Tommy Robinson

Omackeral

Now this is just an observation but the people who insist on calling him Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are the exact same folks who'd get their knickers in a bunch if you called Kaitlyn Jenner by the old name Bruce.

ancapailldorcha

Omackeral wrote: »

Now this is just an observation but the people who insist on calling him Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are the exact same folks who'd get their knickers in a bunch if you called Kaitlyn Jenner by the old name Bruce.

It's his legal name.

ohnonotgmail

Omackeral wrote: »

Now this is just an observation but the people who insist on calling him Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are the exact same folks who'd get their knickers in a bunch if you called Kaitlyn Jenner by the old name Bruce.

SYL is his legal name. It is tommy robinson that is the alias. When he appears in court for his latest bout of thuggery he will be charged as SYL.

Timberrrrrrrr

Omackeral wrote: »

Now this is just an observation but the people who insist on calling him Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are the exact same folks who'd get their knickers in a bunch if you called Kaitlyn Jenner by the old name Bruce.

Couldn't give a shìte what you call Bruce/Kaitlyn.


SYL is his legal name, it's the name he gets arrested under and uses in court.

Boggles

Omackeral wrote: »

Now this is just an observation but the people who insist on calling him Stephen Yaxley-Lennon are the exact same folks who'd get their knickers in a bunch if you called Kaitlyn Jenner by the old name Bruce.

He has 6+ names.

If he or you are offended by his birth one, stop making up names.

Never heard of Kaitlyn Jenner.

Have they 6+ names?

Omackeral

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's his legal name.

I get that. It's probably just that you don't respect him and don't extend the courtesy of giving him his preferred name. Only point I'm making is it's kind of ironic that the ones who insist on using it would be among the first to call others out in situations where the person prefers to be called something else.

By the same token, some people take massive steps to say that they #believeher when a Muslim/Asian is involved as an apparent perpetrator whereas in other instances there'd be radio silence otherwise.

What I'm getting at is that people seem to be able to shift their ideologies when it suits, on all sides. It's just somewhat interesting. That's it

Omackeral

Boggles wrote: »

He has 6+ names.

If he or you are offended by his birth one, stop making up names.

Where did I say I was offended? I made an observation.

Boggles wrote: »

Never heard of Kaitlyn Jenner.

Sincerely doubt that.

ohnonotgmail

Omackeral wrote: »

I get that. It's probably just that you don't respect him and don't extend the courtesy of giving him his preferred name. Only point I'm making is it's kind of ironic that the ones who insist on using it would be among the first to call others out in situations where the person prefers to be called something else.

By the same token, some people take massive steps to say that they #believeher when a Muslim/Asian is involved as an apparent perpetrator whereas in other instances there'd be radio silence otherwise.

What I'm getting at is that people seem to be able to shift their ideologies when it suits, on all sides. It's just somewhat interesting. That's it

If tommy robinson is his preferred name then he should legally change it. quite simple for him to do.

Omackeral

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If tommy robinson is his preferred name then he should legally change it. quite simple for him to do.

Fair point. I was under the impression he may have changed it legally.

Boggles

Omackeral wrote: »

Where did I say I was offended? I made an observation.

You were projecting.

Which of his 6+ names would you like me to call him?

Omackeral wrote: »

Sincerely doubt that.

Good for you.

Omackeral

Boggles wrote: »

You were projecting.

No. I was asking a question.

Boggles wrote: »

Good for you.

Are you honestly telling me you never heard of Bruce Jenner and his/her newer identity of Kaitlyn, probably the most high profile trans person on the planet?

Boggles

Omackeral wrote: »

Are you honestly telling me you never heard of Bruce Jenner and his/her newer identity of Kaitlyn, probably the most high profile trans person on the planet?

From a Ricky Gervais joke years ago.

Not a name that I would remember off the top of my head.

What he/she has got to with Stephen, fúck knows.

I'm sure you had a point somewhere.

ancapailldorcha

Omackeral wrote: »

I get that. It's probably just that you don't respect him and don't extend the courtesy of giving him his preferred name. Only point I'm making is it's kind of ironic that the ones who insist on using it would be among the first to call others out in situations where the person prefers to be called something else.

By the same token, some people take massive steps to say that they #believeher when a Muslim/Asian is involved as an apparent perpetrator whereas in other instances there'd be radio silence otherwise.

What I'm getting at is that people seem to be able to shift their ideologies when it suits, on all sides. It's just somewhat interesting. That's it

He's a convicted fraudster and violent thug who has attempted to compromise the trials of grooming gangs. What has he done to earn any respect?

TheRepentent

Boggles wrote: »

He has 6+ names.

Fraudsters tend to change identities regularly

Omackeral

Boggles wrote: »

What he/she has got to with Stephen, fúck knows.

I'm sure you had a point somewhere.

Yeah, I did. A fairly simple one. It's written above. Here it is again.

Omackeral wrote: »

What I'm getting at is that people seem to be able to shift their ideologies when it suits, on all sides.

ryansmith171

its not right

Omackeral

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He's a convicted fraudster and violent thug who has attempted to compromise the trials of grooming gangs. What has he done to earn any respect?

I'm just asking why he's not afforded the courtesy is all. You've told me and that's a legitimate enough reason.

If someone is a sh*thead, you choose to not name them by their preference. If someone is sound, you might do. That's fine. I'm just trying to see the logic people use is all.

Outlaw Pete

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The word of a convicted liar and thug means nothing to me.

Your response is obtuse yet again. You were presented with video footage of a Muslim gang clearly throwing bricks and bottles at a crowd of people which included children. It was not just "the word of a convicted liar and thug" as you absurdly suggest and again your response to the footage at the time was:

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If it was real, there'd be coverage from actual news sources.

You're so tied to your political leftist leanings that even when shown video footage of actual violence by young Muslims, you claim it's not real, as sure if it was, it'd have been in the mainstream media.

Well, like I said to you at the time:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Lots of "actual news sources" covered it but they sanitized it beyond belief.

The Independent was the only mainstream news source that actually cited the fact that Muslims had thrown bricks and how one chap was arrested:

Brick thrown at anti-Islam activist’s campaign van in Preston

The fact that this happened days ago and you haven't heard about it should tell you something.

Look, I condemn all violence, and if it turns out Tommy's supporters threw rocks or bottles, even in self defense, I condemn that too.

So why won't you condemn the violence by the Muslim gang? Surely they can have no excuse for behaving like that.

Your response to the above was radio silence as you knew there was no excuse for suggesting the violence wasn't real.

Well, let me ask you now ancapailldorcha, if the violence you were shown wasn't "real" then how 20 people have been charged over it?

20 suspects charged with violent disorder at Oldham European elections rally

Twenty people have been charged with violent disorder at a rally held by Tommy Robinson during his campaign to be elected to the European Parliament.

Violence broke out after a large group of men calling themselves the Muslim Defence League (MDL) converged on the event in Oldham on 18 May.

Police initially escorted the MDL demonstration, but disorder started after they arrived at the pro-Robinson rally at a park in Limeside.

Officers were pelted with bricks and eggs as they attempted to keep the two groups separate, with vehicles damaged.

The 20 suspects, aged between 16 and 39, have all been charged with violent disorder and will appear at Tameside Magistrates’ Court in two hearings on Thursday and on 19 March.

It was one of several disturbances during Robinson’s election campaign, which saw the English Defence League founder “milkshaked” and fights break out between supporters and opponents.

Those charged with violent disorder in Oldham, and appearing in court on 5 March, are Haroon Hussain, 39, of Halifax; Hadir Ali, 25, of Oldham; Mubasher Khan, 25, of Oldham; Atiq Urrehman, 25, of Crumpsall; Faraz Ahmed, 32, of Oldham; Majid Khan, 30, of Oldham; Salman Ahmed, 21, of Oldham; Mohammed Zeeshauan Khan, 21, of Oldham; Kamran Ali, 27, of Oldham; Abdul Nazir, 27, of Oldham; Rahim Ahmed, 25, of Oldham; and Amann Ul Haq, 19, of Oldham.

Appearing on 19 March are Mikail Ahmed, 21, of Oldham; Matthew Henry, 25, of Oldham; Dillan Simpson, 19, of Oldham; Jayden Mack, 18, of Oldham; Duane Coleman, 33, of Rochdale; Luke Tucker, 19, of Oldham; and two 16-year-old boys who cannot be named for legal reasons.

ancapailldorcha

Omackeral wrote: »

I'm just asking why he's not afforded the courtesy is all. You've told me and that's a legitimate enough reason.

If someone is a sh*thead, you choose to not name them by their preference. If someone is sound, you might do. That's fine. I'm just trying to see the logic people use is all.

Ah right. It's obvious that I hold him in low esteem so.... That basically.

Boggles

Omackeral wrote: »

Yeah, I did. A fairly simple one. It's written above. Here it is again.

What I'm getting at is that people seem to be able to shift their ideologies when it suits, on all sides.

Again you are over thinking it.

Violent thug acts like violent thug and gets himself arrested again.

I fail to see why ideology comes into it for me anyway.

I don't think I have defended career criminal violent racists thugs in the past, so I would be pretty consistent in my views.

Again, just because you think you had a point doesn't necessarily mean you had a valid one.

Outlaw Pete

str8talkingguy wrote: »

He said she had already spoken to police with her mother, that was enough ..

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The recording of his daughter making the allegation was obviously made before the police got there given it is what led to the altercation and the police weren't even called until after the altercation took place. It's an impossibility for him to have made the recording after the police got there.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The recording of his daughter making the allegation was obviously made before the police got there given it is what led to the altercation and the police weren't called until after the altercation took place.

That is not obvious at all.

That recording could have been made after the assault. It could have also have been made that night or the next day.

There was a 3 hour wait before the police came.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

That is not obvious at all.

That recording could have been made after the assault. It could have also have been made that night or the next day.

There was a 3 hour wait before the police came.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

The mental gymnastics on display are unreal.

The recording clearly takes place at a facility. So now the suggestion is Tommy got out of jail and then whipped his daughter down to the local pool to concoct an elaborate alibi :P

"Okay, sweetie, lets record it in here. It looks just like Centre Parcs. Now don't agree with everything I say, that would be too obvious, say No a few times to my questions, okay? Now I'm going to ask you if it was possible it was an accident too, just to make it sound real, okay, ready? Oh and if I call your friend Macee, you correct me and say Mazee. You got this!"

Honestly folks, you don't like the guy, we get it. I don't like him either, a cowardly c**t on occasion, as I've said, but the girl is not lying, or going along with a lie neither. It's patently clear she's being genuine even if her Dad might not be (with regards to the altercation).

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The recording clearly takes place at a facility.

Clearly? The phone is pointing at the ceiling.

So If I through up 8 pictures of ceilings you would 100% identify which "facility" they are from? :pac:

Again there was a 3 hour window until the police came, so the reality is you don't have a clue when that "footage" was taken, do you?

You are basing your assumptions on a heavily edited narrated 15 minute grift, correct?

There is absolutely no balance in this story, correct? Apart from the fact Stephen as been the only one charged with assault based largely on independent eye witness accounts.

For someone who has to analyse evidence forensically from all sides and then comes up with the thesis that the female was lying in all other cases, why are you so sure about this one, given that you acknowledged a pathological conman is involved?

str8talkingguy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The recording of his daughter making the allegation was obviously made before the police got there given it is what led to the altercation and the police weren't even called until after the altercation took place. It's an impossibility for him to have made the recording after the police got there.

Its immaterial when he made the recording,he knew she was going to have to do it at some point with the police and once is enough was my point and a caring parent would limit the amount of times she has to go over it,so as to leave as little imprint in her mind as possible.

His own recording is not police evidence,the police interview is police evidence,his recording is for Tommy and his followers nobody else.

mcmoustache

Tasfasdf wrote: »

I love when Outlaw Pete comes into the thread, he absolutely destroys the lefties and has the patience to debate them which is hard debating brainless puppets.

Are you sure you're not thinking of Ben Shapiro? He DESTROYS leftists with LOGIC add FACTS if the thumbnails are to be believed. Or is butchering the english language just how you guys talk these days?

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Half the people on this thread are on Tommy’s side and the other half haven’t watched a single speech by the man but just believe everything the media portray him as.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Boggles wrote: »

That is not obvious at all.

That recording could have been made after the assault. It could have also have been made that night or the next day.

There was a 3 hour wait before the police came.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Christ!!

Yeah, he got released from jail, rushed back to centre parks and got his daughter to lie on camera.

That seems far more plausible.

mcmoustache

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Half the people on this thread are on Tommy’s side and the other half haven’t watched a single speech by the man but just believe everything the media portray him as.

His criminal record speaks for itself.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Half the people on this thread are on Tommy’s side and the other half haven’t watched a single speech by the man but just believe everything the media portray him as.

How do the media portray him exactly?