Tommy Robinson

Snake Plisken

Delighted Tommy proven to be correct again I await the boys on here to admit they were wrong....again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjP7TsMk7H8

pinkyeye

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The mainstream media are the last place you will see it reported given how they reported his arrest, failing to even mention what the altercation stemmed from.

Although apparently the Daily Star will be issuing an apology, we'll see.

The source is Tommy Robinson.

Your source is Tommy Robinson. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Tasfasdf

pinkyeye wrote: »

Your source is Tommy Robinson. :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

TR of all people wont be admitting the police done a job if they didnt do.

El_Duderino 09

Tasfasdf wrote: »

Had it not been for TR reputation and persistence. The paedo would have been allowed to continue sexually assaulting little girls.

He showed the police up for how they like to sweep this under the rug.

Had it not been for SYL assaulting the guy, and instead callibg the police, then police could have dealt with it much more easily.

Tommy didn't do anything that any normal citizen wouldn't do when he called the police - Oh except when he assaulted the guy and distracted the police hy ranting and raving when they tried to question the 2 suspects (the bloke accused of being a paedo and SYL for assault)

El_Duderino 09

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Delighted Tommy proven to be correct again I await the boys on here to admit they were wrong....again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjP7TsMk7H8

This might be true. But I don't believe it just because SYL says so, I'd need some actual evidence. He's a proven liar. He. Might just be afraid of becoming irrelevant if he doesn't say something Might have run out of drugs. Might be true. Who knows?

RWCNT

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Delighted Tommy proven to be correct again I await the boys on here to admit they were wrong....again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjP7TsMk7H8

When has anyone been wrong about Tommy before? Except his supporters of course.

I've had no problem accepting the possibility that this might be true from the jump, although me and others were sensible to be skeptical of the claim given his track record.

For the first time ever, TR might have something to do with the exposing of a child abuser.

He made this claim 24 hours ago so it's a tad odd that it hasn't been verified yet. Maybe it's true but I'd take it with a pinch of salt atm.

Outlaw Pete

RWCNT wrote: »

I've had no problem accepting the possibility that this might be true from the jump, although me and others were sensible to be skeptical of the claim given his track record.

lol 'Skeptical'?

We had footage of his daughter speaking about what happened to her.

It was suggested she was just lying for her daddy for heaven sake. That he put her up to it.

It went way beyond skepticism.

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol 'Skeptical'?

We had footage of his daughter speaking about what happened to her. It was suggested she was lying for her daddy for heaven sake. It went way beyond skepticism.

He's claimed somebody has been charged, what's wrong with awaiting proof of it? I think it's rather reasonable to not take him on his word as it's pretty worthless.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol 'Skeptical'?

We had footage of his daughter speaking about what happened to her.

It was suggested she was just lying for her daddy for heaven sake. That he put her up to it.

It went way beyond skepticism.

Yeah we had evidence of a child making an accusation. That's not enough to convince anyone. Is that enough to convince you that it happened? Seriously?

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that enough to convince you that it happened? Seriously?

As I've said multiple times: it was quite clear that his daughter was being genuine and that she believed what she was saying and that was more than enough for me to show that Tommy wasn't fabricating the accusation as many had suggested he had.

Anyway, in other news, seems Tommy was arrested again earlier tonight for punching some lad on a bike that spat in his face.

Never a dull moment, eh.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As I've said multiple times: it was quite clear that his daughter was being genuine and that she believed what she was saying and that was more than enough for me to show that Tommy wasn't fabricating the accusation as many had suggested he had.

Anyway, in other news, seems Tommy was arrested again earlier tonight for punching some lad on a bike that spat in his face.

Never a dull moment, eh.

If someone spat on my face they’d get the same treatment.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As I've said multiple times: it was quite clear that his daughter was being genuine and that she believed what she was saying and that was more than enough for me to show that Tommy wasn't fabricating the accusation as many had suggested he had.

Anyway, in other news, seems Tommy was arrested again earlier tonight for punching some lad on a bike that spat in his face.

Never a dull moment, eh.

So yes, is the answer. You'd seriously take the word of a child as enough evidence to convince you an accusation is true? I mean it's hard to know if you're being serious or if you're just saying it because it suits Tommy.

Yeah I'm not surprised that SYL has been arrested for punching another person. It's just what he does. Shur, he pretended he was shocked he was arrested for assaulting the guy in Centre Parc. He pretends not to understand the law as a matter of course. It's another example of SYL turning one offence (spitting it him) into two offences.

But obviously, I don't believe he was spat at just because he says it. I'd need more evidence than that.

El_Duderino 09

Hunky Monster wrote: »

If someone spat on my face they’d get the same treatment.

Love how the 'ard men come out for the SLY threads. You'd swear you're always going around punching people, just like Stephen. I do t buy it. But it's interesting to see people act hard when they perceive SYL doing it.

You can't be both litigious and try to punch every situation better. Well, you can, but as SYL never seems to learn, you'll be arrested too.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Love how the 'ard men come out for the SLY threads. You'd swear you're always going around punching people, just like Stephen. I do t buy it. But it's interesting to see people act hard when they perceive SYL doing it.

You can't be both litigious and try to punch every situation better. Well, you can, but as SYL never seems to learn, you'll be arrested too.

I am not a violent person but I would punch anyone who spat in my face.

The fact you think that is "hard man" behaviour is ludicrous.

What would you do?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am not a violent person but I would punch anyone who spat in my face.

The fact you think that is "hard man" behaviour is ludicrous.

What would you do?

And you have no proof that it occurred. It's a claim from a man who is known for lying and misrepresenting.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am not a violent person but I would punch anyone who spat in my face.

The fact you think that is "hard man" behaviour is ludicrous.

What would you do?

Whatever I'd do, I wouldn't brag about it on the Internet in.spite of it never happening to me. SYL really does bring out the fantasist in some people. They get to fanticise about getting to punch people and still claim to be the victim.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And you have no proof that it occurred. It's a claim from a man who is known for lying and misrepresenting.

I never said it was true or not. I have absolutely no intention of garnering factual information about Tommy Robinson on this thread. It's constant bickering with the occasional bit of humour.

I said that someone calling another a "hard man" for saying they would punch someone if they spat in their face is ludicrous.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Whatever I'd do, I wouldn't brag about it on the Internet in.spite of it never happening to me. SYL really does bring out the fantasist in some people. They get to fanticise about getting to punch people and still claim to be the victim.

Your misrepresentation of calling it a brag says a lot about your willingness to discuss in good faith.

You know as well as I do it wasn't a brag and nobody was fantasising about punching people. It was mentioned that if a situation arose where someone spat at them, they would react violently.

All said, in context of the conversation, where Tommy Robinson claims that it happened to him.

For some reason which can only be known to yourself, you attempted to twist an on topic remark and reframe it as someone bragging or acting a hard man.

Again, I ask, what would you do in a situation where someone spits in your face? What do you think the response should be?

For clarity, this isn't a fantasy situation, it's neither impossible or improbable to believe that there are people who would spit in others faces.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never said it was true or not. I have absolutely no intention of garnering factual information about Tommy Robinson on this thread. ...

That's good idea. Absolutely no evidence apart from SYL's word. And surely even a SYL supporter wouldn't believe something just because he said it.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your misrepresentation of calling it a brag says a lot about your willingness to discuss in good faith.

You know as well as I do it wasn't a brag and nobody was fantasising about punching people. It was mentioned that if a situation arose where someone spat at them, they would react violently.

All said, in context of the conversation, where Tommy Robinson claims that it happened to him.

For some reason which can only be known to yourself, you attempted to twist an on topic remark and reframe it as someone bragging or acting a hard man.

Again, I ask, what would you do in a situation where someone spits in your face? What do you think the response should be?

For clarity, this isn't a fantasy situation, it's neither impossible or improbable to believe that there are people who would spit in others faces.

Of course it's fantasy. It's like the Americans who brag that they keep a gun under their pillow so they get to shoot an intruder.

Spitting is incredibly rare and I haven't sat down and fantisised about what I'd do if it happened to me. I'd probably be shocked to be honest. But if I wasn't in any actual danger and I was thinking clearly, then I'd probably let the police deal with it.

I think it says something about you that you'd react the same way SLY would. He's really not a good role model.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course it's fantasy. It's like the Americans who brag that they keep a gun under their pillow so they get to shoot an intruder.

Spitting is incredibly rare and I haven't sat down and fantisised about what I'd do if it happened to me. I'd probably be shocked to be honest. But if I wasn't in any actual danger and I was thinking clearly, then I'd probably let the police deal with it.

I think it says something about you that you'd react the same way SLY would. He's really not a good role model.

No. It simply is not true to call it a fantasy and your comparison to your American gun owner is absurd and inaccurate.

I never asked you to fantasize about what your reaction to be spat on was. I asked what you would do in a situation. Why you would use the word fantasize is ridiculous.

Spitting is not incredibly rare. There have been quite a spate of incidents lately, exacerbated by the Corona virus possibly.

Let the police deal with it? Fine. Thats your prerogative but I see absolutely no "hard man" aspect to someone who would defend themselves from someone spitting at them by using force.

It is a perfectly normal response to an act of aggression.

It says absolutely nothing that Tommy Robinson would react the same as me.

I would argue that plenty, if not the majority, of people would react similarly.

Again, an absurd and wilfully twisted comparison to make.

Do you go up to vegetarians and tell them it says a lot about them that they share dietary habits with Hitler

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No. It simply is not true to call it a fantasy and your comparison to your American gun owner is absurd and inaccurate.

I never asked you to fantasize about what your reaction to be spat on was. I asked what you would do in a situation. Why you would use the word fantasize is ridiculous.

Spitting is not incredibly rare. There have been quite a spate of incidents lately, exacerbated by the Corona virus possibly.

Let the police deal with it? Fine. Thats your prerogative but I see absolutely no "hard man" aspect to someone who would defend themselves from someone spitting at them by using force.

It is a perfectly normal response to an act of aggression.

It says absolutely nothing that Tommy Robinson would react the same as me.

I would argue that plenty, if not the majority, of people would react similarly.

Again, an absurd and wilfully twisted comparison to make.

Do you go up to vegetarians and tell them it says a lot about them that they share dietary habits with Hitler

Fabtisise away. Maybe some day you'll be able to emulate SYL and punch someone while also getting to play the victim. I hope it doesn't happen to either of us and you can have your fantasy without ever having to be in that position.

It says loads about you that you behave the same way as a thug.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fabtisise away. Maybe some day you'll be able to emulate SYL and punch someone while also getting to play the victim. I hope it doesn't happen to either of us and you can have your fantasy without ever having to be in that position.

It says loads about you that you behave the same way as a thug.

You introduced, and continue to use, the word fantasy where it isn't appropriate.

You completely ignored everything I said and are trying to project a belief onto me without any justification and are purposely being misrepresentative.

Arguing in bad faith and accusing people of being "hard man" while being needlessly aggressive and argumentative in your replies is somewhat ironic.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You introduced, and continue to use, the word fantasy where it isn't appropriate.

You completely ignored everything I said and are trying to project a belief onto me without any justification and are purposely being misrepresentative.

Arguing in bad faith and accusing people of being "hard man" while being needlessly aggressive and argumentative in your replies is somewhat ironic.

LOL. Needlessly aggressive while you're dreaming up a situation where you get to punch someone. Classic.

SYL knows his target market alright. His image really appeals to some people.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL. Needlessly aggressive while you're dreaming up a situation where you get to punch someone. Classic.

SYL knows his target market alright. His image really appeals to some people.

Again, and for the last time, just to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are confused rather than purposefully misrepresenting me, to know how you would react in a scenario is not dreaming something up.

Tommy Robinson, like each and every polarising figure is far from perfect and has massive faults, which I can not and would not defend.

Sometimes however, I would find myself not disagreeing with him or every one of his actions.

This does not equate to me supporting him, nor does the fact that Tommy Robinson is often wrong make everything he does wrong.

The fact that you pretend that isn't the case is proof (if any other proof was needed) that you have no issue with lying or misrepresenting someone in order to push your dislike.

I have no issue with people taking umbrage or disagreeing vehemently with me. I do take issue when someone purposely frames an argument to misrepresent me. It's dishonest and it's unnecessary.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Tommy Robinson, like each and every polarising figure is far from perfect and has massive faults, which I can not and would not defend.

Polarizing? Figure?

Nah, Stephen is a racist career criminal violent thug who earns money by conning morons on his "news" website.

Nothing polarizing about scum grifters, they do exactly what it says on the tin.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Love how the 'ard men come out for the SLY threads. You'd swear you're always going around punching people, just like Stephen. I do t buy it. But it's interesting to see people act hard when they perceive SYL doing it.

You can't be both litigious and try to punch every situation better. Well, you can, but as SYL never seems to learn, you'll be arrested too.

As opposed to doing what?

Someone spits in your face, what do you do? Call the Gards? What’s gonna happen there? Nothing.

You’re probably the type to moan about it on twitter and do nothing.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Polarizing? Figure?

Nah, Stephen is a racist career criminal violent thug who earns money by conning morons on his "news" website.

Nothing polarizing about scum grifters, they do exactly what it says on the tin.

Nothing polarising about someone that a load of people despise and yet a substantial amount of people support?

Ok then....

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nothing polarising about someone that a load of people despise and yet a substantial amount of people support?

Ok then....

What would you consider to be a "substantial amount of people"?