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: 15
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

I suggest you actually research the arse you seem to be idolizing somewhat.

See if he still standing on the pedestal afterward?

Because you simply cannot know what you are saying else you must be as racist and misguided as the Muppet in question.

Tommys a menace to reality, no two ways about it really.




posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:25 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.


Now he was conspiring to get them off. The fantasies never end.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I suggest you actually research the arse you seem to be idolizing somewhat.

See if he still standing on the pedestal afterward?

Because you simply cannot know what you are saying else you must be as racist and misguided as the Muppet in question.

Tommys a menace to reality, no two ways about it really.






I don’t need to. I just refuse to listen to you lot.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

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.


Now he was conspiring to get them off. The fantasies never end.


The only fantasy is yours, kiddo.

But keep on sticking up for the guy. The one who, if he had carried on, would have been the one responsible for mistrials and the pedos not getting what they deserve.

Such a great guy!



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad



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.


I 'condemn' him because he's a complete knobhead, because he purports to speak for and represent me and because he's more concerned with promoting himself than he is anything else.

I also 'condemn' him for crimes he DID commit, like putting at risk several trials of grooming gangs.
He knowingly committed those crimes.

I've repeatedly given details of these crimes.
I've given links to referenced articles about Stephen and his activities.

Yet you still blindly support him.
One can't help wondering why?

Oh, and anything to support your lies about members defending child abusers?
Come on, you made the accusation....either retract it or prove it.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I suggest you actually research the arse you seem to be idolizing somewhat.

See if he still standing on the pedestal afterward?

Because you simply cannot know what you are saying else you must be as racist and misguided as the Muppet in question.

Tommys a menace to reality, no two ways about it really.






I don’t need to. I just refuse to listen to you lot.


We know.

You’d rather listen to a racist who could have been the result of pedos being set free.

I guess you like your pedos free range?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

You don't need to research and know what you are talking about???

Ile take that square for 10 points please Bob.

There's your problem right there. LoL


edit on 18-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I suggest you actually research the arse you seem to be idolizing somewhat.

See if he still standing on the pedestal afterward?

Because you simply cannot know what you are saying else you must be as racist and misguided as the Muppet in question.

Tommys a menace to reality, no two ways about it really.






I don’t need to. I just refuse to listen to you lot.


We know.

You’d rather listen to a racist who could have been the result of pedos being set free.

I guess you like your pedos free range?


You condemn the guy speaking his mind for what “could have” happened, and use this fantasy justify your hatred. The irony is he was opposing the very people you fantasize about being set free.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

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.


Now he was conspiring to get them off. The fantasies never end.


The only fantasy is yours, kiddo.

But keep on sticking up for the guy. The one who, if he had carried on, would have been the one responsible for mistrials and the pedos not getting what they deserve.

Such a great guy!


Keep telling me your fantasies. They reveal that you didn’t like Robinson saying mean this about child abusers.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I suggest you actually research the arse you seem to be idolizing somewhat.

See if he still standing on the pedestal afterward?

Because you simply cannot know what you are saying else you must be as racist and misguided as the Muppet in question.

Tommys a menace to reality, no two ways about it really.






I don’t need to. I just refuse to listen to you lot.


We know.

You’d rather listen to a racist who could have been the result of pedos being set free.

I guess you like your pedos free range?


You condemn the guy speaking his mind for what “could have” happened, and use this fantasy justify your hatred. The irony is he was opposing the very people you fantasize about being set free.


Anyone else read this and just see jibberish?

I recommend English classes.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

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.


Now he was conspiring to get them off. The fantasies never end.


The only fantasy is yours, kiddo.

But keep on sticking up for the guy. The one who, if he had carried on, would have been the one responsible for mistrials and the pedos not getting what they deserve.

Such a great guy!


Keep telling me your fantasies. They reveal that you didn’t like Robinson saying mean this about child abusers.


More incoherent nonesense from a supporter of a guy who’s actions almost let pedos walk free.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: MadLad



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.


I 'condemn' him because he's a complete knobhead, because he purports to speak for and represent me and because he's more concerned with promoting himself than he is anything else.

I also 'condemn' him for crimes he DID commit, like putting at risk several trials of grooming gangs.
He knowingly committed those crimes.

I've repeatedly given details of these crimes.
I've given links to referenced articles about Stephen and his activities.

Yet you still blindly support him.
One can't help wondering why?

Oh, and anything to support your lies about members defending child abusers?
Come on, you made the accusation....either retract it or prove it.



His crime was contempt of court, not “putting at risk several trials of grooming gangs”. If you want to list his crimes list his real ones, not your fantasies.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

That's absolute bollocks.

He's never been reprimanded or censured for speaking his mind, not once.

He's been condemned for jeopardising trials against sex grooming gangs.
He's been condemned for seeking to promote himself at any cost regardless of harm to others.
He's been condemned for being a lying, deceitful wanker.

But not for speaking his mind.

Oh, what about those accusations of members supporting child abusers.....any proof yet?



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

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.


Now he was conspiring to get them off. The fantasies never end.


The only fantasy is yours, kiddo.

But keep on sticking up for the guy. The one who, if he had carried on, would have been the one responsible for mistrials and the pedos not getting what they deserve.

Such a great guy!


Keep telling me your fantasies. They reveal that you didn’t like Robinson saying mean this about child abusers.


More incoherent nonesense from a supporter of a guy who’s actions almost let pedos walk free.


“Nonesense”?

You’re angry at the only guy who said mean things about child abusers. Hilarious.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Bobs your Uncle.

Hopefully, Tommy's not your daddy.

Coz that would be tragic.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: MadLad

That's absolute bollocks.

He's never been reprimanded or censured for speaking his mind, not once.

He's been condemned for jeopardising trials against sex grooming gangs.
He's been condemned for seeking to promote himself at any cost regardless of harm to others.
He's been condemned for being a lying, deceitful wanker.

But not for speaking his mind.

Oh, what about those accusations of members supporting child abusers.....any proof yet?



Yes, he was literally talking and filming and was arrested for it. You can continue to imagine what his filming and talking “could have” resulted in, but as stated, it’s purely counterfactual bollocks you guys tell yourself.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

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.


Now he was conspiring to get them off. The fantasies never end.


The only fantasy is yours, kiddo.

But keep on sticking up for the guy. The one who, if he had carried on, would have been the one responsible for mistrials and the pedos not getting what they deserve.

Such a great guy!


Keep telling me your fantasies. They reveal that you didn’t like Robinson saying mean this about child abusers.


More incoherent nonesense from a supporter of a guy who’s actions almost let pedos walk free.


“Nonesense”?

You’re angry at the only guy who said mean things about child abusers. Hilarious.


The ONLY guy?

You do realise those pedos were IN court? That means they were found AND arrested before you little druggy, racist hero ever came on the scene.

But go “Tommy”! Let’s all follow his example and jeopardise trials so pedos can be set free.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad



His crime was contempt of court, not “putting at risk several trials of grooming gangs”. If you want to list his crimes list his real ones, not your fantasies.


FFS, are you for real...and what exactly were the details of the 'contempt of court'?
Come on, tell us all....because I sure as hell can.

Oh, and the details about members supporting child abusers....where is the proof, or did you just pluck it out of thin air in order to deflect or in an effort to somehow justify your continued blind support for this arsehole.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad


Yes, he was literally talking and filming and was arrested for it.


So were some of the pedos. Talking to and filming children. Good to know you think they should be set free too.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: MadLad


Yes, he was literally talking and filming and was arrested for it.


So were some of the pedos. Talking to and filming children. Good to know you think they should be set free too.


You don’t even know the facts of the case. i’m not surprised.




top topics



 
4
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join