Tommy Robinson Exposes Bbc Far Left Bias

[Khandro]

Who will be first to 'dismiss' this because it's on Breitbart?

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/24/tommy-robinsons-panodrama-exposes-the-bbcs-left-bias/#

from where will you gain the facts if not there and on social media ?

[Kromovaracun]

(Also having now bothered to google it, I notice he does also have an assault conviction from 2005.)

[andy-hughes]

Kromo - // (Also having now bothered to google it, I notice he does also have an assault conviction from 2005.) //

He's a charmer, our'Tommy' - a gift that keeps on giving!!

[Khandro]

andy hughes;

//Why 'must I' read it?// [Breitbart]

//Actually, let me save us both some time, you don't bother to answer that, because I'm not bothered about your reason.//

Could the reason you don't want me to 'bother to answer' is because my answer would obviously be, "well, if you don't read it, how do you know so much about it to enable you to say;

"I perceive Breitbart as am ultra-right wing conspiracy organ which wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit it in the bottom - I wouldn't believe Breitbart if it told me there was a 'y' in the day of the week."

?

[vetuste_ennemi]

The key point about Robinson and the EDL which he founded, and about the BNP before that is this:

They, and they alone, were pointing out the presence of Muslim rape gangs in all the towns and cities with Muslim populations. And this at a time when this vile crime was being allowed to flourish through an establishment policy of inertia. (That's the most charitable description I was able to come up with).

You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect their influence was a healthy one.

This is Andrew Norfolk, whose exposé in the Times first made the scandal public knowledge, on the Robinson effect:

[andy-hughes]

Khandro - // Could the reason you don't want me to 'bother to answer' is because my answer would obviously be, "well, if you don't read it, how do you know so much about it to enable you to say;

"I perceive Breitbart as am ultra-right wing conspiracy organ which wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit it in the bottom - I wouldn't believe Breitbart if it told me there was a 'y' in the day of the week."

? //

It could be ...

[naomi24]

//You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect [exposing grooming gangs] their influence was a healthy one. //

Strangely enough that suggestion appears to be an anathema, which says far more about the critics than the censured.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // //You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect [exposing grooming gangs] their influence was a healthy one. //

Strangely enough that suggestion appears to be an anathema, which says far more about the critics than the censured. //

That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs, and Mussolini made the trains run on time - it is a positive, but it tends to get buried under the tons of negatives that have followed it.

[Togo]

Worth the time just to see Sweeney and his camera crew squirm.

[andy-hughes]

Togo - can't agree there.

I lasted twenty minutes before the combination of unremitting self-justification, ego, arrogance, nonsense, and dodgy piano music, with the ego-trip delivered in a voice that sounds like a cat sliding down a blackboard - I was obliged to give up.

I did try though - honest.

[Togo]

Ahh well. That is why I didn't post it on the other thread. I knew that not many there would have the attention span to wait for the "sting" on the very charlatans who were trying to set up their own. Never mind.

[Spicerack]

I.m a supporter of Tommy but there's something about that film I don't like. I tried to listen to the live feed the other day, that was awful.
And I wouldn't trust Caolin? & George as far as I could throw them.

[agchristie]

Andy Hughes //That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs//

He did.He had a beloved German Shepherd named Blondi.

[andy-hughes]

agchristie - // Andy Hughes //That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs//

He did.He had a beloved German Shepherd named Blondi. //

I know he did, that was the point I was making - being nice in one area of your life does not mitigate being horrible in another area.

[agchristie]

I just threw that in Andy as a fact.I didn't know if you knew about his gifted pet which you did.

I did get the general point you made o:)

[andy-hughes]

agchristie - I did indeed, and I also know that Hitler poisoned Blondi before disposing of Eva Braun and then himself.

[agchristie]

He was devastated about losing Blondi even though he caused its death on purpose.Didn't want the Russians to get to it.

Anyway,back to the thread!

[vetuste_ennemi]

Andy Hughes //That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs//

There is moral point which is missed by people who use this facile comparison, Aggie.

If the members of the virtuous class which hates the "far-right" could have put their knee-jerk reaction on hold for just five minutes and actually investigated the claims of the far-right groups that Muslim gangs were trafficking very young non-Muslim girlin Northern towns and cities, then the allegations could have been publicly revealed as a lie. Alternatively, the allegations could have been confirmed and action taken to deal with the rapists.

Either way you've dealt with the problem of the "far-right", if you're the kind of easily-influenced person who thinks that the far-right is a problem in today's Britain: either you've proved them liars, or you've taken away their main propaganda point.

Why was obvious strategy never adopted? I assume it's because the "Hitler loved doggies" crowd think there are more important issues than sex-trafficking.

[andy-hughes]

vetuste - // Andy Hughes //That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs//

There is moral point which is missed by people who use this facile comparison, Aggie.

If the members of the virtuous class which hates the "far-right" could have put their knee-jerk reaction on hold for just five minutes and actually investigated the claims of the far-right groups that Muslim gangs were trafficking very young non-Muslim girlin Northern towns and cities, then the allegations could have been publicly revealed as a lie. Alternatively, the allegations could have been confirmed and action taken to deal with the rapists.

Either way you've dealt with the problem of the "far-right", if you're the kind of easily-influenced person who thinks that the far-right is a problem in today's Britain: either you've proved them liars, or you've taken away their main propaganda point.

Why was obvious strategy never adopted? I assume it's because the "Hitler loved doggies" crowd think there are more important issues than sex-trafficking. //

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made!

My point in using the Hitler example was to point out that being kind on one area of a person's life does not give them a free pass to be a horrible human being in another.

I have never for one moment ever disputed or condemned 'Tommy Robinson's actions in unearthing the dreadful covering up of abuse - but my point is, and remains, that does not give him carte blanche to be the nasty racist bigoted attention-seeking egotist that he has become, and remains.