin saw Morrissey's washed up zero-credibility celebrity routine and thought "I could do that!"

Dont know what subtracts more credibility from this - the terrible production (get a microphone that isnt built into your webcam ffs) or the fact its Kevin Sharkey. Hhmmm... the latter, probably.

A few months ago my wife told me FERGAL Sharkey (he of Undertones fame) had lost his mind and become some kind of anti-immigrant weirdo. i was heartbroken. When I realised the mix-up i was relieved and oddly, not all that surprised.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

Point out what is untrue? Umar Razaq appealed his sentence, and was released less than a year after being convicted of raping a 13 year old girl. That is how little the UK state thinks of his crime. As I said, the UK state is very good at punishing dissent. Not so good at preventing children from being gang raped.

You're presenting the information like Tommy Robinson got a significantly longer sentence than a child rapist for his actions outside the court when, in fact, he got a significantly shorter sentence. Robinson got 3 months and Umar got 42 months.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You're presenting the information like Tommy Robinson got a significantly longer sentence than a child rapist for his actions outside the court when, in fact, he got a significantly shorter sentence. Robinson got 3 months and Umar got 42 months.

42 months for raping a child, HTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

Thats the real question that is being brushed over.

jooksavage

deco nate wrote: »

42 months for raping a child, WTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

That the real question that is being brushed over.

Maybe start a thread about that then because it just looks awfully like youre using that to deflect away questions about Yaxley-Lennons offence by insisting we draw comparisons to the sentencing in this thread.

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

42 months for raping a child, HTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

Thats the real question that is being brushed over.

No it isn't. It's just not relevant to Robinsons guilt. There's been plenty of threads in AH over the years about lenient sentences for offenders.

deco nate

jooksavage wrote: »

Maybe start a thread about that then because it just looks awfully like youre using that to deflect away questions about Yaxley-Lennons offence by insisting we draw comparisons to the sentencing in this thread.

GET out of it, it has every thing to do with it. Its an insight into why people are supporting tr. Good try though.
Why should I start a new thread. Of course it's why people are angry /supporting tr. Just because of bs like this.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No it isn't. It's just not relevant to Robinsons guilt. There's been plenty of threads in AH over the years about lenient sentences for offenders.

You yourself compared the two, they are both relevant. If discussing Tommy Robinson and the reasoning behind him being how he is. then yes both sentences are relevant.

pitifulgod

deco nate wrote: »

GET out of it, it has every thing to do with it. Its an insight into why people are supporting tr. Good try though

You seem to be under the impression that bad sentencing is unique to Muslims. In Ireland we've had judges give suspended sentences for attempted rape as the damage to reputation would be bad enough. Rape sentencing in general is terrible here. I don't actually have a problem with Robinson's sentence btw. Messing with trials and rules around them is pretty serious.

deco nate

pitifulgod wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that bad sentencing is unique to Muslims. In Ireland we've had judges give suspended sentences for attempted rape as the damage to reputation would be bad enough. Rape sentencing in general is terrible here. I don't actually have a problem with Robinson's sentence btw. Messing with trials and rules around them is pretty serious.

I don't either, but we are not talking about Ireland.

Btw you linked Muslims grooming gangs and Irish pedos together there.

i wonder what grooming Irish gangs you are going to link to.... Let me think....

pitifulgod

deco nate wrote: »

I don't either, but we are not talking about Ireland.

Btw you linked Muslims grooming gangs and Irish pedos together there.

i wonder what grooming Irish gangs you are going to link to.... Let me think....

Do you think sexual crimes having lenient sentencing is unique to Ireland? They've literally introduced a scheme in the UK to deal with incredibly lenient sentencing but that doesn't catch all. So complain about lenient sentencing but it has nothing to do with Tommy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-sentences-attorney-general-unduly-lenient-sentence-scheme-rapist-murderer-terror-offences-a7867351.html

I referred to rapes, not Irish pedophiles. Honestly the fact you treat the subject so lightly isn't filling me with confidence that you're remotely concerned.

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

You yourself compared the two, they are both relevant. If discussing Tommy Robinson and the reasoning behind him being how he is. then yes both sentences are relevant.

I didn't compare them. Someone else did and I pointed out how much information he left out from the comparison and how their comparison was incorrect. The other case has absolutely no connection to what Robinson was locked up for.

deco nate

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you think sexual crimes having lenient sentencing is unique to Ireland? They've literally introduced a scheme in the UK to deal with incredibly lenient sentencing but that doesn't catch all. So complain about lenient sentencing but it has nothing to do with Tommy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prison-sentences-attorney-general-unduly-lenient-sentence-scheme-rapist-murderer-terror-offences-a7867351.html

I referred to rapes, not Irish pedophiles. Honestly the fact you treat the subject so lightly isn't filling me with confidence that you're remotely concerned.

Nice edit

AllForIt

Sand wrote: »

Even the UK state doesnt believe the crimes are equivalent. Umar Razaq served less than a year for raping a 13 year old. Razaq expresses no remorse and is clearly an ongoing threat to children.

Tommy Robinson will serve 13 months for standing outside a court. The UK establishment will continue to pursue Tommy Robinson for any charge they can drum up for as long as he continues to dissent.

The UK state (and indeed the people who despise Robinson) views Robinson as the greater criminal, so there is no equivalence. You are correct.

As Melanie Phillips points out in this video which is 12 years old, the attitude seems to be that anything Muslims do which is bad in the west is all our fault, the West's fault and that apparently includes the reasons why the gangs target Western white girls rather than girls from from their own cultural background.

Yes, we are being told that permissive western culture and values have somehow antagonised young Muslim males to the point that it should be taken as a mitigating factor for their actions. Even when sentences are appropriate it is still though that it is in some way our fault.

And this fits in with the treatment of TA. Because he's one of us, he's what's at the rotten core of western values that has somehow caused all these problems in the first place and he must be seen to be treated harshly as is it were to indicate a new found scene of fairness in western society. Baloney.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I didn't compare them. Someone else did and I pointed out how much information he left out from the comparison and how their comparison was incorrect. The other case has absolutely no connection to what Robinson was locked up for.

It has all to do with why he is protesting all this time.
And why is prepared to go to jail. Seems to be lost on a lot of people. Stupid for disobeying a court order yes.

ohnonotgmail

Sand wrote: »

The UK state paid one £651,000 and released the other after less than a year. The UK state relentlessly pursues Tommy Robinson for every misdemeanour, not matter how petty.

Do you really think I'm talking about who defends who on this thread? This thread is irrelevant.

He committed contempt of court on camera outside the court in front of many witnesses. Not a lot of pursuing required. I cant understand how people on this thread can admire somebody so thick.

Duck Soup

That, in a nutshell, is Tommy Robinson.

pitifulgod

deco nate wrote: »

Nice edit

I edited to add in a response to your own additional paragraph that you edited in... Would seem that you have no desire to discuss sentencing in general though...

Grayson

deco nate wrote: »

42 months for raping a child, HTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

Thats the real question that is being brushed over.

It's got to be because of sentencing guidelines. It seemed low to me too but I don't know the case. There might have been mitigating factors (I can't think of any except giving a guilty plea, but they might exist).

I also found this

Umar Razaq, of Oxford Street, Rotherham, was found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a child - a 13-year-old girl.

He was cleared of raping another girl.

On this page I found this
https://theukdatabase.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/facts-and-stats-on-child-abuse/sentences-explained-for-sexual-crimes/
sexual activity with a child Sexual Offences Act 2003 s. 16 5 years

The reason for the 5 years appears to be because of the age. 13 is a particular threshold. Under 13 the sentence is a lot higher. 13 and older is a different sentence. It's also different to rape from what I can tell. It's more like statutory rape. I'd imagine he wasn't charged with rape because they couldn't get it to stick. Most likely the girl said it was consensual at first. (Note: I'm absolutely not excusing anything because she might have consented or they couldn't prove she didn't. It's still a crime for a very good reason and I think that the sentence should be higher. I'm just pointing out that because of a technicality, 13 years and potentially "consensual", that's why it was a lower sentence).

So in getting 4 years he came close to the max the judge could give him.

It's kind of nuts that someone could abuse a girl the day before her 13th birthday and get put away for ages but wait a day and it's 5 years.

If you take a look at the page I linked, you'll see huge disparity in some sentences. And some are way outdated. Detention of a woman in a brothel is 2 years (1956). That's sexual slavery and it's 2 years. and Meeting child following sexual grooming is 10 years, and that's before any assault takes place. It's 2 years for exposing yourself the same for "Intercourse with a defective"

I'm wondering if some are superseded by later offenses.

But about 90% of that is way outside the scope of this thread.

WinnyThePoo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He committed contempt of court on camera outside the court in front of many witnesses. Not a lot of pursuing required. I cant understand how people on this thread can admire somebody so thick.

I think they admire his thickness. They don't care that he broke the law or that he could have caused a mistrial or that he pleaded guilty to the crime. Him getting angry and shouting at people , that's more important.

dense

Sand wrote: »

Point out what is untrue? Umar Razaq appealed his sentence, and was released less than a year after being convicted of raping a 13 year old girl. That is how little the UK state thinks of his crime. As I said, the UK state is very good at punishing dissent. Not so good at preventing children from being gang raped.

It's interesting that in this thread many are effectively defending a particular faith and a particular establishment/jurisdiction which they have precious little experience of, and, in the referendum threads, at every opportunity and with some relish, far less respect was being shown shown for another particular faith and establishment.

When exactly was the UK establishment and judicial system put on a pedestal that it so revered here?

We must have short memories.

That said, Robinson did behave stupidly and some might say dangerously, ignoring a warning and proceeding to do what he did.

And for that, he deserves to be punished.

But the sentence......it seems not appropriate to the crime.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You're presenting the information like Tommy Robinson got a significantly longer sentence than a child rapist for his actions outside the court when, in fact, he got a significantly shorter sentence. Robinson got 3 months and Umar got 42 months.

Just to get the facts right, tr got 13 months, not 3...

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

It has all to do with why he is protesting all this time.
And why is prepared to go to jail. Seems to be lost on a lot of people. Stupid for disobeying a court order yes.

No, it had nothing to do with this protest. If he was protesting the people who got away with abusing children what good is doing it outside of a trial against people who are being prosecuted for it? What is the logic there?

deco nate wrote: »

Just to get the facts right, tr got 13 months, not 3...

My understanding is he got three and it was added to the 10 month he previously had suspended because it was committed while he was on a suspended sentence.

ohnonotgmail

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, it had nothing to do with this protest. If he was protesting the people who got away with abusing children what good is doing it outside of a trial against people who are being prosecuted for it? What is the logic there?






My understanding is he got three and it was added to the 10 month he previously had suspended because it was committed while he was on a suspended sentence.

No i think he got 10 months plus the 3 month suspended sentence that was activated.

FTA69

Stephen15 wrote: »

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.

The BNP aren't fascists? Give over. They were a violent, street-based party based on white purity and their leader used to write pamphlets denying the Holocaust for f*ck's sake. Both them and Generation Identity believe in an ethnically homogenous Europe with the encouragement of non-whites to leave. When your policies are concerned with racial homogenity then you're well into fascism.

The above are groups Robinson was in or currently supports.

https://www.generation-identity.org.uk/demands/

Likewise for people saying Robinson only read out Sellner's speech on free speech grounds - of all the cases of free speech the one he had to take up was that of an Austrian racist? The two of them are actually good mates by the way.

https://mobile.twitter.com/lucyfrown/status/923494618100125696?lang=en

Lastly, of course Tommy Robinson deserved his sentence - some of which was for breaching a previous suspended sentence. Imagine if a relative of yours was raped and then some professional attention seeker lands down outside the court with a camera potentially jeopardising the conviction of the people who did it? All for a bit of Facebook coverage.

20Cent

Generation Identity are definetly fascist. Slick videos clean cut young people. Not all these scumbags wear bomber jackets with swastika tattoos. They are trying to normalise hate and are organising themselves even have training camps dangerous group should be resisted.

thebull85

For anyone not familiar with Generation Identity,


WHO OR WHAT IS GENERATION IDENTITY?

Generation Identity (in some countries, ‘Identitarian Movement’) is a Europe-wide patriotic youth movement that promotes the values of homeland, freedom and tradition through peaceful activism, political education, and community & cultural activities. We want to create an awareness for a metapolitical patriotic value base.

The crucial questions of the 21st century will be asked in the field of identity politics. Accordingly, we, as patriotic Europeans, have to acknowledge that the current demographic situation is unfavourable for the indigenous population and that we expect many ethnic, cultural and religious conflicts unless there is a political rethink.

We aim to preserve the cultural heritage that has characterized our countries and the continent of Europe over many thousands of years. We do not want to break this chain.
That is why we see it as our mission to argue for a peaceful and secure future within Europe.

We continue along the path forged by the ethno-cultural tradition of our ancestors.

UNDERSTAND THE FACTS

We are a non-violent youth movement that highlights the need for open and honest public debate about immigration policies, identity and the future of our nations and of Europe.

Our three core aims are:

Stop the Islamisation of EuropeOppose globalisationStop and reverse the Great Replacement

Please read our FAQs and Demands pages to learn more about our movement.

Generation Identity does not provide a platform for any kind of national-socialist or fascist groups or views. We also do not get involved with conflicts outside of Europe.

FTA69

So they believe in an ethnically pure Europe and want to “reverse migrate” legal migrants and their descendants. Sellner has spoken of preserving “biological heritage”. Yeah, nothing fascistic about that at all.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/generation-identity-far-right-group-training-camps-europe-uk-recruits-military-white-nationalist-a8046641.html%3famp

Here’s some of their leaders ranting about the “Pakis”. I’m sure your mate Tommy is in good company with them and his Loyalist friends in Belfast giving Nazi salutes.

You would seriously want to be an utter joker if you’re an Irishman defending this sort of sh*t.

thebull85

FTA69 wrote: »

So they believe in an ethnically pure Europe and want to “reverse migrate” legal migrants and their descendants. Sellner has spoken of preserving “biological heritage”. Yeah, nothing fascistic about that at all.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/generation-identity-far-right-group-training-camps-europe-uk-recruits-military-white-nationalist-a8046641.html%3famp

Here’s some of their leaders ranting about the “Pakis”. I’m sure your mate Tommy is in good company with them and his Loyalist friends in Belfast giving Nazi salutes.

You would seriously want to be an utter joker if you’re an Irishman defending this sort of sh*t.

Ive seen that, personally i dont think paki is a racist word and a lot of pakistanis ive met and worked with have described themselves as paki, lets be real here why is it ok to call an austrailian an aussie, or a british person a brit.

But you cant call a pakistani a paki?

Its bull****.

Why shouldnt European people want to preserve their culture?


I remember being in school 20 years ago and a teacher telling us, one day there will be no white people (She said it like it was a good thing by the way).

dav3

thebull85 wrote: »

For anyone not familiar with Generation Identity,

Never heard of them.

They do sound like nutters all right.