‘Can’t tell the difference between the fire and the firefighters’


Does Sadiq Khan think terrorism is ‘part and parcel’ of living in London now?  Bet he’d like a few kufir ‘uncle toms’ to shop any white supremacist they think is ‘radical’…maybe he has also changed his tune about Muslims who want to work with the government to prevent terrorism and won’t be labelling them ‘uncle toms’ as he has in the past. 


Who radicalised the Finsbury Park attacker?  That’s the big question…was it Nigel Farage, maybe Tommy Robinson or was it the Daily Mail…or perhaps no one, perhaps he was just sick and tired of seeing Muslims attacking British people on the streets of Britain, sick and tired of Muslims attacking his culture, his beliefs, his society and his women… and he snapped and decided his answer was a terrorist attack on random Muslims in the street.  He self-radicalised due to the actions of Muslims who want to impose Islam upon him by violence.

The BBC’s Nihal as usual is balanced and impartial as he blames Tommy Robinson for spreading hate and division as well as unnamed newspaper columnists.  Now here’s the paradox…Robinson is arguing against Islamic extremism and terrorism and is demanding government takes stronger action….Nihal says this is incitement to terrorism….as a comment on Guido says [Guido who we’ll come to soon enough]….

Can’t tell the difference between the fire and the firefighters… typical PC cuck attitude, I thought better of Guido.

Surely on Nihal’s own logic, Nihal himself is guilty of spreading hate and divison as he attacks Robinson…at least Robinson has a legitimate point…a point echoed by the ‘respectable’ ‘One Law For All’…who also campaign against Islam…Islam itself not just the ‘extremists’….however you don’t see Nihal demonising them….is it because Tommy Robinson is white and working class?  Nihal always comes across as a bitter, anti-white racist….he frequently rails against perceived racial slights on his show.  Here he is trailing for his show today…note he can’t even say Robinson’s name….



Then we have J.K. Rowling, another like Lily the Limpet who attaches herself to every leftie cause…guilt at all the money she makes probably…note how she gets a proper spanking in the comments including some rather inconvenient facts about a Muslim actor in one of her films attacked by her own family for dating a non-Muslim….




Then we get to Guido who tells some whacking great lies about Tommy Robinson taking two clips from two of his videos and making out he has encouraged non-Muslims to form anti-Muslim militias and has declared all Muslims to be ‘enemy combatants’.  The piece has over 1,200 comments so far…I’ll bet the vast, vast majority give Guido the kicking he deserves for his outrageous lying…

After Guido suggested this morning that “Tommy Robinson and Anjem Choudary  have a lot in common” people who should know better are defending Robinson as some kind of peace loving advocate of liberal democracy. Guido would suggest they look at these recent two videos for his “Rebel Media” channel. Here, Robinson talks about “cleaning out this Islamic problem“:

Phrased carefully for his viewers, saying the British public will form militias to do it. Who is it that has a history of organising the type of people obsessively concerned about these matters?

And here he describes normal British Muslims as “enemy combatants”:

No irony that a person who revells as he blogs under the name of a religious terrorist, Guido Fawkes, should be calling Robinson one.

Robinson in both cases was talking specifically about known Muslim extremists and those who clearly support them, complaining that they are freely allowed to live in the community and present a very real threat to Britain.  He says the politicians are failing us by not tackling the real problem and that this has led to what happened last night as people decide to take things into their own hands.  What Robinson is not saying is that we should do that…he is in fact urging the government to take action to prevent such ‘radicalisation’ of non-Muslims who see themselves and their society under attack almost daily.  The irony is that the BBC has long warned of the rise of the Far Right and they get applauded…Robinson does it and he gets attacked and told he should be locked up…the difference of course between him and the BBC is that Robinson tells you why the Far Right is able to get an audience and attract supporters…it lies in the policies of government and its failure to genuinely tackle the rise of radical, conservative Islam…in fact doing all it can it would seem to encourage it and prevent criticism of it as the dangerously failing experiment of mass Muslim immigration into Europe continues apace.  The BBC naturally does not tell you that awkward truth merely suggesting that the Far-Right are simply racists who have no rational reason to rise up against what they see as a threat….and of course there is no threat…it’s racist scaremongering by the Mail apparently.

Sometimes telling the truth is a revolutionary act in an age of universal deceit by politicians and the likes of the BBC…

“Those who manipulate this unseen element of [modern democracy] constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country… We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of… “

The aim of this invisible government is the conquest of us: of our political consciousness, our sense of the world, our ability to think independently, to separate truth from lies.

Here are the two videos…judge for yourself….they are emotional and strongly phrased but can you fault the thinking?  Note in the second video Robinson states he is stood next to a Muslim who agrees with him…


Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to ‘Can’t tell the difference between the fire and the firefighters’

  1. foxcote7822 says:

    Brilliant post-Alan absolutely nailed it


  2. Pounce says:

    Today has made me really angry about how the bBC promotes this leftwing idea that Islam can only be a religion of peace, and that Muslims in the UK are somehow the new jews. We had an incident where somebody allegedly drove into a load of people. The bBC which always affixes ‘allegedly’ to any terrorist act carried out by…Muslims hasn’t done so in this case. 1 Person died and it seems he didn’t die due to been hit by a van, but rather he died due to medical reasons, which is why he collapsed into the road just before the van came along and where so many people had rushed into the road in which to help him. But this isn’t why I am knocking this out.
    Last month 25 year old Akikul Islam was found guilty in London of driving into a crowd of Muslims (who just happened to be celebrating Eid with baseball bats, knives, bottles, fists and feet. He put a load into hospital some seriously. Where was the bBC outrage.
    Last night a man armed with an axe and a knife was arrested outside a TA (reserves centre) in Kidderminster. On friday a muslim looking fellow was tazered outside parliament whilst carrying a knife. In Paris a man drove into a police car and died. Inside the car was found an AK47, explosives, last week a Pakistani boy had his throat slit in London . In fact this past month has seen an average of 1 person (usually non-white) stabbed to death or shot in London every otherday.

    Yet for all of the above only one is deemed a hateful terrorist attack


  3. Adam83 says:

    “on random Muslims in the street”

    Of course the Finsbury Park mosque area is notorious and has been on the news over many years. Just for accuracy.


  4. maxincony says:

    Alan, 2012;

    [Breivik] expressed himself in what he felt was the only way left to him…murderous violence against, not Muslims, but the Establishment that refused him a choice and denied him a voice

    The BBC’s 5Live call-in was asking the question ‘What’s your reaction to Breivik’s 21 year sentence?’.

    Might it not have been more instructive to ask are Breivik’s views on immigration and Islam correct?

    Alan, 2017;

    …he was just sick and tired of seeing Muslims attacking British people on the streets of Britain, sick and tired of Muslims attacking his culture, his beliefs, his society and his women… He self-radicalised due to the actions of Muslims…

    So Alan;

    You are an appeaser of terrorists.

    And an apologist for terrorism.


    • taffman says:

      So Maxi , why do you post here ?


      • taffman says:

        Cat got your tongue Scott ?


        • Grant says:


          Poor Maxi, he just can’t see the difference. Sad character and no sense of humour and no examples of right-wing bias from the BBC. People like Maxi are just in a dead-end street leading nowhere. Sad, very sad .


          • Kaiser says:

            is it me or does maxi normally go dark when the words muslim and terrorist are under discussion


    • Alan says:

      How many years has Maxincony [under so many different names] tried to use that quote to claim it supports terrorism? And never once does he link to the actual post..because he knows that providing context will undermine his attempt to mislead people….who can read the post for themselves here….

      Mad, Bad and Dangerous To Know

      Maxincony does what the BBC does, labelling anyone who criticises Islam a right-wing extremist, and he links to Breivik to prove it…Breivik criticised Islam and then he killed a lot of people…ipso facto anyone who criticises Islam is a mass killer. Anyone who explains the thought process someone like Brevik went through, and it is fairly obvious to see, is also labelled by Maxincony as a supporter of Breivik’s mass murder.

      Curiously Maxincony does not apply the same ‘logic’ when I explain the thought process behind the radicalisation of Muslims…am I also a Muslim radical as well as an anti-Muslim Islamophobic radical? Only in Maxincony’s little head.

      ‘M’ doesn’t seem to get the idea of this site…to provide the context to illustrate why the BBC is biased and why that bias is dangerous as it shuts down debate that needs to happen…oddly Maxincony doesn’t quote this from the post…from Trevor Phillips…on the need to understand the motivations…by leaving the debate in the hands of violent extremists we allow them to drive its direction….

      ‘We cannot allow discussion of race and immigration forever to be seen as playing into the hands of extremists. The forty-year old shockwave of fear has gagged us all for too long.

      Our aim is the integrated society – one built on fairness, respect and dignity, confident in all aspects of its diversity.

      We need to start a new conversation about how we get there, a dialogue has to be guided not by fear, but by hope.’

      Maxincony is one of those ‘useful idiots’ who try to shut down debate, as he does here, by shouting ‘racist’ or ‘extremist’ at anyone who dares to speak about immigration or Islam…..but who is the extremist…who is it ultimately supporting the terrorist? It is you Maxincony by trying to silence their critics. You’re a bit of an idiot aren’t you?


      • maxincony says:


        How many years has Maxincony [under so many different names] tried to use that quote to claim it supports terrorism?


        I said that your are an apologist for terrorism.

        That is clear from your claim that; “the Establishment refused [Breivik] a choice and denied him a voice”.

        From your claim that an attack on Muslims leaving a Mosque was; “due to the actions of Muslims

        You suggest justifiable causes for terrorism.

        That makes you an apologist for terrorism.

        Anyone who explains the thought process someone like Brevik went through, and it is fairly obvious to see, is also labelled by Maxincony as a supporter of Breivik’s mass murder”.

        Except you didn’t – just “explain”, you said;

        Are [Breivik’s views] extreme, or mainstream? I would guess that the majority of British people hold similar views…

        You quoted several paragraphs of Breivik’s manifesto and suggested that the BBC should be debating if his views were correct.

        That makes you an appeaser of terrorists.

        As for the rest:

        Maxincony does what the BBC does, labelling anyone who criticises Islam a right-wing extremist

        Lie. I’ve done no such thing.

        ipso facto anyone who criticises Islam is a mass killer

        Lie. The only person I’ve ever seen making that claim is you, Alan.

        Maxincony is one of those ‘useful idiots’ who try to shut down debate, as he does here, by shouting ‘racist’ or ‘extremist’ at anyone who dares to speak about immigration or Islam…

        Lie. Posting an opinion you personally don’t like is not “shutting down debate”.

        who is it ultimately supporting the terrorist? It is you Maxincony by trying to silence their critics.”

        Critics? You’re a critic of terrorists??

        Lie. You just just showed your support for a terrorist by saying it was; “due to the actions of Muslims”.

        Not a single time in your post did you criticise the; “Finsbury Park attacker” (alternatively known as the terrorist murderer).

        Not one negative word about him





        • taffman says:

          Maxi why do you post here if it offends you? What is your motivation? You appear to have some fixation with Alan . Your energy and ranting would be better directed at Al Beeb . Thats why we post here .
          Why does it upset you so much ?
          Nothing from you in answer ?
          What is so difficult with that ?
          Zilch .


        • sanitycheck2 says:


          You are conflating reasons with excuses. They are materially different concepts.

          One cannot begin to solve a problem until (i) one accepts that there is a problem (ie., put an end to denial), (ii) identify and acknowledge what the problem/issue is, and (iii) the reasons that lie behind the problem/issue.

          It is important to understand actions and reactions, and the first step towards that process is assessing the reasons that lie behind the action, and the reasons that lie behind the reaction. So reasons assist understanding, they do not, or do not necessarily in and of themselves, amount to an excuse.

          So when someone sets out the reasons behind any act, one is not becoming an apologist for the act in question, unless and until that someone goes a step further, and states that the reasons is a valid excuse for the action.

          Thus for example, when someone commits a crime, the defence will often say that the accused was drunk or on drugs and hence not themselves as the time of the offence. This might be a reason behind the crime, but it does not in and of itself excuse the crime. Ditto, when someone commits sexual abuse, one frequently hears the defence claim that the accused was himself abused when he was young. Again, that may be a reason behind the crime, but it does not in and of itself excuse the crime.

          It is quite clear that Alan is simply seeking to identify the problem/issue and reasons leading up to it/lying behind it. It is quite clear that Alan is not acting as an apologist for terr0r, and it appears to me (and I may be wrong on this) that you are deliberately twisting facts and deliberately misconstruing statements for your own agenda and to to make a point.

          i have read a number of your comments and it is clear that you are not intellectually a fool, so it would appear that you must know that you are deliberately and willfully twisting and misconstruing what Alan has written, and what he stands for. I consider that you owe Alan an apology.


      • Broadcasting-on-Behalf-of-the-Caliphate says:

        Hi Alan, I think the BBC can best be understood as having a number of linked agendas and bias is just a product of those agendas. Having an agenda is more than just a bias – they seek to indoctrinate, persuade and suppress. Just take a look at the CBBC channel – which is aimed for 6 to 12 year olds – an age where children in general lack critical faculties. On the CBBC channel they describe the Finsbury Mosque attack as a case of Islamophobia and then they have a very detailed explanation for Islamophobia:

        But it is much more than this … it leaks into the actual television programmes for children too.

        As regards Maxincony, you can take him or leave him. Yes rebut where he makes personal accusations, but most here are intelligent enough to work things out for themselves. Personally I find Maxincony, fairly innocuous and unoriginal compared to what is found on the BBC itself and elsewhere.


  5. NCBBC says:

    Europe’s Elites Seem Determined to Commit Suicide by ‘Diversity’

    By Douglas Murray
    June 18, 2017 5:34 p.m. ET



    • sanitycheck2 says:

      The elites are not simply committing their own suicide, but, more significantly and more worryingly, they are taking down with them, the ordinary citizen. In essence the unaccountable elites are committing mass genocide of their own fellow citizens, or, at the very least, forcing their own citizens to a miserable life of servitude.


  6. Kaiser says:

    the question is “what is the happy ending” and are we sure that’s where the grand multi-cultural experiment is heading

    nobody ever in power ever seems to have asked the question, what if it doesnt work

    to put everyone at massive risk without ever even conducting a small scale experiment or even actually telling us the “advantages” or even that the experiment had started would to my eyes be tantamount to treason

    I dont blame these people for coming here , if i could go to somewhere and be guaranteed to be better off than in my third world shit hole i would do it

    if i could advocate for special treatment and be supported by the establishment i would do it

    if i got given a load of rights but no responsibility i would take them

    if my ahem prophet and community actually said its fine to rape 13year old locals, and there would be no come back because im entitled to do it , and i completely lacked any moral compass hey ho whats the problem

    if my new hosts would bend over backwards and make excuses for me i would probably be inclined to take the piss

    if everyone else was demonised and ostracised for complaining about me i would act with total impunity knowing i was untouchable

    If i could get all my mates and family in on the gravy train brilliant why not

    these things are simply human nature which any normal civilised society kicks out of us with a set of rules of expected behavior

    my only real concern would be killing the golden goose, but these arse holes arent even concerned with that

    THe real blame lies with the treasonous quislings who have sold us out for a few bags of silver

    sure blair got 50 to 100 million for it, but its surprising how cheaply the rest were bought

    our politicians have dug this hole for us and now dont have the guts to fix it or even admit it

    before we can rid ourselves of this problem we must rid ourselves of the people that caused the problem

    blair brown miliband corbyn cameron may clegg the only difference is the timescale of our own destruction


  7. StewGreen says:

    @Alan : Nihal is “Tommy Robinson”
    Before today I knew little about Nihal, but listening to him and then interacting with him on Twitter I found what a raving bigotted activist he is
    Seems he created “a demon called Tommy Robinson” in his mind and then started to behave like that demon
    ie classic projection.
    He’s obsessed, snarly sneering , tribal etc.
    At one point he says to me
    “I would not think all white people are bad because white people commit crimes because that would make me an idiot, are you an idiot?”
    … (see that nasty rhetorical trick of calling people an idiot)

    Now cos I know he is trying to equate a genetic group (ie white people) with a belief system-group (Muslims) I replied

    is this what you mean Nihal ?
    I would not think BeliefSystemXZ people are bad because XZpeople commit crimes

    I knew he couldn’t reply cos he often sneers at RightWingers as a group


  8. ID says:

    Leftists spent decades defending the Soviet Union, no matter what inhuman consequences the implementation of the doctrine of marxism-leninism had in the real world.
    Even today, leftists will praise Soviet communism as a “noble experiment”
    They have to invent all kinds of complex ad-hoc theories to explain why the “science of history” predicted the course of history so inadequately. Which system has actually collapsed “under its own contradictions”?
    They still think that by implementing the.same ideas, there will be different consequences in the real world.
    The same applies to islam. Implement islam and you might get ISIS, the communist analogue of North Korea, or Pol Pot’s paradise on earth or you might get some islamic republic, the communist analogue being the DDR or Cuba.
    In a strange volte-face, however, leftists conclude that the mass murders of hitlerite Germany are, uniquely, a direct consequence of the doctrines of national socialism. The ideas of national socialism are bad because they have bad consequences; the ideas of marxism-leninism are good even though they have equally bad consequences.

    The murder of jews by NSpeople flows from the doctrines of national socialism. National socialism sanctions jew murder
    The murder of jews by islampeople flows from the doctrines of islam, islam sanctions jew murder


  9. StewGreen says:

    Nihal seems callously unconcerned about Grooming gang victims ..#MetroBubbleword
    He tweeted

    followed by a fanboy tweeting
    ” India has provided the Uk with a huge amount.
    Only positive things have come from Indian migration to the Uk.
    To which my answer is

    callous NIhal see other POV
    “Bloody Indian-subcontinentals coming over here & creating 5,000 new British child rape victims
    Kept secret by BiasedBBC gatekeeping”


    • StewGreen says:

      NIhal seems like a fanatic activist campaigner ..& snarky
      He’s sent 50 Tweets since last night
      a lot seem to sneer at Tommy Robbinson/KTHopkins
      Would say he is a very divisive person.

      I spot 2 tricks his lot use
      #1 He has a trick of retweeting people who screenshot Non-Libmob tweets
      That is lying by omission, cos that stops people seeing the context of the original tweet
      #2 when you debunk them, they block you, thus you can’t see their new tweets and debunk them.
      (So I use 2 browsers, on the one I am not logged in I can see comments from people who blocked me)