Tommy Robinson jailed

Captain Obvious wrote: »

They are your words not his.

As far as I see it he is trying to draw attention to a massive problem his country has with Muslim rape gangs.

skooterblue2

weisses wrote: »

But he is a thicko and a racist ... What part are you not getting ?

I doubt he is thick as he is a qualified Avonic.

pumpkin4life

jmayo wrote: »

A lot of people are claiming that Robinson and anyone that supports his "cause" are trying to organise a mistrial.

This crap has been pushed by one or two around here and lo and behold all the posters of a certain opinion are pedaling it as fact.

Robinson has a chequered past, was a football hooligan, probably anti Irish, founded an organisation that had some very unsavoury characters in it before he left it.
The thing is he claims he has moved away from that and that was why he left EDL, the organisation he founded.
Now he isn't the best speaker, does still come across like a street fighter at times, but for all that he has continously raised issues that no other fooker, especially politicians, have dared to speak about.

Now a lot of people have rubbished him and his claims using his past and the way he operates doorstepping people in the street.

The thing is he has been proven right.

Even if you don't like him, even if you disagree with his claims and his views on islam, you should be damned worried about how he has been treated by the authorities.

And I am not just talking about this case, his home has been raided at all hours of the night, his families name and location was released in the media and there was nothing done about it by the authorities.

And when he confronted the solicitor who put his family details online, he was the one being investigated for harassment when he went to confront him.
BTW he filmed it so he was hardly going to smack him around.

BTW he got the solicitors home address from Irish builders, yep Irish builders, who had dealt with the solicitor because he was also Irish.
Funny how he got those Irish builders to give him, a supposed anti Irish guy, personal details on a solicitor so as to help him.

There would be no need for a Tommy Robinson if any of the mainstream politicians or political parties were raising the issues he is raising.

Labour were once representative of the working class in Britain, but they first became the new tories under Blair and laterally under Corbyn they have gone up their own ar** in terms of identity politics and chasing the muslim vote.
How many labour controlled councils and areas have had grooming gangs operating over long periods of time?
MPs that have raised the spectre about grooming gangs being predominantly muslim have been censured yet labour hierarchy had to forced to jettison a transgender model who was appointed LGBT advisor after she had been racist against white people and had a go at Tory gay activists.
Antisemitism has been tolerated in labour, but yet they remain silent on problems in the muslim community.

There is a vacuum and no one is speaking for the people who have to deal with the fallout of failed multiculturalism in Britain.
It is the exact same reason that Le Pen's support ha skyrocketed in Calais.

A lot of people are pi**ed off and mainstream politicians, the media and so called "do-gooders" lecturing them and lambasting them as thickos and racists (see Trump election and Brexit) is just making the situation worse.

The dirty little secret is that a lot of the Middle to Upper Middle class despise the working class, as it tends to pervade their holier than shìte bubble view of the world. Muslim rape gangs in Luton? We can't have that. Black teenage gangs in Balbriggan and Tyrrelstown? Where are the Irish Times for that? That benny Fintan O Toole talking about compassion? Where's that again?

They hate Tommy because he's the guy that breaks their view of reality, and even despite his flaws, anyone who has grown up in those kinds of estates knows exactly what he is talking about.

Considering from what posters like wes and Grayson have said about their background on here, they haven't a clue. That's how bad these areas have become.

Orwell wrote about it before. Said socialists and a lot of middle class tend to hate the rich, and use the working class as a way to push that forward. Yet they are part of the problem themselves. Great point in my opinion.

murphthesmurf

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I doubt anyone thinks he wants to cause a mistrial, he just doesn't care if he does. And I'd bet every cent I have that if he caused such a thing, not only would he fail to take responsibility, he would put the full blame on the police and justice system, as some here have already done on his behalf.

The trial he was stood outside if when he was arrested was over. The accused were to recieve the verdict that day, he could not have caused a mistrial. Also from what I have read there was no jury, the trial was bring conducted by the judge. So basically the judge sentenced him because he might have influenced the verdict of a trial that was already over and was being judged by himself!
The names of the defendants were on the courts website and had been given out by other media outlets. The majority of these Muslim rape gang trials have reporting restrictions. Why? When Cliff Richard was arrested all the media were there and there was a police helicopter flying above his house, he wasn't even charged!
When a former radical Muslim claims he has changed and wants to help others and expose the acts and teachings of radicals he is welcomed with open arms and peopke queue up to oat him on the back. When Tommy Robinson claims he has changed and also wants to expose the depths of radical Islam, he is still labeled racist and peopke are happy to see him in jail guilty or not.
Many of the British prisons are run by Muslim gangs, there is a very high chance he will be killed. You and your friends can organise street parties in celebration if you wish.

Call Me Jimmy

Grayson wrote: »

You brought up colour first.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107120678

He didn't 'bring up' colour anymore than someone describing what Dylann Roof did would be 'bringing up' colour. It was racially motivated. They targeted thousands of white girls because they were 'easy meat'.

Other rapes happen, sometimes because of gangs, but this is near industrial scale and involved corruption in the police force and social services. It is a unique scandal. Assuming that people who talk about it just don't like 'brown' people is a big error on your part.

Captain Obvious

murphthesmurf wrote: »

The trial he was stood outside if when he was arrested was over. The accused were to recieve the verdict that day, he could not have caused a mistrial. Also from what I have read there was no jury, the trial was bring conducted by the judge. So basically the judge sentenced him because he might have influenced the verdict of a trial that was already over and was being judged by himself!
The names of the defendants were on the courts website and had been given out by other media outlets. The majority of these Muslim rape gang trials have reporting restrictions. Why? When Cliff Richard was arrested all the media were there and there was a police helicopter flying above his house, he wasn't even charged!
When a former radical Muslim claims he has changed and wants to help others and expose the acts and teachings of radicals he is welcomed with open arms and peopke queue up to oat him on the back. When Tommy Robinson claims he has changed and also wants to expose the depths of radical Islam, he is still labeled racist and peopke are happy to see him in jail guilty or not.
Many of the British prisons are run by Muslim gangs, there is a very high chance he will be killed. You and your friends can organise street parties in celebration if you wish.

Tommy Robinson has demonstrated he has not changed. The majority of trials, if not all trials, involving minors and sexual abuse have reporting restrictions. I like how the story has now changed from his actions not possibly causing a mistrial to "it was too late to cause a mistrial".

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Tommy Robinson has demonstrated he has not changed. The majority of trials, if not all trials, involving minors and sexual abuse have reporting restrictions. I like how the story has now changed from his actions not possibly causing a mistrial to "it was too late to cause a mistrial".

Was it too late for him to cause a mistrial though?

murphthesmurf wrote: »

The trial he was stood outside if when he was arrested was over. The accused were to recieve the verdict that day, he could not have caused a mistrial. Also from what I have read there was no jury, the trial was bring conducted by the judge. So basically the judge sentenced him because he might have influenced the verdict of a trial that was already over and was being judged by himself!
The names of the defendants were on the courts website and had been given out by other media outlets. The majority of these Muslim rape gang trials have reporting restrictions. Why? When Cliff Richard was arrested all the media were there and there was a police helicopter flying above his house, he wasn't even charged!
When a former radical Muslim claims he has changed and wants to help others and expose the acts and teachings of radicals he is welcomed with open arms and peopke queue up to oat him on the back. When Tommy Robinson claims he has changed and also wants to expose the depths of radical Islam, he is still labeled racist and peopke are happy to see him in jail guilty or not.
Many of the British prisons are run by Muslim gangs, there is a very high chance he will be killed. You and your friends can organise street parties in celebration if you wish.

You should really read the report on his sentencing that was posted earlier. you are misinformed.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Considering from what posters like wes and Grayson have said about their background on here, they haven't a clue.

Stop your crap. I was raised by a single mother and have earned everything I have. Stop being so smug with your crap. People like you are completely unable to counter any points raised and instead try to play the man as opposed to the points raised. Its pathetic and expected.

You go on about middle class this or that, and other such bollox, because you know damn well you don't have a leg to stand on defending Yaxley-Lennon, who could have derailed the trials of the accused, but you don't care about that, for you its just a game trying to one up the "libs".

The question I have to ask is why have you chosen to ignore the points that were actually raised as opposed to the strawman and ad homiem bull**** that your ilk always come out with. Come on now, address the points raised about Yaxley-Lennons actions and stop your crap.

wes wrote: »

STOP YOUR CRAP. I WAS RAISED BY A SINGLE MOTHER AND HAVE EARNED EVERYTHING I HAVE. STOP BEING SO SMUG WITH YOUR CRAP. PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNABLE TO COUNTER ANY POINTS RAISED AND INSTEAD TRY TO PLAY THE MAN AS OPPOSED TO THE POINTS RAISED. ITS PATHETIC AND EXPECTED.

YOU GO ON ABOUT MIDDLE CLASS THIS OR THAT, AND OTHER SUCH BOLLOX, BECAUSE YOU KNOW DAMN WELL YOU DON'T HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON DEFENDING YAXLEY-LENNON, WHO COULD HAVE DERAILED THE TRIALS OF THE ACCUSED, BUT YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT, FOR YOU ITS JUST A GAME TRYING TO ONE UP THE "LIBS".

THE QUESTION I HAVE TO ASK IS WHY HAVE YOU CHOSEN TO IGNORE THE POINTS THAT WERE ACTUALLY RAISED AS OPPOSED TO THE STRAWMAN AND AD HOMIEM BULL**** THAT YOUR ILK ALWAYS COME OUT WITH. COME ON NOW, ADDRESS THE POINTS RAISED ABOUT YAXLEY-LENNONS ACTIONS AND STOP YOUR CRAP.

FYP

Its all alt right wrote: »

FYP

Far to many people on here are unable to articulate a counter argument and instead engage in personal attacks and as such I will deal with in a manner befitting such nonsense. No need for all caps at all

.

I look forward to a spirited defense of Yaxley-Lennon nearly derailing a trial for facebook or youtube views or whatever he was trying to achieve.

Zubeneschamali

jmayo wrote: »

It is the exact same reason that Le Pen's support ha skyrocketed in Calais.

Yes, we know.

thebull85

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well that isn't true either. He got the 3 months that had been suspended plus a further 10 months for his recent contempt

Source?

wes wrote: »

Far to many people on here are unable to articulate a counter argument and instead engage in personal attacks and as such I will deal with in a manner befitting such nonsense. No need for all caps at all .

I look forward to a spirited defense of Yaxley-Lennon nearly derailing a trial for facebook or youtube views or whatever he was trying to achieve.

Impossible to prove I know, but it looks like you are using the name Yaxley-Lennon instead of Tommy Robinson to rile up the people you are arguing with.

Its all alt right wrote: »

Impossible to prove I know, but it looks like you are using the name Yaxley-Lennon instead of Tommy Robinson to rile up the people you are arguing with.

Its the man name. I do sometimes use his chosen pseudonym, but referring to him by his name is perfectly valid thing to do, as to the best of my knowledge he has not legally changes his name.

The only person who could be angered by it, would be Yaxley-Lennon, considering his violent past as football hooligan, but he isn't posting here.

thebull85 wrote: »

Source?

the article posted on this very thread yesterday evening. You were posting at the same time it was posted. cant understand how you missed it.

wes wrote: »

Its the man name. I do sometimes use his chosen pseudonym, but referring to him by his name is perfectly valid thing to do, as to the best of my knowledge he has not legally changes his name.

He was tried under the name Stephen Yaxley Lennon so he clearly hasn't legally changed his name. I was thinking last night that Tommy Robinson is his stage name and his whole adult life has been a piece of performance art designed to show the stupidity of those on the right. It makes sense in a way.

Its all alt right wrote: »

Impossible to prove I know, but it looks like you are using the name Yaxley-Lennon instead of Tommy Robinson to rile up the people you are arguing with.

why would that rile you up? it is his name after all. Unless you were looking for a reason to be riled up.

wes wrote: »

Its the man name. I do sometimes use his chosen pseudonym, but referring to him by his name is perfectly valid thing to do, as to the best of my knowledge he has not legally changes his name.

Would you have a problem me calling Caitlyn Jenner by the name Bruce Jenner in a thread started about her?

Its all alt right wrote: »

Would you have a problem me calling Caitlyn Jenner by the name Bruce Jenner in a thread started about her?

well yes because Caitlin Jenner is now her legal name. Tommy Robinson is not his legal name.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why would that rile you up? it is his name after all. Unless you were looking for a reason to be riled up.

Doesn't rile me up. I'm saying it looks like the poster is using it to rile up rather than out of some respect by using his birth name.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well yes because Caitlin Jenner is now her legal name. Tommy Robinson is not his legal name.

But as the OP said he wasn't certain if he had legally changed it or not.

Its all alt right wrote: »

But as the OP said he wasn't certain if he had legally changed it or not.

well clearly he hasn't legally changed it as he was charged under his birth name. If he had legally changed it he would been tried under the name Tommy Robinson.

Its all alt right wrote: »

Would you have a problem me calling Caitlyn Jenner by the name Bruce Jenner in a thread started about her?

Your not comparing like with like at all.

Using someones dead name (i believe that is the term) is a deliberate and highly offensive thing to do. Also Caitlyn Jenner changed her name legally, not that it matters in this context.

Yaxley-Lennon has not changed his name legally, and even if he did using his old name is not the same as dead naming Caitlyn Jenner.

Remember context is king, when it comes to this kind of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXxtZmmUCLY

wes wrote: »

Your not comparing like with like at all.

Using someones dead name (i believe that is the term) is a deliberate and highly offensive thing to do. Also Caitlyn Jenner changed her name legally, not that it matters in this context.

Yaxley-Lennon has not changed his name legally, and even if he did using his old name is not the same as dead naming Caitlyn Jenner.

Remember context is king, when it comes to this kind of thing.

Ok fair enough. Never heard of the term 'dead naming' till now. I still feel you are using it by design to passively annoy his supporters.

thebull85

Its all alt right wrote: »

Ok fair enough. Never heard of the term 'dead naming' till now. I still feel you are using it by design to passively annoy his supporters.

I only heard about the term recently myself to be fair.

As for using the name Yaxley-Lennon, I have used it on threads before, and not a single person cared about the usage. If my intent was to annoy, I wouldn't go down that route, as it has never annoyed anyone before.

pumpkin4life

wes wrote: »

Stop your crap. I was raised by a single mother and have earned everything I have. Stop being so smug with your crap. People like you are completely unable to counter any points raised and instead try to play the man as opposed to the points raised. Its pathetic and expected.

You go on about middle class this or that, and other such bollox, because you know damn well you don't have a leg to stand on defending Yaxley-Lennon, who could have derailed the trials of the accused, but you don't care about that, for you its just a game trying to one up the "libs".

The question I have to ask is why have you chosen to ignore the points that were actually raised as opposed to the strawman and ad homiem bull**** that your ilk always come out with. Come on now, address the points raised about Yaxley-Lennons actions and stop your crap.

Because you're having a problem understanding what a mistrial is and you've been extremely passive aggressive in response to other people not agreeing with you, so I'm not responding to you anymore.