Who Told Vorderman People Care What She...
News1 min ago
Tommy Robinson leads supporters through London | Watch (msn.com)
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. 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.> I don't understand where you're going with this.
I think it's called "down a rabbithole".
> Ellipsis; I didn't ask if you had a criminal record, I asked if you have never committed a crime.
> So you've never been fined for speeding. Never taken anything which wasn't technically yours to take or trespassed. Never lied?
No, never. 😉 But let's suppose that I had, or Rishi Sunak had, or Keir Starmer, or Suella Braverman, or Richard Tice - people that are or were political leaders of some description - is that in some way comparable to a political leader with a long criminal record, including convictions for violence, stalking, financial and immigration frauds, drug possession and public order offences? No. I could agree with his politics - as it happens, I don't - but I could never agree with him and his methods, and therefore, even if I did agree with his politics, I'd be agreeing with somebody else - not him.
"amongst all those pro-Palestine marchers, thousands of whom are Muslims, have you ever seen a poster or a placard calling for Hamas - who let's not forget started this war by slaughtering over 1000 Jews in cold blood - to lay down their arms?"
yes! peter tatchell was there saying that. do you know how i know? i saw him with my own eyes and nor was he alone.
Khandro - //
naomi: Where I'm 'going' is addressing the assertions above, that the only aspect worthy of consideration about T.R. is his 'criminality'. //
His criminality is absolutely central to his persona as a do-gooding crusader for the rights of people, when he is actually nothing more than a serious criminal lining his pockets as a by-product of his self-righteous ego-tripping.
// I challenge them to watch the interview with him I've posted above, but of course they wont because it might interfere with their predjudices. //
I have watched it.
And it simply underlines what anyone with even a passing knowledge of 'Tommy Robinson' already knows - he has placed his wife and family in danger by his relentless attention-seeking and self-righteous posturing.
What shines through is his planet-sized ego, the aqrrogance of assuming that 'defending' this country falls to him and his band of football hooligan scum followers.
And why, i wonder, does he still, after all this time, masquerade under the adopted name of a football hooligan?
Most people who want to make a difference do not pretend to be someone else, especially not a hooligan yob.
Why doesn't 'Tommy' use his own name? Does he fear that his double-barrelled moniker will alienate his hoodlum friends?
The man is a joke, a pompous nasty racist joke.
And as for adding the comment that he is 'the bravest man in Britain' - that has got to be a joke, and an offensive one at that.
It offends any and all of the service personel and police fire and ambulance services who have to attend and deal with the fall-out from his rabble rousing nonsense.
He is no more 'brave' than any idiot with a big mouth and a gang behind him - he is the worse level of coward, nothing less.
Ellipsis, khandro isn't down a rabbit hole.
Untitled, You saw Peter Tatchell? Were you there? Odd because he said that both sides should lay down their arms not just one and I suspect that interview is what you watched. I asked if you saw any banners or posters demanding that Hamas lay down arms. Somehow I don't think you did.
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.