Questions For The British Home Secretary

[Khandro]

Lots of 'first times' on here, including the first in this post to sign in on the Koran. Where is Britain heading?

[naomi24]

Jim, //I don't think I've heard a thing he says that's even remotely close to the truth//

That's what comes of not listening.

[jim360]

Weird AB bug about post count not reflecting reality strikes again, placeholder post...

[-Talbot-]

I don't for a second believe his claims about ill-treatment in prison either,



How did he get those shiny teeth, Jim... any ideas?

[jim360]

I'm listening plenty well enough, thank you very much.

[-Talbot-]

And what about him saying he never pleaded guilty... What was going on there?

Surely he should have been allowed to have his own lawyer defending him?

[naomi24]

Jim, //I'm listening plenty well enough, thank you very much. //

Well, if that's true perhaps you're not understanding what he's saying. He's not fluent in Newspeak.

[jim360]

Oh, do stop accusing me of Newspeak, N, it's frankly pretty pathetic.

[naomi24]

Well stop speaking it then. Honesty really is the best policy, Jim.

[jim360]

I don't use Newspeak and never have done.

[-Talbot-]

Can I cause you of selective eyesight?

[jim360]

Only if I can accuse you of selective quoting, Mr "cutting off the important second part of my sentence"...

[Khandro]

The prejudiced have no problems in forming their opinions as they feel no need to understand the facts.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I don't use Newspeak and never have done.//

So when you said …..

//I don't think I've heard a thing he says that's even remotely close to the truth//

.....that wasn’t Newspeak? Or haven’t you listened to him talking Muslim grooming gangs?

[-Talbot-]

Ah, you were just being ignorant then.


You can a use me of anything you like and I will still give a answer to a direct question.

[jim360]

K

[ichkeria]

Anyway, has Mr Javid been in yet? :-)

[vetuste_ennemi]

You've been given an example, Jim: the Muslim rape gangs.

As recently as 2010 Unite against Fascism and the Muslim Council of Britain were describing these gangs as a "racist myth".

Who was telling the truth on this issue: they or Robinson?

[andy-hughes]

The gist of Paul Weston's diatribe is that 'Tommy Robinson' is being singled out for harsh treatment, because he is an enemy of the government, and spokesman for the people.


Well he would say that wouldn't he?

The alternative is - 'Tommy Robinson' went into prison, served some of his allotted time, and is free on appeal pending a further trial'.

Where is the publicity in that?

Nowhere, and publicity is what 'Tommy Robinson' is all about.

It would be the death knell to his funding sources if he was simply not to generate any more noise about himself, so he has to rely in mouthpieces to keep his name out there, and the notion that he is some sort of 'victim' because he 'speaks the truth'.

As I have stated before, he is not even honest about his own name!

Only two kinds of people change their name - people who are in entertainment, and people who have something to hide.

'Tommy Robinson' manages to tick both boxes!!

[jim360]

I tend to regard that as a cultural issue, rather than a religious one. For reasons that I'm not entirely clear of, the gangs in question are often described as Muslim, but they were also mainly of Pakistani origin.

[ichkeria]

It’s intriguing that there should be talk of ‘newspeak’ (tho’ not sure I get the point of it). In 1984 O’Brien holds x fingers up in front of Winston and finally terrorises him into declaring he sees y fingers.
So much of the defence of TR seems to be the opposite: ‘how many fingers is Tommo holding up to British justice? Two? And he himself says it’s two so Tommo must be the truthful sort’ - when it comes to a few facts - but the bigger picture well that’s actually being overlooked.