AIBU to ask what views of TR people object to?

I don’t get your point. I am not talking about “TRAs”.
I am talking about thise who claimed they can see why Yaxley-Lennon whipped up his followers against a rape crisis centre because it “suggests white women don’t matter”.

It does not suggest that remotely and Yaxley-Lennon knows that. But is so blinded by his sense of victimhood and hatred of the “other” he caused actions that would have made it harder for women to access a service they needed.

What part of being a fascist thug is likeable?

This is a post from TRs X account. What do you think the intention is behind his posting of this video?
https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2085148045084065918?s=46

Note - he gives no context as to why these people are there in large numbers or wearing veils, including young children. Unsurprisingly loads of others have shared it, again with no context.

The context of an image is important. This isn’t everyday in downtown Dearborn, Michigan as TR would have people believe. It’s a yearly historical reenactment of a procession women and children were forced to make after a battle at Karbala. They remember a 3-4 year old girl who died, imprisoned after being forced to sleep with her father’s severed head when she didn’t stop crying. That is why the women and children are dressed this way and why they are upset - they show their grief in slapping their head and body.

The battle resulted in the death of the grandson of prophet Mohammed who had refused to submit to an Islamic leader. The girl mentioned above was his daughter.

The event”s message isn’t one of anger or retribution though. It is one of peace and that everyone should be treated with love and respect. Now I wonder why TR didn’t include that in his posting?

He is just a vile man.

Feel like I need a shower after reading this thread - SYL makes my skin crawl.

I'm not here to provide evidence for any of what I say, because I'm not here to waste time refuting the wilful ignorance of a minority of people who clearly already have too much time on their hands.

• Stephen Yaxley Lennon is a Russian Zionist asset, funded by questionable streams including US tech billionaires (Robert Shillman and the Musk Foundation).
• SYL's fundamental purpose is to spread anti-Islam hatred on behalf of his paymasters.
• SYL is a massive cokehead and currently pretending that ADHD and PTSD are causing him to act like a raging cokehead.
• SYL has created a cult and he heavily relies on grifting donations from the lesser educated people he has manipulated, to fund his coke and gambling addictions.
• SYL pretended to divorce his wife so that he could hide his assets and declare himself bankrupt. That meant that he did not pay the innocent Syrian teenager he destroyed the life of the money he was awarded at Court.
• SYL will say whatever he is paid to say, which is why he will change his tune according to who is backing him financially.
• SYL is a manipulative creep with a long criminal history.
• SYL is still squaring up to people at airports and train stations threatening to knock them out if they say the slightest critical thing against him but of course this is nothing to do with him being coked up to the eyeballs at all times.
• SYL has surrounded himself with friends who have convictions for child abuse, violence towards women and a litany of other things. He isn't interested in that because they aren't Muslim (except for Andrew Tate, who isn't Muslim either except for him saying it. SYL protected Andrew Tate when he assaulted Lauren Southern in their hotel - which is fine because they were old friends).
• SYL is facing trial later this year for harassing journalists.

That's without repeating the things said upthread.

ChatGPT might not have a source, but this does, claiming it's from a tweet he posted on the 20th June 2012.

https://tellmamauk.org/surprise-surprise-the-tommy-robinson-rehabilitation-not-going-too-well/

Yes, but if they weren't racialised crimes, he would be doing his damnedest to get the perpetrators released. Personally, I believe those crimes are horrific regardless of the colour/religion/whatever of the pondscum who commits them.

hopenothate.org.uk/2022/01/11/tommy-robinson-is-a-hypocrite-when-it-comes-to-opposing-child-sexual-exploitation/

You crack on defending him and his ilk. Says a lot about you.

He likes nonces. He just doesn't like brown ones.

This is a perfect example of how this is going. He didn't say the time-bomb thing. Or at least there is no evidence - and if he had then there would wouldn't there?

CHat says -
'The phrase "Muslim babies are ticking time bombs" is widely attributed to Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon), but it is surprisingly difficult to trace to a full video or transcript.
Based on the available evidence:
The quote has been cited for years by anti-racism organisations, including a Stand Up To Racism factsheet, which states that Robinson "once described Muslim babies as 'time bombs'."
Journalists and fact-checking sites also refer to the remark as part of his record of public statements.
It is frequently repeated in discussions of his rhetoric, but many of those references ultimately point back to campaign organisations rather than an original recording.
When and where?
I couldn't verify an original source that definitively identifies:
the exact date,
the location, or
the speech or interview in which he said it.
Most references place it during his time as leader of the English Defence League, so it would have been roughly between 2009 and 2013, but I can't say more precisely based on verifiable evidence.
If you're trying to use the quote in an article or debate, I'd recommend being careful with the wording. A more accurate formulation would be:
"Tommy Robinson has been widely reported as having described Muslim babies as 'ticking time bombs', although I have not been able to verify the original recording or transcript of the remark."
That distinguishes between a quotation that is widely attributed to him and one whose original source has been conclusively identified.
If you'd like, I can also try to trace the earliest known publication that attributes the quote to him, which may help establish where the attribution first appeared.'

Literally every claim people are saying is just repeated from other sources over and over again. Unsubstantiated. Im bored now, but clearly a lot of this is a load of nonsense and you just can't get at the real truth. I dont trust any of it.

PS: Andrew Golds Heretics interview with TR is pretty good for anyone whose interested.

Yeh I definately believe in freedom of speech, I vehemently don't believe in #nodebate - which is where I think this subject is going. Not just with TR but anything that questions islam.

Im actually really interested in what you said here - I also don’t agree with the sentiment behind what he spouts, because I don’t think it’s genuine. I think it’s all a not particularly discreet way of grifting money off genuine people.
Its something Im wondering myself - if its genuine or if its grifting. That matters to me. I mean KJK does a far amount of that with her store, but I can accept that she needs to pay the bills to do the amazing work she does. Maybe thats him to, Im not sure, I imagine he generates an enormous amount of cash for what he does so that makes me wonder. Could you talk more about why you think that? I didn't like at the end of his Silenced documentary he asked for funds for his family to support them - not the cause - but his family. This doesnt sit right with me.

For me, and many won't agree, being a convicted criminal doesnt matter that much to me. Unless its rape or CSA or murder, I would reserve judgement on that. For me there are different levels of crime that would put me off a person completely. For some its any crime and I respect that view.

He’s also a convicted football hooligan, which in my eyes, even without being a racist grifter makes him absolute scum

He’s called Muslim babies ‘time bombs’ he supports Andrew Tate, he was a member of the BNP Which grew out of the nazi National Front, 2 of his BNP colleagues had child abuse/ image convictions ….. is that enough?

How do you know its spot on? I thought you were all "Tommy who...? please tell me more about this man I only know of for his work protecting women and girls...."
You've gone some to have attended a rally in the 15 minutes between your posts.

@seanconneryseyebrow

Well no, because I don’t think he just handles things badly - I know he’s a convicted criminal.

I also don’t agree with the sentiment behind what he spouts, because I don’t think it’s genuine. I think it’s all a not particularly discreet way of grifting money off genuine people.

And the thing is, I’m perfectly entitled to think and say that.

Unless of course you actually don’t believe in freedom of speech?

Ok, you want dates and specifics, here you are then.

Tommy Robinson founded the English Defence League (EDL) in 2009, a far right organisation that holds anti-Muslim demonstrations preaches rhetoric such arguing that Islam poses a fundamental threat to Britain, often using language that blurs the distinction between Islamist extremism and Muslims generally. The EDL’s demonstrations have created an atmosphere of hostility towards Muslim communities and are associated with violent thuggery. Which brings us on to
2011 and Robinsons public order convictions. He was convicted for threatening and abusive or behaviour after a football-related altercation and around this time EDL protests also became increasingly intimidating and confrontational under his leadership. What a Prince among men.

In 2013 Tommy two names got some PR advice and announced he was leaving the EDL saying he wanted to move away from the organisations culture of extremism and violence...the culture that was cultivated under his leadership 🙄 This was, of course, bullshit. He joined PEGIDA, a far-right islamaphobic organisation who are known for preaching hate about Muslims, claiming Europe is being "islamised" and blaming all Musilims collectively for the actions of Islamic extremist terrorists.

At the Oxford Union in 2014, he gave a speech suggesting that Muslims as a group were responsible for crimes committed by individuals.
Despite trying to rehabilitate his public image through TV appareances etc Robinson continued to spout this hateful nonsense at every opportunity.

In 2017 he appeared on TV holding a Qur’an and made numerous false and inflammatory claims about Islam and violence, essentially exploiting a terror attack to demonise an entire religion and it's people.

In 2018 he clearly felt he wasn't getting enough attention so he chose to livestream from outside a criminal trial involving defendants accused of sexual offences. He was convicted of contempt of court because his actions risked prejudicing the entire trial process. Like the opportunist he is, he exploited the victims suffering for publicity and to suit his own agenda, not giving a shiny shit if his desperate bid for social media clout caused the whole trial to collapse.

Between 2019 and 2023 Robinson was banned from several major social media platforms after repeated breaches of rules relating to hate speech and hateful extremist content. If you want to read the specific comments he made that led to him being banned it's all very easily available with a quick google search.

Around the same time Robinson made false allegations about a Syrian refugee schoolboy after a widely reported school bullying incident. The allegations led to legal action, and Robinson was later found to have breached an injunction preventing him from repeating his defamatory claims. The court found his breach was deliberate and he was later imprisoned for contempt. Exploiting a vulnerable child to further his own racist agenda in the name of "free speech"...again.

Throughout 2024 he continued organising rallies and online campaigns spreading hate and misinformation about immigrants, asylum seekers and Islam. His messaging frequently used themes associated with far-right movements, particularly ideas about national decline and demographic change that links very strongly with "the Great Replacement Theory" which is, quite frankly, terrifying.

In 2025 he organised a major London rally under the “Unite the Kingdom” banner. Reports described it as one of the largest recent right-wing demonstrations in Britain, with counter-protests, and violent clashes. Large numbers of racists gathered to hear speakers demanding mass-deportations, calling for the banning of mosques and temples, and spouting hateful rhetoric about how black and brown immigrants present a unique threat to white British Women. Robinson calls it "free speech" but any reasonable person calls it what it is. Elon Musk even appeared in a video message at the Unite The Kingdom rally telling protesters "you either fight back or you die". If that's not inciting violence I don't know what is.

Is any of that specific enough for you, OP? Am I allowed to dislike him now? I know you said you don't like the words "bigot" and "fascist" but I think they're a pretty fair summation.

Well because its more nuanced than that. I don't agree with the way KJK is going around parks and telling muslim women with burquas - in front of their husbands and kids - that they don't have to wear those, that they can take them off, that he isn't so why should they. I dont think its the right way to deal with it, in my view, but I understand why. I love so much of her work, but some just doesnt sit right with me. I wear her 'terf' and 'woman' tshirts with pride - i wouldnt wear the union jack ones. I dont like flags. I understand why she does that though I just don't agree its the right way to handle it, but I could be wrong. Maybe shes just braver than me. Regardless, there is a big difference between, 'this man is an evil, racist, homophobic, nazi scum to be utterly hated' to 'I dont think some things he has handled the right way, he could have dealt with that better, but I agree with the sentiment behind it/or I understand why he feels that way'. Can you not see the difference?

I dont see evidence of a vile evil man, no.

No people were asked why they don't like him. People gave reasons. He does tell lies. He told lies about the Syrian boy and about the grandfather. I don't hate him, I just dislike him intently. But I'm out now because the conversation is just
"Why don't people like him"
Reasons
"I agree that's really bad. I never said I approved of that. But I don't see why people don't like him"

The short answer from me is I dislike him because I am judging him on his words and actions. I'm sure that's true of most of his detractors and TBF that's the most any of us can hope for. You are free to have your own opinios as everyone is. But don't pretend people can't/won't answer the question.

I didnt say 'ah well thats just the way it works now'. I said I have a real problem with it. SYL tweeted angrily because he thought people didnt care about white women - without looking at the reasons behind why the service was there. That was wrong. I will say that - again.
The grandad thing was wrong - i will say that again.
The Syrian child - well I think there is a lot more to that story tbh.
SYL didnt harrass the rape centre online and tell lies about them to cause trouble. He essentially said, 'why arent they servicing white women too?' . Thats what he is guilty of. He didnt tell lies did he? He shone a light on what he thought was unfair.

I will get told again im being disenguous, islamophic, transphobic, noncey, and proably eat babies and kick puppies. I just want to get at the truth really. I dont trust the media, courts, councils the government much any more tbh. I dont like witch hunts and this seems like that, and people don't really want the truth. You and others on here are hellbent on hating him and aren't open to any other possible narrative.

Another example of TR's behaviour. Trying to spread false information to weaponise the death of a little girl.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/05/man-charged-girl-death-arbroath-scotland

No
The root of it is that SYL tweeted angrily about it to his followers and accused them of not caring about white women
The same reason that the grandad out playing with his stepgrandkids was harassed.
The same reason a Syrian child was harassed.

There's no evidence that SYLs follower who harassed the centre were motivated by the "madness of modern ideology". They were specifically motivated by him. Just sighing and saying "ah well that's just the way it works now" is nonsense. If I harass someone online and tell lies about them to cause as much trouble a s possible I am responsible for that personally.

Im blaming the madness of modern ideology that insists everyone must be 'inclusive' otherwise they are 'bad'. Thats what led to the rape crisis centre issue. SYL was wrong for doing that. Ive said that multiple times. But the root of it - just like the TRA's wanting to be included in breastfeeding circles, and mens right activists getting upset they dont have their own DV centres - is the madness and obsession of inclusivity at all costs. No dedicated groups allowed anymore.

And yet,
When SYL does it, it's brushed under the carpet (or you blame the centre) and the only reason people can have for not liking him is that he's "working class" (he's not working class he's a very rich youtuber).
Even if you put all the other stuff aside, the fact he effectively orchestrated a mass harassment of a rape crisis centre by his followers is enough for me to dislike him. Then there's all the other stuff too.

Watch it again

The “undercover evidence” includes what he claims to be evidence of payoffs to shut up teachers.
However the FOI screenshot that he displays contradicts the words that come out of his mouth
The amount shown covers all forms of ex-gratia payments across that council, but he claims that it is purely hush money for that school. He even points out that the teacher he spoke to was not involved at all.

In the actual libel court case the evidence presented was subject to cross examination and found to be contradicted - witness statements contradicted each other and documented records contradicted statements

It should also be noted that Stephens opening plea in the libel case was to confirm that his livestreams were based on lies, and his libel defence was that he was repeating what he had been told - that is not a defence to libel, ((((((He actually live-streamed before the case saying that it was all lies that he had been told, but that didn’t stop the case))))
Throughout the case he kept changing his defence, and after losing the case produced his “documentary” repeating the libel

There had been a fight between two boys
(By total co-incidence one of the boys happens to be the brother of one of his EDL buddies / cocaine smuggler)

Tommy live-streamed twice, saying that the Asian boy deserved it and libeled the boy on the following points : (and subsequently produced his “documentary” repeating this libel plus alleging a conspiracy against him

(1) that the Claimant had, as part of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl which had caused her significant
injuries
(2) that the Claimant had threatened to stab another child;
(3) that the Claimant had bullied a child
(4) that the Claimant had behaved in an aggressive and bullying manner towards girls and women;
(5) that the Claimant had a propensity towards using or making threats of violence against other pupils at Almondbury Community School; and/or
(6) that the Claimant had attacked and injured a pupil at Allmondbury Community School with a hockey stick.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/HM-Solicitor-General-v-Yaxley-Lennon-Judgment.pdf

You got me! Im a secret nonce.

For someone with 'no skin in the game' you sure are going to some lengths to defend convicted criminal and known paedophile sympathiser.

Maybe you should use your superior critical thinking skills to examine why that might be 🤔