Tommy Robinson arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I've read about half the thread and got bored. Can someone please explain why Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is known Tommy Robinson?
 
It's only the middle or last name that is decreed Singh (Kaur for women) so they can have any first name they want.
We had a receptionist call Ranjit Kaur Khatkar and her husband was Billy Singh. Nice bloke who was also a special constable.
Singh means Lion. The Pakistani Punjabis use the name Khan.
As all Sikhs have to use the name Singh, it is the most common surname in the world.
Only Khalsa Sikhs must take the names Singh and Kaur, Taking Khalsa is a bit like first communion for Christians or taking Lay vows for Buddhists. I know plenty of ordinary Sikhs who didn't do this.
 
If some people are too stupid to see that the prompt application of the exact letter of the law on someone protesting about the systemic failure to apply the law to certain people is going to create a backlash then that's on them.
What does TR, previously Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris know of the proper application of the law?

Why should anyone take lectures about the applications of the law from a thug who persistently cannot stay within the limits of the law?
 
A couple of quick points.

Firstly, it's all too clear from recent posts that the most recent posters have not read the earlier threads.

Secondly, no one posting anywhere about this was in court to hear what was said. For all we know he might have mouthed off big time and got held in contempt for that. Maybe he was going to get, say, a warning but his own big gob dropped him right in it.
No one required to be in court to know what happened. Firstly the whole thing was live streamed and video is available. He committed contempt of court outside the courthouse. How else would he have ended up in front of the judge?

Secondly we know that he was in court for contempt of court because the law pages, which list all the trials occurring in the UK had it on their website. You can even see the times for when the court was in session, times for adjournment and when the case was closed.

You would have to be monumentally stupid to be convicted of CoC and then commit CoC again and then do it again by mouthing off at a judge.
 
The Bermuda Triangle? The Marie Celeste? The Flying Dutchman?
They are just strange, as opposed to being stranger than an employed Scouser.
 
You would be wrong, unless you mean in the context that Capitalism etc. are controlling the population by controlling the mind.

"Liberalism is a political view based on liberty and equality. Liberals generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

Just read that again - freedom of speech, press, religion and a free market.
Liberalism has become a European political ideology, the Americans recognise this.

The point about your freedom of speech statement is pretty much my point, its freedom of speech as long as you toe the same line look at tv or radio broadcasters today almost all liberals if you say anything wrong and do not qualify it you risk getting the sack and if you are joe bloggs you risk an intimidation visit from the old bill. We are being taught how to think and how to act.
 
Speaking of personality cults you creepy little tart. Weren't you sucking off Corbyn in your latest bout of lost cause following?
I'm not, and have never been a Jeremy Corbyn supporter

Our party based system where although you vote for your constituency MP, you vote based on a parties manifesto in general, should suppress the urge to get behind a personality rather than the policies.

In short, and back on topic, it's disappointing that some seem to be prepared to get behind a violent convicted fraudster and believe his integrity over the UK judiciary.
 
Liberalism has become a European political ideology, the Americans recognise this.

The point about your freedom of speech statement is pretty much my point, its freedom of speech as long as you toe the same line look at tv or radio broadcasters today almost all liberals if you say anything wrong and do not qualify it you risk getting the sack and if you are joe bloggs you risk an intimidation visit from the old bill. We are being taught how to think and how to act.
Well quite. But whom do you believe is the driving force behind the deep state?
 
An acquaintance of mine is named 'Tony Singh'. This is not that unusual so I understand.
Anglicised names are just that and he'll have an unpronounceable Sikh name I'd hazard, mebbe's not. Singh is Lion and Kaur is Prince - worth a trip to the temple with your mate but he might avoid it as their collections are somewhat larger than a fiver on the plate. It doesn't include you BTW.
 
A couple of quick points.

Firstly, it's all too clear from recent posts that the most recent posters have not read the earlier threads.

Secondly, no one posting anywhere about this was in court to hear what was said. For all we know he might have mouthed off big time and got held in contempt for that. Maybe he was going to get, say, a warning but his own big gob dropped him right in it.
You may find that new threads are started forth every reason that the earlier threads have covered points. The new thread invariably kicks of with a long rhetorical question in order to tell the same lies.
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Utter drivel. As usual. I don't know if anyone has posted the actual video of the livestream so here it is.


It's readily apparent that he commits contempt of court rather quickly.

Now read this https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-20170522.pdf (you won't of course) and then come back and say he did nothing wrong.

He was told very directly that if he continued with this behaviour he'd not only serve whatever new sentence he'd be given, but also the 3 months (suspended) he was given back in May 2017.

Well I watched it all, which is a first for me.

The assertion that he clearly did something wrong confuses me, just as other posters have mentioned he was very conscious of the limitations put upon him. Repeatedly said he was toeing a thin line and that the police would be watching his feed for any excuse to arrest him. He confirmed both the court limits and that he was doing nothing wrong with the police in a friendly manner.

I'm not a lawyer and maybe there was some small transgression somewhere in that hour and a quarter, though if there was I couldn't discern it.

What puzzles me more is the firm assertion that he clearly deserved to be arrested. Were the authorities within the minutiae of the law? Personally I very much doubt it. Even if you could show me a clear and deliberate transgression I would still distrust your motives.

Which can only reinforce my perception that those arguing the opposite are so blinded by their politically correct dogma that they side with alleged rapists over their own rights to free speech or campaigning. Tommy Robinson is not politically correct and therefore a greater threat than your daughter or sister being raped. Political correctness more important than any other consideration.

You can expect this of the more lunatic feminists and cucks as political correctness is explicitly their own academic construct. Immigration support their policy and therefore the whole child rape epidemic both directly and indirectly their responsibility. Not that they would ever accept such.

Demanding ever more niche and abstract rights for one group or another but fleeing the scene when any responsibility accrues.

Well free speech is everyone's responsibility, Mr Robinson was merely exercising his and does appear to have been persecuted for it. Whether he is a good man or not I find to be utterly irrelevant.
 
Whose word would you believe? Tommy, or the judge?
I'd like to see an article from a respected news source that confirms that when TR went before the beak the other day, he mouthed off to the judge.
If he did - and I have not read any other sources that suggest that he did, then I'd understand an additional CoC charge.
 
You would have to be monumentally stupid to be convicted of CoC and then commit CoC again and then do it again by mouthing off at a judge.
Or making a deliberate choice for political ends.
 
Well I watched it all, which is a first for me.

The assertion that he clearly did something wrong confuses me, just as other posters have mentioned he was very conscious of the limitations put upon him. Repeatedly said he was toeing a thin line and that the police would be watching his feed for any excuse to arrest him. He confirmed both the court limits and that he was doing nothing wrong with the police in a friendly manner.

I'm not a lawyer and maybe there was some small transgression somewhere in that hour and a quarter, though if there was I couldn't discern it.

What puzzles me more is the firm assertion that he clearly deserved to be arrested. Were the authorities within the minutiae of the law? Personally I very much doubt it. Even if you could show me a clear and deliberate transgression I would still distrust your motives.

Which can only reinforce my perception that those arguing the opposite are so blinded by their politically correct dogma that they side with alleged rapists over their own rights to free speech or campaigning. Tommy Robinson is not politically correct and therefore a greater threat than your daughter or sister being raped. Political correctness more important than any other consideration.

You can expect this of the more lunatic feminists and cucks as political correctness is explicitly their own academic construct. Immigration support their policy and therefore the whole child rape epidemic both directly and indirectly their responsibility. Not that they would ever accept such.

Demanding ever more niche and abstract rights for one group or another but fleeing the scene when any responsibility accrues.

Well free speech is everyone's responsibility, Mr Robinson was merely exercising his and does appear to have been persecuted for it. Whether he is a good man or not I find to be utterly irrelevant.
He hasn't been persecuted, he broke the terms of his suspended sentence. It isn't hard. Unless you're monumentally stupid, to a degree unknown so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New Posts

Top