News5 mins ago
Tommy Robinson Exposes Bbc Far Left Bias
Who will be first to 'dismiss' this because it's on Breitbart?
https:/
from where will you gain the facts if not there and on social media ?
https:/
from where will you gain the facts if not there and on social media ?
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.
andy hughes;
//Why 'must I' read it?// [Breitbart]
//Actually, let me save us both some time, you don't bother to answer that, because I'm not bothered about your reason.//
Could the reason you don't want me to 'bother to answer' is because my answer would obviously be, "well, if you don't read it, how do you know so much about it to enable you to say;
"I perceive Breitbart as am ultra-right wing conspiracy organ which wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit it in the bottom - I wouldn't believe Breitbart if it told me there was a 'y' in the day of the week."
?
//Why 'must I' read it?// [Breitbart]
//Actually, let me save us both some time, you don't bother to answer that, because I'm not bothered about your reason.//
Could the reason you don't want me to 'bother to answer' is because my answer would obviously be, "well, if you don't read it, how do you know so much about it to enable you to say;
"I perceive Breitbart as am ultra-right wing conspiracy organ which wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit it in the bottom - I wouldn't believe Breitbart if it told me there was a 'y' in the day of the week."
?
The key point about Robinson and the EDL which he founded, and about the BNP before that is this:
They, and they alone, were pointing out the presence of Muslim rape gangs in all the towns and cities with Muslim populations. And this at a time when this vile crime was being allowed to flourish through an establishment policy of inertia. (That's the most charitable description I was able to come up with).
You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect their influence was a healthy one.
This is Andrew Norfolk, whose exposé in the Times first made the scandal public knowledge, on the Robinson effect:
They, and they alone, were pointing out the presence of Muslim rape gangs in all the towns and cities with Muslim populations. And this at a time when this vile crime was being allowed to flourish through an establishment policy of inertia. (That's the most charitable description I was able to come up with).
You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect their influence was a healthy one.
This is Andrew Norfolk, whose exposé in the Times first made the scandal public knowledge, on the Robinson effect:
Khandro - // Could the reason you don't want me to 'bother to answer' is because my answer would obviously be, "well, if you don't read it, how do you know so much about it to enable you to say;
"I perceive Breitbart as am ultra-right wing conspiracy organ which wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit it in the bottom - I wouldn't believe Breitbart if it told me there was a 'y' in the day of the week."
? //
It could be ...
"I perceive Breitbart as am ultra-right wing conspiracy organ which wouldn't recognise the truth if it bit it in the bottom - I wouldn't believe Breitbart if it told me there was a 'y' in the day of the week."
? //
It could be ...
//You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect [exposing grooming gangs] their influence was a healthy one. //
Strangely enough that suggestion appears to be an anathema, which says far more about the critics than the censured.
Strangely enough that suggestion appears to be an anathema, which says far more about the critics than the censured.
Naomi - // //You don't have to believe anything else good about these two groups, or any individuals associated with them not to recognise that in this single respect [exposing grooming gangs] their influence was a healthy one. //
Strangely enough that suggestion appears to be an anathema, which says far more about the critics than the censured. //
That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs, and Mussolini made the trains run on time - it is a positive, but it tends to get buried under the tons of negatives that have followed it.
Strangely enough that suggestion appears to be an anathema, which says far more about the critics than the censured. //
That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs, and Mussolini made the trains run on time - it is a positive, but it tends to get buried under the tons of negatives that have followed it.
Andy Hughes //That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs//
There is moral point which is missed by people who use this facile comparison, Aggie.
If the members of the virtuous class which hates the "far-right" could have put their knee-jerk reaction on hold for just five minutes and actually investigated the claims of the far-right groups that Muslim gangs were trafficking very young non-Muslim girlin Northern towns and cities, then the allegations could have been publicly revealed as a lie. Alternatively, the allegations could have been confirmed and action taken to deal with the rapists.
Either way you've dealt with the problem of the "far-right", if you're the kind of easily-influenced person who thinks that the far-right is a problem in today's Britain: either you've proved them liars, or you've taken away their main propaganda point.
Why was obvious strategy never adopted? I assume it's because the "Hitler loved doggies" crowd think there are more important issues than sex-trafficking.
There is moral point which is missed by people who use this facile comparison, Aggie.
If the members of the virtuous class which hates the "far-right" could have put their knee-jerk reaction on hold for just five minutes and actually investigated the claims of the far-right groups that Muslim gangs were trafficking very young non-Muslim girlin Northern towns and cities, then the allegations could have been publicly revealed as a lie. Alternatively, the allegations could have been confirmed and action taken to deal with the rapists.
Either way you've dealt with the problem of the "far-right", if you're the kind of easily-influenced person who thinks that the far-right is a problem in today's Britain: either you've proved them liars, or you've taken away their main propaganda point.
Why was obvious strategy never adopted? I assume it's because the "Hitler loved doggies" crowd think there are more important issues than sex-trafficking.
vetuste - // Andy Hughes //That's a bit like saying Hitler loved dogs//
There is moral point which is missed by people who use this facile comparison, Aggie.
If the members of the virtuous class which hates the "far-right" could have put their knee-jerk reaction on hold for just five minutes and actually investigated the claims of the far-right groups that Muslim gangs were trafficking very young non-Muslim girlin Northern towns and cities, then the allegations could have been publicly revealed as a lie. Alternatively, the allegations could have been confirmed and action taken to deal with the rapists.
Either way you've dealt with the problem of the "far-right", if you're the kind of easily-influenced person who thinks that the far-right is a problem in today's Britain: either you've proved them liars, or you've taken away their main propaganda point.
Why was obvious strategy never adopted? I assume it's because the "Hitler loved doggies" crowd think there are more important issues than sex-trafficking. //
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made!
My point in using the Hitler example was to point out that being kind on one area of a person's life does not give them a free pass to be a horrible human being in another.
I have never for one moment ever disputed or condemned 'Tommy Robinson's actions in unearthing the dreadful covering up of abuse - but my point is, and remains, that does not give him carte blanche to be the nasty racist bigoted attention-seeking egotist that he has become, and remains.
There is moral point which is missed by people who use this facile comparison, Aggie.
If the members of the virtuous class which hates the "far-right" could have put their knee-jerk reaction on hold for just five minutes and actually investigated the claims of the far-right groups that Muslim gangs were trafficking very young non-Muslim girlin Northern towns and cities, then the allegations could have been publicly revealed as a lie. Alternatively, the allegations could have been confirmed and action taken to deal with the rapists.
Either way you've dealt with the problem of the "far-right", if you're the kind of easily-influenced person who thinks that the far-right is a problem in today's Britain: either you've proved them liars, or you've taken away their main propaganda point.
Why was obvious strategy never adopted? I assume it's because the "Hitler loved doggies" crowd think there are more important issues than sex-trafficking. //
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made!
My point in using the Hitler example was to point out that being kind on one area of a person's life does not give them a free pass to be a horrible human being in another.
I have never for one moment ever disputed or condemned 'Tommy Robinson's actions in unearthing the dreadful covering up of abuse - but my point is, and remains, that does not give him carte blanche to be the nasty racist bigoted attention-seeking egotist that he has become, and remains.
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.