Tommy Robinson

[Honest Andy]

In your opinion, you still haven't blah blah blah

Fuck off, this is a thread hijack.

We want to hear more live updates from our man in the field
And more expert commentary from a man in a shed

[Katman]

Fuck off, this is a thread hijack.

We want to hear more live updates from our man in the field
And more expert commentary from a man in a shed

Now if only Bob would start a thread about it, you could have all the live updates you wanted.

Instead, he seems intent on helping to bump a thread about Tommy Robinson back to the top - all the while claiming to have no interest at all in Tommy Robinson.

What a crazy world we live in.

[TheDemonLord]

Fuck off, this is a thread hijack.

We want to hear more live updates from our man in the field
And more expert commentary from a man in a shed

Pfft - Ya'll Amateurs if you think this is a Hijack.

[Voltaire]

Pfft - Ya'll Amateurs if you think this is a Hijack.

Tommy is quite good on the guitar.

[husaberg]

In your opinion, you still haven't come up with how the most widely held is as I've described it.
..

Incorrect it is the opinion of the Documents and quotes you provided. you either never read or are just foolishly jumping on a racist bandwaggon in attempting to manipulate what was actually in them.

He also talks that because of a fear of being labelled "racist" parts of the UK law enforcement have failed to properly investigate serious crimes,

British Political and Policing circles that has resulted in blind-eyes being turned, for fear of the accusation of Racism.

They actively didn't investigate for fear of being Racist. The council actively didn't want it investigated for fear of upsetting their voter base.

All I've claimed is what the reports confirms - that the police, council et al failed to act on multiple reports of Child abuse (including claims of systematic child abuse) for fear of appearing racist or islamaphobic.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131101662
No, there is only one report that is referred to as THE Rotherham report, there are other reports about Rotherham - but there is one definitive report on this issue, which is the only one I've cited.
Then why do multiple seperate sources that comment on the Rotherham report have that excerpt? From Wikipedia:

the Police dared not act against Asian youths for fear of allegations of racism

I challenged you every time you said this I said prove it. yet when challenged you produced these quotes. that do not say what you claim they say.
What the report actually says, that you ignore is

"a widespread perception that council and police dared not act against Asian criminals for fear of allegations of racism, , the very next sentence is , "we found no evidence" of that.

THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL REPORT SAYS.

we found no evidence" of that.

Which is not what you have reported it to say now is it.


Also as I have pointed out they do not refer to the police ignoring the problem for fear as being perceived as being racist they refers to councillors.

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as ‘Asian’ by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”"

Your next one shows the lengths you are prepared to distort facts

You choose these quotes (not me)as being in the report as evidence that backed up your assertions that the police did not investigate due to fear of being seen as being racist yet they clearly do not.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131102199

they said they found no evidence, Amusing that you are prepared to quote it as being proof but them omit the next sentence were they say that they believe there was no evidence to support the claim. Then you claim it to be my opinion. That's truly pathetic.

[husaberg]

Ive got bigger worries, im stuck in some Belgian town called Spa. Dont be fooled by the name, its not a Spa at all & theres a goddam racetrack & noisy supercars everywhere. Theres been no significant conspiracys of any note here though, so i doubt anyone has heard of it.

What are the waffles like?
I always thought Spa was in France.
Due to the franconchamps.....

[Voltaire]

What are the waffles like?
I always thought Spa was in France.
Due to the franconchamps.....

Here is pretty good for waffle.

Spa, Belgium - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spa,_Belgium

Spa is a Belgian town located in the Province of Liège, and is the town where the word spa comes from. The town of Spa is situated in a valley in the Ardennes ...

[husaberg]

Here is pretty good for waffle.

yeah, i prefer a little more substance myself, i googled spa afterwards, but who cares about Belgiums borders they get redrawn up every time zee germans get a little bored.

turns it must be pretty close to the border as it says later on, they occasionally run legs of the tour d france there

[TheDemonLord]

Incorrect it is the opinion of the Documents and quotes you provided. you either never read or are just foolishly jumping on a racist bandwaggon in attempting to manipulate what was actually in them.

That wasn't the question that was asked though, was it?

I'll break it down for you - Interpretation (when it comes to Language at least) is a Majority rules sport (because Language is organic) - Most people interpret the entire Rotherham report (taking into account all the various statements and points) and conclude that both the Council and the Police failed to act on account of the perpetrators Race.

I've asked you to explain why that is?

I challenged you every time you said this I said prove it. yet when challenged you produced these quotes. that do not say what you claim they say.
What the report actually says, that you ignore is

THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL REPORT SAYS.

Which is not what you have reported it to say now is it.

Also as I have pointed out they do not refer to the police ignoring the problem for fear as being perceived as being racist they refers to councillors.

Your next one shows the lengths you are prepared to distort facts

You choose these quotes (not me)as being in the report as evidence that backed up your assertions that the police did not investigate due to fear of being seen as being racist yet they clearly do not.
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131102199

they said they found no evidence, Amusing that you are prepared to quote it as being proof but them omit the next sentence were they say that they believe there was no evidence to support the claim. Then you claim it to be my opinion. That's truly pathetic.

I'll simply repeat myself (since that is what you are doing) - when taken in context with all the other data and statements surrounding the case, it's clear that the Police failed to act due to the race of the Perpetrators.

I've explained why I ignored the addendums you've cited - namely because of contradictory statements later in the report and by Author herself. I'm not denying their existence in the report, I'm saying that when read as a whole, they aren't relevant.

And I'll ask once again - assuming your interpretation of the report is correct - how do you explain the Mainstream view of the report? Interpretation of language is a Majority rules sport - and in this case, the Majority (having read the report and other relevant source material) have drawn the conclusion that both Police and Council failed to act due to Race.

[husaberg]

I'll break it down for you - Interpretation (when it comes to Language at least) is a Majority rules sport (because Language is organic) - Most people interpret the entire Rotherham report (taking into account all the various statements and points) and conclude that both the Council and the Police failed to act on account of the perpetrators Race.

Blather again face up to what you did which was to attempted to distort what the finding of the report was.

He also talks that because of a fear of being labelled "racist" parts of the UK law enforcement have failed to properly investigate serious crimes,

British Political and Policing circles that has resulted in blind-eyes being turned, for fear of the accusation of Racism.

They actively didn't investigate for fear of being Racist. The council actively didn't want it investigated for fear of upsetting their voter base.

All I've claimed is what the reports confirms - that the police, council et al failed to act on multiple reports of Child abuse (including claims of systematic child abuse) for fear of appearing racist or islamaphobic.

https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...post1131101662
No, there is only one report that is referred to as THE Rotherham report, there are other reports about Rotherham - but there is one definitive report on this issue, which is the only one I've cited.
Then why do multiple seperate sources that comment on the Rotherham report have that excerpt? From Wikipedia:

the Police dared not act against Asian youths for fear of allegations of racism

I challenged you every time you said this I said prove it. yet when challenged you produced these quotes. that do not say what you claim they say.
What the report actually says, that you ignore is

"a widespread perception that council and police dared not act against Asian criminals for fear of allegations of racism, , the very next sentence is , "we found no evidence" of that.

THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL REPORT SAYS.

we found no evidence" of that.

Which is not what you have reported it to say now is it.
Also as I have pointed out they do not refer to the police ignoring the problem for fear as being perceived as being racist they refers to Councillors. these are not local body elected government authorities they are Councillors akin to youth councilors.

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as ‘Asian’ by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”"

I'll simply repeat myself (since that is what you are doing) - when taken in context with all the other data and statements surrounding the case, it's clear that the Police failed to act due to the race of the Perpetrators.

I've explained why I ignored the addendums you've cited - namely because of contradictory statements later in the report and by Author herself. I'm not denying their existence in the report, I'm saying that when read as a whole, they aren't relevant.

Bullshit. its a finding of the report. you can repeat yourself all you want i will keep posting the actual findings, until you realise how hypocritical you are being.
If as you claim the fact they found no evidence that police didn't investigate due to fear of being percieved as racst why did you deem it nessercary to edit it out.
Also why do you continue to say it stated as being a finding of the the report, when it is clear the finding was THat they could find no evidence of it.
What you fail to grasp is you cant on one hand offer the report as being proof that an event occurred when the actual finding of the exact same report is that they could ind no evidence.
it would be akin to a report into a UFO sighting interviewing someone who said they seen a UFO but the reports investigation found no evidence of a UFO, and then you saying because someone said they thought saw a UFO the report clearly acknowledges the existence of UFO's.

And I'll ask once again - assuming your interpretation of the report is correct - how do you explain the Mainstream view of the report? Interpretation of language is a Majority rules sport - and in this case, the Majority (having read the report and other relevant source material) have drawn the conclusion that both Police and Council failed to act due to Race.

Racist be racists, your claims that it is the fault where they were from is the classic example of that.
the large group being blamed for the actions of a few are a soft target.
along with your continued refusal to admit what is actually clearly stated in the report. Lets get this clear, its not my interpretation at all they clearly stated they could find no evidence.

"a widespread perception that council and police dared not act against Asian criminals for fear of allegations of racism, , the very next sentence is , "we found no evidence" of that.

Mainstream view in this case has been twisted by idiots loudly quoting incomplete information.

[Voltaire]

yeah, i prefer a little more substance myself, i googled spa afterwards, but who cares about Belgiums borders they get redrawn up every time zee germans get a little bored.

turns it must be pretty close to the border as it says later on, they occasionally run legs of the tour d france there

If you want substance best go to ADV rider, check out CS and M forum, very entertaining.

American have some interesting views.

Borders, historic ideas to keep people out or in some cases in.

From memory the British partitioned India and Pakistan in 1947, splitting up states forcing Muslims and Indians to move countries, millions of

deaths and untold misery. Many went to the UK.

In the Middle East post WW1 the British did the same, and were involved in hacking up Eastern Europe after WW2, after declaring war for the

invasion of Poland. Many went to the UK.

Oh and Ireland, they fucked that up to. Surprise surprise...many went to the UK.

From my time in the UK Immigrants tend to arrive and do the jobs no one else wants to do, work long hours and the locals look on and

complain, talk about football, moan about the govt and go on about winning 2 wars and a world cup.

[Katman]

Blather again face up to what you did which was to attempted to distort what the finding of the report was.

I challenged you every time you said this I said prove it. yet when challenged you produced these quotes. that do not say what you claim they say.
What the report actually says, that you ignore is
THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL REPORT SAYS.

Which is not what you have reported it to say now is it.
Also as I have pointed out they do not refer to the police ignoring the problem for fear as being perceived as being racist they refers to Councillors. these are not local body elected government authorities they are Councillors akin to youth councilors.


Bullshit. its a finding of the report. you can repeat yourself all you want i will keep posting the actual findings, until you realise how hypocritical you are being.
If as you claim the fact they found no evidence that police didn't investigate due to fear of being percieved as racst why did you deem it nessercary to edit it out.
Also why do you continue to say it stated as being a finding of the the report, when it is clear the finding was THat they could find no evidence of it.
What you fail to grasp is you cant on one hand offer the report as being proof that an event occurred when the actual finding of the exact same report is that they could ind no evidence.
it would be akin to a report into a UFO sighting interviewing someone who said they seen a UFO but the reports investigation found no evidence of a UFO, and then you saying because someone said they thought saw a UFO the report clearly acknowledges the existence of UFO's.

Racist be racists, your claims that it is the fault where they were from is the classic example of that.
the large group being blamed for the actions of a few are a soft target.
along with your continued refusal to admit what is actually clearly stated in the report. Lets get this clear, its not my interpretation at all they clearly stated they could find no evidence.

Mainstream view in this case has been twisted by idiots loudly quoting incomplete information.

Seriously, you're becoming more and more unbalanced by the day.

[Berries]

And look at New Zealand.


I blame religion.

[husaberg]

If you want substance best go to ADV rider, check out CS and M forum, very entertaining.

American have some interesting views.

Borders, historic ideas to keep people out or in some cases in.

From memory the British partitioned India and Pakistan in 1947, splitting up states forcing Muslims and Indians to move countries, millions of

deaths and untold misery. Many went to the UK.

In the Middle East post WW1 the British did the same, and were involved in hacking up Eastern Europe after WW2, after declaring war for the

invasion of Poland. Many went to the UK.

Oh and Ireland, they fucked that up to. Surprise surprise...many went to the UK.

From my time in the UK Immigrants tend to arrive and do the jobs no one else wants to do, work long hours and the locals look on and

complain, talk about football, moan about the govt and go on about winning 2 wars and a world cup.

if you ever want oldie or Katspam to shut up just mention the partition of India.......
they will go on for years about Palestine but never a peep about Pakistan.

[Katman]

if you ever want oldie or Katspam to shut up just mention the partition of India.......
they will go on for years about Palestine but never a peep about Pakistan.

Researching all the instances of Britain fucking over various areas of the world would be a lifetime exercise.

And America now seems intent on out-doing them.