Tommy Robinson, silenced

a reply to: Freeborn

Thank you!

I mean really! I cannot stand Alex Jones. To me his a nut job.
But if I read or see something he is reporting, I at least take the time to dig into WHAT he is reporting.

Like it or not, SOMETIMES, the morons get it right.

Thanks to you too, Sprocket!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: SprocketUK

I have seen and heard quite enough of not-his-real-name, thanks.

This isn’t your real name. What’s the problem? Scared tonight actually hear some truth but be unable to handle it? We’re supposed to deny ignorance here I believe, not wallow in it.

a reply to: ARM19688

Just to add context ARM19688.

Robinson, real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and he's also went by Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris, Wayne King, and Stephen Lennon.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ARM19688

Just to add context ARM19688.

Robinson, real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, and he's also went by Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris, Wayne King, and Stephen Lennon.

So he likes a name. Does that make the content of his film wrong? Should we remain ignorant of its content because we don’t like the bloke? Seems to me the rally he held in London at the weekend was a fairly multicultural affair. No racism in view at all. Unfortunately Tommy or whoever appears to have been smeared just like Trump. I wonder why? He seems to have grown up a bit too. I wouldn’t worry, he’s no. Hitkeresque orator.

a reply to: SprocketUK

My apologies, I have no idea who Tommy Robinson is. Please forgive my ignorance. (dumb American).

I am usually 'somewhat' dialed in on UK goings on, but this one I am not familiar with.

Can you explain...pros and cons?

Its not justice its vengeance.
He's taking a lot of flak for the sake of the regular English folk.
At least he brings the spotlight to criminals being let free.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

How you gonna be able to deny ignorance if you refuse to educate yourself?

There is nothing educational about Tommy Robinson .

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


No apologies necessary.
He was the main driving force behind the startup of the English Defence League a sort of grouping of people who styled themselves as football hooligan types who were very anti muslim.
He's gotten himself into lots of trouble over the years, most notoriously when he endangered the trial of a bunch of muslim rapists who had been picking on young school girls.

These days he styles himself as a journalist though often he's just a lairy git with a camera.

This film though seems to me to be a departure for him and contains some pretty good arguments.

He should be able to state any f'n opinion he wants.

Who are the slags that don't support that?

I wanna know...

a reply to: MykeNukem

Mostly government types and the judges they employ

originally posted by: SprocketUK
This film though seems to me to be a departure for him and contains some pretty good arguments.

He's an intelligent bloke. Or was, alcohol combined with violence does have it's consequences, but still, he's by no means stupid.

So, what good arguments did he make to justify his criminal harrassment of children?

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

My summary is on page one

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: SprocketUK

My apologies, I have no idea who Tommy Robinson is. Please forgive my ignorance. (dumb American).

I am usually 'somewhat' dialed in on UK goings on, but this one I am not familiar with.

Can you explain...pros and cons?

Former member of a couple of racist hooligan organisations.

Multiple convictions to his name for violence, drugs and fraud.

Tried to cause a mistrial at a pedophilia case for his own self promotion.

General bigoted #### who pretends to be a working class hero while very wealthy and has a perpetual victim complex rather than manning up to his own actions.

There are those who say he is right on certain issues around migration, however there are plenty of people making the similar points who aren't racist lying thugs.

If someone is supporting him it's because they like the racism and violence.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
My summary is on page one

Yes, I saw that. I don't see a good argument for his criminal harassment of children. Why was he inserting himself into disputes between children in the first place? Are some of them his family members? Do his children attend the same school? What was his "good" argument for that?

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis


Presumably you are on about him getting involved in the story of the Syrian kid and the lad who pushed him over and was accused of waterboarding him... the whole film is about that and about how the media aligned with the government narrative to throw the British kid under the bus and hide the possible truth behind the fight with the Syrian kid.

a reply to: SprocketUK

No, you presume wrong. I was quite specific about what I meant.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis
a reply to: SprocketUK

No, you presume wrong. I was quite specific about what I meant.

well you have to be more obvious about what you are on about then. I clearly haven't followed the bloke's career as closely as you so spell it out, Barney style?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis


Presumably you are on about him getting involved in the story of the Syrian kid and the lad who pushed him over and was accused of waterboarding him... the whole film is about that and about how the media aligned with the government narrative to throw the British kid under the bus and hide the possible truth behind the fight with the Syrian kid.

The problem is Tommy Robinson has previously admitted claims he made about the victim of the attack were false.

So was he lying then or lying now?

originally posted by: SprocketUK
well you have to be more obvious about what you are on about then. I clearly haven't followed the bloke's career as closely as you so spell it out, Barney style?

I wasn't the one claiming to have been won over by his "good arguments". He inserted himself into a dispute between children which falls under the remit of parents and teachers, and police if there is criminal activity involved. So, my question is, who gave him authority to act on behalf of children? Did he have parental permission?

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis


Presumably you are on about him getting involved in the story of the Syrian kid and the lad who pushed him over and was accused of waterboarding him... the whole film is about that and about how the media aligned with the government narrative to throw the British kid under the bus and hide the possible truth behind the fight with the Syrian kid.

The problem is Tommy Robinson has previously admitted claims he made about the victim of the attack were false.

So was he lying then or lying now?

I think that can be filed in the box marked under duress.