"Great" Britain is Over

[Brit]

8 hours ago, The_Dude said:

I love that country. Aside from Roman history, English history is a hobby of mine. Sadly, the country is going to enter a downward spin. Great Britain will be a caliphate by 2050. Good thing they don’t got guns. 

Churchill would weep if he knew who the mayor of London was. 

 

Churchill admired much about Islam (so much so his family was worried he might convert - never seriously on the cards as he was pretty much an atheist by then). He was also very critical of elements of it. His view was nuanced. And he would be fine with the current mayor.

 

Most British Muslims do not want a Caliphate (although there is a loudmouthed minority who do). Chances of this happening is just about nil (ie: about as likely as the US becoming an Islamic Caliphate).

[Brit]

On 6/1/2018 at 4:03 AM, B-Man said:

Tommy Robinson Drew Attention to ‘Grooming Gangs.’ Britain Has Persecuted Him.

 

“RAPE GANGS” IS A MORE ACCURATE TERM: 

 

Read the whole thing. The British authorities have behaved contemptibly here. Their behavior is what one might expect from an occupation government under a foreign conqueror.

Jeez.

 

There was a whole slew of paedophile activities that have been exposed in the last decade or so. These included awful examples of childcare workers, entertainers, sports coaches, Catholic and Anglican priests, (a very small number of) Members of Parliament, and others in (and out of) the public eye. The grooming gangs of Muslim men are/were just one of these. The term grooming gangs is used not to lessen their awful crimes but to accurately label their methods - different child rapists have different methods of getting victims - most people in the UK are aware of what the grooming gangs are and how they operate (thanks to a series of in depth reporting from various news sources not called Tommy Robinson).

 

Tommy Robinson was not the catalyst for the exposure of these. Various journalists (BBC, The Times and others) exposed different scumbags over the years and also the appalling failures of the authorities to properly investigate and prosecute these scum. What Tommy Robinson has done is target the Muslim grooming gangs specifically for his own agenda. He is well aware people are outraged over the child rape scandals and has used them to gather support. He is not some great journalistic giant pursuing the truth. There is plenty being reported.

 

Interesting that the article you link has the Daily Mail being shown as being unfair to Tommy Robinson. The Daily Mail (like most of the UK's national press) is a right wing newspaper. So right wing that it was pro-fascist and pro-Hitler right up until it became obvious that war was coming in the summer of 39. Overall its views have not changed that much.

 

In the UK the right to a fair trial is considered an important thing, along with the presumption of innocence. In order to achieve this in some ongoing trials there are limits to what the press can report so that a fair trial can be achieved. Once the legal proceedings are over then the press is free to report the trial and its outcome. Tommy Robinson was well aware of the restrictions of this case and ignored them. He knew what he was doing. In due course the trial (like others before) will conclude and those judged guilty will be locked up for a long time. And they and their crimes will be reported in the press. As has happened before. Repeatedly. Essentially the right to a fair trial is considered so fundamental that we have these temporary restrictions to ensure that.

 

The historical failure of the authorities to stamp out the abuse at a far earlier stage is contemptible (and is not unique to Muslim paedophiles or to the UK). Sending Tommy Robinson to gaol for his actions is not.

[row_33]

UK has different standards than North America for press coverage. 

 

Canada’s most recent hassle, 15 or so years ago, was the accused’s past charges and convictions, of a clearly similar theme, were deemed prejudicial to his current trial, the media was not allowed to publish them until the jury was sequestered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The headlines stating his past conduct led to a lot of tense discussion at the time. I recall having to try to calmly state that he was only on trial for the evidence on the current matter

 

He was duly convicted on that matter

 

 

 

[Brit]

Yeah. I imagine the current case is linked to other cases that have previously gone to trial or will do so in the future (the most common cause for the limits to reporting in these types of cases in the UK) - so there is plenty of potential for prejudicial information to be published otherwise. 

 

 

[row_33]

 

 

Just looked it up, kinda wished I didn’t....

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by row_33

[Brit]

On 5/29/2018 at 11:18 PM, B-Man said:

There are so many things going on over there, they need their own thread.......................

 

 

 

Oh, how I wish I was kidding............

 

London cyclists too white, male and middle class, says capital's cycling chief in vow to tackle diversity 'problem'

Will Norman promises action as figures show black, Asian and minority ethnic groups account for just 15 per cent of the city’s cycle trips

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycling-london-uk-sadiq-khan-bikes-race-class-gender-a8367916.html

 

I guess the authorities have got those acid attacks and immigrant rape gangs all covered,

 

time to move on to the more important things

 

If you take this article in isolation and without any background information it might appear nuts, however...

 

There is a major concern in the UK about people's health. The British are becoming a nation of fatties. Lumps of lard. Bags of ballast. Ad infinitum.

 

We also have an issue with a lot of cars on our overstretched roads.

 

One way to tackle both these issues is to encourage people to cycle more. This will help them stay fit(ish) and healthy(ish). Plus it will reduce pollution and congestion. These are not bad aims.

 

Generally this has been successful. (It has helped that we are producing a lot of top international cyclists at the moment). As the article indicates it has been very successful among white middle class men (who are in danger of the dreaded middle aged spread). This is a good thing. It will be a better thing if more people benefited from other groups. Which is all the article is on about.

 

The idea of this having anything to do with anything else assumes this is a zero sum issue. It is not.

 

[row_33]

Thanks Brit, good posts....

 

[Brit]

14 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

 

Just looked it up: the jury could not hear he was out on parole for rape convictions

 

The local tabloid printed this in huge block letters when they were allowed to, everyone saw it that day.

 

Yeah. Similar to what happens here. Previous convictions have a real difference to the severity of sentence here - not in the trial to decide guilt.

 

It was right not to report. It was right he got convicted (and hopefully sent back to gaol for a very long time).

[Prickly Pete]

1 hour ago, Brit said:

 

Churchill admired much about Islam (so much so his family was worried he might convert - never seriously on the cards as he was pretty much an atheist by then). He was also very critical of elements of it. His view was nuanced. And he would be fine with the current mayor.

 

Most British Muslims do not want a Caliphate (although there is a loudmouthed minority who do). Chances of this happening is just about nil (ie: about as likely as the US becoming an Islamic Caliphate).

 

 

I am curious why you have suddenly shown up on this message board, and only to post in the political forum.

 

Are you a Bills fan? What brought you to this site specifically?

 

You are welcome to present your views here, but it's kind of odd. Like, I couldn't imagine just popping on to say, a Burnley FC message board, to talk politics.

Edited June 4, 2018 by OJABBA

[Brit]

7 minutes ago, OJABBA said:

 

 

I am curious why you have suddenly shown up on this message board, and only to post in the political forum.

 

Are you a Bills fan? What brought you to this site specifically?

 

You are welcome to present your views here, but it's kind of odd.

I was around earlier (ie: years ago) with a different poster name and email address. Forgot my login and had to re-register.

 

Lurk a lot on the forums, used to visit the old Bills chatroom on game days (I miss that). Unfortunately there is little I can add to the Bills forums as I do not get to see the Bills very often (although I did go and see the London game, of course. Just another emotional scar added to the many already suffered). About all I could add would be fluff (Go bills! and all that) - hard to be well informed this far away from the action - it is why I come to the site so I can be as well informed as I can be.

 

Of course, I am better informed than pretty much everyone else on the forum about the UK (living here for most my life and everything). So this is somewhere I can add some substance to a discussion (and try to shed light on reality with a wider appreciation of how things are this side of the pond).

Edited June 4, 2018 by Brit

[Prickly Pete]

Just now, Brit said:

I was around earlier (ie: years ago) with a different poster name and email address. Forgot my login and had to re-register.

 

Lurk a lot on the forums, used to visit the old Bills chatroom on game days (I miss that). Unfortunately there is little I can add to the Bills forums as I do not get to see the Bills very often (although I did go and see the London game, of course. Just another emotional scar added to the many already suffered). About all I could add would be fluff (Go bills! and all that) - hard to be well informed this far away from the action - it is why I come to the site so I can be as well informed as I can be.

 

I see...

[Brit]

2 minutes ago, OJABBA said:

 

I see...

 

Ominous use of an ellipsis there...

[row_33]

26 minutes ago, Brit said:

Yeah. Similar to what happens here. Previous convictions have a real difference to the severity of sentence here - not in the trial to decide guilt.

 

It was right not to report. It was right he got convicted (and hopefully sent back to gaol for a very long time).

 

 

He was sentenced to our highest penalty.

 

Our highest penalty is 25 years before parole hearing, with basically zero chance of    release for the worst.

 

but having to go through the process and reminder is a burden that should be avoided. 

 

Each year brings up another parole hearing for something that is best to not give publicity to.....

 

 

 

 

[/dev/null]

3 hours ago, Brit said:

 

Most British Muslims do not want a Caliphate (although there is a loudmouthed minority who do).

 

Neither did most Muslims living in areas controlled by ISIS.  But the loudmouth minority as you called them are what took over

 

1 hour ago, Brit said:

Of course, I am better informed than pretty much everyone else on the forum about the UK

Aww snap, I think you may have just triggered Tom ?

 

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, Brit said:

Jeez.

 

There was a whole slew of paedophile activities that have been exposed in the last decade or so. These included awful examples of childcare workers, entertainers, sports coaches, Catholic and Anglican priests, (a very small number of) Members of Parliament, and others in (and out of) the public eye. The grooming gangs of Muslim men are/were just one of these. The term grooming gangs is used not to lessen their awful crimes but to accurately label their methods - different child rapists have different methods of getting victims - most people in the UK are aware of what the grooming gangs are and how they operate (thanks to a series of in depth reporting from various news sources not called Tommy Robinson).

 

Tommy Robinson was not the catalyst for the exposure of these. Various journalists (BBC, The Times and others) exposed different scumbags over the years and also the appalling failures of the authorities to properly investigate and prosecute these scum. What Tommy Robinson has done is target the Muslim grooming gangs specifically for his own agenda. He is well aware people are outraged over the child rape scandals and has used them to gather support. He is not some great journalistic giant pursuing the truth. There is plenty being reported.

 

Interesting that the article you link has the Daily Mail being shown as being unfair to Tommy Robinson. The Daily Mail (like most of the UK's national press) is a right wing newspaper. So right wing that it was pro-fascist and pro-Hitler right up until it became obvious that war was coming in the summer of 39. Overall its views have not changed that much.

 

In the UK the right to a fair trial is considered an important thing, along with the presumption of innocence. In order to achieve this in some ongoing trials there are limits to what the press can report so that a fair trial can be achieved. Once the legal proceedings are over then the press is free to report the trial and its outcome. Tommy Robinson was well aware of the restrictions of this case and ignored them. He knew what he was doing. In due course the trial (like others before) will conclude and those judged guilty will be locked up for a long time. And they and their crimes will be reported in the press. As has happened before. Repeatedly. Essentially the right to a fair trial is considered so fundamental that we have these temporary restrictions to ensure that.

 

The historical failure of the authorities to stamp out the abuse at a far earlier stage is contemptible (and is not unique to Muslim paedophiles or to the UK). Sending Tommy Robinson to gaol for his actions is not.

 

Lol at the whole fair trial being important thing.  Perhaps for some, but not all.  Giant douche or not, an arrest, "trial" and sentencing within hours isn't right.  And the ban on reporting about this guy is not the mark of a free society. 

 

Care to weigh in on the whole adverse/averse thing?

 

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by 4merper4mer

[The_Dude]

3 hours ago, Brit said:

 

Churchill admired much about Islam (so much so his family was worried he might convert - never seriously on the cards as he was pretty much an atheist by then). He was also very critical of elements of it. His view was nuanced. And he would be fine with the current mayor.

 

Most British Muslims do not want a Caliphate (although there is a loudmouthed minority who do). Chances of this happening is just about nil (ie: about as likely as the US becoming an Islamic Caliphate).

 

Churchill was not in love with Islam — WTF are you talking about. 

 

Ive read a lot of Churchill and at no point does he speak fondly of it. However, he always refused to call Constantinople by its Muslim name and tried to retake the city during WWI — it’s a shame they failed. 

 

You must forgive me. I’ve read thousands of pages written by Churchill and on Churchill and what your writing is nonsense spurred on by some family letter. 

 

Churchill was an atheist who advocated for the Anglican Church and Anglican beliefs. 

[Brit]

31 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Churchill was not in love with Islam — WTF are you talking about. 

 

Ive read a lot of Churchill and at no point does he speak fondly of it. However, he always refused to call Constantinople by its Muslim name and tried to retake the city during WWI — it’s a shame they failed. 

 

You must forgive me. I’ve read thousands of pages written by Churchill and on Churchill and what your writing is nonsense spurred on by some family letter.  

 

Churchill was an atheist who advocated for the Anglican Church and Anglican beliefs.  

Er, no. I said he admired much of Islam and was very critical of aspects of it. Perhaps I should have emphasised the 'very' bit more. Apologies for that. Many aspects of Islam do deserve to be criticised.

 

Nothing in what I said was indicative of a love of Islam. His family was worried he might convert such was his admiration of some parts of it (a conversion which was never on the cards). You would think he may well have said something to his family to cause such concerns - it is unlikely they would have pulled something like that out of the blue or if he had been so totally against Islam at that point. Orientalism was popular in the UK when he was a young man, unsurprising given the state and breadth of the Empire at that point in history.

 

He noted that many, many Muslims were brave and loyal to the British crown. This was during a critique of Islam.

 

Refusing to call Istanbul by its correct name is something you could expect from Churchill.

[Brit]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

 

Lol at the whole fair trial being important thing.  Perhaps for some, but not all.  Giant douche or not, an arrest, "trial" and sentencing within hours isn't right.  And the ban on reporting about this guy is not the mark of a free society. 

 

Care to weigh in on the whole adverse/averse thing?

 

 

Definitely averse. Also irrelevant since I knew what was being talked about via context, if not the grammar.

 

Robinson was sent to gaol for contempt of court. As in the USA contempt of court is at the prerogative of the court.

 

He was arrested in front of the court committing an act of contempt. He videoed himself committing the act. Nothing gets put into motion as fast as Contempt of Court. If you decide to act in contempt in front of a trial Judge while a trial is ongoing the process can take a lot less than a few hours. (Both here and in the US). Most of the time it is an act of truly reckless stupidity when someone commits contempt. The fact that this was the second time Robinson had done this speaks an awful lot about the man...

 

In Robinson's own case the ban (postponement) on reporting was put in place in case his arrest and imprisonment would prejudice the serious trial he was in contempt of. The last thing anyone involved in the process would want is innocent men being found guilty because of Robinson and his actions, or guilty men having to be freed - there was a possibility  Robinson's conviction potentially could have caused this. The court looked at the issue and after deliberation made a decision - the temporary ban was lifted. This was a more nuanced matter than the contempt proceedings - it still took no more than a day / day and a half to resolve.

 

All such bans are merely postponements in reporting.

[Brit]

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

Neither did most Muslims living in areas controlled by ISIS.  But the loudmouth minority as you called them are what took over

 

Aww snap, I think you may have just triggered Tom ?

 

 

Well, ISIS controlled areas which were almost totally Muslims. And many of those Muslims had been so badly treated by their neighbours (ie the Sunnis were badly treated by the Shias) that they gave support to ISIS as they were (to all appearances) their coreligionists. The fact their judgement in this was badly wrong would be a serious understatement. Muslims in the UK for the most part get on with their non-Muslim neighbours. While there are idiots and scumbags who stir up tensions (on both sides) and there are issues that need to be redressed there is sod all chance of ISIS forming a caliphate here at any point.

 

Come on. I did specifically say I am better informed about the UK. This is not a stretch. I have bugger all knowledge about upstate New York or the use of bicycle paths in Delaware. I would bow to the superior knowledge of those who live there (although I reserve the right to be skeptical about anyone from Delaware complaining about the UFOs from upstate

state New York  using their cycle paths...).

 

Besides, isn't Tom the font of all knowledge? A modern Thomas Young, perchance?

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

6 hours ago, Brit said:

You are mistaken. 

 

 

Ooooh.  Now he's going to call you a Nazi...

[LeviF]

5 hours ago, Brit said:

 

There is a major concern in the UK about people's health. The British are becoming a nation of fatties. Lumps of lard. Bags of ballast. Ad infinitum.

 

 

USA: "The circle is now complete.  When we left you, we were but the learners.  Now we are the masters."

UK: "Only the masters of obesity, Yanks."

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 hours ago, Brit said:

Jeez.

 

There was a whole slew of paedophile activities that have been exposed in the last decade or so. These included awful examples of childcare workers, entertainers, sports coaches, Catholic and Anglican priests, (a very small number of) Members of Parliament, and others in (and out of) the public eye. The grooming gangs of Muslim men are/were just one of these. The term grooming gangs is used not to lessen their awful crimes but to accurately label their methods - different child rapists have different methods of getting victims - most people in the UK are aware of what the grooming gangs are and how they operate (thanks to a series of in depth reporting from various news sources not called Tommy Robinson).

 

Tommy Robinson was not the catalyst for the exposure of these. Various journalists (BBC, The Times and others) exposed different scumbags over the years and also the appalling failures of the authorities to properly investigate and prosecute these scum. What Tommy Robinson has done is target the Muslim grooming gangs specifically for his own agenda. He is well aware people are outraged over the child rape scandals and has used them to gather support. He is not some great journalistic giant pursuing the truth. There is plenty being reported.

 

Interesting that the article you link has the Daily Mail being shown as being unfair to Tommy Robinson. The Daily Mail (like most of the UK's national press) is a right wing newspaper. So right wing that it was pro-fascist and pro-Hitler right up until it became obvious that war was coming in the summer of 39. Overall its views have not changed that much.

 

In the UK the right to a fair trial is considered an important thing, along with the presumption of innocence. In order to achieve this in some ongoing trials there are limits to what the press can report so that a fair trial can be achieved. Once the legal proceedings are over then the press is free to report the trial and its outcome. Tommy Robinson was well aware of the restrictions of this case and ignored them. He knew what he was doing. In due course the trial (like others before) will conclude and those judged guilty will be locked up for a long time. And they and their crimes will be reported in the press. As has happened before. Repeatedly. Essentially the right to a fair trial is considered so fundamental that we have these temporary restrictions to ensure that.

 

The historical failure of the authorities to stamp out the abuse at a far earlier stage is contemptible (and is not unique to Muslim paedophiles or to the UK). Sending Tommy Robinson to gaol for his actions is not.

 

In the United States we have a very different view on restrictions on the press and on speech.  The First Amendment of our Constitution protects both.

 

Your legal system seems more designed to protect the government from being impeded in it's business than to protect it's citizens from the government in this regard, which is what so many here find so abhorrent.

 

It appears, from all reasonable perspectives, that your government sought to simply put an end to someone they saw as extremely inconvenient towards it's desired ends.  This is evidenced by the fact that other major news outlets were commenting on the case, and none of them were jailed.

 

You are losing your culture to globalists, and you aren't even allowed to discuss it.  And if you do, you'll be hustled off to be murdered in jail.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

In the United States we have a very different view on restrictions on the press and on speech.  The First Amendment of our Constitution protects both.

 

Your legal system seems more designed to protect the government from being impeded in it's business than to protect it's citizens from the government in this regard, which is what so many here find so abhorrent.

 

It appears, from all reasonable perspectives, that your government sought to simply put an end to someone they saw as extremely inconvenient towards it's desired ends.  This is evidenced by the fact that other major news outlets were commenting on the case, and none of them were jailed.

 

You are losing your culture to globalists, and you aren't even allowed to discuss it.  And if you do, you'll be hustled off to be murdered in jail.

 

it's not quite that simple

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

24 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

it's not quite that simple

 

 

 

It's exactly that simple.

[Brit]

21 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

In the United States we have a very different view on restrictions on the press and on speech.  The First Amendment of our Constitution protects both.

  

Your legal system seems more designed to protect the government from being impeded in it's business than to protect it's citizens from the government in this regard, which is what so many here find so abhorrent.

 

It appears, from all reasonable perspectives, that your government sought to simply put an end to someone they saw as extremely inconvenient towards it's desired ends.  This is evidenced by the fact that other major news outlets were commenting on the case, and none of them were jailed.

 

You are losing your culture to globalists, and you aren't even allowed to discuss it.  And if you do, you'll be hustled off to be murdered in jail.

Sigh. Well, no.

 

Robinson's broadcast breached contempt of court rules. There are specific rules involving court cases that are designed to ensure there is a fair trial. The press respects those rules, Tommy Robinson did not. End of. Reporting done by news outlets was within the guidelines. You are not making a true like-for-like comparison.

 

Free speech is a thing in the UK. It is covered in our laws. Right to a fair trial is another thing in the UK. This is also covered in our laws. In criminal proceeding the right to a fair trial can lead to temporary restrictions on reporting. These limits are set by our independent judiciary in relation to specific trials. Independent judiciary is another thing in the UK.

 

Robinson does not even count as a minor irritant in the UK, politically. There is nothing reasonable in the idea the government had a political agenda against the man. What press he gets is largely for his anti-Muslim rhetoric. He is seen as an abhorrent figure and a thug by the vast majority of people, if they think of him at all. He claims to be a former racist and homophobe who has changed his ways. At best he has shifted his hate to Muslims. And followers of rival football teams.

 

Our culture is fine. We can discuss anything we like (part of that free speech thing). Gaol is not a thing we fear for discussing contentious issues. So being murdered there is pretty unlikely. Plenty of public figures have spoken out against an array of issues. Including those of Muslim fundamentalists and sexual predators; funnily enough they avoid gaol easily enough.

 

 

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

It's exactly that simple.

 

Okay buddy....

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

7 hours ago, Brit said:

Tommy Robinson was not the catalyst for the exposure of these. Various journalists (BBC, The Times and others) exposed different scumbags over the years

 

 

To be fair, the BBC has a shameful record of covering for pedophiles in positions of power. They did so for years, and years. Their history is longer on the side of covering this abuse up than it is exposing it. 

 

[Brit]

46 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

To be fair, the BBC has a shameful record of covering for pedophiles in positions of power. They did so for years, and years. Their history is longer on the side of covering this abuse up than it is exposing it. 

 

 

More a shameful record of not investigating rumours properly and taking perverts at their word when they denied the rumours.

 

Well, Savile had no position of power. He was a popular entertainer and did a lot of work for charity. The fact he was a POS was not clear at the time.

 

The management did not believe rumours about Saville - without hard evidence they were unlikely to do so. That piece of trash was reported to police on multiple occasions for sexual offences. He committed crimes in over a dozen hospitals. Other times he committed sex crimes in schools and children's homes. He used his fame and public image to gain access to children all over the place (I think the victim count is close to 500 in total). Unfortunately without any real evidence being presented the old boys club ideals of the time led to Savile being taken at his word at the BBC.

 

After his death there was a  serious crisis where a documentary featuring allegations of Savile's crimes was shelved. People rightly question whether this was a cover up after the fact. It seems it wasn't, but management did go into a massive panic at the time.

 

What is worse, though, is the attitude of the police and authorities at that time. If they had shown any kind of real determination to get to the truth he should have been caught decades earlier. And not just Savile - the number of cases where complaints were not thoroughly investigated, ignored or, at the very worst, suppressed is depressing and infuriating at the same time. The general assumption was it was the kids who had made things up. There have also been allegations of outright bribery by Savile to corrupt police officers in order for investigations to be dropped.

 

On a positive note the BBC did start a child telephone service where kids could call for help / advice in the mid-80s. And management was very supportive for this. This still runs today. Pity there were apparently no calls about Jimmy the pervert, though.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Brit

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Brit said:

 

More a shameful record of not investigating rumours properly and taking perverts at their word when they denied the rumours.

 

Well, Savile had no position of power. He was a popular entertainer and did a lot of work for charity. The fact he was a POS was not clear at the time.

 

This is the revisionist BBC line and it's bull. It was clear to a lot of people, with lots of evidence and victims' statements - and then was systematically covered up. Not because of JS's power or status but because of the status and power of those he cavorted with who had the same predilections.  

 

This is a systemic issue at the highest levels of power - not just in GB but the world. GB is a hub though, and it's media has been happy to cover it up for decades.

[The_Dude]

5 hours ago, Brit said:

Er, no. I said he admired much of Islam and was very critical of aspects of it. Perhaps I should have emphasised the 'very' bit more. Apologies for that. Many aspects of Islam do deserve to be criticised.

 

Nothing in what I said was indicative of a love of Islam. His family was worried he might convert such was his admiration of some parts of it (a conversion which was never on the cards). You would think he may well have said something to his family to cause such concerns - it is unlikely they would have pulled something like that out of the blue or if he had been so totally against Islam at that point. Orientalism was popular in the UK when he was a young man, unsurprising given the state and breadth of the Empire at that point in history.

 

He noted that many, many Muslims were brave and loyal to the British crown. This was during a critique of Islam.

 

Refusing to call Istanbul by its correct name is something you could expect from Churchill.

 

Istanbul is its Muslim name and I’ll never call that city by that name. 1453 and I still ain’t over it. Maybe we’ll get a war with Turkey one of these days and we can right old wrongs. God I hate Turks. 

[LeviF]

24 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Istanbul is its Muslim name and I’ll never call that city by that name. 1453 and I still ain’t over it. Maybe we’ll get a war with Turkey one of these days and we can right old wrongs. God I hate Turks. 

 

Make Istanbul Constantinople Again

[3rdnlng]

32 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Istanbul is its Muslim name and I’ll never call that city by that name. 1453 and I still ain’t over it. Maybe we’ll get a war with Turkey one of these days and we can right old wrongs. God I hate Turks. 

Starting with the Young Turks.

[The_Dude]

46 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Make Istanbul Constantinople Again

 

...If I could start one war that would be it. I would drive the muslims out of Europe like Ferdinand and Isabella, then I would hand that sacred land back over to the Armenians -- the people who deserve it. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

38 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

...If I could start one war that would be it. I would drive the muslims out of Europe like Ferdinand and Isabella, then I would hand that sacred land back over to the Armenians -- the people who deserve it. 

 

Or the Greeks.

 

[The_Dude]

30 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Or the Greeks.

 

 

Yeah, or Italians. 

 

Either way, I'd like to give it to the Armenians with the option for them to genocide the Turks. They deserve that option. 

[Koko78]

3 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Make Istanbul Constantinople Again

 

The 1400's called. They want their foreign policy back.

 

Oh, and...

 

 

[DC Tom]

4 hours ago, LeviF91 said:

 

Make Istanbul Constantinople Again

 

It's Byzantium.

[#34fan]

17 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

 

Just looked it up, kinda wished I didn’t....

 

The rape conviction part that was redacted, -was that an error?

 

19 hours ago, Brit said:

You are mistaken. Last time it was checked London was 60% White.  Likely to be a couple of %age points down from that now, but still majority white.

 

Thanks! -I was citing a 2011 census statistic that had the "White British" population of London at 44.9%  Link

 

-Haven't been able to find more recent reliable numbers.

 

 

[#34fan]

13 hours ago, Brit said:

 

Well, ISIS controlled areas which were almost totally Muslims. And many of those Muslims had been so badly treated by their neighbours (ie the Sunnis were badly treated by the Shias) that they gave support to ISIS as they were (to all appearances) their coreligionists. The fact their judgement in this was badly wrong would be a serious understatement. Muslims in the UK for the most part get on with their non-Muslim neighbours. While there are idiots and scumbags who stir up tensions (on both sides) and there are issues that need to be redressed there is sod all chance of ISIS forming a caliphate here at any point.

 

I haven't been over sinces spring of '17

 

Tommy has a lot of friends in all communities, including Sikh, and Black Carribeans.... One of his counterparts Known as "Red-pill Phil" is also vocally on Tommy's side.

 

How would you explain his wide appeal?

 

Edited June 5, 2018 by #34fan

[B-Man]

BRUCE BAWER: Trashing Tommy Robinson.

So I ask: how far is “too far” when you’re sounding the alarm about a nationwide child-rape epidemic that authorities up and down the line have conspired to cover up, that is still going on, that is (although one is not allowed to say so) a byproduct of Islamic theology, and that the mainstream media, even after they’ve finally been forced to face up to the reality of it, prefer to treat as if it were a series of parking violations?

 

As for Robinson being “detained illegally”: I, for one, certainly wouldn’t say that his detention is illegal. No, it’s entirely legal. That’s precisely the problem.

 

British law itself — the whole process of deciding what’s legal and what’s illegal — is no longer what it used to be, and hence no longer worth respecting. It’s been twisted into a tool of those who wish to protect Muslim criminals and troublemakers (and their apologists and defenders) and to punish those who blow the whistle on Muslim crime and tell the truth about Islamic ideology.

 

 

 

Needless to say, read the whole thing.

 

 

 

.