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

Taytoland

nicedryturf wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

Most of it was true which kind of defeats the purpose of your post.

This is just wrong. Educate yourself before making stupid assertions like this.

So Bloody Mary didn't exist and the burning of Protestants didn't happen. Of course it happened. One of the reasons Guy Fawkes happened is because he wanted to return England back to the one true faith and get rid of the heretics. You had Catholic resistance for centuries.

ohnonotgmail

Stephen15 wrote: »

And when did I say they were reputable news sources

You described them as truthful. Are truthful news sources not normally reputable?
Is that not the basis of a news sources reputation?

Stephen15 wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Which truthful alternative sources are you referring to?

Breitbart, Infowars, The Alex Jones Channel and Rebel Media

Sand

AfterLife wrote: »

I hope you're joking. You mentioned various crimes the other two engaged in but failed to mention any of the many crimes Robinson has engaged in.

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

ohnonotgmail

Sand wrote: »

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

I dont see anybody here defending the other two. I do see plenty defending tommy.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

Nobody suggested equivalence. That's just a strawman.

Sand

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nobody suggested equivalence. That's just a strawman.

Even the UK state doesnt believe the crimes are equivalent. Umar Razaq served less than a year for raping a 13 year old. Razaq expresses no remorse and is clearly an ongoing threat to children.

Tommy Robinson will serve 13 months for standing outside a court. The UK establishment will continue to pursue Tommy Robinson for any charge they can drum up for as long as he continues to dissent.

The UK state (and indeed the people who despise Robinson) views Robinson as the greater criminal, so there is no equivalence. You are correct.

jooksavage

Taytoland wrote: »

So Bloody Mary didn't exist and the burning of Protestants didn't happen. Of course it happened. One of the reasons Guy Fawkes happened is because he wanted to return England back to the one true faith and get rid of the heretics. You had Catholic resistance for centuries.

We were drawing parallels between todays anti-Islam hysteria and 18-19TH CENTURY anti-Catholicism. You've dragged us all the way back to 1605 to support your argument.... which, FUNNILY ENOUGH, is exactly what the ringleaders of the Gordon riots reached for (and it was considered reaching even then). Turf mentioned Antonia Fraser earlier. Her book is the King and the Catholics. Recommended.

Sand

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont see anybody here defending the other two. I do see plenty defending tommy.

The UK state paid one £651,000 and released the other after less than a year. The UK state relentlessly pursues Tommy Robinson for every misdemeanour, not matter how petty.

Do you really think I'm talking about who defends who on this thread? This thread is irrelevant.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

Even the UK state doesnt believe the crimes are equivalent. Umar Razaq served less than a year for raping a 13 year old. Razaq expresses no remorse and is clearly an ongoing threat to children.

Tommy Robinson will serve 13 months for standing outside a court. The UK establishment will continue to pursue Tommy Robinson for any charge they can drum up for as long as he continues to dissent.

The UK state (and indeed the people who despise Robinson) views Robinson as the greater criminal, so there is no equivalence. You are correct.

So let's clarify. Umar was sentenced to 3 and half years (originally four and a half but reduced on appeal). He was released after nine months because he had already served time while remanded in custody for his trial. Robinson was only sentenced to three months for his actions outside the court that day. The other ten are from his 10 month suspended sentence from before. And there is no way you can definitively say he will serve the full 13 months. It's very likely he won't. It seems like you've either got your facts wrong or deliberately misrepresented the facts. I'm open to correction though.

[Deleted User]

AfterLife wrote: »

Which one are you picking? If you had to pick one like?

Honestly? I've no issue with anyone following any customs/religion/way of life if it doesn't impact on anyone else's way of life. I've lived next door to Sri Lankans, people of the Muslim faith and only two weeks ago had a gay couple move in across the street. All of them have been fantastic folks so far. I love chatting about different languages, cuisines and sports etc from all different walks of life. In a perfect world, everyone would have the same experience. Thus far I honestly have had and I've enjoyed it.

Apparently that's not the case in parts of the UK though if you're to believe reports. There are others living over there better equipped to speak on their experiences. I'm sure there are plenty of scumbags that are inherently against anything and anyone different to themselves, you'll get that everywhere.

Anyway, I personally couldn't give a rats if you're white, black, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, from Cork, homosexual, straight whatever once you're a decent person.

Irish Praetorian

nicedryturf wrote: »

This. Small point - Catholics werent officially* allowed serve in the military until the reliefs of 1778.* When Waterloo came around, many of the British officers judged their catholic soldiers to have tipped the scales towards a British victory. Still, bigotry and suspicion persisted. My point was that at almost any point in European history you have a group of people who think they need to save civilization from Catolics/Jews/Muslims/take your pick, theyre always ignorant of their antecedents and they always end up in the dickhead category with the benefit of a few decades of hindsight.

1793 - pet topic

Unofficially a degree of illict recruiting had been going on since the first institution of the Penal Laws and by the 1770s Irish Catholics could even manage as junior officers (with the collusion of their superiors) but official permission was not granted until 1793.

nicedryturf

jooksavage wrote: »

Turf mentioned Antonia Fraser earlier. Her book is the King and the Catholics. Recommended.

Read this book!

Sand

Captain Obvious wrote: »

So let's clarify. Umar was sentenced to 3 and half years. He was released after nine months because he had already served time while remanded in custody for his trial. Robinson was only sentenced to three months for his actions outside the court that day. The other ten are from his 10 month suspended sentence from before. And there is no way you can definitively say he will serve the full 13 months. It's very likely he won't. It seems like you've either got your facts wrong or deliberately misrepresented the facts. I'm open to correction though.

I've not misrepresented any facts. Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old and was released in less than a year, free to pursue other children and taunt his victim on social media. He does not face a hostile environment from the UK state.

Tommy Robinson on the other hand is consistently pursued by UK authorities for any cause to arrest and imprison him.

There is a very clear distinction in the UK states approach to both. Of course, the real winner is Simons who not only faced no punishment but received £651,000 from UK tax payers.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

I've not misrepresented any facts. Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old and was released in less than a year, free to pursue other children. He does not face a hostile environment from the UK state.

Tommy Robinson on the other hand is consistently pursued by UK authorities for any cause to arrest and imprison him.

There is a very clear distinction in the UK states approach to both. Of course, the real winner is Simons who not only faced no punishment but received £651,000 from UK tax payers.

So you did it on purpose.

Sand

Point out what is untrue? Umar Razaq appealed his sentence, and was released less than a year after being convicted of raping a 13 year old girl. That is how little the UK state thinks of his crime. As I said, the UK state is very good at punishing dissent. Not so good at preventing children from being gang raped.

AfterLife

Sand wrote: »

Umar Razaq raped a 13 year old girl and served less than a year.

What exactly are you accusing Robinson of that is in any way equivalent to that? Mortgage fraud?

Nothing. I'm also not bringing up Jack the Ripper in a thread that has **** all to do with him.

Sand

AfterLife wrote: »

Nothing. I'm also not bringing up Jack the Ripper in a thread that has **** all to do with him.

So let me ask you a question. Who do you think poses the greater risk to the UK public? Tommy Robinson or Umar Razaq?

nicedryturf

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

1793 - pet topic

Unofficially a degree of illict recruiting had been going on since the first institution of the Penal Laws and by the 1770s Irish Catholics could even manage as junior officers (with the collusion of their superiors) but official permission was not granted until 1793.

Thanks for the correction and the info! The more you know... :-)

AfterLife

Sand wrote: »

So let me ask you a question. Who do you think poses the greater risk to the UK public? Tommy Robinson or Umar Razaq?

In this case Razaq.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Robinson should be left unpunished for threatening a very serious court case?

dense

Interesting thoughts.

Irish Praetorian

nicedryturf wrote: »

Thanks for the correction and the info! The more you know... :-)

Al-right you've twisted my arm Ill explain more

In short, the ban was initially instituted in the early 1700s as a reaction to the defection of Irish Catholics in British service to the armies of European powers (predominately France) with Jacobite Irish units. Like a lot of the Penal Laws it tended only to be zealously enforced in times of peril like the Jacobite invasion of Scotland for example. As the cause of the Stuarts waned so did its necessity and by the time of the 7 Years war Catholics started to be enlisted covertly and quietly. As the decades proceeded you could even become a low ranking officers with a bit of collusion and assistance from your fellow officers. The early efforts to enlist Catholics in the 1770s were actually just changes in policy to not enquire about a soldier's religion. Then in 1793 it becomes nice and legal, which is the same time many of the army's historically Irish regiments trace their foundation to.

Ok enough learning, everyone back to talking about TR.

jooksavage

dense wrote: »

Interesting thoughts.

Kevin saw Morrissey's washed up zero-credibility celebrity routine and thought "I could do that!"

Dont know what subtracts more credibility from this - the terrible production (get a microphone that isnt built into your webcam ffs) or the fact its Kevin Sharkey. Hhmmm... the latter, probably.

A few months ago my wife told me FERGAL Sharkey (he of Undertones fame) had lost his mind and become some kind of anti-immigrant weirdo. i was heartbroken. When I realised the mix-up i was relieved and oddly, not all that surprised.

Captain Obvious

Sand wrote: »

Point out what is untrue? Umar Razaq appealed his sentence, and was released less than a year after being convicted of raping a 13 year old girl. That is how little the UK state thinks of his crime. As I said, the UK state is very good at punishing dissent. Not so good at preventing children from being gang raped.

You're presenting the information like Tommy Robinson got a significantly longer sentence than a child rapist for his actions outside the court when, in fact, he got a significantly shorter sentence. Robinson got 3 months and Umar got 42 months.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You're presenting the information like Tommy Robinson got a significantly longer sentence than a child rapist for his actions outside the court when, in fact, he got a significantly shorter sentence. Robinson got 3 months and Umar got 42 months.

42 months for raping a child, HTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

Thats the real question that is being brushed over.

jooksavage

deco nate wrote: »

42 months for raping a child, WTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

That the real question that is being brushed over.

Maybe start a thread about that then because it just looks awfully like youre using that to deflect away questions about Yaxley-Lennons offence by insisting we draw comparisons to the sentencing in this thread.

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

42 months for raping a child, HTF do you only get 42 months for raping a child?!

Thats the real question that is being brushed over.

No it isn't. It's just not relevant to Robinsons guilt. There's been plenty of threads in AH over the years about lenient sentences for offenders.

deco nate

jooksavage wrote: »

Maybe start a thread about that then because it just looks awfully like youre using that to deflect away questions about Yaxley-Lennons offence by insisting we draw comparisons to the sentencing in this thread.

GET out of it, it has every thing to do with it. Its an insight into why people are supporting tr. Good try though.
Why should I start a new thread. Of course it's why people are angry /supporting tr. Just because of bs like this.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No it isn't. It's just not relevant to Robinsons guilt. There's been plenty of threads in AH over the years about lenient sentences for offenders.

You yourself compared the two, they are both relevant. If discussing Tommy Robinson and the reasoning behind him being how he is. then yes both sentences are relevant.

pitifulgod

deco nate wrote: »

GET out of it, it has every thing to do with it. Its an insight into why people are supporting tr. Good try though

You seem to be under the impression that bad sentencing is unique to Muslims. In Ireland we've had judges give suspended sentences for attempted rape as the damage to reputation would be bad enough. Rape sentencing in general is terrible here. I don't actually have a problem with Robinson's sentence btw. Messing with trials and rules around them is pretty serious.

deco nate

pitifulgod wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that bad sentencing is unique to Muslims. In Ireland we've had judges give suspended sentences for attempted rape as the damage to reputation would be bad enough. Rape sentencing in general is terrible here. I don't actually have a problem with Robinson's sentence btw. Messing with trials and rules around them is pretty serious.

I don't either, but we are not talking about Ireland.

Btw you linked Muslims grooming gangs and Irish pedos together there.

i wonder what grooming Irish gangs you are going to link to.... Let me think....