Tommy Robinson

Well said Chenesliehes132. I never cease to amaze me that seemingly ordinary people accept the MSM crap and will slate TR by stating absolute rubbish. I bet no one on here, who have expressed their dislike of him, know why the EDL was formed?? Now, this is where they get angry because they don't know. I support truth, no matter the person. I can NOT abide Tony Blair but if he was clearly besmirched by lies I would argue against that. Not because I like Blair (i despise him) but because truth must be the way, not MSM bullshit.

He apparently lives in a very expensive mortgage free house that he bought with people's donations.
This is a man with a conviction for domestic violence.
There seems to be a career nowadays called 'being nasty'.

Where have all these Tommy the twxt Robinson Trolls come from?

He obviously jeopardised ongoing trials otherwise he wouldn’t have been found guilty of contempt of court.

Although I realise that the Tommy supporters have little grasp on reality and to conflate Islam with paedophile grooming gangs is outrageous.
The two are totally unrelated.

You could just as easily suggest that all Catholics are paedophiles because of the actions of a few Priests but that would clearly be stupid.

Ok, so chenesieges1 I can see you’re angry but reporting restrictions had been put in place postponing the publication of any details of the 2018 case at Leeds Crown Court - but only until the end of a series of linked trials involving 29 defendants. IF he’d waited till after that he could have said pretty much what he liked. But instead he’s
broadcast the footage from outside the court on 25 May, while the jury in the second trial of the series was considering its verdict.
THIS is the issue as I understand it.

And you are very very wrong, Johno as I said before, I can say with some confidence, that Gransnet posters are shocked and horrified by ALL grooming/raping and abuse in general - including those acts perpetrated by predominantly Pakistani gangs.

I work with victims of abuse and find it interesting that Tommy and his ilk don't seem to want to protest against white / English perpetrators?!

Oh dear - we’re being shouted at by Robinson supporters. Not surprising really given the scenes outside the court showing their behaviour when the verdict was announced.

Thank you johno - at least there is one sensible person on here - I was beginning to think that I was the only one!!

Yes, but who is he actually? I live a sheltered life and have never heard of him.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

PayPal have also refused to be involved now in processing any payments to him.

What I find scary is how many armed forces veterans seem to admire him....

I think your anger should be reserved for the original perpetrators of the crime rather than for someone who wants to expose the fact that the police did very little for a long time. Funny how those who preach that intolerance towards others is wrong but then, themselves, have no tolerance themselves for people whose views are different to theirs. That's the definition of hypocrisy!

Quizqueen - I think it’s perfectly possible to feel angry towards the perpetrators of a crime and at the same time feel angry towards someone whose behaviour jeopardised bringing the former to justice.

Jumping on the anti-Tommy Robinson bandwagon without troubling to find out the facts is a sad reflection of the hate that is consuming so much of our society. Pots, kettles, glasshouses and stones come to mind.

Thank you suzie. So he is an ex-con with a string of convictions and several different names.

Anyone with his extensive criminal past, name changes, jail sentences etc has no business trying to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, or what is right/wrong with this country.

I believe contempt carries a prison sentence?

Well at least he knows what to expect in prison as he seems to be making a career of criminal activity.

No-one is jumping on any bandwagon here, I assure you - and those supporting him clearly do not know the law n contempt of court and reporting of court cases. I do - it's something I have to know inside out on a professional basis - and he almost caused the collapse of that particular court case. Five motions were made by the defence to have the case dismissed because of his actions. No-one on here is remotely condonding or attempting to condone the grooming gangs - but far from helping to bring them to justice, he almost had the opposite effect! How can you support that?

Link to interesting Independent piece here which seems to me fairly convincing evidence as to why he was found guilty:
www.msn.com/en-gb/news/courts/tommy-robinson-how-close-edl-founder-ca

Calm down Cheneslieges - for a start you do not know that those who have commented know nothing about either his offence or our legal system. Indeed it is perfectly obvious that they including blondiescot and others know considerably more than you do.
And please ease off on the shouty capitals, they add nothing to your rant and are too much like Ann Widdecombe in full flow.
As for johno who seems to be back from his hols in N Korea, he might be wise to heed the wise words of Abraham Lincoln who is said to have opined that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and to remove all doubt.

maw ??

Great post, MawBroonsback, couldn't agree more

Johno

I cannot agree with you that TR "is a great man".
However, it helps me learn a bit about where you are coming from.

You are very sure we do not know, so are you going to tell us?
Why was the EDL formed?

In the 70's I attended a NF meeting, out of curiosity, with John Tyndall as the speaker and a very good one at that.
It was very interesting and what he had to say/predict has all come into fruition over the years----better than any medium could predict.
My only problem were the followers of that time, some of who were fanatics of the far-right movement which I thought wasn't the way to go and Tyndall himself wouldn't have acted in such a way either and am sure wouldn't have wished for such behaviour either.

Police were inside the building where it was held, on the roof and armed as well and outside on horseback.
More trouble was displayed outside the building with yobs throwing bricks at the police and horses, jeering, spitting etc. Inside was pure silence as everyone listened to what the speaker had to say.

There were near riots when we exited the building.

Ruby41. Thanks. The Indy put their money begging thingy across it so I can't read the Independent.

Here's a link to the Guardian

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/05/tommy-robinson-failed-to-check-on-reporting-ban

to save time, here are some quotes explaining his breach of court ^from the Guardian 17:52h Fri 5th July 2019^:

Caldecott added: “We say the answer clearly is that he(TR) made a reckless assumption as to what he might be able to do because it suited him to do so, and the reason it suited him to do so was that his whole objective was to get the defendants’ faces out there.”

He said Robinson had taken a gamble by referring to details in previous reports of the Huddersfield grooming case, which had been published before the reporting ban.

“Mr Yaxley-Lennon (TR) did find the Huddersfield Examiner online and he took a punt that because the names and the charges had been out there earlier, he took a punt on being able to get away with mentioning them to give necessary context to the people he was filming.”

Robinson had broadcast the footage – which was viewed online 250,000 times after being livestreamed on Facebook - on 25 May 2018 A reporting restriction was in place which postponed the publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials involving 29 people in an attempt to ensure all received a fair trial.

Therefore TR posted his pictures while the Jury was out on a day which was covered by the Court's ban on reporting concerning the Trial. TR knew there was a court restriction on reporting. He was just arrogant in thinking he could get away with it. His aim was to put the faces of the Defendants out into the public arena. He did it while the Jury was still out making their deliberations. The Court had restricted publishing anything on the case at that time. The reason for the ban was that it could be prejudicial to the trial to have information concerning it put out into the public arena.

Why is it that when someone gets a bee in their bonnet they must incite trouble and or riots for their cause ? It's as though their way is the right way and the public must listen to them and nobody else. Protesters and anti's alike.

It's not a democracy when those who have different views aren't permitted to openly express them.