Tommy Robinson & the BBC

No mate it’s only racist if you ONLY criticise it and if you go out of you way to find ways to criticise it.

Genuine question...

In your opinion and following your own logic outlined above, would you also state that Walter Robinson and his team at the Boston Globe racist for breaking the Catholic Church paedophile scandal, seeing as they have never covered similar topics in any other religion?

What ? Using the term Moslem you mean ? That's ridiculous.
As far as the rest of that post is concerned, I'm afraid it's utter nonsense.
I don't know whether Tommy Robinson is a racist, just as I don't know whether anyone else is a racist . I do know, however , that complaining about what he considered to be wrongdoings by Moslems cannot be logically or reasonably construed as racism .

Not all Moslems are the same race, and many of their fiercest critics are from ethnic minorities . Nor is it discriminating or persecuting a group to expect them to be subject to the same laws as others in the country where they live, and similarly it is not unreasonable to examine any belief system which seems contrary to democracy , equality and tolerance. If subscribers to any such belief system say that it isn't contrary to these values and they're telling the truth , well then what exactly is the problem ?

I'll keep this short;
Sir Jimmy, boy in the Cardiff Rangers SC actually converted to Islam, pretty much identical ethnicity to myself yet if I told him I though Islam was lunacy I’m a racist? but if someone of the same ethnicity as myself (but different religion) says Protestantism is shite he’s not a racist. Naw it’s just confusing me more

No mate it’s only racist if you ONLY criticise it and if you go out of you way to find ways to criticise it.

Genuine question...

In your opinion and following your own logic outlined above, would you also state that Walter Robinson and his team at the Boston Globe racist for breaking the Catholic Church paedophile scandal, seeing as they have never covered similar topics in any other religion?

Think I’ll get the popcorn out for his answer, perhaps Biglicksmagoo will explain.

Interesting but confusing. I was raised Church of Scotland, so when a Scottish/British Celtic fan calls me an Orange b*stard he’s racially abusing Scottish/British me? When Trey Parker wrote The Book of Mormon he was racially mocking and parodying Mormons and when I say Scientology is a load of batshit crazy old shite I’m racially abusing Tom Cruise?
Cheers mate think I’ve got it now.

I completely understand why you are confused; a Scot's/Brit calling another Caucasian "Orange B*stard", and calling an Asian Taxi driver a "Paki" equates to one and the same thing in your point of view.

It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges, not really the same thing. Granted both are based on a prejudice of the other person.

But, the difference between calling a Caucasian an "Orange b*stard" and calling an Asian a "Paki", or for that matter calling a Black person a "Black B'stard", are these are based on race.

It's easier for me to ask a question rather than answer every disjointed comparison you've made, but does Tommy Robinson only go after Islam/Muslim peado's, or does he not mind peado's per se as long as they don't have a Quran to hand?

First point you have no idea what colour I am.
Second you haven’t answered anything I asked.
Thirdly Protestantism is a creed.
You really haven’t got a clue, I never mentioned pakis or any other racist term, I was highlighting the disparity in the treatment of the Worlds Religions. If criticising, satirising or mocking Islam is racist then same rules should apply to critics of Protestantism, Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventist’s or Scientology.

As Christians we get constantly attacked by the media, the state and anyone who wants to please the secular establishment. There are of course Christians of various colours, so do we get to claim racism next time some untalented fake socialist "comedian " spits on our religion on the State Media ?
As far as the word which was allegedly spoken by TR goes - if an Indian in Southall uses that word ,( which I can assure you they do a lot), is that racist ? If they slate Islaam, ( which again I can assure you they do) does that also become racism , somehow directed at people of the same race as them ?

If someone says that wife beating , polygamy or converting unbelievers " by the sword" is wrong , do they also become racists , or perhaps intolerant in some way ?

No mate it’s only racist if you ONLY criticise it and if you go out of you way to find ways to criticise it.

Genuine question...

In your opinion and following your own logic outlined above, would you also state that Walter Robinson and his team at the Boston Globe racist for breaking the Catholic Church paedophile scandal, seeing as they have never covered similar topics in any other religion?

Think I’ll get the popcorn out for his answer, perhaps Biglicksmagoo will explain.

Well actually this is quite easy to answer; in that the Boston Globe is a news orgainisation that does more than investigate Catholic Preist's. Can't say I'm familiar with Walter Robinson, but I'd be willing to make an assumption he's done more with his life than exposing a few Catholic perverts.

Tommy Robinson is a racist masquerading as an investigative journalist who's only subject matter seems to resonate with the Far Right.

Not sure why you needed me to explain these subtle differences to you Jock, but I'll take it as a backhanded compliment

As Christians we get constantly attacked by the media, the state and anyone who wants to please the secular establishment. There are of course Christians of various colours, so do we get to claim racism next time some untalented fake socialist "comedian " spits on our religion on the State Media ?
As far as the word which was allegedly spoken by TR goes - if an Indian in Southall uses that word ,( which I can assure you they do a lot), is that racist ? If they slate Islaam, ( which again I can assure you they do) does that also become racism , somehow directed at people of the same race as them ?

If someone says that wife beating , polygamy or converting unbelievers " by the sword" is wrong , do they also become racists , or perhaps intolerant in some way ?

Thank you for answering my question honestly earlier Jimmy, you went up in my estimation.

I get what you saying regarding other ethnic minorities also being prejudice to other ethnic minorities, but without trying to be condescending here, just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right.

Everyone says the Quran says kill the infadels and beat your wives; well I have not read the Quran, but there's certainly plenty of fire and brimstone and burning of non believers in the Old Testament.

As Christians we get constantly attacked by the media, the state and anyone who wants to please the secular establishment. There are of course Christians of various colours, so do we get to claim racism next time some untalented fake socialist "comedian " spits on our religion on the State Media ?
As far as the word which was allegedly spoken by TR goes - if an Indian in Southall uses that word ,( which I can assure you they do a lot), is that racist ? If they slate Islaam, ( which again I can assure you they do) does that also become racism , somehow directed at people of the same race as them ?

If someone says that wife beating , polygamy or converting unbelievers " by the sword" is wrong , do they also become racists , or perhaps intolerant in some way ?

Thank you for answering my question honestly earlier Jimmy, you went up in my estimation.

I get what you saying regarding other ethnic minorities also being prejudice to other ethnic minorities, but without trying to be condescending here, just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right.

Everyone says the Quran says kill the infadels and beat your wives; well I have not read the Quran, but there's certainly plenty of fire and brimstone and burning of non believers in the Old Testament.

And how many people in this country, or indeed in any civilised Western Nation, follow that shite literally? Hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to the lunacy in the Koran. Saudi are pumping billions into spreading poisonous Wahhabi doctrine but you think the problem is people who criticise Islam.

Can't say I'm familiar with Walter Robinson, but I'd be willing to make an assumption he's done more with his life than exposing a few Catholic perverts.

OK, but you admittedly don't know that for sure yet you're prepared to appear instantly give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whilst, similarly you are prepared to go straight into TR is racist because he only targets Muslims grooming gangs.

Why?

I'd love to know, explicitly, what is it that you see as justification for taking a light hand of assumption of innocence on one hand and a heavy hand of assumption of guilt on the other?

Hypothetically, if Walter Robinson lets just say for the argument turned out to be an anti-Catholic zealot who had made it his life's work to hunt out bad Catholic's would that make him as bad as TR in your eyes and would you condone him with equal vitriol.

Also, would that anti-catholic bigotry outweigh the good he had done in exposing many, many paedophiles and saving other victims from being abused?

Similarly, if TR was hypothetically to turn around and announce that now he had brought the muslim grooming gangs to light he was going to focus on another area of abuse within another community, would you rethink your position on him as a racist/islamaphobe?

I genuinely want to understand the logic behind the arguments from those who are set up so vehemently against TR - rather than bat them all away as strawmen.

So far, I'm yet to be convinced that there is nothing but empty rhetoric against a man who dared to challenge the 'protected others'. The very premise of which, smacks of the bigotry of low expectations, and is quite frankly, at its most fundamental core belief, inherently racist in and of itself.

Fed up of the BBC it never shows the true story about anything which is about terrosism and always makes brexit look like a complete mess. The BBC are biggest sh*t stirrer in this country they are too liberal they always refers as patriotic people of our country to far right racist pigs. Fake news always try’s to cover up a story which will make a racial controversy's
Dosnt help that every BBC corresponded is a posh w*nker who went to private school and grew up with socialist views. None of those correspondents and writers no what it is like to live on the breadline and what real life is like.

I am no tommy supporter but just fed up with the news which try to portray patriotic people and brexitters in a bad way

And how many people in this country, or indeed in any civilised Western Nation, follow that shite literally? Hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to the lunacy in the Koran. Saudi are pumping billions into spreading poisonous Wahhabi doctrine but you think the problem is people who criticise Islam.

Look over the Irish Sea in the recent past and you'll find plenty of Christian's prepared to kill other Christian's. Maybe not literally but definitely in the name of Religion and a cause.

If you can provide specific examples of Saudi\Wahhabi sponsorship, and how this comes back to Tommy Robinson's hidden agenda of exposing Muslim peado's, I'd do you the courtesy of considering it.

To my mind the Saudi's are more than occupied with containing Iran and the general Shia\Shite rivalry in the ME. Which is another subject.

It's not the criticism of Islam or Muslims, it's the fact a lot of normal people are taken in by a hardcore of extremely bigoted people who have no religion or any kind of moral fiber.

Everyone says the Quran says kill the infadels and beat your wives; well I have not read the Quran, but there's certainly plenty of fire and brimstone and burning of non believers in the Old Testament.

Without wanting to come across as condescending on this - the above is both one of the most crucial points and most frequent mistakes made around the whole question about comparing Christianity and Islam.

Christianity has been through reformation and generally the perceived wisdom and certainly, the mainstream teachings are that the new testament, which preaches love of all mankind and turning the other cheek etc supercedes the old fire and brimstone messages of the old testament.

The Koran however firstly goes pretty much in the opposite order, reflecting Mohammed's transition from cult leader in Mecca to a warlord in Medina. When there are contradictory phrases in the Koran, Islamic scholars apply Koranic abrogation, which essentially means that the latter, more violent texts take precedence.

Also, since the Bible was written not by Jesus himself, and does not purport to be directly the word of God but rather man's interpretations of Jesus' actions and parables, it is open to interpretation and reformation. Whereas, the Koran was literally, dictated by Mohammed, who was Allah's chosen messenger. Therefore, it is the perfect, timeless word of God and cannot be questioned or reformed. This is why fundamentalist Islam, is an absolutely valid interpretation of Islam and not 'a corruption of a great and peaceful religion' as Mr. Bush jr. once put it.

A better comparison would be the Torah and the Koran, but even within that comparison, the Koran is an aggressive text.

OK, but you admittedly don't know that for sure yet you're prepared to appear instantly give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whilst, similarly you are prepared to go straight into TR is racist because he only targets Muslims grooming gangs.

Why?

I'd love to know, explicitly, what is it that you see as justification for taking a light hand of assumption of innocence on one hand and a heavy hand of assumption of guilt on the other?

Hypothetically, if Walter Robinson lets just say for the argument turned out to be an anti-Catholic zealot who had made it his life's work to hunt out bad Catholic's would that make him as bad as TR in your eyes and would you condone him with equal vitriol.

Also, would that anti-catholic bigotry outweigh the good he had done in exposing many, many paedophiles and saving other victims from being abused?

Similarly, if TR was hypothetically to turn around and announce that now he had brought the muslim grooming gangs to light he was going to focus on another area of abuse within another community, would you rethink your position on him as a racist/islamaphobe?

I genuinely want to understand the logic behind the arguments from those who are set up so vehemently against TR - rather than bat them all away as strawmen.

So far, I'm yet to be convinced that there is nothing but empty rhetoric against a man who dared to challenge the 'protected others'. The very premise of which, smacks of the bigotry of low expectations, and is quite frankly, at its most fundamental core belief, inherently racist in and of itself.

Unless there's some big scandal with the Boston Globe and the quality of it's journalism, versus Tommy Robinson and his proven reputation for being a famous racist\fraudster\contempt of court jailbird\founder of the Saesneg Defence League.

Yes I'm more prepared to give Walter the benefit of the doubt.

When has Tommy Robinson done anything that does not directly benefit Tommy Robinson or furthered his agenda?

You say you want to understand people's logic for doubting Tommy Robinson, but there's no real logic in basing your entirely hypothetical argument on Walter and the Boston Globle being anti-Catholic and Tommy Robinson being some kind of modern day Saint?

How many peado's has he uncovered (one's not already on trial)? How many have led to prosecutions?, How many jail sentences and deportation orders? Strawman agreements indeed without any tangible proof.

Why do you possibly think the authorities would not want to stir up racial tensions before locking up a large peadofile ring who happen to be Muslim?

And how many people in this country, or indeed in any civilised Western Nation, follow that shite literally? Hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to the lunacy in the Koran. Saudi are pumping billions into spreading poisonous Wahhabi doctrine but you think the problem is people who criticise Islam.

Look over the Irish Sea in the recent past and you'll find plenty of Christian's prepared to kill other Christian's. Maybe not literally but definitely in the name of Religion and a cause.

If you can provide specific examples of Saudi\Wahhabi sponsorship, and how this comes back to Tommy Robinson's hidden agenda of exposing Muslim peado's, I'd do you the courtesy of considering it.

To my mind the Saudi's are more than occupied with containing Iran and the general Shia\Shite rivalry in the ME. Which is another subject.

It's not the criticism of Islam or Muslims, it's the fact a lot of normal people are taken in by a hardcore of extremely bigoted people who have no religion or any kind of moral fiber.

You haven’t got a handle on Ireland or sectarianism in general, the troubles were about land and culture not religion. How many IRA or UVF murderers attended church, were the IRA fighting to establish a Worldwide Catholic Caliphate?
You dispute Saudi are spending billions establishing Wahhabi Mosques around the World and funding extremist Imans to spread their poison? There’s really no point discussing this with you anymore, you duck every question posed.

And how many people in this country, or indeed in any civilised Western Nation, follow that shite literally? Hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to the lunacy in the Koran. Saudi are pumping billions into spreading poisonous Wahhabi doctrine but you think the problem is people who criticise Islam.

Look over the Irish Sea in the recent past and you'll find plenty of Christian's prepared to kill other Christian's. Maybe not literally but definitely in the name of Religion and a cause.

If you can provide specific examples of Saudi\Wahhabi sponsorship, and how this comes back to Tommy Robinson's hidden agenda of exposing Muslim peado's, I'd do you the courtesy of considering it.

To my mind the Saudi's are more than occupied with containing Iran and the general Shia\Shite rivalry in the ME. Which is another subject.

It's not the criticism of Islam or Muslims, it's the fact a lot of normal people are taken in by a hardcore of extremely bigoted people who have no religion or any kind of moral fiber.

You haven’t got a handle on Ireland or sectarianism in general, the troubles were about land and culture not religion. How many IRA or UVF murderers attended church, were the IRA fighting to establish a Worldwide Catholic Caliphate?
You dispute Saudi are spending billions establishing Wahhabi Mosques around the World and funding extremist Imans to spread their poison? There’s really no point discussing this with you anymore, you duck every question posed.

Don't agree with a lot you say on this forum mate but your spot on about the Saudi's .

They and their Wahhabi sect are a huge driver in violence against non Muslims and promoting extremist ideology , would recommend anyone watches these two documentaries https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gyz6b or https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c

And how many people in this country, or indeed in any civilised Western Nation, follow that shite literally? Hundreds of millions of Muslims subscribe to the lunacy in the Koran. Saudi are pumping billions into spreading poisonous Wahhabi doctrine but you think the problem is people who criticise Islam.

Look over the Irish Sea in the recent past and you'll find plenty of Christian's prepared to kill other Christian's. Maybe not literally but definitely in the name of Religion and a cause.

If you can provide specific examples of Saudi\Wahhabi sponsorship, and how this comes back to Tommy Robinson's hidden agenda of exposing Muslim peado's, I'd do you the courtesy of considering it.

To my mind the Saudi's are more than occupied with containing Iran and the general Shia\Shite rivalry in the ME. Which is another subject.

It's not the criticism of Islam or Muslims, it's the fact a lot of normal people are taken in by a hardcore of extremely bigoted people who have no religion or any kind of moral fiber.

You haven’t got a handle on Ireland or sectarianism in general, the troubles were about land and culture not religion. How many IRA or UVF murderers attended church, were the IRA fighting to establish a Worldwide Catholic Caliphate?
You dispute Saudi are spending billions establishing Wahhabi Mosques around the World and funding extremist Imans to spread their poison? There’s really no point discussing this with you anymore, you duck every question posed.

Don't agree with a lot you say on this forum mate but your spot on about the Saudi's .

They and their Wahhabi sect are a huge driver in violence against non Muslims and promoting extremist ideology , would recommend anyone watches these two documentaries https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02gyz6b or https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b183c

I despair when people try and compare the IRA in Ulster with ISIS or Alqeda. The Saudis have a lot of blood on their hands funding much of the terrorism in the World.

As Christians we get constantly attacked by the media, the state and anyone who wants to please the secular establishment. There are of course Christians of various colours, so do we get to claim racism next time some untalented fake socialist "comedian " spits on our religion on the State Media ?
As far as the word which was allegedly spoken by TR goes - if an Indian in Southall uses that word ,( which I can assure you they do a lot), is that racist ? If they slate Islaam, ( which again I can assure you they do) does that also become racism , somehow directed at people of the same race as them ?

If someone says that wife beating , polygamy or converting unbelievers " by the sword" is wrong , do they also become racists , or perhaps intolerant in some way ?

Thank you for answering my question honestly earlier Jimmy, you went up in my estimation.

I get what you saying regarding other ethnic minorities also being prejudice to other ethnic minorities, but without trying to be condescending here, just because someone else does something, doesn't make it right.

Everyone says the Quran says kill the infadels and beat your wives; well I have not read the Quran, but there's certainly plenty of fire and brimstone and burning of non believers in the Old Testament.

Thank you for those very kind words. I know I mess around and play for reactions here sometimes, but I'd always be honest and respectful when speaking about a religion which many people believe in.
I wasn't suggestion that it's okay for anyone to be rude or use unpleasant words of course, just suggesting that it's not unique to any group , and that the apparent use of one word , however imprudent, isn't enough to define anyone's complete philosophy.

I have read the Quoran very carefully as I said, because I certainly wouldn't address any subject without bothering to find out about it, and in any case you'd have to say that it's one of the most important books in the subjects of Philosophy and History, so anyone who wants to study these disciplines should certainly read it.

I'm afraid I must tell you that it does indeed contain quite a lot of pretty violent and intolerant things. Perhaps many Moslems ( or Muslims if you prefer ) , view these things as archaic references which one could not act upon today, but having also spoken to many learned Moslem Clerics , ( who themselves seem to prefer that spelling since it is from the Arabic), quite a lot if them interpret the words quite literally and think, for example , that all homosexuals should be executed and that a rape conviction can only be reached if the act was personally witnessed by four men.

You mentioned the barbaric archaic references of the Taura and Old Testament, but I don't know of any Rabbis or Jewish Layity who want to enact them today , and many people today fail to appreciate that the apparent contradictions in the Bible mostly arise because they are comparing the Old and New Testaments. The whole point of the New Testament is that the Son of God instructed that forgiveness ,rather than earthly punishments were now possible and desirable for sins.
I might well get into trouble for admitting that we as Christians reject things like homosexuality just as much as Islaam does, but the vital difference as far as complying with modern laws is that we believe that only God can judge that sins should be punished , and that He may very well forgive them. Thus it is not for us to start stoning anyone to death.

Sorry if I went on a bit there, but you seemed interested

Suggesting not " suggestion" but it won't let me edit that

Whose this Magoo bloke? Comes across as one of those patronising lefty nitwits. Probably wears elbow patches.

Lol Magoo strikes me as an ethno masochist.

Whose this Magoo bloke? Comes across as one of those patronising lefty nitwits. Probably wears elbow patches.

Did you think of that all by yourself, or did someone tell you to write it and you thought it was witty and cool.....

No. Someone else invented elbow patches.

No. Someone else invented elbow patches.

Just like someone else invented your jokes...

Possibly. Never met anyone who had an original idea.

there's no real logic in basing your entirely hypothetical argument on Walter and the Boston Globle being anti-Catholic and Tommy Robinson being some kind of modern day Saint?

With respect, that isn't what I said at all, but perhaps I phrased it poorly.

Remember that the question I initially posed in the thread, was to a poster who stated that he (TR) was racist because he ONLY attacked Islam.

So I just want to qualify that assertion a bit more - hence why I asked if TR began focussing his attention another group would that then mean he is now suddenly no longer racist? Or equally, if someone else had only ever attacked one group of people (such as the Catholics) does that also make them racist?

Basically, what I am trying to understand here is whether or not it is a general dislike for TR that is driving those who want to overlook the role Islam played in the grooming gangs. Also, I'm keen to see if the same standards apply across all religious groups or is it that Muslims are seen as a smaller minority, so, therefore, a more vulnerable group who should be protected, over say the predominantly white, and generally more affluent Catholics?

Ultimately, I can't understand why are people afraid to label the grooming gangs as Islamic, without the what-if-isms of comparing these crimes to other scandals (Catholic Priests, YewTree etc) or shooting the messenger (i.e. TR is a racist scumbag so we should ignore what he has to say).

Regardless of TR, I see no reason in concealing the fact that these grooming gangs are overwhelmingly an Islamic problem.

To be clear...That doesn't mean all Muslims are paedophiles. Nor does it mean that all paedophiles are Muslims.

It means that with regards to the specific nature of these organised grooming gangs, that were targetting vulnerable children from white and other non-muslim ethnicities, Islam was a major unifying factor amongst the monsters that committed these crimes - and unless we acknowledge this how can we address it?

The truth is that the issue was created a long, long time ago with UK officials not acting for fear of being called racist.

I've said it before in similar threads to this, if the British authorities had simply done there jobs, there would never have been a need for Tommy Robinson to exist, he is a symptom of the problem, not the cause - which is the police, social services and politicians involved within this became paralysed and unable to act when needed through fear of being called racist and Islamaphobic.

Suggesting not " suggestion" but it won't let me edit that

please stop doing that, you have to be a total imbecile { grammar /spelling police no brain } to not figure out what you mean

OK, but you admittedly don't know that for sure yet you're prepared to appear instantly give him the benefit of the doubt.

Whilst, similarly you are prepared to go straight into TR is racist because he only targets Muslims grooming gangs.

Why?

I'd love to know, explicitly, what is it that you see as justification for taking a light hand of assumption of innocence on one hand and a heavy hand of assumption of guilt on the other?

Hypothetically, if Walter Robinson lets just say for the argument turned out to be an anti-Catholic zealot who had made it his life's work to hunt out bad Catholic's would that make him as bad as TR in your eyes and would you condone him with equal vitriol.

Also, would that anti-catholic bigotry outweigh the good he had done in exposing many, many paedophiles and saving other victims from being abused?

Similarly, if TR was hypothetically to turn around and announce that now he had brought the muslim grooming gangs to light he was going to focus on another area of abuse within another community, would you rethink your position on him as a racist/islamaphobe?

I genuinely want to understand the logic behind the arguments from those who are set up so vehemently against TR - rather than bat them all away as strawmen.

So far, I'm yet to be convinced that there is nothing but empty rhetoric against a man who dared to challenge the 'protected others'. The very premise of which, smacks of the bigotry of low expectations, and is quite frankly, at its most fundamental core belief, inherently racist in and of itself.

Unless there's some big scandal with the Boston Globe and the quality of it's journalism, versus Tommy Robinson and his proven reputation for being a famous racist\fraudster\contempt of court jailbird\founder of the Saesneg Defence League.

Yes I'm more prepared to give Walter the benefit of the doubt.

When has Tommy Robinson done anything that does not directly benefit Tommy Robinson or furthered his agenda?

You say you want to understand people's logic for doubting Tommy Robinson, but there's no real logic in basing your entirely hypothetical argument on Walter and the Boston Globle being anti-Catholic and Tommy Robinson being some kind of modern day Saint?

How many peado's has he uncovered (one's not already on trial)? How many have led to prosecutions?, How many jail sentences and deportation orders? Strawman agreements indeed without any tangible proof.

Why do you possibly think the authorities would not want to stir up racial tensions before locking up a large peadofile ring who happen to be Muslim?

why do you possibly think the authorities ..etc etc..that happen to be muslim/ welsh / german… are you f*cking seriuous.

Anyone on here going to Salford Manchester on Saturday for this Panodrama ?