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

RDM_83 again

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Good breakdown of the decision here.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

The end of that post isnt a great, saying that it's likely that your not sufficiently critical of procedure when your (apparently) a barrister but that's ok because there is so much misinformation coming from his supporters isn't particularly reassuring for a blog that's meant to be serious about the legal rather than politcs side of things.

"There is nothing unusual in him being dealt with on the day of the contempt. Courts are required to deal with contempts as swiftly as possible. There is no suggestion of any prejudice; Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by an experienced barrister and would have received full legal advice."

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

That's a previous statement from the Secret B that's just flat out wrong and not simply because as they state they didn't have sufficient information at the time (the speed of judgement and other matters were remarked upon as being unusual from other sources).

Overall this is just a sh-tshow, if principled people like Anne Cryer and co had been listened to years before Tommy Robinson became a big name people wouldn't be having to worry about a resurgent far/alt/hard right in England. Basically none of this is good for society in general and it was preventable.

Call Me Jimmy

RDM_83 again wrote: »

The end of that post isnt a great, saying that it's likely that your not sufficiently critical of procedure when your (apparently) a barrister but that's ok because there is so much misinformation coming from his supporters isn't particularly reassuring for a blog that's meant to be serious about the legal rather than politcs side of things.

the original one now in light of this surely discredits him. Even a layman with a hint of objectivity could see it was not normal. As has been revealed, it wasn't even clear what action of his broke the law. I wouldn't take anything that guy says seriously re: Tommy

deco nate

AfterLife wrote: »

Why do you think there is so many Pakistanis, Caribbeans, Irish etc in Britain?

It is very much to do with Empire.

"Due to the historical relations between the two countries, immigration to the UK from the region which is now Pakistan began in small numbers in the mid-19th century. During the mid-nineteenth century, parts of what is now Pakistan came under the British Raj and people from those regions served as soldiers in the British Indian Army, and some were deployed in other parts of the British Empire. However, it was following the Second World War, the break-up of the British Empire and the independence of Pakistan, that Pakistani immigration to the United Kingdom increased, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. This was made easier as Pakistan was a member of the Commonwealth."

You never answered my question. There was Irish areas in this two cities as well. They weren't particularly well liked either.

Yea, but they could speak English....

AfterLife

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

AfterLife wrote: »

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Who's 'they'? The politicians or the people?

I'm talking about the situation on the ground in Britain. The immigrants from the Middle East bring a completely different culture, a different religion, different languages. Have you been to cities like Birmingham, blackburn or Burnley and seen the radical change to entire neighbourhoods. These changes have taken place in a relatively short period and, understandably, people are getting tired of it.

Now, care to deal with any of points or are you just going to play the waycist card as usual??

I don't have to. You're doing a grand job yourself.

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's quite hard to tell when it comes to followers of people like Robinson and Trump.

Have you read all the other posts on here? It's plain to see that his post was a piis take. You know what you are doing. Angry man: location... = bs posts. But hey just pretend you haven't read all the posts before. Tell me, how long is that Yellow Brick Road that you are on, are ye near the end yet?

AfterLife

deco nate wrote: »

Yea, but they could speak English....

English is one of the two official languages of Pakistan. I don't believe for a minute that the vast majority of Pakistanis in England don't speak English.

deco nate

AfterLife wrote: »

English is one of the two official languages of Pakistan. I don't believe for a minute the The vast majority of Pakistanis in England don't speak English.

Keep an ear out for the Urdu ones.... Pakistan, the lovers of taken young boys away from their families and training them to "dance" and dress like women, because its OK to have sex with them before they are 18,its not gay. Because boys are for fun. Women are for breeding.

AfterLife

deco nate wrote: »

Keep an ear out for the Urdu ones.... Pakistan, the lovers of taken young boys away from their families and training them to "dance" and dress like women, because its OK to have sex with them before they are 18,its not gay. Because boys are for fun. Women are for breeding.

I'm not saying that Pakistan doesn't have tons of problems. Even beyond the ones you are highlighting. It is a 3rd world country. What I am saying is that the British welcomed them in over the last 100 years. The ones that came there and had children 60 or 70 years ago now have grandchildren that are as British as Tommy Robinson. If they want to stop further immigration that is entirely up to them. What they have now is a very British problem however.

Claiming that all Muslims are the same is still wrong. So if Tommy wants people to take him seriously he has to stop bleating on about Muslims.

deco nate

AfterLife wrote: »

I'm not saying that Pakistan doesn't have tons of problems. Even beyond the ones you are highlighting. It is a 3rd world country. What I am saying is that the British welcomed them in over the last 100 years. The ones that came there and had children 60 or 70 years ago now have grandchildren that are as British as Tommy Robinson. If they want to stop further immigration that is entirely up to them. What they have now is a very British problem however.

Claiming that all Muslims are the same is still wrong. So if Tommy wants people to take him seriously he has to stop bleating on about Muslims.

Has he ever said all muslims?

I'm sure he has said otherwise, maybe I'm wrong.

AfterLife

deco nate wrote: »

Has he ever said all muslims?

I'm sure he has said otherwise, maybe I'm wrong.

He constantly talks about Muslims. He said it outside the courtroom. It's in that Secret Barrister link.

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

Have you read all the other posts on here? It's plain to see that his post was a piis take. You know what you are doing. Angry man: location... = bs posts. But hey just pretend you haven't read all the posts before. Tell me, how long is that Yellow Brick Road that you are on, are ye near the end yet?

What are you on about? No I didn't know it was a piss take. Like I said, there are fanatical supporters of people like Trump and Robinson that would very well believe such a thing about him. And in the absence of a sarcasm font, it's often the case things are taken at face value on forums. And I skipped over all that bickering.

Outlaw Pete

AfterLife wrote: »

He constantly talks about Muslims.

Of course, but has he ever said Muslims are "all the same" as you suggested?

I've certainly never heard him say anything like that, in fact if anything he is often at pains to point out how they're very much not all the same. In the following for example he speaks with an Iranian born Muslim scholar and both discuss the different types of Muslims and Islamists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tuQoXhOPQ

ohnonotgmail

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

the original one now in light of this surely discredits him. Even a layman with a hint of objectivity could see it was not normal. As has been revealed, it wasn't even clear what action of his broke the law. I wouldn't take anything that guy says seriously re: Tommy

It is very clear what section of the law tommy broke. The ruling was only on the procedure of the trial. It does not make tommy innocent.

DickSwiveller Returns

AfterLife wrote: »

I'm not saying that Pakistan doesn't have tons of problems. Even beyond the ones you are highlighting. It is a 3rd world country. What I am saying is that the British welcomed them in over the last 100 years. The ones that came there and had children 60 or 70 years ago now have grandchildren that are as British as Tommy Robinson. If they want to stop further immigration that is entirely up to them. What they have now is a very British problem however.

Claiming that all Muslims are the same is still wrong. So if Tommy wants people to take him seriously he has to stop bleating on about Muslims.

Do you really not understand why people - particularly working class people - are unnerved by whole towns and cities being transformed through this deliberate policy. As I said earlier, go to certain districts in London and you would be convinced you are in Islamabad. Even John Cleese said a few years ago that London is no longer an English city.

PlaneSpeeking

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Do you really not understand why people - particularly working class people - are unnerved by whole towns and cities being transformed through this deliberate policy. As I said earlier, go to certain districts in London and you would be convinced you are in Islamabad. Even John Cleese said a few years ago that London is no longer an English city.

There are two schools in the area my niece lives (NW England), she goes to the Catholic school. No worries there, good OFSTED reports etc. Children of immigrants absolutely, but they can all speak fluid English and learn very well.

The other one "the Academy" - has in at least half the classes, no UK born children. There is a class of seven year olds with 34 pupils and 20 different languages spoken.

I'm sure I'm about to be called a racist any second now but there is no way that is right.

English may be an official language of Pakistan and other similar countries but you will find that whereas the husband may speak some English, it is guaranteed the wife/wives will not. It's tragic in some ways.

DickSwiveller Returns

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

There are two schools in the area my niece lives (NW England), she goes to the Catholic school. No worries there, good OFSTED reports etc. Children of immigrants absolutely, but they can all speak fluid English and learn very well.

The other one "the Academy" - has in at least half the classes, no UK born children. There is a class of seven year olds with 34 pupils and 20 different languages spoken.

I'm sure I'm about to be called a racist any second now but there is no way that is right.

English may be an official language of Pakistan and other similar countries but you will find that whereas the husband may speak some English, it is guaranteed the wife/wives will not. It's tragic in some ways.

Ye it's unbelievable. But it won't stop the useless liberals sneering at anyone who raises concerns

seamus

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The other one "the Academy" - has in at least half the classes, no UK born children. There is a class of seven year olds with 34 pupils and 20 different languages spoken.

Oh noes! Foreigners mixing! The very fabric of society will come undone!

Capital cities attract the largest influx of migrants, because that's where all the jobs are.

And because wealthy people don't tend to migrate, those who do migrate find themselves being penned into the more affordable parts of these cities because the "good" parts have been monopolised by wealthy natives.

So it's a simple function of numbers that in some parts of a capital city, the proportion of non-native residents will be considerably higher than the overall proportion.

I don't see the issue.

DickSwiveller Returns

seamus wrote: »

Oh noes! Foreigners mixing! The very fabric of society will come undone!

Capital cities attract the largest influx of migrants, because that's where all the jobs are.

And because wealthy people don't tend to migrate, those who do migrate find themselves being penned into the more affordable parts of these cities because the "good" parts have been monopolised by wealthy natives.

So it's a simple function of numbers that in some parts of a capital city, the proportion of non-native residents will be considerably higher than the overall proportion.

I don't see the issue.

Of course you don't, because you're in favour of dumping large numbers of immigrants in working class areas for some reason. It's about identity. As I keep saying large parts of big cities resemble a city in the Middle East. A lot of people don't like this.

seamus

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Of course you don't, because you're in favour of dumping large numbers of immigrants in working class areas for some reason.

Well no, but don't let that stop your nonsense ranting.

It's about identity. As I keep saying large parts of big cities resemble a city in the Middle East. A lot of people don't like this.

Racism then. Gotcha.

DickSwiveller Returns

seamus wrote: »

Well no, but don't let that stop your nonsense ranting.

Racism then. Gotcha.

Waaaaaayyyyyycccciiiiisssstttttttt. Are you afterlife in disguise?

seamus

Who? Any road, nationalism and racism go hand in hand. People who oppose immigration on the basis of "identity" are racist. There's no arguing it.

You can oppose it on plenty of other grounds such as economic stability, and oppose how it's done - e.g. funnelling loads of poorly-educated, low-income people with a common foreign culture into one area never works out well.

But when "it's about identity" and "people don't like it". That's just racism.

TomSweeney

Odhinn wrote: »

They asked him to both walk upright and talk coherently at the same time.

Brilliant Nodin, now put that beer away, its 10.30 in the morning, you have to go down the jobcenter ...

PlaneSpeeking

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Waaaaaayyyyyycccciiiiisssstttttttt. Are you afterlife in disguise?

Oh way to miss the point there eh DSR ? Bless you for trying to put him right though!

I've a wee nephew in school in Liverpool and in his class are kids who are not toilet trained, can barely string a sentence together and constantly disrupt the class.

They're all UK born, to UK citizens and white as the driven snow.

They are a disruption to the education of the majority and shouldn't be there.

I'm getting really tired of the achiongly hip crowd trying to divert an actual problem by throwing out lame accusations of racism.

Incidentally, my niece's class has kids from at least half a dozen countries, her best mate is Latvian. She speaks better English than most English born kids and wants to learn and be part of the local community.

Sadly you can't say that about the other school.

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

Brilliant Nodin, now put that beer away, its 10.30 in the morning, you have to go down the jobcenter ...

As if!

[Deleted User]

Wha is interesting and its to do with the British class system is that Douglas Murray can say more or less the same thing but because he is an Oxford graduate it does not attract the same censure.

TomSweeney

mariaalice wrote: »

Wha is interesting and its to do with the British class system is that Douglas Murray can say more or less the same thing but because he is an Oxford graduate it does not attract the same censure.

Good point, his book the strange death of Europe is an excellent read too - and very depressing.

[Deleted User]

TomSweeney wrote: »

Good point, his book the strange death of Europe is an excellent read too - and very depressing.

I don't agree with either of them by the way, but it is interesting how the English class system works.

TomSweeney

mariaalice wrote: »

I don't agree with either of them by the way, but it is interesting how the English class system works.

Don't know how anyone with a rational mind can't see Douglas Murrays points, especially if you read his book.

PlaneSpeeking

TomSweeney wrote: »

Don't know how anyone with a rational mind can't see Douglas Murrays points, especially if you read his book.

His book on the Savile Enquiry concerning Bloody Sunday was a brilliant, if tough, read too.

DickSwiveller Returns

seamus wrote: »

Who? Any road, nationalism and racism go hand in hand. People who oppose immigration on the basis of "identity" are racist. There's no arguing it.

You can oppose it on plenty of other grounds such as economic stability, and oppose how it's done - e.g. funnelling loads of poorly-educated, low-income people with a common foreign culture into one area never works out well.

But when "it's about identity" and "people don't like it". That's just racism.

I don't think it's racist to object to huge cultural changes in your country. Many people were never asked if they wanted this to happen.