Tommy Robinson Against Child Grooming

[TheDevil]

If Tommy Robinson was so concerned about child grooming, then why isn't he and his boys protesting against Prince Andrew and his connection to child groomer Jeffrey Epstein?

[jackthehat]

An entirely different kettle of fish.......and pretty moot, too.

[naomi24]

Why should he? What crime has Prince Andrew been charged with and found guilty of?

[TheDevil]

Jackthehat - "and pretty moot, too".

In what sense do you mean?

[bednobs]

Prince Andrew is not a child groomer. Are you seriously advocating that protest groups go after friends an relatives of groomers even if they have done nothing?

[TheDevil]

Naomi24 - "What crime has Prince Andrew been charged with and found guilty of?"

We all know that Tommy Robinson isn't one to wait until someone is proven guilty. And we also all know that Prince Andrew hasn't been charged or found guilty of anything. That's half the issue.

[pixie374]

I did wonder, jth...
I wouldn't like to be judged on the behaviour of some of my friends. I don't control or copy any if them (however none of them are paedophiles either, as far as I know).

[bednobs]

Eh? You seem very muddled

[Jackdaw33]

Moot means debatable. It was Spath's favourite word.

[TheDevil]

You don't need to be a paedophile to groom a child. I've not mentioned the word paedophile so please can we try to steer clear of it.

[naomi24]

:o)

[pixie374]

I was referring to people I know... are we only allowed to use the words in your post?

[TheDevil]

Pixie374 - "are we only allowed to use the words in your post?"

Of course you can use whatever words you like. It just muddies the water when I'm discussing two famous people who we are all aware of and if they are child groomers, whilst you are discussing people we do not know, and mentioning that they are not paedophiles.

Not to worry.

[pixie374]

Thanks, are they both "child groomers" though?

[emmie]

perhaps he will, though don't hold your breath..

[TheDevil]

Pixie374 - "are they both "child groomers" though?"

One definitely is. It is questionable if the other is or not, and we won't know without a trial. However, there is not going to be a trial, or even and question of one.

That is the issue.

[jackthehat]

Epstein = (dead) sexual exploiter of young women ('paedophile' is debatable given the suggested ages of the girls/young women) and liked to move among the wealthy and famous.....P A wasn't the only 'friend' who received of Epsteins largesse.

Price Andrew = foolish bloke who has his ego so regularly massaged by people with their own agendas that he probably is unable to see when he is being manipulated.

Tommy Robinson has no reason to get involved (not that he has ever needed much of one) with this issue.

[naomi24]

//However, there is not going to be a trial, or even and question of one. //

Probably because there's no evidence that he's broken any laws and therefore he hasn't been charged with breaking any law. Bit of a 'moot' argument really.

[TheDevil]

Jackthehat - "not that he has ever needed much of one"

My point exactly. Why pick and choose which child grooming cases you care about and which you don't?

It seemed that when child grooming hits the news, so does Tommy Robinson.

This indicates that his main agenda was not helping vulnerable children.

[emmie]

as i said on another thread, heaven help him if he does go to the USA, they will hang him out to dry..

[jackthehat]

I'm not lover of Tommy Robinson but his 'crusade' was against child-groomers and exploiters of younger girls by gangs of (primarily) muslim men in towns and cities in the UK.

He'll have no interest or ability to crusade against dead American Epstein, nor P A who is charged with nothing and has not, to our minds, committed any sort of illegal act.