O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[KerrAvon]

1. I touched on this before. I have seen him speak out before that there should not be any no-go areas for ANYONE in our country and that everyone should be able to walk peacefully down any street. You and I both agree on that. So was he trying to prove that that is not the case? That's what I think. Of course, he could have been just trying to stir people up in that area. But if all he was doing, along with one other person, was a peaceful charity walk, he should have been able to do it anywhere without the fear of attack. Let's not try to twist this into anything else - any person in Britain should be allowed to walk down any street and not be attacked. The person innocently walking down a street can NEVER be the one in the wrong, only the people doing the assaulting.

So if you agree that anyone should be allowed to peacefully walk down any street, you would have been opposed to any attempt to ban the march that Anjem Choudary stated that he wished to hold in Wootton Bassett (the one where he said he wanted to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties)? And to be clear, you think the Home Secretary of the time was wrong when he said that he would ban it if the police requested him to?

2. As far as I recall, Tommy announced his intention to do a charity walk on Facebook/Twitter for this little girl. I can't pretend to know the full ins and outs of why it was decided which route, etc, because I can't remember reading it. Although, two possible reasons - though there could be completely different ones - are 1. Him making the political point he should be allowed to walk anywhere in his own country, and 2. That he wanted to inflame some radical Muslim to attack him. Again, probably to make a political point...... See, I am always honest.......

Your honesty is commendable, but how about taking a critical look at the two propositions that you have advanced?

Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?

There is something of a contradiction on the stance that you take towards the liberty of people who want to make provocative 'charity walks' and people who find themselves on the (100% reliable) terrorism watch lists. There appears to be the full spectrum there - from out and out libertarian to the draconian.

[Ellis_D]

So if you agree that anyone should be allowed to peacefully walk down any street, you would have been opposed to any attempt to ban the march that Anjem Choudary stated that he wished to hold in Wootton Bassett (the one where he said he wanted to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties)? And to be clear, you think the Home Secretary of the time was wrong when he said that he would ban it if the police requested him to?

Your honesty is commendable, but how about taking a critical look at the two propositions that you have advanced?

Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?

There is something of a contradiction on the stance that you take towards the liberty of people who want to make provocative 'charity walks' and people who find themselves on the (100% reliable) terrorism watch lists. There appears to be the full spectrum there - from out and out libertarian to the draconian.

Firstly, Anjem Choudary is a hate preacher. Tommy Robinson is not, regardless of what the left might believe. Choudary has been involved with several proscribed organisations. Tommy has been involved with none. Choudary has been involved with radicalising and training people to go and fight for terrorist organisations abroad. Tommy has not. Choudary praised the murderers involved in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks describing them as "magnificent martyrs". Tommy has NEVER praised ANY murderer. Choudary has regularly called for the deaths of British police and armed forces, Tommy has not.

That you would try to compare the two is baffling and again, frankly, laughable. But this is one of the most worrying things about the left. You seriously compare terrorists, and hate preachers like Anjem Choudary to people you consider to be far right like Tommy Robinson, and you don't even see how utterly ridiculous it is. One of them hates Britain, preaches hate and supports terrorism and murders. The other speaks out against that hate and terrorism.

That said, IF a Muslim who was NOT under suspicion of links to terrorists (I'd be amazed given the evidence if Choudary wasn't on that hate list) wanted to form some kind of protest about the war in Afghanistan, or any other country, even if it involved the quite bizarre spectacle of walking coffins through the street, then yes, they should be allowed to exercise their democratic right to protest. If the Home Secretary at the time told police he would ban the march if police wanted him to, then I can only assume that is because Choudary is a hate preacher and on the terror suspects list.

To be clear, any Muslim who is not suspected of this behaviour - and of course the Home Secretary would have access to this information - should be allowed to walk down any street they feel like and hold a PEACEFUL protest or demonstration.

'Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?' - I'm sure I have already been over this and like I said, he probably did want to make a political point. And again, I'll be honest, he may have been trying to provoke an attack from a Muslim or Muslims. And then be able to say, 'Look at these Islamic extremists, this is how bad they are, they would even attack me on a charity march.'

I'm not agreeing with him if he WAS trying to make a political point out of supposedly just raising money for charity, just as I don't agree with other public figures or celebrities who use things like that for their own agenda. There is also of course the very realistic possibility that by taking such a deliberate and provocative route that he knew would gain the march maximum publicity. That would also have gained the charity maximum donations. And the parents of the little girl were happy enough with the ends justifying the means.

And finally, there is no contradiction. Just common sense. Everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. The person doing the attacking should ALWAYS be the one in the wrong. I'd hazard a guess that if it was a Muslim walking down the street being attacked by white atheists or Christians you would be one of the first to speak out about how wrong it is. Simply walking down a street does not mean you might potentially murder tens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people, being a suspected terrorist does.

Again, that you can't see the vast difference between the two is extraordinary.

[KerrAvon]

Firstly, Anjem Choudary is a hate preacher. Tommy Robinson is not, regardless of what the left might believe. Choudary has been involved with several proscribed organisations. Tommy has been involved with none. Choudary has been involved with radicalising and training people to go and fight for terrorist organisations abroad. Tommy has not. Choudary praised the murderers involved in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks describing them as "magnificent martyrs". Tommy has NEVER praised ANY murderer. Choudary has regularly called for the deaths of British police and armed forces, Tommy has not.

That you would try to compare the two is baffling and again, frankly, laughable. But this is one of the most worrying things about the left. You seriously compare terrorists, and hate preachers like Anjem Choudary to people you consider to be far right like Tommy Robinson, and you don't even see how utterly ridiculous it is. One of them hates Britain, preaches hate and supports terrorism and murders. The other speaks out against that hate and terrorism.

That said, IF a Muslim who was NOT under suspicion of links to terrorists (I'd be amazed given the evidence if Choudary wasn't on that hate list) wanted to form some kind of protest about the war in Afghanistan, or any other country, even if it involved the quite bizarre spectacle of walking coffins through the street, then yes, they should be allowed to exercise their democratic right to protest. If the Home Secretary at the time told police he would ban the march if police wanted him to, then I can only assume that is because Choudary is a hate preacher and on the terror suspects list.

To be clear, any Muslim who is not suspected of this behaviour - and of course the Home Secretary would have access to this information - should be allowed to walk down any street they feel like and hold a PEACEFUL protest or demonstration.

'Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?' - I'm sure I have already been over this and like I said, he probably did want to make a political point. And again, I'll be honest, he may have been trying to provoke an attack from a Muslim or Muslims. And then be able to say, 'Look at these Islamic extremists, this is how bad they are, they would even attack me on a charity march.'

I'm not agreeing with him if he WAS trying to make a political point out of supposedly just raising money for charity, just as I don't agree with other public figures or celebrities who use things like that for their own agenda. There is also of course the very realistic possibility that by taking such a deliberate and provocative route that he knew would gain the march maximum publicity. That would also have gained the charity maximum donations. And the parents of the little girl were happy enough with the ends justifying the means.

And finally, there is no contradiction. Just common sense. Everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. The person doing the attacking should ALWAYS be the one in the wrong. I'd hazard a guess that if it was a Muslim walking down the street being attacked by white atheists or Christians you would be one of the first to speak out about how wrong it is. Simply walking down a street does not mean you might potentially murder tens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people, being a suspected terrorist does.

Again, that you can't see the vast difference between the two is extraordinary.

So to be completely clear, you would have been opposed to any ban on Anjem Choudary and his chums walking through the streets of Wootton Bassett with an empty coffin even though you describe him as a hate preacher and has been involved with several proscribed organisations? I'm afraid we part company on that point. I think such an action would have been grossly provocative and insensitive and should have been banned if Choudary had tried to go ahead with it. I also think that when 'Tommy' wants to make a provocative' charity walk' though London he should be told that he must take an alternative route.

I am an unashamed libertarian, but accept that the right of people to protest has to be balanced against need to keep public order and the rights of people to enjoy the areas where they live without provocation from people seeking to make political points.

Of course I agree with you that everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. I just think that people have responsibilities as well as rights and that they include a responsibility not to deliberately create situationss where being attacked is likely to happen and making sure that there are cameras there to capture it.