Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Unite the Kingdom - LWS/WRN

384 replies

Tooting33 · 17/05/2026 08:59

I am just wondering why Tommy Robinson is so appealing to a number of sex-realist women. Kellie Jay Keen spoke at the event. My local LWS group are fully supportive, as are the leaders of my local WRN groups.
Is anyone else finding it is harder to network with gender critical/sex realist women without them also being Reform/Restore/Tommy Robinson supporters?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
19
TooBigForMyBoots · Yesterday 18:09

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 06:54

Are they, all of them, most of the jobs you listed are self-employed jobs, are they all declaring their whole income, are they paying all the tax they should be, why would Muslims be so special.
If diversity is our strength then why are we in such a mess. If we need immigrants for the economy, why aren't we the richest nation, considering the millions of immigrants we have, why isn't our economy booming, why aren't we the envy of the world.
So many questions.

Do you have evidence that Muslims are more likely to cheat the system than Christians, atheists etc?

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 18:31

TriesNotToBeCynical · Yesterday 15:19

We've been happy to let orthodox Jews operate similar courts for many years to adjudicate on family and financial affairs. And various Christian groups to forbid remarriage after divorce. And along with the Muslim courts none of these are allowed to make decisions for children without involvement of the official Family Court. I am not sure why we should want to forbid these things just to intimidate Muslims.

Nobody is trying to ‘intimidate Muslims’ for a start. But if it makes you happy we’ve been saying “no parallel legal systems” - for anyone. Abuse of the system by people like the Imam caught marrying underage girls will spoil it for all.

The main difference with whatever arrangements Jews and random Christian groups have and the Sharia courts is intention and volume.

Orthodox Jews and niche Christian groups are teeny tiny in number. Muslims already represent 6% of the population that we know of and since that count many more have arrived or been born here.

The difference in intention is stated by many Muslim leaders both in this country and abroad. Islam is a religious, political, social and military framework. The aim of some proponents of Islam is to either convert, subjugate or kill any non Muslim. In countries where the extreme Islamists have gained power, sharia law is comprehensive and brutal. We already have British MPs who are pushing for sharia law to be broadened here.

After the next election there will be more such MPs as Muslim communities have an extremely high turnout (and according to the independent monitor are more likely to commit electoral fraud). The tipping point is almost here.

Some Muslims with those views live here and preach hatred and conquest in their mosques. Unfortunately there are few consequences as our authorities turn a blind eye for ‘community cohesion’ purposes.

The Muslims with extreme views are exactly the people that some other Muslims came here to get away from but no one seems bothered about them. Maybe they are not shouting loud enough or aggrieved enough?

I don’t know why so many people dismiss the stated aims of the extremists as impossible and mock those who highlight it. I think it is the height of arrogance, mainly on the part of the left. It’s not like they haven’t already been successful in many formerly free Christian or moderate Muslim countries. Many in power here are currently enabling these people and suppressing dissent.

I keep hearing foreign commentators observing the many ridiculous situations (like us providing a little London crash pad aka council house for Sierra Leone’s First Lady) and saying that we are monumentally stupid.

I’d be inclined to agree.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 19:04

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 18:31

Nobody is trying to ‘intimidate Muslims’ for a start. But if it makes you happy we’ve been saying “no parallel legal systems” - for anyone. Abuse of the system by people like the Imam caught marrying underage girls will spoil it for all.

The main difference with whatever arrangements Jews and random Christian groups have and the Sharia courts is intention and volume.

Orthodox Jews and niche Christian groups are teeny tiny in number. Muslims already represent 6% of the population that we know of and since that count many more have arrived or been born here.

The difference in intention is stated by many Muslim leaders both in this country and abroad. Islam is a religious, political, social and military framework. The aim of some proponents of Islam is to either convert, subjugate or kill any non Muslim. In countries where the extreme Islamists have gained power, sharia law is comprehensive and brutal. We already have British MPs who are pushing for sharia law to be broadened here.

After the next election there will be more such MPs as Muslim communities have an extremely high turnout (and according to the independent monitor are more likely to commit electoral fraud). The tipping point is almost here.

Some Muslims with those views live here and preach hatred and conquest in their mosques. Unfortunately there are few consequences as our authorities turn a blind eye for ‘community cohesion’ purposes.

The Muslims with extreme views are exactly the people that some other Muslims came here to get away from but no one seems bothered about them. Maybe they are not shouting loud enough or aggrieved enough?

I don’t know why so many people dismiss the stated aims of the extremists as impossible and mock those who highlight it. I think it is the height of arrogance, mainly on the part of the left. It’s not like they haven’t already been successful in many formerly free Christian or moderate Muslim countries. Many in power here are currently enabling these people and suppressing dissent.

I keep hearing foreign commentators observing the many ridiculous situations (like us providing a little London crash pad aka council house for Sierra Leone’s First Lady) and saying that we are monumentally stupid.

I’d be inclined to agree.

We weren’t monumentally stupid to provide asylum to a teenage girl fleeing a forced marriage. There are certainly questions to be asked about Bio’s continued tenancy, but that seems to be how council’s monitor tenancies when the rent is being paid.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · Yesterday 19:07

TooBigForMyBoots · Yesterday 18:09

Do you have evidence that Muslims are more likely to cheat the system than Christians, atheists etc?

I didn't say they were more but just as likely, why do you have evidence that they're not like others.

TriesNotToBeCynical · Yesterday 19:14

Pingponghavoc · Yesterday 16:54

The idea that the Jewish and Christians don't get any criticism for their practices is a little hard to say with a straight face.

Edited

Criticising them is a bit different from making laws against them. I am happy to criticise all religions, but I wouldn't support making them illegal.

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:08

BackToLurk · Yesterday 19:04

We weren’t monumentally stupid to provide asylum to a teenage girl fleeing a forced marriage. There are certainly questions to be asked about Bio’s continued tenancy, but that seems to be how council’s monitor tenancies when the rent is being paid.

I didn’t say we were.

We are monumentally stupid to allow a woman of foreign nationality with assets of £millions and a presidential palace to live in to keep a council house which she reportedly hasn’t even used for 3 years.

TriesNotToBeCynical · Yesterday 22:24

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:08

I didn’t say we were.

We are monumentally stupid to allow a woman of foreign nationality with assets of £millions and a presidential palace to live in to keep a council house which she reportedly hasn’t even used for 3 years.

Indeed stupid; but the foreign nationality is pretty well irrelevant to the stupidity.

TriesNotToBeCynical · Yesterday 22:28

TriesNotToBeCynical · Yesterday 22:24

Indeed stupid; but the foreign nationality is pretty well irrelevant to the stupidity.

And she might well have bought the flat; in which case blame Thatcher.

BackToLurk · Yesterday 22:28

CornishDaughteroftheDawn · Yesterday 22:08

I didn’t say we were.

We are monumentally stupid to allow a woman of foreign nationality with assets of £millions and a presidential palace to live in to keep a council house which she reportedly hasn’t even used for 3 years.

But it was the granting of asylum that has led to the subsequent situation. Bio came to the U.K. made a life here. Had children here, who are British citizens. There have been some reports that Bio also holds a British passport.

There are debates to be had around council tenancy, and it certainly seems true that the home isn’t Bio’s primary residence and so she isn’t entitled to retain the tenancy.

You seem to be conflating several issues so you can complain about ‘foreigners’.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread