nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tommy Robinson jailed

[Deleted User]

Apparently according to Lauren Southern, Tommy has been sentenced to 13 months but there is a UK wide embargo on reporting.

Anyone else got any info?

Edit. Not too sure about the authenticity of the embargo. I'm assuming that it's for this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html?amp

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

professore

FTA69 wrote: »

Would I stretch that to all Muslims being a danger to cvilisation or “enemy combatants” as Tommy describes, no I wouldn’t.

That's not at issue here. What's at issue is the "maximum extent of the law" approach taken for someone speaking his mind and saying stuff others are just not saying, while allowing others in society to make blatantly racist statements against whites and women (when it's OK to beat your wife, and how to do it correctly for example) with no sanction, or no investigation into "mortgage fraud".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36413037

johnp001

professore wrote: »

That's not at issue here. What's at issue is the "maximum extent of the law" approach taken for someone speaking his mind and saying stuff others are just not saying, while allowing others in society to make blatantly racist statements against whites and women (when it's OK to beat your wife, and how to do it correctly for example) with no sanction, or no investigation into "mortgage fraud".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36413037

And to go one step further what's at issue isn't the biased application of the "maximum extent of the law" it's simply the elongation of that maximum extent.

Whether my views make me part of the "moral majority" or the "oppressed dissidents" on any given issue I am very concerned to be living in times when the powers of governments are being expanded to criminalize and punish people speaking their mind or even making blatantly racist statements.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

That's not at issue here. What's at issue is the "maximum extent of the law" approach taken for someone speaking his mind and saying stuff others are just not saying, while allowing others in society to make blatantly racist statements against whites and women (when it's OK to beat your wife, and how to do it correctly for example) with no sanction, or no investigation into "mortgage fraud".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36413037

johnp001 wrote: »

And to go one step further what's at issue isn't the biased application of the "maximum extent of the law" it's simply the elongation of that maximum extent.

Whether my views make me part of the "moral majority" or the "oppressed dissidents" on any given issue I am very concerned to be living in times when the powers of governments are being expanded to criminalize and punish people speaking their mind or even making blatantly racist statements.

tommy wasn't jailed for "speaking his mind".

Snake Plisken

FTA69 wrote: »

They say consummation took place after her menstruation. Which basically made Muhammad no different to anyone in historical Europe either. Trying to apply modern sexual standards to 1400 years ago is thick, and if we label entire civilisations "paedos" on that basis then it will also apply to us.

Does that not make sense like?

Source for Aisha's age is in the guardian article posted a page or two back.

Great justifying pedos from history, I’m sure the Pakistani rape gangs use some of your arguements to justify the rape of children in their own minds then again they are racist thugs themselves and see these poor working class girls as sub human as they are not Muslim. They should be chemically castrated the lot of them!

Billy86

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

tommy wasn't jailed for "speaking his mind".

They know.

They don't care.

weisses

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Great justifying pedos from history, I’m sure the Pakistani rape gangs use some of your arguements to justify the rape of children in their own minds then again they are racist thugs themselves and see these poor working class girls as sub human as they are not Muslim. They should be chemically castrated the lot of them!

Where is he justifying pedos ?

Ohh it is Hyperbole Friday

Snake Plisken

weisses wrote: »

Where is he justifying pedos ?

Ohh it is Hyperbole Friday

lol your are great craic!

Grayson

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Great justifying pedos from history, I’m sure the Pakistani rape gangs use some of your arguements to justify the rape of children in their own minds then again they are racist thugs themselves and see these poor working class girls as sub human as they are not Muslim. They should be chemically castrated the lot of them!

No-one is justifying it. They are saying that you can't make a judgement on an entire group today based on what happened thousands of years ago.

I don't think greeks are all paedophiles today because ancient greeks buggered young boys. And even if you showed me a child abuser in Greece today and pointed out that the greeks once had a history of it, I still wouldn't think the two were related.

weisses

Snake Plisken wrote: »

lol your are great craic!

I know

Can you at least try to make a coherent argument as to how/why the poster is justifying pedos from History ?

terryduff12

Snake Plisken wrote: »

They should be chemically castrated the lot of them!

Doesn't work, just should be stoned to death in an honour killing like they do to there wives and sisters.

Any links to show of the mistrial that Tommie has caused yet lads??????

Ye know there isn't

Ye don`t care.............

Not every muslim is bad, not every white person is a racist or bigot because they say something about islam but that doesn't fit yer narrative.

ohnonotgmail

terryduff12 wrote: »

Doesn't work, just should be stoned to death in an honour killing like they do to there wives and sisters.

Any links to show of the mistrial that Tommie has caused yet lads??????

Ye know there isn't

Ye don`t care.............

Not every muslim is bad, not every white person is a racist or bigot because they say something about islam but that doesn't fit yer narrative.

Nobody has said he did cause a mistrial. What he did had the potential to cause a mistrial. A subtle difference i know.

WinnyThePoo

I see still people unable to comprehend why Tommy is in prison. Fascinating insight into the cult of personality.

Tipsy McSwagger

If I went outside the court now like Tommy did recording people on my iPhone would I be arrested, me hole I would.

Billy86

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If I went outside the court now like Tommy did recording people on my iPhone would I be arrested, me hole I would.

If you had a suspended sentence for streaming the names of the accused and jeopardising the trials and anonymity of victims, yep you would.

Though maybe you could prove your point t by repeatedly doing so on all child abuse court cases in future?

Mutant z

No one else in the video other than the police thought it appropriate he be arrested in fact the other bystanders in the video were all disguted by the actions of those standing in the court but instead Tommy Robinson is hauled into the back of a squad van its laughable.

Billy86

Mutant z wrote: »

No one else in the video other than the police thought it appropriate he be arrested in fact the other bystanders in the video were all disguted by the actions of those standing in the court but instead Tommy Robinson is hauled into the back of a squad van its laughable.

Yep, law should be dictated on who can get the most 'cheers from the audience', a magnificent plan.

Captain Obvious

Mutant z wrote: »

No one else in the video other than the police thought it appropriate he be arrested in fact the other bystanders in the video were all disguted by the actions of those standing in the court but instead Tommy Robinson is hauled into the back of a squad van its laughable.

It's not their job to enforce the law though is it? What is it you are suggesting? Should the cops have ignored him and let him continue to breach the order?

terryduff12

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's not their job to enforce the law though is it? What is it you are suggesting? Should the cops have ignored him and let him continue to breach the order?

They had no problem letting the rape gangs continue when they were told about it.

super_furry

Mutant z wrote: »

No one else in the video other than the police thought it appropriate he be arrested in fact the other bystanders in the video were all disguted by the actions of those standing in the court but instead Tommy Robinson is hauled into the back of a squad van its laughable.

That's because the "bystanders" are his friends and as ignorant of the law as some people here.

Captain Obvious

terryduff12 wrote: »

They had no problem letting the rape gangs continue when they were told about it.

Same cops? Unlikely. Or are you suggesting that cops should be allowed ignore crimes if they want to?

Captain Obvious

super_furry wrote: »

That's because the "bystanders" are his friends and as ignorant of the law as some people here.

They aren't ignorant of the law, they just think it should be applied to a other people and not them.

pitifulgod

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Great justifying pedos from history, I’m sure the Pakistani rape gangs use some of your arguements to justify the rape of children in their own minds then again they are racist thugs themselves and see these poor working class girls as sub human as they are not Muslim. They should be chemically castrated the lot of them!

You do realise Virgin Mary was impregnated when she was about 13? At this stage she was married. It's not a nice idea but historically, the world has been a ****ed up for both girls and women. You don't seem to mind when it happens in Christianity though.

terryduff12

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Same cops? Unlikely. Or are you suggesting that cops should be allowed ignore crimes if they want to?

Sames establishment maybe if his skin was browne he wouldn't have been arrested as quick

Captain Obvious

terryduff12 wrote: »

Sames establishment maybe if his skin was browne he wouldn't have been arrested as quick

Yes, the police going easy on brown people is a well known phenomenom in the UK. What's that? London riots?

terryduff12

pitifulgod wrote: »

You do realise Virgin Mary was impregnated when she was about 13? At this stage she was married. It's not a nice idea but historically, the world has been a ****ed up for both girls and women. You don't seem to mind when it happens in Christianity though.

How very dare you she was a virgin as her name is the virgin mary

terryduff12

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Yes, the police going easy on brown people is a well known phenomenom in the UK. What's that? London riots?

The court case Tommie was outside have a few Browne lads inside and the police and others were afraid to investigate it because they would have been seen as racists.

terryduff12

Which is the whole reason Tommie has gotten so popular and other far right groups because Islam gets a soft touch in England and other countries if they dont treat everyone the same this is what happens.

Captain Obvious

terryduff12 wrote: »

The court case Tommie was outside have a few Browne lads inside and the police and others were afraid to investigate it because they would have been seen as racists.

How were they in court if the police were afraid to investigate them?

Grayson

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If I went outside the court now like Tommy did recording people on my iPhone would I be arrested, me hole I would.

Give it a try and we'll find out.

It's win win for you.

If they don't arrest you for breaking the law you can claim that police are both lazy and arbitrary.

IF they do arrest you, you get put it prison.

Ok, that's not quite a win for you. But if you're so sure you won't be arrested, you have nothing to lose.

terryduff12

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How were they in court if the police were afraid to investigate them?

Because reporter Andrew Norfolk of the Times exposed it all so they had little choice