Tommy Robinson...vile little thug.

a reply to: MadLad

That’s completely fair. Thank you for the reasonable response. I cannot disagree with it.

But that's what we've all been saying throughout this thread.

All activists are essentially self-promoters, and Robinson is no different.

Yaxley-Lennon puts his image and profile before the message.....with him it is literally all about HIM.

Personally I don’t think he should have been jailed for what he did. That seems to me an abuse of power.

But that's irrelevant really.
He was warned about what could happen to him and far more importantly what could happen to the trials.
He was more than aware of the consequences yet still he persisted.
For him it was all about raising his own public profile and had absolutely nothing to do with justice for the victims of these grooming gangs, that is unforgivable in my book.

If he feels so strongly about the severity of his punishment and the injustice of the law then perhaps he should concern himself with campaigning and protesting about that.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I hate the bastards as well.

But without those ""silly"" as you put it, judges and courts of law, everything would fall apart in about 2 seconds flat.

And that's just how society functions.

Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.

I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.

Let’s just set them free too?

“Kidmappings”?

I’m on my phone and have fat thumbs.

I see you didn’t address what I said though. Nice to see you’re all for setting pedos free.

Because what you said is “nonesense”.

How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet. Just like your sick hero “Tommy”.

Maybe you should read up on English law before you embarrass yourself further.

You should read the case before saying these child abusers didn’t do anything. Pretty sick.

I see you have reading comprehension issues. I was referring to ones who had only planned to and got put in prison for it, even though they technically hadn’t done anything. The SAME thing you’re defending “Tommy” on.

Try reading next time.

You said they hadn’t done anything. You’re wrong.

Now twisting what I’ve said.

Obvious troll is obvious.

I’m leaving this thread. Waste of time and effort conversing with trolls who support “Tommy”.

I’ll quote you:

“How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet.”

Taken completely out of context and pretending he was talking about the child molesters.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake on your part but you have already shown yourself to be a liar.

Oh, who was the “they” he was speaking about?

Go back and read the post you quoted. It's certainly not difficult to follow.

Then if you have any decency come back and apologise to Terry.

If you have the stones, tell me who the “they” in this statement was?

“How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet. Just like your sick hero “Tommy”.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

True dat, but its that or let the weans spank me at COD again. LoL

a reply to: Freeborn

Assuming Robinson’s motives is too cynical for my tastes. I’m not sure how you, or anyone, can say he didn’t want justice for the victims of these child abusers, without special access to his thoughts and motives. Is it impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

True dat, but its that or let the weans spank me at COD again. LoL

I was really worried how that sentence was going to end

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

True dat, but its that or let the weans spank me at COD again. LoL

Pssst. Don’t let the fake moral superiors try to boss you around.

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I hate the bastards as well.

But without those ""silly"" as you put it, judges and courts of law, everything would fall apart in about 2 seconds flat.

And that's just how society functions.

Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.

I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.

Let’s just set them free too?

“Kidmappings”?

I’m on my phone and have fat thumbs.

I see you didn’t address what I said though. Nice to see you’re all for setting pedos free.

Because what you said is “nonesense”.

How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet. Just like your sick hero “Tommy”.

Maybe you should read up on English law before you embarrass yourself further.

You should read the case before saying these child abusers didn’t do anything. Pretty sick.

I see you have reading comprehension issues. I was referring to ones who had only planned to and got put in prison for it, even though they technically hadn’t done anything. The SAME thing you’re defending “Tommy” on.

Try reading next time.

You said they hadn’t done anything. You’re wrong.

Now twisting what I’ve said.

Obvious troll is obvious.

I’m leaving this thread. Waste of time and effort conversing with trolls who support “Tommy”.

I’ll quote you:

“How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet.”

Taken completely out of context and pretending he was talking about the child molesters.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake on your part but you have already shown yourself to be a liar.

Oh, who was the “they” he was speaking about?

Go back and read the post you quoted. It's certainly not difficult to follow.

Then if you have any decency come back and apologise to Terry.

If you have the stones, tell me who the “they” in this statement was?

“How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet. Just like your sick hero “Tommy”.

He was making a point about how incredibly stupid your argument was. Trying to claim he was saying the child molesters in this case hadn't done anything is a lie.

Your point was weak enough to begin with, your continued claims that people on here defending child molesters only devalues what little point you may have had.

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: TerryDon79

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: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I hate the bastards as well.

But without those ""silly"" as you put it, judges and courts of law, everything would fall apart in about 2 seconds flat.

And that's just how society functions.

Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.

I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.

Let’s just set them free too?

“Kidmappings”?

I’m on my phone and have fat thumbs.

I see you didn’t address what I said though. Nice to see you’re all for setting pedos free.

Because what you said is “nonesense”.

How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet. Just like your sick hero “Tommy”.

Maybe you should read up on English law before you embarrass yourself further.

You should read the case before saying these child abusers didn’t do anything. Pretty sick.

I see you have reading comprehension issues. I was referring to ones who had only planned to and got put in prison for it, even though they technically hadn’t done anything. The SAME thing you’re defending “Tommy” on.

Try reading next time.

You said they hadn’t done anything. You’re wrong.

Now twisting what I’ve said.

Obvious troll is obvious.

I’m leaving this thread. Waste of time and effort conversing with trolls who support “Tommy”.

I’ll quote you:

“How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet.”

Taken completely out of context and pretending he was talking about the child molesters.

I would give you the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest mistake on your part but you have already shown yourself to be a liar.

Oh, who was the “they” he was speaking about?

Go back and read the post you quoted. It's certainly not difficult to follow.

Then if you have any decency come back and apologise to Terry.

If you have the stones, tell me who the “they” in this statement was?

“How is it nonesense? They hadn’t done anything, yet. Just like your sick hero “Tommy”.

He was making a point about how incredibly stupid your argument was. Trying to claim he was saying the child molesters in this case hadn't done anything is a lie.

Your point was weak enough to begin with, your continued claims that people on here defending child molesters only devalues what little point you may have had.

Yes, the “they” was the child abusers. So your lie that I was pretending he was talking about child abusers was false, a lie. I’ll take that apology whenever you can muster it.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I would never listen to or take advise from you. Sorry, but your wall of moral puffery was a waste of time.

You little coward!

Honestly, you are.

You know what I have written about your pathetic posting on this thread is true and you're just not a big enough person to admit that you've got this one wrong and back down.

There is no point in conversing with you further and I would encourage all other members on this thread to stop responding to your posts.

I would say its nice to see you back les but its not...meh probably won't take the mods long to ban you again if this is going to be how your going to be posting on this account.

Strangely enough the only time I remember anyone defending child abuse on this site was a certain free speech advocate who defended online grooming on free speech grounds.

a reply to: MadLad

I've heard my weans called a few choice words before.

Pray-tell though, what the bejesus is/are "moral superiors"?

Are they like Mother Superiors only less Catholic?

What level of COD do they hail from.

Weans always boss me around mate, that is until they dont.

a reply to: MadLad

originally posted by: MadLad


Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.


I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.


The actual context of the post. Are you a liar or just really really stupid?

a reply to: MadLad

I'm not saying he didn't want justice....just that it wasn't his priority.

I have my suspicions that he is a paid shill, but I'm reluctant to voice that because there is little evidence to support it, just a gut feeling, experience and friends of friends who have a more intimate knowledge of him and his personality than I have.

He highlights some bitter truths that need addressing but they are lost in so much posturing, lies, deflections and outright bollocks with just a smidgeon of racism thrown in to boot.

His whole image is built on lies and misrepresentations.

The man is an absolute arsehole of the highest order.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

I've heard my weans called a few choice words before.

Pray-tell though, what the bejesus is/are "moral superiors"?

Are they like Mother Superiors only less Catholic?

Weans always boss me around mate, that is until they dont.

It’s those who pretend they are morally superior to you and thus would try to dictate what you and I try to do, say, and think. But often their desire to censor is betrayed by their complete inability to do so.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: MadLad

originally posted by: MadLad


Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.


I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.


The actual context of the post. Are you a liar or just really really stupid?

Just digging your own lying hole and laying in it. He is literally and figurately saying they didn’t abuse children and it was all “could haves”.

a reply to: Freeborn

I don’t know enough about him to condemn him on those grounds. I just believe that even the most offensive voices require our defence in a free society. I don’t support Robinson, just his human rights.

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: MadLad

originally posted by: MadLad


Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.


I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.


The actual context of the post. Are you a liar or just really really stupid?

Just digging your own lying hole and laying in it. He is literally and figurately saying they didn’t abuse children and it was all “could haves”.

That's really what you take from that post?

Maybe I really was giving you too much credit thinking you were a liar...

a reply to: MadLad

Well if you want my thinking on the conundrum "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law".

Obviously, that ideology must be tempered with knowing what's right and wrong.

Else id be a devil worshiping bar steward.

Morality is of our own making buddy, as to censorship well freedom of speech is there to protect the retards as much as the rest of us, hence Tommys continued existence and drug-fueled rants.

But it's nice to be nice, Tommy will find that out one day, hopefully painfully to be honest, as pork learns faster that way.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: MadLad

originally posted by: MadLad


Yet the blame for what “could have” happened is placed solely on Robinson’s head, while the very laws and judge who would open these animal’s cages is given a pass. It’s clear that it isn’t about the what might actually let these abusers free, but about condemning Robinson.


I know, right?

All those pedos that didn’t actually do anything apart from plan out kidmappings or have plans to start grooming young kids. I mean, they didn’t do anything and it was all “they could haves”.


The actual context of the post. Are you a liar or just really really stupid?

Just digging your own lying hole and laying in it. He is literally and figurately saying they didn’t abuse children and it was all “could haves”.

That's really what you take from that post?

Maybe I really was giving you too much credit thinking you were a liar...

I suggested he look at the case, so he could see it wasn’t just planning. It’s there in plain English.

Are you daft or a liar?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I would never listen to or take advise from you. Sorry, but your wall of moral puffery was a waste of time.

You little coward!

Honestly, you are.

You know what I have written about your pathetic posting on this thread is true and you're just not a big enough person to admit that you've got this one wrong and back down.

There is no point in conversing with you further and I would encourage all other members on this thread to stop responding to your posts.

I would say its nice to see you back les but its not...meh probably won't take the mods long to ban you again if this is going to be how your going to be posting on this account.

Strangely enough the only time I remember anyone defending child abuse on this site was a certain free speech advocate who defended online grooming on free speech grounds.

Hahaha!!!

Now that you mention it your right, jeez poor wee les got destroyed in that thread, I forgot about that.

Ahhhh fun times.

a reply to: MadLad

I don’t support Robinson, just his human rights.

None of his human rights have been abused.
He was warned, on several occasions, yet he persisted in order to increase his own personal public profile.

But even so, even at the expense of justice for the victims of the sick, paedophile grooming gangs?