Stephen Yaxley-Lennon

Rory the tiger said:
You seem a confused individual, I hope for your sake it is just a message board persona šŸ‘šŸ»
Click to expand...
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.
 
Malced said:
Fact checking things said on here is not supporting.
He has said some racist thins which I would ever support nor welcome. Thereā€™s no place for it and itā€™s not my beliefs.
But I still feel he served an invaluable purpose in bringing to light the grooming gang issue. He canā€™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 ā€˜all Muslims are peadophiles and terrorists agendaā€™. Are you trying to suggest by putting it in inverted commas that youā€™re quoting his words? He hasnā€™t said that.

He acts before thinking and canā€™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, heā€™s never been charged or convicted with racism or race crime offences. Sorry if you think thatā€™s supporting him. But itā€™s the truth. Please stick to the facts. If he is so bad you donā€™t need to make him seem worse by exaggerating.
Click to expand...
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 itā€™s 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 didnā€™t ā€˜raise 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 ā€œbroken clock right twice a dayā€ mixed in with ā€œHitler was a vegetarian so not so badā€.
 
BWseasider said:
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 itā€™s 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 didnā€™t ā€˜raise 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 ā€œbroken clock right twice a dayā€ mixed in with ā€œHitler was a vegetarian so not so badā€.
Click to expand...

Thatā€™s a bit of desperate scraping the barrel in my opinion. A very tenuous link that somehow TR shouting about grooming gangs allowed grooming gangs to prosper. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

The reports show the culture of fear existed systemically across many organisations for decades. Yet this was lol because of TR and his merry band. Youā€™re not just overstating his impact but youā€™re making a completely unsubstantiated and unjustified quantum leap.

Maybe you want to reply to an earlier poster who said TR had nothing to do with exposing grooming gangs cos they already been exposed.

By the way, he didnā€™t nearly collapse a trial. He reported on the case after it had reached the stage where they jury were considering a verdict. Thatā€™s legal and what the media and reporters can do. That canā€™t possibly cause a trial tk collapse. He didnā€™t cause a trial to collapse. If he did I would condemn it. But letā€™s condemn people for what theyā€™ve done not what youā€™ve invented. Heā€™s got a big enough list of convictions for you to go at without adding on your ā€˜almostā€™ offence and without you blaming him for the whole grooming gang problem persisting for decades.
 
Anyway Iā€™m bored with this now. I wonā€™t be replying to anymore messages on this thread. Itā€™s clearly not a productive conversation.

Anymore messages for me will be considered to be stalking.
 
Last edited:
southshorepool said:
Given the level of n

Thank god you didn't copy Malced in. Could be considered stalking. Rolls eyes.
Click to expand...

This is getting tedious. Thereā€™s polarised opinions and I posted to give some balance. Iā€™ve done that. Itā€™s taking up too much of my time and itā€™s not really worth my time to this extent.

The headline posted was superseded. There is later court rulings which concede he didnā€™t 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 itā€™s 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 ā€˜Hā€™ the Chief Groomer. Heā€™s been pretending to be against grooming so he could covertly coordinate grooming gangs across the country. (To be fair, thatā€™s probably a better ending to this saga than the Line of Duty ending).

Finally the ā€˜rolls eyesā€™ comment would perhaps be a good addition to the jokes on the Bakerā€™s Cyst thread. šŸ¤Ŗ
 
Malced said:
This is getting tedious. Thereā€™s polarised opinions and I posted to give some balance. Iā€™ve done that. Itā€™s taking up too much of my time and itā€™s not really worth my time to this extent.

The headline posted was superseded. There is later court rulings which concede he didnā€™t 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 itā€™s 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 ā€˜Hā€™ the Chief Groomer. Heā€™s been pretending to be against grooming so he could covertly coordinate grooming gangs across the country. (To be fair, thatā€™s probably a better ending to this saga than the Line of Duty ending).

Finally the ā€˜rolls eyesā€™ comment would perhaps be a good addition to the jokes on the Bakerā€™s Cyst thread. šŸ¤Ŗ
Click to expand...
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.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thatā€™s not where Iā€™m at. Iā€™m saying heā€™s far from a decent fellow.

But on balance itā€™s better for the grooming gangs problem specifically, that he has been on the case. Thatā€™s regardless of his motivations or any personal gain.
 
Malced said:
Thatā€™s not where Iā€™m at. Iā€™m saying heā€™s far from a decent fellow.

But on balance itā€™s better for the grooming gangs problem specifically, that he has been on the case. Thatā€™s regardless of his motivations or any personal gain.
Click to expand...
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'.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
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'.
Click to expand...


He shouldnā€™t have needed to be a prominent voice on this issue. We can agree on that Iā€™d expect.

But circumstances meant he did become a voice for those frustrated at the inaction by authorities.

In my opinion his motivations are secondary to outcomes. Undoubtedly there would be increased racial tensions caused by anyone calling out a community for their perceived behavioural problems with respect to grooming gangs.

Those racial tensions and offence caused will indeed have been greater than they should have been, given that it was him that spoke up, due his blunt approach and perceived motivations.

But itā€™s better someone made a nuisance of themselves rather than the historical status quo of silence and looking the other way.

As Iā€™ve said, he canā€™t take full credit, but heā€™s definitely made a difference in exposing the grooming gang problem and busting through the taboo subject nature of this. Thatā€™s then made it much easier for officials to engage and itā€™s highly likely theyā€™ve been embarrassed into acting too.

Iā€™d rather this problem didnā€™t exist. Iā€™d rather he wasnā€™t the mouthpiece over many years. I donā€™t agree with his modus operandi but Iā€™m glad heā€™s spoken up regardless.

Thereā€™s many families who had no one else to turn to. So they latched onto him as did many wrong uns. But what a sad state of affairs when victims and their families had no one else fighting their corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top