O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[Turfmoorspirit]

Just to say though, Turf, I would definitely deport or behead anyone who supports terrorism.

Yep ! i am pizzed,i understand what you are saying but i have just had enough. I am a very peaceful person who,s tollerence has come to an end .. Play them at thier own game,wipe them out as they wish to do to us in our own country.. I welcome anyone who can intergrate and be part of our country with open arms.. Islam is a cancer that needs to be cured..

[sota]

Roly, why do you think that anyone who stands up to your roll over and take it attitude is a fascist or a racist? You are part of the problem but your blinkers are preventing you from seeing that.

[Turfmoorspirit]

Roly, why do you think that anyone who stands up to your roll over and take it attitude is a fascist or a racist? You are part of the problem, but your blinkers are preventing you from seeing that.

A big part of the problem !

[sota]

Roly et al, I've just got home from dropping my daughter off at Miami International Airport ( a melting pot if ever I saw one) for her trip to study abroad in Greece. It's fair to say that TSA is targeting non white people with backpacks etc and letting 30 stone American looking people through pre check without removing their shoes and belts etc. Is this racist in your book?

[KerrAvon]

Well I thought the point in your first paragraph had already been raised. It is clear what my explanation is - because of the pathetic political correctness we live under, just like in the Rotherham grooming scandal, the police bend over backwards to appease Muslims, and to do everything in their power to not look racist. This includes ignoring young white girls who tell them they are being raped and passed around Muslim men, this includes arresting a 13 year old white girl for being drunk and disorderly when they arrive at a house full of Muslim men and find her there - but none of the men are even questioned never mind arrested, this includes arresting the father of a 14 year old girl who arrives at a house to take his daughter home from a house full of Muslim *****philes and unbelievably leaving her in their clutches.... Yes, just a few little examples. And this also includes repeatedly harassing and persecuting a man who constantly criticises Islam - Tommy Robinson. And it also includes - although this is more down to law makers than law enforcers - not having tighter and stricter controls on people suspected of being terrorist links. Say what you like, but under my system, the Westminster and Manchester attackers would have been in prison and not able to murder loads of people.

I've already made the point earlier that internment would achieve exactly what it did in Ireland.

Your points about the assault video are laughable though. You can tell from everyone's reactions EXACTLY what has happened. Watch it again, but this time with a little less prejudice, and actually try to tell the truth. You can clearly see the arm of the muppet in the blue top move to the side, as he elbows Tommy or shoves him. Unfortunately, you can't see exactly what he did of the two, or with how much force, because, as he does it, the muppet in the red top blocks the camera. However, Tommy falls into the wall. You can tell by Kev Carrolls' reaction that he knows EXACTLY what has happened, because he instantly shouts, "Oi lads! Won't you just facking get out of it."

Now, unlike you, I tell the full truth. You claim that what you saw next was, "Carroll who appears to take exception to person with the blue shirt and starts pushing him." Well, he certainly never starts pushing him. That phrase would indicate he pushes him a few times. In actual fact, you don't even see him push him once on camera. All you see is Carroll with his hands outstretched, well, that could be in a peaceful manner, a pacifist. The man in the blue shirt could have stumbled. You no more know that Kev Carroll pushed that man in the blue top than I do that the man in the blue top pushed Tommy. Try to fair and even-minded.

Again though, it is safe to say what happened because of people's reactions. The man in the blue top pushed Tommy. Tommy's reaction was to fall into the wall. Kev's reaction was to push the man in the blue top. Now, Kev Carroll's reaction to his younger cousin being pushed was to defend him and push back the man coming at him. The man in the blue top's reaction was to punch Kev in the stomach.

Again, you can tell everything that is happening by their reactions. Tommy Robinson and Kev Carroll then speak to the police. You can tell by how incensed Tommy and Kev are that the only person there who has assaulted anyone is the man in the blue top. You can also tell that the police fully understand that it was NOT self defence on the part of the man in the blue top because not one of them who witnessed it says anything of the sort.

Of course, the police were witnesses to the assault and were filming it from the other angle themselves. But they would allow the violent, fascist left to attack Tommy or his friend, and not provide any evidence to support the truth, because that would not allow them to continue with their persecution of Tommy.

The fact you see anything other than that, is, as I said, laughable.

In regards to Tommy's answer on Twitter about being arrested, he was joking. The joke being, the police often arrest him for very little anyway, but even he was surprised to be arrested that day.

And talk about being paranoid, he was mic'd up for the charity walk because his friend was filming it! He has been the victim of assault by Muslims and leftists thugs so many times that he films himself a lot, for his own safety and evidence.

I assume that you are joking when you suggest that I have watched the video with prejudice? Or were you thinking about that person you see a lot of in the mirror when you typed that?

Look, I appreciate that I am threatening a sacred cow of persons of a particular persuasion when I suggest that it provides no conclusive evidence of an assault and I appreciate that ‘Tommy and Kev’ went to a lot of trouble to get it in the first place, but I have watched it many times, just as, I watch videos of alleged offending many times a month as part of my work, and I stand by what I said.

I see that you have to rely upon people’s reactions to try to shore up the assault claim. I am grateful for your confirmation that there is no direct evidence of blue shirt having pushed ‘Tommy’. I can see him unfold his arms, but not what follows, because, as you point out, another person is blocking the view. If there was a coming together, I have no idea of the nature of any contact or who was responsible for the same. And neither do you, even with the benefit of your Tommy tinted spectacles.

‘Kev’s ‘reaction is certainly interesting. As you point out, he refers to ‘lads’, so his reaction is to take offence to multiple person. How is that consistent with a reaction to an assault by a single person?

Where you interpretation of the video gets really funny, however, is your denial that ‘Kev’ pushed blue shirt. How can you miss the two handed push? I’d take those Tommy tints back to the shop, if I were you. You can even hear the slap of it making contact! If it helps, it’s at 0:29 and immediately precedes blue shirt turning and reacting to ‘Kev’. I don’t really get the next bit of your post. You deny that ‘Kev’ pushed blue shirt then immediately say that he pushed him. You may want to think again about that passage.

The police tell ‘Tommy’ that they are dealing with blue shirt (when they can get a word in edge ways). They don’t enter into debate about who did what and nor would you expect them to.

You also rely upon Tommy’s reaction to what happened. As far as I can see he goes into full blown ‘Tommy’ mode, shrieking, shouting, and talking over the top of people rather than listening. If that is evidence of him being assaulted, I must say that he most have been assaulted in just about every video in which I have seen him interacting with others.

More interestingly is ‘Tommy’s’ assertion at 1:22 that blue shirt had smacked someone in the face. I note that not even you are trying to make that claim. That leaves us with the position that either he is deliberately seeking to mislead, or hasn’t got a clue about what exactly happened. I’ll be charitable to him (see what I did there) and assume that it is the latter. I’m with him on that, even with video evidence it is impossible to say what happened with certainty, which is why I say that nobody would be convicted upon that recording alone.

I also love your explanation for the tweet that was reported in The Independent. I’d be interested in how you know it was a joke. What's your source? Did he tell you that or did you find that ‘fact’ on another website? Or did you make it up?

As for the mic., a friend of mine has just completed the three peaks for charity (for childhood cancer, as it happens). I haven’t asked her why she chose that challenge as opposed to walking through London past the site of the East London mosque and on to the site of the killing of Lee Rigby. She also didn’t wear a microphone and arrange for the attendance of video journalist. Mind you, I think that she was concerned with the physical challenge nd raising money as opposed to taking part in a political stunt. She got what she wanted from it though, just like ‘Tommy’.

Your last paragraph, I answered in my first paragraph. Although, I can't remember where I said the state were 100% accurate and reliable when it comes to Muslim watch lists. I said they have information of something as they don't just put random Muslims on this list for no reason. They don't just think, "Oh, he is brown or has a beard, or I once saw him walking past a mosque, so he MUST be a terrorist." They have clear information that puts them on that list. Information, that if they do not act upon will mean the murders of many people. If they had information that Tommy Robinson was a potential terrorist, then I would say indefinitely lock him up too. But they haven't. So instead they try to lock him up for loads of other things because he tells the uncomfortable truth that the left don't want to hear.

Do you work for the security services? You are claiming a lot of knowledge about how watch lists are compiled. Then again, you also claim to have a lot of knowledge about the working of 'Tommy's' mind and his motivations such as to be able to apologise for him and explain away some of his less savoury actions..

[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.

[KerrAvon]

Turf, I agree with you on a lot of things, but I can't agree with you on that statement. I would hope you only made the comment because you have been out drinking, and as it is Bank Holiday weekend, you have got carried away.

I have said in the past that the only way to prevent Islamic terrorism in this country would be to deport all Muslims even British Muslims. I didn't say it was a workable plan, however. Because of the logistics of rounding up every Muslim, the - understandable - opposition you would get from trying to do so, and the problem of working out where exactly where to send the British Muslims to, this plan would be unworkable. When I have mentioned this before, I was saying, if you had a magic wand, what could you do to stop all Islamic extremism in Britain instantly? Wave the wand, all Muslims are moved to Muslim countries. Problem solved. But that of course, is not possible.

What I wouldn't want, EVER, is innocent people of any religion, nationality, race, colour or creed to be killed.

So if you actually meant that, I stand against you. I don't want any innocent people to die. If you were joking or just drunkenly shooting from the hip, then okay. But if you actually mean it, then that does make you as bad as Muslims who say they want to see all non-Muslims killed.

I am as against Nazism as I am against Islamism. Opposite sides of the same coin.

The word apologist gets thrown around in threads like these. Is there any better example than the way that you bend over backwards to defend the actions of the man that you call Tommy? He is fairly heavily convicted, but you explain all those convictions away in a manner that would have even the most dedicated defence advocates blushing. You only grudgingly accept that the ‘charity walk’ was probably a political stunt. You do a Nelsonian ‘I see no ships act’ act when watching the video. Your apologism is spreading too. I see that you now greet Turfmoorspirit’s latest offering by immediately giving him a way out – I would hope you only made the comment because you have been out drinking, and as it is Bank Holiday weekend, you have got carried away.

[KerrAvon]

Roly et al, I've just got home from dropping my daughter off at Miami International Airport ( a melting pot if ever I saw one) for her trip to study abroad in Greece. It's fair to say that TSA is targeting non white people with backpacks etc and letting 30 stone American looking people through pre check without removing their shoes and belts etc. Is this racist in your book?

Not so much racist as incredibly short sighted. If you can spot the TSA search strategy so easily, you can be certain that potential terrorists can. Perhaps they should put on more staff and check everyone’s shoes etc.?

[rolymiller]

Ok Ellis let's go along with your argument. All terrorists are removed from this country by a right wing rule. Maybe all Muslims. Who do they go for next? Do we live happily ever after? What happens to me your old pal who would obviously demonstrate against such things. By your argument I have a right to have my say. What about the Muslims who say they are English and will not go? What about the millions of moderate people who say come on this is a step too far. whether you like it or not your views are a minority view even on here. We get the same half dozen millersmadders supporting your views more miller's madders being anti your views and the rest completely ignoring them. Whatever hyou say and think your views are just in a minority because most people know that intolerance is not the way forward for the world. It is backward thinking. For me it is the stuff of mediaeval times. Human beings nearly died out when they first emerged. The only way the first humans managed to perpetuate the species was through cooperation. If the first humans had shown suchintolerance of each other we would not be here now.

[brassgnat]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...FB_mirror_main

Tommy Robinson and supporters cheering and encouraging this along.