Tommy Robinson

[bnm]

All the time mainstream politicians sweep certain issues under the carpet

In relation to Tommy Robinson, what issues?

 

[zuriblue]

Apart from the fact he hasn't 'got off', he has been released on bail, until the case is reheard, you are correct that the appeal process he used is open to anyone, including those in the Leeds trial.

For Yaxley jail is merely an occupational hazard which works in his favour.

I was thinking more of the fact that Yaxley-Lennon's antics could have caused the linked trials to be stopped due to the risk of jury contamination, causing the witnesses to have to go through giving evidence and being cross-examined again. In the worst case the trials could have been stopped and stayed which means that the Judge would direct an aquittal.

I would imagine that Yaxley-Lennon's time inside has been very profitable given that it has raised his profile among the far right from a knuckle-dragging thug to something of a star.

 

[AlterEgo]

How does the fact that a judge ruled there had been technical irregularities in the original case fit with the Tommy Robinson narrative? That the whole system is bent against poor Tommy and he's a victim of the judiciary?

Have fun getting your head around that, Robinson fans.

 

[cactustwirly]

All the time mainstream politicians sweep certain issues under the carpet there will be a role for "the muppet and his minions" as you so eloquently put it.

Whether there is a retrial remains to be seen.

He's on bail, so there will be a retrial.
He still committed a crime, so there will be public outrage if he isn't retrialled.

 

[Antman]

He's on bail, so there will be a retrial.
He still committed a crime, so there will be public outrage if he isn't retrialled.

As with anything else if the CPS don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction there won't be. When you say public outrage do you just mean outrage on here?

I notice there is still not a similar thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged anti semetism.

 

[cactustwirly]

As with anything else if the CPS don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction there won't be. When you say public outrage do you just mean outrage on here?

I notice there is still not a similar thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged anti semetism.

Well if they have that video, then there is definately a chance of a conviction.
I mean there will be public outrage, because they are letting 'Tommy Robinson' get away with interfering with a trial.
A fair trial is a right for every person in this country, despite the crimes they may have committed, that's why 'Tommy Robinson' must be brought to trial.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As with anything else if the CPS don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction there won't be. When you say public outrage do you just mean outrage on here?

Ok lets get this clear.
He has been "freed" (he's actually on bail, so not a totally free man at the moment) because in effect, the court of appeal throught his conviction and sentencing was rushed. Not because they don't think there is a case to answer. The whole argument the court of appeal has used to free him is around the initial trial being rushed and he should have been given longer to prepare a defense. So I have no idea how on earth you could get the idea that there won't be a retrial when the issues was with how the court acted, not how the police or the CPS acted.

Regardless, his suspended sentence from last years still stands, and he is still a serial convicted criminal.

The ironic thing is, he has essentially been given a retrial on a technicality, something which he very easily could have caused to happen to the defendants in the case he was "covering".

I notice there is still not a similar thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged anti semetism.

Ok, I'll bite. Can you care to actually give an example of anti semitism from Corbyn? As far as I can see, all of the talk from people criticising him has mainly just been that, talk. No actual examples.
He has made a few badly worded statements in the past that could be interpreted in a specific way if you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, but the main issue that seemingly has exploded in the last couple of weeks is a non issue in my eyes as all Labour have said is that they essentially disagree with the idea that criticising the state of Israel is anti semitism, which I see as perfectly sane. The idea that you cannot criticise Israel, of compare some of its policies to things that have happened in the past is literally insane (its also worth mentioning, part of this, the 2010 event, the comments were from a Holocaust survivor).

 

[thejuggler]

I notice there is still not a similar thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged anti semetism.

Top right of the Forum is a 'Post New Thread' button.

Why not try it, rather than cross post and go off topic?

 

[AlterEgo]

As with anything else if the CPS don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction there won't be. When you say public outrage do you just mean outrage on here?

I notice there is still not a similar thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged anti semetism.

Why would the CPS think there wouldn’t be a reasonable chance of conviction? The man pleaded guilty!

The technical issues relate to procedural problems and the method used to calculate the length of his sentence, not his guilt.

 

[DarloRich]

As with anything else if the CPS don't think there is a reasonable chance of a conviction there won't be. When you say public outrage do you just mean outrage on here?

I notice there is still not a similar thread about Jeremy Corbyn and his alleged anti semetism.

please read the Secret barrister blog link i posted. It might help you.

 

[Antman]

Why would the CPS think there wouldn’t be a reasonable chance of conviction? The man pleaded guilty!

The technical issues relate to procedural problems and the method used to calculate the length of his sentence, not his guilt.

So why the need for a retrial rather than reduce the length of his sentence as appropriate?

 

[AlterEgo]

So why the need for a retrial rather than reduce the length of his sentence as appropriate?

Because the original conviction was deemed unsafe, because of procedural issues (especially in the Leeds trial where it was judged to have happened too quickly) - long story short, even though he pleaded guilty, the poor adherence to procedure meant he didn’t get a fair hearing. See from 7 onwards here: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thes...-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/amp/

 

[bnm]

So why the need for a retrial rather than reduce the length of his sentence as appropriate?

The Court of Appeal observed that “the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served.”

 

[VauxhallandI]

I think some reviews beg to differ...

https://www.theguardian.com/society...anctuary-newcastle-grooming-gangs-case-review




That's not how Wikipedia works. An author can't just cite an opinion, they have to provide a basis of it which was in the form of their cited article. Any sources deemed unreliable will be removed, as has been the case with The Daily Mail. Why they've not yet disregarded The Sun though is another cause for concern and probably does leave questions to be asked.


I'll give you that one, I must've disregarded my own statement. Probably because, in hindsight, it was so much an understatement even. But on the other hand I have no idea what motives you think I've got under my sleeves. Far as I'm concerned Tommy Robinson made his own mistakes and is responsible for his own actions. I've little sympathy for a man who knowingly breaks the law despite having already been warned. Even he knows it was a stupid thing to do, now he just needs to think about what he gained from it while he's in the pen.


You can wonder that as much as you wish and I don't claim to be a bastion of wisdom, but I'd say I've lived enough to know that the world isn't as black and white as some people seem to view it. It's not as simple as people suddenly being narrow-minded just because they might follow a nationalist group like Britain First. With two-million followers, not all of them are going to be narrow-minded nasty thick individuals who are mislead by extremists. Some of them just want to see someone talking about the issues that concern them and probably can't see it the same way you or I could. Narrow-mindedness, in my opinion, would be more like someone watching InfoWars and Fox News because they see every other news output as Jewish-Controlled Zionist media and that anyone who can't see that is a sheep. It's even more unfortunate for me to actually know someone like that.


Oh you think I'm bad? Then I hope for your sake you don't meet that person I was on about before. I'm not sure you could handle someone who has admitted straight up they'd believe anything Alex Jones said and insists that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be fried in an electric chair in the middle of Washington any day now. No specific day has been given, but apparently it's definitely gonna happen. I'm not joking either, and really it's hard to comfortably talk about an issue knowing they'll have a similar stance. If they ever saw this thread I can just imagine them now thinking I'm suddenly wanting a second crusades.

I'm afraid all 2 million members are hideous narrow-minded people, I find it indefensible.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I'm afraid all 2 million members are hideous narrow-minded people, I find it indefensible.

How do you mean?

 

[yorkie]

How do you mean?

It is clearly believable that all members of 'Britain First' are - to use your original wording - "narrow-minded nasty thick individuals who are mislead by extremists", or at least one of those attributes.

I mean they can hardly be broad-minded, clever individuals who are not mislead, otherwise they'd obviously not be members! Quite simple really!

I doubt their membership is really 2 million though; is there any independent verification of 2 million unique members? I find that impossible to believe.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is clearly believable that all members of 'Britain First' are - to use your original wording - "narrow-minded nasty thick individuals who are mislead by extremists", or at least one of those attributes.

I mean they can hardly be broad-minded, clever individuals who are not mislead, otherwise they'd obviously not be members! Quite simple really!

I doubt their membership is really 2 million though; is there any independent verification of 2 million unique members? I find that impossible to believe.

I think that figure was the number of likes on their Facebook page. I expect the majority of those may come from outside of the U.K.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

It is clearly believable that all members of 'Britain First' are - to use your original wording - "narrow-minded nasty thick individuals who are mislead by extremists", or at least one of those attributes.

I mean they can hardly be broad-minded, clever individuals who are not mislead, otherwise they'd obviously not be members! Quite simple really!

I doubt their membership is really 2 million though; is there any independent verification of 2 million unique members? I find that impossible to believe.

Having quoted the entire post it was hard to pick up on what was meant originally. Had the part of Britain First been highlighted or the only thing shown then it would've been easier. The two million figure is based on the amount of Facebook followers, which like AlterEgo said could like be from overseas. I know a few of their followers are American, who are especially susceptible to being mislead by them. If they have limited knowledge of our legal system then it's easy for them to be lead to think Tommy Robinson was a political prisoner rather than a common criminal. You'd hardly be surprised at the ignorance some of them display. I mean for god's sake the very man this thread's about was arrested for trying to illegally get into the U.S., but then I suppose strong borders are only a bad idea if it gets in the way of an agenda.

Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean all two million are narrow-minded thick individuals, just on the basis of how large parties have diverse opinions (not all 500,000 members of the Labour Party follows Jeremy Corbyn's vision for example) and since we haven't met all of BF's members/followers. I mean I don't particularly want to meet them all really since not only do I care too little to even bother with them, but some of the followers have demonstrated that they can't even spell properly. Talk about getting immigrants to learn the language, at least they have excuses for getting words wrong occasionally. In fact I've seen a few well phrased and spelled words and sentences written by people who've had to clarify that English isn't their first language before I'd even realise it wasn't. They could very well just not say it and I'd be none the wiser about their heritage.

 

[yorkie]

Having quoted the entire post it was hard to pick up on what was meant originally. Had the part of Britain First been highlighted or the only thing shown then it would've been easier. The two million figure is based on the amount of Facebook followers, which like AlterEgo said could like be from overseas. I know a few of their followers are American, who are especially susceptible to being mislead by them. If they have limited knowledge of our legal system then it's easy for them to be lead to think Tommy Robinson was a political prisoner rather than a common criminal. You'd hardly be surprised at the ignorance some of them display. I mean for god's sake the very man this thread's about was arrested for trying to illegally get into the U.S., but then I suppose strong borders are only a bad idea if it gets in the way of an agenda.

Even so, that doesn't necessarily mean all two million are narrow-minded thick individuals, just on the basis of how large parties have diverse opinions (not all 500,000 members of the Labour Party follows Jeremy Corbyn's vision for example) and since we haven't met all of BF's members/followers. I mean I don't particularly want to meet them all really since not only do I care too little to even bother with them, but some of the followers have demonstrated that they can't even spell properly. Talk about getting immigrants to learn the language, at least they have excuses for getting words wrong occasionally. In fact I've seen a few well phrased and spelled words and sentences written by people who've had to clarify that English isn't their first language before I'd even realise it wasn't. They could very well just not say it and I'd be none the wiser about their heritage.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I didn't mean to go on a tangent, I think ultimately I just mean to say that the uncertainly of what was originally posted was down to my entire quote being included rather than just the part about Britain First, thus not understanding what the "2 million followers" was referring to in the original response. The other point was how I still don't think all two million are so narrow-minded and thick just on the basis of diverse opinions in large parties, but how I didn't really care enough to go out and meet them all to find out for sure.

All well and good too even, because I don't think I could take the pain of finding out there really is that many stupid people on this planet. I think in this case it'll be fine to just leave Britain First out of the conversation altogether unless they become more relevant to the case of Tommy Robinson's trail. Hopefully I've not jinxed it, because I really don't want to hear from a bunch of Christian fundamentalist in branded bin-bags who delete every disagreeing opinion from their page brag on about free speech, an issue almost if not totally irrelevant to the entire point.

 

[bnm]

Using a broad brush to paint all members of an organisation as having limited intellect is too simplistic. Britain First are dangerous not because every member is a knuckle dragging neanderthal, but because there are some within the organisation who have the intelligence to rabble rouse and lead.

 

[Bromley boy]

Ok, I'll bite. Can you care to actually give an example of anti semitism from Corbyn? As far as I can see, all of the talk from people criticising him has mainly just been that, talk. No actual examples.
He has made a few badly worded statements in the past that could be interpreted in a specific way if you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel, but the main issue that seemingly has exploded in the last couple of weeks is a non issue in my eyes as all Labour have said is that they essentially disagree with the idea that criticising the state of Israel is anti semitism, which I see as perfectly sane. The idea that you cannot criticise Israel, of compare some of its policies to things that have happened in the past is literally insane (its also worth mentioning, part of this, the 2010 event, the comments were from a Holocaust survivor).

A few badly worded statements? You are either not being honest or you are simply in denial.

How about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...after-backing-artist-behind-antisemitic-mural

In a Facebook post in 2012, Corbyn offered his backing to Los Angeles-based street artist Mear One, whose mural, featuring several known antisemitic tropes, was due to be removed after complaints.

Mear One said on his Facebook page: “Tomorrow they want to buff my mural Freedom of Expression. London Calling, Public art.”

Corbyn replied: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera’s [sic] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”

The Jewish community is united in condemning the anti semitism inherent in the Labour Party that has been allowed to flourish under Corbyn’s watch. Are they making it all up then?

I find it genuinely frightening that the right-on left wing commentators on this forum will deny the findings of the Jay report, minimise and deny the presence of anti semitism in the Labour Party.

Never mind Asian grooming gangs and anti semitism, it seems the only thing that matters to the left is attacking the far right.

This is precisely the kind of attitide that gives Tommy Robinson etc. the oxygen they need.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

A lot of this is what totally P*sses people off - you concentrate on a tiny minute handful of nazi wannabes who will never gain power and have little if any influence and ignore an ideology that has two million followers in this country alone which has a track record of human rights abuses in every single country it controls. It makes me cringe to see so called anti-fascists pander to the greatest fascist organisation on the planet.

 

[Bromley boy]

A lot of this is what totally P*sses people off - you concentrate on a tiny minute handful of nazi wannabes who will never gain power and have little if any influence and ignore an ideology that has two million followers in this country alone which has a track record of human rights abuses in every single country it controls. It makes me cringe to see so called anti-fascists pander to the greatest fascist organisation on the planet.

Indeed.

Horrific stories like the below demonstrate the appalling abuses and disgusting cultural practices now being allowed to thrive in this country, as a direct result of a careless immigration policy and political correctness.

I look forward to the thread on here expressing as much moral outrage at the rape and sexual abuse of vulnerable adults, as Robinson has inspired for committing contempt of court.

There won’t be one, of course. The issue staring us in the face will be denied, ignored and minimised as ethnic/religious minorities can do no wrong in the eyes of many posters on here (unless they’re Jewish, of course!).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...h-disabilities-raped-by-visa-cheats-qvckt8mr6

Women with learning disabilities are being raped and beaten as the Home Office hands visas to the foreign abusers that they were forced to marry, The Times has found.

The victims include a Muslim woman with “very little comprehension of anything other than simple matters” who was assaulted and made to have sex after marrying a Bangladeshi cousin. The man was issued with a spousal visa to join her in Britain even though officials knew that his wife was severely disabled, court records show.

 

[yorkie]

Indeed.

Horrific stories like the below demonstrate the appalling abuses and disgusting cultural practices now being allowed to thrive in this country, as a direct result of a careless immigration policy and political correctness.

I wonder if we will have a thread on here expressing as much moral outrage at these despicable physical abuses of vulnerable adults as Robinson has inspired for contempt of court?!

There won’t be, of course. It will be ignored and minimised as ethnic/religious minorities can do no wrong in the eyes of many posters on here (unless they’re Jewish, of course!).

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...h-disabilities-raped-by-visa-cheats-qvckt8mr6

That's ridiculous logic. I could ask why you (or anyone else who is defending and/or exhibiting signs of supporting the far right) have not created a thread expressing moral outrage at all sorts of things. It's a completely meaningless distraction tactic and strawman argument.

 

[Bromley boy]

That's ridiculous logic. I could ask why you (or anyone else who is defending and/or exhibiting signs of supporting the far right) have not created a thread expressing moral outrage at all sorts of things. It's a completely meaningless distraction tactic and strawman argument.

In what way am I “defending of or supporting the far right”? I’m pointing out how lazy attitudes in this country about certain issues have given them oxygen.

We have seen a poster above denying there is an issue with anti Semitism in the Labour Party. In light of recent events this is an extreme, deluded view which has attracted no adverse comment on the thread other than mine.

The abuses in the times article I linked to above far outweigh contempt of court - and yet will attract little or no comment on these pages.

Yet we have an entire thread expressing extreme outrage and “throw away the key” attitudes to contempt of court committed by (odious individual) Robinson.

That is my point.

 

[yorkie]

This thread is meant to be a discussion about an individual known as 'Tommy Robinson'; I do not understand why you think that going on about people not discussing other matters (which have been carefully selected by you; there are plenty of other things going on that people might reasonably be outraged about, but many of those things would not support your argument!) proves any point you are trying to make.

Your attempt at using this line of logic, and merely repeating it, is utterly bizarre .

 

[Bromley boy]

This thread is meant to be a discussion about an individual known as 'Tommy Robinson'; I do not understand why you think that going on about people not discussing other matters (which have been carefully selected by you; there are plenty of other things going on that people might reasonably be outraged about, but many of those things would not support your argument!) proves any point you are trying to make.

Your attempt at using this line of logic, and merely repeating it, is utterly bizarre .

I was merely contrasting the moral outrage generated on these pages by Robinson’s recent antics, with the complete lack of outrage (or even acknowledgement) of anti semitism and abuse of vulnerable adults by certain minorities: topics which are markedly less popular with the left.

I concede it is on the cusp of straying off topic so I will leave it there (I wonder how popular a thread on “Labour anti semitism” would be - I might even create one ).

 

[bnm]

I concede it is on the cusp of straying off topic so I will leave it there (I wonder how popular a thread on “Labour anti semitism” would be - I might even create one ).

Please do. Well past the 'cusp'. Too much "whataboutism" already.

Back to the great (in his own eyes) man. Commenting on his time inside:

"That was not a prison sentence, that was mental torture."

It's not supposed to be a holiday camp. But mental toughness will get you through. It did me. Perhaps S Y-L is somewhat lacking.

"Solitary confinement, all of it, everything was orchestrated and organised to cause me maximum disruptance"

Complaining about solitary confinement after, according to rumour, requesting it himself? And what on earth is maximum disruptance?

"I'd like to thank person after person after person, who come out and put their neck and their reputation on the line"

Nice that he acknowledges that supporting him can lead to reputational damage.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Using a broad brush to paint all members of an organisation as having limited intellect is too simplistic. Britain First are dangerous not because every member is a knuckle dragging neanderthal, but because there are some within the organisation who have the intelligence to rabble rouse and lead.

Indeed there are some in there who have alternative motives. They are still however narrow minded and hideous!