Gathering for Tommy / Discontent (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
He isn't saying to cut the throats of women and children.

I dunno to be honest, in the interests of balance I don’t see how the ‘far right’ can be called out for this type of thing and not him. Some idiot watching that might take it very literally- unlikely I know but that’s what would be levelled at the other side if an equivalent video went up.
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Wait, I thought people hated "whataboutery"?

Amazing how people are trying to use it now a labour councillor and a leader of a charity with hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter have been found out.

"Cut the throats of the women and children"
"Yeah but dave653466 with union jacks retweeted something"

Its fucking hilarious how people can't see it.

Call me mad, but I can’t see anyone who’s done that?
 

Nick

Administrator
Call me mad, but I can’t see anyone who’s done that?

In response to that labour councillor.

"Yeah but you posted about boats"

Its amazing how much stuff has gone because of the "neo Nazis" and "edl" are coming.

Of course. There has been racist thugs on the streets and they should be dealt with. Its really not the highly organised military style group made out.

There have been a lot of organised people turning out though....
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
"We have got children and women using those trends during the summer holidays.

They are disgusting nazi facists and we need to cut their throats and get rid of them all"

That's what is said on the video.

Watching it. If somebody has edited it and cut bits out then it's an amazing job. Not impossible but a very, very good job of doing it.

He says women and children are using trains I think.

He says the Nazi fascists are disgusting and need their throats cutting. (obviously I'm not defending that line, but he's not referring to women and children there).
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
Sixty-nine year old bloke jailed for 32 months for joining in with the Southport riots. I mean, what a fucking idiot. In the place where three girls were murdered, he was at the front of the "baying" mob.

"They are sorry". Yeah, they are sorry for themselves and the fact they got arrested.
1723115366241.png
1723115396238.png
 

Nick

Administrator
who has said “yeah but the other side did this?” Not saying they haven’t, I haven’t seen it.

there’s no middle ground, it’s wrong

Erm. Read back.

Its fucking baffling how people completely just ignore particular things. Id hazard a guess that they thought face masks worked if you sat down in a pub but not if you stand up.
 

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
Sixty-nine year old bloke jailed for 32 months for joining in with the Southport riots. I mean, what a fucking idiot. In the place where three girls were murdered, he was at the front of the "baying" mob.
View attachment 37579
View attachment 37580

set fire to bins and a library which had a food bank in it. And end up with a record and the humiliation of being publicised like this.. total madness
 

Harry Krishner

Well-Known Member
Presumably all are aware of the Austrian Taylor Swift gigs cancelled due to the threat of Islamic terrorism?

Presumably people aren't that bothered about the 11 young girls knifed (3 dead)? The Rotherham/Oxford/Rochdale/Telford girls didn't seem to be worth bothering about.

Are you sure you're all on the right side of this discussion?

Better head down to the local mosque for your free samosa..
 

torchomatic

Well-Known Member
set fire to bins and a library which had a food bank in it. And end up with a record and the humiliation of being publicised like this.. total madness
And in the very place where the girls were murdered! Fucking hell.
 

Nick

Administrator
Presumably all are aware of the Austrian Taylor Swift gigs cancelled due to the threat of Islamic terrorism?

Presumably people aren't that bothered about the 11 young girls knifed (3 dead)? The Rotherham/Oxford/Rochdale/Telford girls didn't seem to be worth bothering about.

Are you sure you're all on the right side of this discussion?

Better head down to the local mosque for your free samosa..

Yes but huw Edwards.

Again though. The news about the Taylor swift concert seems to be ignored by some on here. I'm guessing in their heads it isn't happening.
 

Nick

Administrator
Again, while there's so many people posting who have been keeping a close eye on things going on.

How many mosques were attacked in total?

I'm genuinely asking as I can't see more than Southport.
 

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
Presumably all are aware of the Austrian Taylor Swift gigs cancelled due to the threat of Islamic terrorism?

Presumably people aren't that bothered about the 11 young girls knifed (3 dead)? The Rotherham/Oxford/Rochdale/Telford girls didn't seem to be worth bothering about.

Are you sure you're all on the right side of this discussion?

Better head down to the local mosque for your free samosa..

I’m pretty sure I’m comfortable with where I sit in the discussion.

Also “ironic” that certain people are moaning about ‘whataboutery’ then giving it a big dollop themselves.
 

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
Again, while there's so many people posting who have been keeping a close eye on things going on.

How many mosques were attacked in total?

I'm genuinely asking as I can't see more than Southport.

no idea.

Is there a threshold or something- up to 5 and it’s ok, any more and it’s not ok?
 

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Is it an erosion of civil liberties to have a punishment unrelated to the crime?

It's a football club; not a human right. You say some strange things.

If my club decides it doesn't want someone through the doors who attacks police and demonstrably hates people that aren't born here, or look like they weren't born here, I'm good with that. Why would they want to cheer on a bunch of immigrants anyway? People arguing a convicted, violent criminal should be welcomed back to their football club the minute they're released is weird.
 

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
It's a football club; not a human right. You say some strange things.

If my club decides it doesn't want someone through the doors who attacks police and demonstrably hates people that aren't born here, or look like they weren't born here, I'm good with that. Why would they want to cheer on a bunch of immigrants anyway? People arguing a convicted, violent criminal should be welcomed back to their football club the minute they're released is weird.

I’m no expert but I would have thought that as the CBS is not a ’public place’ the club can set their own rules on who’s allowed in or not, nothing to do with civil liberties.
 

Nick

Administrator
no idea.

Is there a threshold or something- up to 5 and it’s ok, any more and it’s not ok?

No, I am just asking how many actually were after the Muslim community were whipped up that the EDL were coming to attack them. (again, just saying that somebody was drumming it into them that they were going to be attacked)

Surely with all of the footage and the instant news it would be easy to find out?
 

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
It's a football club; not a human right. You say some strange things.

If my club decides it doesn't want someone through the doors who attacks police and demonstrably hates people that aren't born here, or look like they weren't born here, I'm good with that. Why would they want to cheer on a bunch of immigrants anyway? People arguing a convicted, violent criminal should be welcomed back to their football club the minute they're released is weird.

It’s hardly a massive shock that a football club would be concerned about attracting people who like a bit of rioting, attacking people from a different place & the police, and smashing things up, is it
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
No, I am just asking how many actually were after the Muslim community were whipped up that the EDL were coming to attack them. (again, just saying that somebody was drumming it into them that they were going to be attacked)

Surely with all of the footage and the instant news it would be easy to find out?
Just be careful of the hype element of it all, I think the travel ban esta or whatever it is comes in next year, obviously no use to many of them here on!
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Banning orders for football offences and football related though, not spent custodial sentences. You can't make up your own rules simply because you dont like the narrative. I want them banned too, but that's not how a fair society works and you're bending the rules to suit your agenda.

It's really strange round here, the same folk normally pushing for this kind of thing, when it doesnt suit and you point out the hypocrisy (on both sides yes), never say 'actually you're right I agree' or 'I've changed my mind' simply radio silence or doubling down.
I think that’s a different argument. I was responding specifically to the comment of what next, ban anyone who’s been to prison. To get a football banning order you don’t even have to have been convicted let alone have had a custodial sentence, the police can request a banning order based upon intelligence.

I think FBO’s were only introduced in 2000. Happy to be corrected if that’s wrong though. The point is the law/rules aren’t static and do change depending upon circumstances. We can literally make up our own rules, if you want to phrase it in those terms, so long as they’re introduced through proper procedures and scrutiny. The world is a changing place not least because of social media, it’s only right we change with it.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Presumably all are aware of the Austrian Taylor Swift gigs cancelled due to the threat of Islamic terrorism?

Presumably people aren't that bothered about the 11 young girls knifed (3 dead)? The Rotherham/Oxford/Rochdale/Telford girls didn't seem to be worth bothering about.

Are you sure you're all on the right side of this discussion?

Better head down to the local mosque for your free samosa..
Always on the right side of killing the children and adults in the thousands in Gaza mate, leave that race alone!
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Have you got a link?

I can see:

"In his police interview, Drummond said he "believed his behaviour was appalling" and accepted the footage showed his behaviour. Drummond has 14 previous convictions for 19 offences between December 1988 and January 2007."

"This includes “a past history of violence”, including three months at Preston Crown Court in 1994 for wounding without intent. He was also fined for a public order offence in 1995."

I am not saying you are wrong, just asking where that was said and that it might be dangerous to banning people for racism based on what they hear online?
Can’t see it. I thought I’d read that he was a known member of the EDL, maybe I got that wrong.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying he isn't by the way. I'm just pointing out the danger of rumours.

He might well be a horrible violent c**t though!
I think the latter at least is indisputable. I said yesterday that some people are just attracted to violence and will always latch onto a cause to excuse their behaviour. Maybe he’s just one of those.
 

SBAndy

Well-Known Member
Nick, mate, you’re starting to wind me up now and I said I wouldn’t get wound up again over this stuff.

Firstly, the “whataboutery” episode - seems GIMOC flagged the Hope Not Hate chap as making the list thing up, Torch challenged he hadn’t but had circulated it and then highlighted that GIMOC themself had spread the “Muslim/over on a boat” thing in relation to the Southport attacker. Now, you might want to throw out the “ha, you’re using ‘whataboutery’” but when the person raising the first point has literally shown no sign of remorse over the false spreading of information I think that’s a fair call-out. Haven’t seen you directly criticise GIMOC once for the initial incident by the way - maybe you have and I’ve missed it.

AFAIK the only confirmed attacks on mosques were Southport and Sunderland. After this, it seems there was an announcement that mosques would receive extra protection and the threat dissipated - whether that’s directly linked or coincidental I don’t know.

All I ask is stop this pathetic crusade of “calling out hypocrisy” especially when some of the main protagonists in the unsavoury posts seem to just drift by without comment.
 

GIMOC

Well-Known Member
Nick, mate, you’re starting to wind me up now and I said I wouldn’t get wound up again over this stuff.

Firstly, the “whataboutery” episode - seems GIMOC flagged the Hope Not Hate chap as making the list thing up, Torch challenged he hadn’t but had circulated it and then highlighted that GIMOC themself had spread the “Muslim/over on a boat” thing in relation to the Southport attacker. Now, you might want to throw out the “ha, you’re using ‘whataboutery’” but when the person raising the first point has literally shown no sign of remorse over the false spreading of information I think that’s a fair call-out. Haven’t seen you directly criticise GIMOC once for the initial incident by the way - maybe you have and I’ve missed it.

AFAIK the only confirmed attacks on mosques were Southport and Sunderland. After this, it seems there was an announcement that mosques would receive extra protection and the threat dissipated - whether that’s directly linked or coincidental I don’t know.

All I ask is stop this pathetic crusade of “calling out hypocrisy” especially when some of the main protagonists in the unsavoury posts seem to just drift by without comment.

mentioned 3 times, I must be missing something but I don’t see you calling out the Labour member inciting murder

hypocrisy highlighted in one post
 

SeaSeeEffCee

Well-Known Member
Nick, mate, you’re starting to wind me up now and I said I wouldn’t get wound up again over this stuff.

Firstly, the “whataboutery” episode - seems GIMOC flagged the Hope Not Hate chap as making the list thing up, Torch challenged he hadn’t but had circulated it and then highlighted that GIMOC themself had spread the “Muslim/over on a boat” thing in relation to the Southport attacker. Now, you might want to throw out the “ha, you’re using ‘whataboutery’” but when the person raising the first point has literally shown no sign of remorse over the false spreading of information I think that’s a fair call-out. Haven’t seen you directly criticise GIMOC once for the initial incident by the way - maybe you have and I’ve missed it.

AFAIK the only confirmed attacks on mosques were Southport and Sunderland. After this, it seems there was an announcement that mosques would receive extra protection and the threat dissipated - whether that’s directly linked or coincidental I don’t know.

All I ask is stop this pathetic crusade of “calling out hypocrisy” especially when some of the main protagonists in the unsavoury posts seem to just drift by without comment.
There is a lot of calling out for people on the left who ‘disappear’ when certain topics get brought up but not a peep said about the scores of posters who had nothing to say when the far right were trying to burn down a hotel on Sunday night and then suddenly appeared again on Monday night when there was trouble with Muslims in Birmingham. It’s so transparent.
 

GIMOC

Well-Known Member
Brilliant point.

We had riots around the country based on Social Media bullsh*t; losing that in a fog of 'Yeah, but...' is grim.

you lot really are thick if you think the protests last week were purely based on social media bullshit

it based on years of events where the working class people have been fed up and that’s why

if people don’t want to talk about issues it causes unrest
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top