He may well know more than me. But the Robinson stuff he clearly didn’t even know the basics of, and as per my post previously, he was clearly unaware that the story was actually broken by journalism conducted by The Times a long while back. Those are very, very basic things. He’s on a power trip. Anyone can see that, surely?
He could stop using his wealth and influence to meddle in the politics of countries he knows nothing about. His hateful and completely unwarrented insults thrown at Jess Phillips show what a morally deficient low life he really is. This is the same Musk, incidentally, who said AfD were Germany's only hope. That's the neo-nazi AfD, in case you didn't know.
Actually that's wrong. He's currently in prison for contempt of court for breaching an injunction by repeating false claims about a Syrian refugee, which was a civil case not a criminal one. The conviction was only possible because the Attorney General (somewhat unusually) brought the charge against him.
He quite clearly hasn't researched these topics, his ignorance is visible from space. So is your prejudice btw.
It’s pretty well documented that he came close to actually collapsing that particular trial, and it’s completely untrue that he was “one of the only ones”, as Laces’ post regarding the work of Andrew Norfolk points out.
Saying he knows nothing about the UK is plainly absurd. George Soros and Bill Gates could also stop using their wealth and influence to meddle in politics. They probably won't though.
Actually it’s right. The Syrian refugee case is a separate issue. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640
He's an attention seeking narcissist, having a midlife crisis in public. Anyone who isn't halfway down the rabbit hole themselves can see that.
He’s enjoying meddling and messing stuff up. He’s getting a kick from it. He’s basically the Rasmus of politics.
If he knew anything at all about the UK, he wouldn't have called for Nigel Farage to be replaced as leader of Reform. Farage is Reform, and he even owns 51% of it. In most democratic countries, there is some regulation regarding political funding from foreign billionaires. That probably needs tightening up given the unprecedented wealth of the current breed of international oligarchs. In the US, of course, it's a free market; Politicians on both sides are available to the highest bidder. And what a desperate mess they're in because of it.
Did you watch Jordan Peterson’s interview with Tommy Robinson? Or Tommy Robinson’s presentation at Oxford university? I think both of these are worth watching, even if you dislike the guy. He has been through a lot and been brave in shining a spotlight on a lot of these crimes, even though it’s cost him his reputation and his freedom I am not condoning much of what he says/does, but in the particular case of grooming gangs and cover ups, I think history will look on him favourably.
Imo the ones in the ”rabbit hole” are the ones that believe the government over Elon musk. It’s clear from the scale of the cover ups that they can’t be trusted. They were arresting the parents of the girls instead of the rapists FFS.
I don’t like the guy, but I wouldn’t discredit the good things he’s done (off the back of actual proper journalism) in bringing these cases to light. I haven’t seen/listened to those, no, but I also don’t feel like I need to.
Good and bad on all sides, as always. I can guarantee that Rasmus sees Musk as a kindred spirit though, which should give anyone a very god reason to question what he’s up to.
I think everyone absolutely should listen to them. Especially if they are spouting off about him and Elon musk. People are extremely quick to insult him and discredit him, but when you see what he and his family have been through, in his own words, you may feel differently. You guys on here are saying Elon doesn’t know the facts, when it’s actually you guys
I’m not insulting him, other than saying I dislike him (as I do many people in this charade, from Starmer to Musk via Farage). You are mistaking facts with opinions though. Musk has got some of the most basic (actual) facts incorrect. That would lead you to believe he hasn’t really researched things, no?
On this, I think you're addressing the wrong point. The question isn't whether the story was covered at all. It was covered. The question is the level of coverage it was given in comparison to the scale of what happened. Matt Goodwin has written a very long post on Twitter about this, where he shows that the story wasn't given anything like the same level of coverage other stories were. Here's an extract about the BBC for example.
