Religious hate-speech in the UK or fearless speaker of truth?

recedite

But who did the seeking here, was it the girls or the grooming gangs?


Were these fine gentlemen just going about their business in "the night- time economy," working away, as is their wont, when these miserable starving native girls sought them out, tempting the Pakistani gentlemen to spend some of their "low income"* on food, alcohol and drugs.





* according to smacl's last post

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

to spare me reading over 200 posts - has there been any consensus reached over whether tommy robinson is a hateful **** stirrer or not?

To summarize, I believe there are basically two groups of individuals posting in this thread.

The first group contains individuals who appear to believe that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is an honest, generous, and truthful journalist, albeit one who can - through no fault of his own - be mislead by malevolently satirical websites.

The second group appears to believe that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is an unceasingly uncivil, neofascist, shit-stirring tosspot.

The first group consists of just one poster. The second group consists of everybody else.

Please do reply inthread if anybody feels that the above amounts to a misrepresentative summary of the current discussion.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

To summarize, I believe there are basically two groups of individuals posting in this thread.

The first group contains individuals who appear to believe that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is an honest, generous, and truthful journalist, albeit one who can - through no fault of his own - be mislead by malevolently satirical websites.

The second group appears to believe that Mr Yaxley-Lennon is an unceasingly uncivil, neofascist, shit-stirring tosspot.

The first group consists of just one poster. The second group consists of everybody else.

Please do reply inthread if anybody feels that the above amounts to a misrepresentative summary of the current discussion.

Quite a reasonable synopsis, I think.
In the world of social media, its more important to be liked than to be right.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

But who did the seeking here, was it the girls or the grooming gangs?


Were these fine gentlemen just going about their business in "the night- time economy," working away, as is their wont, when these miserable starving native girls sought them out, tempting the Pakistani gentlemen to spend some of their "low income"* on food, alcohol and drugs.





* according to smacl's last post

Nobody has said that.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Quite a reasonable synopsis, I think.

Glad you agree :pac:

King Mob

recedite wrote: »

Its more a case of having the wrong people in high office...

Ok, but again that's not really relevant to the questions I asked you and is more of a deflection and rant to disguise the fact you are ignoring my questions.

You are accusing all Asian and Muslim judges and other high officials of being corrupt and essentially unfit to do their duty.
What basis do you have to conclude this?
Do you have examples of Asian/Muslim etc judges showing an unfair bias or otherwise abusing their powers to help their fellows?

If you are not accusing All Asian /Muslim judges, could you detail who you are referring to?

If you aren't going to address these points, and let's face it, you won't, could you at least explain why your conspiracy theory here isn't racist

recedite wrote: »

so why do you reckon the 30 burly Pakistani gentlemen were allowed to protest outside Jamal's school, until they were let inside to have a word with the headmaster? And why such solidarity between British Pakistanis and a Syrian family?

Is the answer big giant liberal/Muslim conspiracy?

Why do you expect me to answer your deflecting question when you've done naught but dodge and deflect and ignore mine and after you falsely accused me of not replying?

Obi_Wan_Kenobi

smacl wrote: »

I think he's asking reasonable questions but am of the opinion that Perigrinus' post here dealt with this well when I raised a similar question. The problem is one of assuming that the correlation is direct and unique. So for example the above post is concerned about over representation of Pakistanis in sex crime, whereas there may well be very many other common social factors that correlate to sex crime, e.g. education levels, employment levels, low income etc... which may also correlate at similar or higher rates. If these other social factors are more prevalent among Pakistanis than non-Pakistanis, Pakistanis will be over represented in this type of crime. Having an anti-Islamic group such as Pegida suggesting it is because they are Muslim is an unusual and clearly biased assertion that demands rather more proof to be taken seriously. In my opinion, the likes of Tommy Robinson seek to demonise and ghettoise all Muslims in the UK, which in turn pushes them into the demographic that is more likely to commit crime. Have a read up on the race riots in the Paris banlieus to get an idea of how this is likely to pan out if people take heed of these far right bigots. Even in the UK, they have that before in Brixton and Toxdeth, and I'd imagine very few people want to see it repeated.

So nothing to do with the way women are treated in the Islamic world ?
or that the Koran allows you to take sex slaves from the non believers ?


Nothing at all ?


And they see Muslim women bad enough that they need to wear a veil in the middle east, they see western women as pure trash

Obi_Wan_Kenobi

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, firstly you'd have to ask if the number of Asian child abusers is large enough to derive statistically signficant information from it. Then you'd have to ask whether any correlation is in fact due to some other characteristic - for example, if child sex abusers are over-represented in the C and D socioeconomic classes and if Asians are also overrepresented in those classes (NB I have no idea if either of these things is true) then you'd expect Asians to be overrepresented in the child abuser group, but this wouild be an artefact of social class, not ethnicity. Finally, I repeat the question asked earlier as to why we are even looking at the information. Do we study whether brown-eyed persons are over-represented among child abusers, or left-handed persons, or followers of Leicester City? No? So why the fixation on Asians? I mean, we know why the likes of Tommy Robinson are fixated on Asians, but should we follow his lead?

No one is saying it's about ethnicity, rather attitudes in the Islamic world toward womem and in particular western women - this is a cornerstone of the over representation - something you "liberals" ( ) constantly overlook.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

But who did the seeking here, was it the girls or the grooming gangs?


Were these fine gentlemen just going about their business in "the night- time economy," working away, as is their wont, when these miserable starving native girls sought them out, tempting the Pakistani gentlemen to spend some of their "low income"* on food, alcohol and drugs.





* according to smacl's last post

As already pointed out, nobody has posted such a remark.

smacl

Obi_Wan_Kenobi wrote: »

So nothing to do with the way women are treated in the Islamic world ?
or that the Koran allows you to take sex slaves from the non believers ?


Nothing at all ?


And they see Muslim women bad enough that they need to wear a veil in the middle east, they see western women as pure trash

We clearly don't know, though we need more than empty rhetoric to support an assertion than religion is a significant factor here, over other factors such as access, opportunity, long term racial discrimination, degree of social deprivation, etc... Same goes for racial background, where it is worth remembering where Pakistan came from in the first place having been part of the British empire, and that the UK has been Paki bashing for over 50 years. I'd guess this is more likely to increase tensions and degree of antipathy than anything written in the Koran.

I agree that Islam is a deeply anti-egalitarian, homophobic and often misogynistic religion, and personally have no time for it on that basis. To me it is reminiscent of Catholicism in this country a few short decades ago, where we were also have had various, erm.. issues, with our nearest neighbours and ex lord and master. In case you haven't noticed, we've got over that shít but it wasn't by having it beaten out of us by hard right wing ultra-conservatives. I don't have much time for Catholicism either, for much the same reason that I don't like Islam, but look how far we've come as a Catholic country in the last few decades and ask yourself what will Islam in Europe look like given similar opportunity. Given we're on an atheist forum I hope you realise that people are more than their religion or country of origin for that matter.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

In the world of social media, its more important to be liked than to be right.

Seems to be very much the game that Tommy Robinson / Yaxley Lennon is playing. Why deal with all the awkward complexities of truth when you can tell the simple lies that your audience wants to hear? Kind of ironic in an atheist forum if you think about it

AllForIt

https://news.sky.com/story/sajid-javid-people-offended-by-asian-paedophile-comment-oversensitive-11547909


Sajid Javid on being the first minister to publicly acknowledging the existence of Pakistani rape gangs:

"When I made that comment I was stating the facts, and the sad truth is that if you look at recent high-profile convictions of gang-based child sexual exploitation there is a majority of people that come from Pakistani heritage backgrounds - that's plain for everyone to see".

And not only that but finally admits that it was precisely their ethnicity that assisted them in getting away with it:

"part of the problem" was that police and social workers "didn't take this issue seriously enough because they didn't want to be accused of racism and that's wrong".

You see, that is why ppl are so angry. It's not about racism, it's about the do-gooders who think they are protecting a race but are in fact just adding to the problems and in fact making them much worse. They are the ppl I'm gunning for, not the Pakistanis.

His Labour shadow, Diane Abbott, was among those to criticise the post, saying that "attempts by… the government to attribute these crimes to one ethnic group does nothing to support these vulnerable women".

And there is an example of one of these deluded do-gooders. A very easy target to go after is ole Diane Abbot but useful for my post.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6437385/Police-hit-Diane-Abbott-criticises-ramming-moped-gangs.html

Ms Abbott tweeted: 'Knocking people off bikes is potentially very dangerous. It shouldn't be legal for anyone. Police are not above the law.'

And here she is again in the same mode doing everything she can to distract from the race of the underclass who are involved in moped and knife crime, the majority of which happen to be black.

In Diana Abbots mind anything that could be interpreted as targeting any racial group is a no no. People like her and there are many like her, are a huge problem in an increasingly multicultural western European society.

I can hand on heart say I don't hate any race but I can unashamedly say I despise Diane Abbot and ppl like her with a passion because their stance, their rhetoric, is directly responsible for taking the heat of criminal factions in racial minorities - which for me is directly responsible for the increase in knife crime in London.

smacl

AllForIt wrote: »

You see, that is why ppl are so angry. It's not about racism, it's about the do-gooders who think they are protecting a race but are in fact just adding to the problems and in fact making them much worse. They are the ppl I'm gunning for, not the Pakistanis.

The big hole in your argument is that on the one hand you're saying that the police are afraid of prosecuting Pakistanis for fear of being labelled racists and the other hand Pakistanis being over represented numerically in terms of convicted sex criminals. How about just going after criminals based on the crimes they've committed regardless of their race or religious inclination?

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

The big hole in your argument is that on the one hand you're saying that the police are afraid of prosecuting Pakistanis for fear of being labelled racists and the other hand Pakistanis being over represented numerically in terms of convicted sex criminals. How about just going after criminals based on the crimes they've committed regardless of their race or religious inclination?

That wouldn't be quite what the donor ordered, by the looks of things



"The British far-right activist Tommy Robinson is receiving financial, political and moral support from a broad array of non-British groups and individuals, including US thinktanks, rightwing Australians and Russian trolls, a Guardian investigation has discovered.
Robinson, an anti-Islam campaigner who is leading a “Brexit betrayal” march in London on Sunday, has received funding from a US tech billionaire and a thinktank based in Philadelphia.
Two other US thinktanks, part-funded by some of the biggest names in rightwing funding, have published a succession of articles in support of Robinson, who has become a cause célèbre among the American far right since he was jailed in May for two months."



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march


Gatestone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute


"Freedom center"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Seems to be very much the game that Tommy Robinson / Yaxley Lennon is playing. Why deal with all the awkward complexities of truth when you can tell the simple lies that your audience wants to hear?

Has anyone else even tried to look into the complexities?
For example, maybe you noticed that the Syrian kid Jamal had a broken arm and wondered why?
All is revealed by TR's investigative journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxbL8yteNOM

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

Has anyone else even tried to look into the complexities?
For example, maybe you noticed that the Syrian kid Jamal had a broken arm and wondered why?
All is revealed by TR's investigative journalism.

TR's sponsored Islamophobia, surely.

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

What does that mean?

smacl wrote: »

The big hole in your argument is that on the one hand you're saying that the police are afraid of prosecuting Pakistanis for fear of being labelled racists and the other hand Pakistanis being over represented numerically in terms of convicted sex criminals. How about just going after criminals based on the crimes they've committed regardless of their race or religious inclination?

It either means that there is no bias and they are over represented, or there is bias and they are being targeted. Of course this is where other posters fall down as it means the racist conspiracy is flawed or simply untrue, the latter also doesn't fit in as they would be doing what TR wants. The truth is there are a range of factors that contribute to this, none of this means that people from certain regions of Asia or descended are default groomers. There were grooming rings of white men in the UK, there were grooming rings of white men and women in the posh parts of South Dublin, and the examples go on, but that in no way means that white people and Catholicism lead to grooming or sexual abuse. People and a range of factors lead to it, none of these factors are excuses but they do provide areas that public policy can target to remove.

recedite wrote: »

Has anyone else even tried to look into the complexities?
For example, maybe you noticed that the Syrian kid Jamal had a broken arm and wondered why?
All is revealed by TR's investigative journalism.

I am not sure if you have met parents of kids who are brats etc. I hear that story all the time, parents all over time ream off that BS to teachers because they cannot comprehend their kid is a sh1t. They also cover for their kids when they do, do something wrong. I listened to that and thought, your kids /kids mate broke his arm and followed through with the pinning and waterboarding, or its all BS. Its not impossible but what he is saying is that quite diminutive child had someone in a headlock, after getting away with racist abuse, repeatedly, and their hero son broke his arm by accident pushing him off. Nothing in the video suggests this was retaliatory, it suggests thuggery and mob mentality. Why where none of the claims investigated? How did the breaking of a childs arm not raise alarm bells if it was caused dring an assault. Truth is, the more you look at it, the more it stinks of BS.

Hotblack Desiato

Obi_Wan_Kenobi wrote: »

No one is saying it's about ethnicity, rather attitudes in the Islamic world toward womem and in particular western women - this is a cornerstone of the over representation - something you "liberals" ( ) constantly overlook.

You seem to have a beef against one religion in particular, you must be in the wrong place.

We have a beef against ALL religions.

feargale

I'm not interested in the racial or religious profile of these people, but to sentence someone to life and then say he must serve a minimum of 18 years is utter bull****. That is not life, but more like saying maximum 18 years. The trick for a person convicted in those circumstances is to profess remorse every hour of the day until the prison authorities are deafened. Then after 7 to 10 years, when everybody has forgotten that the judge said 18 years, he goes before the review board, and hey presto.
Life my arse! As a guard said to me once, they're all sorry when they are caught.

smacl

robindch wrote: »

Have people who self-describe as white supremacists and/or the alt-right generally used the term "master race"?

Don't know about master race but the white supremacists are still out there, from today's RTE headlines

RTE wrote:

White supremacist found guilty of murder of woman during Charlottesville rally

In the US, a white supremacist who drove his car into a counter demonstrator at a rally in Charlotsville in the state of Virginia has been found guilty of murder.

James Alex Fields Jr was found guilty of five counts of aggravated malicious wounding, three of malicious wounding, and one hit-and-run count.

From what I gather he does identify as a white supremacist, from another NBC article

A taped phone call from jail between Fields and his mother was also played for the court. In it, Fields is heard lashing out at Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, calling her a "communist" and "anti-white supremacist" who was trying to slander him, according to the NBC 29.

magicbastarder

Revealed: the hidden global network behind Tommy Robinson

Guardian investigation shows how cash, legal support and millions of tweets underpin anti-Islam activist - but Facebook removes his ‘donate’ button

The British far-right activist Tommy Robinson is receiving financial, political and moral support from a broad array of non-British groups and individuals, including US thinktanks, rightwing Australians and Russian trolls, a Guardian investigation has discovered.

Robinson, an anti-Islam campaigner who is leading a “Brexit betrayal” march in London on Sunday, has received funding from a US tech billionaire and a thinktank based in Philadelphia.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march

recedite

magicbastarder wrote: »

Revealed: the hidden global network behind Tommy Robinson

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march

What is your point here? Do you think there is some problem with people crowdfunding him?
If it wasn't for the funding he would still be languishing in HM Prison system.
It costs a lot of money to appeal an unlawful imprisonment all the way to the UK Supreme Court.

thegreengoblin

recedite wrote: »

What is your point here? Do you think there is some problem with people crowdfunding him?
If it wasn't for the funding he would still be languishing in HM Prison system.
It costs a lot of money to appeal an unlawful imprisonment all the way to the UK Supreme Court.

If you read the whole piece you'll see that poor little Tommy was trying to be a clever cookie in raising money for his cause but he got rumbled because, you know, he's not a charity.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

What does that mean?

It means if mainstream media did not shirk away from investigating the issues that TR investigates, then he would have a bit more competition. There is no point complaining at his mediocre standard of journalism when he is the only one investigating and reporting the other side of the argument.

CramCycle wrote: »

It either means that there is no bias and they are over represented, or there is bias and they are being targeted. Of course this is where other posters fall down as it means the racist conspiracy is flawed or simply untrue..

A third option is that (compared to the general population) the Pakistani/Muslim gangs are way over represented in rape gang crimes, and only slightly over-represented in convictions.

CramCycle wrote: »

I am not sure if you have met parents of kids who are brats etc. I hear that story all the time, parents all over time ream off that BS to teachers because they cannot comprehend their kid is a sh1t. They also cover for their kids when they do, do something wrong. I listened to that and thought, your kids /kids mate broke his arm and followed through with the pinning and waterboarding, or its all BS. Its not impossible but what he is saying is that quite diminutive child had someone in a headlock, after getting away with racist abuse, repeatedly, and their hero son broke his arm by accident pushing him off. Nothing in the video suggests this was retaliatory, it suggests thuggery and mob mentality. Why where none of the claims investigated? How did the breaking of a childs arm not raise alarm bells if it was caused dring an assault. Truth is, the more you look at it, the more it stinks of BS.

The kid who squirted the water bottle at Jamal was not the same kid who was in the scuffle when his arm got broken. So according to the interview, he has been in numerous fights, including one in which a girl was beaten up.
On the one hand you ask why nobody investigates these things, but on the other hand you complain about TR for his investigative reporting. Which has been referred to in this thread as $hit stirring.


I would assume that the school investigated and dealt with all these issues at the time. However what has happened since is that mainstream and social media has intervened. Jamal has been hailed as a blameless victim of racism, and his family have received £150,000 in crowdfunding. One of the other guys has been hounded out of the town with death threats and his whole family are now homeless.

Its only at this point that TR "the "journalist" arrives to bring some balance to the story.
Previously you gave an account of your own school days in which you were sorely tempted to teach some "little $hit" a lesson, but instead you let him walk away. Well, that was a mistake IMO.

recedite

thegreengoblin wrote: »

If you read the whole piece you'll see that poor little Tommy was trying to be a clever cookie in raising money for his cause but he got rumbled because, you know, he's not a charity.

Facebook removed their donate button, but that aspect is only a tiny part of that article. Its not even significant to TR's fundraisng and charitable operations. Paypal also stopped processing payments for him a while back, yet he was still able to raise enough money to buy that little girl's wheelchair.

magicbastarder

recedite wrote: »

What is your point here?

it was posted without comment. but posted because it's topical.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

What is your point here? Do you think there is some problem with people crowdfunding him?
If it wasn't for the funding he would still be languishing in HM Prison system.
It costs a lot of money to appeal an unlawful imprisonment all the way to the UK Supreme Court.

His point is the same as mine
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108825741&postcount=255


He's being sponsored by anti-muslim groups from the US.

CramCycle

recedite wrote: »

It means if mainstream media did not shirk away from investigating the issues that TR investigates, then he would have a bit more competition. There is no point complaining at his mediocre standard of journalism when he is the only one investigating and reporting the other side of the argument.

Or maybe they are investigating and not finding the minimum standard to print as a journalist, there are several papers who would happily print anti muslim rhetoric so long as it passed muster they could defend in court. Alas TR has no such need to reach such a level. And once it passed these minmum standards, I could not complain.

A third option is that (compared to the general population) the Pakistani/Muslim gangs are way over represented in rape gang crimes, and only slightly over-represented in convictions.

These would require more than just a blind eye by the powers that be but a blind eye by the general populace. Not impossible but so far out there, hard to credit without proof.

The kid who squirted the water bottle at Jamal was not the same kid who was in the scuffle when his arm got broken. So according to the interview, he has been in numerous fights, including one in which a girl was beaten up.
On the one hand you ask why nobody investigates these things, but on the other hand you complain about TR for his investigative reporting. Which has been referred to in this thread as $hit stirring.

The interview with no verification, a randomer claiming he was a parent of a child who was assaulted. I am sorry but if you cannot see how that interview fails to meet the bare minimum required to report. No reasonable journalist would run with that interview, you need back up and verification. You need at least three independent sources or fact verification via another means, He has one randomer parent who claims their kid broke the other kids arm. That's it. Can you really not see why this interview proves or shows nothing? I could make the same video myself in the morning with a paid actor or simply someone who believes the ends justifies the mean.

I would assume that the school investigated and dealt with all these issues at the time. However what has happened since is that mainstream and social media has intervened. Jamal has been hailed as a blameless victim of racism, and his family have received £150,000 in crowdfunding. One of the other guys has been hounded out of the town with death threats and his whole family are now homeless.

Do you have links?

Its only at this point that TR "the "journalist" arrives to bring some balance to the story.

What balance?

Previously you gave an account of your own school days in which you were sorely tempted to teach some "little $hit" a lesson, but instead you let him walk away. Well, that was a mistake IMO.

In your opinon, which your entitled too. I don't think its appropriate to beat the **** out of someone I am more than capable of doing so. There has been and continues to be no element of defence in this story that makes sense, it wasn't an immediate retaliation, it wasn't as Jamal attacked the other person. All we have is a group, where a singular individual, harasses, then physically abuses, followed by mentally abuses a person far physically smaller.

You bring up the crowdfunding thing, what has that got to do with any of it. It does not excuse the behaviour.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

The interview with no verification, a randomer claiming he was a parent of a child who was assaulted. I am sorry but if you cannot see how that interview fails to meet the bare minimum required to report. No reasonable journalist would run with that interview, you need back up and verification. You need at least three independent sources or fact verification via another means, He has one randomer parent who claims their kid broke the other kids arm. That's it. Can you really not see why this interview proves or shows nothing? I could make the same video myself in the morning with a paid actor or simply someone who believes the ends justifies the mean.

OK so you just watched the interview with the actual kid who squirted the water bottle saying a different kid was involved when Jamal's arm got broken. Then you watched the interview of the actual parent of that other kid. And you dismiss these people as "randomers", no better than "actors". It seems you are really going out of your way to discredit TR's journalism, even to the point of dismissing primary source material as being irrelevant.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

OK so you just watched the interview with the actual kid who squirted the water bottle saying a different kid was involved when Jamal's arm got broken. Then you watched the interview of the actual parent of that other kid. And you dismiss these people as "randomers", no better than "actors". It seems you are really going out of your way to discredit TR's journalism, even to the point of dismissing primary source material as being irrelevant.

What, this actual parent? Seems like we need to trust TR on this one that this is who he claims it is, and frankly I wouldn't trust TR as far as I could throw him. Primary evidence needs to be open to objective testing, this falls at the first hurdle.