Tommy has been released from jail. Tommy has stated he didn't plead guilty. Tommy has lost a lot of weight I think he was afraid of being poisoned in a prison with 80% muslims.
tommy Robinson --update
by zeb 193 Replies latest social current
-
-
freddo
80% Muslims Barry?
-
Simon
A very large percentage of the prison population being Muslim, it's not a difficult concept to grasp is it freddo?
It's also another SHAMEFUL and DAMNING statistic. Why are so many of them criminal? And this is when so many of their crimes are given a pass.
Islam is incompatible with any civilized society. It creates shit-holes, but then it is a religion of assholes.
-
LoveUniHateExams
@Freddo - TR was apparently moved to a prison with a high percentage of Muslims.
TR apparently rejected prison food because he didn't trust eating it as it was made by mostly Muslim cooks.
He lost 40 lbs, apparently surviving on a can of tuna a day.
-
freddo
80%? Just a question.
A source would be helpful. Which prison? Who says that it has 80% Muslims?
-
Simon
freddo: Are you as concerned about the statistic of 2% of the population, S.Asian Muslim Men, committing 84% of type 1 child abuse gang crimes?
Oh no, that's right, your only preoccupation is trying to undermine any claim that someone who speaks out against it makes after they have been unfairly targeted and imprisoned by people who want to protect the world from that damning statistic, not the crime.
Islam is a religion of pedophiles and abusers. Proven fact.
People lose their shit over JWs committing something like 0.8% of abuse crimes (which probably matches their % of the population), but a group committing 84% of THE most serious crimes? "Yawn, nothing to see, I don't care"
-
freddo
Well Simon, I guess I just like to be able to ask questions when folk make assertions to support their view.
I'd rather find out facts than believe things which are untrue because they support how I feel. I've done that for decades when I was a believing JW and I try not to do it anymore on important matters.
So if Barry can say which prison Yaxley/Lennon was sent to and whether it has 80% Muslims and perhaps the source for that figure then that would be helpful. If it is true then it surely supports his view that Yaxley/Lennon is being mistreated. I believe from his lawyer's statement that Yaxley/Lennon was largely in solitary confinement, which unless it was at his own request would concern me greatly.
Moving to your question - I am concerned about both type 1 and type 2 sexual abuse of children and I believe the full weight of the law should be brought to bear against anyone guilty of such crimes regardless of their race or religion. I believe that "political correctness" has stimied these investigations in the past just as "protecting institutional reputations" stopped sexual abuse investigations until the late 1990's.
I further believe that foreign nationals that perpetrate these crimes should be deported at the end of their prison sentence. But that is just me.
What I don't want is some one who has at best a chequered history (Y/L) being the catalyst for allowing a trial to collapse on a technicality because they cannot use a better forum to protest in.
-
Simon
So if Barry can say which prison Yaxley/Lennon was sent to and whether it has 80% Muslims and perhaps the source for that figure then that would be helpful. If it is true then it surely supports his view that Yaxley/Lennon is being mistreated. I believe from his lawyer's statement that Yaxley/Lennon was largely in solitary confinement, which unless it was at his own request would concern me greatly.
It seems like it was for his own protection - to send him to any prison with a significantly large Muslim population seems suspect and deliberate. The exact figure doesn't really matter does it?
I am concerned about both type 1 and type 2 sexual abuse of children and I believe the full weight of the law should be brought to bear against anyone guilty of such crimes regardless of their race or religion. I believe that "political correctness" has stimied these investigations in the past just as "protecting institutional reputations" stopped sexual abuse investigations until the late 1990's.
There needs to be prosecutions of ANYONE and EVERYONE who covered it up and helped to enable it. Every politician. Every cop. Every councillor. It needs to be that people piss their pants at the thought of covering up these crimes and THAT be the worst thing imaginable. Anyone who utters the word "racist" to try and put people off taking action needs to prosecuted for hate speech and attempt to prevent an investigation.
I further believe that foreign nationals that perpetrate these crimes should be deported at the end of their prison sentence. But that is just me.
Nope. Save the money. Execute them them all.
What I don't want is some one who has at best a chequered history being the catalyst for allowing a trial to collapse on a technicality because they cannot use a better forum to protest in.
He was r-e-p-o-r-t-i-n-g on it because the main-stream media, the state-funded broadcaster REFUSES to cover and report on these crimes. They have shown themselves to have an agenda, they need to go.
You may not like him but the world needs imperfect heroes like Tommy Robinson. You said he is the catalyst - that is the important thing, something forcing change. Someone waking people up and pointing to things to make change happen.
What we don't need is people whining that they don't like something about him and how he speaks or how he reported it. That's all excuses to ignore the issue and to ignore the true crimes.
That is all you are doing, trying to divert attention from the fact that Muslims are dramatically over-represented when it comes to the worst crimes imaginable. It's really not a surprise, Islam is an utter cess-pit of ideas and a breeding ground for abusive scum.
But you'd rather focus on ... well, anything to try and take focus away from that inconvenient fact.
A religion founded by a sadistic child rapists turn out to promote abuse and child rape. Who knew.
-
freddo
Thank you for engaging with me, Simon. However I take issue with ...
"He was r-e-p-o-r-t-i-n-g on it because the main-stream media, the state-funded broadcaster REFUSES to cover and report on these crimes. They have shown themselves to have an agenda, they need to go."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-43385049
If you go back to my last post, what I said was that I believed "political correctness" stimied these investigations. I still do. But in the last five to ten years this has started to be addressed.
Because decent people don't sit on what they know for fear of being labelled racist or anti-Muslim by left wing "hand-wringers" these things are coming out.
Go back ten years earlier and it was decent people fearful of speaking out against the Saviles and Weinsteins of this world.
And there are many many decent people on your forum who would like to scream from the rooftops about the shunning and child abuse cover ups of the JW's - but they don't - for fear of the consequences.
-
Simon
Thank you for engaging with me, Simon. However I take issue with ...
That they cannot now ignore it is down to people like Tommy Robinson who have helped to make it a public issue and known internationally. Ironic that the state broadcaster was also one of the institutions that allowed Saville to continue with his predation for so long.
You seem to have fallen completely for the lie that his reporting of these cases from outside of the court which journalists do all the time somehow "risks" the trial. Can you explain how that works and when that has happened? Any ruling where the judge has said "well, you are clearly guilty but as someone saw you coming in to court, we now have to let you go".
When the BBC provided live coverage of a police raid on a well known Christian's house by police for totally unsubstantiated allegations, were there any claims of "oh noes, now this won't be able to go to trial!"?
Or is it just an excuse ...