Rory the tiger
Well-known member
You seem a confused individual, I hope for your sake it is just a message board personaI wasn't referring to Malced. I was referring to you.
You seem a confused individual, I hope for your sake it is just a message board personaI wasn't referring to Malced. I was referring to you.
okGrooming gangs are abhorrent regardless of their nationality. Nationality doesn't factor in as far as I'm concerned.
Not before you answer my previous questionWhere? Feel free to use the quote facility.
The one I answered?Not before you answer my previous question
This is an offensive and disgusting lieI think you will find the fella in St Albans is
I was thinking Rory lives in Poulton and used to be a Girlis Rory related to Scara?
Two thingsI was thinking Rory lives in Poulton and used to be a Girl
Mr Tigger, I am neither confused nor uncomfortable about what I write. I refuse to be insulting but I do find your persona wanting in its determination to find fault with posters of a reasonably left wing bent. Had this been based on one thread I would not have posted. So, carry on. I will not be nasty but I will continue to be observant.You seem a confused individual, I hope for your sake it is just a message board persona
I actually disagree, because racists like him harped on about the grooming gang issues, it actually helped them continue. You have identified already those who were in power who were supposed to investigate these gangs were scared to do so because they would be called racist, why is that the case?Fact checking things said on here is not supporting.
He has said some racist thins which I would ever support nor welcome. Thereās no place for it and itās not my beliefs.
But I still feel he served an invaluable purpose in bringing to light the grooming gang issue. He canāt 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 āall Muslims are peadophiles and terrorists agendaā. Are you trying to suggest by putting it in inverted commas that youāre quoting his words? He hasnāt said that.
He acts before thinking and canāt control himself as proved on many occasions when charged for assault etc.
But despite that and despite all his words spoken over the years, heās never been charged or convicted with racism or race crime offences. Sorry if you think thatās supporting him. But itās the truth. Please stick to the facts. If he is so bad you donāt need to make him seem worse by exaggerating.
I actually disagree, because racists like him harped on about the grooming gang issues, it actually helped them continue. You have identified already those who were in power who were supposed to investigate these gangs were scared to do so because they would be called racist, why is that the case?
Because racist groups like the EDL had been going on about them, even with little or no evidence, often made with hundreds of other racist claims which were almost always false. By making the grooming gangs a clear race issue, it made them a taboo subject which probably lead to them operating for much longer than they should have. Groups like the EDL enabled the dynamics that these gangs needed to survive.
I also think itās incredibly disrespectful to those who did the work out of genuine concern, such as Jayne Senior and Andrew Norfolk, to now be using this to defend a vile human like Tommy Robinson, who very nearly collapsed one of the cases because his ego was more important.
The work these two did had nothing to do with the EDL, and came about from their own findings and campaigning. The EDL didnāt āraise awarenessā of the issue to these two people, but the fact they had turned this into a racist issue meant that people like Jayne were ignored by officials, actually making her campaigning work harder.
Your position comes across to me as a bit of ābroken clock right twice a dayā mixed in with āHitler was a vegetarian so not so badā.
Thank god you didn't copy Malced in. Could be considered stalking. Rolls eyes.Tommy Robinson could have caused Huddersfield grooming trials to collapse and child rapists go free
āIf jurors get to know of this video, I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury,ā judge said before jailing Robinson in Maywww.independent.co.uk
Interesting headline which seems to take an opposite view.
Given the level of n
Thank god you didn't copy Malced in. Could be considered stalking. Rolls eyes.
Fair enough, but let's talk about the bigger picture.This is getting tedious. Thereās polarised opinions and I posted to give some balance. Iāve done that. Itās taking up too much of my time and itās not really worth my time to this extent.
The headline posted was superseded. There is later court rulings which concede he didnāt threaten that trial as he was reading out information which was already in the public domain. The judge quoted in the article acted in a rush to judgement in the day, having him arrested and sent down for 13 months without a trial within 5 hours of arrest. The appeal court found that his actions were wrong and the contempt aspects were unclear.
TR was freed on appeal but lost a later trail at which the case for contempt was represented as he breached many procedures of the court and breached reporting restrictions. You can be in contempt of court without risking the collapse of a trial. Anyway, the point is itās never as straightforward as the media headlines.
Getting back to balanced posting, the post earlier this morning basically blamed TR for grooming gangs ad infinitum. It only stopped short of a conspiracy theory that he is indeed āHā the Chief Groomer. Heās been pretending to be against grooming so he could covertly coordinate grooming gangs across the country. (To be fair, thatās probably a better ending to this saga than the Line of Duty ending).
Finally the ārolls eyesā comment would perhaps be a good addition to the jokes on the Bakerās Cyst thread.
Fair enough, but let's talk about the bigger picture.
My interpretation of the broader point that you are making is that 'YL is a decent fellow who is only trying to cast light on the problems of grooming gangs in our society'.
However, given his other criminal convictions and previously recorded actions I would say that it would be fairer to describe YL as someone who seeks to exploit the problem of grooming gangs to ferment racial hatred and to enrich himself personally. And when he was about to be exposed as enriching himself from this process he harassed and threatened the journalist who was about to publish the story. That is the reason why he has been given a banning order.
But if his motivation is to stir up racial hatred, then on balance I think that it would be better if he wasn't 'on the case'.Thatās not where Iām at. Iām saying heās far from a decent fellow.
But on balance itās better for the grooming gangs problem specifically, that he has been on the case. Thatās regardless of his motivations or any personal gain.
But if his motivation is to stir up racial hatred, then on balance I think that it would be better if he wasn't 'on the case'.