Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since when is objecting to pedophile grooming racist? or do pedo-lovers hide behind the racist trope?
Depends on whether you target paedophiles in general, or solely Muslims who are paedophiles.
Mr. Robinson (aka McMaster, Harris, Yaxley-Lennon) is associated with some seriously far right and outright racist groups in the UK, like the BNP, EDL, and others.
I've never seen him report on anything but paedophilia in the Islamic community, and islamicisation so draw whatever conclusion from that you wish.
I see people stating he broke the law. What law specifically did he break? As I understand the news story, it wasn’t a law he broke. It seems it was a judge’s order extending to outside his or her courtroom dictating the press not report on the case. Haven’t there been other cases of serious crimes that were reported by the press? Is this case made differently merely because of the religion of those being tried?
Depends on whether you target paedophiles in general, or solely Muslims who are paedophiles.
Mr. Robinson (aka McMaster, Harris, Yaxley-Lennon) is associated with some seriously far right and outright racist groups in the UK, like the BNP, EDL, and others.
I've never seen him report on anything but paedophilia in the Islamic community, and islamicisation so draw whatever conclusion from that you wish.
Yep, you'd never find him filming outside the trial of a white paedophile. His agenda is clear.
The irony of your comment Dizzy is that while jolly old England/Britain might seem that way to you, where is that freedom specifically delineated in any of your laws?
Even if it is somewhere in a law, that law can easily be changed at the whim of the current government and/or societal norms within a democracy.
Remember here across the pond in our constitutional republic, it is enshrined in our founding and governing document.
It is not dependent on any man, aristocrat, or government.
Frankly, and many people have it backwards, our Constitution does not give us those rights, as anything given can presumably be taken away.
Instead, it outlines specifically that our rights are natural and God given, and is a prohibition of government to attempt to abridge them.
That may be semantical to some with just a superficial view, but when you really think deeply, it makes all the difference in the world.
As but one example, our right to bear arms cannot be abridged, and helps to protect all the others. If push ever came to shove with a tyrannical government run amok, all our freedoms are just words on paper, without the ability to protect our Constitution.
Hence the reason why we do not pledge allegiance to any government, party or politician, rather to our republic and it's Constitution.
So true freedom of thought/expression/speech is much more secure here than anywhere else I can think of.
`
Yeah right.....you should all read more of your own news instead of always looking over there and claiming superiority because you've got a 200 year old piece of parchment plagiarized from a British 800 year old one.
Just two examples: Justin Carter and Josh Pillault.
Instead of gagging the press, U.S. judges just gag everyone taking part in a trial and extend that to include any inter-action one of those participants has with the press over a totally unrelated case.
eg: "the Court concluded that "[t]he right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information." Corrigan therefore concluded that "a mere restriction on 'data flow' does not raise serious First Amendment concerns."
Finally; your right to bear arms hasn't done squat to protect that for which it was designed. Instead it's got you all arming yourselves up to protect yourselves from each other. That's the very epitome of loss of freedom and makes a mockery of the preamble "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". A significant number of you need your guns to feel safe in your own country.
Moronic and noted by all the others deemed having more individual freedoms for being so.
Check your actual standings for all freedoms as measured by independent orgs. You'll find you're way down the list of all the first world developed nations and sinking fast.
Your outrage is still faux. Put your feigned superiority back in it's little cookie tin.
Of course it is, fighting against the spread of Islam is a full-time job.
What else should he be fighting against? Maybe climate change, world poverty and for the preservation of the white rhinoceros?
Well as a man of tolerance and not a man who is a hateful, small-minded, racist thug whom conflates all muslims as terrorists and paedophiles, I really wouldn't know.
Well as a man of tolerance and not a man who is a hateful, small-minded, racist thug whom conflates all muslims as terrorists and paedophiles, I really wouldn't know.
Source that Robinson has ever said such an outrageous thing?
I see people stating he broke the law. What law specifically did he break? As I understand the news story, it wasn’t a law he broke. It seems it was a judge’s order extending to outside his or her courtroom dictating the press not report on the case. Haven’t there been other cases of serious crimes that were reported by the press? Is this case made differently merely because of the religion of those being tried?
Court process.
UK courts have a non-publicity statute, that during criminal trial the jury and public will not be biased through publication of news items or opinions that disclose specific identities of defendants and jurors until after a decision is reached (in perpetuity for jurors). It extends to victims for certain offenses too, especially crimes of a sexual nature.
In this instance he was attempting to capture images of those connected to the case, clear violation of court process. Further he was already either on probation, conditional discharge, or a suspended sentence for earlier offenses he was convicted of.
I've no doubt Tommy Robinson is an absolute toe-rag of the Far Right.
But even so, in what way is his filming of defendants accused of sex crimes any different from the BBC and Sky filming Rolf Harris or anybody else arriving at court facing similar charges ?
And why should his arrest for contempt of court not be reported publicly ?
The real problem is that wide-scale sexual abuse by Pakistani groomers has gone unreported for far to long in the UK.
Wait, wait, now let me get this straight. It's racist to object if Muslim gangs are engaging in child trafficking and "grooming"? Apparently so, judging from how the whole Rotherham situation was suppressed.
In the US, 2000 children A DAY just disappear, most never to be heard from again. Do they just go "poof"? Do they just get raptured up? Something is going on internationally and it's being covered up, judging from the frantic efforts to change the narrative to "racism". Why not report on the issue? Because there's more to this than meets the eye and the elites on both sides of the pond are in a panic. That's why the judge hustled Tommy off to Hull toot sweet. And from all reports, laughed when he did it.
Last edited by kmarc; 05-28-2018 at 08:45 AM..
Reason: word
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
