Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s

[Einion Yrth]

Dindoit said:

He hasn’t been attacked. Why spread lies like that which are incredibly easy to verify?

How do you know this? Plainly the published photos are not recent, but how do you know he has not been attacked? I have no evidence either way apart from an, admittedly somewhat dodgy, report that he has.

[NoNeed]

berlintaxi said:

rscott said:

He was dealt with for contempt of court for breaching the terms of his suspension.

Far too logical for the "free Tommy" morons.

How is doing what the police said was ok to do "breaching" the terms of his suspension?

[NoNeed]

simoid said:

If my life was in danger in prison, the last thing I would be doing is breaking the conditions of my suspended sentence!? I’d be doing everything to stay out and safe.

Maybe you can answer the question, How is doing what the police said was ok breaching the terms of his suspension?

[simoid]

NoNeed said:

How is doing what the police said was ok to do "breaching" the terms of his suspension?

It seems to me it’s because he was filming at court. He was told not to film at court and previously received a suspended sentence for filming at court.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...

[Dindoit]

Einion Yrth said:

Dindoit said:

He hasn’t been attacked. Why spread lies like that which are incredibly easy to verify?

How do you know this? Plainly the published photos are not recent, but how do you know he has not been attacked? I have no evidence either way apart from an, admittedly somewhat dodgy, report that he has.

Because I spent 7 seconds on google

https://twitter.com/caolanrob/status/1000751395140...

[NoNeed]

simoid said:

NoNeed said:

How is doing what the police said was ok to do "breaching" the terms of his suspension?

It seems to me it’s because he was filming at court. He was told not to film at court and previously received a suspended sentence for filming at court.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...

I understand that and thats why he didn't film during the trial, but this was during sentencing, the trial had finished and the people and police at the courts had said it was ok for him to film.

He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested.

So why should he go to jail for doing what he was told was ok to do? nobody has yet answered that, but I thank you for trying.

[Einion Yrth]

Dindoit said:

Einion Yrth said:

Dindoit said:

He hasn’t been attacked. Why spread lies like that which are incredibly easy to verify?

How do you know this? Plainly the published photos are not recent, but how do you know he has not been attacked? I have no evidence either way apart from an, admittedly somewhat dodgy, report that he has.

Because I spent 7 seconds on google

https://twitter.com/caolanrob/status/1000751395140...

Fair enough, answered my question, saved me a google; ta.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

Dindoit said:

Because I spent 7 seconds on google

https://twitter.com/caolanrob/status/1000751395140...

"Because I spent 7 seconds on google"

haven't you learnt ANYTHING these last couple of years?

[simoid]

NoNeed said:

I understand that and thats why he didn't film during the trial, but this was during sentencing, the trial had finished and the people and police at the courts had said it was ok for him to film.

He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested.

So why should he go to jail for doing what he was told was ok to do? nobody has yet answered that, but I thank you for trying.

You’re welcome. I’m trying to get my head round it too. Who told him it was ok to film?

There is reference to this in the court case I linked (from a year ago). The judge says that he recognises that he had conflicting information from court officers about where he could film.

[thetapeworm]

Dindoit said:

Because I spent 7 seconds on google

https://twitter.com/caolanrob/status/1000751395140...

Did you see the reply along the lines of "but that was 32 minutes ago, it could have happened since"?

Oh and this kind of thing... a lot of this kind of thing.

[Zod]

Ah, the old post count thing!

I’ve had lots of Vit D today tooling around the Ionian Islands in a boat.

The point I will make in this thread is simple: Tommy Robinson is an odious, rabble-rousing bigot who uses the call for free speech as his excuse to spread hate and, whatever circumlocutions you use, comments supportive of him associate you with him.

[bitchstewie]

NoNeed said:

I understand that and thats why he didn't film during the trial, but this was during sentencing, the trial had finished and the people and police at the courts had said it was ok for him to film.

He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested.

So why should he go to jail for doing what he was told was ok to do? nobody has yet answered that, but I thank you for trying.

I think it is the answer, just not one you like.

Judge at original trial said:

In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

So "He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested" seems a bit of a stretch.

[NoNeed]

simoid said:

NoNeed said:

I understand that and thats why he didn't film during the trial, but this was during sentencing, the trial had finished and the people and police at the courts had said it was ok for him to film.

He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested.

So why should he go to jail for doing what he was told was ok to do? nobody has yet answered that, but I thank you for trying.

You’re welcome. I’m trying to get my head round it too. Who told him it was ok to film?

There is reference to this in the court case I linked (from a year ago). The judge says that he recognises that he had conflicting information from court officers about where he could film.

It's in the video, he approached officers on the steps to ask.

I am not a tommy fan but if this was another country our government and amnesty international would be all over screaming human rights and fair trial E.T.C

It really is a very dangerous precedent that has been set here, and I would be just as concerned if it was a member of Antifa. Something just isn't right and if they really did believe he was putting trials at risk then surely there is a fair and legal way of doing it that doesn't make them look like a third world dictatorship.

[Alpinestars]

Einion Yrth said:

Dindoit said:

He hasn’t been attacked. Why spread lies like that which are incredibly easy to verify?

How do you know this? Plainly the published photos are not recent, but how do you know he has not been attacked? I have no evidence either way apart from an, admittedly somewhat dodgy, report that he has.

I don’t know if fairies exist either. But when someone tries to convince me they do, I tend to doubt other claims they might make that I can’t verify, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. But let’s assume you’re right, he could have been attacked. And the defendants in court at Leeds might be innocent, because let’s face it, neither you or I know either way. But I doubt you’d champion that cause?

[Alpinestars]

bhstewie said:

NoNeed said:

I understand that and thats why he didn't film during the trial, but this was during sentencing, the trial had finished and the people and police at the courts had said it was ok for him to film.

He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested.

So why should he go to jail for doing what he was told was ok to do? nobody has yet answered that, but I thank you for trying.

I think it is the answer, just not one you like.

Judge at original trial said:

In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

So "He had no reason to believe he was doing anything wrong, nor any reason to think he would be arrested" seems a bit of a stretch.

Depends on how thick he is, or how much he craves attention. He’s certainly illicted a strong Pavlovian response on PH.

[Dindoit]

I’ve just been reading that the defendants in the Leeds trial that Tommy was illegally ‘reporting’ will plea a motion on Monday for a mistrial.

>slow hand clap<

eta reports also say that the trial was very much still ongoing and not expected to finish until at least September. Tommy, a ‘journalist’, was stood there stating to thousands they were guilty and inside they were sentencing.

Edited by Dindoit on Sunday 27th May 20:03

[Einion Yrth]

Alpinestars said:

Einion Yrth said:

Dindoit said:

He hasn’t been attacked. Why spread lies like that which are incredibly easy to verify?

How do you know this? Plainly the published photos are not recent, but how do you know he has not been attacked? I have no evidence either way apart from an, admittedly somewhat dodgy, report that he has.

I don’t know if fairies exist either. But when someone tries to convince me they do, I tend to doubt other claims they might make that I can’t verify, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. But let’s assume you’re right, he could have been attacked. And the defendants in court at Leeds might be innocent, because let’s face it, neither you or I know either way. But I doubt you’d champion that cause?

The defendants in court are benefiting from the best law we can afford, if they are innocent then I would hope they are found to be so. Whether or not TR has been beaten up (recently) is merely something I had no evidence for either way, some has now been provided, and I am, for the time being, satisfied with that. Despite the constant attempts by some here to paint others as racist bigots, my primary concern is for the rule of law and that justice not only be done, but be seen to be done. Your mileage may vary.

[Alpinestars]

Einion Yrth said:

Alpinestars said:

Einion Yrth said:

Dindoit said:

He hasn’t been attacked. Why spread lies like that which are incredibly easy to verify?

How do you know this? Plainly the published photos are not recent, but how do you know he has not been attacked? I have no evidence either way apart from an, admittedly somewhat dodgy, report that he has.

I don’t know if fairies exist either. But when someone tries to convince me they do, I tend to doubt other claims they might make that I can’t verify, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. But let’s assume you’re right, he could have been attacked. And the defendants in court at Leeds might be innocent, because let’s face it, neither you or I know either way. But I doubt you’d champion that cause?

The defendants in court are benefiting from the best law we can afford, if they are innocent then I would hope they are found to be so. Whether or not TR has been beaten up (recently) is merely something I had no evidence for either way, some has now been provided, and I am, for the time being, satisfied with that. Despite the constant attempts by some here to paint others as racist bigots, my primary concern is for the rule of law and that justice not only be done, but be seen to be done. Your mileage may vary.

You don’t seem to be championing any other cause than TR’s. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Not just TR.

You should also be cognisant of TR’s MO and agenda. He craves attention, and loves being the victim so that his supporters start frothing at the mouth. It’s therefore highly likely that his PR machine and sympathisers are likely to start spreading fake news which make him out to be a martyr. It doesn’t take too much intelligence to work that out does it?

In any case, if he was so worried about being beat up in prison, he should have thought of that before he sailed (too) close to the wind whilst on a suspended sentence.

[Dindoit]

From News Thump

I don’t want to sound unwelcoming or prejudiced, but I’ve always believed that if you are going to enjoy all the benefits of living in this country then you should be willing to obey the law.

However if you are not going to try and get a proper job or contribute to the society in which you live, and instead want to spend your days going around causing trouble and breaking our laws, well, you know where the airports are.

[Noodle1982]

270,000 signatures and rising.