Tommy Robinson arrested under anti terrorism laws

[JonnyJonnyRowe 800]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Yaxley-Lennon’s arguments about Islamic extremism are, at their core, reasoned. When the EDL first appeared there were two choices : Acknowledge the problems or discredit. The latter was chosen.

Yaxley-Lennon no longer has a choice. He couldn’t go back to a private existence either employed or self employed if he wanted to. So he stirs things up and gets paid for it. And if those paying want him to stir other things then I’m sure he will. All a result of a foolish attempt to try and brush the issues of radicalisation in Islam in the UK under the carpet. 

You ignored my question. 

What did the Enough is Enough protest that he promoted and endorsed have to do with Islamic extremism?

 

[Daz Sparks 1,519]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

You ignored my question. 

What did the Enough is Enough protest that he promoted and endorsed have to do with Islamic extremism?

 

I see you are having no more joy with the headbanger that is littleyellowbirdie than anyone else has. Once entrenched into a position, he rarely, if ever, comes out recognising he may just be wrong. 

For the sake of the thread title, I believe roughly the same as you JJR, that Yaxley-Lennon is an opportunist that seeks attention, and money wherever he can. Idiots that donate to his gofundme pages need to have a word with themselves. 

[Herman 10,765]

He's a malevolence and a parasite. No different to Choudary. 

[duke63 680]

He is an agitator. Quite happy to stir **** up, but when that **** hits the fan, he does a runner. 

[Fen Canary 1,290]

4 hours ago, duke63 said:

He is an agitator. Quite happy to stir **** up, but when that **** hits the fan, he does a runner. 

When the main parties spend 20 years ignoring concerns and trying to shut down any conversations around immigration (usually trying to portray any complaints as being motivated by racism) then you leave the door open for extremes such as Robinson.

If the major parties had actually addressed voters concerns (or at least had the discussion around the positives and trade offs involved) then nobody would have heard of Robinson. When the only people willing to talk about immigration and integration are those at the extremes then that’s where the conversation will be had 

[Naturalcynic 817]

24 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

When the main parties spend 20 years ignoring concerns and trying to shut down any conversations around immigration (usually trying to portray any complaints as being motivated by racism) then you leave the door open for extremes such as Robinson.

If the major parties had actually addressed voters concerns (or at least had the discussion around the positives and trade offs involved) then nobody would have heard of Robinson. When the only people willing to talk about immigration and integration are those at the extremes then that’s where the conversation will be had 

More to the point, anyone who does try to initiate a sensible conversation about immigration is automatically labelled a far-right extremist by those on the left who want to shut down all debate on the subject.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 800]

6 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

I see you are having no more joy with the headbanger that is littleyellowbirdie than anyone else has. Once entrenched into a position, he rarely, if ever, comes out recognising he may just be wrong. 

For the sake of the thread title, I believe roughly the same as you JJR, that Yaxley-Lennon is an opportunist that seeks attention, and money wherever he can. Idiots that donate to his gofundme pages need to have a word with themselves. 

LittleYellowBirdie is the type of guy that would love to see a new English civil war, but will then curl up under a blanket in this pyjamas with a Horlicks to watch it all unfold on the internet. 

[Daz Sparks 1,519]

1 minute ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

LittleYellowBirdie is the type of guy that would love to see a new English civil war, but will then curl up under a blanket in this pyjamas with a Horlicks to watch it all unfold on the internet. 

From the safety of France. 

[Barbe bleu 976]

6 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

I see you are having no more joy with the headbanger that is littleyellowbirdie than anyone else has. Once entrenched into a position, he rarely, if ever, comes out recognising he may just be wrong. 

You can just get away with this statement, but it would be a case of pot meeting  kettle if quite a few of the opponents to lyb you refer to said the same

[JonnyJonnyRowe 800]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You can just get away with this statement, but it would be a case of pot meeting  kettle if quite a few of the opponents to lyb you refer to said the same

I worry about Islamic extremism though, and grooming gangs, and the problems largely associated with the Pakistani community in particular, I never said that I didn't. 

I just think that Tommy Robinson is a hypocritical c unt, a lowlife piece of criminal pondlife, a complete charlatan, and the white British equivalent of hellraisers like Anjem Choudary. 

He's got a worse record for violence than Joey Barton, including that time he battered a copper who was trying to stop him from beating up his wife. 

The idea that people have to latch onto Tommy Robinson because he's the only person sharing his message is fanciful, Douglas Murray has successfully been saying exactly the same stuff in a much more eloquent and graceful way, without having to resort to frequent cocaine fuelled violence or getting the begging bowl out to bail himself out of his latest legal predicament or to pay off debts to his dealer. 

Anybody who likes Tommy Robinson must be utter pondlife in my view, because of his character not because of his core message. 

[Fen Canary 1,290]

37 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I worry about Islamic extremism though, and grooming gangs, and the problems largely associated with the Pakistani community in particular, I never said that I didn't. 

I just think that Tommy Robinson is a hypocritical c unt, a lowlife piece of criminal pondlife, a complete charlatan, and the white British equivalent of hellraisers like Anjem Choudary. 

He's got a worse record for violence than Joey Barton, including that time he battered a copper who was trying to stop him from beating up his wife. 

The idea that people have to latch onto Tommy Robinson because he's the only person sharing his message is fanciful, Douglas Murray has successfully been saying exactly the same stuff in a much more eloquent and graceful way, without having to resort to frequent cocaine fuelled violence or getting the begging bowl out to bail himself out of his latest legal predicament or to pay off debts to his dealer. 

Anybody who likes Tommy Robinson must be utter pondlife in my view, because of his character not because of his core message. 

That would be the Douglas Murray that many on here regularly accuse of being far right? The problem arises when everybody to the right of Corbyn is lumped together, there stops being a distinction from being right wing and far right so it gives legitimacy to the more fringe elements.

If people are going to deride the likes of Murray, Farage, Johnson etc as far right then we’re going to need a new description for the genuine far right such as the BNP. 

[Barbe bleu 976]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I just think that Tommy Robinson is a hypocritical c unt, a lowlife piece of criminal pondlife, a complete charlatan, 

Pretty much my opinion of him too.  

I'm worried that he is being legitimised. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's true and of so, why? I suspect though that, just like farage, his opponents inadvertently help that process

[littleyellowbirdie 2,981]

11 hours ago, Herman said:

He could become his prison bride with all conjugal rights. 

I think you'd make a better prison b1tch than I would.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,981]

49 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Pretty much my opinion of him too.  

I'm worried that he is being legitimised. I'll leave it to others to decide if that's true and of so, why? I suspect though that, just like farage, his opponents inadvertently help that process

What's he hypocritical about?

He is legitimate. Everybody's views are legitimate if those are their views. It's up to other people to argue the points, not stoop to pathetic ad hominem attacks that betray that people just don't know how to make a case. And everything aimed at Yaxley-Lennon is 100% ad hominem because basically everybody knows that he's right and they're too afraid to acknowledge it, because apologism for Islam is so hard-baked into the lefty psyche.

To be honest, I find it far more bothering the number of well to do middle class people I'm coming across who sound far less reasonable about it than Yaxley-Lennon is, but they're all anonymous in the voting booth. But that's why Reform is starting to look like a serious electoral contender.

Edited August 1 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 976]

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What's he hypocritical about?

Fair question and I'm not sure of the answer, doesn't mean that the rest of the description doesn't apply, even if there are some things that have been said by him or on his behalf with which I can agree.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,981]

8 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Fair question and I'm not sure of the answer, doesn't mean that the rest of the description doesn't apply, even if there are some things that have been said by him or on his behalf with which I can agree.

What's fascinating is the number of people here who have bleated about right to protest for any push back on protests during a pandemic who are more than happy to cheerlead the abuse of draconian police powers to try and silence protest they don't like.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/01/how-censorship-made-tommy-robinson/

[Canary73 273]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/02/how-tiktok-bots-and-ai-have-powered-a-resurgence-in-uk-far-right-violence

[duke63 680]

14 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

When the main parties spend 20 years ignoring concerns and trying to shut down any conversations around immigration (usually trying to portray any complaints as being motivated by racism) then you leave the door open for extremes such as Robinson.

If the major parties had actually addressed voters concerns (or at least had the discussion around the positives and trade offs involved) then nobody would have heard of Robinson. When the only people willing to talk about immigration and integration are those at the extremes then that’s where the conversation will be had 

So what was Rwanda all about? No one has shut down conversations. But many of the Nations the economic migrants leave are Countries we have either bombed, raped and pillaged ourselves or have enabled other Nations to do so. If Russia starting bombing the UK now, would you want to stay here?

The reality is immigration is a worldwide issue, its not just a British problem.

If we think its bad now wait until climate change starts forcing even Europeans further north

Robinson is a criminal. Nothing more nothing less.

[Fen Canary 1,290]

3 minutes ago, duke63 said:

So what was Rwanda all about? No one has shut down conversations. But many of the Nations the economic migrants leave are Countries we have either bombed, raped and pillaged ourselves or have enabled other Nations to do so. If Russia starting bombing the UK now, would you want to stay here?

The reality is immigration is a worldwide issue, its not just a British problem.

If we think its bad now wait until climate change starts forcing even Europeans further north

Robinson is a criminal. Nothing more nothing less.

Rwanda was an attempt at a deterrent for those trying to enter the country illegally, a policy that never got off the ground. You claim conservations are never shut down, but a common attempt at doing so is to simply label anybody who calls for a reduction in immigration to be motivated by bigotry. You only have to look back at various posters on here to see that is the case.

Immigration may be a worldwide issue, but how many we choose to let in is a domestic one. We’re under no obligation to take in everybody who wants to move here, especially if they possess no skills that we need

[duke63 680]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Rwanda was an attempt at a deterrent for those trying to enter the country illegally, a policy that never got off the ground. You claim conservations are never shut down, but a common attempt at doing so is to simply label anybody who calls for a reduction in immigration to be motivated by bigotry. You only have to look back at various posters on here to see that is the case.

Immigration may be a worldwide issue, but how many we choose to let in is a domestic one. We’re under no obligation to take in everybody who wants to move here, especially if they possess no skills that we need

But its impossible to completely stop it. If you have nothing to lose then why would you not seek a better life elsewhere, illegally or otherwise?

In the scheme of things, the money spent on immigration is but a tiny percentage of the money the richest save in moving their assets offshore. That's the real reason Britain is broke.

[duke63 680]

The immigration conversation has been taken over by racists like Farage, the EDL, Tommy Robinson, Bravermann (who ought to know better) that is why its hard to have a constructive conversation with anyone about it.

The reality is if the Country was quick and decisive in deciding whether immigrantas had a right to stay, then those who do not would think twice about attempting to come in. As our system is so under funded its not possible to do that.

[Fen Canary 1,290]

3 minutes ago, duke63 said:

But its impossible to completely stop it. If you have nothing to lose then why would you not seek a better life elsewhere, illegally or otherwise?

In the scheme of things, the money spent on immigration is but a tiny percentage of the money the richest save in moving their assets offshore. That's the real reason Britain is broke.

So because it can be tricky to stop we should t bother, we should simply let anybody in who wants to come, no questions asked? What is wrong with offshore processing? The boats stopped going to Australia once it was implemented so why couldn’t it work in Britain?

Legal immigration is under the complete control of the government, they have total say on the numbers they allow in. 

Ive no interest in discussing the financial habits of the wealthy because it’s completely unrelated to immigration and is simply an attempt at deflection. 

[Fen Canary 1,290]

6 minutes ago, duke63 said:

The immigration conversation has been taken over by racists like Farage, the EDL, Tommy Robinson, Bravermann (who ought to know better) that is why its hard to have a constructive conversation with anyone about it.

The reality is if the Country was quick and decisive in deciding whether immigrantas had a right to stay, then those who do not would think twice about attempting to come in. As our system is so under funded it’s not possible to do that.

So you’re suggesting Bravermann shouldn’t be critical of the government’s immigration policy due to her ethnicity? All Britons who are of an ethnic minority should all think and act as a monolithic bloc rather than forming their own opinions based on their life experiences?

Sounds rather racist to me 

[Herman 10,765]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

So you’re suggesting Bravermann shouldn’t be critical of the government’s immigration policy due to her ethnicity? All Britons who are of an ethnic minority should all think and act as a monolithic bloc rather than forming their own opinions based on their life experiences?

Sounds rather racist to me 

Do you mean the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, the one that was in charge of immigration? 

[Herman 10,765]

Brick in the bollox guy has been replaced by the dog on his aris guy. 😂

[Daz Sparks 1,519]

3 minutes ago, Herman said:

Brick in the bollox guy has been replaced by the dog on his aris guy. 😂

Got to love a police dog biting a no-mark's ars3, I hope the pain was excruciating!

[A Load of Squit 5,883]

5 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So because it can be tricky to stop we should t bother, we should simply let anybody in who wants to come, no questions asked? What is wrong with offshore processing? The boats stopped going to Australia once it was implemented so why couldn’t it work in Britain?

Legal immigration is under the complete control of the government, they have total say on the numbers they allow in. 

Ive no interest in discussing the financial habits of the wealthy because it’s completely unrelated to immigration and is simply an attempt at deflection. 

Because there was a safe and legal method to claim asylum in Australia, people didn't need to use small boats they could buy plane tickets.

In Britain no such route exists (shut down by the Tory government) so people use the small boats. 

Also you're confusing asylum seekers with immigrants. You need to read this.

https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference

[Herman 10,765]

1 hour ago, Daz Sparks said:

Got to love a police dog biting a no-mark's ars3, I hope the pain was excruciating!

Sounds like it.

 

[Fen Canary 1,290]

5 hours ago, Herman said:

Do you mean the former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, the one that was in charge of immigration? 

That’s her yes. Is she not allowed to form her own opinions on immigration policy due to her ethnicity? Do you not think if ethnic minorities as individuals, instead you want to treat them as an indistinguishable group? 

[Fen Canary 1,290]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Because there was a safe and legal method to claim asylum in Australia, people didn't need to use small boats they could buy plane tickets.

In Britain no such route exists (shut down by the Tory government) so people use the small boats. 

Also you're confusing asylum seekers with immigrants. You need to read this.

https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference

No I haven’t confused the two, stop trying to deflect and portray my opinion as being based on ignorance.

The boats need stopping first, as that’s the immediate problem. Once that has happened then we can set up legal means of claiming asylum with a politically agreed number we’re willing and able to take in each year. It’s pointless doing it the other way around as you’ll still have boatloads making the journey, especially if their original application has been denied.

Edited August 2 by Fen Canary