Tommy Robinson

[RiG]

20 hours ago, Venti said:

The wee p***k can be seen in the video in this article. Attacking a BMW.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj622z0w7n0o

Shocking video but I did chuckle at the England shirt wearing loser trying to rip the door off then smash the window in with his elbow only to hurt himself doing so and slink off rubbing his elbow.

Edited August 7 by RiG

[lau03143]

6 hours ago, Freedom Farter said:

"Fascists did not come to power in the mid-war period by promising violence, war or concentration camps. They came to power by addressing good people who, following a severe capitalist crisis, had been treated for too long like livestock that had lost its market value. Instead of treating them like “deplorables”, fascists looked at them in the eye and promised to restore their pride, offered their friendship, gave them a sense that they belonged to a larger ideal, allowed them to think of themselves as something more than sovereign consumers".

And I think that's why it isn't correct to constantly call everyone who riots as "far right". There is probably a good portion of "far lefts" and anarchists (see image below from Rotherham riot) as well. Racism and intolerance is not just restricted to the "far right".  Populist movement like Fascism gain followers as it brings in the disaffected from all areas, it offers then an outlet to their grievances and allows them to blame others. Same with these neo-Communist goons that seem to converge on the BLM and "Free Palestine" movements. It gives them the ultimate victim mentality, that the world is against them.

 

[Turkmenbashi]

7 minutes ago, lau03143 said:

And I think that's why it isn't correct to constantly call everyone who riots as "far right". There is probably a good portion of "far lefts" and anarchists (see image below from Rotherham riot) as well. Racism and intolerance is not just restricted to the "far right".  Populist movement like Fascism gain followers as it brings in the disaffected from all areas, it offers then an outlet to their grievances and allows them to blame others. Same with these neo-Communist goons that seem to converge on the BLM and "Free Palestine" movements. It gives them the ultimate victim mentality, that the world is against them.

 

Pretty clear that the only people involved are far right. And for BLM and free Palestine we're mostly peaceful unlike here.

[Laid Back Maverick]

"When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled"

 

 

[accies1874]

10 hours ago, Mark Connolly said:

"I hate those elite folk, but real normal people like multi-millionaire Dulwich College old boy Nigel Farage, and Harrow Old Boy and descendent of British acting royalty Laurence Fox really speak for us"

That's the irony of it all. 

8 hours ago, eez-eh said:

That guy wasn’t going to stop being racist if Nolan listened to or understood his “concerns”.

There is no way to convince someone who boldly states that, in the face of all the reason, he just doesn’t like ‘um. I’m glad Nolan told him he’s a racist thicko.

 

8 hours ago, Shotgun said:

I'm going to continue to disagree with you and this mentality.

England now has Fascists rioting on the streets and literally trying to burn people alive. Over here we have a politician running for president openly bragging that he'll imprison his enemies if he wins and foment a civil war if he doesn't. Far from being 'shouted down', the ultra-right has, over the last few years, been given a massive platform to air their repulsive opinions and this is where it has led us. We're long past the point of needing to listen to them politely. 

I agree that there isn't much hope for a lot of them, but these views have to start somewhere and it's not always as hopeless as being passed down through generations. 

Grifters and loudmouths are always gonna exist, so I suppose what I'm trying to say is that when you've got those loudmouths telling you exactly what you want to hear, it's important to explain why those views are wrong as opposed to getting told you're stupid for thinking that way. I think a really good example was some of the responses to Wacky's post a few days ago (though I suppose the counter-argument is that they weren't too receptive to that kind of response).

[dundeefc1783]

15 hours ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

Well for a start you can do it with one change.

Secondly is it possible the journalist in question just saw loads of people with Glaswegian accents getting off a train and didn't check the train timetable?

I mean you seem to be calling a senior journalist (Mark Easton) at the BBC a liar based on not much.

I'm not on X or I'd ask him to clarify the statement. 

How do you get from Glasgow to Sunderland by train with only one change? 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

15 minutes ago, lau03143 said:

And I think that's why it isn't correct to constantly call everyone who riots as "far right". There is probably a good portion of "far lefts" and anarchists (see image below from Rotherham riot) as well. Racism and intolerance is not just restricted to the "far right".  Populist movement like Fascism gain followers as it brings in the disaffected from all areas, it offers then an outlet to their grievances and allows them to blame others. Same with these neo-Communist goons that seem to converge on the BLM and "Free Palestine" movements. It gives them the ultimate victim mentality, that the world is against them.

 

Care to provide some firm evidence of 'far left' and 'anarchist' participation in this violence ? 

But you are correct that not everyone taking part is 'far right' - I doubt very many of these people have a political bone in their bodies, what they do have though is a very deep well of anger that their situation is the fault of cultures and races other than their own.  Not only is it a completely false premise, it's a very powerful one for violent orchestration by malicious agents well capable of inciting suggestible people.

And when you have a sizeable number of people who have little respect for themselves, their fellow citizens and their communities then you have a grim basis for what we're seeing.

[Granny Danger]

The racist childminder is married to a Tory Councillor.  Hopefully a custodial sentence will follow.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-councillor-wife-far-right-hate-b2592271.html

ETA the variation of ‘some of my best friends are black’ by her husband is galling.

Edited August 7 by Granny Danger

[tongue_tied_danny]

11 minutes ago, dundeefc1783 said:

How do you get from Glasgow to Sunderland by train with only one change? 

Change at Carlisle.

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, Sheas_cake said:

A presumably fairly well off wife of a Tory councillor won't be going to jail. Her childminding career is certainly f**ked though, so i guess she'll now become some attention-seeking right-wing Social Media bore/grifter. 

She’s already had her registration suspended.  What she said was incitement pure and simple, if she doesn’t go to jail it will confirm that all the tough talk is meaningless rhetoric 

[Laid Back Maverick]

33 minutes ago, dundeefc1783 said:

How do you get from Glasgow to Sunderland by train with only one change? 

There are a couple of direct trains from Glasgow Central to Newcastle in the morning.

[MP_MFC]

My work have just sent home all their staff from Glasgow  and Manchester based on intelligence over something today in the cities....

 

Madness..

[jamamafegan]

I didn’t realise quite how many people are closet Robinson fans. It’s rather terrifying. I’ve been commenting on an article regarding St. Johnstone’s Cammy MacPherson, who is rightly being called out for retweeting the Robinson documentary the other day. The amount of people who have come out to support him and his “free speech” is astonishing. Lots and lots of people having a go at me, urging me to “watch the documentary and decide.” Horrific stuff. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

7 minutes ago, MP_MFC said:

My work have just sent home all their staff from Glasgow  and Manchester based on intelligence over something today in the cities....

 

Madness..

Let's all hope it's a false flag.

[Jaggy McJagface]

10 minutes ago, jamamafegan said:

I didn’t realise quite how many people are closet Robinson fans. It’s rather terrifying. I’ve been commenting on an article regarding St. Johnstone’s Cammy MacPherson, who is rightly being called out for retweeting the Robinson documentary the other day. The amount of people who have come out to support him and his “free speech” is astonishing. Lots and lots of people having a go at me, urging me to “watch the documentary and decide.” Horrific stuff. 

While it is alarming, the type of people to comment on news articles and engage in Facebook arguments on public posts are more likely to be the type of fud that supports Robinson et al. They are still a minority in the real world.

[vikingTON]

18 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

I agree with some of this, but also think that it's entirely credible to point to Labour's rhetoric on immigration from 1997 - and the escalation of it over the 27 years since that election as the Tories and Labour incessantly tried to outflank each other - as a causal factor here. Obviously no mainstream party is going to explicitly race bait by tying 'we must control immigration' to either skin colour or religion in a wholesale denunciation of multiculturalism that would appease those trying to burn down mosques, but it's still fed into those attitudes.

In 1997 only 3% of the population thought immigration was a key political issue. You can obviously make the argument that the parties/governments have danced to the changing tune of media and public opinion rather than leading it themselves over that time, but Labour were doing this long before the accession of several states to the EU in 2004 that saw a substantial increase in legal immigration to the uproar of the tabloids. They introduced detention centres and the voucher system for asylum seekers as it would "discourage fraudulent claims" in 1999 - the UK wasn't in top 10 in Europe for the number of asylum claims but Blair pledged to halve the number coming in while Blunkett said the children of asylum seekers were "swamping" schools. With further asylum acts they removed the right to work from asylum seekers who were waiting for their claims to be ruled on and then the right to benefits from those appealing having a claim denied, all while the government themselves were using the same language to describe immigrants and especially asylum seekers as the Sun and Daily Mail - scroungers, cheats, flooding, swamping, invading.

It's possible to argue that a growth of anti-immigration sentiment, and an outpouring of explicit racism against anyone who isn't white regardless of how many generations they've spent in the UK which invariably follows it, was going to develop over the last 25-30 years no matter what stance mainstream parties took, but we can't say for sure that it would be the case if we had a party of government willing to speak up in defence of immigrants and try to fight against that sentiment, because we've never had one.

Labour believed they could make themselves the natural party of government by outflanking the Tories to the right on some issues in the 00s while staying to their left economically, it blew up in their face and their solution when they found themselves in opposition again was to fight the following election with "controls on immigration" mugs. Then the Tories moved ever further rightward on immigration throughout their time in office: the hostile environment, the go home vans, Windrush all coming before we even got to Prime Ministers who described Muslim women as "letterboxes", came up with the Rwanda policy or made "Stop The Boats" their central campaign slogan.

Now Labour are back in government again and there are literal pogroms taking place, one of them an arson attack on a hotel housing asylum seekers which a Labour MP stood in Parliament and named days before the pogrom, demanding her constituents "get their hotel back". There has been no condemnation of that MP from any member of the government, who were themselves campaigning just over a month ago on the message that the previous government had "lost control of our borders" and are now showing a curious reluctance to name Islamophobia as a factor in their denunciations of people trying to murder Muslims, having faced accusations over several years from their own elected representatives that the party is institutionally Islamophobic.

How did Labour's 'rhetoric on immigration since 1997' - your causal factor - trigger the previous set of racially motivated riots in May 2001? Given that the communities targeted were not in fact immigrants. 

Which rather undermines the key point you've stated in bold. There's no evidence that racist sentiment and/or violence has developed over the past 25-30 years. It has always been there as a latent threat among a fringe element in society, which is playing out in the same pattern as seen before only with Telegram to better organise it. Just as the potential for more generic urban riots - such as London in 2011 - exists independently of political rhetoric or specific policies. 

To identify causal factors for the non-existent 'growth' of such violence firstly gives those carrying it out far too much relevance, and inevitably ends up as a pick and mix list of cherry-picked stories/policies that explain absolutely nothing about how and why the rioting took place. 

Edited August 7 by vikingTON

[Ned Nederlander]

10 hours ago, Leith Green said:

AUOB are moving their rally from Edinburgh same day as a counter rally.

They'd be better off letting the thick c'nts implode on their own rather than giving them a target to go after

There'll be train loads of lager fuelled potato-heads heading up from Engerlund just looking for trouble - I'd be keeping well clear.

[Freedom Farter]

[DeeTillEhDeh]

59 minutes ago, vikingTON said:

How did Labour's 'rhetoric on immigration since 1997' - your causal factor - trigger the previous set of racially motivated riots in May 2001? Given that the communities targeted were not in fact immigrants. 

Which rather undermines the key point you've stated in bold. There's no evidence that racist sentiment and/or violence has developed over the past 25-30 years. It has always been there as a latent threat among a fringe element in society, which is playing out in the same pattern as seen before only with Telegram to better organise it. Just as the potential for more generic urban riots - such as London in 2011 - exists independently of political rhetoric or specific policies. 

To identify causal factors for the non-existent 'growth' of such violence firstly gives those carrying it out far too much relevance, and inevitably ends up as a pick and mix list of cherry-picked stories/policies that explain absolutely nothing about how and why the rioting took place. 

@Dunning1874 was actually replying to my general point about the increase in race hate crimes - a 4-fold increase in England & Wales since 2011. Between 2015 and 2020 there was almost a doubling of race hate crimes with violence.

You seem wholly focussed on riots which are in fact the tip of the iceberg of race hate crimes.

As I said before, you made some very pertinent points about the causes of the riot specifically, but these do not explain the general increase in race hate crimes.

 

Edited August 7 by DeeTillEhDeh

[doulikefish]

1 hour ago, MP_MFC said:

My work have just sent home all their staff from Glasgow  and Manchester based on intelligence over something today in the cities....

 

Madness..

https://x.com/PSOSGreaterGlas/status/1821121427191255160?t=if1mUTKsTSQLAohM6DrDfg&s=19