Tommy Robinson jailed

piplip87 · 23-02-2019 6:22pm

So did anybody watch his expose of the BBC ? Was it a load BS as expected

FTA69 · 23-02-2019 9:25pm

piplip87 wrote: »

So did anybody watch his expose of the BBC ? Was it a load BS as expected

What an absolute farce. I think he’s overreaching and running out of steam a bit for the time being.

rgossip30 · 24-02-2019 4:23am

piplip87 wrote: »

So did anybody watch his expose of the BBC ? Was it a load BS as expected

The video with subtitles is to be released soon difficult to hear ,heads will roll at the BBC and the Hope Not Hate group . Interesting to see those that make Panorama slobbering.urm urm.

Canis Lupus · 24-02-2019 8:49am

rgossip30 wrote: »

The video with subtitles is to be released soon difficult to hear ,heads will roll at the bib and hope not hate.Interesting to see those that make Panorama slobbering.urm urm.

Anyone translate this for me?

rgossip30 · 24-02-2019 9:19am

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Anyone translate this for me?

What exactly do you not understand ? Watch the Pandorama video if you are interested. I changed it just for you hope you can now understand ..

batgoat · 24-02-2019 1:05pm

Meanwhile it really sums up the type of people at Tommy marches when you see this. Justifications from certain people shortly I imagine.

https://twitter.com/Davidpoucherxo/status/1099322206759411713?s=19

GinAndBitter · 24-02-2019 1:12pm

batgoat wrote: »

Meanwhile it really sums up the type of people at Tommy marches when you see this. Justifications from certain people shortly I imagine.

https://twitter.com/Davidpoucherxo/status/1099322206759411713?s=19

Desperation stuff from you BatGoat. Is this all you could find? No violence or racism videos anywhere??

The behaviour of your buddies from the far left was much worse in Rooskey last week, no condemnation from you on that one though.

kowloon · 24-02-2019 11:11pm

What's with the blue visi-vests?

batgoat · 24-02-2019 11:20pm

GinAndBitter wrote: »

Desperation stuff from you BatGoat. Is this all you could find? No violence or racism videos anywhere??

The behaviour of your buddies from the far left was much worse in Rooskey last week, no condemnation from you on that one though.

I actually do know a few people in the dreaded Rooskey event. A counter protest against a group led by a racist conspiracy theorist. Meanwhile for example during the free Tommy event, numerous people were arrested and a bus was blockaded because the driver was wearing a headscarf.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-protest-bus-blockade-woman-driver-headscarf-trump-latest-a8447536.html

By the way, the main reason Tommy Robinson made this 'documentary is because Yaxley is facing his own Panorama documentary in the near future according to BBC.

Outlaw Pete · 24-02-2019 11:44pm

This is the kind of thing which results in Tommy getting the support he does.

https://twitter.com/obianuju/status/1099791423120068608

GinAndBitter · 25-02-2019 12:05am

batgoat wrote: »

I actually do know a few people in the dreaded Rooskey event. A counter protest against a group led by a racist conspiracy theorist. Meanwhile for example during the free Tommy event, numerous people were arrested and a bus was blockaded because the driver was wearing a headscarf.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-protest-bus-blockade-woman-driver-headscarf-trump-latest-a8447536.html

By the way, the main reason Tommy Robinson made this 'documentary is because Yaxley is facing his own Panorama documentary in the near future according to BBC.

What do you mean a counter protest ? There was only one protest that day. Leah Doherty and her antifa buddy's. Her losing the head screaming at Rowan Croft whether you like him or not he had every to be there as much as them. The people in Rooskey want none of them there, but we'll leave talk of that to the other thread.

I've no interest panorama or Tommys documentary it seems like a load of ****e. Which is why I haven't commented on it. I've seen none of what happend yesterday but I'll have a look at the link you posted.

The blocking of the bus is not recent it's from last summer, and there is no evidence they stopped the bus because there was a Muslim driving. That wasn't the only traffic they blocked that day.

It's not acceptable behaviour. There are good and bad eggs on both sides here, I hope you haven't much to do with that crowd that were in Rooskey because they are a shower of Muppets.

Chris_Heilong · 25-02-2019 12:25am

It is sicking the amount of abuse of power the media have and how they try to influence the poor gullible readers/listeners who do not know any better, at least if nothing else what Tommy has shown how low some of these so called reporters can be.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 10:02am

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

It is sicking the amount of abuse of power the media have and how they try to influence the poor gullible readers/listeners who do not know any better, at least if nothing else what Tommy has shown how low some of these so called reporters can be.

You mean abusing power like getting a rape crisis line closed due to abuse and getting a females only gym session closed down? that abuse of power?

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 10:21am

Tommy Robinson isn't perfect, but he brings up big points:

1. There are problems within the Muslim community, and they need to be discussed. Most Muslims are decent, but there is a significant minority whose cultural/political views are not very compatible with the West. I am not talking about people who are angry at the US invading/destabilising the Middle East. I'm talking about the people who think White women are slags, commit sex assaults, etc.

2. Too many people equate (1) with racism. Islam is a religion, not a race. We need to stop thinking Muslim = Brown Person, and Criticism of Islam = Racism.

3. The police/legal system are being incredibly heavy handed against Tommy. The law should be applied equally to everyone. The police/legal system should not be used to silence conversations. Tommy isn't assaulting anyone. He's just talking about uncomfortable issues. I'm not saying he's right about everything, but he should be allowed say these things.

4. Expanding on (3), it is undesirable the way the UK is moving away from free speech. For example, the police are now cautioning people for saying things like "I think transgender women are biologically male". You can't have freedom without free speech.

5. We need to ask why so many people are anti-Muslim. It's lazy to say it's just because they're louts. There's more to it than that.

6. Similarly, we need to ask why so many Muslims have issues with the West.

7. We need to stop demonising one side. Both Tommy and his opponents make good points, and the solution is probably somewhere in the middle.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 10:27am

How exactly have the legal system been heavy handed towards convicted criminal Tommy Robinson?

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 10:39am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How exactly have the legal system been heavy handed towards convicted criminal Tommy Robinson?

A judge decided no media should be allowed report on a Muslim gang who had been raping children for decades.

Tommy disagreed with this, so he filmed outside the court, after the criminals had already been convicted for their crimes.

This was illegal (as the judge had banned media covering the case), but Tommy felt the public had a right to know about these pedophile gangs.

He was arrested for the filming, and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.

That's the gist of it.

Regardless of your opinion on Tommy, a reasonable person should be able to see this is the court system being draconian.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 10:53am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

A judge decided no media should be allowed report on a Muslim gang who had been raping children for decades.

Tommy disagreed with this, so he filmed outside the court, after the criminals had already been convicted for their crimes.

This was illegal (as the judge had banned media covering the case), but Tommy felt the public had a right to know about these pedophile gangs.

He was arrested for the filming, and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.

That's the gist of it.

Regardless of your opinion on Tommy, a reasonable person should be able to see this is the court system being draconian.

Whether tommy disagreed with the initial reporting ban is irrelevant. That is not his decision to make. If he was in any way intelligent he would realise why the reporting ban was in place and obey it like every other journalist. He claims to be a journalist so he should be held to the same standards as other journalist. He also was not jailed for 13 months for that contempt alone. He had a suspended sentence of 4 months for a previous contempt that was activated. So his sentence should have been a MINIMUM of 4 months. His sentence was only set aside for procedural matters. He was guilty of contempt. If any actual journalist had committed the same contempt they would have been treated the same. They wouldn't because they are not as thick as Tommy who is only interesting in generating publicity for himself and getting gullible fools to send him money on the back of that..

Auguste Comte · 25-02-2019 11:00am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.

It's not unheard of, and Tommy's criminal history would also have been taken into account.

[/quote] wealthy property developer has been jailed for 14 months for contempt of court in relation to his divorce settlement.[/quote]

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 11:14am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Whether tommy disagreed with the initial reporting ban is irrelevant. That is not his decision to make. If he was in any way intelligent he would realise why the reporting ban was in place and obey it like every other journalist. He claims to be a journalist so he should be held to the same standards as other journalist. He also was not jailed for 13 months for that contempt alone. He had a suspended sentence of 4 months for a previous contempt that was activated. So his sentence should have been a MINIMUM of 4 months. His sentence was only set aside for procedural matters. He was guilty of contempt. If any actual journalist had committed the same contempt they would have been treated the same. They wouldn't because they are not as thick as Tommy who is only interesting in generating publicity for himself and getting gullible fools to send him money on the back of that..

I said he was sentenced to 13 months in prison, I didn't say he spent 13 months in prison.

You can read the prison sentence here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-jailed-contempt-court-facebook-live-video-stephen-yaxley-lennon-a8374121.html

First sentence: Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 13 months for breaking contempt of court laws with a Facebook Live video.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 11:31am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I said he was sentenced to 13 months in prison, I didn't say he spent 13 months in prison.

You can read the prison sentence here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-jailed-contempt-court-facebook-live-video-stephen-yaxley-lennon-a8374121.html

First sentence: Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 13 months for breaking contempt of court laws with a Facebook Live video.

and the first 4 months of that 13 months were a previous 4 months suspended sentence that was activated when he offended again. Dont depend on an individual newspaper report to tell you everything.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 11:41am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the first 4 months of that 13 months were a previous 4 months suspended sentence that was activated when he offended again. Dont depend on an individual newspaper report to tell you everything.

I believe 9 months is still too long for this.

Compare it to the sentences given for other crimes.

I'm not defending Tommy.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 11:44am

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I believe 9 months is still too long for this.

Compare it to the sentences given for other crimes.

I'm not defending Tommy.

what sentence would be appropriate for somebody who repeatedly, publicly, breaks the law solely to promote himself and in the process threatens to jeopardise the trials he claims to be so concerned about?

Cienciano · 25-02-2019 11:47am

There's a lot of talk about Tommy's panorama exposé, can someone give an exact quote about what is so damming about it?

GinAndBitter · 25-02-2019 12:46pm

That documentary he done is actually worth a watch, panorama was defo gonna be a hatchet job. They approached former employees of his offering money to tell lies about him, make up stories etc. That guy John Sweeney is in gonna be in a series bit of bother, he's on camera getting pissed and using multiple racist and homophobic slurs. Laughing about people paying the TV licence while he pissed 250 quid against the wall in one afternoon.

ancapailldorcha · 25-02-2019 12:47pm

Cienciano wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about Tommy's panorama exposé, can someone give an exact quote about what is so damming about it?

Presumably, it exposes things about Stephen that he and his admirers would rather it didn't. That alone will make it worth watching.

Grayson · 25-02-2019 12:49pm

GinAndBitter wrote: »

That documentary he done is actually worth a watch, panorama was defo gonna be a hatchet job. They approached former employees of his offering money to tell lies about him, make up stories etc. That guy John Sweeney is in gonna be in a series bit of bother, he's on camera getting pissed and using multiple racist and homophobic slurs. Laughing about people paying the TV licence while he pissed 250 quid against the wall in one afternoon.

So someone went undercover with racists and said racist stuff.

Wow, how dare he.

GinAndBitter · 25-02-2019 12:56pm

Grayson wrote: »

So someone went undercover with racists and said racist stuff.

Wow, how dare he.

He wasn't undercover though , and you dont even know who he spoke to.

GinAndBitter · 25-02-2019 1:00pm

Cienciano wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about Tommy's panorama exposé, can someone give an exact quote about what is so damming about it?

There is a lot in it, you should watch it if you have a spare hour. I thought it was gonna be a load of crap but it was a lot better than I thought.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 1:28pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what sentence would be appropriate for somebody who repeatedly, publicly, breaks the law solely to promote himself and in the process threatens to jeopardise the trials he claims to be so concerned about?

The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

I don't think you're being fair if you think there wasn't a political angle to his conviction. He is considered dangerous, even though he is just speaking and sharing information.

My angle on all this is I believe in free speech. I think it is vital if we want freedom. That means you should be allowed report on a criminal case.

ArmaniJeanss · 25-02-2019 1:37pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

Your timeline seems wrong.

The contempt incident occurred in May 2018, but the trials were still ongoing in September 2018.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 1:39pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

I don't think you're being fair if you think there wasn't a political angle to his conviction. He is considered dangerous, even though he is just speaking and sharing information.

My angle on all this is I believe in free speech. I think it is vital if we want freedom. That means you should be allowed report on a criminal case.

THAT trial may have gone to sentencing but there were OTHER linked trials that had not. You seem to have the same deep understanding that tommy does.

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-02-2019 1:41pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

I don't think you're being fair if you think there wasn't a political angle to his conviction. He is considered dangerous, even though he is just speaking and sharing information.

My angle on all this is I believe in free speech. I think it is vital if we want freedom. That means you should be allowed report on a criminal case.

Do you think he should be able to pick and choose which laws he should follow?

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 1:43pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

THAT trial may have gone to sentencing but there were OTHER linked trials that had not. You seem to have the same deep understanding that tommy does.

Could be. Not sure why you're being so aggressive though. Do you talk like this in real life? Why can't you remain civil and not get overly emotional? I'm just discussing my attitude to free speech and talking to each other.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 1:45pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Do you think he should be able to pick and choose which laws he should follow?

Yes, obviously I think that. He should be able to choose which laws apply to him. This includes killing people and jaywalking.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 1:47pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Could be. Not sure why you're being so aggressive though. Do you talk like this in real life? Why can't you remain civil and not get overly emotional? I'm just discussing my attitude to free speech and talking to each other.

free speech is not absolute. Free speech has restrictions. One of those is where that speech jeopardises the administration of justice. Tommy thinks he is above all of that. That he should be free to shout whatever he wants on street corners with no consequences to himself. For some reason best known to yourself you agree with him.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 1:51pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

free speech is not absolute. Free speech has restrictions. One of those is where that speech jeopardises the administration of justice. Tommy thinks he is above all of that. That he should be free to shout whatever he wants on street corners with no consequences to himself. For some reason best known to yourself you agree with him.

Free speech is absolute. It has no restrictions. It includes things you don't like.

Look at the US for example - the only thing you're not allowed do is a call to violence. For example, "To all my fans, please go to X's home and kill them".

Everything else is fair game, including hate speech.

What you're talking about is not free speech. The UK does not have free speech. I think it should.

Grayson · 25-02-2019 1:59pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Free speech is absolute. It has no restrictions. It includes things you don't like.

Absolutely no restriction. Non at all. Ok.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Look at the US for example - the only thing you're not allowed do is a call to violence. For example, "To all my fans, please go to X's home and kill them".

Everything else is fair game, including hate speech.

Ohh. Except for those restrictions.

ok.....

Grayson · 25-02-2019 2:02pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Could be. Not sure why you're being so aggressive though. Do you talk like this in real life? Why can't you remain civil and not get overly emotional? I'm just discussing my attitude to free speech and talking to each other.

That's not aggressive. If he had've called you a twat, that would have been dismissing. If he's called you a fcuking twat, that might have been aggressive. But he did neither.

Although the irony of you whinging about free speech and then complaining about someone proving you wrong. Get over yourself.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 2:03pm

Grayson wrote: »

Absolutely no restriction. Non at all. Ok.

Ohh. Except for those restrictions.

ok.....

Yes, the US does not have free speech, they have almost free speech.

Why are you trying to argue?

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 2:04pm

Grayson wrote: »

That's not aggressive. If he had've called you a twat, that would have been dismissing. If he's called you a fcuking twat, that might have been aggressive. But he did neither.

Although the irony of you whinging about free speech and then complaining about someone proving you wrong. Get over yourself.

Free speech doesn't mean you can't complain about things.

It also doesn't mean speech has no consequences.

It is rather silly to think someone who believes in free speech is not allowed comment on someone being aggressive.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

Boggles · 25-02-2019 2:06pm

So wants Hate Speech as an absolute?

Winges and accuses someone of talking emotionally?

Have I that right?

That's enough of the internet for me today.

Fook that.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 2:09pm

Boggles wrote: »

So wants Hate Speech as an absolute?

Winges and accuses someone of talking emotionally?

Have I that right?

That's enough of the internet for me today.

Fook that.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 2:11pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Free speech is absolute. It has no restrictions. It includes things you don't like.

This is wrong and just conveys a lack of understanding. So far wrong that i think it justifies my earlier attitude to you.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Look at the US for example - the only thing you're not allowed do is a call to violence. For example, "To all my fans, please go to X's home and kill them".

Everything else is fair game, including hate speech.

Again this is very wrong.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

What you're talking about is not free speech. The UK does not have free speech. I think it should.

It has the same free speech as any other democratic country.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 2:16pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

This is wrong and just conveys a lack of understanding. So far wrong that i think it justifies my earlier attitude to you.

Again this is very wrong.

It has the same free speech as any other democratic country.

You don't understand what free speech is.

The UK does not have free speech.

Not all democratic countries have the same levels of restrictions.

The UK and Germany, for example, have difference laws on which speech is and is not allowed.

If you're going to be one of those people on the internet who can't admit they're wrong, and want to argue with strangers, I have no interest in that.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 2:17pm

Ah I knew I recognised your username (ohnonotgmail). You don't think antifa are doing anything wrong. You have extreme left political views. I'm checking out of this conversation with you right now.

ancapailldorcha · 25-02-2019 2:17pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The UK does not have free speech.

Can I get a source please?

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 2:18pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You don't understand what free speech is.

The UK does not have free speech.

Not all democratic countries have the same levels of restrictions.

The UK and Germany, for example, have difference laws on which speech is and is not allowed.

If you're going to be one of those people on the internet who can't admit they're wrong, and want to argue with strangers, I have no interest in that.

No, i understand perfectly what free speech is. and it is not absolute. Anywhere. If tommy had done the same thing in germany he would have faced the same consequences.

OMM 0000 · 25-02-2019 2:19pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can I get a source please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

It includes restrictions on things which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

That alone is anti-free speech, as what the hell is the definition of offensive or indecent?

ohnonotgmail · 25-02-2019 2:20pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Ah I knew I recognised your username (ohnonotgmail). You don't think antifa are doing anything wrong. You have extreme left political views. I'm checking out of this conversation with you right now.

Well clearly you dont know me as i do not have extreme left political views. The problem with you, and others here, is that if you dont completely agree with a gob****e like tommy you must be left wing. The reason i dont agree with anything that tommy does is not because i am left wing it is because i am not a complete ****.

Timberrrrrrrr · 25-02-2019 2:20pm

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Yes, obviously I think that. He should be able to choose which laws apply to him. This includes killing people and jaywalking.

Well you did say

A judge decided no media should be allowed report on a Muslim gang who had been raping children for decades.

Tommy disagreed with this, so he filmed outside the court, after the criminals had already been convicted for their crimes.

This was illegal (as the judge had banned media covering the case), but Tommy felt the public had a right to know about these pedophile gangs.

He was arrested for the filming, and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.

That's the gist of it.

Regardless of your opinion on Tommy, a reasonable person should be able to see this is the court system being draconian.

You admit that he broke the law, what is your issue with him being convicted?

Tommy Robinson jailed

Comments