Release Tommy Robinson

It's a shame no one wanted to talk much about TR's supporter who commited the Finsbury Park attack.
There are some pretty good 'Bournville' jokes to be had there!
To be fair, if the religion of Islam isn't to be held responsible for the actions of some of it's followers, then why should TR be held accountable for the actions of any of his supporters?
Unless, you are applying double standards here?
 
Been a while between posts, did you research Godwin's law and then just throw it in like you knew it all along? knob.
It may come as a surprise but I don't plan my life around responding your posts, just like for some posters Sunday is double Cillit Bang day, Sunday is a big ironing day for me. I may have been watching football on the wireless as well.

Godwin's law is used much more frequently than the faux Latin terminology, I didn't need to research it champ and knew the probable reason you were avoiding it. I may even have posted the reason on another thread. Oh, I have...
You could also do a wee search to see if you're talking bollocks or not, how about "Godwin" by user "Graculus"

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/search/117699/?q=godwin&c[users]=graculus&o=relevance

Now, the question is, do you pay as much attention to detail for all of your posts as you did on this one?
 
I have just looked it up
"It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.[2]"
I knew I was right about you. Reductio ad Hitlerum as I said.
<snigger> Have you found where I used it yet champ? It's a test, lets see if you can work out why I used what I did eh?
 
To be fair, if the religion of Islam isn't to be held responsible for the actions of some of it's followers, then why should TR be held accountable for the actions of any of his supporters?
Unless, you are applying double standards here?
Wouldn't that depend on if an 'intent to direct or encourage' can be established?
 
Given the guy has kids, I would have expected you to think about the moronic statement you've just made.

Your almost antifas statement of his supporters doing something is almost incitement, as is revelling in something which is disgusting. Given the number of lawyers on this thread, maybe you should chat to them.
Given he's got kids, maybe be wants to think about his moronic statements? Good to see you've got round to reading the Huff Post article though...

Why do you reckon he has so many nom de plumes? Law enforcement types may be able to help here, trick cyclists as well.

Tommy Robinson Explains The Making Of An Alter-Ego Even His Wife Can't Stand
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't that depend on if an 'intent to direct or encourage' can be established?
Of course. But people are quick enough to proclaim that 'this wasn't done in the name of Islam' so why should TR be held directly responsible for what one of his supporters have done?
 
To be fair, if the religion of Islam isn't to be held responsible for the actions of some of it's followers, then why should TR be held accountable for the actions of any of his supporters?
Unless, you are applying double standards here?
To be fair, with the hundreds of posts I've made about ISIS not only are my views already in print but TR and his supporters are getting far less flack from me!

The caveat is that I don't mix religion and politics like you have just done. ISIS are no more 'all islam' than TR's supporters all all 'christians, atheists and agnostics'

The thing I'm seeing in this thread are posters trying to ignore the white British terrorists I have mentioned while castigating 'brown' terrorists who have also commited terrorism.

I don't care whether a terrorist is white, brown, ISIS, far right or PIRA it's all terrorism.
 
Maybe its because I am human and don't profess to be right about everything, as some on here appear desperate to show virtue, they criticise anything, but don't have the stones to offer any solutions of there own, except a defence of the establishment.

My basic view, was there are problems that derive from Migration. TR is a side effect of that. So policies that give people opposed to migration, something to hang onto, is distasteful to some, but its at least a necessary activity to demonstrate and prove that we all have a say in the way our united kingdom is ran.
Another complete logic failure.

What you're actually saying is "let's have the odd extreme policy that the mainstream electorate didn't vote for, just to keep the <1% ERW happy.

How is that a system of government?
 
Last edited:
On the modern interpretation; Yes.
I don't think he hates coloured people and I don't recognise Islamophobia as anything but a politicised word.
I personally don't like him politicising the issue and would rather he stuck to his own class and community and draw attention to there woes.
Unfortunately the law disagrees with you...
 
To be fair, with the hundreds of posts I've made about ISIS not only are my views already in print but TR and his supporters are getting far less flack from me!

The caveat is that I don't mix religion and politics like you have just done. ISIS are no more 'all islam' than TR's supporters all all 'christians, atheists and agnostics'
But to one lot it's about religion, and to the other lot it's about politics.
What is the difference?
 
To be fair, if the religion of Islam isn't to be held responsible for the actions of some of it's followers, then why should TR be held accountable for the actions of any of his supporters?
Unless, you are applying double standards here?
I agree with this generally, nutters and paedophiles are what they are but those whose actions can be seen as encouraging their deluded followers should get a bit of the nicking action. Be it fundamental immans who encourage violence against kuffur or TR and his ilk.
 
Majid Nawaz spent some time in an Egyptian nick and is now questioning the speed with which TR was banged up...is he who you meant?
As it happens he wasn’t and anyone who thinks he was has completely missed the point of what he was saying. If you listen to the whole broadcast he strongly criticised Yaxley-Lennon and others like him at the end forcderailing the debate for his own, and I quote here, ‘nefarious ends’.

Remember Nawaz and Quilliam were so embarrassed when they discovered what they’d become involved with when TR was with them that they paid him to go away.
 
Last edited:
But to one lot it's about religion, and to the other lot it's about politics.
What is the difference?
The differences are massive and obvious.
As the UK is a democracy political matters can be dealt with legally, with votes and with full media usage.

The current crop of religious terrorists don't want to bargain to achieve legal political aim. They simply want to kill everyone of all faiths unless they subscribe to the ISIS view of the world.

I often get the inpression that some on the far right of politics haven't quite grasped that the first and foremost enemy of ISIS are muslims.
 

Pob02

War Hero
Book Reviewer
What would you define as a journalist ? anyone with a camera these days is a photo journalist, someone who writes up there experiences is a JOURNAList. Might not be one to your taste, but its nice to know you have a crazy laugh, to try and avoid you in the street.
You want a definition for him ( a polite one):
SYL
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
To be fair, with the hundreds of posts I've made about ISIS not only are my views already in print but TR and his supporters are getting far less flack from me!

The caveat is that I don't mix religion and politics like you have just done. ISIS are no more 'all islam' than TR's supporters all all 'christians, atheists and agnostics'

The thing I'm seeing in this thread are posters trying to ignore the white British terrorists I have mentioned while castigating 'brown' terrorists who have also commited terrorism.

I don't care whether a terrorist is white, brown, ISIS, far right or PIRA it's all terrorism.
isn't that whataboutery, which is an original sin on arrse?
 
D

Deleted 154930

Guest
Another complete logic failure.

What you're actually saying is "let's have the odd extreme policy that the mainstream electorate didn't vote for, just to keep the <1% ERW happy.

How is that a system of government?
The 1% you describe is probably more like 10-15%, myself is not included in that group, so who knows how many people disagree with you and your ilk.

Your 'mainstream' electorate' or Centre Ground is nothing like 99%, its a declining number.. I would go out on a limb and say its probably around 35%, but enough people who have lost faith, still vote out of habit, largely the elderly.
 

Latest Threads

Top