Tommy Robinson

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Mon May 28, 2018 6:32 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: Whites do it alone or in small numbers, 'asians' do it in large groups usually within their own local community.

Both being as bad as each other. Can we please not start grading which version of pedophilia is better?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon May 28, 2018 6:36 pm

It's the real danger though.

Him and his idiot followers don't realise that.

Only Tommy Robinson and those who follow him could actually be thick enough to do something that might actually get these pedo grooming gangs off the hook.

Dumb beyond belief doesn't even start to cover it.

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Mon May 28, 2018 6:46 pm

Dejavu wrote:It's highly probable that there is now going to be a mistrial because of this idiot.

Would it likely have been a mistrial if someone had shouted "Peadophile" to,let's say Stuart Hall as he was filmed entering court ?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 7:15 pm

deanothedino wrote:Both being as bad as each other. Can we please not start grading which version of pedophilia is better?

I've already said both sides need stringing up.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 28, 2018 7:17 pm

Nearly 400k signatures now, startling numbers.

deanothedino · Post by **deanothedino** » Mon May 28, 2018 7:50 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I've already said both sides need stringing up.

And then, unfortunately, you carried on typing.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:36 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Some can't.
Some are also quite happy to ignore our rules and customs in favour of their own.
FGM, arranged marriages and Sharia law being an example.

No one's denying that some don't. But that's not what he was saying. He was saying that people of different races can't co-exist in the same country.

Remember, this is what he said "All this living amongst each other different races, religions etc doesnt work as much as people want it too it just doesnt."
Poor punctuation accounted for, that's a pretty clear statement that he believes people of different races living together doesn't work. I consider that to be pretty racist.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:37 pm

Dazzler wrote:Would it likely have been a mistrial if someone had shouted "Peadophile" to,let's say Stuart Hall as he was filmed entering court ?

No. But if someone was filming and publicising the identity of the jurors, and opening them up to intimidation from violent thugs among the public if they didn't vote the right way that would have been cause for a mistrial.

Is that what you want to happen?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:39 pm

deanothedino wrote:And then, unfortunately, you carried on typing.

Only unfortunate if you're not interested in hearing it.

Both sides commit this atrocious act but how they go about it is generally different.

Outside of the church, non Muslims tended to be on their own doing it, prior to the arrival of the internet.
Now they use the internet to share what they do over the darkweb.

Muslims tend to do it in groups, usually family and friends and from what I've read they don't tend to share it on the darkweb.

If those differences are uncomfortable for you to digest then that isn't my issue, it's yours.

Both sides have been allowed to getaway with it for decades due to those in a position to stop it being more interested in their own well being/jobs then they are in the well-being of the kids.
Now that isn't just down to a lack of funding or man power, it's a lack of desire or interest in stopping it and instead sweeping it under the carpet.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:40 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. But if someone was filming and publicising the identity of the jurors, and opening them up to intimidation from violent thugs among the public if they didn't vote the right way that would have been cause for a mistrial.

Was he filming the jurors?
I haven't watched the whole thing, but from what I saw it was the accused.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:45 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Was he filming the jurors?
I haven't watched the whole thing, but from what I saw it was the accused.

He didn't know who the accused was so how could he know that he's filming the accused?

And even so, they are only accused. There's a reason their identity is kept secret while the trial is ongoing and Robinson has no right to **** around with that, because the only possible thing he could do would be to make any conviction less safe.

If these people groomed kids for sex then you obviously want them convicted, so why are you not angry at Robinson for trying to do something that would make any conviction less secure?

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:48 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No one's denying that some don't. But that's not what he was saying. He was saying that people of different races can't co-exist in the same country.

Remember, this is what he said "All this living amongst each other different races, religions etc doesnt work as much as people want it too it just doesnt."
Poor punctuation accounted for, that's a pretty clear statement that he believes people of different races living together doesn't work. I consider that to be pretty racist.

So you jumped straight for the racist button?

You'd be no good as a member of the grammar police

As much as people want it to work, in some instances and for various reasons it just doesn't.
Integration hasn't always worked how people hoped it would because, just like Brits who've moved abroad, people who've moved here gravitate towards each other.
It's also not a problem that's common to just the UK.

Muslims, Jews, coloured etc.
That's just how it is and that's the fault of both sides.

Isn't it Harle Syke and Rosegrove where people don't appreciate it if a Muslim/Asian family moved into the area?
That certainly used to be the case a number of years ago.
That isn't the fault of the Muslim /Asian family, that's the fault of the resident white folk.

Same with some parts of other places around the country but with the roles reversed.

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:they are only accused.

Harvey Weinstein is only accused but he's in the papers everyday...

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:52 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:He didn't know who the accused was so how could he know that he's filming the accused?

And even so, they are only accused. There's a reason their identity is kept secret while the trial is ongoing and Robinson has no right to **** around with that, because the only possible thing he could do would be to make any conviction less safe.

If these people groomed kids for sex then you obviously want them convicted, so why are you not angry at Robinson for trying to do something that would make any conviction less secure?

Why is this case so secretive but others aren't should really be the question.
Why is their identity kept secret but in other cases it isn't?
Even in non child grooming cases the accused have their names splashed across social media or the tabloids, unless an injunction is taken out.

Robinson certainly had no right to dick about like he did at that case, but did you know the case was currently in court without his appearance?
I certainly didn't, but should we know there is a court case occuring that involves potential mass child abuse?

If he'd been there and NOT filmed anyone would you be happier with that?
The Sikh bloke didn't film anyone and he's had no aggro.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:53 pm

Dazzler wrote:Harvey Weinstein is only accused but he's in the papers everyday...

He's not a Muslim so he gets the full media coverage.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:54 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Only unfortunate if you're not interested in hearing it.

Both sides commit this atrocious act but how they go about it is generally different.

Outside of the church, non Muslims tended to be on their own doing it, prior to the arrival of the internet.
Now they use the internet to share what they do over the darkweb.

Muslims tend to do it in groups, usually family and friends and from what I've read they don't tend to share it on the darkweb.

If those differences are uncomfortable for you to digest then that isn't my issue, it's yours.

Both sides have been allowed to getaway with it for decades due to those in a position to stop it being more interested in their own well being/jobs then they are in the well-being of the kids.
Now that isn't just down to a lack of funding or man power, it's a lack of desire or interest in stopping it and instead sweeping it under the carpet.

You are showing your true colours by using terms such as “both sides” Both sides of what? As far as I can see there are people, and then there are bad people - sides don’t come into it I’m afraid.

What Tommy Robinson does, so successfully, is appeal to the hatred of anything different in some people. I don’t really believe that all 400k+ people who signed the petition are of the same order of magnitude “racist” as Tommy, but I do believe that they don’t have all the facts or fully understand what he has actually done.

I also do believe that someone who defines “sides” in the context that you do will have tendencies to be aligning with generalised racism whether you actually realise it or not (I suspect you do though, realise it that is)

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Mon May 28, 2018 8:55 pm

Cliff Richard,Jimmy Tarbuck and others didn't get anonymity.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:00 pm

Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race

Just an FYI.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:01 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race
Islam is not a race

Just an FYI.

I know that, do others posting on here...?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:02 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:He's not a Muslim so he gets the full media coverage.

He was publicly accused which is what lead to his arrest. Would you prefer he was only privately accused, like he was for decades already and about which nothing was done?

I mean, please, just think for a second before posting. That's all i ask.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:04 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:I know that, do others posting on here...?

The only people that I ever seem to encounter that don't know that are the absolute stupidest of racists (almost none) and liberals (almost all)

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:04 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:You are showing your true colours by using terms such as “both sides” Both sides of what? As far as I can see there are people, and then there are bad people - sides don’t come into it I’m afraid.

What Tommy Robinson does, so successfully, is appeal to the hatred of anything different in some people. I don’t really believe that all 400k+ people who signed the petition are of the same order of magnitude “racist” as Tommy, but I do believe that they don’t have all the facts or fully understand what he has actually done.

I also do believe that someone who defines “sides” in the context that you do will have tendencies to be aligning with generalised racism whether you actually realise it or not (I suspect you do though, realise it that is)

Both cultures have an issue with child abuse.

It isn't racist to separate the two for the sake of discussion so I'm not showing any colours, I'm trying to have a grown up conversation.

Two lots of child abusers use different methods to operate and find potential victims.

Point out where I'm being racist seeing as you're convinced that I am being so because as I've said, defining which bunch of child abusers does what doesn't make me racist.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:04 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Was he filming the jurors?
I haven't watched the whole thing, but from what I saw it was the accused.

Tommy Robinson didn't know who he was filming, he could have compromised the case by unwittingly filming the jurors putting them at risk of witness intimidation and the trail in danger of a mistrial - which is the last thing the victims would want and the first thing the accused would want and would be pushing for.
I have read that the trial is or was ongoing and the arrest would therefore be justified...and with Tommy Robinson being on a suspended sentence jail time should be no surprise.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:04 pm

Dazzler wrote:Cliff Richard,Jimmy Tarbuck and others didn't get anonymity.

lol. Are you making my case now? I didn't even know Tarbuck was accused but Richards' case is a pretty good example of why anonymity, when possible, is important. Thanks for making my argument stronger.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:05 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:He was publicly accused which is what lead to his arrest. Would you prefer he was only privately accused, like he was for decades already and about which nothing was done?

I mean, please, just think for a second before posting. That's all i ask.

Were the men in the secret court case publicly accused?
If the court case was more widely known about and reported on would this help in encouraging more victims coming forward?
That's the logic they use when investigating famous people.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:06 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:I know that, do others posting on here...?

Not always, which is why I'm surprised you called me racist.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:07 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:The only people that I ever seem to encounter that don't know that are the absolute stupidest of racists (almost none) and liberals (almost all)

You’ve made me smile by reminding me of Mr “muslamic ray guns” man, and I’m pretty certain he wasn’t a liberal

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:08 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No one's denying that some don't. But that's not what he was saying. He was saying that people of different races can't co-exist in the same country.

Remember, this is what he said "All this living amongst each other different races, religions etc doesnt work as much as people want it too it just doesnt."
Poor punctuation accounted for, that's a pretty clear statement that he believes people of different races living together doesn't work. I consider that to be pretty racist.

awwww you poor snowflake

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:08 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Were the men in the secret court case publicly accused?
If the court case was more widely known about and reported on would this help in encouraging more victims coming forward?
That's the logic they use when investigating famous people.

Obviously they weren't, or their identities would be known. Jesus Christ.

It's time you answered my question now. Why aren't you angry at Robinson for trying to do something that would make any conviction less secure?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:09 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:You’ve made me smile by reminding me of Mr “muslamic ray guns” man, and I’m pretty certain he wasn’t a liberal

That's actually the exact person I had in mind when writing it.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:09 pm

morpheus2 wrote:Tommy Robinson didn't know who he was filming, he could have compromised the case by unwittingly filming the jurors putting them at risk of witness intimidation and the trail in danger of a mistrial - which is the last thing the victims would want and the first thing the accused would want and would be pushing for.
I have read that the trial is or was ongoing and the arrest would therefore be justified...and with Tommy Robinson being on a suspended sentence jail time should be no surprise.

Having said that, I'm sure the accused would have mates who would know how to get hold of jury details without the help of Tommy Robinson's livestream report, particularly as they (the accused) had friends and supporters turning up to watch the proceedings.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:10 pm

Rick_Muller wrote:You’ve made me smile by reminding me of Mr “muslamic ray guns” man, and I’m pretty certain he wasn’t a liberal

That guy was probably unemployed and on benefits. In CM's eyes that probably makes him a socialist.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:11 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Obviously they weren't, or their identities would be known. Jesus Christ.

It's time you answered my question now. Why aren't you angry at Robinson for trying to do something that would make any conviction less secure?

You answer mine then about making the case / investigation more public then, it's only fair.

In regards to Robinson I've already said he had no right to dick about like he has done.

He's rightly been arrested and with a bit of luck will spend some time in prison.
Now do I need to froth at the mouth a bit more to appease you?

However would you have an issue if he was there and NOT filming people entering the court?
I wouldn't because he wouldn't be breaking any rules.

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:12 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:lol. Are you making my case now? I didn't even know Tarbuck was accused but Richards' case is a pretty good example of why anonymity, when possible, is important.

Rolf Harris didn't have anonymity,that went well...

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:13 pm

morpheus2 wrote:Having said that, I'm sure the accused would have mates who would know how to get hold of jury details without the help of Tommy Robinson's livestream report, particularly as they (the accused) had friends and supporters turning up to watch the proceedings.

So potentially the jurors are at risk from the accused associates?
If there is a media blackout then wouldn't it make sense to have it held behind closed doors to lower the risk for the jurors?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That guy was probably unemployed and on benefits. In CM's eyes that probably makes him a socialist.

I bet if you asked him a series of economic questions (simply worded of course) he'd lean more to socialism than capitalism.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:13 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I bet if you asked him a series of economic questions (simply worded of course) he'd lean more to socialism than capitalism.

Simply worded and written in big letters using crayons.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:15 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:So potentially the jurors are at risk from the accused associates?
If there is a media blackout then wouldn't it make sense to have it held behind closed doors to lower the risk for the jurors?

If we assume the jurors were visible in the courtroom to the gallery then yes that would be the case.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:16 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You answer mine then about making the case / investigation more public then, it's only fair.

In regards to Robinson I've already said he had no right to dick about like he has done.

He's rightly been arrested and with a bit of luck will spend some time in prison.
Now do I need to froth at the mouth a bit more to appease you?

However would you have an issue if he was there and NOT filming people entering the court?
I wouldn't because he wouldn't be breaking any rules.

I don't give a **** about him being there. I do give a **** about him being there and breaking rules set by the court to ensure the integrity and fairness of the trial. So should anyone who claims to want to see our justice system work.

What question of yours haven't i answered?

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:16 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Not always, which is why I'm surprised you called me racist.

Understand that I did not call you a racist. Read my words again, I interpret your viewpoint to be aligned with a generalised view of people with racism tendencies. I have no evidence to know whether you are actually a racist person or not because we haven’t actually met. I grant you the benefit of doubt because of this, and I do try to understand your arguments - which can often be misconstrued on a text based message board.

It is my viewpoint though, that people often mistake antitheism for racism because they don’t understand what they are discussing. I have witnessed on many occasions indians being “racially” abused by thickos who call them Muslim because of the colour of their skin and their appearance. In cases like this the thickos use the anti Islam argument to justify their plain and simple racism. “Oh I’m just against having Sharia law imposed on me so that’s why I dislike that person who looks like that...”

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:18 pm

morpheus2 wrote:If we assume the jurors were visible in the courtroom to the gallery then yes that would be the case.

It's illegal to record or photograph in the courtroom, and jurors aren't refered to by name, so i'm curious as to how you think those jurors' identity could be exposed by people who simply look at them.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:19 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't give a **** about him being there. I do give a **** about him being there and breaking rules set by the court to ensure the integrity and fairness of the trial. So should anyone who claims to want to see our justice system work.

What question of yours haven't i answered?

For someone who doesn't care about him being there you're quite upset.

The question was if the investigation and court case was in the media would it help encourage more victims to come forward?
This was the reason used when the celebrity hunt was going on.

Walton · Post by **Walton** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:19 pm

Where's Tommy Robinson's court report on this case?

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/3k74 ... r-17-years

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:19 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I bet if you asked him a series of economic questions (simply worded of course) he'd lean more to socialism than capitalism.

lol. see?

Dazzler · Post by **Dazzler** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:20 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't give a **** about him being there. I do give a **** about him being there and breaking rules set by the court to ensure the integrity and fairness of the trial.

He wasn't in court;he was on public property(ish)

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:20 pm

morpheus2 wrote:If we assume the jurors were visible in the courtroom to the gallery then yes that would be the case.

Considering it's been reported that one lovely chap fire bombed the house of one of his victims, killing her as a result, you'd think they'd have this case held with no members of the public in the gallery.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:21 pm

Walton wrote:Where's Tommy Robinson's court report on this case?

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/3k74 ... r-17-years

Doubt he did one because he's a bit of a two faced ****.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:27 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:For someone who doesn't care about him being there you're quite upset.

The question was if the investigation and court case was in the media would it help encourage more victims to come forward?
This was the reason used when the celebrity hunt was going on.

You're just trolling now, aren't you? Your first sentence there is just pathetic.

Maybe it would have, but obviously, since that isn't what happened, the police and the court think that doing that would make any trial less safe and any conviction less secure. If their names were out there already then obviously the police would actively and publicly reach out to victims and ask them to come forward. But they're not.

morpheus2 · Post by **morpheus2** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:28 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's illegal to record or photograph in the courtroom, and jurors aren't refered to by name, so i'm curious as to how you think those jurors' identity could be exposed by people who simply look at them.

If I and a few of my friends were in a room staring at you close up for an hour or two, decided to wait outside the room / building for you to come out, observe which vehicle you are in, follow the vehicle, get some pics of you, find out which hotel you are in, have friends at the hotel etc etc etc etc.....I'm sure it could be done with a bit of effort.
I'm sure this sort of thing must have been done before, or am I a pioneer of this kind of operation, I might sell my ideas to special forces....or special needs like you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon May 28, 2018 9:29 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Considering it's been reported that one lovely chap fire bombed the house of one of his victims, killing her as a result, you'd think they'd have this case held with no members of the public in the gallery.

Was that chap someone from the public gallery? And can you provide a source for that claim?