'Tommy Robinson' And 'Friends' Make A Nuiscance Of Themselves, So No Change There.

[andy-hughes]

Tommy Robinson leads supporters through London | Watch (msn.com)

 

[naomi24]

Andy-Hughes, which bit of my answer at 17.30 Saturday didn't you understand?  Please don't misrepresent me.

[Atheist]

It's shocking that some usually sensible people here are supporting Tommy Robinson's gang, apparently because they hate Muslims and prefer English thugs. They even prefer TR's gang to the British police force.

 

[royfromaus]

Who is supporting him?

[Atheist]

Naomi said that she preferred him to some muslim chap whose name I can't recall.

[Togo]

The binge posting is disturbing   ...  medication due or have the restraints failed?
I find preventative arrests somewhat disturbing too. That is indeed the thin end of a wedge that leads to the midnight knock on the door with a thug squad in tow to detain nuisance opinion holders. The World was watching, and now knows that the law in London is two tiered. Every whack head protester, and attention hungry emoaffected, fetish fan boy is heading their way. The Met will join in with them. I used to pity the Londoners   ... no more . They have allowed the ruination of their City by turning away from the awkward decisions that were required. Are you doing the same in your City or Town? 

[Mozz71]

Yes Togo, I'm sure the known football hooligans and individuals convicted of violent crimes in the past were just out for an afternoon stroll and had no intention of skulduggery whatsoever. Sometimes, prevention is better than cure. They were proud patriots the plod nicked, they were known thugs out for a scrap.

[Mozz71]

*weren't proud patriots...

[Togo]

// Sometimes, prevention is better than cure.//

I am sure you may somehow be correct. Why did the met not prevent the hate marches calling for jihad and death in the first place? Then there would be no counter marches and protests, that needed a delayed action likely to be percieved as biased? We do know though don't we. The selection processes for our law and order forces used to filter out one issue heads and over sensitive totems. Now the selection profiling is funelling them in. 

[tomus42]

The only people causing trouble near the cenotaph on remembrance weekend were the Robinson football hooligan crew.

Not something some might want to admit, but true nonetheless.

[Ellipsis]

> Why did the met not prevent the hate marches

I explained why at 18:48 ...

[Togo]

You didn't explain how the pro-Palestinian protesters swarmed a Synagogue in London amid an anti-Israel demonstration on Armistice Day on Saturday as Jewish families reportedly sought police escorts to help them flee to safety though did you? Or why our vigilant forces of law and order allowed a banner saying that Hitler knew how to deal with these people to be paraded. All on the day that we used to reflect on the futility of hate and violence. Your actions and attitudes, by default and lack of support for the notion, breed the hate and rancour that appears to be the fuel or accelerant that drives your perspective.  

[andy-hughes]

roy - //

I never need an esxplanation of how your mind works, it is beyond basic at the best of times.

_________________________

Why is this clown is allowed to abuse me?

Ah, that's right he's a mod. (and on a computer safe in his house) //

You have a long and not expecially distinguished history of personal animosity towards me, for reasons only you know, and no-one else, including me, cares about.

I am always happy to give as good as i get, and my responses to you are no excxeption.

As pointed out by another AB'er, you are at least, and usually more rude to me than I am to you.

I am happy to waste my time explaining once again, for you to ignore - the simple fact that -

As a Moderator, I am subject to Site Rules the same as you, and any other AB'er, I receive no special consideration whatsoever.

If any of my fellow Moderators feel that any of my, or your, posts are unacceptable, for any reason, they will remove them.

if you feel that my posts are being unfairly or leniently treated, then you are at liberty to use the Report facility, and the Editorial Team will judge and act if they feel it appropriate.

In the mean time, you will doubtless continue to snipe, and i will continue to respond, because you have felt free to indulge your personal animosty for years, and i have felt equally free to react accordingly.

As to the fact that I am 'safe in my house' - where else exactly do you imagine i am going to communicate from?

Don't bother to answer, no-one cares for your petty nonsense.

[douglas9401]

Aye roy, why are you the only one who feels the need to find fault?
🤣

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // Andy-Hughes, which bit of my answer at 17.30 Saturday didn't you understand?  Please don't misrepresent me. //

I don't believe I did misunderstand it, nor do I believe I am misrepresenting you.

At 17:20 on Saturday, you wrote -

// Meanwhile we have an NHS doctor leading a radical Islamic organisation that's banned in several countries telling us gleefully that now it's time to choose a side - but why bother with truly dangerous people like him who really do threaten our country and our culture when the 'We hate Tommy Robinson' bandwagon is offering yet another free ride?  Blinkers provided free of charge. //

I believe that is offering faulty logic - that because the doctor's action on this occasion may be worse that that of 'Tommy Robinson', that actually lessens or excuses the actions of 'Tommy Robinson' - in effect saying, This is worse, so that's not as bad, and I beleive that is a faulty premise.

So at 17.26 - I made that point -

// Naomi - You are far too skilled and clever a debater than to use the redundant argument - 'This worse, so it makes that better ...'

It doesn't stack up. //

At 17.30, you responded with -

// That isn't my argument. //

Although you failed to confirm what, if anything, in my response, was innacurate.

At 17.32, I responded again -

// Then why did you post it? // - giving you a chance to explain your point, or what you felt was wrong with my response to it.

At 17.36, you posted -

// Andy-Hughes, you said it, not me. //

Which is clearly not true - it is your point I am challenging, not a point I made.

I responded at 18:40 -

//

I said that pointing something bad out, as a means of making something that is also bad appear to be less bad, is poor debating.

if you think that's not what you did, by all means address my point with something more valid than a meaningless denial. //

Which repeats my original argument, and once again offers you a chance to advise what you feel is wrong with it.

I believe I understood you perfectly, and I have not 'misrepresented' you in any way.

I expect a standard response, along the lines of you not being bothered to continue, because it's a waste of your time, that's your usual reaction when you are out-argued, or you will simply not respond at all.

I am always happy to be surprised though ...

[andy-hughes]

Togo - // The binge posting is disturbing   ...  medication due or have the restraints failed? //

If the 'binge posting' to which you refer is mine - I am simply catching up with posts directed to me, as I normally do when I have been absent for a day or so.

I will not dignfy the rest of your post with a comment.

[fripfrip]

Atheist how can you call tommy robinson when you have admitted on here that you once bricked someone,

[naomi24]

Andy-Hughes, I've no idea why you're taking so much trouble with lengthy responses when you've not taken the trouble to at least try understand what you're responding to.  All I will say is watch your head.  You too atheist.  That Muslim chap whose name you can't recall would separate it from your shoulders without a second thought.  Tommy Robinson is coarse and rough but he's astute enough to recognise that which evades you both.

[andy-hughes]

Evasion then.

Situation normal - dodge the question, distract with some nonsense, forget it.

Tomorrow is another day ...

[naomi24]

andy-hughes,  

 

// Naomi - You are far too skilled and clever a debater than to use the redundant argument - 'This worse, so it makes that better ...'//

 

That's why I didn't say it. 

 

//I said that pointing something bad out, as a means of making something that is also bad appear to be less bad, is poor debating.

if you think that's not what you did, by all means address my point with something more valid than a meaningless denial. //

 

That is a product of your imagination.  The idea that one is not as bad as the other and therefore i must opt for one or the other didn't enter my mind.  It's not a choice between the lesser of the two evils and it's not a popularity contest.  If only you would take a breath from being rude to everyone who disagrees with you and apply your usual mantra of 'separate the art from the artist' to this situation you might - just might - firstly be capable of civil debate and secondly understand what other people are talking about.   From my point of view Tommy Robinson's methods leave much to be desired and are not to be recommended but he is a patriot, he cares passionately about this country and its future, he recognises the very obvious dangers that 'multiculturalism' has presented and is presenting even more clearly now, and he's not only absolutely right - he, unlike so many, has the courage to say it.

 

//I expect a standard response, along the lines of you not being bothered to continue, because it's a waste of your time, that's your usual reaction when you are out-argued, or you will simply not respond at all.//

 

You flatter yourself that you've presented an argument.  At best you've trashed Tommy Robinson but that isn't reasoned  argument.  It's simply vindictive.

[royfromaus]

This just about sums andy up on this thread.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1723697629555560637