JTaylor

Sure.

CrisPDuk

Funny, I was thinking the same thing. For such a supposedly peace loving, god fearing doctrine, christianity, of all persuasions, has a lot to answer for

dpb

JackClark

Amazing how many people have fallen for his prison bull****.

"The Prison Service rejected his claims.

"Mr Yaxley-Lennon was treated with the same fairness we aim to show all prisoners - he had access to visits, television and showers - and it is totally false to say he was held in 'solitary confinement'”, said a Prison Service spokesman.

"He was initially placed into the Care & Separation Unit for less than 48 hours while an assessment of the risk to his safety was undertaken by prison staff. He then joined the main prison population."

BMWhere?

I've corrected it for you

1509joe

iTrader: (2)

Very very true.

JackClark

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

I will quote it for posterity, and point out that the circumstances of the two situations couldn't have been more different.

CrisPDuk

The name at the top says all I need to know about this one

JackClark

Please list the BBC editors previous convictions?

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

What were the differences?

JackClark

One had committed the same offence earlier and had been told he would go to jail if he did it again, you can guess which one.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

but the things he said were actually in the public domain .. so technically he didn't do anything?

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

They certainly weren't in this country, or if they were put there, the people who did so would have been prosecuted just like Tommy.

As for the differences you asked about earlier, in the Beeb journalist's case, the leaking of the person's name was completely unintentional. Tommy on the other hand was deliberately trying to broadcast information he'd been told not to, to as many people as he could possibly reach.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Jeeeez, what is so complicated here that you need "convincing" about? Several courts told Robinson in clear and certain terms he should not be publicizing details of what was going on in that trial, just as no other news organization should be. He knew and understood this, but for apparently no other reason than he thinks he's above the law, or more important or smarter than anyone else, deliberately chose to ignore the orders of those courts. These are not the actions of a rational human being, unless that human being is intentionally trying to give the impression that they're being victimized.

Keep digging as desperately as you seem to be to try and make excuses for him, and it will be very difficult to come to any alternative conclusion than that you are defending him.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

ooooohhh you're one of those people .. found someone you don't like so all reasonable conversation goes out the window, attack, attack, attack.

"Jeeez"

According to the time lines the information he shared was already public in this country .. shall I say it a third time? he was put in prison without trial .. I don't care who he is, that's not acceptable. Whilst in prison he was allowed to be attacked .. see this is where things get confusing for me, how can the left be happy about someone on the right being attacked? (I'm pre-empting your "good" comment" surely fair treatment for everyone is the key here.

If you want to debate TR with me, I will listen, I don't like or dislike him, he makes some valid points and has a questionable character .. so I try to educate myself.

If you want to insult and huff and puff, don't bother replying.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

You can repeat it as often as you want, it doesn't change the fact that he knowingly and deliberately acted in direct contravention of the orders of several courts. So let's get right to the point here, do you believe he's above the law? Do you believe he's more important or smarter than everyone else, and can as a result simply ignore what the country's Courts say?

Sorry to break it to you, but anyone who acted in the same way would be sending an open invitation to the authorities to be on the receiving end of exactly the same treatment. That's the way the Law works, it has nothing to do with precious little Tommy Robinson being a victim.

So first he complains that he's held in solitary confinement (which it's true he was, while the risk of him being attacked was evaluated), then he complains that he's attacked, after being put back into gen-pop? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I'll debate TR with anybody, if they show at least some small amount of recognition of the fact that much of the controversy he attracts upon himself is deliberately engineered to maximize his publicity (and the ££££ of donations that seem to flood in whenever he makes it into the news).

trails

iTrader: (41)

Isn't that more an exclamation of exasperation because you are being obtuse?

The chain of events is pretty straight forward and widely publicised, as are Stephen's attempts to play the victim; he was warned about revealing information about ongoing trials, he ignored the warnings, they punished him as per their warnings and then he whinged abut it.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

Who's Sean?

Where are you getting your "facts" from? the papers? Look at how the case is progressing, it's not so simple. Does he deserve to be in prison .. I don't care .. but I'm struggling to be convinced he broke the law .. based on the videos/bloggs I've read the time lines don't match. He was certainly there to push the "authority" but what he actually said was already out there.

Have a look at some of the other videos no by main stream media.

trails

iTrader: (41)

Ta for correction!

IMO, he was at the trial to further his own scumbag agenda and got called out on it and is now paying the price.

He claims this is a political trial, but it's just another criminal offense he is being prosecuted for. The man is a thug.

The original trial, him being jailed, the verdict being overthrown, the subsequent visit to the Old Bailey and the engagement of the Attorney General has been widely reported across many media outlets. The only ones that support him are far right in origin or bat-**** crazy conspiracy theorist sites.

TBH I've seen enough of him to last a lifetime.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

trails

iTrader: (41)

I was writing a report, there is a Sean in it

I'm not a fan of religion either, but I'm not bigoted and I do believe that's what he is...

Although facts don't have feelings the people imparting them probably do...to be fair I think if you re-read your replies some are a little on the obtuse side, frustration kicks in for the best of us. I certainly have the capacity to be a right twerp when irritated

JackClark

This was from the first conviction. He knew what he was doing and the consequences, his PR firm probably suggested it.

The 35-year-old was already subject to a suspended sentence for committing contempt during a rape trial in Canterbury in May 2017, and had been told that if he fell foul of the law again he would go to prison.
Robinson was prosecuted for attempting to film defendants at Canterbury Crown Court, despite notices stating the move is illegal all over the building.
Judge Heather Norton said at the time: “This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press.
“This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly.”Judge Norton sentenced Robinson to three months’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence for 18 months, meaning it would not come into effect unless he committed further offences. His lawyers had claimed he was ignorant of the filming ban.
“You will now be under no illusions whatsoever as to what you can and cannot do,” the judge told Robinson.

“If you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.”

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

He's an invented character. He changed his name to Tommy Robinson - evoking the trenches, and Englishness, all rosie cheeked and wholesomely heroic. Pure PR. He's not real, and therefore his opinions and motives are suspicious.

pimmo2000

iTrader: (6)

agreed .. he's not above board .. but why does everyone hate him .. he's making himself rich and famous .. so are a lot of other idiots.. but there is this hatred of him that comes from a perception of racism that can't be defined.



This kind of interview makes people support Tommy people start shouting and getting angry with him and he just asks them to prove their points and they can't, there is nothing when you ignore the personalities, in what he is saying that is not factual. Do I think he's going about it the right now, no probably not, do I know how he should be? no ..

So this is my problem with the way Tommy is presented and the standard "he's this...", "he's that .." I want to see the facts and not the hurt feelings of people who believe in a god. I believe strongly that there is no god and I could suggest in the same way they suggest him questioning the quran is disrespectful, that anyone talking about religion is disrespectful to me.

Times are changing, people don't believe in god any more.. but that create an minority and oh how we fear minorities.

AND let's be clear here, I support everyone's right to believe and practice whatever religion they please, in fact I would go and argue for them, but not if it impacts me.