Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

On the flip side, he’s helped shine a light on the grooming gang epidemic in this country. Whatever his motivations, the outcome of increased awareness of these vile gangs is a positive thing.
So many law abiding true Prince officials were complicit, silent, cowardly and corrupt - which enabled perverts to systematically go after young vulnerable girls, for many years if not decades, and share them around their friends, families and communities like pieces of meat.
For some reason, people hold that against Tommy Robinson. The truth is an uncomfortable one and better left unsaid it seems. Shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.
 
Malced said:
On the flip side, he’s helped shine a light on the grooming gang epidemic in this country. Whatever his motivations, the outcome of increased awareness of these vile gangs is a positive thing.
So many law abiding true Prince officials were complicit, silent, cowardly and corrupt - which enabled perverts to systematically go after young vulnerable girls, for many years if not decades, and share them around their friends, families and communities like pieces of meat.
For some reason, people hold that against Tommy Robinson. The truth is an uncomfortable one and better left unsaid it seems. Shoot the messenger if you don’t like the message.
Click to expand...
He shone a light on grooming? All I've ever seen is him hanging around ongoing trials, you know where the criminal justice system was underway. The cynic in me says he wanted the trial to collapse so he could use this as propaganda for his agenda.
 
Shandypants said:
He shone a light on grooming? All I've ever seen is him hanging around ongoing trials, you know where the criminal justice system was underway. The cynic in me says he wanted the trial to collapse so he could use this as propaganda for his agenda.
Click to expand...

Well that’s false impression you have of his activism. When he was hanging around the courts he was reporting. He has never caused a trial to collapse because he has reported the outcomes like all the media do. He paid for contempt of court personal legal training exactly so he could avoid making any mistakes which would cause a trail to collapse.

He has been active on the grooming gang issue for a very long time.
He’s done tv debates, tv interviews, rallies, marches, speeches at various universities, speeches to overseas parliaments, meetings with faith leaders etc etc.

He’s no angel and he’s been an idiot on many occasions. I don’t condone assault or any other criminal offences. All I’m saying is that he has also done good where many others had a chance to, but instead chose to look the other way.

With regards to this latest offence, it’s an odd one. The stalking laws were there to stop what we define as stalkers. That’s commonly understood to be people that have some sort of infatuation or obsession or malice against a person eg a celebrity, a former lover, an unrequited love. The stalking is a pattern of behaviour where they will repeatedly follow or contact someone. Stalking is by its nature usually over a period of time. There is usually repetitiveness - and often escalating behaviour.

With the Tommy Robinson conviction it appears to be quite a stretch to the legislation. A new use of it. He had been contacted by a journalist (whom the stalking conviction relates to) about something she was going to print imminently about him.

He tracked her down so he could challenge her about the accuracy of her article before it was published. He gained her address and went round and spoke to her on the intercom. He was apparently annoyed and frustrated that she wouldn’t engage with him. She called the police as she wanted him to go away.

If an unwanted visitor is causing alarm and distress and won’t leave your door after you’ve asked them to, then of course the police should intervene. But I’d think, as a layperson, that it would be a public order offence at worst.

However, when she refused to speak with hom he threatened come back every night if he had to (until she engaged with him).
So the conviction has been given mainly based on the premise that he would have gone onto stalk by coming back every night. That was him sounding off in an angry rant. People sometimes threaten to kill someone when they’re angry. But they don’t get arrested for murder unless they kill. They would be arrested for a lesser charge of threatening to kill.

So he’s been convicted of stalking for responding to an uninitiated contact from a journalist and he’s gone to visit her just the once, seeking a right of reply. That’s not stalking in my humble opinion.
 
Malced said:
Well that’s false impression you have of his activism. When he was hanging around the courts he was reporting. He has never caused a trial to collapse because he has reported the outcomes like all the media do. He paid for contempt of court personal legal training exactly so he could avoid making any mistakes which would cause a trail to collapse.

He has been active on the grooming gang issue for a very long time.
He’s done tv debates, tv interviews, rallies, marches, speeches at various universities, speeches to overseas parliaments, meetings with faith leaders etc etc.

He’s no angel and he’s been an idiot on many occasions. I don’t condone assault or any other criminal offences. All I’m saying is that he has also done good where many others had a chance to, but instead chose to look the other way.

With regards to this latest offence, it’s an odd one. The stalking laws were there to stop what we define as stalkers. That’s commonly understood to be people that have some sort of infatuation or obsession or malice against a person eg a celebrity, a former lover, an unrequited love. The stalking is a pattern of behaviour where they will repeatedly follow or contact someone. Stalking is by its nature usually over a period of time. There is usually repetitiveness - and often escalating behaviour.

With the Tommy Robinson conviction it appears to be quite a stretch to the legislation. A new use of it. He had been contacted by a journalist (whom the stalking conviction relates to) about something she was going to print imminently about him.

He tracked her down so he could challenge her about the accuracy of her article before it was published. He gained her address and went round and spoke to her on the intercom. He was apparently annoyed and frustrated that she wouldn’t engage with him. She called the police as she wanted him to go away.

If an unwanted visitor is causing alarm and distress and won’t leave your door after you’ve asked them to, then of course the police should intervene. But I’d think, as a layperson, that it would be a public order offence at worst.

However, when she refused to speak with hom he threatened come back every night if he had to (until she engaged with him).
So the conviction has been given mainly based on the premise that he would have gone onto stalk by coming back every night. That was him sounding off in an angry rant. People sometimes threaten to kill someone when they’re angry. But they don’t get arrested for murder unless they kill. They would be arrested for a lesser charge of threatening to kill.

So he’s been convicted of stalking for responding to an uninitiated contact from a journalist and he’s gone to visit her just the once, seeking a right of reply. That’s not stalking in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...
Bullshit
 
Macseasider said:
Here's me thinking he only publicised already ongoing grooming gang cases as a method of elevating his racial hatred and using these criminals as his vehicle for justification?
Click to expand...

He didn’t only publicise ongoing cases. He publicised the patterns of historical cases and the fact that there was and still is an issue with grooming.

Any conviction is quickly reported and then forgotten by those apart from the victims and their families. They’re all reported individually. There’s very rarely any reference to a pattern or demographics.

Consistently shouting from the rooftops that there is still an issue serves to raise awareness, keep the risk highlighted thus helping new generations of youngsters be better savvy to the these predators, and causes ongoing embarrassment and hopefully shame to the communities where this emanates from.

A culture of cover up as was the case should never be allowed to happen again. If it takes some gobby bloke to shame these communities to take action from within to change attitudes and educate then that’s a good thing.

You can call him racist etc. But that’s exactly what folk said when any brave official dared to speak out. They were quickly stamped on by their own superiors and often faced disciplinary action or were bullied out of their jobs. Thus the fear factor prevailed for years as no one dared to put their head above the parapet. That’s all documented in various reports. So it took a gobby luton lad with no regard for niceties or protocol.

These vile predatory gangs are still grooming all over the country. Too many are happy to turn a blind eye cos they want to deny there’s still or even was a problem so they can carry on living in a little pink fluffy bubble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
He didn’t only publicise ongoing cases. He publicised the patterns of historical cases and the fact that there was and still is an issue with grooming.
Click to expand...

Something that has been public knowledge (and obviously the Police) long before this thug you seem very keen to defend and racist acquaintances added up where the problem lay to push their hatred.

You seem to be making the assumption that Tommy's only issue in todays society is that there are grooming gangs within the Asian community. Do you honestly think that is the ONLY matter that attracts Tommy to these cases and highlighting them?

I thought you were quite the intellect and a funny poster. The most recent version of you seems to be very very right wing and passionate with it. You should probably stick with mayonnaise.
 
I don’t care who ruffles feathers when they have to be ruffled. Some things are much more important than the personalities involved. I care about the young innocent children. Damn right I’m passionate about them and their protection. It’s bizarre to me that you think it’s right wing to want grooming activity stopped. I suggest you need to take a good look at your definitions.

(It’s also right wing that I want capable unemployed people to get a job. How extreme.
I wasn’t saying benefits should be stopped. I wasn’t saying they should have their benefits reduced if not complying with all they need to do to get a job - in fact I said I didn’t agree with sanctions. Yet I’m right wing for wanting capable folk to get a job and better themselves - at a time when there’s never been so many job vacancies.)

If others had made the innocent girls their first consideration there wouldn’t have been a void to be filled by Tommy Robinson and the like.

I’ve not made any assumptions about Tommy Robinson’s wider agenda. It doesn’t concern me. Of course I don’t want any racism. I only want grooming of children to stop.

I follow the news and matters of public concern and all various folk in the media. I don’t support anyone such as Tommy Robinson but I also don’t like to go with the media caricatures. I look at things beneath the surface and make up my own mind.

He’s been convicted for lots of offences. He’s no angel. He’s at times done damage to his cause by his words or actions that has been seen as islamaphobic. I don’t agree with such behaviour as it turns off many and causes division. Without us listening to each other we won’t address differences to a mutually beneficial conclusion.

But with his gobbiness and blunt way of talking he’s undoubtedly helped highlight the grooming gangs well before they were being dealt with on any significant scale. He’s been going many years. It’s one of the main reasons he started the EDL as his cousin was groomed and many others were in Luton and no one was dealing with it or listening to concerns. That’s what happens when the authorities turn a blind eye. He popped up warts and all.

With regards to this latest conviction I could easily have jumped on the bash Tommy Robinson bandwagon. But guess what - I’ve actually used my intellect to look beneath the surface again. I’m not defending him - but I’ve analysed what he did and how I don’t think it fits the definition of stalking. Is that right wing? Is that so bothersome to express my opinion?

I’m not on here to make friends. I say it as I see it and I justify my comments with reasoning and logic. Happy for anyone to challenge that. But when you and others start calling me right wing etc it’s just a sign you’ve lost any debate.

You should respect the views of others even when they aren’t the same as your own.
 
How to spot a racist? Do they support the far right racist and former EDL leader Tommy Robinson? If the answer is yes then case is proven.
By the way, Yaxley-Lennon wasn't protecting children when he spoke in support of his mate, fellow EDL leader and convicted paedophile Richard Price.
He wasn't interested when it was an white grooming network on his own doorstep in Hemel Hempstead. Tommy Robinson is only interested when it is to suit his "all Muslims are terrorists and paedophiles" agenda.
 
Malced said:
I don’t care who ruffles feathers when they have to be ruffled. Some things are much more important than the personalities involved. I care about the young innocent children. Damn right I’m passionate about them and their protection. It’s bizarre to me that you think it’s right wing to want grooming activity stopped. I suggest you need to take a good look at your definitions.

(It’s also right wing that I want capable unemployed people to get a job. How extreme.
I wasn’t saying benefits should be stopped. I wasn’t saying they should have their benefits reduced if not complying with all they need to do to get a job - in fact I said I didn’t agree with sanctions. Yet I’m right wing for wanting capable folk to get a job and better themselves - at a time when there’s never been so many job vacancies.)

If others had made the innocent girls their first consideration there wouldn’t have been a void to be filled by Tommy Robinson and the like.

I’ve not made any assumptions about Tommy Robinson’s wider agenda. It doesn’t concern me. Of course I don’t want any racism. I only want grooming of children to stop.

I follow the news and matters of public concern and all various folk in the media. I don’t support anyone such as Tommy Robinson but I also don’t like to go with the media caricatures. I look at things beneath the surface and make up my own mind.

He’s been convicted for lots of offences. He’s no angel. He’s at times done damage to his cause by his words or actions that has been seen as islamaphobic. I don’t agree with such behaviour as it turns off many and causes division. Without us listening to each other we won’t address differences to a mutually beneficial conclusion.

But with his gobbiness and blunt way of talking he’s undoubtedly helped highlight the grooming gangs well before they were being dealt with on any significant scale. He’s been going many years. It’s one of the main reasons he started the EDL as his cousin was groomed and many others were in Luton and no one was dealing with it or listening to concerns. That’s what happens when the authorities turn a blind eye. He popped up warts and all.

With regards to this latest conviction I could easily have jumped on the bash Tommy Robinson bandwagon. But guess what - I’ve actually used my intellect to look beneath the surface again. I’m not defending him - but I’ve analysed what he did and how I don’t think it fits the definition of stalking. Is that right wing? Is that so bothersome to express my opinion?

I’m not on here to make friends. I say it as I see it and I justify my comments with reasoning and logic. Happy for anyone to challenge that. But when you and others start calling me right wing etc it’s just a sign you’ve lost any debate.

You should respect the views of others even when they aren’t the same as your own.
Click to expand...
That’s telling him, you cuddly old lefty, you

As for your last sentence, it’s a load of, dare I say, ‘bulllllshit’, as well you know
… otherwise you’d be respecting the views of paedophiles rather than having a go at them ….. which isn’t, of course, the case

Enjoy your day
 
Recidivist3 said:
That’s telling him, you cuddly old lefty, you

As for your last sentence, it’s a load of, dare I say, ‘bulllllshit’, as well you know
… otherwise you’d be respecting the views of paedophiles rather than having a go at them ….. which isn’t, of course, the case

Enjoy your day
Click to expand...

I said quite a lot in my post.it’s illuminating that you’ve no response to it other than to jump on my last sentence and take it out context.
It should go without saying, for anyone who is reasonable and reasonably intelligent, that we should respect the views of others when they’re within the law. Even on this website there’s usage policies.
Have a good day too.
 
Malced said:
I don’t care who ruffles feathers when they have to be ruffled. Some things are much more important than the personalities involved. I care about the young innocent children. Damn right I’m passionate about them and their protection. It’s bizarre to me that you think it’s right wing to want grooming activity stopped. I suggest you need to take a good look at your definitions.

(It’s also right wing that I want capable unemployed people to get a job. How extreme.
I wasn’t saying benefits should be stopped. I wasn’t saying they should have their benefits reduced if not complying with all they need to do to get a job - in fact I said I didn’t agree with sanctions. Yet I’m right wing for wanting capable folk to get a job and better themselves - at a time when there’s never been so many job vacancies.)

If others had made the innocent girls their first consideration there wouldn’t have been a void to be filled by Tommy Robinson and the like.

I’ve not made any assumptions about Tommy Robinson’s wider agenda. It doesn’t concern me. Of course I don’t want any racism. I only want grooming of children to stop.

I follow the news and matters of public concern and all various folk in the media. I don’t support anyone such as Tommy Robinson but I also don’t like to go with the media caricatures. I look at things beneath the surface and make up my own mind.

He’s been convicted for lots of offences. He’s no angel. He’s at times done damage to his cause by his words or actions that has been seen as islamaphobic. I don’t agree with such behaviour as it turns off many and causes division. Without us listening to each other we won’t address differences to a mutually beneficial conclusion.

But with his gobbiness and blunt way of talking he’s undoubtedly helped highlight the grooming gangs well before they were being dealt with on any significant scale. He’s been going many years. It’s one of the main reasons he started the EDL as his cousin was groomed and many others were in Luton and no one was dealing with it or listening to concerns. That’s what happens when the authorities turn a blind eye. He popped up warts and all.

With regards to this latest conviction I could easily have jumped on the bash Tommy Robinson bandwagon. But guess what - I’ve actually used my intellect to look beneath the surface again. I’m not defending him - but I’ve analysed what he did and how I don’t think it fits the definition of stalking. Is that right wing? Is that so bothersome to express my opinion?

I’m not on here to make friends. I say it as I see it and I justify my comments with reasoning and logic. Happy for anyone to challenge that. But when you and others start calling me right wing etc it’s just a sign you’ve lost any debate.

You should respect the views of others even when they aren’t the same as your own.
Click to expand...
Some of his associates have been sent down for paedophilia. He isn't interested until there is a racial angle. There's no getting away from that.
 
Malced said:
He didn’t only publicise ongoing cases. He publicised the patterns of historical cases and the fact that there was and still is an issue with grooming.

Any conviction is quickly reported and then forgotten by those apart from the victims and their families. They’re all reported individually. There’s very rarely any reference to a pattern or demographics.

Consistently shouting from the rooftops that there is still an issue serves to raise awareness, keep the risk highlighted thus helping new generations of youngsters be better savvy to the these predators, and causes ongoing embarrassment and hopefully shame to the communities where this emanates from.

A culture of cover up as was the case should never be allowed to happen again. If it takes some gobby bloke to shame these communities to take action from within to change attitudes and educate then that’s a good thing.

You can call him racist etc. But that’s exactly what folk said when any brave official dared to speak out. They were quickly stamped on by their own superiors and often faced disciplinary action or were bullied out of their jobs. Thus the fear factor prevailed for years as no one dared to put their head above the parapet. That’s all documented in various reports. So it took a gobby luton lad with no regard for niceties or protocol.

These vile predatory gangs are still grooming all over the country. Too many are happy to turn a blind eye cos they want to deny there’s still or even was a problem so they can carry on living in a little pink fluffy bubble.
Click to expand...
Are you his Brief?
 
Last edited:
catinstalbans said:
How to spot a racist? Do they support the far right racist and former EDL leader Tommy Robinson? If the answer is yes then case is proven.
By the way, Yaxley-Lennon wasn't protecting children when he spoke in support of his mate, fellow EDL leader and convicted paedophile Richard Price.
He wasn't interested when it was an white grooming network on his own doorstep in Hemel Hempstead. Tommy Robinson is only interested when it is to suit his "all Muslims are terrorists and paedophiles" agenda.
Click to expand...

Fact checking things said on here is not supporting.
He has said some racist thins which I would ever support nor welcome. There’s no place for it and it’s not my beliefs.
But I still feel he served an invaluable purpose in bringing to light the grooming gang issue. He can’t take full credit for that. But by him making a nuisance of himself it definitely raised public awareness.
Getting back to fact checking, what do you mean by ‘all Muslims are peadophiles and terrorists agenda’. Are you trying to suggest by putting it in inverted commas that you’re quoting his words? He hasn’t said that.

He acts before thinking and can’t control himself as proved on many occasions when charged for assault etc.
But despite that and despite all his words spoken over the years, he’s never been charged or convicted with racism or race crime offences. Sorry if you think that’s supporting him. But it’s the truth. Please stick to the facts. If he is so bad you don’t need to make him seem worse by exaggerating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wizaard said:
Some of his associates have been sent down for paedophilia. He isn't interested until there is a racial angle. There's no getting away from that.
Click to expand...

Yeah and that’s completely wrong and inconsistent and I condemn him for that. It does make it seem like he is only interested when it suits him. But I still believe it’s better that he spoke up when he did regardless of his full motivations. It’s the end result that matters - eg greater awareness and protections against grooming gangs.
 
Malced said:
Yeah and that’s completely wrong and inconsistent and I condemn him for that. It does make it seem like he is only interested when it suits him. But I still believe it’s better that he spoke up when he did regardless of his full motivations. It’s the end result that matters - eg greater awareness and protections against grooming gangs.
Click to expand...
Is this the ‘Hitler made the railways run on time’ defence
 
Malced said:
I don’t care who ruffles feathers when they have to be ruffled. Some things are much more important than the personalities involved. I care about the young innocent children. Damn right I’m passionate about them and their protection. It’s bizarre to me that you think it’s right wing to want grooming activity stopped. I suggest you need to take a good look at your definitions.

(It’s also right wing that I want capable unemployed people to get a job. How extreme.
I wasn’t saying benefits should be stopped. I wasn’t saying they should have their benefits reduced if not complying with all they need to do to get a job - in fact I said I didn’t agree with sanctions. Yet I’m right wing for wanting capable folk to get a job and better themselves - at a time when there’s never been so many job vacancies.)

If others had made the innocent girls their first consideration there wouldn’t have been a void to be filled by Tommy Robinson and the like.

I’ve not made any assumptions about Tommy Robinson’s wider agenda. It doesn’t concern me. Of course I don’t want any racism. I only want grooming of children to stop.

I follow the news and matters of public concern and all various folk in the media. I don’t support anyone such as Tommy Robinson but I also don’t like to go with the media caricatures. I look at things beneath the surface and make up my own mind.

He’s been convicted for lots of offences. He’s no angel. He’s at times done damage to his cause by his words or actions that has been seen as islamaphobic. I don’t agree with such behaviour as it turns off many and causes division. Without us listening to each other we won’t address differences to a mutually beneficial conclusion.

But with his gobbiness and blunt way of talking he’s undoubtedly helped highlight the grooming gangs well before they were being dealt with on any significant scale. He’s been going many years. It’s one of the main reasons he started the EDL as his cousin was groomed and many others were in Luton and no one was dealing with it or listening to concerns. That’s what happens when the authorities turn a blind eye. He popped up warts and all.

With regards to this latest conviction I could easily have jumped on the bash Tommy Robinson bandwagon. But guess what - I’ve actually used my intellect to look beneath the surface again. I’m not defending him - but I’ve analysed what he did and how I don’t think it fits the definition of stalking. Is that right wing? Is that so bothersome to express my opinion?

I’m not on here to make friends. I say it as I see it and I justify my comments with reasoning and logic. Happy for anyone to challenge that. But when you and others start calling me right wing etc it’s just a sign you’ve lost any debate.

You should respect the views of others even when they aren’t the same as your own.
Click to expand...
You won’t get any balanced debate on this one malced.
 
🙄 I was talking about the Marbella express

I was just checking to see if anyone was watching

I was … oh, bollox 😔👍
 
Scaramanga said:
You won’t get any balanced debate on this one malced.
Click to expand...

Apparently not much.

It would have been interesting to talk about the use of the stalking laws in the way they’ve been used, and in the circumstances they’ve been used. Leaving aside who they’ve been used on.
 
Malced said:
Apparently not much.

It would have been interesting to talk about the use of the stalking laws in the way they’ve been used, and in the circumstances they’ve been used. Leaving aside who they’ve been used on.
Click to expand...
From the little I know of the case, it wasn't the only time he was doorstepping her. You're quoting him as if he's a trustworthy source. He's a convicted liar and fraudster.
 
Wizaard said:
From the little I know of the case, it wasn't the only time he was doorstepping her. You're quoting him as if he's a trustworthy source. He's a convicted liar and fraudster.
Click to expand...

With respect, I wasn’t quoting him as such. I was referencing the summing up by the judge. Yeah he is a fraudster etc and I think the judge said he didn’t find him to be credible with the evidence and accounts he gave.
 
My take on the story is this;
YL went to a journalist's house at 10pm in the evening as she was about to publish an article about Yaxley-Lennon. The article was about where the money donated to YL had ended up and for some reason he wanted publication to be stopped. He then called the journalist's boyfriend a paedophile and promised to return every night to harass and intimidate the couple if the article was published. He also said that he would publicise the entirely false allegation of paedophilia against the journalist's boyfriend. According to witnesses he was very aggressive.

I don't understand how anyone who believes in free speech can defend the actions of YL in this case. I think he is lucky to only have been given a banning order. If the article in question was false he would have legal redress through the libel laws and the court system. Why did YL want the article not to be published?
 
During his time at the openly 'racist & violent' EDL, Tommy's second-in-command (and Best Friend) was convicted of being a nonce against a 10 year old white girl.....

Funny how Tommy never chased white paedophiles, eh... 🤔

This case originated when a (female) journalist asked Tommy the question ‘Did you spend money donated for legal support on your mortgage?’
Mr Waxy Lemon then (in the legal case) “crossed the line between mere harassment and stalking.” as he threatened her to not revel the following (alleged) statements

1.) Mr Lemon receives large amounts of money from both USSR and USA far right organisations.....
2.) Mr Lemon used donations that were meant for his legal fight on paying for his mortgage on his house just outside Luton as well as his holiday home in Spain.....as well as a nice pair of Prada trainers and a Stone Island Jacket


But thank God we have Malicious using his 'interlect' to look beyond the public face of this racist, bully boy, fleecing people for money....
 
Last edited:
ElBurroSinNombre said:
My take on the story is this;
YL went to a journalist's house at 10pm in the evening as she was about to publish an article about Yaxley-Lennon. The article was about where the money donated to YL had ended up and for some reason he wanted publication to be stopped. He then called the journalist's boyfriend a paedophile and promised to return every night to harass and intimidate the couple if the article was published. He also said that he would publicise the entirely false allegation of paedophilia against the journalist's boyfriend. According to witnesses he was very aggressive.

I don't understand how anyone who believes in free speech can defend the actions of YL in this case. I think he is lucky to only have been given a banning order. If the article in question was false he would have legal redress through the libel laws and the court system. Why did YL want the article not to be published?
Click to expand...

That’s a fair enough account. It may be the article she was about to publish was true and he was trying to stop it for obvious reasons. He maybe wanted a right of reply like journalists usually give. He clearly wasn’t happy about it.
He did call the boyfriend a peadophile. That was wrong and stupid. From the accounts I’ve read he was trying to make a point to her as such:

You’re about to publish lies about me. Ok I’ll call your boyfriend a peadophile and I’ll publish that. How would you like it?

So it was a stupid and I’ll advised way to try and make his point. It definitely only served to make the whole episode at her door more worrying and it escalated matters.

I’ve said I think he should have been nicked for a public order offence. Someone coming to your door late at night angry and refusing to leave should be dealt with. I’m just surprised it’s been defined as stalking. There was a threat to keep coming back every night until she agreed to engage with him so that it seems is where it’s strayed into stalking. It’s not what the stalking laws were about. It’s a stretch to those laws in my view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
He didn’t only publicise ongoing cases. He publicised the patterns of historical cases and the fact that there was and still is an issue with grooming.

Any conviction is quickly reported and then forgotten by those apart from the victims and their families. They’re all reported individually. There’s very rarely any reference to a pattern or demographics.

Consistently shouting from the rooftops that there is still an issue serves to raise awareness, keep the risk highlighted thus helping new generations of youngsters be better savvy to the these predators, and causes ongoing embarrassment and hopefully shame to the communities where this emanates from.

A culture of cover up as was the case should never be allowed to happen again. If it takes some gobby bloke to shame these communities to take action from within to change attitudes and educate then that’s a good thing.

You can call him racist etc. But that’s exactly what folk said when any brave official dared to speak out. They were quickly stamped on by their own superiors and often faced disciplinary action or were bullied out of their jobs. Thus the fear factor prevailed for years as no one dared to put their head above the parapet. That’s all documented in various reports. So it took a gobby luton lad with no regard for niceties or protocol.

These vile predatory gangs are still grooming all over the country. Too many are happy to turn a blind eye cos they want to deny there’s still or even was a problem so they can carry on living in a little pink fluffy bubble.
Click to expand...
He didn't publicise the numerous paedophiles who have been convicted who were in the EDL/ far right organisations when he was active in them. He only seemed to be bothered about the Muslim ones. Can't think why.
 
What a reasonable and articulate poster this malced is👍🏻 Like a breath of fresh air after some of yesterdays ramblings, its actually quite disturbing that there are folk On here that don’t agree with what the op has put forward regards these disgusting filthy gangs, now that is very very disturbing how people can defend these beasts.
 
Rory the tiger said:
What a reasonable and articulate poster this malced is👍🏻 Like a breath of fresh air after some of yesterdays ramblings, its actually quite disturbing that there are folk On here that don’t agree with what the op has put forward regards these disgusting filthy gangs, now that is very very disturbing how people can defend these beasts.
Click to expand...
I may have missed it. Can you point out the posts where people have defended the grooming gangs, as opposed to defending the far right stalker and fraudster?
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
During his time at the openly 'racist & violent' EDL, Tommy's second-in-command (and Best Friend) was convicted of being a nonce against a 10 year old white girl.....

Funny how Tommy never chased white paedophiles, eh... 🤔

This case originated when a (female) journalist asked Tommy the question ‘Did you spend money donated for legal support on your mortgage?’
Mr Waxy Lemon then (in the legal case) “crossed the line between mere harassment and stalking.” as he threatened her to not revel the following (alleged) statements

1.) Mr Lemon receives large amounts of money from both USSR and USA far right organisations.....
2.) Mr Lemon used donations that were meant for his legal fight on paying for his mortgage on his house just outside Luton as well as his holiday home in Spain.....as well as a nice pair of Prada trainers and a Stone Island Jacket


But thank God we have Malicious using his 'interlect' to look beyond the public face of this racist, bully boy, fleecing people for money....
Click to expand...


Haha I like your post. A very good effort. I’m quite warming to Malicious too. 🤣🤣👏

I always look beyond the public face as otherwise it’s shallow and you don’t get the full story. All you get is racist and marxist and other such names.

It’s like saying anyone who wants shamima begum to come home is an isis sympathiser. They actually might loathe isis but believe in the uk taking responsibility for their citizens. There’s always more beneath the surface.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It`s always good to listen to both sides of any debate .So whatever`s said on here is enlightening. Whoever`s opinion you side with Malced has articulately helped us to see both points of view so thank you at least for that rather than just the usual knee jerk reactions all too common on here.
 
Rory the tiger said:
i Dont need to point it out
Click to expand...
I'd rather you didn't point anywhere. Your interests seem to focus on condemning anybody who comes across as left wing. The fact is that people showing good morals, inclusivity and disgust at Yaxley-Lennon are allowed to come from anywhere on the liberal-democratic spectrum - including those right of centre.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I'd rather you didn't point anywhere. Your interests seem to focus on condemning anybody who comes across as left wing. The fact is that people showing good morals, inclusivity and disgust at Yaxley-Lennon are allowed to come from anywhere on the liberal-democratic spectrum - including those right of centre.
Click to expand...
The fact is Malced was showing fantastic morals 👍🏻 What is it you don’t agree with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top