It's called swerving wissy.
Or not having an answer without in some way being in agreement. Which would make you feel like a member of the KKK as you probably think I am.
Check my question on the families and see if you can be honest with the answer.

That is the whole point of the thread. You can answer what you like but it would be a pretty short thread if everyone just gave their opinion on Robinson and no other issues surrounding what he was doing.
You would just post some kinder version of 'tosser'; other people might post 'decent guy': both would be pretty meaningless and, frankly, irrelevant.
The entire reason that Robinson has the bias against him is because he hasn't let the grooming gang issue just die away like the government want it to.
It came to public attention largely through him. The state and the state media failed, as plenty have pointed out.
The problem is widespread, more than the government wants you to know. There have been several Muslim grooming gangs found since and several under investigation. No doubt, there are several simply getting away with it whilst social services and police play a game of let's see who is the most tolerant. Let's not look racist.
So, once again, entirely the issue.
Robinson jailed, peodos doing their thing with impunity. Yet you state that the law is wholly correct.

I've already explained why it's not whatsadoodle or whatsaboutism or whatever. I trust most can see it. I can also see that your position has slightly shifted a couple of times so you seem a decent, reasonable person.

Thanks for the compliment. I doubt though that most will see it. Maybe on here, but generally out in the real world, nah!

I have already given arguments that were not countered about how several issues show a bias against Robinson, up to and including his latest conviction.

I see no bias whatsoever and nor, I think, do most objective people. It's only in places like this, where most support him, that is the case, but this is not typical. I think he fully deserves all he gets and almost deliberately invites it, to create the image he wants, of being a martyr.

I guess there is a possibility here that this is part of a mainstream media push-back, as no-one really believes main stream news anymore and most get their news online.

That we get most online these days doesn't mean it doesn't come mostly from MSM sources via their online services. I see great danger in unedited content being trusted more than the MSM and fully support Google's push to ensure that it's algorithms give due weight to edited content.

I have already stated how a bias against Robinson is open and quite easy to spot. You are the only person who hasn't accepted this: fair enough, I don't have my entire life to argue/ debate with people who have a particular agenda against someone.

That's simply untrue. There are millions of people who don't accept that a bias exists against him. Some even post here. I don't have an agenda against him at all. I think he is a fraud using the misery of others to wind up people for his own benefit. He is also a thug and a fool. we don't want this type of person in our public life. Even Farage distances himself from him, and that says a lot.

I have never got personal or even slagged off your posts. I am merely wishing you could see something that looks relatively blatant to me. Of course, I could be wrong but I trust my intellect.

I think you are completely wrong and I too trust my intellect.

I will say this: Robinson stood for election and didn't do well. Did the BBC report with the same glee when others did not do well? Or did they just stick to Robinson, as after all, he had protested against them?
For other election candidates supposedly representing people did they report on their homes/ lifestyle/ beliefs?

That he failed as spectacularly as he did was big news, given the way he had campaigned and claimed he was representing large scale opinion. It deserved special coverage, not just by the BBC but by everyone. Other candidates did not make the claims he did, about being the little guy taking on the elites. As I said before he invited the attention so you must not complain when he got it.

You know the answer. This has been a witch hunt and they are ducking their witch in the stool right now.
You are watching on thinking that it's fine. It isn't fine by any means.

"Witch hunt?" You sound like Trump when he is faced with the exposure of awkward events. It's no witch hunt. It's the reporting of the truth about a narcissistic, attention seeking loud mouth, who invites opprobrium and then complains when he gets it.

I could give a million (not an exaggeration) examples where people have done far more serious crimes than Robinson but served no time at all in jail.

Now that might be true, but I am not the Judge and therefore not in full possession of all the facts. It seems that he has already acquired a suspended sentence and such people do tend to get taught a severe lesson if they fail to learn the benefits of not offending again.

I guess you could think of some yourself too. Perhaps ask the question - why did they need to go after Robinson so much? And that might point you in the right direction.

The state should be massively compensating all of the victims and their families.

Of course, but only after due process has determined that culpable blame can be found. In the meantime all the support needed should be provided, as it should be to all victims of crime.

If you could take a look into the cases it is their failings that caused it to continue.

That is an often made assertion that has no basis in fact. It's a "Robinson" promoted myth. We simply don't know what approach the authorities or Police were taking. There do seem to be some questions to be asked but there is a right way and a wrong way to ask them, as there is throughout any investigation. The right way is to first inform the Police if you have any evidence. If you are not satisfied with their response then you contact your MP and get them to investigate, if necessary bringing it to the attention of the responsible Minister, Parliamentary committee or asking questions in the House. The wrong way is to go onto social media pontificating, winding up the impressionable and making the job of the Police harder.

Why should Robinson give anything? He was trying to help highlight an issue he thought was worth fighting for.

I would have thought that was obvious. He has profited greatly from this and it would have done his image good, as well as actually helping someone, to make some donations. He has missed a trick there.

The rest of the arguments are pretty much the same. I think that perhaps you consider me part of some kind of grouping. I think you are under the impression that I am right wing and some kind of Robinson supporter. It couldn't be further from the truth. I think maybe once I watched a few minutes of him on YouTube. I thought he was a bit strong on certain subjects.

OK, so we are starting on the same page, which helps.

However, his case is dodgy and his treatment by the press shambolic - which is what is in question here. Just indicative of a wider agenda you don't wish to see. Fair enough. I actually wish I couldn't see it either because it does not sit at all well with me. I have served, I have believed - there will be no more helping of the state by me. Not because of Robinson but because of the incompetence and lies.

I don't need to tell you that I think that is all bs. Stamping out the kind of activity that "Robinson" got himself into is the duty of the state. The press simply reported it, and did so pretty well. It's a big story so got plenty of attention. Activists with his agenda cannot be allowed to prosper in the UK. We must follow the rule of law and support those whose job it is to uphold it, even when they fail.

BBC went awful years ago when they largely started buying their news from other sources to cut costs.

I disagree and so do countless millions around the world who go to the BBC in preference to their state run broadcasters to learn the unbiased news. The BBC still has full editorial control over what it puts out.

These days, simply Sky News lite.

I try to avoid anything that Murdoch has a hand near.

I love your bit about liking the editorial standards and changes of Google and MSN. Say what they like or get banned - wonderful.

Simply untrue. All Google are doing is weighting edited news higher than unedited news. They want to make sure that facts trump lies. No-one is banned as a consequence. You can read opinion so long as it is labled as opinion. If it is presented as news then it will be down rated. It's a bit like "Fox News" being thought of as a news outlet, when it isn't at all. It's a propaganda machine for Murdoch's world vision.

Straight from Stalin's Show Trials. The media lapped them up too - despite what narrative BBC history may give you.

Not the slightest similarity. This is a private company acting responsibility and trying to avoid government regulation forcing them to do so.

Fox News is awful, I will concede that.

Tucker Carlson is very good, should be VP.