Tommy Robinson

Boggles

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How do you know that was a one take video? He could have talked her through that story 20 times before recording the one he posted online. The fact is we dont know if she was schooled into saying what she did. I'll reserve judgement on that until I see what the police have to say on the matter.

Common sense seems to go out the window when you dealing with the Stephen fan boys.

"Sorry love, you have just been molested by an Asian paedo? Hang on let me get my phone".

Snake Plisken

Boggles wrote: »

Common sense seems to go out the window when you dealing with the Stephen fan boys.

"Sorry love, you have just been molested by an Asian paedo? Hang on let me get my phone".

Same with you peado apologists! Child clearly molested and your more worried about her Dad!

martingriff

Tommy here is on a win win here. If it is true people well go see were right how there you wait for a investigation.

If it is proven false they will go well look they have form and there is a cover up. He can not lose

Boggles

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Same with you peado apologists! Child clearly molested and your more worried about her Dad!

Came down lad, there is no "peado apologists" on here,

You have just swallowed a whole bottle of Stephen Juice.

Boggles

martingriff wrote: »

Tommy here is on a win win here. If it is true people well go see were right how there you wait for a investigation.

If it is proven false they will go well look they have form and there is a cover up. He can not lose

Apart from 6 months in prison.

But sure "he is a good father".

Mr E

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Same with you peado apologists!

Mod Update: Thread ban cleared, but card stands. Please don't call other users pedo apologists, thanks.

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Common sense seems to go out the window when you dealing with the Stephen fan boys.

You can suggest I am a Stephen fan boy as much as you like, won't make it so, I'd hardly be calling him a cowardly c**t and a twat over the years if I was a "fan boy" of his and as for common sense, your posts are devoid of it and so I'm not sure why you care speaking as if the opposite is the case, it's not.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How do you know that was a one take video? He could have talked her through that story 20 times before recording the one he posted online. The fact is we dont know if she was schooled into saying what she did.

I have addressed this multiple times: It's patently clear that what his girl said is in no way rehearsed, nor is it prompted, given how many times she says 'No' and corrects her Dad. She's not a professional actress ffs. Early in this thread we had users up in arms at the notion that anyone had ever suggested that the girl was lying at the behest of her Dad, but yet what is your post if not that? You're clearly saying this child is lying and you have no reason to, other that is, than that you hate her father. Your view is clearly affected by how far you lean to the left. So far I'd suggest that it has resulted in you losing the ability to be objective on matters which involve those who's politics lean to the right.

I suggest you listen to the girl again (time stamped below) and this time try doing so without thinking about whose daughter she is, then maybe think about taking back your accusation that she's lying:

str8talkingguy

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You can suggest I am a Stephen fan boy as much as you like, won't make it so, I'd hardly be calling him a cowardly c**t and a twat over the years if I was a "fan boy" of his and as for common sense, your posts are devoid of it and so I'm not sure why you care speaking as if the opposite is the case, it's not.



I have addressed this multiple times: It's patently clear that what his girl said is in no way rehearsed, nor is it prompted, given how many times she says 'No' and corrects her Dad. She's not a professional actress ffs. Early in this thread we had users up in arms at the notion that anyone had ever suggested that the girl was lying at the behest of her Dad, but yet what is your post if not that? You're clearly saying this child is lying and you have no reason to, other that is, than that you hate her father. Your view is clearly affected by how far you lean to the left. So far I'd suggest that it has resulted in you losing the ability to be objective on matters which involve those who's politics lean to the right.

I suggest you listen to the girl again (time stamped below) and this time try doing so without thinking about whose daughter she is, then maybe think about taking back your accusation that she's lying:

But you don't know how the first conversation went,Tommy could have been eyeing up this guy from the start being in a family resort not liking the look of him.His daughter walks over to him Tommy says did that guy go near you at all and through his own paranoid coked up mind he could have easily led her into it,she knows what he wants to hear probably starved of his attention the guy is in Denmark and all over on his mission and it probably snowballed for the poor girl.

Look again i'd hate to doubt a child if that was true but the police clearly tell Tommy before they arrest him they are going to investigate his daughters allegation,that should have been enough for him at that point.I would have quietly let them handcuff me as long as they are gonna investigate that thoroughly and i knew my daughter was safe with her mother.

Again for me its not a case of doubting the daughter because of who her father is.Its a case of and i have good reason to not trust police in cases like this,but its a case of believing the Police aren't protecting every Paedophile that comes their way,which is Tommys assertion.It happened in a very public setting with people around so in this case i just tend to trust the Police to handle it and prosecute that guy if hes done it,rather than jump in with Tommy who is coked out of his head in that video which is why he is so erratic and can't hear the police and what they are saying.

Lefty Bicek

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Please, enlighten me about how we can now presume a police force not remotely connected to the previous issue can now be indirectly labeled as 'having form'?

The original poster said -

police/media don't deserve the full trust of the people and should have their actions questioned, they have failed in this area before in the grooming gangs they failed to investigate after being made aware of them.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112784346&postcount=734

You came back with the single most naive and uninformed comment in the whole thread -

No, 'they' don't have form. A small group within 1 force is not the entire police service of the UK.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112785996&postcount=739

Anyone with a scrap of sense would infer that the original poster was likely referring to, amongst many other things -

Rochdale - Greater Manchester Police FAIL

Oxford - Thames Valley Police FAIL

Rotherham - South Yorkshire Police FAIL


So in the first place, that is not '1 force'. You got that wrong. Maybe you should have read the post you were replying to, hmmmmm ?

In the second place, the important issue is not the individuals within the force, it is the culture of the force. That comes from the top, and permeates the whole organisation. That's why some of them resign. Eventually.

In this context, what dictated the reality, and this is acknowledged, is a culture of appeasement towards race relations. Cowardice, really.

That is precisely why there is more than one force involved. The idiocy of political multiculturalism in Britain comes from the very, very top down, and is national.

Lefty Bicek

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

The original poster said -



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112784346&postcount=734

You came back with the single most naive and uninformed comment in the whole thread -



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112785996&postcount=739

Anyone with a scrap of sense would infer that the original poster was likely referring to, amongst many other things -

Rochdale - Greater Manchester Police FAIL

Oxford - Thames Valley Police FAIL

Rotherham - South Yorkshire Police FAIL


So in the first place, that is not '1 force'. You got that wrong. Maybe you should have read the post you were replying to, hmmmmm ?

In the second place, the important issue is not the individuals within the force, it is the culture of the force. That comes from the top, and permeates the whole organisation. That's why some of them resign. Eventually.

In this context, what dictated the reality, and this is acknowledged, is a culture of appeasement towards race relations. Cowardice, really.

That is precisely why there is more than one force involved. The idiocy of political multiculturalism in Britain comes from the very, very top down, and is national.

So 1 small group on 3 forces then? Well color me purple.

Could have sworn there were a lot more forces than that. Hell, there's more than 3 non home office forces attached to the military alone!

Now again I ask, can we accuse you of having 'form' because of what your cousin did?

I guess it's fair to label all chocolate makers as cannibals as well?

No, it's a ridiculous statement to make but it's ok cause it's the police or hospitals or banks but hey, don't do it to me because of my occupation.

Accusing someone if covering up because someone else with the same job did so is an absurd statement to make. You want to stay yourself to that kind of mass tarring, away with you. Me? I'll allow the investigation to conclude and see what evidence is produced. Unlike Tommy the concerned father

Lefty Bicek

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

So 1 small group on 3 forces then? Well color me purple.

I can see why you would need help with colouring.

Firstly, I did not say '1 small group on 3 forces'.

I said '...amongst other things...' and gave three examples. Not an exhaustive list.

And I explained to you why this is not a few rotten apples in the Plod barrel. It is institutional cowardice in the face of multikulti BS.

Could have sworn there were a lot more forces than that. Hell, there's more than 3 non home office forces attached to the military alone!

Your fascination with British Army esoterica is irrelevant here, however much it may dominate your thoughts.

... it's ok cause it's the police or hospitals or banks but hey, don't do it to me because of my occupation.

It's ok for the police to be accountable, because they should be accountable. Full stop. Got a problem with that ?

Accusing someone if covering up because someone else with the same job did so is an absurd statement to make.

The other poster did not say 'cover-up'. He/she said -

they have failed in this area before

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112784346&postcount=734

I did not say 'cover-up'. I said -

culture of appeasement towards race relations. Cowardice, really

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112797666&postcount=760

Failure, appeasement, cowardice.

'Cover-up' is your fabrication.

ohnonotgmail

Tommy is back in court today apparently. Nothing to do with his recent assault it is for harrassing a 16 year old boy.

ancapailldorcha

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Tommy is back in court today apparently. Nothing to do with his recent assault it is for harrassing a 16 year old boy.

Link:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tommy-robinson-jamal-hijazi-libel-case-high-court-a4385206.html

It's stuff like this that justifies ignoring him to be honest. He's nothing more than a profoundly deceitful, predatory and violent individual.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

That is precisely why there is more than one force involved. The idiocy of political multiculturalism in Britain comes from the very, very top down, and is national.

By that same ‘logic’ all the UK police forces are equally racist, since the official finding on the Met was that they were institutionally racist.

Meanwhile someone who ought to have a pretty good insight at the time:

Afzal rejects the suggestion that no action was taken by officials “to avoid rocking the multicultural boat”, which has been the one thread of the Rotherham report widely seized on. This has “very little” to do with political correctness, he says, adding: “I’ve yet to hear personally a victim say the reason why the police weren’t interested was because of the colour of the perpetrator.” He concedes that some victims in Rotherham felt that this was a factor, but still argues that incompetence rather that sensitivity to multicultural values was the real problem.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/nazir-afzal-there-is-no-religious-basis-for-the-abuse-in-rotherham

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

By that same ‘logic’ all the UK police forces are equally racist, since the official finding on the Met was that they were institutionally racist.

It's hardly sensible to suggest that the Met are exceptional in any sense of the word. People can draw their own conclusions from that.

Of course we know from experience, that flinging the epithet 'racist' around is a standard insidious tactic of the Multikulti BS brigade.

It's not just on Boards that it's an empty, pejorative diagnosis of individuals or organisations.

Meanwhile someone who ought to have a pretty good insight at the time:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/nazir-afzal-there-is-no-religious-basis-for-the-abuse-in-rotherham

Thanks for the link. I particularly note the following from it -

I’ve yet to hear personally a victim say the reason why the police weren’t interested was because of the colour of the perpetrator.” He concedes that some victims in Rotherham felt that this was a factor,

I think the victims ought to have a pretty good insight.

So his is a valid opinion worth hearing, but not uniquely so.


Here's an equally valid perspective -

Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, 1997 to 2010.

In 2002, when she was Labour MP for Keighley, Cryer became the first public figure in Britain to talk out about allegations of "young Asian lads" grooming underage white girls in the West Yorkshire town. As a result, she was shunned by elements of her party,

Cryer is adamant that she can't have been the only politician to have heard such stories. "There must have been councillors and MPs, I think, all over the country who knew what was going on but were terrified. It's a genuine fear, to be terrified of being labelled a racist. No one wants to be called a racist, least of all someone who isn't a racist."

Yet that's exactly what happened to Cryer, an insult compounded when Griffin decided to contest her seat in the 2005 general election for the BNP. "His reason for challenging me: 'She didn't do enough to protect those white girls'," remembered Cryer.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

It's hardly sensible to suggest that the Met are exceptional in any sense of the word. People can draw their own conclusions from that.

Of course we know from experience, that flinging the epithet 'racist' around is a standard insidious tactic of the Multikulti BS brigade.

It's not just on Boards that it's an empty, pejorative diagnosis of individuals or organisations.



Thanks for the link. I particularly note the following from it -



I think the victims ought to have a pretty good insight.

So his is a valid opinion worth hearing, but not uniquely so.


Here's an equally valid perspective -

Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley, 1997 to 2010.





Yet that's exactly what happened to Cryer, an insult compounded when Griffin decided to contest her seat in the 2005 general election for the BNP. "His reason for challenging me: 'She didn't do enough to protect those white girls'," remembered Cryer.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/30/rotherham-girls-could-have-been-spared-ann-cryer

The Met were found to be racist after an intensive and widespread investigation. Nothing ‘flung’ about it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

The victims were hardly likely to have had a better insight into police motivations and procedures than a long-standing prosecutor involved in decades of cases. And unless I’m mistaken Ann Cryer wasn’t actually in any police force.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

The Met were found to be racist after an intensive and widespread investigation. Nothing ‘flung’ about it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf

I didn't say the investigation into the Met was casual.

I said that the Met are not an exceptional force, in having the charge of 'racist' made against it.

It's hardly sensible to suggest that the Met are exceptional in any sense of the word.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112806323&postcount=766

They are not, factually.

The victims were hardly likely to have had a better insight into police motivations and procedures than a long-standing prosecutor involved in decades of cases.

That is utter drivel.

If it were true, then the report that YOU have linked to would never have been commissioned.

No black person can ever trust the police. This idea is not preconceived. It is
based on experience and people that I know who have had bad experiences
with the police

- Doreen Lawrence, section 4.4 of the report.

4.5 Neville Lawrence ended his statement with these words:-
"One of the things that I hope will come out of the Inquiry is for everyone to
see that the things we have been saying for the past 5 years are true. I hope
that this can be a step towards ensuring that when another tragedy is
suffered by the black community the police act responsibly and investigate
the crime properly. When a policeman puts his uniform on, he should forget
all his prejudices. If he cannot do that, then he should not be doing the job
because that means that one part of the population is not protected from the
likes of those who murdered Stephen."

4.6 Perhaps Neville Lawrence will feel that the long trauma of the Inquiry may have
been worthwhile. Overall he is shown to have been right as to his misgivings and
criticism of the conduct of the investigation into Stephen's murder.

To reiterate what everyone already knows, and which you are pretending not to know -

Victims know a huge amount about police 'motivations' and 'procedures'. And always have done.

And unless I’m mistaken Ann Cryer wasn’t actually in any police force.

No, but unlike yourself, I'd say she's actually read The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

Thanks for the link though.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

I didn't say the investigation into the Met was casual.

I said that the Met are not an exceptional force, in having the charge of 'racist' made against it.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112806323&postcount=766

They are not, factually.



That is utter drivel.

If it were true, then the report that YOU have linked to would never have been commissioned.



- Doreen Lawrence, section 4.4 of the report.





To reiterate what everyone already knows, and which you are pretending not to know -

Victims know a huge amount about police 'motivations' and 'procedures'. And always have done.



No, but unlike yourself, I'd say she's actually read The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

Thanks for the link though.

What’s utter drivel is pretending that any victim has a better insight into a police force than those who have access to it’s inner workings, like the contributors to the MacPherson report. Or that the findings of institutional racism can plausibly coexist with the accusation of policing stymied by ‘political correctness’.

Poldsgold

Can the Tommy Robinson fan club please stop pretending that they care about children being molested? If they did, they wouldn't be such big fans of Tommy, who has a history of harboring and even defending convicted pedophiles.

alastair

Poldsgold wrote: »

Can the Tommy Robinson fan club please stop pretending that they care about children being molested? If they did, they wouldn't be such big fans of Tommy, who has a history of harboring and even defending convicted pedophiles.

Asides from the business of abusing kids himself.

Lefty Bicek

alastair wrote: »

What’s utter drivel is pretending that any victim has a better insight into a police force than those who have access to it’s inner workings,

I didn't say better. I said 'pretty good insight'.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112806323&postcount=766

...Or that the findings of institutional racism can plausibly coexist with the accusation of policing stymied by ‘political correctness’.

Yet co-exist they do, unfortunately.


The former as per the report you so helpfully linked to, thanks again.


The latter, there are endless examples. I used to enjoy illustrating by the state of Ian Blair, (Met. Commissioner 2005 - '08) wearing the turban.

More seriously, the testimony of Javaria Saeed, a Muslim ex- counter-terrorism Met sergeant.

A former counterterrorism sergeant has attacked the Metropolitan police for failing to tackle extremist views among some of its Muslim officers for fear of being labelled “Islamophobic”.

Javaria Saeed, a practising Muslim who worked in Scotland Yard’s counterterrorism division, complained to her bosses after she witnessed a fellow Muslim officer saying female genital mutilation (FGM)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/met-ignored-extremism-among-my-fellow-muslim-officers-xz2z2g8hp

Or, as it was expressed as a policing question to the Mayor of London -

A former Metropolitan Police Service officer, Ms Javaria Saeed, who recently quit the Muslim Contact Unit, stated that she was advised by professional standards not to make complaints about the treatment she allegedly received from her colleagues. What processes are in place to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Service's whistleblowing and complaints procedures do not advise its staff against making formal complaints?

https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2016/3707

Let's not rock the PC boat, eh ?


What about some voter fraud ?

Political correctness has led the Government to turn a blind eye to town hall corruption, a review into election fraud by Sir Eric Pickles has found.

It also voiced strong criticism for the Met Police, describing it as "astonishing" that no criminal prosecutions had been brought against Mr Rahman.

But what do we find ?

Due to the specialist and complex nature of the legislation, the MPS worked closely with and sought advice at a number of investigative stages from the specialist team within the CPS. "The suggestion that the MPS has somehow failed to take action is completely unfounded. We must work within the legislative framework set by Government."

https://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-08-12/political-correctness-to-blame-for-town-hall-votes-fraud-says-eric-pickles/

The Met. stymied. By government political correctness.

Imagine that.

Poldsgold

alastair wrote: »

Asides from the business of abusing kids himself.

Yeah, that too. But since we're talking about 'guilty by association' which his supporters are so eager to push by the looks of it, then that makes Tommy a pedophile enabler himself thanks to all of them found in his EDL.

alastair

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

The latter, there are endless examples. I used to enjoy illustrating by the state of Ian Blair, (Met. Commissioner 2005 - '08) wearing the turban.

As everyone who’s a guest in a Sikh temple has to? 🤷🏻*♂️

Tasfasdf

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Link:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tommy-robinson-jamal-hijazi-libel-case-high-court-a4385206.html

It's stuff like this that justifies ignoring him to be honest. He's nothing more than a profoundly deceitful, predatory and violent individual.

And continuous posts later not ignoring him. Keep him in the spotlight

Dunston

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Link:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/tommy-robinson-jamal-hijazi-libel-case-high-court-a4385206.html

It's stuff like this that justifies ignoring him to be honest. He's nothing more than a profoundly deceitful, predatory and violent individual.

How do you know he wasn't reporting the truth? Let's wait and see the outcome of the trial. The Jamal kid was no saint.

Poldsgold

Dunston wrote: »

How do you know he wasn't reporting the truth? Let's wait and see the outcome of the trial. The Jamal kid was no saint.

How do you know this kid is no saint? I know SFA about him.

Dunston

alastair wrote: »

Asides from the business of abusing kids himself.

Link?

Dunston

Poldsgold wrote: »

How do you know this kid is no saint?

I've watched interviews with witnesses from his school.

Poldsgold

Dunston wrote: »

I've watched interviews with witnesses from his school.

Link?

Dunston

Poldsgold wrote: »

Link?

He put up a few different ones at the time the Jamal video went viral a few months ago, would need to search again for them. He spoke to teachers, parents and several different girls claiming to have been assaulted by Jamal and the video that went viral was the result of retaliation from one such assault. One of the witnesses speaks in a vid posted to youtube yesterday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9m1QFIM4Ns&bpctr=1584047848