Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Tommy Robinson - Proving That You Don't Need Brains To Lead The Edl
Tommy Robinson, leader of the far right EDL, went to the house of Gary Moon, the editor of an anti-EDL website, took pictures of his front door, and then pictures of him holding up letters addressed to Mr Moon - proving that he'd been there.
Except it wasn't Gary Moon's flat. It was Garry Moon's flat - a man with no connection to the anti-EDL website:
http://
This leaves the question - why did Tommy Robinson go to those lengths to track down Gary Moon? Why did he tweet pictures of Garry Moon's address to his followers on Twitter?
After Nick Griffin published the address of the gay couple who sued the Christian B&B (encouraging BNP members to deliver them 'some drama), should we now be wary of upsetting these thugs, lest we too get 'personal calls'?
Except it wasn't Gary Moon's flat. It was Garry Moon's flat - a man with no connection to the anti-EDL website:
http://
This leaves the question - why did Tommy Robinson go to those lengths to track down Gary Moon? Why did he tweet pictures of Garry Moon's address to his followers on Twitter?
After Nick Griffin published the address of the gay couple who sued the Christian B&B (encouraging BNP members to deliver them 'some drama), should we now be wary of upsetting these thugs, lest we too get 'personal calls'?
Answers
@AoG. Yes, there are doubtless many many far more egregiously horrible events going on in the world right now. But, to paraphrase your own contribution here, at least initially - "so what"? As someone with around average-ish intelligence
15:14 Sat 05th Oct 2013
jim360
/// I'm not gullible either, that's completely false. I've merely observed that you have been asked if you condemn this action, several times, and have never answered. It's not gullible to notice that -- it's merely an observation of the truth. ///
It is if you are gullible enough to be drawn into their little game of lies and assumptions.
/// I'm not gullible either, that's completely false. I've merely observed that you have been asked if you condemn this action, several times, and have never answered. It's not gullible to notice that -- it's merely an observation of the truth. ///
It is if you are gullible enough to be drawn into their little game of lies and assumptions.
AOG
Reminding you of a previous thread where you fail to condemn an incident is not blackmail.
There may be people reading who think it is not dodgy for the EDL to publicised an opponents address, and that is fine. I do not have the same opinion, but that is why we debate.
By not stating what your position is makes it difficult to talk to you. And people might jump to the wrong conclusion, or even the right one. You must have your reasons for not wanting to answer the question and that is OK too.
I have made my conclusion about your conduct on this thread. I assume I will not get an apology, and I have an opinion on that too.
Reminding you of a previous thread where you fail to condemn an incident is not blackmail.
There may be people reading who think it is not dodgy for the EDL to publicised an opponents address, and that is fine. I do not have the same opinion, but that is why we debate.
By not stating what your position is makes it difficult to talk to you. And people might jump to the wrong conclusion, or even the right one. You must have your reasons for not wanting to answer the question and that is OK too.
I have made my conclusion about your conduct on this thread. I assume I will not get an apology, and I have an opinion on that too.
LazyGun
/// I am curious now - If you are not interested in other peoples opinions, AoG, why do you post here? ///
Mainly as in this case solely to defend myself against total lies and assumptions.
/// Facetious commentary aside, the notion of someone with a history of violence and leader of an extremist group "visiting" a critics house, whilst at the same time posting pictures and descriptions of front door and address of the person being visited is a very sinister thing to do. ///
Maybe but not in the general scheme of much worse things that are happening around the world or even on a smaller but more serious nature in this country, ie stabbings, and setting fire and killing the persons inside, one has to put things into proper perspective, not just to show a leader of a far right group in bad light .
I am surprised a law-abiding, fair minded person like you undoubtedly view yourself could not find it in themselves to be able to criticize such an action, but instead seek to evade or deflect the question.
Had I myself thought it important enough to raise a thread over it, I would certainly have made plenty of comments on it, if only to once again defend myself against those that will always find something wrong no matter what I post on.
But as long as they get there kicks from it, and the site's administrators allow it to go on, I myself is left to defend my corner, and defend it I will, make no mistake in that?
/// I am curious now - If you are not interested in other peoples opinions, AoG, why do you post here? ///
Mainly as in this case solely to defend myself against total lies and assumptions.
/// Facetious commentary aside, the notion of someone with a history of violence and leader of an extremist group "visiting" a critics house, whilst at the same time posting pictures and descriptions of front door and address of the person being visited is a very sinister thing to do. ///
Maybe but not in the general scheme of much worse things that are happening around the world or even on a smaller but more serious nature in this country, ie stabbings, and setting fire and killing the persons inside, one has to put things into proper perspective, not just to show a leader of a far right group in bad light .
I am surprised a law-abiding, fair minded person like you undoubtedly view yourself could not find it in themselves to be able to criticize such an action, but instead seek to evade or deflect the question.
Had I myself thought it important enough to raise a thread over it, I would certainly have made plenty of comments on it, if only to once again defend myself against those that will always find something wrong no matter what I post on.
But as long as they get there kicks from it, and the site's administrators allow it to go on, I myself is left to defend my corner, and defend it I will, make no mistake in that?
AOG
I have a theory as to why your condemnation is sought here.
I am not 100% sure! but I think you have said that Muslims who don't loudly condemn terrors attacks, in some way could be seen as given tacit approval for such attacks.
I believe by not condemning the EDL (or a Tommy Robinson) here, the same charge could be justifiably levied at you.
If you do not wish to condemn them, fine - nobody can force you.
However, I still curious as to the dangerous people that you said Gromit supports.
Who?
I have a theory as to why your condemnation is sought here.
I am not 100% sure! but I think you have said that Muslims who don't loudly condemn terrors attacks, in some way could be seen as given tacit approval for such attacks.
I believe by not condemning the EDL (or a Tommy Robinson) here, the same charge could be justifiably levied at you.
If you do not wish to condemn them, fine - nobody can force you.
However, I still curious as to the dangerous people that you said Gromit supports.
Who?
AOG
Grow up.
You voluntarily joined this thread, telling me it was no big news, then you stated that Gromit supports 'those that are really dangerous'.
When your argument is challenged or your conclusions critiqued, you get irritated.
The thread you raised concerning the house fire...are you saying that no-one contributed to it? I'm fairly certain we all had something to say. Are you saying that it didn't reach over 100 responses?
Let's leave personal digs out - I'm interested in what you think about the tactics of Tommy Robinson.
If a man with convictions for violent affray went to your house and then published your address to his followers on Twitter, would you not feel intimidated?
Grow up.
You voluntarily joined this thread, telling me it was no big news, then you stated that Gromit supports 'those that are really dangerous'.
When your argument is challenged or your conclusions critiqued, you get irritated.
The thread you raised concerning the house fire...are you saying that no-one contributed to it? I'm fairly certain we all had something to say. Are you saying that it didn't reach over 100 responses?
Let's leave personal digs out - I'm interested in what you think about the tactics of Tommy Robinson.
If a man with convictions for violent affray went to your house and then published your address to his followers on Twitter, would you not feel intimidated?
@AoG. Yes, there are doubtless many many far more egregiously horrible events going on in the world right now. But, to paraphrase your own contribution here, at least initially - "so what"?
As someone with around average-ish intelligence, I am able to think about and draw an opinion on more than one topic at a time. Its called multi-tasking. I am sure you are perfectly capable of doing that too. Were we to follow you logic, then this board might only have maybe 1 or possibly 2 questions on it at a time!.
Frankly, to offer a comment which only queries the newsworthiness of this story is just odd. If you think it unworthy of discussion, why contribute at all?
And why do you continually evade the questions asked of you? Are Tommy Robinsons actions - posting comments and pictures of the a critic of his organisation- clearly threatening, and in that sense, sinister? Why will you refuse to condemn such actions? I mean you yourself have often protested you are not a member or a supporter of the EDL..
And you know, a topic does not have its importance defined by whether you decide to post on it or not, which is what this paragraph of yours appears to infer.
"Had I myself thought it important enough to raise a thread over it, I would certainly have made plenty of comments on it, if only to once again defend myself against those that will always find something wrong no matter what I post on"
You felt the topic worthy enough to bother to post. You then post further commentary offering a kind of mitigating defence that the topic is not really all that important, but yet you refuse to actually say whether or not you think this kind of public stalking of a vocal critic could be regarded as intimidation or bullying. Mystifying actions for someone who purports to support Law and Order, and, presumably, civilised discourse.
Oh, and by the way - playing the victim card, inferring that you are the subject of bullying and intimidation and that the site administrators are somehow complicit in allowing it is unjustified. You have your opinions and thoughts and offer comments. Others will have theirs, and often - frequently- they will disagree with your own, and they will say so That's what a public forum is all about, isn't it?
If all you want is some kind of echo chamber for your own views, this is definitely the wrong place.
As someone with around average-ish intelligence, I am able to think about and draw an opinion on more than one topic at a time. Its called multi-tasking. I am sure you are perfectly capable of doing that too. Were we to follow you logic, then this board might only have maybe 1 or possibly 2 questions on it at a time!.
Frankly, to offer a comment which only queries the newsworthiness of this story is just odd. If you think it unworthy of discussion, why contribute at all?
And why do you continually evade the questions asked of you? Are Tommy Robinsons actions - posting comments and pictures of the a critic of his organisation- clearly threatening, and in that sense, sinister? Why will you refuse to condemn such actions? I mean you yourself have often protested you are not a member or a supporter of the EDL..
And you know, a topic does not have its importance defined by whether you decide to post on it or not, which is what this paragraph of yours appears to infer.
"Had I myself thought it important enough to raise a thread over it, I would certainly have made plenty of comments on it, if only to once again defend myself against those that will always find something wrong no matter what I post on"
You felt the topic worthy enough to bother to post. You then post further commentary offering a kind of mitigating defence that the topic is not really all that important, but yet you refuse to actually say whether or not you think this kind of public stalking of a vocal critic could be regarded as intimidation or bullying. Mystifying actions for someone who purports to support Law and Order, and, presumably, civilised discourse.
Oh, and by the way - playing the victim card, inferring that you are the subject of bullying and intimidation and that the site administrators are somehow complicit in allowing it is unjustified. You have your opinions and thoughts and offer comments. Others will have theirs, and often - frequently- they will disagree with your own, and they will say so That's what a public forum is all about, isn't it?
If all you want is some kind of echo chamber for your own views, this is definitely the wrong place.
sp1814
/// I have a theory as to why your condemnation is sought here. ///
/// I am not 100% sure! but I think you have said that Muslims who don't loudly condemn terrors attacks, in some way could be seen as given tacit approval for such attacks. ///
You are right not even 1% sure, once again conjecture, and pure speculation, but then it makes a change from down and out lies.
Look, let us get things straight before I hang up, on this subject, the reason I will not be forced into making a comment demand by you and others, is because as I have said before I don't think your thread is worth making a decision on either way.
But especially when demanded from those who blackmail, and tell lies etc and those who will only comment on my threads if they feel the need, especially not demanded by me, plus the fact that they themselves who are always ready to condemn right-wing affairs but fail to do the same against anything even slightly left leaning.
Take your own attitude towards that African Muslim's view on gays, you were first to divert the attention away from him by introducing the fact that Russian politicians are just as bad.
Let me remind you.
/// Because of free speech. ///
/// Same is happening in Russia right now. Russian politicians are claiming that gay couples adopt children specifically to rape them. ///
/// I have a theory as to why your condemnation is sought here. ///
/// I am not 100% sure! but I think you have said that Muslims who don't loudly condemn terrors attacks, in some way could be seen as given tacit approval for such attacks. ///
You are right not even 1% sure, once again conjecture, and pure speculation, but then it makes a change from down and out lies.
Look, let us get things straight before I hang up, on this subject, the reason I will not be forced into making a comment demand by you and others, is because as I have said before I don't think your thread is worth making a decision on either way.
But especially when demanded from those who blackmail, and tell lies etc and those who will only comment on my threads if they feel the need, especially not demanded by me, plus the fact that they themselves who are always ready to condemn right-wing affairs but fail to do the same against anything even slightly left leaning.
Take your own attitude towards that African Muslim's view on gays, you were first to divert the attention away from him by introducing the fact that Russian politicians are just as bad.
Let me remind you.
/// Because of free speech. ///
/// Same is happening in Russia right now. Russian politicians are claiming that gay couples adopt children specifically to rape them. ///
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.