36 replies to this topic

[cmdc]

And is 'Tommy Robinson' wrong in everything he says or does?

Well, yeah, pretty much.

[TRVMP]

The 'left' prefer to tiptoe around subjects like Muslim grooming gangs, Islamic extremists terrorism and even more trivial subjects such as the Burqa as they don't wish to offend the Muslim communities in the UK. It's a safer position for them to take rather than taking the bull by the horns.

Yes, this is it exactly, and people can be offended by that if they want, but they would immediately acknowledge its truth if you reversed it. Let's take the example of mass shootings in the US. On my side of the aisle, gun ownership is extremely popular, and even moderate attempts at reform are often portrayed as the end of the Second Amendment. Even though in opinikn polls a majority of people, in isolation, will say "shootings are bad" and "folk shouldn't be toting uzis about", when it comes to political concerns the outcome can be quite different. The gun lobby is extremely well-organized and well-funded and, although it does receive a lot of manufacturing funding, is also startlingly grassroots. Millions upon millions of people will, then, take any attempt at rocking the boat to be an existential threat to their liberties.

So whenever an atrocity takes place, you get one of two things: either it's some mealy-mouthed stuff about mental illness being to blame (in which case the Republicans are hardly going to fund that either, are they, hence its equivalent to doing nothing); or you'll get deflection ranging from arming school teachers to doing absolutely nothing.

And even people who find both of these distasteful but feel that Something Must Be Done will, if they're serious about a career in even center-right politics in the US, will have to thread the needle somehow and avoid saying something even slightly critical of mass gun ownership, or they're finished electorally.

Everyone, then, acknowledges that the absolute best-case scenario here is that the American Right is either manifestly unbothered about mass shootings, or complicit in their frequency. Even those who feel bad about it are hardly going to stick their head above the parapet, so all their good intentions are utterly and completely meaningless.

In politics everyone on any side (or no side) performs this mental calculus all the time. The difference is that mass culture permits acknowledgement of only some of the issues. Some are completely off-limits. Barring a few patsies in Rotherham and Oxford, and the Churches, and to a limited extent the BBC, nobody will ever have to acknowledge their role.

[capitanus]

Well, yeah, pretty much.

Care to elaborate?

[cmdc]

Care to elaborate?

Not really. He’s a fraud - a hypocrite and self publicist who gets far too much attention as it is, and whose major contribution re: grooming gangs was to jeopardise the trial of some of those responsible, and the hard work of journalists and the police etc to get them to trial, because he couldn’t resist turning it into the Tommy Robinson show.

[capitanus]

What 'hard work' did any Journalists do to get that grooming gang to trial?

As I said before, you may not agree with his methods, and you may not like him as an individual, but he has done more to highlight the dangers that large groups of Muslim males pose to young females across the UK.

[cmdc]

The Rotherham scandal was exposed by proper investigative journalism. Robinson contributed nothing except to let his ego get in the way of the trial. He’s a fraud.

[TRVMP]

The Rotherham scandal was exposed by proper investigative journalism. Robinson contributed nothing except to let his ego get in the way of the trial. He’s a fraud.

While I'm neither criticizing journalists nor defending Robinson, the fact that it needed exposure at all after over a decade of whistle-blowing attempts from people at ground level - not least some victims themselves - means that journalists are due credit, but those who rendered them necessary in the first place should be held to account.

[cmdc]

While I'm neither criticizing journalists nor defending Robinson, the fact that it needed exposure at all after over a decade of whistle-blowing attempts from people at ground level - not least some victims themselves - means that journalists are due credit, but those who rendered them necessary in the first place should be held to account.

No disagreement there.

[capitanus]

The Rotherham scandal was exposed by proper investigative journalism. Robinson contributed nothing except to let his ego get in the way of the trial. He’s a fraud.

Tommy Robinson was arrested and wrongly imprisoned for was reporting on the case against 20 men of Pakistani Muslim heritage accused of rape and abusing vulnerable young girls in Huddersfield and NOT Rotherham, which was a different case altogether.

However you can perhaps be forgiven for confusing the two especially an the victims were from the same demographic (vulnerable white young Females) the perpetrators were from the same ethnic background and operated in a similar way as each other in different parts of the same region. Maybe the two groups were connected to each other, who knows, but the Rotherham case was at least four years earlier however I agree that organisations which may not be to the liking of yourself and others with 'left' leanings have managed to gain political capital from these atrocious events, however if the tables were turned and the collective 'left' didn't turn a blind eye, they would be doing the exact same.

[capitanus]

There's another one:

https://www.thescott...l-abuse-celtic/

[TONofmemories]

BHEASTS 

 

 

THAT IS ALL

[Hej]

There's another one:

https://www.thescott...l-abuse-celtic/

 

Quite clearly says the crimes were committed at the school he worked at tbf

[TONofmemories]

Still, anything to tar those **** with that brush. 

[TRVMP]

What the actual ****? From the article:

In evidence he admitted taking two pictures, one of four boys in a shower with no clothes on which was later printed in the school magazine with ‘censored’ over their private parts.

A high school would be bad enough, but this was (according to the article) a primary school!

How was nobody hauled before a judge for this before now?

It doesn't say what the school was - who was headmaster at the time? Who printed the magazine?

[capitanus]

What the actual ****? From the article:

A high school would be bad enough, but this was (according to the article) a primary school!
How was nobody hauled before a judge for this before now?
It doesn't say what the school was - who was headmaster at the time? Who printed the magazine?

That was the red flag right there.

The thing about this character is that he would have been a VIP in and around his social circles and amongst his colleagues, for he was in charge of the future of 'Sellick' and that would have made him an 'untouchable' even to the Head Teacher. Nobody would ever have dared to challenge such a powerful person back then, there are similarities between this character and Jimmy Savile in this respect.

He would have been the alpha male of the school staff room, he would be holding court and able to regale his colleagues in how he discovered Gerry Creaney and would be able to give the lowdown on who the new Peter Grant will be, and would have fed his colleagues titbits of info on his conversations with 'Big Jock' and Billy McNeill, just to make them feel important and keep them onside. Even the colleague(s) who thought he was a bit of a dick would have kept schtum for fear of being ostracised.

That's now James Torbett, Jim McCafferty, Gerard King and Frank Cairney - all men who held positions of authority at Celtic Boys Club who have been convicted of sexual offences against children. One bad egg is bad enough, but four in the one nest? There is something definitely bad about that club.

[TONofmemories]

Its ok though; they donate to the local foodbank.

Vermin

Edited by TONofmemories, 09 December 2018 - 04:15 PM.

[capitanus]

https://www.thescott...-abuse-america/

Scotland's Shame is about to go international.