Do you TR fans actually believe these things they come out with?
''In the case of Robinson, the law he (allegedly) broke—a law prohibiting him from speaking his mind or reporting about a trial involving Muslims accused of mass child rape—is a violation of his right to freedom of speech. If he violated that law, and if he did so because he recognized the fundamental importance of free speech and the rights-violating nature and grave danger of censorship, then he was morally justified in violating it''
''If we look at the full context of relevant facts surrounding this case, however, we can see that the real reason Robinson was arrested and jailed is that he has spoken out vociferously against jihad, Sharia law, Islam-inspired child rape, and mass Islamic immigration into England''
I assume the author is laughing as they typed that up.
"But the claim that Robinson’s reporting could prejudice the jury is even more ridiculous than Doherty implies. In the livestream video for which Robinson was arrested, he doesn’t say anything about the defendants being guilty. He discusses the widespread problem of child rape at the hands of Muslims throughout England, reads names of and charges against some of the defendants in this particular case, asks the defendants (as they arrive at the courthouse) how they feel about their verdict, and notes that they have their prison bags in hand. None of this can reasonably be regarded as potentially “prejudicing” the trial.
Further, although under British law a trial is regarded as “active” and thus under reporting restrictions as soon as a suspect is arrested, many other British citizens and journalists who have reported on “active” trials by filming defendants arriving at the courthouse, naming the defendants, and asking them questions have not been arrested for breaching the peace or jailed for contempt of court or accused of prejudicing the trial.15
For instance, below are pictures of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris entering or exiting the courthouse for their respective sexual misconduct trials in England. Observe that reporters are all over the place—right there on court property—operating cameras, video cameras, and microphones. These reporters were not arrested, and no one claimed that their reporting would render a prejudiced jury, an unfair trial, or a mistrial."
If I thought any of them were capable of digesting and understanding the narrative in this book , I would actually consider giving this as a xmas present to several people on this thread ..alas it would be waste of money >>>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silencing-Left-Killing-Free-Speech/dp/1621573702
Do you TR fans actually believe these things they come out with?
''In the case of Robinson, the law he (allegedly) broke—a law prohibiting him from speaking his mind or reporting about a trial involving Muslims accused of mass child rape—is a violation of his right to freedom of speech. If he violated that law, and if he did so because he recognized the fundamental importance of free speech and the rights-violating nature and grave danger of censorship, then he was morally justified in violating it''
''If we look at the full context of relevant facts surrounding this case, however, we can see that the real reason Robinson was arrested and jailed is that he has spoken out vociferously against jihad, Sharia law, Islam-inspired child rape, and mass Islamic immigration into England''
I assume the author is laughing as they typed that up.
"But the claim that Robinson’s reporting could prejudice the jury is even more ridiculous than Doherty implies. In the livestream video for which Robinson was arrested, he doesn’t say anything about the defendants being guilty. He discusses the widespread problem of child rape at the hands of Muslims throughout England, reads names of and charges against some of the defendants in this particular case, asks the defendants (as they arrive at the courthouse) how they feel about their verdict, and notes that they have their prison bags in hand. None of this can reasonably be regarded as potentially “prejudicing” the trial.
Further, although under British law a trial is regarded as “active” and thus under reporting restrictions as soon as a suspect is arrested, many other British citizens and journalists who have reported on “active” trials by filming defendants arriving at the courthouse, naming the defendants, and asking them questions have not been arrested for breaching the peace or jailed for contempt of court or accused of prejudicing the trial.15
For instance, below are pictures of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris entering or exiting the courthouse for their respective sexual misconduct trials in England. Observe that reporters are all over the place—right there on court property—operating cameras, video cameras, and microphones. These reporters were not arrested, and no one claimed that their reporting would render a prejudiced jury, an unfair trial, or a mistrial."
For about the millionth time.....
It was a series of linked trials. The 2nd of 3. So the comparison with the trials of Rolf Harris or Max Clifford is like comparing a football with a tennis ball; they are both round and used in sport but otherwise they are totally different.
The 'linked trial' aspect is crucial, and is why the reporting restriction was in place. The people on the 2nd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st trial, and likewise the people on the 3rd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st or 2nd trial. Even the slow people in here can surely work out why it has to be that way.
So rewind to TR outside court, causing a scene when he had no reason to be there. With him asking the suspects as they enter court about their verdict and noting they had their prison bags, this is potentially court prejudice right there. It wasn't public knowledge but TR knew that the people he filmed had already been found guilty.
Imagine someone due to be on jury duty for the 3rd trial and they watch the stream. They see TR saying how the suspects have their prison bags in tow. Does that suggest that they are guilty and going to jail? I'm sure even you wouldn't argue with that. So his actions and words could have potentially caused the 3rd trial to collapse before it even began, or at least cause a mistrial at great public expense.
So when his braindead fans (or silly articles above like the one you linked) continually chirp that he was locked up over 'free speech', that clearly wasn't the case. He was arrested initially for breach of the peace, and locked up for contempt of court of which he was already serving a suspended sentence for. The procedure behind jailing him has been brought into question, hence the case going to the attorney general.
It would be wise for TR to obey the laws of the land and stay away from future court cases where there are reporting restrictions attached to it.
Not actually read this book, but I agree with a lot of what Powers has said in the past, the demonisation of Jordan Peterson is a pretty good example to back up her rhetoric.
Your blanket statement regarding 'them' is in direct contrast to your suggested reading, you, like many on the opposite side of each political spectrum have already made your mind up.
Do you TR fans actually believe these things they come out with?
''In the case of Robinson, the law he (allegedly) broke—a law prohibiting him from speaking his mind or reporting about a trial involving Muslims accused of mass child rape—is a violation of his right to freedom of speech. If he violated that law, and if he did so because he recognized the fundamental importance of free speech and the rights-violating nature and grave danger of censorship, then he was morally justified in violating it''
''If we look at the full context of relevant facts surrounding this case, however, we can see that the real reason Robinson was arrested and jailed is that he has spoken out vociferously against jihad, Sharia law, Islam-inspired child rape, and mass Islamic immigration into England''
I assume the author is laughing as they typed that up.
"But the claim that Robinson’s reporting could prejudice the jury is even more ridiculous than Doherty implies. In the livestream video for which Robinson was arrested, he doesn’t say anything about the defendants being guilty. He discusses the widespread problem of child rape at the hands of Muslims throughout England, reads names of and charges against some of the defendants in this particular case, asks the defendants (as they arrive at the courthouse) how they feel about their verdict, and notes that they have their prison bags in hand. None of this can reasonably be regarded as potentially “prejudicing” the trial.
Further, although under British law a trial is regarded as “active” and thus under reporting restrictions as soon as a suspect is arrested, many other British citizens and journalists who have reported on “active” trials by filming defendants arriving at the courthouse, naming the defendants, and asking them questions have not been arrested for breaching the peace or jailed for contempt of court or accused of prejudicing the trial.15
For instance, below are pictures of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris entering or exiting the courthouse for their respective sexual misconduct trials in England. Observe that reporters are all over the place—right there on court property—operating cameras, video cameras, and microphones. These reporters were not arrested, and no one claimed that their reporting would render a prejudiced jury, an unfair trial, or a mistrial."
For about the millionth time.....
It was a series of linked trials. The 2nd of 3. So the comparison with the trials of Rolf Harris or Max Clifford is like comparing a football with a tennis ball; they are both round and used in sport but otherwise they are totally different.
The 'linked trial' aspect is crucial, and is why the reporting restriction was in place. The people on the 2nd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st trial, and likewise the people on the 3rd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st or 2nd trial. Even the slow people in here can surely work out why it has to be that way.
So rewind to TR outside court, causing a scene when he had no reason to be there. With him asking the suspects as they enter court about their verdict and noting they had their prison bags, this is potentially court prejudice right there. It wasn't public knowledge but TR knew that the people he filmed had already been found guilty.
Imagine someone due to be on jury duty for the 3rd trial and they watch the stream. They see TR saying how the suspects have their prison bags in tow. Does that suggest that they are guilty and going to jail? I'm sure even you wouldn't argue with that. So his actions and words could have potentially caused the 3rd trial to collapse before it even began, or at least cause a mistrial at great public expense.
So when his braindead fans (or silly articles above like the one you linked) continually chirp that he was locked up over 'free speech', that clearly wasn't the case. He was arrested initially for breach of the peace, and locked up for contempt of court of which he was already serving a suspended sentence for. The procedure behind jailing him has been brought into question, hence the case going to the attorney general.
It would be wise for TR to obey the laws of the land and stay away from future court cases where there are reporting restrictions attached to it.
Only one thing I really need to draw your attention to is this , which is incredibly relevant until the attorney general has made his ruling : Court of appeal judges overruled the original findings because of procedural failings that " gave rise to unfairness" and meant proceedings were " fundamentally flawed " . Whether you agree or disagree with his actions , even you would surely agree he's entitled to a fair trial ? Lets see what the attorney general has to say !
Not actually read this book, but I agree with a lot of what Powers has said in the past, the demonisation of Jordan Peterson is a pretty good example to back up her rhetoric.
Your blanket statement regarding 'them' is in direct contrast to your suggested reading, you, like many on the opposite side of each political spectrum have already made your mind up.
Not in direct contrast at all , quite happy for anyone on this thread to read the book , be prepared for their mindsets to be challenged ...Do I think anyone will take up the challenge ? No .
Since this Thread appeared on the Forum regard Tommy Robinson I've been on fact finding mission to check (fact from fiction) for myself. I have to agree given the restrictions Tommy was ill advised to be so close to the Court on the day of the trial and directly goading the accused. He paid the price for the media exposure he got, don't think it did him any harm. Not read everything he has said or done over the years but what I have found is, he's passionate and knowledgeable about Islam knows what he's talking about. Not "Racist" in my view, by any means just because he targets Muslim Islamic extremists, they are nasty bad people. He should know about bad people got himself in with the wrong crowd. I see his agenda against Islam born out of family members being involved & targeted by young Islamic gangs. Why do Muslims want him branded "Racist" He's highlighting the growing number of Mosque's in his area receiving death threats to himself & his Family because he dare voice his concerns regard these grooming gangs outing the "Imams" Preaching hate & Violence in Mosque's in Luton and other Towns. He's not just sprung up now he's been around awhile trying to warn. No "Saint" the first to admit it, shop soiled goods as far as any political career goes UKIP but still a voice to be reckoned with and listened too. I'm warming to him, he needs P.R. person to slow him down sort his Hooligan Image would I vote for him Mmmm! certainly listen to what he has to say. Like Trump & Farage Marmite. fwiw
Do you TR fans actually believe these things they come out with?
''In the case of Robinson, the law he (allegedly) broke—a law prohibiting him from speaking his mind or reporting about a trial involving Muslims accused of mass child rape—is a violation of his right to freedom of speech. If he violated that law, and if he did so because he recognized the fundamental importance of free speech and the rights-violating nature and grave danger of censorship, then he was morally justified in violating it''
''If we look at the full context of relevant facts surrounding this case, however, we can see that the real reason Robinson was arrested and jailed is that he has spoken out vociferously against jihad, Sharia law, Islam-inspired child rape, and mass Islamic immigration into England''
I assume the author is laughing as they typed that up.
"But the claim that Robinson’s reporting could prejudice the jury is even more ridiculous than Doherty implies. In the livestream video for which Robinson was arrested, he doesn’t say anything about the defendants being guilty. He discusses the widespread problem of child rape at the hands of Muslims throughout England, reads names of and charges against some of the defendants in this particular case, asks the defendants (as they arrive at the courthouse) how they feel about their verdict, and notes that they have their prison bags in hand. None of this can reasonably be regarded as potentially “prejudicing” the trial.
Further, although under British law a trial is regarded as “active” and thus under reporting restrictions as soon as a suspect is arrested, many other British citizens and journalists who have reported on “active” trials by filming defendants arriving at the courthouse, naming the defendants, and asking them questions have not been arrested for breaching the peace or jailed for contempt of court or accused of prejudicing the trial.15
For instance, below are pictures of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris entering or exiting the courthouse for their respective sexual misconduct trials in England. Observe that reporters are all over the place—right there on court property—operating cameras, video cameras, and microphones. These reporters were not arrested, and no one claimed that their reporting would render a prejudiced jury, an unfair trial, or a mistrial."
For about the millionth time.....
It was a series of linked trials. The 2nd of 3. So the comparison with the trials of Rolf Harris or Max Clifford is like comparing a football with a tennis ball; they are both round and used in sport but otherwise they are totally different.
The 'linked trial' aspect is crucial, and is why the reporting restriction was in place. The people on the 2nd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st trial, and likewise the people on the 3rd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st or 2nd trial. Even the slow people in here can surely work out why it has to be that way.
So rewind to TR outside court, causing a scene when he had no reason to be there. With him asking the suspects as they enter court about their verdict and noting they had their prison bags, this is potentially court prejudice right there. It wasn't public knowledge but TR knew that the people he filmed had already been found guilty.
Imagine someone due to be on jury duty for the 3rd trial and they watch the stream. They see TR saying how the suspects have their prison bags in tow. Does that suggest that they are guilty and going to jail? I'm sure even you wouldn't argue with that. So his actions and words could have potentially caused the 3rd trial to collapse before it even began, or at least cause a mistrial at great public expense.
So when his braindead fans (or silly articles above like the one you linked) continually chirp that he was locked up over 'free speech', that clearly wasn't the case. He was arrested initially for breach of the peace, and locked up for contempt of court of which he was already serving a suspended sentence for. The procedure behind jailing him has been brought into question, hence the case going to the attorney general.
It would be wise for TR to obey the laws of the land and stay away from future court cases where there are reporting restrictions attached to it.
Only one thing I really need to draw your attention to is this , which is incredibly relevant until the attorney general has made his ruling : Court of appeal judges overruled the original findings because of procedural failings that " gave rise to unfairness" and meant proceedings were " fundamentally flawed " . Whether you agree or disagree with his actions , even you would surely agree he's entitled to a fair trial ? Lets see what the attorney general has to say !
I 100% disagree with his actions, but I absolutely agree he's entitled to a fair trial, just like anyone in the UK is entitled to a fair trial. It's a cornerstone of our justice system.
Which reinforces my point that he had no reason or purpose to be outside court in Leeds that day, trying to turn it into the TR show.
Supporters who asked Robinson for information on Facebook received no answer, including a man who wrote: “It's coming up to Christmas time. Money's tight and I have children. If he's not going to be appearing I'd like a refund as I could put that money to good use at home.”
Hel Gower, Robinson’s personal assistant, replied to speculation on Twitter on Thursday to say the tour had been moved to February. “He does have a visa but due to family commitments the date had to be changed plus he cocked up his diary,” she wrote.
But the dates on the official website did not change for several days, selling tickets for A$85 (£48) for general entry, A$295 (£167) for a “VIP meet and greet” including a photograph with Robinson, and A$495 (£280) for a “backstage pass” including an after-show party.
The most expensive option comes in at A$995 (£565) per head, which buys “a pre-show dinner with The Deplorables, champagne reception and VIP seating for the show”.
Incredible that people still give money to the con artist and shameless self publicist.
Since this Thread appeared on the Forum regard Tommy Robinson I've been on fact finding mission to check (fact from fiction) for myself. I have to agree given the restrictions Tommy was ill advised to be so close to the Court on the day of the trial and directly goading the accused. He paid the price for the media exposure he got, don't think it did him any harm. Not read everything he has said or done over the years but what I have found is, he's passionate and knowledgeable about Islam knows what he's talking about. Not "Racist" in my view, by any means just because he targets Muslim Islamic extremists, they are nasty bad people. He should know about bad people got himself in with the wrong crowd. I see his agenda against Islam born out of family members being involved & targeted by young Islamic gangs. Why do Muslims want him branded "Racist" He's highlighting the growing number of Mosque's in his area receiving death threats to himself & his Family because he dare voice his concerns regard these grooming gangs outing the "Imams" Preaching hate & Violence in Mosque's in Luton and other Towns. He's not just sprung up now he's been around awhile trying to warn. No "Saint" the first to admit it, shop soiled goods as far as any political career goes UKIP but still a voice to be reckoned with and listened too. I'm warming to him, he needs P.R. person to slow him down sort his Hooligan Image would I vote for him Mmmm! certainly listen to what he has to say. Like Trump & Farage Marmite. fwiw
Thanks for providing a considered view, Goldon. I would like to set out where I agree (and where I disagree) with your thoughts. It doesn't make my views right (or wrong)-I just want to set out a view without the finger-pointing.
"Ill-advised" in relation to the Court is the best possible interpretation. If this had been the first time he had done it I could understand it, but he had already received clear warnings from the Judge at the first of the linked trials.
I don't agree that he "paid the price for the media exposure", rather that this was a calculated act designed to provide the very media exposure he got. The main (in my view the ONLY) advantage he has over other alt right figures is his ability to garner media coverage.
Targeting Muslim extremists does not make him racist. I fear his actions give greater publicity (and recruits) to those fanatics, but that may (or may not) be a price worth paying. The problem that I have is that he does not just target Muslim extremists. He targets the Muslim faith and all its followers. I find that objectionable. That would be like targetting all Christians because of the acts of some of the weird Christian sects there are.
Many people agree with you about the "he got himself into the wrong crowd" argument. I just don't buy it. He didn't realise the BNP were racist when he joined-really? When he took various people from that organisation and formed the EDL, he didn't know that was going to be racist-really? Wouldn't the place the various followers came from and the name itself be a clue?
He does highlight the growing number of Mosques. What I have seen no evidence of is any increase in "preaching hate and violence". Again, he does not target a particular imam who may preach hate (and there may well be a few), he targets all Mosques.
"No saint". This is a man whose mission is to attack all members of a faith because of a small (disgusting) minority of paedophiles within it. He is proclaiming himself as some sort of protector of young white women against sexual violence via gangs. A man with former convictions for violence while a member of a football gang, GBH v members of his own gang when in the EDL, GBH v the police officer who was purportedly trying to stop Mr Robinson assaulting his own wife. Who has convictions for large-scale fraud. Who believes he knows more about how to try people than a Judge presiding over an actual trial who has already heard arguments from both sides' lawyers. Does anybody really think he is the right person to protect these people?
He has certainly been around a while. He has talent as a self-publicist. He has already outmanoeuvred 1 leader of the Right, Nick Griffin, and is now trying to sideline and demean Nigel Farage. I completely agree that he is "a force to be reckoned with", in large part to his wealthy backers, all of which seem to be non-English people who believe they have the right to tell us how to live.
People are listening to what he has to say. In increasing numbers. Frankly, he (like all extremists, be they religious, right or left) disgusts me. But he has (at the very least) a temporary appeal to people who feel left behind in this country.
Thank you Phil for not considering or calling me " Idiot" don't like doing serious but ?
Surprised why people keep calling him "Racist" "Extremist" when everyone he asks to quote what he's said was Racist they can't do so. ! Activist yes, Muslim hater no. Tommy is just making the British Public aware whats going on in this country. Two news flashes today ......... Government getting tough on "Knife" crime, yes ....er .... no .... the suspect caught welding knife on video, let off........ grooming victim made pregnant by rapist told she must let father in jail see child. really! Everyone take a look around your Town today 40+ years of EU membership & rules where this Country is now. !
Thank you Phil for not considering or calling me " Idiot" don't like doing serious but ?
Surprised why people keep calling him "Racist" "Extremist" when everyone he asks to quote what he's said was Racist they can't do so. ! Activist yes, Muslim hater no. Tommy is just making the British Public aware whats going on in this country. Two news flashes today ......... Government getting tough on "Knife" crime, yes ....er .... no .... the suspect caught welding knife on video, let off........ grooming victim made pregnant by rapist told she must let father in jail see child. really! Everyone take a look around your Town today 40+ years of EU membership & rules where this Country is now. !
We can all have different opinions. That is a good thing.
"Racist" and "extremist" are terms that mean different things to different people. TR has certainly been careful to try and avoid overt racism, as that could lead to his organisation being banned as have some other right-wing groups. He certainly divides opinion-even that well-known lefty liberal Mr Farage has some pretty strong things to say about him. Whenever TR has said something that is definitely racist, he has been quick to backtrack and apologise.
He is a Muslim hater. That does not necessarily make him racist. Regardless of the fact that his methods alienate many people, he has increased awareness re a particular type of paedophilia.
Not seen the knife 1-I completely agree with you about the other story.
Most of the decline in this country has (IMHO) nothing to do with whether we are in or out of the EU. It is because we no longer listen to opposing views. Look at the unwillingness to compromise of both the extreme brexiteers and the remainers as an example.
Thank you Phil for not considering or calling me " Idiot" don't like doing serious but ?
Surprised why people keep calling him "Racist" "Extremist" when everyone he asks to quote what he's said was Racist they can't do so. ! Activist yes, Muslim hater no. Tommy is just making the British Public aware whats going on in this country. Two news flashes today ......... Government getting tough on "Knife" crime, yes ....er .... no .... the suspect caught welding knife on video, let off........ grooming victim made pregnant by rapist told she must let father in jail see child. really! Everyone take a look around your Town today 40+ years of EU membership & rules where this Country is now. !
Can you elaborate on the bolded bit for me please.
Thank you Phil for not considering or calling me " Idiot" don't like doing serious but ?
Surprised why people keep calling him "Racist" "Extremist" when everyone he asks to quote what he's said was Racist they can't do so. ! Activist yes, Muslim hater no. Tommy is just making the British Public aware whats going on in this country. Two news flashes today ......... Government getting tough on "Knife" crime, yes ....er .... no .... the suspect caught welding knife on video, let off........ grooming victim made pregnant by rapist told she must let father in jail see child. really! Everyone take a look around your Town today 40+ years of EU membership & rules where this Country is now. !
Can you elaborate on the bolded bit for me please.
I would safely say he means the same as your mate essexphil said " Regardless of the fact that his methods alienate many people, he has increased awareness re a particular type of paedophilia." . But you already knew that ..and didn't see you question phil over it .
Comments
"But the claim that Robinson’s reporting could prejudice the jury is even more ridiculous than Doherty implies. In the livestream video for which Robinson was arrested, he doesn’t say anything about the defendants being guilty. He discusses the widespread problem of child rape at the hands of Muslims throughout England, reads names of and charges against some of the defendants in this particular case, asks the defendants (as they arrive at the courthouse) how they feel about their verdict, and notes that they have their prison bags in hand. None of this can reasonably be regarded as potentially “prejudicing” the trial.
Further, although under British law a trial is regarded as “active” and thus under reporting restrictions as soon as a suspect is arrested, many other British citizens and journalists who have reported on “active” trials by filming defendants arriving at the courthouse, naming the defendants, and asking them questions have not been arrested for breaching the peace or jailed for contempt of court or accused of prejudicing the trial.15
For instance, below are pictures of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris entering or exiting the courthouse for their respective sexual misconduct trials in England. Observe that reporters are all over the place—right there on court property—operating cameras, video cameras, and microphones. These reporters were not arrested, and no one claimed that their reporting would render a prejudiced jury, an unfair trial, or a mistrial."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscruton/2014/08/30/why-did-british-police-ignore-pakistani-gangs-raping-rotherham-children-political-correctness/
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Silencing-Left-Killing-Free-Speech/dp/1621573702
It was a series of linked trials. The 2nd of 3. So the comparison with the trials of Rolf Harris or Max Clifford is like comparing a football with a tennis ball; they are both round and used in sport but otherwise they are totally different.
The 'linked trial' aspect is crucial, and is why the reporting restriction was in place. The people on the 2nd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st trial, and likewise the people on the 3rd jury don't know the outcome of the 1st or 2nd trial. Even the slow people in here can surely work out why it has to be that way.
So rewind to TR outside court, causing a scene when he had no reason to be there. With him asking the suspects as they enter court about their verdict and noting they had their prison bags, this is potentially court prejudice right there. It wasn't public knowledge but TR knew that the people he filmed had already been found guilty.
Imagine someone due to be on jury duty for the 3rd trial and they watch the stream. They see TR saying how the suspects have their prison bags in tow. Does that suggest that they are guilty and going to jail? I'm sure even you wouldn't argue with that.
So his actions and words could have potentially caused the 3rd trial to collapse before it even began, or at least cause a mistrial at great public expense.
So when his braindead fans (or silly articles above like the one you linked) continually chirp that he was locked up over 'free speech', that clearly wasn't the case.
He was arrested initially for breach of the peace, and locked up for contempt of court of which he was already serving a suspended sentence for. The procedure behind jailing him has been brought into question, hence the case going to the attorney general.
It would be wise for TR to obey the laws of the land and stay away from future court cases where there are reporting restrictions attached to it.
Your blanket statement regarding 'them' is in direct contrast to your suggested reading, you, like many on the opposite side of each political spectrum have already made your mind up.
Lets see what the attorney general has to say !
Since this Thread appeared on the Forum regard Tommy Robinson I've been on fact finding mission to check (fact from fiction) for myself.
I have to agree given the restrictions Tommy was ill advised to be so close to the Court on the day of the trial and directly goading the accused. He paid the price for the media exposure he got, don't think it did him any harm.
Not read everything he has said or done over the years but what I have found is, he's passionate and knowledgeable about Islam knows what he's talking about.
Not "Racist" in my view, by any means just because he targets Muslim Islamic extremists, they are nasty bad people. He should know about bad people got himself in with the wrong crowd. I see his agenda against Islam born out of family members being involved & targeted by young Islamic gangs.
Why do Muslims want him branded "Racist"
He's highlighting the growing number of Mosque's in his area receiving death threats to himself & his Family because he dare voice his concerns regard these grooming gangs outing the "Imams" Preaching hate & Violence in Mosque's in Luton and other Towns.
He's not just sprung up now he's been around awhile trying to warn.
No "Saint" the first to admit it, shop soiled goods as far as any political career goes UKIP but still a voice to be reckoned with and listened too.
I'm warming to him, he needs P.R. person to slow him down sort his Hooligan Image would I vote for him Mmmm! certainly listen to what he has to say.
Like Trump & Farage Marmite. fwiw
Which reinforces my point that he had no reason or purpose to be outside court in Leeds that day, trying to turn it into the TR show.
Supporters who asked Robinson for information on Facebook received no answer, including a man who wrote: “It's coming up to Christmas time. Money's tight and I have children. If he's not going to be appearing I'd like a refund as I could put that money to good use at home.”
Hel Gower, Robinson’s personal assistant, replied to speculation on Twitter on Thursday to say the tour had been moved to February.
“He does have a visa but due to family commitments the date had to be changed plus he cocked up his diary,” she wrote.
But the dates on the official website did not change for several days, selling tickets for A$85 (£48) for general entry, A$295 (£167) for a “VIP meet and greet” including a photograph with Robinson, and A$495 (£280) for a “backstage pass” including an after-show party.
The most expensive option comes in at A$995 (£565) per head, which buys “a pre-show dinner with The Deplorables, champagne reception and VIP seating for the show”.
Incredible that people still give money to the con artist and shameless self publicist.
"Ill-advised" in relation to the Court is the best possible interpretation. If this had been the first time he had done it I could understand it, but he had already received clear warnings from the Judge at the first of the linked trials.
I don't agree that he "paid the price for the media exposure", rather that this was a calculated act designed to provide the very media exposure he got. The main (in my view the ONLY) advantage he has over other alt right figures is his ability to garner media coverage.
Targeting Muslim extremists does not make him racist. I fear his actions give greater publicity (and recruits) to those fanatics, but that may (or may not) be a price worth paying. The problem that I have is that he does not just target Muslim extremists. He targets the Muslim faith and all its followers. I find that objectionable. That would be like targetting all Christians because of the acts of some of the weird Christian sects there are.
Many people agree with you about the "he got himself into the wrong crowd" argument. I just don't buy it. He didn't realise the BNP were racist when he joined-really? When he took various people from that organisation and formed the EDL, he didn't know that was going to be racist-really? Wouldn't the place the various followers came from and the name itself be a clue?
He does highlight the growing number of Mosques. What I have seen no evidence of is any increase in "preaching hate and violence". Again, he does not target a particular imam who may preach hate (and there may well be a few), he targets all Mosques.
"No saint". This is a man whose mission is to attack all members of a faith because of a small (disgusting) minority of paedophiles within it. He is proclaiming himself as some sort of protector of young white women against sexual violence via gangs. A man with former convictions for violence while a member of a football gang, GBH v members of his own gang when in the EDL, GBH v the police officer who was purportedly trying to stop Mr Robinson assaulting his own wife. Who has convictions for large-scale fraud. Who believes he knows more about how to try people than a Judge presiding over an actual trial who has already heard arguments from both sides' lawyers. Does anybody really think he is the right person to protect these people?
He has certainly been around a while. He has talent as a self-publicist. He has already outmanoeuvred 1 leader of the Right, Nick Griffin, and is now trying to sideline and demean Nigel Farage. I completely agree that he is "a force to be reckoned with", in large part to his wealthy backers, all of which seem to be non-English people who believe they have the right to tell us how to live.
People are listening to what he has to say. In increasing numbers. Frankly, he (like all extremists, be they religious, right or left) disgusts me. But he has (at the very least) a temporary appeal to people who feel left behind in this country.
Surprised why people keep calling him "Racist" "Extremist" when everyone he asks to quote what he's said was Racist they can't do so. ! Activist yes, Muslim hater no. Tommy is just making the British Public aware whats going on in this country.
Two news flashes today ......... Government getting tough on "Knife" crime, yes ....er .... no .... the suspect caught welding knife on video, let off........ grooming victim made pregnant by rapist told she must let father in jail see child. really!
Everyone take a look around your Town today 40+ years of EU membership & rules where this Country is now. !
"Racist" and "extremist" are terms that mean different things to different people. TR has certainly been careful to try and avoid overt racism, as that could lead to his organisation being banned as have some other right-wing groups. He certainly divides opinion-even that well-known lefty liberal Mr Farage has some pretty strong things to say about him. Whenever TR has said something that is definitely racist, he has been quick to backtrack and apologise.
He is a Muslim hater. That does not necessarily make him racist. Regardless of the fact that his methods alienate many people, he has increased awareness re a particular type of paedophilia.
Not seen the knife 1-I completely agree with you about the other story.
Most of the decline in this country has (IMHO) nothing to do with whether we are in or out of the EU. It is because we no longer listen to opposing views. Look at the unwillingness to compromise of both the extreme brexiteers and the remainers as an example.
Can you elaborate on the bolded bit for me please.