Sir Ralph

You didnt show the post becuase it isnt there. Where did I say I would be 'happy' for this. Good attempt at trying to twist your warped statement back onto me. your suggestion that reinstating the two child cap means I support the death of children is absolutely ludicrous, as highlighted by a few posters on here who took the piss out of you. If someone said that in normal society they would be laughed at. It may sound ok in your own little echo chamber but its BS. Can you send me another photo of your bookshelf?😆

The context was I talked about the rape gangs and that being his position. So you werent saying the grooming gang impact was 'perceived injury and injustice'?If thats not what you were referring to then fine.

I didnt say I would be happy to see them die. Point to where I said it. Its not mock outrage. I defy you to read about the grooming gangs and think that comparing that to the two child cap removal is ok.

Thats pretty disgusting to make a point about this. Gang rape and the two child cap removal are very different things. If you think otherwise your judgement is shit. Even more worryingly you also ignored my point about whether the grooming gang issue should be highlighted. I'll leave the ill informed gang to talk shit amongst themselves.

I said I agreed with some of what he said. So what. Do you think things like the grooming gangs scandal should be highlighted? If you dont agree with that I would say that is very, very worrying. Do you agree with him on this point?

At least I dont think that grooming gang rape is 'perceived injustice and injury'. Your words. You are well out of your depth on this subject.

He agreed with it. Putting aside semantics, its the same. Your statement is quite unbelievable. Maybe you think people who highlight rape gang issues are cunts. 'Perceived injustice and injury' - seriously fuck off. People that highlight young girls being targeted, hooked on drugs and raped in inexplicable ways have alternative agendas. Evidently another subject you know nothing about or otherwise you wouldnt make such stupid statements. Stop making ill informed statements when (self admittedly) you know nothing about this subject. Bye.

I hope you dont call people in front of you at petrol stations cunts then. Next time take a view based on evidence.

If you call someone a c bomb they probably are relevant as you have an opinion. Also, to hold an opinion on somebody like that I would do a bit more than read a single publication or listen to the BBC. I had a negative view on him as a whole from listening to the BBC and other mainstream media outlets which I trusted at the time. Then I listened to what he said years ago about the BBC's manipulative editing and the rape gang crisis (well before anyone else was talking about these things) and thought, actually maybe the guy has a point on some matters. It transpires he did. I didnt realise that his cousin got hooked on heroin and was used by the rape gangs which is why he started highlighting the issue. The guy got hammered for highlighting the rape gang issues by 'mainstream politicians' and now look. So I would more likely call the mainstream media and 'mainstream politicians' cunts for ignoring what he was saying on that matter and letting hundreds or thousands of kids be groomed and raped. It doesnt mean I agree or support everything he has ever said or done, but at least I formed my own view based on evidence in relation to specific matters.

Brilliant. So you havent formed your own view and are therefore ill informed to have such a strong opinion. If I was going to rattle off an opinion that strong about somebody, I would at least have listened to their view on matters. Unfortunately, this is the problem, people having very strong opinions about stuff they dont understand and havent looked into themselves.

Becuase you got taught about him extensively in history lessons at school and probably from TV programmes and that he killed 6 million Jews as a fact. You have assessed the true evidence on him which includes videos of Auschwitz, pictures of torture camps, gas chambers, etc and the accounts of hundreds of people who suffered under him. They are very different. How have you formed your very strong view of Tommy Robinson? Its a fair question.

Yes but I understand Gary Economics views becuase I have watched videos about him. I dont just put my fingers in my ears, call the guy a prick because Dave down the pub told me he is. I dont need to watch every single video of each person to form a view of them.

So how have you formed your strong opinion on him if you havent read anything?

No I read the Guardian articles. I agree I havent listened to your Gary Economics videos becuase they are long and I have actually listened to him talk about economics before. I therefore understand the guys stance and have taken my own independent view on him (not influencd by others)

Maybe I am a prick but people that refuse to actually read things for themselves and make their own minds up without taking the time have limited value in terms of their views. I've given you reasons as to my view (which you challenged) and now I'm the prick.

This is exactly the problem. Why havent you listened to him to form a view? You have just accepted what the BBC have told you and moved on. You may come to the conclusion that he is a racist or maybe you wont but at least take a view from your own experience. You probably should bearing in mind he is having an influence on politics. Just because you might disagree with someone you dont ignore them.

You can say that but you obviously havent read about the background and reasons of the founders of these organisations, so you havent engaged with the point I made, just ignored it. I suspect you have a shallow understanding of the background of these groups other than what you read in the Guardian. When the founders of these groups are self stated marxists or anarchists and some of the other objectives of these groups align with anarchist views (stop funding the police, that the current political system needs to be changed, among other matters), then I fail to see how this isnt a valid point. If there was a group of neo-nazis that started a group and said it was to back Donald Trump, for example, I think I would have my concerns about that.

Brilliant. Call me names because you disagree with me / dont understand, then go home with nothing to say when asked a question. You have entered into a discussion you have no idea about yourself. Another one line wonder on this forum. As i said before, you need to understand the people behind these groups and what their true political ideologies and objectives are. A very reasonable hypothesis is that groups founded by people who openly call themselves Marxists or are supported by Marxist organisations are likely to be radical left wing groups. But you wouldnt know about that because you dont understand the topic you have got involved in, ironically.

I use the word 'they' because I dont align myself with the radical left. I would suggest the use of that word is accurate. Should I use 'we'?! I would maybe recommend reading more about the people involved in this before calling me names. Its easy to find this stuff so maybe its you that doesnt understand the background to these groups. As I asked you before, what is the radical left then? The failure to crush other Left-wing extremists created Palestine Action The Truth About Black Lives Matter | The Heritage Foundation

And I'm the one who doesnt understand radical left. More recently they have tried to portray themselves as moderates but I suggest you read a few more articles about their original intentions.

See above. You explain what the radical left is then

I do understand what the radical left is. I'm referring to groups such as Antifa, Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter, Palestine Action, etc. The ideology of some of these extreme left wing groups has unfortunately filtered down into society nowadays and has influenced some. As I'm such a fuckwit you explain to me the types of groups that are radical left then? I didnt define the far right but its not what SOG refers to.

Glad to see you coming to the rescue of the radical left. I thought you were a moderate. Do you support the radical left? Fortunately they havent been in charge in many countries to be able to mess things up. The closest one is Maduro in Venezeula. North Korea is also a socialist state. Both doing a great job following the authoritarian concept of socialism! The point was about whether people have become more abusive over time - you have conflated two different matters. The examples I was given of the right being abusive was Joey Barton, threats to immigrants and of the rape of women apparently. Large portions of the radical left is are antisemitic, celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, tried to shut up people highlighting the issues with rape gangs (in fact they werent even radical left), trashed certain cities in the UK during the George Floyd riots....want me to continue. This is before we get onto mad theories around unconscious bias and gender affirming care which has been damaging also. Add to that they tend to have terrible haircuts.

I will when you make a well thought out point, rather than attacking people's character. I disagree with most people on here but at least understand the point they are making. I can't disagree with you because you have never made a point.