James105

"police vehicles were set on fire". Are you trying to get a job at CNN?

12 year olds do not get life imprisonment, no matter how heinous the crime. Jon Venables, one of the two 10 year olds that tortured and killed two year old Jamie Bulger served just 8 years in jail for this crime, so was 18 years old when he was released.

I can answer these!!! 7. Things that do not exist have no sense of humour. 8. Things that do not exist do not get upset.

The imaginary and mythical "far right" klaxon! Since you are sharing links about understanding the "far right" lets see if you can answer some simple questions about the "far right": 1. Are the "far right" stabbing and murdering kids? 2. Do the "far right" make up 90% of the MI5 terrorist watchlist? 3. Do the "far right" blow up buses and concerts? 4. Are the "far right" mass grooming white girls? 5. Are the "far right" roaming the streets with machetes? 6. Are the "far right" in the room with you now?

So you agree that you don't know their politics either then, so perhaps you should stop spreading the falsehoods that you do by labelling them as such.

I don't know the politics of people angry about 3 little girls being massacred. I would assume that both left and right wing voters would be angered about 3 little girls being senselessly murdered. Do I have that wrong?

So it sounds like we finally have a definition for a woman now and can now draw a line under this and let women have their sports back?

You make a good point. Unfortunately precedent has been set that in order for people to be listened to and get what they want then rioting is the way as was demonstrated in the BLM riots and the Harehills riots more recently. It's a shame that those who are the most vociferous now about the white people expressing their anger and rioting were so, so quiet when it was other ethnicities doing so. It's hard to take anyone seriously who have such obvious double standards, up to and including the PM who actually bent the knee to the BLM rioters.

Just stating a fact. I can't help it if you don't like facts and the fact is there is no EDL any more. Yes, there was violence in Southport. People were rightly angry that someone (again either a 1st or 2nd generation immigrant) killed 3 little girls. Starmer, because he is an out of touch moron, instead of expressing any kind of understanding of the root cause of that anger decided he would light the touch paper and add fuel to the anger. Let me educate you on the "far right" as this is a very specific political ideology that promotes racial supremacy, genocide, neo-nazism and fascism. The British people detest the "far right" and sacrificed so much to defeat it in the 1940s. It is not "far right" to be angry that 3 little girls were killed. False information can be defeated very easily with factual information and speculation is still rife about the motives of the attacker as showing photos of an innocent looking 10 year old choir boy who did an appearance on the BBC for (ironically) children in need are just fuelling even more conspiracies that the real motives are being covered up.

Not sure if you have just woken up from cryo-sleep so let me get you up to date. The EDL was disbanded in 2013. There is no EDL.

It's for your safety. The far right are no joke and without these measures the far right will... erm... well, I don't know exactly, but they have started to round them up as you can see from these images. I'm sure they are much more dangerous than they look as the far right are sneaky like that, and the PM would not have devoted most of his press conference talking about dangerous thugs like these rather than the 3 innocent girls that were brutally murdered if that was not the case.

Are the far right in the room with you now? Blink twice if so.

I was under the impression that the trigger for the riots was an asian man turning up to a peaceful vigil with a knife who was apprehended by the police. Are you saying that this was Nigel Farage in some kind of disguise? If so I agree that is disgraceful behaviour. Anyway, maybe in your bubble everything is fine but outside of there let me give you the lowdown of why people are a little bit angry. There was a massacre at a kids dance class where 3 little girls were killed. Starmers response is to come down hard on the imaginary "far right" as an excuse to impose authoritarian measures rather than look at the cause of why people are a little bit angry, which is that 3 little girls were murdered.

All I have seen is that he is a harmless choir boy who went to a christian church, along with photos that show him as a 10-12 year old who wouldn't harm a fly. There seems to be a bit of a gap between what he was like then and the "alleged" child killing monster he became. I just can't imagine why people would still be speculating with "credible reports" out there so would be appreciated if you could provide a link.

I'm not seeing where I specifically stated this is a muslim attack, just merely providing the reasons why people would naturally think it is as it shares many hallmarks of attacks in recent history of attacks by the ironically labelled "religion of peace". I'm still waiting for the authorities to come out and reassure people that it is not actually Islam on this occasion as that would go a long way to calming down the inevitable continued riots/protests, especially after Starmer decided to throw a petrol stations worth of gasoline on what is already a powder keg. I'm sure we will be told any time now. <crickets>

Where did I link this to muslims? I just (correctly) implied that the most horrific attacks in recent history have come from the religion of peace. There is such an easy way for the authorities to quell such speculation, and the longer they delay doing so the more speculation there will be, using "recent history" as the basis of this speculation.

If the last horrific heinous attack on UK soil was the one you refer that occurred 30 years ago then you would have an excellent point. Since then there has been religiously motivated attack, followed by religiously motivated attack and so on and so on. He didn't flip out randomly as in order to do what he did he had to research his target, order a taxi to take him there, and then from the taxi he went directly into the building where he already knew there would be defenseless little girls. The reason people jump straight to the "religiously" motivated attack by an imported religion is because it usually is.

So did I when I was 10 years old as I grew up in a predominantly christian country. But I am not a christian. Like I said, you are making presumptions here and since his online social media existence has either been erased or simply never existed then you are filling the lack of information void with supposition.

It would be naive to think we will get anything like true motives until his trial as the angry people need to be "managed" and since his trial is not until next year this will give ample time for the next horrific thing to happen to move the attention elsewhere. The "alleged" murderer seems to be in the infinitesimally small number of teenagers that have zero social media profile which I am sure is just a coincidence. Also, he seems to have not had his photo taken for the last several years as the only photos of him seem to be from when he was 10-12 years old. Again, quite surprising. Using percentages of peoples religions in Rwanda to ascertain whether or not someone who commits such a heinous crime is actually a Christian is folly, as that would be like making a presumption that when someone blows up an arena full of kids in Manchester (for example) they are likely to be Christian as the UK is a predominantly Christian country.

I think a lot of people have a problem with the blatant 2-Kier policing we see. This graphic sums it up quite nicely. I don't think anyone would have a problem with a hard line approach if it was the same for all ethnicities and not just the white people.

For over a decade the authorities turned a blind eye to the mass organised rape of children. For over a decade. Their default position was to ignore it. The media (mostly) ignored it. The police and government were not disposed to act until this was raised by multiple voices. This cowardice is still present in the police, the media and the government and if anything it is much worse than it was. It's essential that those with a voice and an audience continue to keep the pressure on so these cowards cannot just stick their heads in the sand again pretending everything is fine. Denmark (leftist government) have gone some way to solving the problem with their own versions of Tommy Robinson. Do you know what radical steps they took? They listened to their genuine concerns and acted on them instead of persecuting them for saying it.

When it comes to the mass organised rape of children, I am of the opinion that the more people that call it out the more likely something will be done about it. One single voice wasn't enough, as clearly nothing was done for far too long. He had an audience and helped get the message out. If his voice being added to the mix even prevented just 1 more rape of a child from happening I would say it was worth it - wouldn't you? You can use "endanged a criminal trial" all you want but as we all know for a fact it didn't do anything of the sort that phrase is particularly meaningless and vacuous.

Probably because the authorities were turning a blind eye to the mass rape of children by predominantly asian heritage men. Someone needed to call it out who was not part of those institutions or it would still be going on in the same volume today - he was one of those that did. Do you have an example of where police have turned a blind eye for this in the same way for white people or are you just using a false equivalence here?

So from your numbers in 2018 (for example) 71% of the rapes were committed by white people whilst the white population is 83%. Is that the point you were trying to make here, that women are statistically safer with white people than other races?

I don't care what label they used but it was categorically not a "Conservative" government, hence the mass immigration forced upon the British people over the last 14 years. Every single election a manifesto promise was made by the "Conservative" party that immigration would be drastically reduced to the "tens of thousands" and that is what the people voted for. Every single time they increased immigration without a mandate from the people.