Tommy Robinson

Pugnacious and cocky don’t really cut it for me - try vicious criminal racist - go on, don’t hold back.

He is certainly pugnacious. I read he chose his moniker as a tribute to some boxer. That cap fits. Cocky individual.

I'm actually astounded that GNHQ are allowing far right supporters to air their views on here. I know it all comes down to the "forum rules", but thinking outside the box for once might not be a bad idea.

He is also being sued by the Syrian schoolboy in Huddersfield who he falsely accused of assault on others as a way of blaming the boy for being bullied and attacked (by a white boy of course). He put the Syrian boy in more danger of further attacks. How anyone with a grain of humanity can support or defend this ‘man’ is just beyond me. He is the epitome of obnoxiousness.

Johno - A cousin of mine was doorstepped twice in 24 hours back in January by a coked-up TR and his pals and the police have done nothing.
TR moans and whines about his wife and children receiving death threats but it's seemingly OK for him to scare the lights out of an innocent man who he falsely believed was the cause of him being sent a solicitors letter. He's also done the same to the parents of an 18 year old lad who he again falsely believed gave out his home address on Facebook.
He's the pot calling the kettle as he's also been convicted of beating up his g/f in 2005 and assaulting the off-duty cop who came to her aid. A woman who's now his wife and whom he consistently ran down on social media before his ban.

Lovely chap, and you wonder why Gransnetters criticise you for your support of him!

" * Do the parents of Lee Rigby think different ideologies should not be challenged* "

Of course they don't. Neither does anyone else. (So long as the ideologies are harmful).

I find it so sad and depressing that the highly vocal posters who are quick to throw the racist card do not recognise that the vast majority of Brits are not racist (Joelsnan)

Who is arguing with that? I thought we were talking about this "Robinson man" not the majority of Brits.

I don't understand the relevance of your post Jn.

say not see

Don’t you see Joelsnan that your post is an example of what’s wrong with some posts on this thread. You see posters do not recognise that the vast majority of British people are not racists. I’m not discussing the vast majority but I’m discussing Tommy Robinson and his supporters who are racist. I’m discussing his behaviour which was dressed up as concern which was an attack on the justice system.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

All decent upright people go about knocking other people to the ground don't they? (No they don't actually)

mindless yob or lovely man?

I find it so sad and depressing that the highly vocal posters who are quick to throw the racist card do not recognise that the vast majority of Brits are not racist. What nearly all are concerned with are FGM being eradicated from UK. Grooming gangs being brought to justice, trafficking of the vulnerable into prostitution and more. Remember the MP for Keighley who tried to bring this to the public attention years ago. The naive virtue signallers jumped on her...look where we are now. Do the parents of Lee Rigby think different ideologies should not be challenged because those who practice these extreme ideologies may be offended. Yes, to a large extent we should live and let live whilst recognising that this is not a one sided issue. There is bad in all communities and racism is inherent in humanity and most life forms have prejudicial practices to protect their groups.
The vast majority of us are of non native British stock. The vast majority of recent migrants are here for economic reasons, they are not poor illiterate weak willed people, though the virtue signallers choose to think of them so because to do so makes them feel good. Throwing the generalised racist stunt does these people a disservice. Yes, deal with injustices as they arise, but don't regard all immigrants as oppressed. If you do apply it to all immigrants, those from US, Australia etc.

If more than six of us ask GN for a quote facility, wonder if it would happen? ?

lighten the mood a bit?

Having a direct quote box/bubble on GN would be great ( I have asked a few times but the answer is no.)

The problem lemongrove for me has been the very shouty, hectoring response. Also the poster who just called us virtuous sheeple blindly following others opinions. I found that really unacceptable and said so. I agree it got very heated and I wouldn’t have sworn but it was also hard being accused of not caring about the grooming when in fact it’s because I care so much that I minded very much that Robinson endangered the trials. I also still stand by his being a racist and that posters who support him and his actions so uncritically really do open themselves up to accusations of being racist themselves. He (TR) really is a violent criminal racist thug and I stand by that.

johno - the way to reply is via the comment/text box as you have been doing. You can also send personal messages to others via the drop-down "dots".
It's not a forum where you can slot-in a comment directly after a post which is why quite a few people (like me) use the name of the person they are replying to in bold and the comment (if need be for clarity) in italics
Hope this helps.

I disagree with you on the subject of TR johno but think the principle of you being able to say your piece on GN is an important one, as long as it’s not defamatory, a personal attack on a poster etc.Posters can make a spirited response to your posts ( or anyone elses) but also without personal attacks according to GN rules, which seems fair to me.

What is the law on free speech?

Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

Those restrictions may be “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary”.
What is the law on hate speech?

A number of different UK laws outlaw hate speech. Among them is Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA), which makes it an offence for a person to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress”. This law has been revised over the years to include language that is deemed to incite “racial and religious hatred”, as well as “hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation” and language that “encourages terrorism”.

and if he doesn't like the Laws of this country, as he says himself, then he doesn't have to stay.

Johno - you clearly imply you respect the law re limitations on free speech. The law on reporting restrictions limits free speech - Tommy Robinson broke that law and is being punished. Thats all that needs saying - the origins of the EDL are irrelevant to the discussion.

Lemongrove... Thanks for that. LOL

EllanVannin .. I am a free speech absolutist, under the law. I am never offended by speech except that which is already law and has been for many decades. It is illegal to incite violence, hatred. Defamation is illegal. Threats are illegal and always have been. This is not new.

This whole thread should be pulled before it gets worse.

suzi told you ??