Tommy Robinson arrested

Status
Not open for further replies.
FFS. It was acknowledged that race may have played a small part in the child abuse scandal.
This has been mentioned in the arrse thread about Rotherham.
And if you read what I said you'll note that I do too. But a child abusers motivation is to abuse a child. In the many scandals involving Asian grooming gangs the race of the child was an enabler to the abuse because of the reasons you quote in my post, but not the prime motivation.

Either way it's sick and disgusting and this is in no way a defence of any child abuser but the far right want you to believe they were abused because they were white. They weren't, they were abused because they were children and their lives and lack of agency made it easy to abuse them and most importantly gave the abusers separation from the abused.
 
Very odd value system you have there sport.

So there is something worse than an 11 year old being gang raped? Over 1000 different victims in Rotherham alone?

You do realise.... well clearly you don't so I'm really going to enjoy telling you.... That these odd values of yours are the very reason why the social workers and police didn't do anything about it too? Just like your ever so brave and saintly journalists apparently!

That 11 year old said a brown person raped her. Let's call her a racist and allow all of her friends to be raped too.

She says they gave her alcohol and drugs.... Hmmm, that's naughty at age 11... clearly a racist prostitute then.

Now her father says she's been kidnapped and is being drugged and gangraped for entire weekends... It's ok, we'll arrest him for trying to rescue her as he is probably a racist too.

You can just imagine friends and family contacting the press, probably to receive a lecture on political correctness from them. As you are now laughably trying to do too.

Sorry mate but you are genuinely pathetic. Grow some balls and reshow your values and standards.

At the end of the day you clearly think that Tommy Robinson is a racist. You weigh that against children being raped and have decided that being a racist is worse.

Like I said, very strange value system you have.

Good job it doesn't have any unpleasant side effects for the young or vulnerable isn't it?
Wow, all that to say nothing like what I have said.

I firmly believe all abusers of children should face swift justice, no matter the colour of skin of the abused or the abuser.

Mr Yaxley-Lennon appears to think that if the abuser is white then that doesn't warrant his attention. I merely question why.
 
Mr Yaxley-Lennon appears to think that if the abuser is white then that doesn't warrant his attention. I merely question why.
Never heard him say that, it sounds a bit like the Cathy Newman gambit...."so what you are saying is".
 
Not you specifically, though as a generalisation you'd have to be fairly blind not to hear the cat calls of, "But he's a nasty man!" and therefore does not deserve his equality under the law.

I'm guessing that we agree this is political correctness, and that those who are deemed to be not politically correct are deemed safe and easy targets by the baying mob.



I'm crediting him with having had legal advice as to what constitutes a breach of his conditions. He was certainly very conscious of them. Even confirmed them earlier with the same coppers who later arrested him for breaching the peace.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing that he toed a tight line, he said so himself.

However, and this is the take home, legalistic arguments about whether he set a foot upon the lowest step or arguably transgressed this or that are largely pointless. He knew the rules and bent over backwards not to transgress them.

Yet he was arrested for breaching the peace. He did not.

I think your intentions here are honourable, though I think you need to rethink it.

The sanctity of the court's judgement is a ******* thin excuse for what happened. Especially given that the session was for a verdict.

Argue technical details or legalisms all you like, as it's clear that the law was not and is not being applied equally. The victims didn't get the same benefit, for sure, the abusers did and more so. Because it would be politically incorrect to expose the industrial scale of the abuse.

If the police, social services and courts had displayed the same zeal for the law when 4500 children were being raped then Robinson wouldn't have been there in the first place.

If anyone has shown contempt for the law it is the authorities and they have magnified that by jailing Robinson.



This is an equality under the law issue. Arguably the founding principle of our country with Magna Carta. Certainly the founding principle of Western liberalism.
You appear to have spent a long time arguing that Mr Robinson should be treated differently than any other person on a suspended sentence. We need to wait and find out what his sentence was for rather than pleading Magna Carta.

He'd still be somewhere, under any other pretext. The day his focus is on all child abuse cases is the day he'll get my (qualified) support.
 
Very odd value system you have there sport.

So there is something worse than an 11 year old being gang raped? Over 1000 different victims in Rotherham alone?

You do realise.... well clearly you don't so I'm really going to enjoy telling you.... That these odd values of yours are the very reason why the social workers and police didn't do anything about it too? Just like your ever so brave and saintly journalists apparently!

That 11 year old said a brown person raped her. Let's call her a racist and allow all of her friends to be raped too.

She says they gave her alcohol and drugs.... Hmmm, that's naughty at age 11... clearly a racist prostitute then

Now her father says she's been kidnapped and is being drugged and gangraped for entire weekends... It's ok, we'll arrest him for trying to rescue her as he is probably a racist too.

You can just imagine friends and family contacting the press, probably to receive a lecture on political correctness from them. As you are now laughably trying to do too.

Sorry mate but you are genuinely pathetic. Grow some balls and reshow your values and standards.

At the end of the day you clearly think that Tommy Robinson is a racist. You weigh that against children being raped and have decided that being a racist is worse.

Like I said, very strange value system you have.

Good job it doesn't have any unpleasant side effects for the young or vulnerable isn't it?
You have summed up the whole issue perfectly there!
The very fact there are right wing groups who have spent decades trying to make these crimes a religion issue is the exact reason the social workers didn't act as the criminals were brown!
As white people were simply seen as criminals because they commited crime rather than their skin colour or religion they were dealt with as criminals.

It seem funny imho that on a military based website many of us are perfectly aware of how PIRA worked hard and succeeded in doing something exactly like this so that they turned the authorities into 'bigoted' stereotypes so that PIRA gained passive support from the community, were excused crimes and treated very differently once caught.
It's the reason the pathetic name 'the troubles' arose rather than it just being crime.
Think back to grown up blokes throwing stones at NI kids and their mums going to school..........and the blokes not being arrested as it was 'the troubles' rather than blokes commiting assault as it would have been on the mainland. The same went for petrol bombs, allowed to happen in NI but not in Dorset for example.
Those blokes throwing stones were excused for the exact same reason the rape gangs weren't proscuted!

The difference with TR is it's him and his gang who are creating the lack of action rather than the rape gangs themselves, ergo, no TR or EDL and no social workers holding off to avoid stirring up community tension caused by EDL types.

As it happens, there are growing numbers of peadophile hunters in the UK and they seem to simply traget peadophiles whoever they are so seem to have a fair bit of public support. I suspect that if those peadophile hunters suddenly said they would only be targetting one demograhic such as , white, black, christian or muslim that the public support would disappear and the police would crack down on them, its pretty simple really as the focus would have shifted from hunting vile criminals to targetting a selected group commiting the crime while ignoring others commiting the same crime.
 
How long did it go on for?
Are we talking half a day or something?
I haven't seen it as its a bit on a pointless 'idiot breaks conditions, gets arrested' story.

It must be of interest to some people as it's being reported in:
The Sun
The Independent
The Standard
The Metro
Twitter
Youtube
The studentroom
Reddit
Russia Today
And
The Mirror.
I think that the point was that it was yet another muslim rape gang trial but it was being conducted with a media blackout. His view was that people ought to know that there is yet another one of these trials happening, indicating a bigger problem than Rotheram or Telford alone.

All of the legacy media outlets that reported on this had to change their stories to remove references to the nature of the trial.
 
You have summed up the whole issue perfectly there!
The very fact there are right wing groups who have spent decades trying to make these crimes a religion issue is the exact reason the social workers didn't act as the criminals were brown!
As white people were simply seen as criminals because they commited crime rather than their skin colour or religion they were dealt with as criminals.

It seem funny imho that on a military based website many of us are perfectly aware of how PIRA worked hard and succeeded in doing something exactly like this so that they turned the authorities into 'bigoted' stereotypes so that PIRA gained passive support from the community, were excused crimes and treated very differently once caught.
It's the reason the pathetic name 'the troubles' arose rather than it just being crime.
Think back to grown up blokes throwing stones at NI kids and their mums going to school..........and the blokes not being arrested as it was 'the troubles' rather than blokes commiting assault as it would have been on the mainland. The same went for petrol bombs, allowed to happen in NI but not in Dorset for example.
Those blokes throwing stones were excused for the exact same reason the rape gangs weren't proscuted!

The difference with TR is it's him and his gang who are creating the lack of action rather than the rape gangs themselves, ergo, no TR or EDL and no social workers holding off to avoid stirring up community tension caused by EDL types.

As it happens, there are growing numbers of peadophile hunters in the UK and they seem to simply traget peadophiles whoever they are so seem to have a fair bit of public support. I suspect that if those peadophile hunters suddenly said they would only be targetting one demograhic such as , white, black, christian or muslim that the public support would disappear and the police would crack down on them, its pretty simple really as the focus would have shifted from hunting vile criminals to targetting a selected group commiting the crime while ignoring others commiting the same crime.
I am not attacking you here mate but you sound like a person who has only been reading mainstream / legacy news articles about TR. It had long been demonstrated that nearly all of these articles contain serious falsehoods in order to make him radioactive to everybody around him.

If you look into this with any degree of seriousness you will discover that he is not at all what the mainstream claim that he is.
 
so... there is no proof than?
and judge's word isn't more trustworthy than TR's. or anyone else for that matter
Beg to differ. Until the judge has a string of convictions his word's more trustworthy than Robinson's.
 
The judge stating that "This is not about legitimate journalism" implies that had TR's actions been considered "legitimate journalism" he would not have been arrested. A value judgement has been made (and fair enough), but in many ways I'd trust TR's word over, say, The Guardian, when it comes to the types of matters that are before the court.

What exactly does constitute "legitimate journalism" these days?
Pish - disingenuous is the kindest thing I could say. For full context:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as "Muslim paedophile rapists". A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting - if reporting indeed is what it is - that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action in order to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by "irresponsible and inaccurate reporting". If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.
 
Not you specifically, though as a generalisation you'd have to be fairly blind not to hear the cat calls of, "But he's a nasty man!" and therefore does not deserve his equality under the law.

I'm guessing that we agree this is political correctness, and that those who are deemed to be not politically correct are deemed safe and easy targets by the baying mob.



I'm crediting him with having had legal advice as to what constitutes a breach of his conditions. He was certainly very conscious of them. Even confirmed them earlier with the same coppers who later arrested him for breaching the peace.

I'm not arguing or disagreeing that he toed a tight line, he said so himself.

However, and this is the take home, legalistic arguments about whether he set a foot upon the lowest step or arguably transgressed this or that are largely pointless. He knew the rules and bent over backwards not to transgress them.

Yet he was arrested for breaching the peace. He did not.

I think your intentions here are honourable, though I think you need to rethink it.

The sanctity of the court's judgement is a ******* thin excuse for what happened. Especially given that the session was for a verdict.

Argue technical details or legalisms all you like, as it's clear that the law was not and is not being applied equally. The victims didn't get the same benefit, for sure, the abusers did and more so. Because it would be politically incorrect to expose the industrial scale of the abuse.

If the police, social services and courts had displayed the same zeal for the law when 4500 children were being raped then Robinson wouldn't have been there in the first place.

If anyone has shown contempt for the law it is the authorities and they have magnified that by jailing Robinson.



This is an equality under the law issue. Arguably the founding principle of our country with Magna Carta. Certainly the founding principle of Western liberalism.
I agree with your general point, especially the last sentence. The rape gangs (I won't use the word grooming as I think it cheapens the crime) have been operating right across the country for some time. We know that a blind eye was turned not just by the police, but local authorities and politicians. The police even went out of their way to ignore victims and their families. We also see how certain "communities" are policed differently from the rest of the UK, but that shouldn't mean that other people get a pass too.

Robinson was on thin ice and knew it, but continued with his actions anyway. Further more, you do not have to actually make a breach of the peace in order to be arrested for the offence.

Breach of the peace and police powers - InBrief.co.uk

Now this IS a grey area, because it relies on the judgement of the officers, however, Robinson was arrested an hour into filming and we know that the officers dealing with him spoke to the trial judge (not sure of the timing of that whether it was before or after the arrest). It's possible that they wanted to remove him in order to prevent a breach of the peace due to people exiting the court building who'd either been directly involved in the trial or families of the convicted. He could have diffused the whole situation by simply walking away, but instead continued to film and be present.

It would be interesting to see if there is a challenge against this arrest.

Now from the above we can see that there is no fine or custodial sentence for BotP because it's not a criminal offence. Therefore we know that the rumour he's been given 1 month in prison for BotP is false.

Even without the arrest he would still have been in contempt, he just wouldn't have been likely to be in front of the judge on the same day. I think one of the reasons that constituted the act of contempt is the live streaming aspect. It's essentially a live broadcast. Judge Norton alluded to this last May. The trial for these 29 people has been split into 3 and the next batch go to trial in September. This means that even though the session in court may have been for a verdict or sentencing, the trial is still in session until after September. We also don't know if some of the defendants at the court that day are due to face additional accusations in September. So it makes no difference. This is why, if the image of the Postponement Order is true, the order postpones reporting until after that trial is concluded.

I understand where you're coming from and believe me I have the same concerns, but I think in this particular case there was only going to be one outcome.
 
You can say it to any conflict in the world. Even on Palestine, Syria or Iraq. The fuct is the Muslim commuiny is a time bomb
Just for the sake of accuaracy, your prediction of what will happen in the future is a prediction and nothing more, certainly not a fact.

I suppose the crime figures that would suggest that the muslim population of this country commit the same percentage of rapes or child abuse as the rest of the population pro rata doesnt sound as inflammatory so TR doesn't mention it.
He also doesnt seem to mention that his supporters have murdered more MPs by a huge amount pro rata than the rest of the population, or commited more religeous terrorism pro rata than UK muslims have. Its a funny old game playing with statistics isnt it :)
 
Some jihadists are blowing themselves up, others give them a passive support. The rape phenomenon is manifistion of hatred towards the infidels.
Rape is about power, control and sex, in the majority of cases men attacking women. Any racial/religious aspects are in addition to the primary drivers.
I don't think anyone should be patting themselves on the back over these grooming cases, especially not journos or lefties. Unfortunately there was a time when the only people publicising the phenomena initially was the BNP, regardless of their actual motives. Read the Rotherham thread for further details. The far right would probably not exist if this problem had been acknowledged and dealt with decades ago.

However, the far right does not own this situation and now we're in the entirely predictable situation where every troll farm on the web is working full time to generate more outrage and martyrs. It's fine to be part of that but not if your genuine concern is preventing abuse, getting justice for victims and punishing perpetrators.
Why have justice when you can manufacture more grievance?
 
Not me, he got 3 months for the suspended, 9 months for contempt of court and one month for breach of the peace, that adds up to 13 months but I never said he was jailed for 13 months.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I'd love to know the source of this information because Breach of the Peace is not a criminal offence. You cannot be given a custodial sentence for it. Therefore the "one month for breach of the peace" must be wrong.

Breach of the peace and police powers - InBrief.co.uk

There's an awful lot of complete and utter rubbish flying around the internet, particularly on twitter and facebook so be careful, it's like one massive game of Chinese whispers.
 
Yes, you are. You suggested that he was gobbing-off in court and, therefore, was held in contempt. It's that simple.
Wrong.
I made it very clear that we do not know what happened inside that courtroom. I said that for all we know he might have gobbed off at the judge. This very clearly means I did not state that he was actually gobbing off.
That is really very simple to follow.

I do suggest that you improve your reading comprehension. That way you might make fewer mistakes through misunderstanding plain text.
 
Very odd value system you have there sport.

So there is something worse than an 11 year old being gang raped? Over 1000 different victims in Rotherham alone?

You do realise.... well clearly you don't so I'm really going to enjoy telling you.... That these odd values of yours are the very reason why the social workers and police didn't do anything about it too? Just like your ever so brave and saintly journalists apparently!

That 11 year old said a brown person raped her. Let's call her a racist and allow all of her friends to be raped too.

She says they gave her alcohol and drugs.... Hmmm, that's naughty at age 11... clearly a racist prostitute then.

Now her father says she's been kidnapped and is being drugged and gangraped for entire weekends... It's ok, we'll arrest him for trying to rescue her as he is probably a racist too.

You can just imagine friends and family contacting the press, probably to receive a lecture on political correctness from them. As you are now laughably trying to do too.

Sorry mate but you are genuinely pathetic. Grow some balls and reshow your values and standards.

At the end of the day you clearly think that Tommy Robinson is a racist. You weigh that against children being raped and have decided that being a racist is worse.

Like I said, very strange value system you have.

Good job it doesn't have any unpleasant side effects for the young or vulnerable isn't it?
We've covered all of this in the original thread. What I'd call very strange values is wanting a case to collapse because of some arse politicking on the court steps. My but there'd be an awful lot of outrage about that wouldn't there?
 
The judge stating that "This is not about legitimate journalism" implies that had TR's actions been considered "legitimate journalism" he would not have been arrested. A value judgement has been made (and fair enough), but in many ways I'd trust TR's word over, say, The Guardian, when it comes to the types of matters that are before the court.

What exactly does constitute "legitimate journalism" these days?
I can't see how on earth you could interpret the whole sentence and come to that conclusion. In effect she is saying that outside considerations do not matter, what matters is the integrity of the legal process of a trial.
 
That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.
"Yes, Minister"

 
He does not want a race war. He is not a racist, he is not even right wing. He is a classical liberal with his politics and his only real issue is with Islam or rather it´s protected status in the UK and Europe where serious crimes are committed that can be attributed to Islam are ignored or have a blind eye turned.

This is a misconception fueled by constant misreporting by regressive leftist media.

He was risking breaching his suspended sentence for this but he was not breaching the peace. The home office hate him and fear him, he is the only person that has been able to mobilise tens of thousands of people (free speech day) and I think this frightens the home office as they want us all to just shut up and be quiet.

If you think he is a racist or a fraudster of whatever then I would encourage you to watch his talk a few years ago at Oxford university and then watch his own content on youtube at rebel media or his own channel and see for yourself what he believes.

I used to think he was some far right nutter until i stopped soaking up what the newspapers were telling me and looked into it myself and now i find myself thinking that he is a bit rough around the edges but a decent person and somebody who we need jn these troubled times

He will be lucky to make it out of prison alive this time and I am appalled at his continued poor treatment by the state. It does show that what he is doing is working though.
You'd have thought, that if going inside was going to lead to his death, he'd have avoided getting himself banged up for something he's been convicted for already. Wouldn't you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top