|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 8, 2023 19:25:23 GMT
He must know that if he turns up next weekend that he will be blamed for every adverse occurrence whether he's anywhere near it or not.
Surely that acts against his stated cause?
And he must know that, so why would he undermine his own (alleged) goals?
I can't be the only one that smells a rat.
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 8, 2023 21:22:11 GMT
Here is Mr Robinson giving his views and giving us his plans for next Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Nov 8, 2023 21:34:49 GMT
He must know that if he turns up next weekend that he will be blamed for every adverse occurrence whether he's anywhere near it or not.
Surely that acts against his stated cause?
And he must know that, so why would he undermine his own (alleged) goals?
I can't be the only one that smells a rat.
I tend to agree, he will certainly be a target for the police and left wing press. I sympathise with Tommy Robinson, but I cant see what his presence would achieve. Not next weekend anyway.
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Nov 8, 2023 21:40:16 GMT
Two lots of nutters trying to provoke each other with a next to useless Police in the middle.
But we all know who will be arrested, vilified and blamed don't we.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2023 21:56:13 GMT
Two lots of nutters trying to provoke each other with a next to useless Police in the middle. But we all know who will be arrested, vilified and blamed don't we. Wrong - The organisers of the march calling for an end to the bombing of Gaza are not out to provoke anyone, they do not see the 10,000 people killed as Muslims or Jews or Christians, they see them as mostly civilian human beings caught up in a hell that was not of their making. They are not pro Hamas, they are not anti Jewish, they are not anti British or disrespectful to Armistice Day, they just want Israel to stop bombing Gaza and to consider that the Palestinian people have the same right as Israelis ... to have a homeland. Tommy Robinson has caused enough trouble and inflamed more tension by his provocations, and he should stay well away with his intolerant, racist mob.
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Nov 9, 2023 7:00:58 GMT
Two lots of nutters trying to provoke each other with a next to useless Police in the middle. But we all know who will be arrested, vilified and blamed don't we. Wrong - The organisers of the march calling for an end to the bombing of Gaza are not out to provoke anyone, they do not see the 10,000 people killed as Muslims or Jews or Christians, they see them as mostly civilian human beings caught up in a hell that was not of their making. They are not pro Hamas, they are not anti Jewish, they are not anti British or disrespectful to Armistice Day, they just want Israel to stop bombing Gaza and to consider that the Palestinian people have the same right as Israelis ... to have a homeland. Tommy Robinson has caused enough trouble and inflamed more tension by his provocations, and he should stay well away with his intolerant, racist mob.Rubbish. He has every right to be there to peacefully protest as those who claim they do when they're supporting the endeavours of Hamas. Regarding Tommy Robinson, the media are already sharpening their knives for their patsy.
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 9, 2023 7:19:11 GMT
Two lots of nutters trying to provoke each other with a next to useless Police in the middle. But we all know who will be arrested, vilified and blamed don't we. Wrong - The organisers of the march calling for an end to the bombing of Gaza are not out to provoke anyone, they do not see the 10,000 people killed as Muslims or Jews or Christians, they see them as mostly civilian human beings caught up in a hell that was not of their making. They are not pro Hamas, they are not anti Jewish, they are not anti British or disrespectful to Armistice Day, they just want Israel to stop bombing Gaza and to consider that the Palestinian people have the same right as Israelis ... to have a homeland. Tommy Robinson has caused enough trouble and inflamed more tension by his provocations, and he should stay well away with his intolerant, racist mob. Bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 9, 2023 8:26:05 GMT
deleted double post
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Nov 9, 2023 8:26:30 GMT
Tommy Robinson is also entitled to "free speech" and also has a right to protest. And unlike many on the hate march he won't be wearing a mask and calling for armed jihad and intifada. I remember when EDL had peaceful (and legal) marches they were always attacked by muslim yobs carrying weapons - and the police ALWAYS left the muslims alone and arrested EDL who were simply defending themselves. I don't understand the hatred that Tommy Robinson seems to attract. He has a simple agenda of pushing back on the take over of the UK by Islam, which we should ALL agree with. And he's extremely knowledgeable about islam. d love to hear him debate with the likes of Mishal Hussein on "Today" - he would wipe the floor with her. But of course the BBC won't give him a platform.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 9, 2023 8:29:00 GMT
Wrong - The organisers of the march calling for an end to the bombing of Gaza are not out to provoke anyone, they do not see the 10,000 people killed as Muslims or Jews or Christians, they see them as mostly civilian human beings caught up in a hell that was not of their making. They are not pro Hamas, they are not anti Jewish, they are not anti British or disrespectful to Armistice Day, they just want Israel to stop bombing Gaza and to consider that the Palestinian people have the same right as Israelis ... to have a homeland. Tommy Robinson has caused enough trouble and inflamed more tension by his provocations, and he should stay well away with his intolerant, racist mob. Bollocks. Well you say that but the last occasion on which he strutted his ego proved him to be a prize idiot. I managed to acquire a copy of the statement made by the judge who made the reporting restrictions Mr Yaxley-Lennon found so objectionable. The document was available on a cloud server somewhere although I got it from the courts service website. In short Man A had been convicted in court A of some pretty revolting act carried out in cahoots with men B,C,D,E and F Man A was sentenced along with men B through F but was due to appear at a future date to answer a set of similar charges pertaining to a set of similar allegations arising from an occasion in a different location with a different set of individuals P Q R S and T In common with many trials the judge imposed reporting restrictions for the duration of the first, which meant that anyone was free to go to the courtroom and witness the proceedings but none present were permitted to speak of them much less publish their experience In the vast majority of cases those restrictions are lifted after the verdict. In this case the judge directed that no public mention of the proceedings could be made at all until Man A had appeared in the second trial and the result of that was returned by the jury after which all would be free to speak of both. This is again a common measure used where one defendant is to stand trial separately to answer separate charges Newspapers and News websites often use phrases akin to ‘Following the conviction yesterday afternoon of Messrs Sue, Grabbit And Run in such and such a court for the crime of whatever, we are now able to reveal that Mr Grabbit was last month also found guilty in another part of the country for the crimes of this and that’ It is standard judicial practice and far from censorship as Mr Yaxley-Lennon ridiculously alleged, it is done to ensure as far as possible the jury hearing the second case hear it without the knowledge that one of the accused was done last week for the same crime carried out against someone else. It is done because the court at which the convicted criminal is going to stand trial for separate crimes must weigh up guilt and innocence on the basis of fact and testimony presented there, and to reveal one of those charged has only last week been done for a separate offence buggers both the chance of a fair trial on THIS matter for the recently convicted piece of shit, but ALSO screws the fairness of the hearing for those in the dock with said piece of shit I have no interest in defending those scum, but i wish to see them convicted on the basis of evidence presented speaking to the view that they were there and they did it, not on the basis that they did the same thing last week, or were standing in a room with a bloke who did the same thing last month I don’t know what a ‘shill’ is so i don’t know what would make them work for, or against the establishment However, i do know a man prepared to destroy the impartiality of a jury called to hear a case against a bunch of alleged kiddie fiddlers by revealing one of them was busted for a a masterful work of violin playing last month is a prize prick who deserved to be thrown into a jail for contempt and NEVER let out, as our laws already oermit.
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 9, 2023 9:11:52 GMT
Two lots of nutters trying to provoke each other with a next to useless Police in the middle. But we all know who will be arrested, vilified and blamed don't we. Wrong - The organisers of the march calling for an end to the bombing of Gaza are not out to provoke anyone, they do not see the 10,000 people killed as Muslims or Jews or Christians, they see them as mostly civilian human beings caught up in a hell that was not of their making. They are not pro Hamas, they are not anti Jewish, they are not anti British or disrespectful to Armistice Day, they just want Israel to stop bombing Gaza and to consider that the Palestinian people have the same right as Israelis ... to have a homeland. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Nov 9, 2023 10:31:41 GMT
While we have every lefty do-gooder snowflake woke human rights lawyers fighting tooth and nail to get the terrorist bride Shamima Begum to get her British citizenship reinstated.
I bet if she was in this country at that march the cops would be offering her tea and biscuits, while Tommy Robbinson is in the background get the shit kicked out him by a bunch of thug cops.
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 9, 2023 11:00:36 GMT
Well you say that but the last occasion on which he strutted his ego proved him to be a prize idiot. I managed to acquire a copy of the statement made by the judge who made the reporting restrictions Mr Yaxley-Lennon found so objectionable. The document was available on a cloud server somewhere although I got it from the courts service website. In short Man A had been convicted in court A of some pretty revolting act carried out in cahoots with men B,C,D,E and F Man A was sentenced along with men B through F but was due to appear at a future date to answer a set of similar charges pertaining to a set of similar allegations arising from an occasion in a different location with a different set of individuals P Q R S and T In common with many trials the judge imposed reporting restrictions for the duration of the first, which meant that anyone was free to go to the courtroom and witness the proceedings but none present were permitted to speak of them much less publish their experience In the vast majority of cases those restrictions are lifted after the verdict. In this case the judge directed that no public mention of the proceedings could be made at all until Man A had appeared in the second trial and the result of that was returned by the jury after which all would be free to speak of both. This is again a common measure used where one defendant is to stand trial separately to answer separate charges Newspapers and News websites often use phrases akin to ‘Following the conviction yesterday afternoon of Messrs Sue, Grabbit And Run in such and such a court for the crime of whatever, we are now able to reveal that Mr Grabbit was last month also found guilty in another part of the country for the crimes of this and that’ It is standard judicial practice and far from censorship as Mr Yaxley-Lennon ridiculously alleged, it is done to ensure as far as possible the jury hearing the second case hear it without the knowledge that one of the accused was done last week for the same crime carried out against someone else. It is done because the court at which the convicted criminal is going to stand trial for separate crimes must weigh up guilt and innocence on the basis of fact and testimony presented there, and to reveal one of those charged has only last week been done for a separate offence buggers both the chance of a fair trial on THIS matter for the recently convicted piece of shit, but ALSO screws the fairness of the hearing for those in the dock with said piece of shit I have no interest in defending those scum, but i wish to see them convicted on the basis of evidence presented speaking to the view that they were there and they did it, not on the basis that they did the same thing last week, or were standing in a room with a bloke who did the same thing last month I don’t know what a ‘shill’ is so i don’t know what would make them work for, or against the establishment However, i do know a man prepared to destroy the impartiality of a jury called to hear a case against a bunch of alleged kiddie fiddlers by revealing one of them was busted for a a masterful work of violin playing last month is a prize prick who deserved to be thrown into a jail for contempt and NEVER let out, as our laws already oermit. Seems like he couldn't resist the opportunity to make it all about him so he could have another pity party online about how he was supposedly being oppressed. Prize prick sums him up very well IMHO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2023 13:18:00 GMT
Tommy Robinson is also entitled to "free speech" and also has a right to protest. And unlike many on the hate march he won't be wearing a mask and calling for armed jihad and intifada. I remember when EDL had peaceful (and legal) marches they were always attacked by muslim yobs carrying weapons - and the police ALWAYS left the muslims alone and arrested EDL who were simply defending themselves. I don't understand the hatred that Tommy Robinson seems to attract. He has a simple agenda of pushing back on the take over of the UK by Islam, which we should ALL agree with. And he's extremely knowledgeable about islam. d love to hear him debate with the likes of Mishal Hussein on "Today" - he would wipe the floor with her. But of course the BBC won't give him a platform. While I will agree that he's a double edged sword, he did raise awareness of the abuse returning troops got and the racially motivated child grooming gangs. The media and politics like to keep things like that away from the public eye in the name of utopian multiculturalism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2023 13:23:43 GMT
Well you say that but the last occasion on which he strutted his ego proved him to be a prize idiot. I managed to acquire a copy of the statement made by the judge who made the reporting restrictions Mr Yaxley-Lennon found so objectionable. The document was available on a cloud server somewhere although I got it from the courts service website. In short Man A had been convicted in court A of some pretty revolting act carried out in cahoots with men B,C,D,E and F Man A was sentenced along with men B through F but was due to appear at a future date to answer a set of similar charges pertaining to a set of similar allegations arising from an occasion in a different location with a different set of individuals P Q R S and T In common with many trials the judge imposed reporting restrictions for the duration of the first, which meant that anyone was free to go to the courtroom and witness the proceedings but none present were permitted to speak of them much less publish their experience In the vast majority of cases those restrictions are lifted after the verdict. In this case the judge directed that no public mention of the proceedings could be made at all until Man A had appeared in the second trial and the result of that was returned by the jury after which all would be free to speak of both. This is again a common measure used where one defendant is to stand trial separately to answer separate charges Newspapers and News websites often use phrases akin to ‘Following the conviction yesterday afternoon of Messrs Sue, Grabbit And Run in such and such a court for the crime of whatever, we are now able to reveal that Mr Grabbit was last month also found guilty in another part of the country for the crimes of this and that’ It is standard judicial practice and far from censorship as Mr Yaxley-Lennon ridiculously alleged, it is done to ensure as far as possible the jury hearing the second case hear it without the knowledge that one of the accused was done last week for the same crime carried out against someone else. It is done because the court at which the convicted criminal is going to stand trial for separate crimes must weigh up guilt and innocence on the basis of fact and testimony presented there, and to reveal one of those charged has only last week been done for a separate offence buggers both the chance of a fair trial on THIS matter for the recently convicted piece of shit, but ALSO screws the fairness of the hearing for those in the dock with said piece of shit I have no interest in defending those scum, but i wish to see them convicted on the basis of evidence presented speaking to the view that they were there and they did it, not on the basis that they did the same thing last week, or were standing in a room with a bloke who did the same thing last month I don’t know what a ‘shill’ is so i don’t know what would make them work for, or against the establishment However, i do know a man prepared to destroy the impartiality of a jury called to hear a case against a bunch of alleged kiddie fiddlers by revealing one of them was busted for a a masterful work of violin playing last month is a prize prick who deserved to be thrown into a jail for contempt and NEVER let out, as our laws already oermit. Seems like he couldn't resist the opportunity to make it all about him so he could have another pity party online about how he was supposedly being oppressed. Prize prick sums him up very well IMHO. The prized pricks are the ones in bed with backward dangerous ideologies and cults, but it seems that this is what the people want.
|
|