It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tommy Robinson...vile little thug.

page: 14
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Can i have that "theoretical mistrials" palaver?

Might somehow work it towards some real Minstrels, i love that chocolate.


Fear and politics, not actual mistrials, not the silly laws that would set a child abuser free, fuel your hatred.




posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

My hatred where beasts are concerned is way beyond fueled my friend.

Racist nonsensical little soapbox Tommy on the other hand, well the likes of his ilk are simply to be pitted as much as frowned upon really.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

"Exactly zero child molesters went free."

Tommy exposed nothing!

The ones in court went down.

They got tinpaled good and proper.

Which is more than they deserved really, but at least they are off the streets for a good while, not long enough all the same.
edit on 18-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad



I still don’t get why you guys defend the child abusers.....


Please show me where I, or anyone else for that matter, defend the child abusers.

Go on, show me.
Just one example will do.

Baseless accusations like that in the real world I live in would result in serious repercussions.

You are simply making things up in a pathetic and lame attempt to deflect and to excuse or justify your gross and blind support for a complete prick and arsehole.

Not once has anyone expressed even the remotest amount of sympathy for the child groomers.....go on, trawl through this thread and try and find one example.

Absolutely pathetic and disgraceful.


.....but ridicule the one trying to expose them.


The fact they were being tried is proof they were being exposed....but we in the UK have this little thing called innocent until proven guilty at the very cornerstone of our judicial system....you may not support that but we do.



You blame the guy filming, but not the silly laws that free a child abuser because he got caught on camera.


As I said earlier in the thread, to no reply....fair enough, if he feels the law is stupid then campaign to change the law highlighting exactly why he thinks it 'silly'.
But in the meantime abide by the law and ensure that those being prosecuted will be proven guilty and punished.

His actions jeopardised the accused being found guilty....and he knew that before doing what he did....all done to promote his own public profile....that's how much he cared for the victims of those heinous crimes.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.


Do I really have to explain how stupid that argument is?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Probably.
LoL



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

You’ve shown more hatred towards Tommy Robinson because his actions “could have”, just maybe, in your deep fantasies, contributed to these guys getting off, which is a fantasy not born by the facts. You condemn him for crimes he never committed.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.


Do I really have to explain how stupid that argument is?



Yes.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

Probably.
LoL


Wow you were right.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Yes, we are all closet wean tamperers or support such dirty filth.


Silly Fool.


If that's the best you have, then i will simply suggest you jog along little bit before you get bitten.

Ken what i mean sweetheart. x
edit on 18-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

Probably.
LoL


Wow you were right.


Try it. Tell us how your fantasies, likely deduced from a Gaurdian article, came true.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.


Do I really have to explain how stupid that argument is?



Yes.


Ok.

Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't a real risk.

In fact the argument is even more stupid as we are talking about something that was prevented from happening.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.


Do I really have to explain how stupid that argument is?



Yes.


Ok.

Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't a real risk.

In fact the argument is even more stupid as we are talking about something that was prevented from happening.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?


It proves you worried about something that never happened, and condemn people on counterfactual grounds.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.


Do I really have to explain how stupid that argument is?



Yes.


Ok.

Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't a real risk.

In fact the argument is even more stupid as we are talking about something that was prevented from happening.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?


It proves you worried about something that never happened, and condemn people on counterfactual grounds.


So very true.

Let’s just release all those convicted of attempted murder, conspiring to commit fraud or a whole load of other crimes. I mean, they didn’t actually do anything.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

Where do we defend "child abusers"?

We hint all Muslims are not "child abusers" just as all British people are not Tommy Robinson.
LoL



You guys keep denouncing Robinson for trying to film child abusers.


The UK has very strict rules on trial process and integrity. There is a perfectly valid argument that some of those rules are overly strict but that does not change the fact that those rules exist.

Robinson was very well aware those rules and the potential consequences yet persisted with his actions knowing that it could have resulted in a mistrial.

The closest anyone is getting to defending child abusers are those defending Robinson's reckless and self serving behaviour.



This is all you guys have are the theoretical mistrials that never happened.


Glad you are so relaxed about child abusers potentially getting off.


You would blame Robinson for these guys getting off, and not the silly laws that would allow such an injustice. That’s moral of you.


If someone knowingly and repeatedly breaks rules that could allow child molesters to get off for no reason other than self promotion then yes I absolutely would blame them.

I would seriously question the morality of anyone who didn't.


Exactly zero child molesters went free. Are you sure you’re not creating fantasies to justify your defence of child molesters and hatred of the one trying to expose them?


Does the word 'could' confuse you?

Explain the me how exactly he is exposing child molesters by filming people who were already on trial?


But he didn’t, meaning your banking on “could” was wrong.


Do I really have to explain how stupid that argument is?



Yes.


Ok.

Just because something didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't a real risk.

In fact the argument is even more stupid as we are talking about something that was prevented from happening.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?


It proves you worried about something that never happened, and condemn people on counterfactual grounds.


So very true.

Let’s just release all those convicted of attempted murder, conspiring to commit fraud or a whole load of other crimes. I mean, they didn’t actually do anything.


Better yet. Let’s release all of those who were charged with attempted terrorism. The ones caught with all the things to make a dirty bomb or plans to kill 100s or 1000s of people. After all, they didn’t actually do anything, yet.
edit on 1822019 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join