OT: So here's why the BBC and the Guardian kept quiet about Tommy Robinson

[MagpieTony]

[Notsohumblepie]

Let me try to explain why I think TR might be a focal point and why it seems so many people support him:
This is a section of the police officer’s oath:
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will serve the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence & impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people … & prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold said office I will discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

These are sections from The Code for Crown Prosecutors, January 2013:
“It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence & to bring offenders to justice wherever possible.”
“Decisions are to be taken fairly, impartially and with integrity to help to secure justice for victims & the public.”
“Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied.”

Now while you’re reading the next few paragraphs remember that many of the protestors, the families of the people raped, & the half a million plus who have signed the petition for his release will be tax payers who pay for people to uphold the above pledges.

Space is limited on NCM so here are just a few of the things that people will be angry about:

The Communications Act Sec 127 is the main tool being used to undermine freedom of expression in the UK. In 2016, 3300 people were questioned using its powers. Around half of these cases were dropped before any prosecution. I obviously have not looked at all the cases but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a large proportion of the arrests were for criticising Islam. This angers many as they see this as a sinister attack on their freedom of expression while they have the privilege of paying for the people doing the enforcing.

Of course the most notorious case was the Count Dankula “Hitler Dog” case which would be funny if what it symbolised wasn’t so sinister. What is most terrifying about this case is that the judge said “context and intent are irrelevant”. A judge we pay for.
(To calibrate where we are on this, in 1941 a German vice consul in Nazi-friendly Finland reported a suspicious act: a dog had reportedly mocked the Führer. Tor Borg was called in for questioning & asked if it was true his dog had, upon hearing the word “Hitler,” made a mockery of the chancellor by performing a Nazi salute? The case collapsed due to lack of witnesses. “Considering the circumstances could not be solved completely, it is not necessary to press charges,” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12139150 )

So our authorities now prosecute stuff even the Nazi’s did not.

Now contrast the Count Dankula case with the Munroe Bergdorf (black trans model) case. MB posted this on Facebook, “I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes, all white people…” The BBC aired a piece in which Bergdorf stated, “the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth.” People reported these statements but were met with guess what? Official indifference.

How much do you think the official double standards demonstrated by the Dankula & Bergdorf cases angers people?

One of the bodies that reported anti-Islam “hate speech” for years was TellMAMA. People were reported by this group for “anti-Muslim hate”. After Lee Rigby was murdered, this group claimed there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims and reported 193 “Islamophobic incidents”. What they failed to mention was that over half of these “incidents” were online posts and that many did not even originate in the UK. The media of course unquestioningly repeated these claims. This group received a total of £375,000 of taxpayer cash before it had its funding cut in 2013 by the Department for Communities and Local Government because its reporting was so dishonest. Dishonest about Islamophobia after Lee Rigby’s murder remember.

Some will recall that Kevin Crehan was imprisoned for placing bacon outside a mosque. He turned up dead halfway through his 12 month sentence. Whatever else the authorities we pay for did, they failed to prevent his death.

You can of course now be arrested for reading out Churchill’s words from the River War in public as Paul Weston’s arrest proves. He was apparently arrested for “racial harrassment” despite the fact Islam never has been, and never will be, a race.

Contrast Crehan’s, Weston’s & Robinson’s treatment with the cover up of grooming gangs and ask yourself what reaction it might generate among many?

Consider that in 2010, a group of Muslims protested returning soldiers and held up signs saying, “British Soldiers Go To Hell”. They were protected by the police. Also consider that Sharia patrols are now a thing on the streets of London that many are worried about and no longer trust the police to deal with.

Now go back to the top of this piece and read the police officer’s oath and The Code for Crown Prosecutors’ extracts. Ask yourself if people should question whether the police act with “integrity, diligence and impartiality” & whether the CPS make decisions “fairly, impartially and with integrity”. Might they feel a little anger at the answers they arrive at concerning these people they pay for?

It seems simple to me. The authorities have created Tommy Robinson all by themselves. He’s a totem for a section of society who feel angered and unrepresented. A section who have seen their democratic rights either being given away or trampled on and their freedom of expression destroyed. People have seen the most vulnerable members of their communities groomed & raped by gangs staffed mainly by Pakistani Muslims while the police covered it up. They have been called Racist, Islamophobic & Far Right for years, and criminalised for tweeting their complaints about Islam in what for some, is the only inelegant way they know how.

How do you expect such people to relate to a figure they see as being the only person brave enough to call all this out on their behalf?

A well considered, and very well presented post.

[Airborn Pie]

Let me try to explain why I think TR might be a focal point and why it seems so many people support him:
This is a section of the police officer’s oath:
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will serve the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence & impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people … & prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold said office I will discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

These are sections from The Code for Crown Prosecutors, January 2013:
“It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence & to bring offenders to justice wherever possible.”
“Decisions are to be taken fairly, impartially and with integrity to help to secure justice for victims & the public.”
“Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied.”

Now while you’re reading the next few paragraphs remember that many of the protestors, the families of the people raped, & the half a million plus who have signed the petition for his release will be tax payers who pay for people to uphold the above pledges.

Space is limited on NCM so here are just a few of the things that people will be angry about:

The Communications Act Sec 127 is the main tool being used to undermine freedom of expression in the UK. In 2016, 3300 people were questioned using its powers. Around half of these cases were dropped before any prosecution. I obviously have not looked at all the cases but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a large proportion of the arrests were for criticising Islam. This angers many as they see this as a sinister attack on their freedom of expression while they have the privilege of paying for the people doing the enforcing.

Of course the most notorious case was the Count Dankula “Hitler Dog” case which would be funny if what it symbolised wasn’t so sinister. What is most terrifying about this case is that the judge said “context and intent are irrelevant”. A judge we pay for.
(To calibrate where we are on this, in 1941 a German vice consul in Nazi-friendly Finland reported a suspicious act: a dog had reportedly mocked the Führer. Tor Borg was called in for questioning & asked if it was true his dog had, upon hearing the word “Hitler,” made a mockery of the chancellor by performing a Nazi salute? The case collapsed due to lack of witnesses. “Considering the circumstances could not be solved completely, it is not necessary to press charges,” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12139150 )

So our authorities now prosecute stuff even the Nazi’s did not.

Now contrast the Count Dankula case with the Munroe Bergdorf (black trans model) case. MB posted this on Facebook, “I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes, all white people…” The BBC aired a piece in which Bergdorf stated, “the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth.” People reported these statements but were met with guess what? Official indifference.

How much do you think the official double standards demonstrated by the Dankula & Bergdorf cases angers people?

One of the bodies that reported anti-Islam “hate speech” for years was TellMAMA. People were reported by this group for “anti-Muslim hate”. After Lee Rigby was murdered, this group claimed there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims and reported 193 “Islamophobic incidents”. What they failed to mention was that over half of these “incidents” were online posts and that many did not even originate in the UK. The media of course unquestioningly repeated these claims. This group received a total of £375,000 of taxpayer cash before it had its funding cut in 2013 by the Department for Communities and Local Government because its reporting was so dishonest. Dishonest about Islamophobia after Lee Rigby’s murder remember.

Some will recall that Kevin Crehan was imprisoned for placing bacon outside a mosque. He turned up dead halfway through his 12 month sentence. Whatever else the authorities we pay for did, they failed to prevent his death.

You can of course now be arrested for reading out Churchill’s words from the River War in public as Paul Weston’s arrest proves. He was apparently arrested for “racial harrassment” despite the fact Islam never has been, and never will be, a race.

Contrast Crehan’s, Weston’s & Robinson’s treatment with the cover up of grooming gangs and ask yourself what reaction it might generate among many?

Consider that in 2010, a group of Muslims protested returning soldiers and held up signs saying, “British Soldiers Go To Hell”. They were protected by the police. Also consider that Sharia patrols are now a thing on the streets of London that many are worried about and no longer trust the police to deal with.

Now go back to the top of this piece and read the police officer’s oath and The Code for Crown Prosecutors’ extracts. Ask yourself if people should question whether the police act with “integrity, diligence and impartiality” & whether the CPS make decisions “fairly, impartially and with integrity”. Might they feel a little anger at the answers they arrive at concerning these people they pay for?

It seems simple to me. The authorities have created Tommy Robinson all by themselves. He’s a totem for a section of society who feel angered and unrepresented. A section who have seen their democratic rights either being given away or trampled on and their freedom of expression destroyed. People have seen the most vulnerable members of their communities groomed & raped by gangs staffed mainly by Pakistani Muslims while the police covered it up. They have been called Racist, Islamophobic & Far Right for years, and criminalised for tweeting their complaints about Islam in what for some, is the only inelegant way they know how.

How do you expect such people to relate to a figure they see as being the only person brave enough to call all this out on their behalf?

Excellent, well written and researched

[tarquinbeech]

Excellent write-up Alty.

ps The guy that "attacked" a mosque with 2 uncooked bacon sandwiches, Kevin Crehan, and subsequently found dead in his cell.....has still not been given the dignity of a Coroners Hearing, 17 months after being "suicided".....a hearing is set for December 2018, 24 months after his death.

The authorities clearly thought that everyone would have forgotten about him by that time!.....I wonder how long Tommy will last?

[ancientpie]

Let me try to explain why I think TR might be a focal point and why it seems so many people support him:
This is a section of the police officer’s oath:
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will serve the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence & impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people … & prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold said office I will discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

These are sections from The Code for Crown Prosecutors, January 2013:
“It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence & to bring offenders to justice wherever possible.”
“Decisions are to be taken fairly, impartially and with integrity to help to secure justice for victims & the public.”
“Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied.”

Now while you’re reading the next few paragraphs remember that many of the protestors, the families of the people raped, & the half a million plus who have signed the petition for his release will be tax payers who pay for people to uphold the above pledges.

Space is limited on NCM so here are just a few of the things that people will be angry about:

The Communications Act Sec 127 is the main tool being used to undermine freedom of expression in the UK. In 2016, 3300 people were questioned using its powers. Around half of these cases were dropped before any prosecution. I obviously have not looked at all the cases but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a large proportion of the arrests were for criticising Islam. This angers many as they see this as a sinister attack on their freedom of expression while they have the privilege of paying for the people doing the enforcing.

Of course the most notorious case was the Count Dankula “Hitler Dog” case which would be funny if what it symbolised wasn’t so sinister. What is most terrifying about this case is that the judge said “context and intent are irrelevant”. A judge we pay for.
(To calibrate where we are on this, in 1941 a German vice consul in Nazi-friendly Finland reported a suspicious act: a dog had reportedly mocked the Führer. Tor Borg was called in for questioning & asked if it was true his dog had, upon hearing the word “Hitler,” made a mockery of the chancellor by performing a Nazi salute? The case collapsed due to lack of witnesses. “Considering the circumstances could not be solved completely, it is not necessary to press charges,” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12139150 )

So our authorities now prosecute stuff even the Nazi’s did not.

Now contrast the Count Dankula case with the Munroe Bergdorf (black trans model) case. MB posted this on Facebook, “I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes, all white people…” The BBC aired a piece in which Bergdorf stated, “the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth.” People reported these statements but were met with guess what? Official indifference.

How much do you think the official double standards demonstrated by the Dankula & Bergdorf cases angers people?

One of the bodies that reported anti-Islam “hate speech” for years was TellMAMA. People were reported by this group for “anti-Muslim hate”. After Lee Rigby was murdered, this group claimed there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims and reported 193 “Islamophobic incidents”. What they failed to mention was that over half of these “incidents” were online posts and that many did not even originate in the UK. The media of course unquestioningly repeated these claims. This group received a total of £375,000 of taxpayer cash before it had its funding cut in 2013 by the Department for Communities and Local Government because its reporting was so dishonest. Dishonest about Islamophobia after Lee Rigby’s murder remember.

Some will recall that Kevin Crehan was imprisoned for placing bacon outside a mosque. He turned up dead halfway through his 12 month sentence. Whatever else the authorities we pay for did, they failed to prevent his death.

You can of course now be arrested for reading out Churchill’s words from the River War in public as Paul Weston’s arrest proves. He was apparently arrested for “racial harrassment” despite the fact Islam never has been, and never will be, a race.

Contrast Crehan’s, Weston’s & Robinson’s treatment with the cover up of grooming gangs and ask yourself what reaction it might generate among many?

Consider that in 2010, a group of Muslims protested returning soldiers and held up signs saying, “British Soldiers Go To Hell”. They were protected by the police. Also consider that Sharia patrols are now a thing on the streets of London that many are worried about and no longer trust the police to deal with.

Now go back to the top of this piece and read the police officer’s oath and The Code for Crown Prosecutors’ extracts. Ask yourself if people should question whether the police act with “integrity, diligence and impartiality” & whether the CPS make decisions “fairly, impartially and with integrity”. Might they feel a little anger at the answers they arrive at concerning these people they pay for?

It seems simple to me. The authorities have created Tommy Robinson all by themselves. He’s a totem for a section of society who feel angered and unrepresented. A section who have seen their democratic rights either being given away or trampled on and their freedom of expression destroyed. People have seen the most vulnerable members of their communities groomed & raped by gangs staffed mainly by Pakistani Muslims while the police covered it up. They have been called Racist, Islamophobic & Far Right for years, and criminalised for tweeting their complaints about Islam in what for some, is the only inelegant way they know how.

How do you expect such people to relate to a figure they see as being the only person brave enough to call all this out on their behalf?

As far as I know I am neither far left or far right but this post pretty much sums up how I feel, the more that the left try to protect these people the more "ammo" the right have got. I don't agree with all of what TM says or does but there is no doubt in my mind that he is being persecuted for doing it & in a "free society" this must be wrong.

[Trickytreesreds]

Excellent, well written and researched

Summed it up well for me.

Still doesn't answer as to why this happening though?
Something or someone is behind the plan

[ancientpie]

Let me try to explain why I think TR might be a focal point and why it seems so many people support him:
This is a section of the police officer’s oath:
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I will serve the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence & impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people … & prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold said office I will discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”

These are sections from The Code for Crown Prosecutors, January 2013:
“It is the duty of prosecutors to make sure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence & to bring offenders to justice wherever possible.”
“Decisions are to be taken fairly, impartially and with integrity to help to secure justice for victims & the public.”
“Prosecutors must ensure that the law is properly applied.”

Now while you’re reading the next few paragraphs remember that many of the protestors, the families of the people raped, & the half a million plus who have signed the petition for his release will be tax payers who pay for people to uphold the above pledges.

Space is limited on NCM so here are just a few of the things that people will be angry about:

The Communications Act Sec 127 is the main tool being used to undermine freedom of expression in the UK. In 2016, 3300 people were questioned using its powers. Around half of these cases were dropped before any prosecution. I obviously have not looked at all the cases but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a large proportion of the arrests were for criticising Islam. This angers many as they see this as a sinister attack on their freedom of expression while they have the privilege of paying for the people doing the enforcing.

Of course the most notorious case was the Count Dankula “Hitler Dog” case which would be funny if what it symbolised wasn’t so sinister. What is most terrifying about this case is that the judge said “context and intent are irrelevant”. A judge we pay for.
(To calibrate where we are on this, in 1941 a German vice consul in Nazi-friendly Finland reported a suspicious act: a dog had reportedly mocked the Führer. Tor Borg was called in for questioning & asked if it was true his dog had, upon hearing the word “Hitler,” made a mockery of the chancellor by performing a Nazi salute? The case collapsed due to lack of witnesses. “Considering the circumstances could not be solved completely, it is not necessary to press charges,” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12139150 )

So our authorities now prosecute stuff even the Nazi’s did not.

Now contrast the Count Dankula case with the Munroe Bergdorf (black trans model) case. MB posted this on Facebook, “I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes, all white people…” The BBC aired a piece in which Bergdorf stated, “the white race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on earth.” People reported these statements but were met with guess what? Official indifference.

How much do you think the official double standards demonstrated by the Dankula & Bergdorf cases angers people?

One of the bodies that reported anti-Islam “hate speech” for years was TellMAMA. People were reported by this group for “anti-Muslim hate”. After Lee Rigby was murdered, this group claimed there had been a “sustained wave of attacks and intimidation” against British Muslims and reported 193 “Islamophobic incidents”. What they failed to mention was that over half of these “incidents” were online posts and that many did not even originate in the UK. The media of course unquestioningly repeated these claims. This group received a total of £375,000 of taxpayer cash before it had its funding cut in 2013 by the Department for Communities and Local Government because its reporting was so dishonest. Dishonest about Islamophobia after Lee Rigby’s murder remember.

Some will recall that Kevin Crehan was imprisoned for placing bacon outside a mosque. He turned up dead halfway through his 12 month sentence. Whatever else the authorities we pay for did, they failed to prevent his death.

You can of course now be arrested for reading out Churchill’s words from the River War in public as Paul Weston’s arrest proves. He was apparently arrested for “racial harrassment” despite the fact Islam never has been, and never will be, a race.

Contrast Crehan’s, Weston’s & Robinson’s treatment with the cover up of grooming gangs and ask yourself what reaction it might generate among many?

Consider that in 2010, a group of Muslims protested returning soldiers and held up signs saying, “British Soldiers Go To Hell”. They were protected by the police. Also consider that Sharia patrols are now a thing on the streets of London that many are worried about and no longer trust the police to deal with.

Now go back to the top of this piece and read the police officer’s oath and The Code for Crown Prosecutors’ extracts. Ask yourself if people should question whether the police act with “integrity, diligence and impartiality” & whether the CPS make decisions “fairly, impartially and with integrity”. Might they feel a little anger at the answers they arrive at concerning these people they pay for?

It seems simple to me. The authorities have created Tommy Robinson all by themselves. He’s a totem for a section of society who feel angered and unrepresented. A section who have seen their democratic rights either being given away or trampled on and their freedom of expression destroyed. People have seen the most vulnerable members of their communities groomed & raped by gangs staffed mainly by Pakistani Muslims while the police covered it up. They have been called Racist, Islamophobic & Far Right for years, and criminalised for tweeting their complaints about Islam in what for some, is the only inelegant way they know how.

How do you expect such people to relate to a figure they see as being the only person brave enough to call all this out on their behalf?

As far as I know I am neither far left or far right but this post pretty much sums up how I feel, the more that the left try to protect these people the more "ammo" the right have got. I don't agree with all of what TR says or does but there is no doubt in my mind that he is being persecuted for doing it & in a "free society" this must be wrong.

[MagpieTony]

https://youtu.be/NOA9n3QdpFw

Here is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner talking about this subject.

1. Does it fill you with confidence that the Police under her supervision actually grasp the outrage associated with the problem?

2. Does it sound like she has the faintest clue as to what is going on even on her own doorstep let alone nationally?

3. Why is she so afraid to identify with the facts?

Cressida Dick? CID Dick Arses more like!

[cher1]

The Communications Act Sec 127 is the main tool being used to undermine freedom of expression in the UK. In 2016, 3300 people were questioned using its powers. Around half of these cases were dropped before any prosecution. I obviously have not looked at all the cases but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a large proportion of the arrests were for criticising Islam.

Can I ask what you have based that last sentence on, or is it just a guess? Given that the section relates to the following:

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

I dont see anything there that would make me come up with the same assumption, especially when you consider that obscene phone calls and texts etc are included in the act. People have been prosecuted under this section for threatening to rape women who campaigned to have Jane Austen on a bank note for example. No doubt ex-partners have been convicted of harassment too, after all that is very common.

The Hitler dog conviction was bizarre if indeed it was a joke as claimed. One strange conviction doesnt make a bad law though does it? I think that Monroe Bergdorf's comments were hate speech and should have been dealt with as such.

I cant comment on the veracity of the Gilligan article you have used about tellMAMA - if you do some further reading, you'll see that there was much debate about how true it was (for example it has since been stated that the funding was only ever for one year). That said, any misreporting of stats by the organisation should be highlighted.

Kevin Crehan was a violent football thug who had in his own words 'a long history of convictions', and was a drug addict. The bacon incident also involved him and others racially abusing people, and the judge said that his sentence took into account his previous violent criminal history. Sadly a number of people, especially men, and especially drug addicts, die in prison. Kevin Crehan didn't 'turn up' dead, he died of a drug overdose.

As for the 'British Soldiers go to hell' protesters being protected, actually they were convicted of a section 5 public order offence and their subsequent appeal was dismissed.

Tommy Robinson is an attention seeking common criminal, he's in prison for a crime he admitted to and was filming people involved in a trial. He knew exactly what he was doing and how his inevitable arrest would end up with plenty of publicity and him being seen by some as a cause celebre...

I'm genuinely confused with the obsession with religion on this football forum. There was a terrorist incident in another country in which 3 people died and immediately a thread was started on it. At the same time, in this country a mother and her daughter were murdered by a man (probably an ex partner, that is the usual way of these things) and women are murdered by male partners twice a week in England, yet that specific form of violence gets no airtime on here. There are gang related stabbings in England on an almost daily basis - a man was stabbed to death outside my daughter's home last week. Again that issue is hardly ever mentioned on here. Yet the whole 'Muslim' thing is incessant. When someone saves a child's life, the thread about it immediately makes an assumption about the person's religion and then doubt is cast on the reality of the rescue.

Free speech is a fascinating subject, I get that, but the number of posts related to this single religion seems disproportionate for a football forum.

[Airborn Pie]

The Communications Act Sec 127 is the main tool being used to undermine freedom of expression in the UK. In 2016, 3300 people were questioned using its powers. Around half of these cases were dropped before any prosecution. I obviously have not looked at all the cases but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say a large proportion of the arrests were for criticising Islam.

Can I ask what you have based that last sentence on, or is it just a guess? Given that the section relates to the following:

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,
(b)causes such a message to be sent; or
(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

I dont see anything there that would make me come up with the same assumption, especially when you consider that obscene phone calls and texts etc are included in the act. People have been prosecuted under this section for threatening to rape women who campaigned to have Jane Austen on a bank note for example. No doubt ex-partners have been convicted of harassment too, after all that is very common.

The Hitler dog conviction was bizarre if indeed it was a joke as claimed. One strange conviction doesnt make a bad law though does it? I think that Monroe Bergdorf's comments were hate speech and should have been dealt with as such.

I cant comment on the veracity of the Gilligan article you have used about tellMAMA - if you do some further reading, you'll see that there was much debate about how true it was (for example it has since been stated that the funding was only ever for one year). That said, any misreporting of stats by the organisation should be highlighted.

Kevin Crehan was a violent football thug who had in his own words 'a long history of convictions', and was a drug addict. The bacon incident also involved him and others racially abusing people, and the judge said that his sentence took into account his previous violent criminal history. Sadly a number of people, especially men, and especially drug addicts, die in prison. Kevin Crehan didn't 'turn up' dead, he died of a drug overdose.

As for the 'British Soldiers go to hell' protesters being protected, actually they were convicted of a section 5 public order offence and their subsequent appeal was dismissed.

Tommy Robinson is an attention seeking common criminal, he's in prison for a crime he admitted to and was filming people involved in a trial. He knew exactly what he was doing and how his inevitable arrest would end up with plenty of publicity and him being seen by some as a cause celebre...

I'm genuinely confused with the obsession with religion on this football forum. There was a terrorist incident in another country in which 3 people died and immediately a thread was started on it. At the same time, in this country a mother and her daughter were murdered by a man (probably an ex partner, that is the usual way of these things) and women are murdered by male partners twice a week in England, yet that specific form of violence gets no airtime on here. There are gang related stabbings in England on an almost daily basis - a man was stabbed to death outside my daughter's home last week. Again that issue is hardly ever mentioned on here. Yet the whole 'Muslim' thing is incessant. When someone saves a child's life, the thread about it immediately makes an assumption about the person's religion and then doubt is cast on the reality of the rescue.

Free speech is a fascinating subject, I get that, but the number of posts related to this single religion seems disproportionate for a football forum.

If anyone raised the stabbings, the same thing would rear it's head and some people would say, 'why do you always blame black people for these crimes'...fairly simply, because it's mostly black people involved in the stabbings.

On the last point, the comments regarding the genuine nature of the rescue, were tongue in cheek, obviously, to me anyway.