Well, seeing as there's no thread about him...

A petition has been raised calling for his release from prison.

It has generated nearly 200,000 signatures in just 24 hours and rising.

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp ... y-robinson" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course it won't make any difference and will be ignored as far right Nazis just spitting their dummy out.

But, going beyond the media spin, how has this man, an ex-football thug from Luton managed to develop such hero status amongst the working class of this country? Whats the reason? Is it simply that they are all stupid and easily mislead by racist ideology? Or is it something more?

He’s in prison? Ha. Brilliant.

Bordeauxclaret wrote:He’s in prison? Ha. Brilliant.

Certainly is, and its raised his profile, made him lots of money and increased his status even further amongst his supporters.

Brilliant indeed!

So proud.

I had to explain to my other half why he was in prison because she only read what she’d seen on Facebook and the DM web site (from Facebook links). He is incarcerated for breaching court orders and not for asking questions about Muslim rape gangs as has been reported.

Maybe of Interest:

Orwellian Police arrest Tommy Robinson for journalism 25.5.2018

"In the early morning of 25.05.2018 Tommy Robinson was live streaming the court verdict of Islamic grooming gangs. This was reason enough for the police to silence him by intimidation and unlawful arrest!

The UK is an Orwellian police state, addressing the problems is now an offence as our government no longer represents us, we the people are grossly offended and this type of persecution cannot be tolerated!

We the people must write to our MPs, elect those whom will represent us and most of all attend Speakers Corners on Sunday and other events across the UK!"

Views 162,052...
Comments 4700

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... witkPBsHdo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;!

Rick_Muller wrote:I had to explain to my other half why he was in prison because she only read what she’d seen on Facebook and the DM web site (from Facebook links). He is incarcerated for breaching court orders and not for asking questions about Muslim rape gangs as has been reported.

I’d heard he hadn’t paid his tv license.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Certainly is, and its raised his profile, made him lots of money and increased his status even further amongst his supporters.

Brilliant indeed!

Like i've said on Facebook, anyone who endangers a trial deserves to go to prison.

Jailed for 2 charges of contempt of court, was already on a suspended sentence. The court had imposed a reporting ban to ensure a fair trial, he ignored it. Reporting restrictions would have been lifted after a verdict but he compromised the process.

No excuse. Deserves his fate but I’m sure he is revelling in it.

It also goes hand in hand duty breaching conditions from the last time he was in jail.

KeighleyClaret wrote:Jailed for 2 charges of contempt of court, was already on a suspended sentence. The court had imposed a reporting ban to ensure a fair trial, he ignored it. Reporting restrictions would have been lifted after a verdict but he compromised the process.

No excuse. Deserves his fate but I’m sure he is revelling in it.

Exactly. Imagine seeing him as a hero for doing something that makes it more likely that someone guilty of grooming children could go free. And imagine being the kind of person who would see him as a hero. It's almost as if they want grooming gangs to go free.

Is it that fat DIY chap from the Tele ?

I think in a twisted way they do, because then it would prove a point. It's the same people who hear breaking news of an attack or a rape and can't wait to find out the ethnicity of the perpetrator only to keep quiet when they are white.

Is this the same guy who sang ‘2,4,6,8, Motorway’, ‘Glad To Be Gay’, and ‘War Baby’?
If it is, he’s had a bit of a Political volte-face, hasn’t he?

Has more guts than most who post on here!

Terrier wrote:Has more guts than most who post on here!

Being a racist scumbag doesn’t equate to having guts

I think Terrier was projecting onto other posters - sh1ts it when he goes to Grimsby...apparently.

UTC!

Don’t really know or care who tommy is but from what I have seen he has been arrested for breach of the peace not contempt of court

Inchy wrote:Don’t really know or care who tommy is but from what I have seen he has been arrested for breach of the peace not contempt of court

His suspended sentence was for contempt of court, he was arrested for breach of the peace which means he goes to prison for being a moron and not staying out of trouble.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Exactly. Imagine seeing him as a hero for doing something that makes it more likely that someone guilty of grooming children could go free. And imagine being the kind of person who would see him as a hero. It's almost as if they want grooming gangs to go free.

Sounds a bit like Charles Manson's deluded reasoning behind "Helter Skelter" (his "masterplan" rather than the Beatles' song)

Hopefully now the authorities no longer see underage girls as willing "prostitutes" and rather innocent victims these grooming gangs are a thing of the past.

His real name isn't even Tommy

Wasn't there also a Sikh reporting on it from outside the court who wasn't arrested?
Or was that a different case?

Out of interest why the media blackout on this child grooming case when it's clearly a major issue?

Can we expect media blackout for all child grooming cases?

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Wasn't there also a Sikh reporting on it from outside the court who wasn't arrested?
Or was that a different case?

Out of interest why the media blackout on this child grooming case when it's clearly a major issue?

Can we expect media blackout for all child grooming cases?

Was he filming people entering the court and identifying them?

The "blackout" is probably because it's an emotional type of case that brings our the worst in the reactionist morons. Imagine bring a juror on that trial and knowing that the far-right are filming you and identifying you as someone involved in the trial. If you're identified publicly then you're no longer an impartial juror because you're open to intimidation. So you have to be replaced. If you're not replaced and it turns out that your decision was based in part on something other than just the evidence then that means the conviction or acquittal isn't safe.

I'm sure you want guity people to go to prison for this, and innocent people to be released. If that's true then i'm sure you agree that Robinson deserves every day he spends in prison for attempting to do something that would make those outcomes less likely.

Why was he breaching the peace? I haven’t seen his video but I am seeing loads of shite on Facebook. Surely the police have arrested for a proper reason because if not it’s just fanning the flames

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:Sounds a bit like Charles Manson's deluded reasoning behind "Helter Skelter" (his "masterplan" rather than the Beatles' song)

Hopefully now the authorities no longer see underage girls as willing "prostitutes" and rather innocent victims these grooming gangs are a thing of the past.

They never did, they just were terrified of taking the issue on.

KeighleyClaret wrote:Jailed for 2 charges of contempt of court, was already on a suspended sentence. The court had imposed a reporting ban to ensure a fair trial, he ignored it. Reporting restrictions would have been lifted after a verdict but he compromised the process.

No excuse. Deserves his fate but I’m sure he is revelling in it.

This won't do. You're allowing facts to get in the way of all the froth.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Wasn't there also a Sikh reporting on it from outside the court who wasn't arrested?
Or was that a different case?

Out of interest why the media blackout on this child grooming case when it's clearly a major issue?

Can we expect media blackout for all child grooming cases?

Lots of these cases have stuff that isn't reported in the media. The Baby P case was similar.

ClaretAndJew wrote:Lots of these cases have stuff that isn't reported in the media. The Baby P case was similar.

... during the trial

Imploding Turtle wrote:... during the trial

Yes.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england ... e-44208512" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quoting what a defending lawyer says in trail as fact and running with it as a headline. Nice one BBC.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england ... e-44208512

Quoting what a defending lawyer says in trail as fact and running with it as a headline. Nice one BBC.

Please relearn punctuation marks.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Please relearn punctuation marks.

So you think a headline like that in an ongoing case regarding a rape victim? Seriously?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Was he filming people entering the court and identifying them?

How come you seem to write paragraph after paragraph about it yet you've not seen the video?

starting_11 wrote:How come you seem to write paragraph after paragraph about it yet you've not seen the video?

I don't need to see a video to understand why it's a bad idea, and counter-productive, to expose the identity of jurors in a trial such as that one.

And the jurors may be compromised?

What a load of ******** you talk.

Anyone can walk into a courtroom and see who the jurors are.

The reporting restriction is because there were children involved.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I don't need to see a video to understand why it's a bad idea, and counter-productive, to expose the identity of jurors in a trial such as that one.

That reads to me as "I don't need to read/see any actual evidence or facts to make my mind up and go spouting my agenda on the internet"

ClaretMoffitt wrote:So you think a headline like that in an ongoing case regarding a rape victim? Seriously?

What's wrong with it? It's only what a court has been told, and the BBC aren't presenting it as fact, they are presenting it as something a lawyer said to the court during the case. It is common for news organisations to report what is said by lawyers and witnesses during trials.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What's wrong with it? It's only what a court has been told, and the BBC aren't presenting it as fact, they are presenting it as something a lawyer said to the court during the case. It is common for news organisations to report what is said by lawyers and witnesses during trials.

Yeah after a verdict! Not during the case ffs! You can't just suggest in print that a rape victim (who was in her teens at the time) is lying and in cahoots with the EDL. Its sickening.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Yeah after a verdict! Not during the case ffs! You can't just suggest in print that a rape victim (who was in her teens at the time) is lying and in cahoots with the EDL. Its sickening.

too easy

https://goo.gl/QfMGqp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To help you out, because you're clearly having trouble: the BBC isn't suggesting any of that, they are reporting that the lawyer has suggested that to the jury (or judge) in the trial. YouDenseMotherfucker.jpg

ClaretMoffitt wrote: But, going beyond the media spin, how has this man, an ex-football thug from Luton managed to develop such hero status amongst the working class of this country? Whats the reason? Is it simply that they are all stupid and easily mislead by racist ideology? Or is it something more?

Racists like racists.

OMG. Moffitt!!!! Look at how ourtaged you'll be when you read this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-la ... e-44242802" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle wrote:too easy

https://goo.gl/QfMGqp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To help you out, because you're clearly having trouble: the BBC isn't suggesting any of that, they are reporting that the lawyer has suggested that to the jury (or judge) in the trial. YouDenseMotherfucker.jpg

Every single one of those are people who have been charged with a crime.

This is a headline article discrediting a potential victim, how can you not see the difference?

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Every single one of those are people who have been charged with a crime.

This is a headline article discrediting a potential victim, how can you not see the difference?

Again, the BBC aren't discrediting the potential victim. The lawyer is doing that. The BBC are just reporting that the lawyer is doing it.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Again, the BBC aren't discrediting the potential victim. The lawyer is doing that. The BBC are just reporting that the lawyer is doing it.

Why? Why would they do that? I have never in my entire life seen a press headline suggest the victim is lying during an ongoing court case. Especially one as sensitive as child rape. That is not normal, and you full well know it.

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Why? Why would they do that? I have never in my entire life seen a press headline suggest the victim is lying during an ongoing court case. Especially one as sensitive as child rape. That is not normal, and you full well know it.

It's perfectly normal for the press to report on what both the prosecution and the defence says during a trial. Like Ched Evans' trial or retrial. How long do you think it'll take me to find an example of the press reporting on what his defence is saying about his victim? Oh, look. i did already

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/c ... ve-9028528" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't seem to recall your outrage back then.

Edit: and more https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/c ... 67661.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could go on, but i think your faux outrage is clearly in tatters by now.

Surely he could have avoided prison if he'd just written an opinion piece on British-Asian grooming gangs without reporting on a specific case - then he could have said what he wanted without potentially influencing a jury.


NB if the jury is sent out whilst a point of law is discussed then presumably that point of law wouldn't be reported in the media - in case jury members read about it during the trial.

Surely if the jury are present when something is said there wouldn't be restrictions on media reporting, unless something was struck from the record.

Imploding Turtle wrote:It's perfectly normal for the press to report on what both the prosecution and the defence says during a trial. Like Ched Evans' trial or retrial. How long do you think it'll take me to find an example of the press reporting on what his defence is saying about his victim? Oh, look. i did already

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/c ... ve-9028528" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't seem to recall your outrage back then.

Edit: and more https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/c ... 67661.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I could go on, but i think your faux outrage is clearly in tatters by now.

Faux outrage? lol really?

I dislike the fact that the BBC are using a potential child rape victim as a click-bait smear target and you accuse me of faux outrage because I didn't express discontent about an article I have never seen before today that did something similar? It's also funny how many journalistic pieces by left wing writers those headlines and the wider case itself generated about "victim blaming and rape culture" yet there's no outrage about this one.

Caernarfon_Claret wrote:Surely he could have avoided prison if he'd just written ...

I've found a flaw

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Faux outrage? lol really?

I dislike the fact that the BBC are using a potential child rape victim as a click-bait smear target and you accuse me of faux outrage because I didn't express discontent about an article I have never seen before today that did something similar? It's also funny how many journalistic pieces by left wing writers those headlines and the wider case itself generated about "victim blaming and rape culture" yet there's no outrage about this one.

Again, and i don't know why this is hard for you to understand, the media aren't victim-blaming anyone. They're just reporting what is said in a trial. Which is perfectly normal.

Yes. Your outrage is fake. Either that or you're really, really, stupid. I don't think you're that stupid so i'm going with fake.

I don't agree with everything he says or pay much attention to him at all because politics really isn't for me but it's funny how many people are quick to push an agenda without really taking a moment to think or educate themselves on the situation.

Ultimately far to many people in this country believe everything from 1 political side and shutdown everything said from the other side. For me, there is a middle ground where both sides say/do things I don't agree with so I won't blindly defend it. It's really worrying the hold political parties have on the weak minded in this country, the country needs to wake up.