23 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I was called a “white slag” and “white c***” as they beat me.

They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rotherham-grooming-gang-sexual-abuse-muslim-islamist-racism-white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html

Your point is?

2 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

 

He's done a good job on you.  Of course they exist - but the white gangs operate differently. They are not 'physical' groups of people meeting up and having sex with underage children - they work mostly online acting as individuals. They groom kids, eventually meeting up with them and using them for sexual gratification - they then post videos and photos of their victims on secret websites.

 

There are several vigilante groups who are active in the UK at the moment - they are actively seeking these people out and when they catch them, they expose them and present well prepared dossiers of evidence to the police.

 

Paedophile activity is probably more widespread and carried out on a much bigger scale than we think. The white 'groomers' seem to act online whereas the Asian gangs have a physical presence. But what is the difference between physical groups of people, meeting up and grooming young children for sex and individuals doing it?  Is the crime any less?

 

Neither act with impunity, the police and other authorities may, it seems to have been at the least 'slack' in the case of the Asian gangs and that certainly needs looking at. But that does not mean that the crime is not being carried out by significant numbers of white people acting as described above. Would you say those currently being exposed by the vigilantes have acted with impunity because the police haven't caught them?

 

Whether its lack of funding, time, manpower or all three on the part of the police - either nobody has acted with impunity or they all have.  In fact, by your way of reckoning, the white groomers are acting with even greater impunity that the Asians - they are only just coming to light yet when caught, its often discovered that they have been operating for years.  I seem to remember on one of the recent TV programmes following the vigilantes, that one paedophile had several million sexually explicit images of children on his computer.

 

This is not just an Asian/Muslim problem - its just that 'Robinson' only chooses to 'expose' Asians.

 

 

    The pedos online act anonymously , they hide their faces and cover their tracks and there are the authorities tracking them down and prosecuting them , as well as individual vigilantes  , they were not acting with impunity , yes, some did get away with it and not get caught .

   The Muslim grooming gangs were acting in the open , the authorities knew what was going on , but the authorities turned a blind eye and took no action .

That is why Tommy exposed what they were doing and bought it to the publics attention     

     

There is a legacy in the UK that some are very proud of, a legacy of free thought and free expression. These are parts of tradition you can either be very proud of or you can wish to repudiate.

This culture of repudiation typically from ignorant lefties that equally inherited this legacy are completely against it.

 

Research is typically offensive, the truth is typically offensive that's why opposing views of the likes of Tommy Robinson give them such a self congratulatory feeling by throwing insults and hatred with no cost to them without being able, or willing to discuss in a dignified way to find a solution to the primary problem and in this case keeping the children of the UK safe from perverted predators.

8 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

but the white gangs operate differently. They are not 'physical' groups of people meeting up and having sex with underage children - they work mostly online acting as individuals.

They are hardly gangs if they operate individually, are they?

And that's the whole point. White paedophiles tend to operate individually because it's frowned on in UK culture. It would be reported on to the authorities by other people if discovered. With the Muslim street grooming gangs, they're passing them onto friends, work colleagues and family members.

Edited July 9, 20197 yr by katana

10 minutes ago, katana said:

They are hardly gangs if they operate individually, are they?

I think I explained that - these people act individually but they are connected online. What difference does it make anyway - both sets are committing the same crime.

 

You can lead a horse to water...............

Edited July 9, 20197 yr by KhaoYai

Hello Tommy u little runt.

Strawberry or vanilla?

9 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Your point is?

Well what do you think the point is!

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Link?

 

Look them up yourself. This is from one Daily Mirror article from that time.

However as a once long time resident of Rotherham, I obtain most of my knowledge about this subject,from family and friends who still live there.

 

CCTV cameras will be installed in all taxis in scandal-hit Rotherham by early July. 

The commissioners sent in to clean up Rotherham Council have announced the deadline for the town's drivers to install cameras in their cabs. 

The new measure was introduced in the wake of the town's sex grooming scandal.

9 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Your point is?

 

 

 If you don’t realise,then I feel sorry for you.

 

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

I had a recollection there was a protest; link below. As when the Rotherham Report was first released and discussed in this forum there were a number of matters that certain members refused to acknowledge. Again if anyone is interested it is well worth reading the entire report rather than cherry picking.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33340654

Read it, and it does not substantiate your earlier claim regarding the local Muslim community.

 

There’s a surprise.

33 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

No one 'nearly enabled the rapists to get of' off anywhere near scot free.

 

Not one single individual inside the court house heard a single word that TR was reading from the BBC document into his phone while not on the court premises but outside on public land. 

 

No one inside was even the slightest bit aware of him speaking into the phone let alone aware of what he was saying which was in the public domain anyway.

None of which is relevant to the law that Yaxley Lennon broke.

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

None of which is relevant to the law that Yaxley Lennon broke.

 

If YL was considered to have broken the law then why did the police not consider the BBC to have done so as well.

7 hours ago, sanemax said:

 

    The pedos online act anonymously , they hide their faces and cover their tracks and there are the authorities tracking them down and prosecuting them , as well as individual vigilantes  , they were not acting with impunity , yes, some did get away with it and not get caught .

   The Muslim grooming gangs were acting in the open , the authorities knew what was going on , but the authorities turned a blind eye and took no action .

That is why Tommy exposed what they were doing and bought it to the publics attention     

     

Correct in what you say,except for the last paragraph. T.R did not expose the crimes of these Muslim (Pakistani) peadophiles, the first person to speak out about this subject was a local women called Jayne Senior,and this was then followed up by a news reporter.

 And yes the authorities were well aware of what was going on, yet they decided to keep quite,in the interest of race relations.

 One M.P. from another area of Yorkshire, was Labours ANN Cryer, who when she went public in 2001 with what Pakistani Muslims in her constituencie were doing, was shunned by those at the top of the Labour Party. All part of pretending that nothing was happening. Political correctness must be adhered too. And to hell with the young vulnerable girls, who just happened to be white British.

Edited July 9, 20197 yr by nontabury

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Read it, and it does not substantiate your earlier claim regarding the local Muslim community.

 

There’s a surprise.

Correction. Does not support the usual members hyperbole

30 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

If YL was considered to have broken the law then why did the police not consider the BBC to have done so as well.

Because the BBC responded to the court order by immediately removing the article that was in breach of the order and did not republish.

 

Yaxley Lennon, ignored the court order while making reference to the law he was breaking while he broke it.

 

 

21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Correction. Does not support the usual members hyperbole

It’s a little more than that.

 

It is an unfounded accusation against a community with a shared ethnic and religious background.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s a little more than that.

 

It is an unfounded accusation against a community with a shared ethnic and religious background.

 

 

 

 

Say that to the 1,500 young girls who were sexually abused by these Muslims, simply because they were vulnerable, with many coming from children’s homes, and the poorer sections of the community, and of course because they were white infidels.

Do you honestly beleive that THEY consider them unfounded accusations?

Edited July 9, 20197 yr by nontabury

34 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

Say that to the 1,500 young girls who were sexually abused by these Muslims, simply because they were vulnerable, with many coming from children’s homes, and the poorer sections of the community, and of course because they were white infidels.

Do you honestly beleive that THEY consider them unfounded accusations?

You keep misrepresenting the situation in Rotherham. According to the Jay Report. 

your constant one sided dialogue blame laying does not reflect the reality at the time.

Thankfully those who committed the awful child abuse over many years were imprisoned with some ongoing cases. Most of those convicted are from Muslim heritage, but not all. For those interested Operation Stovewood is the criminal investigation...

 

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/100003/community_and_living/1159/convictions_for_child_sexual_exploitation/7

 

Example non Muslim heritage conviction.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-44004360

Edited July 9, 20197 yr by simple1

An inflammatory post and the replies have been removed. 

 

A post containing a link to a site lobbying for support has been removed as per this forum rule:

 

5) You will not use Thaivisa as a platform to gather support to effect changes on religious, political, or governmental issues.

34 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

Say that to the 1,500 young girls who were sexually abused by these Muslims, simply because they were vulnerable, with many coming from children’s homes, and the poorer sections of the community, and of course because they were white infidels.

Do you honestly beleive that THEY consider them unfounded accusations?

To which TR gave an avenue for acquittal by his breaking the law.

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

 

Look them up yourself. This is from one Daily Mirror article from that time.

However as a once long time resident of Rotherham, I obtain most of my knowledge about this subject,from family and friends who still live there.

 

CCTV cameras will be installed in all taxis in scandal-hit Rotherham by early July. 

The commissioners sent in to clean up Rotherham Council have announced the deadline for the town's drivers to install cameras in their cabs. 

The new measure was introduced in the wake of the town's sex grooming scandal.

Very true. However, this had nothing to do with Tommy Islam and his racist rants.

4 hours ago, Mikisteel said:

Hello Tommy u little runt.

Strawberry or vanilla?

This story is going to get much bigger. Tommy is due to appear on Fox News to make a public request for US asylum from the UK govt persecution and threats to his and his families safety(see the threat above to highlight the sort of deranged hatred he faces). I have learned much on this forum about asylum/refugee status on this forum, and my understanding is that the US must take in Tommy and then it will take years to bounce his case around the courts. If Tommy went to San Francisco or another "sanctuary city" he would never be able to be arrested or deported. This will be very interesting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-trump-asylum-us-infowars-alex-jones-contempt-case-a8996166.html

Edited July 10, 20197 yr by TopDeadSenter

10 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This story is going to get much bigger. Tommy is due to appear on Fox News to make a public request for asylum from the UK govt persecution and threats to his and his families safety(see the threat above to highlight the sort of deranged hatred he faces). I have learned much on this forum about asylum/refugee status on this forum, and my understanding is that the US must take in Tommy and then it will take years to bounce his case around the courts. If Tommy went to San Francisco or another "sanctuary city" he would never be able to be arrested or deported. This will be very interesting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-trump-asylum-us-infowars-alex-jones-contempt-case-a8996166.html

Really no surprise that Trump, Alex Jones et al, should seek to give succour to a vile little racist. One of their own.

 

Please take him. You're welcome to him.

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This story is going to get much bigger. Tommy is due to appear on Fox News to make a public request for US asylum from the UK govt persecution and threats to his and his families safety(see the threat above to highlight the sort of deranged hatred he faces). I have learned much on this forum about asylum/refugee status on this forum, and my understanding is that the US must take in Tommy and then it will take years to bounce his case around the courts. If Tommy went to San Francisco or another "sanctuary city" he would never be able to be arrested or deported. This will be very interesting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-trump-asylum-us-infowars-alex-jones-contempt-case-a8996166.html

There needs to be some more donations so he can buy another “safe” house to add to his property portfolio. 

18 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Plenty of reports, but I did not see any in the Guardian so you will probably dismiss this and others of being right wing or bigoted. I should have said some PM's under pressure from and supported by the Muslim council of what was Great Britain

 

http://bloodredpatriots.com/2018/11/30/uk-mps-call-for-islamophobia-to-be-classed-as-racism-want-to-criminalize-claims-islam-spread-by-the-sword-2/

 

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/11/uk-mps-call-for-islamophobia-to-be-classed-as-racism-want-to-criminalize-claims-that-islam-spread-by-the-sword

 

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/27/parliamentary-report-calls-islamophobia-be-officially-classed-racism/

LOL... you got to be kidding. That's not 'plenty of reports'. That's three separate reports of the same hate-filled, white-is-right, islamophobic shit that narrow-minded, non-Guardian readers reckon is the truth their God's word.

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This story is going to get much bigger. Tommy is due to appear on Fox News to make a public request for US asylum from the UK govt persecution and threats to his and his families safety(see the threat above to highlight the sort of deranged hatred he faces). I have learned much on this forum about asylum/refugee status on this forum, and my understanding is that the US must take in Tommy and then it will take years to bounce his case around the courts. If Tommy went to San Francisco or another "sanctuary city" he would never be able to be arrested or deported. This will be very interesting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-trump-asylum-us-infowars-alex-jones-contempt-case-a8996166.html

I hope Yaxley-Lennon choses the Rio Grande crossing outside Laredo for his US border breach and subsequent asylum claim. That would make for great prime time viewing. Having him crying on Fox News wouldn't.

9 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I hope Yaxley-Lennon choses the Rio Grande crossing outside Laredo for his US border breach and subsequent asylum claim. That would make for great prime time viewing.

Agreed. I expect his Fox News televised asylum application to fail, but bring huge publicity to his persecution. He could then fly to Mexico, dress up like the cast of Tropic Thunder and waltz over the border as per his human rights. Then he will have Ms Cortez and Harris etc crying floods of tears if he is detained by ICE at his inhumane treatment and demand his release into the USA just like they do with the Asian and Latino asylum seekers. There is no way they could be so crass as to not support Tommy due to his skin color and political persuasions. We have been repeatedly told that is not why democrats support open borders and presumption of refugee status for every illegal border crosser. Human rights surely applies to all, regardless of skin color and religion. Yes indeed. This will be interesting.

15 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

This is not just an Asian/Muslim problem - its just that 'Robinson' only chooses to 'expose' Asians.

There are a number of vigilante groups in the UK who proactively expose paedophiles. They are doing great work and cooperate with the police. The people they expose are both white British and Asian. Tommy Islam talks the talk and actually does nothing to expose paedophiles, these guys walk the walk and don't seek publicity.

 

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because the BBC responded to the court order by immediately removing the article that was in breach of the order and did not republish.

 

Yaxley Lennon, ignored the court order while making reference to the law he was breaking while he broke it.

 

 

YL was reading it from an on line document previously published by the BBC thereby making it available to the general public for all time.

 

They could not remove an article from circulation that was already in the public domain.

3 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

YL was reading it from an on line document previously published by the BBC thereby making it available to the general public for all time.

 

They could not remove an article from circulation that was already in the public domain.

I think you should take this cracking legal theory of yours and hand it to Yaxley Lennon, it seems to have completely evaded his legal team.