Tommy Robinson jailed

end of the road

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So like Trump's travel ban then.

not like trump's travel bann no.
trump's travel bann effected muslims in general, bar from saudi arabia, and that is what it was designed to do. it was thankfully found to be unconstitutional a number of times.

Omackeral

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If there is a string of incidents of robberies being committed by people wearing burkas then i am sure they will consider adding burkas to the signs.

Sound. I Agree. Still, kinda negates the point that others were making here saying that you can waltz around a shopping centre willy nilly in a hoodie. Ya can't really.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If there is a string of incidents of robberies being committed by people wearing burkas then i am sure they will consider adding burkas to the signs.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/04/suspect-burqa-counter-terror-restrictions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209006/Jewellers-robbery-Oxfordshire-burka-clad-man--150-000-designer-watches-stolen.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537414/Murder-suspect-fled-under-Muslim-veil.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-409376/Man-dons-burka-flee-anti-terror-police.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4485004/Gang-dressed-burkas-jailed-230-years.html

So, any day now then yeah ? I'll not hold my breath.

Omackeral

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So, any day now then yeah ? I'll not hold my breath.

You'll probably be called out for linking to Daily Mail and that's about it.

end of the road

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So, any day now then yeah ? I'll not hold my breath.

no because if it wasn't the burka it would have been something else. these people were going to hide their identity no matter what, using whatever they could. therefore a burka bann wouldn't make a difference. it would be wasting resources.

PlaneSpeeking

Omackeral wrote: »

You'll probably be called out for linking to Daily Mail and that's about it.

There's a Grauniad link too but why spoil their predictable fun ?

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

no because if it wasn't the burka it would have been something else. these people were going to hide their identity no matter what, using whatever they could. therefore a burka bann wouldn't make a difference. it would be wasting resources.

If it's not a hoodie it'll be something else. Why ban hoodies? If it's not a helmet it'll be something else. Why ban helmets.

PlaneSpeeking

end of the road wrote: »

no because if it wasn't the burka it would have been something else. these people were going to hide their identity no matter what, using whatever they could. therefore a burka bann wouldn't make a difference. it would be wasting resources.

Oh that is pure comedy gold that.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So, any day now then yeah ? I'll not hold my breath.

4 incidents in the UK. I believe most of us here are not in the UK. How many incidents do you think i could find of people wearing motorbike helmets, balaclavas or with hoodies up doing the same thing ? More than 4 perhaps?

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

There's a Grauniad link too but why spoil their predictable fun ?

It is actually a telegraph link. Did you even read the links you posted? Did you read the part in that link where there are existing powers in airports to stop this happening?

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is actually a telegraph link. Did you even read the links you posted? Did you read the part in that link where there are existing powers in airports to stop this happening?

Comprehension fail there eh ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2013/nov/04/terror-suspect-mohammed-ahmed-burqa-cctv-video

Now try to read my post about the link eh ? Post #2107, save you a job.

DickSwiveller Returns

Thinking about it some more I probably wouldn't ban it. I don't think security concerns are justified. I haven't heard of a spate of muslim women robbing shops. I'm always disturbed how defensive some posters get when it comes to the burqa. Are they not perturbed when they see a woman walking around in boiling heat covered head to toe? I was walking near the Mosque in Clonskeagh a few weeks ago and all the women were walking behind the men, covered head to toe in the boiling heat. There is something slightly unnerving about it.

PlaneSpeeking

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Thinking about it some more I probably wouldn't ban it. I don't think security concerns are justified. I haven't heard of a spate of muslim women robbing shops. I'm always disturbed how defensive some posters get when it comes to the burqa. Are they not perturbed when they see a woman walking around in boiling heat covered head to toe? I was walking near the Mosque in Clonskeagh a few weeks ago and all the women were walking behind the men, covered head to toe in the boiling heat. There is something slightly unnerving about it.

It's almost worth keeping to see the feminists defend outright misogyny when ot's right in front of them.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Comprehension fail there eh ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2013/nov/04/terror-suspect-mohammed-ahmed-burqa-cctv-video

Now try to read my post about the link eh ? Post #2107, save you a job.

ah you managed to **** up the link. good job.

Grayson

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Thinking about it some more I probably wouldn't ban it. I don't think security concerns are justified. I haven't heard of a spate of muslim women robbing shops. I'm always disturbed how defensive some posters get when it comes to the burqa. Are they not perturbed when they see a woman walking around in boiling heat covered head to toe? I was walking near the Mosque in Clonskeagh a few weeks ago and all the women were walking behind the men, covered head to toe in the boiling heat. There is something slightly unnerving about it.

I think there's two ways to look at it.

1) It's a symbol of womens oppression. That is true in saudi. And if someone family is forcing them to wear it, that's bad. But I don't know if banning it would force any change.

2) It's their choice. For many it is their choice. Some say it brings them closer to god. Some enjoy the lack of attention it brings. But it's still their choice. And I think banning a woman from wearing a piece of clothing is as bad as forcing them to wear it.

Plus it makes it seem like it's part of a war on muslims. A way to target them and make their lives more difficult.

And btw, I can certainly understand certain places where it would have to be removed, well the head portion anyway, like at airport security etc.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

ah you managed to **** up the link. good job.

No dear boy - READ the post.

I had a Grauniad link, I decided not to post it so you could all have your predictable fun calling out DM links.

Not rocket science this. Simple comprehension.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No dear boy - READ the post.

I had a Grauniad link, I decided not to post it so you could all have your predictable fun calling out DM links.

Not rocket science this. Simple comprehension.

so you decided not to post it by posting it?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/04/suspect-burqa-counter-terror-restrictions

DickSwiveller Returns

Grayson wrote: »

I think there's two ways to look at it.

1) It's a symbol of womens oppression. That is true in saudi. And if someone family is forcing them to wear it, that's bad. But I don't know if banning it would force any change.

2) It's their choice. For many it is their choice. Some say it brings them closer to god. Some enjoy the lack of attention it brings. But it's still their choice. And I think banning a woman from wearing a piece of clothing is as bad as forcing them to wear it.

Plus it makes it seem like it's part of a war on muslims. A way to target them and make their lives more difficult.

And btw, I can certainly understand certain places where it would have to be removed, well the head portion anyway, like at airport security etc.

Ye, I agree with that. It's complicated.

end of the road

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Thinking about it some more I probably wouldn't ban it. I don't think security concerns are justified. I haven't heard of a spate of muslim women robbing shops. I'm always disturbed how defensive some posters get when it comes to the burqa. Are they not perturbed when they see a woman walking around in boiling heat covered head to toe? I was walking near the Mosque in Clonskeagh a few weeks ago and all the women were walking behind the men, covered head to toe in the boiling heat. There is something slightly unnerving about it.

yeah i agree. i have no time for the birka myself. however as much as it may seem strange to me, there will be women for whatever reason, who choose to wear it. if we could know who is being forced to wear it, and prosecute those who are forcing them to wear it, then that would be great, but i'm not sure it would really be possible to know if someone is being forced to wear it, unless they say so.

AllForIt

I wonder if this is the court case Tommy Robinson real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon was reporting on.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45193514

Thirty men and one woman have been charged with offences linked to child sexual exploitation in Huddersfield.


West Yorkshire Police said the accused who can be named are:

Banaras Hussain 37, of Shipley, charged with one count of rape of a female over 16
Banaris Hussain, 35, of Huddersfield, charged with one count of rape of a girl aged 13-15
Mohammed Suhail Arif, 30, of Huddersfield, charged with rape of girl aged 13-15
Iftikar Ali, 37, of Huddersfield, charged with attempted rape of girl aged 13-15 and three counts of rape of a girl aged 13-15
Mohammed Sajjad, 31, of Huddersfield, charged with four counts of rape of a female age 13-15, one rape of a girl under 13 and facilitating the commission of a child sex offence
Fehreen Rafiq, 38, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of facilitating the commission of a child sex offence
Umar Zaman, 30, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15
Basharat Hussain, 31, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15
Amin Ali Choli, 36, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of rape of a female over 16-years-old
Shaqeel Hussain, 35, of Dewsbury, charged with rape of a female aged 13-15 and two counts of trafficking
Mubasher Hussain, 35, of Huddersfield, charged with rape of a female aged 13-15 and sexual assault
Abdul Majid, 34, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of rape of female aged 13-15
Mohammed Dogar, 35, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of facilitating the commission of child sex offence
Usman Ali, 32, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15
Mohammed Waqas Anwar, 29, of Huddersfield, charged with five counts of rape of a female aged 13-15
Gul Riaz, 42, of Huddersfield, charged with rape of a female aged 13-15
Mohammed Akram, 41, of Huddersfield, charged with two counts of trafficking with a view to sexual exploitation of a female and rape of a female aged 14-15
Manzoor Akhtar, 29, of Huddersfield, charged with trafficking and three counts of rape of a female aged 13-15
Samuel Fikru, 30, of Camden, charged with two counts of rape of a female aged 13-15

The media arn't making much of a deal of this breaking news thus far which is a bit a bit strange. Maybe it's because 5 of the named go by the first name of Mohammad.

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

I wonder if this is the court case Tommy Robinson real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon was reporting on.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45193514




The media arn't making much of a deal of this breaking news thus far which is a bit a bit strange. Maybe it's because 5 of the named go by the first name of Mohammad.

you included a link to the BBC. what do you expect them to do other than publish the story?

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you included a link to the BBC. what do you expect them to do other than publish the story?

Have it as one of their top stories on the TV news which they don't (I checked before I posted) and neither does Sky News. That answer your question adequately?

Grayson

AllForIt wrote: »

Have it as one of their top stories on the TV news which they don't (I checked before I posted) and neither does Sky News. That answer your question adequately?

It's on the front page of their UK news and it's the same for the guardian. I had to change it to the Uk edition because it defaults to the international version for me in Ireland

The Backwards Man

AllForIt wrote: »

Have it as one of their top stories on the TV news which they don't (I checked before I posted) and neither does Sky News. That answer your question adequately?

There are over 50,000 cases of child sexual abuse recorded in the UK every year. How many of them make the top story on the TV news?

Surely someone as concerned about victims as yourself would be in permanent apoplexy at this?

PlaneSpeeking

Grayson wrote: »

It's on the front page of their UK news and it's the same for the guardian. I had to change it to the Uk edition because it defaults to the international version for me in Ireland

Sky News home page have nothing.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sky News home page have nothing.

Complain to Sky.

PlaneSpeeking

The Backwards Man wrote: »

There are over 50,000 cases of child sexual abuse recorded in the UK every year. How many of them make the top story on the TV news?

Surely someone as concerned about victims as yourself would be in permanent apoplexy at this?

And as horrific as that stat is - this is yet another example of a particular demographic targeting underage white girls.

All cases of abuse have to be exposed - if gangs of Galway men were roaming round in organised "rape gangs" then Hell yes it should be front page when the filthy animals were convicted.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Complain to Sky.

Been done by many, endlessly - pointless. They have an agenda.

I couldn't care less who the perpetrators of a crime are, something as sickening as this needs to be front page.

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Been done by many, endlessly - pointless. They have an agenda.

I couldn't care less who the perpetrators of a crime are, something as sickening as this needs to be front page.

the story only broke today. Most of their front page is taken up with the terror attack yesterday.

The Backwards Man

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I couldn't care less who the perpetrators of a crime are.

We believe you.

PlaneSpeeking

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the story only broke today. Most of their front page is taken up with the terror attack yesterday.

Fair point, still breaking that. Cheers.

Also OT I know but just seen a boat sank in Egypt, 20 odd dead - after the Italy bridge it's a heartbreaking couple of days.

Captain Obvious

AllForIt wrote: »

I wonder if this is the court case Tommy Robinson real name Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon was reporting on.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45193514




The media arn't making much of a deal of this breaking news thus far which is a bit a bit strange. Maybe it's because 5 of the named go by the first name of Mohammad.

The case Robinsons was jeopardising was nearing it's conclusion. Sounds like this one is only beginning. Could be related in some way, like the other case Robinson jeopardised was.

Timberrrrrrrr

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And as horrific as that stat is - this is yet another example of a particular demographic targeting underage white girls.

All cases of abuse have to be exposed - if gangs of Galway men were roaming round in organised "rape gangs" then Hell yes it should be front page when the filthy animals were convicted.

Obviously never been in coppers on all Ireland weekend!*





*It's a joke!!!!

Yer Da sells Avon

Tommy's been arrested again.

https://twitter.com/RochdaleHerald/status/1030786479247843330

thebull85

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Tommy's been arrested again.

https://twitter.com/RochdaleHerald/status/1030786479247843330

Links not working for me, whats the story?

ExoPolitic

thebull85 wrote: »

Links not working for me, whats the story?

Some of that fake news...

Abel Ruiz

thebull85 wrote: »

Links not working for me, whats the story?

Its a silly joke.
Rubbish, nothing to see here

TomSweeney

https://youtu.be/UYrYfOHTsYg

When confronted they just don't have any answers or evidence.

FTA69

"How am I far right?"

You were a member of two far right organisations, including one which used to deny the Holocaust. You had a rally in favour of a man whose organisation wants to deport non-whites from Europe and was recently subject to a Channel 4 exposé where they were filmed ranting about "Pakis". The same organisation is openly welcomed at all his demos and events. He also has had brief flirtations with Loyalists in Ireland.

So of course, expressing concern and criticism about Islam isn't in itself far right; leading mobs that engage in violence and blanketly categorising all Muslims as "enemy combatants" probably could be.

Captain Obvious

FTA69 wrote: »

"How am I far right?"

You were a member of two far right organisations, including one which used to deny the Holocaust. You had a rally in favour of a man whose organisation wants to deport non-whites from Europe and was recently subject to a Channel 4 exposé where they were filmed ranting about "Pakis". The same organisation is openly welcomed at all his demos and events. He also has had brief flirtations with Loyalists in Ireland.

So of course, expressing concern and criticism about Islam isn't in itself far right; leading mobs that engage in violence and blanketly categorising all Muslims as "enemy combatants" probably could be.

Yeah but apart from all that?

deco nate

Sky interview Edit...

https://youtu.be/iYA3Wyes6As




And the full interview tbh, that interviewer should have had all the facts in front of him. But no kept saying I don't know this/have any facts in front of me. That's his fecking job!.... Link.



https://youtu.be/JEBdSc8WLY8

Chris_Heilong

Here is a shorter vid outlining it.

This is the perfect example of why you can not trust mainstream media, they are shaping a narrative and not actually reporting the truth. I think even the anti-Robinson posters here can admit that this is wrong.

thebull85

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOgY2QH6Jec

How is there people out there that still use Sky "News" as their news source.

Captain Obvious

thebull85 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOgY2QH6Jec

How is there people out there that still use Sky "News" as their news source.

Who is your source?

gw80

Thumble weed.
It would stick in the craw of some people to agree with TR.

thebull85

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Who is your source?

Usually BBC, i dont like skys tabloid style breaking news and reporting first asking questions later. They often get storys completley wrong.

BBC are a little slower but are usually more factually accurate.

Captain Obvious

thebull85 wrote: »

Usually BBC, i dont like skys tabloid style breaking news and reporting first asking questions later. They often get storys completley wrong.

BBC are a little slower but are usually more factually accurate.

I think Tommy will have a problem with his lawsuit. Although Sky News did not quote his words, all they really have to do is show that his views and those in the video are the same and it sounds like they are.

thebull85

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I think Tommy will have a problem with his lawsuit. Although Sky News did not quote his words, all they really have to do is show that his views and those in the video are the same and it sounds like they are.

I agree with you on the lawsuit, but its clear Sky News were underhanded here in their editing of that interview, trying to fool people.

Captain Obvious

Looks like Tommy has cost a few cadets their uniforms.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45805285

Omackeral

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Looks like Tommy has cost a few cadets their uniforms.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45805285

That is a nothing 'story'.