Farage Tells Paxman He Has A Problem With Romania And It's Ok To Be Homophobic If You're Old

by Guest Tue May 20, 2014 7:06 am

First topic message reminder :

Nigel Farage has been dealing with the fallout from his Friday interview on LBC with James O'Brien for which he has been accused of making racist comments. The Ukip leader decided to try and draw a line under the row by going toe-to-toe with BBC Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman on Monday evening.
The interview was the billed as a high profile collision between the programme's outgoing veteran presenter and the insurgent politician. For Farage it was a chance to undo some of the damage done by his suggestion people should be worried if Romanians were to move in next door and for Paxman it was a chance to remind everyone it was he, not O'Brien, who was top dog.
Paxman began by asking Farage: "What's your problem with Romanians?" The Ukip leader has been attacked by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg for his decision to focus on Romanian immigrants as a source of crime.
The Ukip leader responded that he had "no problem with Romanians" but that he had "a big problem with Romania". He added: "I visited the country. Communism fell just over twenty years ago. It has not made the transition to being a modern Western democracy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/19/ukip-newsnight-paxman-farage_n_5354238.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

:asbluras:

WTF, so he claims not to have a problem with Romanians, but Romania, which is populated by Romanians?

Blimey talk about digging yourself an even bigger hole.

Love this one, it is acceptable to be homophobic over 70, but not racist?

:asbluras:

Ehhhh?

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 1:37 pm

Not what I'm saying at all.

I think I have been quite clear with The facts, figures and THE implications.

While you 3 have been quite clearly in defence of homosexual peado predators.

Denying.

by Eilzel Thu May 22, 2014 2:19 pm

No you are just twisting things and nothing; and what is with your ridiculous spaces between lines, it looks ridiculous...

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 2:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Not what I'm saying at all.

I think I have been quite clear with The facts, figures and THE implications.

While you 3 have been quite clearly in defence of homosexual peado predators.

Denying.

Come on Tommy ffs..

I'm disappointed you implying that homosexuals are paedophiles chief, it matters not if paedophiles are straight or gay,,,the fact they are paedophiles is wrong.

Come on Tommy, this sounds ridiculous.

by David Thu May 22, 2014 2:30 pm

Twonky you are ridiculously implying once again. This is repulsive. Think before you type.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 2:37 pm

Tommy , you really should take that back and apologise man, apologise to David and Eilzel...

Making a comparison of gay people and Peadophiles is just terrible Tommy, that is the sort of stuff Bliar and Hugh would come away with..

Tommy, I've never found you to be abusive to me in any way, but this is so wrong man, please ..I ask you kindly to withdraw such remarks and apologise to Eilzel and David.

Cheers.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 2:37 pm

Still nothing to say about the facts, figures and implications I see......
Just criticism of my style of writing layout.

by Eilzel Thu May 22, 2014 2:38 pm

The baffling thung is how tommy is making a connection between the abusive sexual nature of paedophilia and the mature relationships that exist between two adults.

If tommy thinks paedophilic encounters are anything like the same as those between a man and his girlfriend or boyfriend then I worry about the way he thinks about love and sex at all to be totally honest Sad

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 2:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Still nothing to say about the facts, figures and implications I see......
Just criticism of my style of writing layout.

Facts and figures will be all over the place Tommy..and what of those paedophile's who are never caught?

I can't see why it would matter if a paedophile was homosexual...that is not the crime...the fact a person is a paedophile is the crime.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 2:42 pm

Eilzel wrote:The baffling thung is how tommy is making a connection between the abusive sexual nature of paedophilia and the mature relationships that exist between two adults.

If tommy thinks paedophilic encounters are anything like the same as those between a man and his girlfriend or boyfriend then I worry about the way he thinks about love and sex at all to be totally honest

I'm really disappointed in Tommy Eilzel..I know he is RW, but thought he was a bit better than some of the others,

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 3:00 pm

I am merely pointing out the facts and figures which show a startling and undeniable trend.

There is also other evidence to support this that I haven't even started on yet......

by Eilzel Thu May 22, 2014 3:45 pm

You're getting boring now tbh...

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 4:07 pm

Eilzel wrote:You're getting boring now tbh...

Les - thought you were in Thailand. Are you still going? Things got worse today...

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 4:19 pm

Eilzel wrote:You're getting boring now tbh...

What. You mean is....

"Please stop saying those things that I don't like but can't argue against because I know it's true"

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 4:31 pm

What facts and figures, you have none on who commits the crimes, you are making assumptions based upon victims, as already seen.

The fact you ignore already that women commit this crime, then use an idiotic view on stats, on people on the sex register even though this includes many aspects of sex crime, showing you have not broken down who are paedo's, where people can remove their names, showing a complete stupidity and also how bad you are at maths and even then of those who are men you cannot show how many are homosexual, admitting this is your view, which of course is not fact

Thus you have no facts,but idiotic assumptions

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 4:39 pm

Figures from NSPCC and your guardian link.

Laughing

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 4:43 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Figures from NSPCC and your guardian link.

What were these figures, hmmn people on the sex register, which as seen already stated is of no use and stats on victims, as already stated, thus you making poor assumptions showing how you are poor at maths and make things up as you go along, ignoring all the other stats from the Guardian and NSPCC

::D::

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 5:09 pm

No, not on sex register.

Your link stated that in UK we have around 300,000 child abusers.

NSPCC said about a third of child abusers target only boys.

We know that the overwhelming majority of child abusers, more than 99.9% are men, and a third of these are men targeting only boys in a homosexual way.

That's about 100,000.

Then compare that to the amount of homosexuals in the UK at around 1%.

That is about 200,000

Straight men who would target only boys is about as rare as a homosexual who would target only girls. you know that as well as I do.

So 100,000 homosexual peados out of 200,000 homosexuals in UK in total is a staggering statistic.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 5:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No, not on sex register.
Your link stated that in UK we have around 300,000 child abusers.
Yes of which it states an esitmate of 64,000 females, the part you leave out
NSPCC said about a third of child abusers target only boys.
No it states that a third of 20-30% of victims are boys, not who attacks them, which is a margin of one fifth to one third of male victims
We know that the overwhelming majority of child abusers, more than 99.9% are men, and a third of these are men targeting only boys in a homosexual way.
No we do not, that is an assumption based on again as you already used the sex register to gain this perspective and of those in jail at present or does not take into account multiple offenders or previous convictions
That's about 100,000.
Incorrect, if around 64,000 are women, you are only going off present stats of those in jail which we know to be far less, this is estimates of offenders, which again with women it ie seen as very much underestimated, so such an assumption is not only daft but goes off the fact men have been caught of which you do not know how many are multiple victims of the same offender, let alone who are homosexual
Then compare that to the amount of homosexuals in the UK at around 1%.
No again because the above stats you have given are based on poor maths as already seen there is no point until you correct you errors

Try again

by Eilzel Thu May 22, 2014 5:17 pm

The facts show the victims not the abusers idiot.

^Tess, I go on Sunday; I have posted on the thread on the subject.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 6:16 pm

The NSPCC web site states About a third of child sex abusers target only boys.

We also know only a tiny minority of women are involved in any child sex abuse because the guardian article shows actual govt figures of women either in jail or otherwise being monitored is less than 150.

And I reckon most of these will be lesbians who target only girls.

99.9% are men.

Of these, about a third target ONLY boys in a homosexual way.

So if the 300,000 figure is true, a third of these are men who target only boys in a homosexual way.

And The overwhelming majority of these will be homosexuals.

Compared to the number of homosexuals in gen population being about 200,000.

This is an undeniable high percentage of homosexual men involved in abusing children, whatever way you look at it.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:18 pm

Hilarious just repeating himself ignoring his claim has been debunked.

Next

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:19 pm

Well you've lost me Tommy!

by Eilzel Thu May 22, 2014 6:20 pm

This spiel you keep copying and pasting doesn't become more true each time you post it; and I notice you stick in one thing there that is in fact your own subjective assumption:

And The overwhelming majority of these will be homosexuals.

Where is the evidence to back that up?

You harp on like a whinging old drunkard about the 'facts' then insert this with nothing to show for it whatsoever.

It is a clever trick which prejudiced morons like yourself would fall for but in fact it shows that even you can see that the facts alone don't say exactly what you want them to.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:20 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Well you've lost me Tommy!

That is because he is in a muddle himself over simple maths and cannot even understand basic stats.

::D::

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:24 pm

Eilzel wrote:This spiel you keep copying and pasting doesn't become more true each time you post it; and I notice you stick in one thing there that is in fact your own subjective assumption:

And The overwhelming majority of these will be homosexuals.

Where is the evidence to back that up?

You harp on like a whinging old drunkard about the 'facts' then insert this with nothing to show for it whatsoever.

It is a clever trick which prejudiced morons like yourself would fall for but in fact it shows that even you can see that the facts alone don't say exactly what you want them to.

I would not even call it clever, think you are being too kind buddy.

As seen his whole view is an assumption, he ignores multiple victims can have one offender and these stats are of victims which is just one point alone let alone the countless others points he ignores when basing the most absurd hypothesis I have seen formulated for some time.

by David Thu May 22, 2014 6:26 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I am merely pointing out the facts and figures which show a startling and undeniable trend.

There is also other evidence to support this that I haven't even started on yet......

These are not facts at all but merely your extreme opinion that pedophiles who go for boys are homosexuals. This is a disgusting link that you are making.

by David Thu May 22, 2014 6:28 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:This spiel you keep copying and pasting doesn't become more true each time you post it; and I notice you stick in one thing there that is in fact your own subjective assumption:

Where is the evidence to back that up?

You harp on like a whinging old drunkard about the 'facts' then insert this with nothing to show for it whatsoever.

It is a clever trick which prejudiced morons like yourself would fall for but in fact it shows that even you can see that the facts alone don't say exactly what you want them to.

I would not even call it clever, think you are being too kind buddy.

As seen his whole view is an assumption, he ignores multiple victims can have one offender and these stats are of victims which is just one point alone let alone the countless others points he ignores when basing the most absurd hypothesis I have seen formulated for some time.

I would then be really interested in his "opinion"of Jimmy Saville then.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:29 pm

David wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I am merely pointing out the facts and figures which show a startling and undeniable trend.

There is also other evidence to support this that I haven't even started on yet......

These are not facts at all but merely your extreme opinion that pedophiles who go for boys are homosexuals. This is a disgusting link that you are making.

Hmmm ok?

If a male sexually assaults a male - is that a homosexual attack?

If a male has sex with a male, is that a homosexual act?

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:31 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
David wrote:

These are not facts at all but merely your extreme opinion that pedophiles who go for boys are homosexuals. This is a disgusting link that you are making.

Hmmm ok?

If a male sexually assaults a male - is that a homosexual attack?

If a male has sex with a male, is that a homosexual act?

Do heterosexual men who rape men in prison perform a homosexual attack?

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:32 pm

Didge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Hmmm ok?

If a male sexually assaults a male - is that a homosexual attack?

If a male has sex with a male, is that a homosexual act?

Do heterosexual men who rape men in prison perform a homosexual attack?

A man who has sex with a man can not be heterosexual.

by David Thu May 22, 2014 6:32 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
David wrote:

These are not facts at all but merely your extreme opinion that pedophiles who go for boys are homosexuals. This is a disgusting link that you are making.

Hmmm ok?

If a male sexually assaults a male - is that a homosexual attack?

If a male has sex with a male, is that a homosexual act?

Not you as well BA. You are linking paedophilia and homosexuality. You are putting a sexual adult connotation to an act of rape committed by an ADULT to a BOY. So in your mind the boy has been raped by a paedophile as a homosexual?

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:34 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Didge wrote:

Do heterosexual men who rape men in prison perform a homosexual attack?

A man who has sex with a man can not be heterosexual.

Can he not?

So there is no such thing as being bisexual then Andy?

Also heterosexual men whilst incarcerated are attracted to control and rape and not men, to satisfy their sexual urges, showing how utterly clueless you are

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:37 pm

David wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Hmmm ok?

If a male sexually assaults a male - is that a homosexual attack?

If a male has sex with a male, is that a homosexual act?

Not you as well BA. You are linking paedophilia and homosexuality. You are putting a sexual adult to a connotation to an act of rape comitted by an ADULT to a BOY. So in your mind the boy has been raped by a paedophile as a homosexual?

No no no - i'm not linking paedophilia and homosexuality - at least... hmmm... ok, i'm asking questions which may have answers that link the two.

My two (one) questions stand.

I believe that if a male sexually assaults another male, no matter what his age, the attacker is homosexual.

I don't know about the figures and i don't care - i'm not trying to say blah blah 50% of homosexuals are dirty pedo's, i just noticed a comment, thought it was wrong and was putting my bit across.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:39 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
David wrote:

Not you as well BA. You are linking paedophilia and homosexuality. You are putting a sexual adult to a connotation to an act of rape comitted by an ADULT to a BOY. So in your mind the boy has been raped by a paedophile as a homosexual?

No no no - i'm not linking paedophilia and homosexuality - at least... hmmm... ok, i'm asking questions which may have answers that link the two.

My two (one) questions stand.

I believe that if a male sexually assaults another male, no matter what his age, the attacker is homosexual.

I don't know about the figures and i don't care - i'm not trying to say blah blah 50% of homosexuals are dirty pedo's, i just noticed a comment, thought it was wrong and was putting my bit across.

And what if an attacker is attracted to male children and not adult men and also is attracted to adult women?

by David Thu May 22, 2014 6:42 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
David wrote:

Not you as well BA. You are linking paedophilia and homosexuality. You are putting a sexual adult to a connotation to an act of rape comitted by an ADULT to a BOY. So in your mind the boy has been raped by a paedophile as a homosexual?

No no no - i'm not linking paedophilia and homosexuality - at least... hmmm... ok, i'm asking questions which may have answers that link the two.

My two (one) questions stand.

I believe that if a male sexually assaults another male, no matter what his age, the attacker is homosexual.

I don't know about the figures and i don't care - i'm not trying to say blah blah 50% of homosexuals are dirty pedo's, i just noticed a comment, thought it was wrong and was putting my bit across.

NO no and no BA because you are confusing pedophilia with sexuality. Didge has just proved it.

by David Thu May 22, 2014 6:43 pm

David wrote:
Didge wrote:

I would not even call it clever, think you are being too kind buddy.

As seen his whole view is an assumption, he ignores multiple victims can have one offender and these stats are of victims which is just one point alone let alone the countless others points he ignores when basing the most absurd hypothesis I have seen formulated for some time.

I would then be really interested in his "opinion"of Jimmy Saville then.

Twonky won't answer that question. BA can you answer then?

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:47 pm

David wrote:
David wrote:

I would then be really interested in his "opinion"of Jimmy Saville then.

Twonky won't answer that question. BA can you answer then?

Of course he will not answer, he never answers many points anyway, but this is just one of many examples David, where this investigation is throwing up offenders with mass multiple victims, showing why his hypothesis is utterly flawed.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:50 pm

David wrote:
David wrote:

I would then be really interested in his "opinion"of Jimmy Saville then.

Twonky won't answer that question. BA can you answer then?

I have no opinion of Jimmy Savile - he hasn't been convicted of anything. You'd have to ask me to look at something else, or make something up.

Also, i haven't read the full thread so am not sure about the differences of opinions you've had with Tommy.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:52 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
David wrote:

Twonky won't answer that question. BA can you answer then?

I have no opinion of Jimmy Savile - he hasn't been convicted of anything. You'd have to ask me to look at something else, or make something up.

Also, i haven't read the full thread so am not sure about the differences of opinions you've had with Tommy.

So basically what you are saying is you have no idea, but just wanted to confirm to everyone you are an idiot then?

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:54 pm

Didge wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

I have no opinion of Jimmy Savile - he hasn't been convicted of anything. You'd have to ask me to look at something else, or make something up.

Also, i haven't read the full thread so am not sure about the differences of opinions you've had with Tommy.

So basically what you are saying is you have no idea, but just wanted to confirm to everyone you are an idiot then?

And you have to go and show us all why people think you're a little turd on their shoe.

I said a couple of posts up that i happened to look in and wanted to say something.

I was then asked to comment on something - something i wasn't clear about, so said so.

by Tommy Monk Thu May 22, 2014 6:56 pm

Earlier on in the thread I layed out the maths in more detail.

by Guest Thu May 22, 2014 6:57 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Didge wrote:

So basically what you are saying is you have no idea, but just wanted to confirm to everyone you are an idiot then?

And you have to go and show us all why people think you're a little turd on their shoe.

I said a couple of posts up that i happened to look in and wanted to say something.

I was then asked to comment on something - something i wasn't clear about, so said so.

So backing the view you are an idiot on the subject, what is wrong in stating you are backing the view you are clueless on the subject?
Seems just because my choice of words may seem harsh they are in fact correct.
Maybe it is prudent to read through the thread, which of course had nothing to do with a debate on pedophiles in the first place, showing again how UKIP supporters like to detract from the main topic of debate

by Tommy Monk Fri May 23, 2014 6:09 am

]

Didge wrote:
Wrong,it shows 22-30% of victims are boys
Stop diverging the thread anyway with your bile please, this is about how clearly Nigel has clearly racial poor views against Romanians based off criminals gangs now, using poor association as an argument, thus demonizing a whole nation off this.

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:
Wrong dodge, it says they are child abusers who target only boys.
been here before and you are wrong:
60-70% of child sex offenders target girls only, about 20-33% boys only, and about 10% children of either sex.

Just to show how Didge will flip flop around..........
He starts off saying the NSPCC figures are percentages of victims, then agrees that percentages are of attackers and who they target.

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 6:46 am

Still talking shite and is unable to refute my points

Next

by Tommy Monk Fri May 23, 2014 7:03 am

Flip flop.

From one, to another, then later on, contradict yourself again and claim the first bit of bullshit again.

Do you really think this goes unnoticed....????

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 7:05 am

So still unable to refute my points, Eilzel's points, Davids, points, with yet again loads more babble.

Next

by Tommy Monk Fri May 23, 2014 7:16 am

Read the above post dodge, you made a false claim, I corrected you, then you told me I was wrong, then repeated what I said, telling me it was right!!!!

But the funniest bit, is later on in this thread and the other BA one, you try to make your original false claim again!!!!!

Do you know what you're talking about at all.....??

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 7:17 am

So still unable to refute my points, Eilzel's points, Davids, points, with yet again loads more babble.

Next

by Guest Fri May 23, 2014 7:19 am

It is simple Matti, we have shown many flaws in your methodology and use of stats, which you refuse to accept, showing you are utterly clueless.

You did not correct anything, the stats given are on those abused and those who target, it does not state which sex, showing again you assume.

Next

by Tommy Monk Fri May 23, 2014 7:20 am

Dodge doing the usual flip flop waffle......!
Laughing

by Sponsored content