Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Anjem Choudary / Tommy Robinson Comparison.
38 Answers
As some ABers will have no doubt noted, I have long been a champion of Tommy Robinson, I am now joined by none other than the excellent Douglas Murray,
(and may God preserve them both).
https:/
(and may God preserve them both).
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Tommy Robinson, or Andrew Macmaster, or Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon ( I'm not sure which alias he is using today )
An ex-Member of the BNP, and founder Member of another racist organisation the EDL.
He was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, in 2010.
He was also convicted of common assault in 2011..
In 2012 he was convicted of possession of a false identity document with improper intention"
Later on in 2012, he was convicted of mortgage fraud.
Early in 2014 he was recalled to prison, for breaking the term of a previous sentence.
And you have "long been a supporter" Khandro ?
Extraordinary !
An ex-Member of the BNP, and founder Member of another racist organisation the EDL.
He was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, in 2010.
He was also convicted of common assault in 2011..
In 2012 he was convicted of possession of a false identity document with improper intention"
Later on in 2012, he was convicted of mortgage fraud.
Early in 2014 he was recalled to prison, for breaking the term of a previous sentence.
And you have "long been a supporter" Khandro ?
Extraordinary !
Furthermore; would you risk watching this interview with Professor Gad Saad which I believe should give food for thought? I first watched it when it was made 8 months ago, The whole video is one hour and thirteen minutes in length and you may not feel you could spend the time on it (though it is well worth doing so). The first 4 minutes are about football and used as an introduction, but please try to watch at least a further three minutes beyond that.
Khandro, a very interesting and thought-provoking piece by the excellent Douglas Murray, who is an impressive and authoritative figure. I've been a fan of his since I saw his debut performance on QT whilst being the Director for the Centre of Cohesion. He talks a lot of sense.
Anyway, to the piece itself. He is absolutely spot on but to many it will be of no surprise. Robinson is no angel, as his convictions testify but in drawing the comparisons that he has, Murray is absolutely correct to identify the treatment he has been subjected to as being disproportionate when Anjem Choudhary is factored in.
As Murray rightly states, Robinson is just as entitled to participate in a street protest. There have been many on here who have stated that protests such as those he has engaged in are a drain on police manpower and cost. He has every right to do so as long as the demonstration is lawful. Indeed, Robinson gave an assurance at the Pegida UK debut march that it would be a peaceful, silent protest and he was as good as his word.
Robinson should not be hassled and intimidated by the authorities. I fail to see any justification for it. In the article, he and his family were ejected from the premises even though the landlord stated he had not caused any trouble!
This approach is nothing new of course as the same has applied to Britain First leaders Golding and Fransen. Even passive everyday matters have left them both exposed to interference from the authorities.
There are many restrictions and limitations in what Robinson can achieve but hats off to him for trying. He is a resolute character who won't be fazed. But whilst there seems little appetite in the UK, events are gathering apace throughout Europe and times are a changing.
I will try and watch the video tomorrow.
Anyway, to the piece itself. He is absolutely spot on but to many it will be of no surprise. Robinson is no angel, as his convictions testify but in drawing the comparisons that he has, Murray is absolutely correct to identify the treatment he has been subjected to as being disproportionate when Anjem Choudhary is factored in.
As Murray rightly states, Robinson is just as entitled to participate in a street protest. There have been many on here who have stated that protests such as those he has engaged in are a drain on police manpower and cost. He has every right to do so as long as the demonstration is lawful. Indeed, Robinson gave an assurance at the Pegida UK debut march that it would be a peaceful, silent protest and he was as good as his word.
Robinson should not be hassled and intimidated by the authorities. I fail to see any justification for it. In the article, he and his family were ejected from the premises even though the landlord stated he had not caused any trouble!
This approach is nothing new of course as the same has applied to Britain First leaders Golding and Fransen. Even passive everyday matters have left them both exposed to interference from the authorities.
There are many restrictions and limitations in what Robinson can achieve but hats off to him for trying. He is a resolute character who won't be fazed. But whilst there seems little appetite in the UK, events are gathering apace throughout Europe and times are a changing.
I will try and watch the video tomorrow.
It is obvious from their answers that the first two respondents had no intention of reading the article, far less attempting an honest criticism of the points Murray was making, Ag. We are reminded by them, however, that (a) Tommy Robinson is a nasty person, and (b) anybody who says anything in favour of him is equally so.
//It's always good to know who people champion - thanks for telling us Khandro.//
The meaning of that remark is obvious to anyone with O-Level English, Mamya. Though I'm sure a shyster lawyer could get you off if you were in court facing a charge of "snide".
That's the beauty of passive=aggressive/dumb insolence and the like: the words, literally taken, disguise the unpleasant intent.
The meaning of that remark is obvious to anyone with O-Level English, Mamya. Though I'm sure a shyster lawyer could get you off if you were in court facing a charge of "snide".
That's the beauty of passive=aggressive/dumb insolence and the like: the words, literally taken, disguise the unpleasant intent.
One thing you are absolutely correct about is that I shouldn't have posted above, however whether you wish to believe me or not I meant what I said - I do feel it's important to know where people stand.
If it reads nastily then I can only apologise, I don't dislike people who have differing opinions, indeed it makes for better discussion - something I have not entered into on this thread.
Making me a worthless contributor on this occasion I grant you that.
If it reads nastily then I can only apologise, I don't dislike people who have differing opinions, indeed it makes for better discussion - something I have not entered into on this thread.
Making me a worthless contributor on this occasion I grant you that.
Mikey4444 - “...[Tommy Robinson is] an ex-Member of the BNP, and founder Member of another racist organisation the EDL. He was convicted of using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, in 2010...”
Etc.
Tommy Robinson, surprisingly, is also well versed in the contents of the Koran. He has studied the Koran and can quote passages with the best of them. He understands that Islam is a wicked and dangerous ideology. He tells it like it is – Islam is a violent, intolerant, misogynistic, murderous, vile, death-cult.
And your criticism of him rests upon his convictions for common assault and monetary impropriety? So let me get this straight – you're saying that we shouldn't listen to Tommy Robinson because he has criminal convictions? You're saying that a person with any sort of criminal conviction is ineligible to comment on matters relating to religion and belief? You're saying that we should trash everything said by people who have done immoral and demonstrably illegal acts? Correct me if I'm wrong here but you're suggesting that only those people with 'untainted' characters should be able to freely comment on matters of faith and belief?
That being so, by your own rationale, you should condemn Mohammed. He was a violent, murderous, thief and a paedophile. By our modern standards his actions and words are utterly appalling. And yet you see fit to accuse someone opposed to Mohammed's vile outpourings as being unfit to speak about such things because they have criminal convictions.
Extraordinary indeed.
Etc.
Tommy Robinson, surprisingly, is also well versed in the contents of the Koran. He has studied the Koran and can quote passages with the best of them. He understands that Islam is a wicked and dangerous ideology. He tells it like it is – Islam is a violent, intolerant, misogynistic, murderous, vile, death-cult.
And your criticism of him rests upon his convictions for common assault and monetary impropriety? So let me get this straight – you're saying that we shouldn't listen to Tommy Robinson because he has criminal convictions? You're saying that a person with any sort of criminal conviction is ineligible to comment on matters relating to religion and belief? You're saying that we should trash everything said by people who have done immoral and demonstrably illegal acts? Correct me if I'm wrong here but you're suggesting that only those people with 'untainted' characters should be able to freely comment on matters of faith and belief?
That being so, by your own rationale, you should condemn Mohammed. He was a violent, murderous, thief and a paedophile. By our modern standards his actions and words are utterly appalling. And yet you see fit to accuse someone opposed to Mohammed's vile outpourings as being unfit to speak about such things because they have criminal convictions.
Extraordinary indeed.
Birdie....my criticism of this man has everything do with his total lack of credibility.
If he can have been persuaded that black is white, as he was by his previous associations with Far-Right organisations, he can't expect anything he says to be taken seriously anymore. He has a long track record of duplicity.
He deserves all the opprobrium he gets, not "championing" by the easily led.
If he can have been persuaded that black is white, as he was by his previous associations with Far-Right organisations, he can't expect anything he says to be taken seriously anymore. He has a long track record of duplicity.
He deserves all the opprobrium he gets, not "championing" by the easily led.
The word ‘bigot’ is very often bandied around here with impunity, but how difficult it is for the truly bigoted to distance themselves from their preferred world views. Tommy Robinson, quite rightly, criticises the likes of Anjem Choudhury but is censured and scorned for entirely unrelated reasons, which begs the question ‘Who are his critics defending?’ and why? I’m of the opinion that even the allegedly saintliest among them wouldn’t recognise sincerity if it jumped up and hit them on the head!
Isn't it interesting and tediously predictable, that given the opportunity to comment on either figure, that Mikey was scathing of Robinson? Not a word regarding Choudhary!
A roll call of convictions identified against Robinson but silent on the five year sentence imposed on Choudhary.
Gromit - Do you believe that Murray's article is fake and incorrect in his reasoning? If so, I'd be interested to learn why?
A roll call of convictions identified against Robinson but silent on the five year sentence imposed on Choudhary.
Gromit - Do you believe that Murray's article is fake and incorrect in his reasoning? If so, I'd be interested to learn why?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles49 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
ChatterBank112 mins ago
Will You Sign This Petition Aimed At...
ChatterBank127 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles136 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.