You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson
September 20 2019 8.30am

BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 171 of 183 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

 

View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 06 Sep 19 10.39am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

The problem though is with the hate police and PC as it is even muslims arnt allowed to Express their opinion.
If they dont agree with it then so what.
It's when they throw them off roofs and burn them that I would draw the line.
We are all captured in the same net so our common link is that we cant Express our feelings.
All races and colours.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Online Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 06 Sep 19 10.45am Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by SavoyTruffle

I think youíve missed my irony, I was highlighted the double think you seem to have. Iíve seen you on these forums talk about how the Ďliberal leftí shouldnít be as welcoming to Muslims based on their views towards gay people (letís ignore the fact thatís based on the assumption that all Muslim people hold the same views... we can pick that up some other time)

Now youíve posted something I assume in an attempt to demonstrate how Yaxley-Lennon isnít a one issue man and therefore the people who dislike him on this forum who donít like him for his views towards Muslims should now celebrate him for his views towards gay people.

I put it to you that the fact that he holds similar views to the kind of ultra conservative Muslims who were protesting outside the schools in Birmingham only indicates he is the other side of the same coin and something that isnít required in Modern Britain in the same way their views arenít welcomed.

The irony is entirely wasted here as the government climbed down to the Muslims protesting outside schools. Not one was arrested although the homosexual vice principal received several death threats. The latest directive is not to force uncomfortable things onto these people. So apparently that's entirely what modern Britain wants.
The difference in treatment between Robinson and radical Muslims is stark. We are lucky if anything is publicised about serious Muslim peodophile gangs, or any of them are investigated or charged. Robinson confronts a known peado and is banged up immediately. That is irony - on us all.

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 06 Sep 19 1.43pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SavoyTruffle

I think youíve missed my irony, I was highlighted the double think you seem to have. Iíve seen you on these forums talk about how the Ďliberal leftí shouldnít be as welcoming to Muslims based on their views towards gay people (letís ignore the fact thatís based on the assumption that all Muslim people hold the same views... we can pick that up some other time)

Now youíve posted something I assume in an attempt to demonstrate how Yaxley-Lennon isnít a one issue man and therefore the people who dislike him on this forum who donít like him for his views towards Muslims should now celebrate him for his views towards gay people.

I put it to you that the fact that he holds similar views to the kind of ultra conservative Muslims who were protesting outside the schools in Birmingham only indicates he is the other side of the same coin and something that isnít required in Modern Britain in the same way their views arenít welcomed.


So in your head, if Robinson happens to agree with any position that a set of Muslims have.....this is somehow double think?

How does that work?

So in your head, if I or Robinson or anyone agree with one particular position then this means that I fully agree with all of their positions.

How does that work?

Let's make this specific to you.....What party do you support? Do you agree with every single aspect of its politics.....Say you oppose the Tories (hardly a stretch me thinks) does this mean that you disagree with every single policy they had?....You know, just because they are Tories.

And if you did agree with a policy....that this is somehow double think.

You know, Muslims also drink water....I drink water....this doesn't make me the same.

You seem to be suggesting that I or Robinson should disagree with Muslims as a point of principle about everything. What kind of logic is that?

Muslims believe that they have to the right to raise their children as Muslims....Hey, amazing. I also believe they have the right to raise their children as Muslims......Shock horror, according to your logic that shouldn't compute!

Are you seriously suggesting that because I or Robinson might agree with some Muslims on being against the teaching of homosexuality to primacy school children that this means I or him agree with other attitudes expressed towards homosexuality?

It appears you are.

Are you not aware that some homosexuals also disagree with this policy? Does this mean that any difference they might have elsewhere is also double think?

Let's explain to you how I and Robinson and others can agree with the stance against teaching homosexuality to primacy children and also be against other strongly held views about homosexuality within the same community.

Pew carried out a poll in 2016 on the attitudes of Muslims in the UK.

[Link]

52% said they disagreed with the statement that heterosexuality should be legal in the Britain. Only 18% would say it should be legal.

Well, I agree with the minority 18% as does Robinson. Is that double think for you?

Outside of the Islamic community only 5% agree that homosexuality should be illegal.

Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.....presumably, though it did not state, only 18% percent would be prepared to agree that it's acceptable.

Well again, I think it's an outrageous idea that a homosexual would be banned from a teaching job as does Robinson.

Is that double think enough for you?

Nuance, dear boy, nuance.



Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2019 1.52pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SavoyTruffle's Profile SavoyTruffle Flag 06 Sep 19 7.20pm Send a Private Message to SavoyTruffle Add SavoyTruffle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


So in your head, if Robinson happens to agree with any position that a set of Muslims have.....this is somehow double think?

How does that work?

So in your head, if I or Robinson or anyone agree with one particular position then this means that I fully agree with all of their positions.

How does that work?

Let's make this specific to you.....What party do you support? Do you agree with every single aspect of its politics.....Say you oppose the Tories (hardly a stretch me thinks) does this mean that you disagree with every single policy they had?....You know, just because they are Tories.

And if you did agree with a policy....that this is somehow double think.

You know, Muslims also drink water....I drink water....this doesn't make me the same.

You seem to be suggesting that I or Robinson should disagree with Muslims as a point of principle about everything. What kind of logic is that?

Muslims believe that they have to the right to raise their children as Muslims....Hey, amazing. I also believe they have the right to raise their children as Muslims......Shock horror, according to your logic that shouldn't compute!

Are you seriously suggesting that because I or Robinson might agree with some Muslims on being against the teaching of homosexuality to primacy school children that this means I or him agree with other attitudes expressed towards homosexuality?

It appears you are.

Are you not aware that some homosexuals also disagree with this policy? Does this mean that any difference they might have elsewhere is also double think?

Let's explain to you how I and Robinson and others can agree with the stance against teaching homosexuality to primacy children and also be against other strongly held views about homosexuality within the same community.

Pew carried out a poll in 2016 on the attitudes of Muslims in the UK.

[Link]

52% said they disagreed with the statement that heterosexuality should be legal in the Britain. Only 18% would say it should be legal.

Well, I agree with the minority 18% as does Robinson. Is that double think for you?

Outside of the Islamic community only 5% agree that homosexuality should be illegal.

Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population.....presumably, though it did not state, only 18% percent would be prepared to agree that it's acceptable.

Well again, I think it's an outrageous idea that a homosexual would be banned from a teaching job as does Robinson.

Is that double think enough for you?

Nuance, dear boy, nuance.



Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2019 1.52pm)

I think you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make, in good faith though no doubt. Sorry if I was unclear.

No where in my post do I infer that because Tommy and some Muslims hold the some of that same views on homosexuality that by default all their views would be the same. Equally I donít assume that if a group hold opposing views naturally they would disagree on everything. I am a firm believer that we all hold common ground and in this space is where progress is made.

The point my initial post was making is that I have seen posts of this forum that indicate that part of the reason Muslims donít fit in with British values as they hold illiberal views toward homosexuality. Now a man who champions himself as a bastion of British values demonstrates another set of views towards homosexuality that many would deem illiberal and he is championed.

You are correct nuance is key, in fact one of my favourite quotes of all time is ďTyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.Ē Something that unfortunately happens all too much in todayís 24hr news cycle!

Feel free to post a response but you will unlikely receive a reply, I have lurked on these forums for sometime and enjoy reading the views of people who have vastly different viewpoints to me but ultimately feel that changing someoneís viewpoint over written communication is close to impossible. Things are too easily taken in the wrong context.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag Chatham 06 Sep 19 7.55pm Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by SavoyTruffle

I think you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make, in good faith though no doubt. Sorry if I was unclear.

No where in my post do I infer that because Tommy and some Muslims hold the some of that same views on homosexuality that by default all their views would be the same. Equally I donít assume that if a group hold opposing views naturally they would disagree on everything. I am a firm believer that we all hold common ground and in this space is where progress is made.

The point my initial post was making is that I have seen posts of this forum that indicate that part of the reason Muslims donít fit in with British values as they hold illiberal views toward homosexuality. Now a man who champions himself as a bastion of British values demonstrates another set of views towards homosexuality that many would deem illiberal and he is championed.

You are correct nuance is key, in fact one of my favourite quotes of all time is ďTyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.Ē Something that unfortunately happens all too much in todayís 24hr news cycle!

Feel free to post a response but you will unlikely receive a reply, I have lurked on these forums for sometime and enjoy reading the views of people who have vastly different viewpoints to me but ultimately feel that changing someoneís viewpoint over written communication is close to impossible. Things are too easily taken in the wrong context.

It isnt about changing a view point or taking something out of context.
It's about your thoughts and your writing.
Steely and wissy put their points on here.
Hrolf and stirling put theirs.
It makes interesting reading and the more opinions the better so dont give up Savoy.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View braunstoneagle's Profile braunstoneagle Flag the middle of bumf*** nowhere... 06 Sep 19 8.36pm Send a Private Message to braunstoneagle Add braunstoneagle as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Oh look It's the pearl clutcher never missing an opportunity to be brave at his keyboard.

i was hoping this thread was dead, however seeing it active again its a shame its been re-ignited .: giving this disgraceful very small narrow corner of morally-undesirable palace fans a voice again. i was hoping people had forgotten about steven yaxley-lennon.

 


ĎFootball isnít instant coffee. You have to work at it. You must grow the bean, grind it.í Ian Holloway


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View dollardays's Profile dollardays Flag 06 Sep 19 8.37pm Send a Private Message to dollardays Add dollardays as a friend

Originally posted by SavoyTruffle

I think you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make, in good faith though no doubt. Sorry if I was unclear.

No where in my post do I infer that because Tommy and some Muslims hold the some of that same views on homosexuality that by default all their views would be the same. Equally I donít assume that if a group hold opposing views naturally they would disagree on everything. I am a firm believer that we all hold common ground and in this space is where progress is made.

The point my initial post was making is that I have seen posts of this forum that indicate that part of the reason Muslims donít fit in with British values as they hold illiberal views toward homosexuality. Now a man who champions himself as a bastion of British values demonstrates another set of views towards homosexuality that many would deem illiberal and he is championed.

You are correct nuance is key, in fact one of my favourite quotes of all time is ďTyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.Ē Something that unfortunately happens all too much in todayís 24hr news cycle!

Feel free to post a response but you will unlikely receive a reply, I have lurked on these forums for sometime and enjoy reading the views of people who have vastly different viewpoints to me but ultimately feel that changing someoneís viewpoint over written communication is close to impossible. Things are too easily taken in the wrong context.

Some would just argue that teaching children about gay relationships within that subject area isn't a 'British Value'. It certainly wasn't taught when I was at school. However, society changes, and in an age appropriate way for all intents and purposes, it is now a British value and reflective of today's world. As an interim measure, for those struggling to align with the values the majority hold, schools could perhaps treat it like religious education used to be, giving a parental 'opt out' where requested. It does not however appear that the government has gone that route.

To bring it back to the demographic the thread pertains to, mass immigration often basically lumps people in the same regions and creates somewhat parallel societies where people fail to assimilate into the country and instead become more and more protective of views that are detached from it. That may well be comforting and to a point understandable as people are not always made to feel welcome, but at the same time, again, these opt outs from wider society and realities don't really benefit society or the communities within it. Any wall of silence or disconnect within parts of society only ever causes problems, as we well see. The church is or has been another example of that.


Edited by dollardays (06 Sep 2019 9.46pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag Wisbech, England 06 Sep 19 8.52pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SavoyTruffle

I think you have misinterpreted the point I was trying to make, in good faith though no doubt. Sorry if I was unclear.

No where in my post do I infer that because Tommy and some Muslims hold the some of that same views on homosexuality that by default all their views would be the same. Equally I donít assume that if a group hold opposing views naturally they would disagree on everything. I am a firm believer that we all hold common ground and in this space is where progress is made.

The point my initial post was making is that I have seen posts of this forum that indicate that part of the reason Muslims donít fit in with British values as they hold illiberal views toward homosexuality. Now a man who champions himself as a bastion of British values demonstrates another set of views towards homosexuality that many would deem illiberal and he is championed.

You are correct nuance is key, in fact one of my favourite quotes of all time is ďTyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.Ē Something that unfortunately happens all too much in todayís 24hr news cycle!

Feel free to post a response but you will unlikely receive a reply, I have lurked on these forums for sometime and enjoy reading the views of people who have vastly different viewpoints to me but ultimately feel that changing someoneís viewpoint over written communication is close to impossible. Things are too easily taken in the wrong context.

You are of course free to view Robinson's and mine and other's view that being against the teaching of homosexual relationships to primary children is illiberal.....In a sense I would agree....I'd call the opinion socially conservative.

You seem to be suggesting that this position isn't 'British values' when this was precisely British values up until last year when this was introduced.

I would agree with the idea that this is a step too far down the socially liberal road for me. In fact I contend that too much social liberalism has, in my view, damaged society in many ways in recent decades.

You used the term, 'double think' which admittedly ticked me off and I feel I have answered.....However you had the right to make the point and I welcome any contributions you might wish to make in future.


Edited by Stirlingsays (06 Sep 2019 9.00pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Penge Eagle's Profile Penge Eagle Flag Beckenham 08 Sep 19 1.19pm Send a Private Message to Penge Eagle Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Penge Eagle as a friend

'New Islamophobia definition shuts down criticism of radical Islam, female imam says' [Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 08 Sep 19 7.05pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by braunstoneagle

i was hoping this thread was dead, however seeing it active again its a shame its been re-ignited .: giving this disgraceful very small narrow corner of morally-undesirable palace fans a voice again. i was hoping people had forgotten about steven yaxley-lennon.

And you are no doubt the arbiter of what is morally desirable?

It seems that fascism really does have a new name.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View W12's Profile W12 Flag 09 Sep 19 3.28pm Send a Private Message to W12 Add W12 as a friend

Originally posted by braunstoneagle

i was hoping this thread was dead, however seeing it active again its a shame its been re-ignited .: giving this disgraceful very small narrow corner of morally-undesirable palace fans a voice again. i was hoping people had forgotten about steven yaxley-lennon.

I would see a proper national inquiry into the grooming scandal to avoid it happening to other children, rather than see another Palace game ever.

If your moral objection to TR as a person is stronger than your moral disgust as to what happened to these girls then you either need to take a hard look in the mirror or make a greater effort to understand what happened and why. It would seem to me to be the biggest scandal in the history of this country or can you name one that's bigger?

Who else but TR in the public sphere has been willing to speak out about this? I can't see that's been in his own personal interest given the prison sentences, death threats etc.

Is it possible you are just believing what you are told? The "Yaxley-Lennon" thing (which is news to nobody) would suggest you are just parroting what you see as a socially acceptable mainstream line on this.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 09 Sep 19 7.41pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

May I add my own thoughts to this in reply?

Originally posted by W12

I would see a proper national inquiry into the grooming scandal to avoid it happening to other children, rather than see another Palace game ever.

That is most likely what will happen once the various court cases have all worked their way through the system. Until then we need to all be patient and allow the Police and all others involved to do their work.

If your moral objection to TR as a person is stronger than your moral disgust as to what happened to these girls then you either need to take a hard look in the mirror or make a greater effort to understand what happened and why. It would seem to me to be the biggest scandal in the history of this country or can you name one that's bigger?

My objection to "Robinson" goes well beyond any moral considerations. It's that his actions have made things worse and not better, and interfered with, or threatened to interfere with, legal proceedings. He has exploited the misery caused to children and their parents in order to pursue his wider anti-Muslim agenda. If that alone is no enough for every decent person to condemn him he has personally profited from this and as a consequence lives a luxurious lifestyle, temporarily interrupted by short spells in prison where his notoriety costs us all by the need to keep him separated from others.

Who else but TR in the public sphere has been willing to speak out about this? I can't see that's been in his own personal interest given the prison sentences, death threats etc.

Others have the common sense to hold their tongues and pens and allow the forces of law and order to deal with criminal activity. If publicity would help their cases then the Police would request it.

Is it possible you are just believing what you are told? The "Yaxley-Lennon" thing (which is news to nobody) would suggest you are just parroting what you see as a socially acceptable mainstream line on this.

Is it possible that you are just believing what you have been told?


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 171 of 183 < 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC fake news - Tommy Robinson