Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To almost feel a shred of sympathy for Tommy Robinson

451 replies

lazyahzydaysofsummer · 02/08/2026 10:55

He did a debate against Oxford university students recently.

His entire argument was destroyed. Every single point. Even Jacob Rees Mogg had to comment on how stupid he was.

It’s exposed what he really is - an ignorant, uneducated man who is so gripped by fear caused by a misunderstanding of the world around him, and it’s almost made me feel sorry for him. People like him have been failed - by society, by the education system, and by the people around them.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
TemperanceWest · 02/08/2026 15:54

Shedmistress · 02/08/2026 15:49

The Be Kind Bridgade at their best today eh?

We should be kind to a corrupt, violent racist who shows no sign of changing for the better?

AlternativeView · 02/08/2026 15:54

TemperanceWest · 02/08/2026 15:40

I wouldn't call it panic @AlternativeView . More a expression of concern mainly from JRM. Obviously they thought Fox was going to show a copy of one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad.

Edited

Thanks, sorry I had a blind spot there.

I understand now

Whatevergoes2025 · 02/08/2026 15:55

SerendipityJane · 02/08/2026 11:34

Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and Fox were speaking in favour of the motion “This House believes the West is right to be suspicious of Islam”.

In the end, Robinson’s motion was defeated by 57 votes to 41.

Rather than crocodile tears for Yaxley Lennon, I would invest my energies into thinking about those 41 people who sided with the motion. There may be some complex nuanced thinking in their stance. Or not.

This is what I was wondering.

Sadly, it doesn’t seem he was ‘destroyed’ in the debate at all, or perhaps people held onto their beliefs regardless.

LeedsLoiner · 02/08/2026 15:57

Who’s Tommy Robinson?
His name is Steven Lennon, he holds an Irish passport and lives in Spain.
He’s a con man separating the gullible from their money.

AlternativeView · 02/08/2026 15:58

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 02/08/2026 15:20

People aren’t “taken to it” though.

It’s civil arbitration and you have to agree to it.

I think from a Google that there is a lot going on there actually

I just did a quick Google and it's thrown up the manchester bomber has three wives because the Sharia court let him

newberry · 02/08/2026 15:58

lazyahzydaysofsummer · 02/08/2026 10:55

He did a debate against Oxford university students recently.

His entire argument was destroyed. Every single point. Even Jacob Rees Mogg had to comment on how stupid he was.

It’s exposed what he really is - an ignorant, uneducated man who is so gripped by fear caused by a misunderstanding of the world around him, and it’s almost made me feel sorry for him. People like him have been failed - by society, by the education system, and by the people around them.

Tbf he was defeated 57 to 41... a defeat, yes, but hardly "destroyed". Clearly there are plenty of people still lapping up what he has to say. He'll be around a while yet 🙄

Downthedrainwithme · 02/08/2026 16:00

Wasn't that Oxford debate years ago or did he do another one?

I remember watching the old one and while I can't stand the guy and yes he's not as intelligent as most I feel I have to give him credit for at least being brave enough to stand up there and speak and be debated especially given the fact he was heavily intellectually outmatched.

Whatever you think of the guy and again I don't like him one bit, the fact he took part deserves at least some praise even if I find that hard to do.

TemperanceWest · 02/08/2026 16:02

Downthedrainwithme · 02/08/2026 16:00

Wasn't that Oxford debate years ago or did he do another one?

I remember watching the old one and while I can't stand the guy and yes he's not as intelligent as most I feel I have to give him credit for at least being brave enough to stand up there and speak and be debated especially given the fact he was heavily intellectually outmatched.

Whatever you think of the guy and again I don't like him one bit, the fact he took part deserves at least some praise even if I find that hard to do.

It is a new one.

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:02

Shedmistress · 02/08/2026 14:08

Why is there a need for any sharia courts in the UK?

Because Muslims need them to obtain religious approvals such as divorce.

Or are you proposing that Muslims not get a divorce if they want one?

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:05

AlternativeView · 02/08/2026 15:58

I think from a Google that there is a lot going on there actually

I just did a quick Google and it's thrown up the manchester bomber has three wives because the Sharia court let him

You don’t need a Sharia court’s approval for marriage, even a a second one etc.

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:05

AlternativeView · 02/08/2026 15:58

I think from a Google that there is a lot going on there actually

I just did a quick Google and it's thrown up the manchester bomber has three wives because the Sharia court let him

You don’t need a Sharia court’s approval for marriage, even a a second one etc.

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:05

AlternativeView · 02/08/2026 15:58

I think from a Google that there is a lot going on there actually

I just did a quick Google and it's thrown up the manchester bomber has three wives because the Sharia court let him

You don’t need a Sharia court’s approval for a religious marriage, even a a second one etc.

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:05

AlternativeView · 02/08/2026 15:58

I think from a Google that there is a lot going on there actually

I just did a quick Google and it's thrown up the manchester bomber has three wives because the Sharia court let him

You don’t need a Sharia court’s approval for a religious marriage, even a a second one etc.

Downthedrainwithme · 02/08/2026 16:06

TemperanceWest · 02/08/2026 16:02

It is a new one.

May have to look it up. My point still stands though I don't like the guy but as vile as he is it takes guts to walk into the proverbial lions den.

Gengha · 02/08/2026 16:07

YABU

he knows exactly what he’s doing ie whipping up other uneducated people into a frenzy of hate

Downthedrainwithme · 02/08/2026 16:09

Gengha · 02/08/2026 16:07

YABU

he knows exactly what he’s doing ie whipping up other uneducated people into a frenzy of hate

I agree totally when he's out on the street in his element with his so called "faithful" but Oxford university pretty much hostile territory to him and I doubt his devotees are taking time out to watch the debate tbh.

Sarahsduck · 02/08/2026 16:10

Southall Black sisters statement Sharia marriages where they welcomed a recent court decision on a Nikkah being void. They also explain women are pushed by the government towards religious guidance when divorcing. - Extract from the link I posted above for those who don’t like clicking on links.

We welcome the recent High Court decision in Akhter v Khan [2018] EWFC 54 in the UK, to declare that a Muslim marriage contract (nikkah) was ‘void’, rather than a ‘non-marriage’. Shabaz Khan had refused to divorce Nasreen Akhter on the grounds that they did not have a valid marriage registered under English law. This had the effect of keeping Nasreen Akhter in marital captivity and denying her legal rights under English family law.
The outcome means that Nasreen Akthar is entitled to seek a decree of nullity, and hopefully, to obtain financial relief against Shabaz Khan. Even though the decision turned on the specific facts of the case, it is nevertheless significant for women trapped in unregistered marriages and should be examined for its relevance to marital captivity, forced and child marriage.
The judgment does not recognise ‘Sharia’ laws as some in the media have misleadingly stated. It deals with the knotty problem of women who believe that they are married but find that they have an unrecognised religious marriage only. This case shows that they can turn to the formal legal system. In fact, the judgement deals a blow to those who justify the sharia ‘courts’ as the only recourse for women who have not registered their marriages.
Our research shows that the power and control of religious fundamentalist networks over Muslims has grown enormously over the last thirty years. This has led to a widespread belief that a civil marriage is not necessary, that women must have a divorce certificate issued by a Sharia ‘court’ in an apparent judicial procedure; and that they must get this ‘certificate’ even if they already have a civil divorce.
While the judgement is a step in the right direction, the government urgently needs to examine its own complicity in keeping religious fundamentalists in business. Sharia ‘courts’, have been actively tolerated in Britain by being given charitable status and treated as partners by the police and local councils. While the government rejected the recommendation of the sharia review headed by Mona Siddiqui for regulation of the sharia councils; it has quietly ensured the continuing power of religious courts.
The application form for a divorce (Form D8) actively encourages women to turn to religious bodies. It states ‘If you entered into a religious marriage as well as a civil marriage, these divorce proceedings may not dissolve the religious part of your marriage. It is important that you contact the relevant religious authority and seek further guidance if you are unsure.’
If the government is serious about gender equality and ending violence against women, why is it undermining the validity of a civil divorce under English law? Why is it pushing women towards religious courts? For decades, the civil divorce has been the valid certificate demanded by courts abroad, regardless of whether there is also a religious marriage such as a Sikh, Hindu or Muslim ceremony. This guidance undermines women’s rights and the recognition of divorces awarded by British courts.
We call on the government to immediately withdraw this guidance from the divorce application form; to address the lack of access to justice brought about by cuts to legal aid; to overhaul outdated marriage and divorce laws and to take active measures to end religious courts and their control over women’s lives.
Gita Sahgal, Director, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Yasmin Rehman, Women’s Rights Campaigner
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Afsana Lachaux, Women’s Rights Campaigner
Ahlam Akram, Founder, Basira
Amina Lone, Women’s Rights Campaigner
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian & Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation
Rahila Gupta, Writer
Rumana Hashem, Spokesperson, Community Women Against Abuse
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and Critical Sisters Director
Stephen Evans, Chief Executive Officer, National Secular Society

LeavingAtLast · 02/08/2026 16:12

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:02

Because Muslims need them to obtain religious approvals such as divorce.

Or are you proposing that Muslims not get a divorce if they want one?

Sharia courts are not needed for a legally recognised divorce. And they may not have enough oversight to ensure vulnerable people are protected. Parallel systems come with huge risk to women’s in particular, especially in closed communities which have not integrated with society as a whole.

Sarahsduck · 02/08/2026 16:13

Does anyone know if Form D8 still directs women towards a religious court?

nomas · 02/08/2026 16:14

LeavingAtLast · 02/08/2026 16:12

Sharia courts are not needed for a legally recognised divorce. And they may not have enough oversight to ensure vulnerable people are protected. Parallel systems come with huge risk to women’s in particular, especially in closed communities which have not integrated with society as a whole.

But Sharia courts are needed for an Islamic divorce. A woman can’t remarry without one.

Or are you asking Muslims to give up their faith?

And are you also calling for Jewish and Sikh religious courts to be scrapped?

BarrelofBeer · 02/08/2026 16:15

"People like him have been failed - by society, by the education system, and by the people around them."

He's 43 and has a couple of decades to educate himself.

You can't educate pork.

Sarahsduck · 02/08/2026 16:16

@LeavingAtLast exactly - Akther vs Khan 2018. I am not an expert but I followed that case at the time.

Womens rights charities are really concerned about religious legal systems operating in the U.K.

BarrelofBeer · 02/08/2026 16:18

"People like him have been failed - by society, by the education system, and by the people around them."

What's Laurence Fox's excuse? Born into a wealthy, educated, privileged family and attended Harrow (from which he was expelled).

Just wrong 'uns the pair of them.

Boomer55 · 02/08/2026 16:21

lazyahzydaysofsummer · 02/08/2026 10:55

He did a debate against Oxford university students recently.

His entire argument was destroyed. Every single point. Even Jacob Rees Mogg had to comment on how stupid he was.

It’s exposed what he really is - an ignorant, uneducated man who is so gripped by fear caused by a misunderstanding of the world around him, and it’s almost made me feel sorry for him. People like him have been failed - by society, by the education system, and by the people around them.

A wife beating, misogynistic, racist? Yeah my heat bleeds for him. 🙄