Tommy Robinson, silenced

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

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?

so you are talking about this case? make your mind up

originally posted by: SprocketUK

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.

There is always an excuse for him.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SprocketUK

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.

There is always an excuse for him.

and at the same time never

originally posted by: SprocketUK
so you are talking about this case? make your mind up

No, I'm talking about your OP and your subsequent posts followed by your claim that Tommy Robinson made some good arguments. I've read the thread, I just wanted clarification of what you felt was a good argument for those actions. In the video, from your summary, it is unclear.

If you are unable to answer, I understand.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: SprocketUK
so you are talking about this case? make your mind up

No, I'm talking about your OP and your subsequent posts followed by your claim that Tommy Robinson made some good arguments. I've read the thread, I just wanted clarification of what you felt was a good argument for those actions. In the video, from your summary, it is unclear.

If you are unable to answer, I understand.

Well no one else was sticking up for the other kid so in this case yes it was a good idea he got involved. Poor little bugger ended up trying to top himself.
Now you might be the sort of bloke who thinks a 15 year old should be hounded to the brink of suicide for defending his little sister from a bully and no one anywhere should be able to speak for him, I am not though.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Well no one else was sticking up for the other kid so in this case yes it was a good idea he got involved. Poor little bugger ended up trying to top himself.
Now you might be the sort of bloke who thinks a 15 year old should be hounded to the brink of suicide for defending his little sister from a bully and no one anywhere should be able to speak for him, I am not though.

And, as I asked, did the parent's give him permission to do this to "protect" their child? Or social services if the child was in care?

I certainly don't think any child should be "hounded" by anyone but there is very little evidence to support Robinson's perspective on that. The only evidence is that of an unrelated adult male hounding and bullying a child and of taking advantage, exploiting and manipulating another.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

I've never read anything to suggest that the kids mum objected to him taking her sons side in this.

As for the rest, if you watch it you will see plenty of evidence from teachers, staff and pupils at the school.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I've never read anything to suggest that the kids mum objected to him taking her sons side in this.

Thankfully, and I express that as a parent, that is not how it works.

"Evidence" is not what he collected. Any evidence that may have existed, that he extracted under false pretenses, is now any way tainted because he lacks any legal authority to act on behalf of any of those children...and because of the false pretenses.

These protections exist for us and our children because of people like Tommy.

And, we all, are protected by laws which make recordings, taken without our consent or knowledge, inadmissible in a court of law. Again, for very good reason.

So, again, I'm curious what are Tommy's good arguments for not just his own criminality but his insistence of trying to build a narrative that undermines the hard-won legal rights of the vast majority of people in the UK.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I've never read anything to suggest that the kids mum objected to him taking her sons side in this.

Thankfully, and I express that as a parent, that is not how it works.

"Evidence" is not what he collected. Any evidence that may have existed, that he extracted under false pretenses, is now any way tainted because he lacks any legal authority to act on behalf of any of those children...and because of the false pretenses.

These protections exist for us and our children because of people like Tommy.

And, we all, are protected by laws which make recordings, taken without our consent or knowledge, inadmissible in a court of law. Again, for very good reason.

So, again, I'm curious what are Tommy's good arguments for not just his own criminality but his insistence of trying to build a narrative that undermines the hard-won legal rights of the vast majority of people in the UK.

Look I know lots of people dont like him for very good reasons You though are making a very bad argument to dismiss this evidence just because you dont like it.

Multiple professionals are on record here stating that the syrian kid was a bully, rude and a liar.
There is testimony from girls attacked by him, testimony of a mother who was forced to get her daughter to take down a facebook post about the attack from the kid on her due to r@pe threats etc...

I get that you are happy that Tommy got his arse smacked by a judge but there is a wider picture here, one about corruption of our courts and an unjust pillorying of an innocent child.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Look I know lots of people dont like him for very good reasons You though are making a very bad argument to dismiss this evidence just because you dont like it.

I am not dismissing it because I don't like it or him. I am dismissing it because it is no longer admissible. Because of Tommy.

He's more than intelligent to know that. Is the mother?

Had he wanted to help, he could have provided her with good quality legal representation because that's how our legal system works. It's not corrupt so much as it is expensive which means the vast majority of us cannot access it when we need it.

Tommy's actions, even if the mother or child could construct a case, have tainted the testimony of those witnesses.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

I've never read anything to suggest that the kids mum objected to him taking her sons side in this.

As for the rest, if you watch it you will see plenty of evidence from teachers, staff and pupils at the school.

Since the kids mum has a previous conviction for racially aggravated threats then perhaps not surprising.

Or is that all part of the plan to fit up Tommy Robinson as well?

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: SprocketUK
Look I know lots of people dont like him for very good reasons You though are making a very bad argument to dismiss this evidence just because you dont like it.

I am not dismissing it because I don't like it or him. I am dismissing it because it is no longer admissible. Because of Tommy.

He's more than intelligent to know that. Is the mother?

Had he wanted to help, he could have provided her with good quality legal representation because that's how our legal system works. It's not corrupt so much as it is expensive which means the vast majority of us cannot access it when we need it.

Tommy's actions, even if the mother or child could construct a case, have tainted the testimony of those witnesses.

Yes but that wouldn't have got him publicity which is what he seems to really want.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

I've never read anything to suggest that the kids mum objected to him taking her sons side in this.

As for the rest, if you watch it you will see plenty of evidence from teachers, staff and pupils at the school.

Since the kids mum has a previous conviction for racially aggravated threats then perhaps not surprising.

Or is that all part of the plan to fit up Tommy Robinson as well?

Not seen any evidence of that I do recall someone saying her younger kids are mixed race so she's clearly not Hitler

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
Yes but that wouldn't have got him publicity which is what he seems to really want.

It could have got him positive publicity. We're kind of pre-programmed to enjoy a good tale of redemption.

How does he make a living? From a tanning studio? I thought that was how you laundered money.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
Yes but that wouldn't have got him publicity which is what he seems to really want.

It could have got him positive publicity. We're kind of pre-programmed to enjoy a good tale of redemption.

How does he make a living? From a tanning studio? I thought that was how you laundered money.

He makes his money by appealing to knuckle draggers and bigots.

Redemption stories aren't what they want, they want someone to blame.

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
He makes his money by appealing to knuckle draggers and bigots.

Redemption stories aren't what they want, they want someone to blame.

I've just never understood otherwise intelligent people who fall for punching down let alone actively promote it.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
He makes his money by appealing to knuckle draggers and bigots.

Redemption stories aren't what they want, they want someone to blame.

I've just never understood otherwise intelligent people who fall for punching down let alone actively promote it.

You are guilty of it too, you feel superior to people who are traditional TR supporters and you punch down on them (If you felt inferior it would be a punch up)

originally posted by: SprocketUK
You are guilty of it too, you feel superior to people who are traditional TR supporters and you punch down on them (If you felt inferior it would be a punch up)

In what way do I feel superior? I don't feel either inferior or superior. Certainly, looking at most of them, they're on the same level as me socio-economically. Could even be my neighbours. Some of the outsiders are probably a bit better off than me going by their attire.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise
He makes his money by appealing to knuckle draggers and bigots.

Redemption stories aren't what they want, they want someone to blame.

I've just never understood otherwise intelligent people who fall for punching down let alone actively promote it.

You are guilty of it too, you feel superior to people who are traditional TR supporters and you punch down on them (If you felt inferior it would be a punch up)

What is a traditional TR supporter?

a reply to: ARM19688

It does when he tries to use someone else name to enter into the USA and break the law.

Seems to me you know little to nothing about the fellow you choose to support.

Which is rather pathetic imho.

You just see Tommy scream about racism and you're hooked or rather hoodwinked.

I take it you also support people burning police vans whilst screaming "oh Tommy Tommy"?