Given his first legal team were clearly playing silly buggers with the process and he has to be found guilty of the contempt of court when the second hearing is run again (because he's already admitted he was in contempt and the matter's procedural) I can see him, potentially, getting a longer sentence than the original.
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
Another I find uncomfortable is the truth about what Luton has become and how. He's not an unpopular figure in Luton across whatever caste you want to label anyone with however him asking questions and pointing out some pretty abhorrent behaviour (wide scale child abuse, domestic abuse) by a large part of the Islamic community isn't welcomed by some people.
By him doing this he isn't being a bigot, he's being direct, granted. And I don't have a problem with any child abuser or wife beater being directly challenged or questioned whatever fairy tale they follow.
After the 3 girls programme was aired on BBC there was an explosion of outrage and a lot of that outrage came from people who had no idea it was going on or believed TR was running around challenging this sort of shite and the way Islamic communities in places that have seen widescale child abuse for example have closed ranks as opposed to exposing the maggots themselves, for a laugh. Or because he doesn't like Muslims.
He's sat and spoken to people who already have a formed opinion of him and if nothing else it's a view into how intelligent he is and how secretive (at best) influential figures within Islamic groups are about what is going on under their noses. And I've seen then more fair And objective subjects at least listen to him and agree that he has a point.
He was sent to maximum security prison for contempt of court. That's normal is it? He was sent to category A for a mortgage fraud, and kept in one. Mortgage fraud being a non violent crime, as opposed to prisoners who usually populate high security prisons. This bit is irrelevant I suppose as I'm sure someone will tell me.
I get people don't like him or his delivery, however ask yourself the question why is he doing it and why did he start doing it? If you don't want to learn about him, do a bit of objective learning about how radical Islam has changed Luton.
And you know what, very, very few people are against a diverse society, to have one you need integration. And this is the actual problem, swathes of areas become ghettos which is shit. It breeds hatred and resentment, it doesn't encourage integration, it makes those areas impossible to manage and eventually they become their own little society isolated from the rest of the community.
He reports on Muslim related things, rather than expose them, and only Muslim related despite close associates of his currently being in prison for child sex related incidents. If he was exposing Muslim grooming gangs and preventing them from happening rather than putting ongoing trials at risk, he would have my respect.
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others, or that The Mosque banned Abedi after he lost the plot with the Iman following his denouncing of ISIS or that the Mosque bans political discussions on its premises.
How would this twonk have found out the names of the preachers or their views I wonder? Is there proof anywhere of this?
Let's face it, he is just using and distorting facts that are already in the public domain for his own purposes.
He's exposed nothing much that's true, just manipulated information to suit his agenda.
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others
No. Don't gloss over it. How would 'others' describe those preachers? and what is your view of them, based on what you know about the talks they've given?
The ironic thing is that whilst you make the argument for others' descriptions of those preachers to, potentially, hold some validity, you don't afford that luxury to those that see Tommy/Stephen in a different light to the labels you would like to put on him.
It's funny how and who we defend and the completely different rationale we apply to identical situations.
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others, or that The Mosque banned Abedi after he lost the plot with the Iman following his denouncing of ISIS or that the Mosque bans political discussions on its premises.
How would this twonk have found out the names of the preachers or their views I wonder? Is there proof anywhere of this?
Let's face it, he is just using and distorting facts that are already in the public domain for his own purposes.
He's exposed nothing much that's true, just manipulated information to suit his agenda.
Did Tommy Robinson discuss the mosque before or after the guardian though?
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others
No. Don't gloss over it. How would 'others' describe those preachers? and what is your view of them, based on what you know about the talks they've given?
The ironic thing is that whilst you make the argument for others' descriptions of those preachers to, potentially, hold some validity, you don't afford that luxury to those that see Tommy/Stephen in a different light to the labels you would like to put on him.
It's funny how and who we defend and the completely different rationale we apply to identical situations.
I have no idea. Do you? I don't know who they are, what they said, when or where. (And I'm not looking it up.)
The arsehole Robinson is just a rabble-rouser. He wants war as much as the radicals on the other side.
For the record I'm no great fan of Islam (or Judaism for that matter). God of any flavour is just a silly myth and the two aforementioned religions are bizarre in the extreme. A better way of dragging them kicking and screaming into the modern era would be to ban certain of their practices. I'd start with the inhumane concepts of halal and kosher butchery.
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others, or that The Mosque banned Abedi after he lost the plot with the Iman following his denouncing of ISIS or that the Mosque bans political discussions on its premises.
How would this twonk have found out the names of the preachers or their views I wonder? Is there proof anywhere of this?
Let's face it, he is just using and distorting facts that are already in the public domain for his own purposes.
He's exposed nothing much that's true, just manipulated information to suit his agenda.
He was sharing the information about the mosque less than 48 hours after the event. Not that it's a competition but I was asked to name something he'd exposed.
In an ideal or even a slightly more sensible one than the version we are living in now people like TR wouldn't exist, he came to the fore front when people, who happen to be muslim or call them whatever you want, were abusing british troops and he could see they were being allowed to do so. He's banging a drum, rabble rousing, whatever he has a cause that I don't believe is financially rewarding for the risks involved. He isn't the only person doing it. He's just more prominent than some others
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
One of them was pointing out the mosque Salman Abedi was going to was pulling in hate preachers to address the conregations. Nobody else reported that in the days after the Manchester Arena bombing where kids and their parents were blown up. Of course it could be a complete coincidence and the mosque closed ranks when asked a pretty reasonable question.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others
No. Don't gloss over it. How would 'others' describe those preachers? and what is your view of them, based on what you know about the talks they've given?
The ironic thing is that whilst you make the argument for others' descriptions of those preachers to, potentially, hold some validity, you don't afford that luxury to those that see Tommy/Stephen in a different light to the labels you would like to put on him.
It's funny how and who we defend and the completely different rationale we apply to identical situations.
I have no idea. Do you? I don't know who they are, what they said, when or where. (And I'm not looking it up.)
The arsehole Robinson is just a rabble-rouser. He wants war as much as the radicals on the other side.
For the record I'm no great fan of Islam (or Judaism for that matter). God of any flavour is just a silly myth and the two aforementioned religions are bizarre in the extreme. A better way of dragging them kicking and screaming into the modern era would be to ban certain of their practices. I'd start with the inhumane concepts of halal and kosher butchery.
You must have an idea of what others call them for you to make that claim. I'm interested in understanding what those other titles/names are, and the justification for them in Britain in 2018.
Re what's been said, there are a number of first hand accounts from liberal Muslims that found the courage to speak above the dominant conservatism that runs through most Mosques. Liberal Muslims that genuinely fear for their lives when speaking out.
Lastly, you're not allowed to criticise Islamic practices as that makes you Islamaphobic. You know, the word that was created to protect, and shut down, any criticisms of Islam so that it is afforded a different rule set and laws to any other religion.
" Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans. "
Utter bollocks.
Oh I must have misheard him praising the Mexican population? How racist does your President need to be?
Not a problem for you obviously - presumably you encourage it.
We must've missed it when the rabid left wing exposed the practices of certain religious ideologues that have a penchant for sex with little girls. How vile do some have to be?
Not a problem for you, obviously - presumably you encourage it.
See what I did there? As justifiable as your comment, and probably just as stupid.
I was talking about Trump demonizing Mexicans which he has done in his speeches - this as far as I can see is racist?
What has sex with little girls got to do with this? What is going on inside your head? There are some sick people on here.
" Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans. "
Utter bollocks.
Oh I must have misheard him praising the Mexican population? How racist does your President need to be?
Not a problem for you obviously - presumably you encourage it.
We must've missed it when the rabid left wing exposed the practices of certain religious ideologues that have a penchant for sex with little girls. How vile do some have to be?
Not a problem for you, obviously - presumably you encourage it.
See what I did there? As justifiable as your comment, and probably just as stupid.
I was talking about Trump demonizing Mexicans which he has done in his speeches - this as far as I can see is racist?
What has sex with little girls got to do with this? What is going on inside your head? There are some sick people on here.
Time for bed, there was no need for that was there?
" Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans. "
Utter bollocks.
Oh I must have misheard him praising the Mexican population? How racist does your President need to be?
Not a problem for you obviously - presumably you encourage it.
We must've missed it when the rabid left wing exposed the practices of certain religious ideologues that have a penchant for sex with little girls. How vile do some have to be?
Not a problem for you, obviously - presumably you encourage it.
See what I did there? As justifiable as your comment, and probably just as stupid.
I was talking about Trump demonizing Mexicans which he has done in his speeches - this as far as I can see is racist?
What has sex with little girls got to do with this? What is going on inside your head? There are some sick people on here.
Time for bed, there was no need for that was there?
No need for what - replying to someone's stupid comment?
... he has helped in exposing some uncomfortable truths about the practices of some extreme minorities in this country and make no mistake about it, the authorities do not like that one bit and are very keen to silence him, esp in the age of social media where his message can stretch far and wide.
Okay. Can you name ONE "uncomfortable truth" he has exposed? More than one would be even better.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
I think Carter has answered this on my behalf, which is just as well as I would not have the memory to roll of the numerous speeches or videos I’ve watched from him over many years. Though I’m happy to dig some out over the weekend if required.
The ones that stick in my mind though are the Luton one’s from years back, when he was exposing the behaviour of a significant number of extremist Muslims who live there. Most people do not have a scooby what was happening there and in similar towns and if some of those videos were more mainstream would have caused a stir from any right thinking individuals.
Also, just because something has been on a news outlet at one time, does not mean it can’t continue to be exposed. How many people (esp the younger generation) actually watch the news these day.
You must have seen the police treatment he gets when out trying to voice his messages. He’s regularly been allowed to be attacked whilst doing these and is constantly harassed by the police. Who are those orders coming from? The fact he’s speaking facts all-be-it sometimes mistimed and with colourful language makes it even more ridiculous. How has he ended up in top security prisons for relatively low crimes? How was he imprissoned 5hrs after arrest? I’d bet my mortgage he’s seen as a problem by the top security in this Country.
Compare his harassment to the years and years we had to witness preaching by Muslim extermists on our streets being allowed to happen.
I don’t know Tommy personally, few do, so he may well want to stir problems and create trouble but after what he’s witnessed in his home town and dealt with close to him I wouldn’t blame him at being mighty peeved off about it and wanting to paint some truths.
Personally I think he handles himself remarkably well and with incredible restraint considering the provocation and assaults he endures. And he’s also willing to debate with the media in the public domain and again did this admirably last year.
I may be proved wrong but I genuinely think he’s passionate and cares about what he’s saying. He wants people to know what occurs on the streets and he feels it needs a voice.
Ultimately, from my perspective, there has always been an assumption that to have certain opinions on immigration and minority extremism makes you a racist. I know I’m not a racist as does anyone who knows me, yet I feel afraid to air my views in most company and it shouldn’t be that way.
If Tommy can get across to more people, exactly why mine and others views exist, then I see that as a good thing. You only need to see the diverse support he’s received recently to know many other bog standard, job public feel the same.
Do I agree with everything he says and does? Of course I don’t, but then I don’t my wife/best mates/football idols,etc either but I can still agree with and respect them at other times.
" Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans. "
Utter bollocks.
Oh I must have misheard him praising the Mexican population? How racist does your President need to be?
Not a problem for you obviously - presumably you encourage it.
We must've missed it when the rabid left wing exposed the practices of certain religious ideologues that have a penchant for sex with little girls. How vile do some have to be?
Not a problem for you, obviously - presumably you encourage it.
See what I did there? As justifiable as your comment, and probably just as stupid.
I was talking about Trump demonizing Mexicans which he has done in his speeches - this as far as I can see is racist?
What has sex with little girls got to do with this? What is going on inside your head? There are some sick people on here.
If you genuinely want me to spell it out for you and take you through, step by step, what you said, my self confessed 'just as stupid' analogy and how you've spectacularly misrepresented that then I'm happy to do so.
If not then I'd like to think that any sane, rational, thinker can see where you've gone wrong. Even if you can't.
" Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans. "
Utter bollocks.
Oh I must have misheard him praising the Mexican population? How racist does your President need to be?
Not a problem for you obviously - presumably you encourage it.
We must've missed it when the rabid left wing exposed the practices of certain religious ideologues that have a penchant for sex with little girls. How vile do some have to be?
Not a problem for you, obviously - presumably you encourage it.
See what I did there? As justifiable as your comment, and probably just as stupid.
I was talking about Trump demonizing Mexicans which he has done in his speeches - this as far as I can see is racist?
What has sex with little girls got to do with this? What is going on inside your head? There are some sick people on here.
If you genuinely want me to spell it out for you and take you through, step by step, what you said, my self confessed 'just as stupid' analogy and how you've spectacularly misrepresented that then I'm happy to do so.
If not then I'd like to think that any sane, rational, thinker can see where you've gone wrong. Even if you can't.
I don't understand the need to introduce child abuse into an argument about racism. I'm obviously not 'rational' - I must be missing something.
My issue is about condoning political leaders, whatever their persuasion, who employ racism to divide people. It's a common device of populist leaders who wish to put up barriers between people - used by both the left and the right.
Yes he probably has got a half decent solicitor because he's got so much support.
I couldn't give a shit why he doesn't use his own name, maybe, possibly when he started all this he wanted to distance his family with the same surname. The world was a bit smaller then in terms of social media.
As far as keeping harking back to him being leader of the edl 5 years ago, Nelson Mandela used to be in the ANC. People are allowed to change.
the bbc article labelled him as far right activist - which made me chuckle - from what i see his application of camps in luton got turned down, all they have done is bring his thoughts and opinions to more people - just as an example my bosses wife is Venezuelan and she has now read all about him and supports his opinions, unlikely she would of ever read about him had he not been jailed and splashed across every paper. the country is in an awful state - see the nurse killed because of some cnut carrying acid - hate breeds a lot easier in an angry nation.
for what its worth i dont agree with everything he says but a lot of it i do - would i attend a free tommy march/edl march probably not - does attract a lot of unsavory types.
Same thing used to happen with the British Movement, BNP, National Front marches. They got a lot of unfair bad press - the media kept concentrating on the violent racist thugs that attended.
Hopefully his views will spread and we will be able to reclaim our country! In the words of Tommy 'I love everyone !'.
that would be doing the same as anyone that likes jeremy being called a loony lefties which of course you wouldn't be offended with would you?.
the bnp and tommy robinson - are quite different one bases itself on the aryan idea of britain and all immigrants are a bad thing, tommy robinson wants to stop the islamification of england which in some parts of the uk are happening, try going to luton and buying a property and see how long you can be there before the local community put shit through your letterbox etc.
edit; on the above i am talking about tommy robinson as a man not as the people that attend his marches, as quite clearly that is a very different thing.
for what it is worth i dont think any religous buildings should be given government funding and there should not be rules for seperate religions, the burkha should be banned if we cant all do the same thing how are we all meant to get on?, some of these people insist on putting barriers up because they do not want integration, and a lot of the so called experts do not live in these areas where you can be some times hard pushed to even find the english language spoken.
Stephen Yaxley has been convicted twice of contempt of court which could have wrecked the trial in both cases. To what end he is doing this I don't know or maybe he thinks he is above the law? There will be a retrial in the case of the second conviction as it appears the Judge did not follow legal process correctly.
Yaxley is bankrolled by the far right - he's a willing mouthpiece. A lot of his support is openly racist and anti-muslim - there doesn't appear to be much desire for dialogue.
There is an unsavoury history of racism in far right politics and targeting immigrants/minorities is a common thread. Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans.
There are white and Muslims who don't want integration - right wing racists and Muslim extremists both show little desire to listen.
As for Stephen I just think he's attention seeking - not really sure what he's doing that is constructive.
You go on about the Islamification of Britain and then make reference to putting shit through a letterbox - is this specifically a Muslim thing?
I'll change a few of the words in this post, probably tomorrow as I need to make dinner for the missus, so that it gives a backdrop to the 'stupid' analogy I'm making.
Yes he probably has got a half decent solicitor because he's got so much support.
I couldn't give a shit why he doesn't use his own name, maybe, possibly when he started all this he wanted to distance his family with the same surname. The world was a bit smaller then in terms of social media.
As far as keeping harking back to him being leader of the edl 5 years ago, Nelson Mandela used to be in the ANC. People are allowed to change.
the bbc article labelled him as far right activist - which made me chuckle - from what i see his application of camps in luton got turned down, all they have done is bring his thoughts and opinions to more people - just as an example my bosses wife is Venezuelan and she has now read all about him and supports his opinions, unlikely she would of ever read about him had he not been jailed and splashed across every paper. the country is in an awful state - see the nurse killed because of some cnut carrying acid - hate breeds a lot easier in an angry nation.
for what its worth i dont agree with everything he says but a lot of it i do - would i attend a free tommy march/edl march probably not - does attract a lot of unsavory types.
Same thing used to happen with the British Movement, BNP, National Front marches. They got a lot of unfair bad press - the media kept concentrating on the violent racist thugs that attended.
Hopefully his views will spread and we will be able to reclaim our country! In the words of Tommy 'I love everyone !'.
that would be doing the same as anyone that likes jeremy being called a loony lefties which of course you wouldn't be offended with would you?.
the bnp and tommy robinson - are quite different one bases itself on the aryan idea of britain and all immigrants are a bad thing, tommy robinson wants to stop the islamification of england which in some parts of the uk are happening, try going to luton and buying a property and see how long you can be there before the local community put shit through your letterbox etc.
edit; on the above i am talking about tommy robinson as a man not as the people that attend his marches, as quite clearly that is a very different thing.
for what it is worth i dont think any religous buildings should be given government funding and there should not be rules for seperate religions, the burkha should be banned if we cant all do the same thing how are we all meant to get on?, some of these people insist on putting barriers up because they do not want integration, and a lot of the so called experts do not live in these areas where you can be some times hard pushed to even find the english language spoken.
Stephen Yaxley has been convicted twice of contempt of court which could have wrecked the trial in both cases. To what end he is doing this I don't know or maybe he thinks he is above the law? There will be a retrial in the case of the second conviction as it appears the Judge did not follow legal process correctly.
Yaxley is bankrolled by the far right - he's a willing mouthpiece. A lot of his support is openly racist and anti-muslim - there doesn't appear to be much desire for dialogue.
There is an unsavoury history of racism in far right politics and targeting immigrants/minorities is a common thread. Trump has done the same thing in the US with his demonizing of Mexicans.
There are white and Muslims who don't want integration - right wing racists and Muslim extremists both show little desire to listen.
As for Stephen I just think he's attention seeking - not really sure what he's doing that is constructive.
You go on about the Islamification of Britain and then make reference to putting shit through a letterbox - is this specifically a Muslim thing?
I'll change a few of the words in this post, probably tomorrow as I need to make dinner for the missus, so that it gives a backdrop to the 'stupid' analogy I'm making.
I reckon you'll cotton on before then, though.
Maybe when you next use an analogy it won't involve child abuse? It's obviously lost on me. If you disagreed with something I said you could possibly argue the toss about it rather than make an analogy that I can't follow.
Personally I see the issue as that regardless of whether or not Stephen/Tommy is islamophobic/racist/xenophobic or actively promotes/condones violence and abuse of Muslims/refugees etc. his speeches and rallies undoubtedly do draw in a LOT of the racist knuckle-dragging thugs along with those who are not. There are those use his words as an incitement to assault and abuse whether or not he intends it that way... And so he very much IS someone the police would worry about, if not for himself then for what tends to happen around him.
As far as the retrial goes, he isn't off the hook, he's not "free", the charge still stands. Until the new verdict is released it is foolish to make any more definite judgment.
Nice to see Stephen now comparing himself to inmates at Guantanamo Bay - really bigging up his victim status. I'm assuming next he'll claim to have been waterboarded.
People call millenials 'snowflakes' but the far right seem to be out doing them. They are going all out to portray themselves as victims.
Nice to see Stephen now comparing himself to inmates at Guantanamo Bay - really bigging up his victim status. I'm assuming next he'll claim to have been waterboarded.
People call millenials 'snowflakes' but the far right seem to be out doing them. They are going all out to portray themselves as victims.
Comments
Which would be an awful outcome.
What has he said that is not already in the public domain and he has therefore "exposed"?
The "authorities" - whoever they may be - do not give this inconsequential self-appointed messiah one second thought. He is of no relevance to anybody except in his own head.
The only way he gets to be "silenced" is because his own idiotic behaviour is in breach of the laws of the land.
Another I find uncomfortable is the truth about what Luton has become and how. He's not an unpopular figure in Luton across whatever caste you want to label anyone with however him asking questions and pointing out some pretty abhorrent behaviour (wide scale child abuse, domestic abuse) by a large part of the Islamic community isn't welcomed by some people.
By him doing this he isn't being a bigot, he's being direct, granted. And I don't have a problem with any child abuser or wife beater being directly challenged or questioned whatever fairy tale they follow.
After the 3 girls programme was aired on BBC there was an explosion of outrage and a lot of that outrage came from people who had no idea it was going on or believed TR was running around challenging this sort of shite and the way Islamic communities in places that have seen widescale child abuse for example have closed ranks as opposed to exposing the maggots themselves, for a laugh. Or because he doesn't like Muslims.
He's sat and spoken to people who already have a formed opinion of him and if nothing else it's a view into how intelligent he is and how secretive (at best) influential figures within Islamic groups are about what is going on under their noses. And I've seen then more fair And objective subjects at least listen to him and agree that he has a point.
He was sent to maximum security prison for contempt of court. That's normal is it? He was sent to category A for a mortgage fraud, and kept in one. Mortgage fraud being a non violent crime, as opposed to prisoners who usually populate high security prisons. This bit is irrelevant I suppose as I'm sure someone will tell me.
I get people don't like him or his delivery, however ask yourself the question why is he doing it and why did he start doing it? If you don't want to learn about him, do a bit of objective learning about how radical Islam has changed Luton.
And you know what, very, very few people are against a diverse society, to have one you need integration. And this is the actual problem, swathes of areas become ghettos which is shit. It breeds hatred and resentment, it doesn't encourage integration, it makes those areas impossible to manage and eventually they become their own little society isolated from the rest of the community.
I'll gloss over the fact that the preachers you call hate preachers would be describe differently by others, or that The Mosque banned Abedi after he lost the plot with the Iman following his denouncing of ISIS or that the Mosque bans political discussions on its premises.
How would this twonk have found out the names of the preachers or their views I wonder? Is there proof anywhere of this?
Let's face it, he is just using and distorting facts that are already in the public domain for his own purposes.
He's exposed nothing much that's true, just manipulated information to suit his agenda.
The ironic thing is that whilst you make the argument for others' descriptions of those preachers to, potentially, hold some validity, you don't afford that luxury to those that see Tommy/Stephen in a different light to the labels you would like to put on him.
It's funny how and who we defend and the completely different rationale we apply to identical situations.
The arsehole Robinson is just a rabble-rouser. He wants war as much as the radicals on the other side.
For the record I'm no great fan of Islam (or Judaism for that matter). God of any flavour is just a silly myth and the two aforementioned religions are bizarre in the extreme. A better way of dragging them kicking and screaming into the modern era would be to ban certain of their practices. I'd start with the inhumane concepts of halal and kosher butchery.
In an ideal or even a slightly more sensible one than the version we are living in now people like TR wouldn't exist, he came to the fore front when people, who happen to be muslim or call them whatever you want, were abusing british troops and he could see they were being allowed to do so. He's banging a drum, rabble rousing, whatever he has a cause that I don't believe is financially rewarding for the risks involved. He isn't the only person doing it. He's just more prominent than some others
Re what's been said, there are a number of first hand accounts from liberal Muslims that found the courage to speak above the dominant conservatism that runs through most Mosques. Liberal Muslims that genuinely fear for their lives when speaking out.
Lastly, you're not allowed to criticise Islamic practices as that makes you Islamaphobic. You know, the word that was created to protect, and shut down, any criticisms of Islam so that it is afforded a different rule set and laws to any other religion.
What has sex with little girls got to do with this? What is going on inside your head? There are some sick people on here.
The ones that stick in my mind though are the Luton one’s from years back, when he was exposing the behaviour of a significant number of extremist Muslims who live there. Most people do not have a scooby what was happening there and in similar towns and if some of those videos were more mainstream would have caused a stir from any right thinking individuals.
Also, just because something has been on a news outlet at one time, does not mean it can’t continue to be exposed. How many people (esp the younger generation) actually watch the news these day.
You must have seen the police treatment he gets when out trying to voice his messages. He’s regularly been allowed to be attacked whilst doing these and is constantly harassed by the police. Who are those orders coming from? The fact he’s speaking facts all-be-it sometimes mistimed and with colourful language makes it even more ridiculous. How has he ended up in top security prisons for relatively low crimes? How was he imprissoned 5hrs after arrest? I’d bet my mortgage he’s seen as a problem by the top security in this Country.
Compare his harassment to the years and years we had to witness preaching by Muslim extermists on our streets being allowed to happen.
I don’t know Tommy personally, few do, so he may well want to stir problems and create trouble but after what he’s witnessed in his home town and dealt with close to him I wouldn’t blame him at being mighty peeved off about it and wanting to paint some truths.
Personally I think he handles himself remarkably well and with incredible restraint considering the provocation and assaults he endures. And he’s also willing to debate with the media in the public domain and again did this admirably last year.
I may be proved wrong but I genuinely think he’s passionate and cares about what he’s saying. He wants people to know what occurs on the streets and he feels it needs a voice.
Ultimately, from my perspective, there has always been an assumption that to have certain opinions on immigration and minority extremism makes you a racist. I know I’m not a racist as does anyone who knows me, yet I feel afraid to air my views in most company and it shouldn’t be that way.
If Tommy can get across to more people, exactly why mine and others views exist, then I see that as a good thing. You only need to see the diverse support he’s received recently to know many other bog standard, job public feel the same.
Do I agree with everything he says and does? Of course I don’t, but then I don’t my wife/best mates/football idols,etc either but I can still agree with and respect them at other times.
If I'd done the same I'd expect to be called out for it? I don't really understand why child abuse suddenly got dragged into the argument ?
The poster seems to be suggesting I support religious ideologues that condone this - sick way to make an argument but maybe that's okay on here?
If not then I'd like to think that any sane, rational, thinker can see where you've gone wrong. Even if you can't.
My issue is about condoning political leaders, whatever their persuasion, who employ racism to divide people. It's a common device of populist leaders who wish to put up barriers between people - used by both the left and the right.
I reckon you'll cotton on before then, though.
If you disagreed with something I said you could possibly argue the toss about it rather than make an analogy that I can't follow.
Enjoy your tea - be lucky.
As far as the retrial goes, he isn't off the hook, he's not "free", the charge still stands. Until the new verdict is released it is foolish to make any more definite judgment.
People call millenials 'snowflakes' but the far right seem to be out doing them. They are going all out to portray themselves as victims.