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.
What level of COD do they hail from.
originally posted by: MadLad
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: MadLad
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?
So you will continue to deliberately misrepresent what he said. Pathetic.
Have you managed to come up with any examples of someone defending the child abusers yet?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: MadLad
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?
So you will continue to deliberately misrepresent what he said. Pathetic.
Have you managed to come up with any examples of someone defending the child abusers yet?
originally posted by: Freeborn
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?
originally posted by: MadLad
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: MadLad
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?
So you will continue to deliberately misrepresent what he said. Pathetic.
Have you managed to come up with any examples of someone defending the child abusers yet?
You pretend he said something he didn’t, and once proven wrong, you deflect to something else. Well done.
originally posted by: MadLad
originally posted by: Freeborn
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?
Moreso for exposing the sick grooming gangs, and the government’s attempt to sweep it all under the carpet.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad
Please stop saying he exposed anything other than his own racist agenda.
Because it's simply not true.
Tommy doesn't do his own homework which is quite frankly a rather large part of the problem where Mr Yaxley-Lennon is concerned.
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
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?
So you will continue to deliberately misrepresent what he said. Pathetic.
Have you managed to come up with any examples of someone defending the child abusers yet?
You pretend he said something he didn’t, and once proven wrong, you deflect to something else. Well done.
You are the one pretending (by which I of course mean lying). The post is there for anyone to read.
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
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?
So you will continue to deliberately misrepresent what he said. Pathetic.
Have you managed to come up with any examples of someone defending the child abusers yet?
You pretend he said something he didn’t, and once proven wrong, you deflect to something else. Well done.
You are the one pretending (by which I of course mean lying). The post is there for anyone to read.
All there in plain language. You pretended he didn’t say what he said, likely for some stupid reason. Proven wrong, proven liar.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad
So because Tommy was apt to attempt his particular brand of spurious reporting he somehow exposed these people?
I did a report at university back in the day on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for a communications class.
Does that mean I'm responsible for the inception of quantum mechanics? LoL
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad
So because Tommy was apt to attempt his particular brand of spurious reporting he somehow exposed these people?
I did a report at university back in the day on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for a communications class.
Does that mean I'm responsible for the inception of quantum mechanics? LoL
Moreso for exposing the sick grooming gangs, and the government’s attempt to sweep it all under the carpet.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth
He certainly brought more attention to himself, that's a given.
Who would have thought eh?
"The govt and media were trying to avoid the public knowing too many of the details of the Pakistani child rape gangs."
That duck was well cooked and cat right out the bag long before Tommy took up the soapbox.