josephbloggs

The cult is strong. (And I am not talking about the "woke bedwetters")

How long is it going to take exactly? Just around the corner, right? When are these benefits coming and what are they? I would love to hear.

Partly agree, but it's because Labour have gone right, describing anything related to the Tories as remotely "left" is hilarious.

Excellent, I fully support Nigel in his bid to make it eight in a row.

Back to the right of centre?

Sounds like this forum.

That is quite funny, but it is fake. When we cut to "20 minutes later" the shadows haven't moved an iota so it is clearly 20 seconds later at best. But still looks funny.

That was built in the ocean which is pretty stupid. Thailand is building them on reservoirs. Pretty sure big waves aren't a problem there. Right?

You're only about the 16th person to make that "joke".

Compelling argument. "If we didn't let them in they couldn't rape our women." So out of those convicted, how many were born in the UK? See, that's why it is pointless arguing with right wingers because they always bring in ridiculous comparisons or arguments. So you inferring that because I think Yaxley-Lennon is a selfish hypocrital thug that is only interesting in his own wealth, then that means I don't think girls should be protected from rape. Right. I must admit, you got me there - yes, of course I believe we shouldn't protect girls from rape, well done, I walked right in to your trap and now I feel so foolish.

Who am I apologising for? The were vile creatures and committed sickening crimes. My original post was highlighting the fact that you thought you needed to mention that they raped white girls, like it should make any difference what colour their victims were. Just an odd thing to highlight (for most people). Yaxley-Lennon had nothing to do with them being caught by the way. In fact he came very close to seeing them set free by his reckless, self serving actions (which boosted his donations nicely no doubt). I said it before, I'll say it again, he doesn't care about paedophiles. He only cares about himself and his bank balance and the goons like yourself who contribute to it.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

That's because it is in the middle of nowhere and it is a load of poo. Took my kids there a few years ago and it was dreadful.

Right, so here are the Scots taking away the groomers early doors. Good job they couldn't get away with it in their communities - the Scots wouldn't allow it. Er, oh. https://news.sky.com/story/seven-members-of-paedophile-gang-guilty-of-running-monstrous-child-sex-abuse-ring-13008082

"bedwetting, gender indeterminate, latte guzzlers at the BBC...." You missed the word "woke". Must try harder with your meaningless cliches next time. They were very bad men and committed very bad crimes and deserved very bad punishment. But until Yaxley-Lennon I think all child abusers deserve harsh punishment, not just the brown ones. Did you see him organise any marches against those in his own organisation?

Er, right, ok. Joe Bloggs is generally used to mean "average Joe", or "Joe public" or as an alias for someone who wishes to remain anonymous. Do you think it's my real name?

"and the rape of young white girls" Why even mention "white"? That's a bit odd. "And their rape of young girls" would be better, no? Or are white rapes different? ...........and lets not forget his chums, all in the EDL - some of them very close to good old Stephen Y-L - all who got convicted for grooming, child sex abuse or other crimes against minors. And the "leader" didn't condemn one, in fact he even publicly defended his convicted nonce mate Richard Price. https://hopenothate.org.uk/2022/01/11/tommy-robinson-is-a-hypocrite-when-it-comes-to-opposing-child-sexual-exploitation/

And a nonce apologist. But please we should call him by his name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. He changed it because it sounded posh and non "geezer of the people" which is the image he wanted to cultivate. Can you imagine a Stephen Yaxley-Lennon inspiring the far right? Sounds a bit posh and forrin', innit.

Who even checks their emojis or goes further and gets upset by them? I have never understood this.

You mean like I did here: Than I was asked for link to so I gave one. Isn't that what we're supposed to do?

True to form, refuses to read or acknowledge anything that contradicts your view. Understood. Waste of time engaging with you, I don't know why I keep coming back.

Erm, right. I know of these incidents, they are public knowledge, and the convictions are in the public domain. I was asked for a link so I Googled and found a link. I didn't go through each result to see which one was "best" or that transam might like. I assume you didn't read it as you usually point blank refuse to read any link if you disagree with the narrative. Like in the BYD quality thread, quite laughable you are.

Eh?

Here's one. Lots more out there if you don't like the source. https://hopenothate.org.uk/2022/01/11/tommy-robinson-is-a-hypocrite-when-it-comes-to-opposing-child-sexual-exploitation/

He didn't "expose them". He came in after most of the investigation was done - he saw a bandwagon and he jumped on it. And he almost caused their trial to collapse which could have seen them freed. See my post above about his defence of convicted paedophiles within his own orgnaisation.