Tommy Robinson...vile little thug.

a reply to: andy06shake

What level of COD do they hail from.

They are prestige level 666....some say they know your loadout before you do and play blindfolded.

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?

Well that was that one poster who wrote a stupid thread about freedom of speech....

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: 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.

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: 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: 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.

Two things he had sod all to do with.

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.

It is true. Few voices raised concerns about the cases of rape gangs until there were already thousands of victims.

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.

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: 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.

Shall we have a poll to see who thinks Terry said the child abusers in this case didn't do anything?

I strongly suspect most people on here have sufficient reading comprehension, something you seem to choose not to have.

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

That’s strange logic. Any sort of reporting or activism on a topic is exposure of the topic.

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

He did bring more attention to it. The govt and media were trying to avoid the public knowing too many of the details of the Pakistani child rape gangs. I think we can all thank Mr Robinson for that regardles of how we feel about him as a person... well, that is unless you are a very strange person indeed.

a reply to: MadLad

I don't think it my particular brand of deductive reasoning that's in question.

I base my assumptions on what i see hear and observe the Muppet say and do.

Whereas earlier on you were not even interested in the facts and/or knowledge pertaining to the Man in question.

You simply refuse to see the forest for the trees son.

That's your own privilege i guess, it won't serve you well in life, but who am i to tell you so.

a reply to: MadLad

Moreso for exposing the sick grooming gangs, and the government’s attempt to sweep it all under the carpet.

We are going round in circles here.

He didn't expose anything....other than his own delusions of grandeur.
These people - if you can call them people - were already being tried so they'd obviously already been exposed.
The very fact that the trial was proceeding is evidence in itself that the government weren't sweeping it under the carpet.

Yes, there have been issue sin the past but many, many people have worked hard and tirelessly - without seeking any sort of personal acknowledgement etc - to highlight this problem.

Jack Straw worked ceaselessly to bring this to the publics attention and current Home Secretary Sajid Javid has openly and passionately stated that there is a specific problem in a specific section of certain Muslim communities and that this needs to be tackled head on and eradicated.

How can that be possibly construed as sweeping it under the carpet?

Yaxley-Lennon knew all this just as he knew the possible legal implications if he persisted, yet persist he did.
Why?

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.

a reply to: Freeborn

Yeah, but you can't deny he brought members of the public up to speed on what was going on. That is a good thing.
It helps parents understand the full gravity of the situation and to take extra measures to protect their kids from the Pakastani child rape gangs.

a reply to: UKTruth

Called worse than "strange" before. LoL

I don't like beasts and i don't like racists that's for sure.

Tommy, well Tommy just does not like Muslims in general.

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.

Yes, the Times (or was it the Telegraph - can;t remember) blew the story open. Yet, it's undeniable that Tommy Robinson brought more attention to the rapists and the problem in society. Again, that's a good thing and he should be applauded for it. He can't be all bad.
I'd certainly put him above Pakistani child rape gang members and anyone who would seek to protect them by hiding them from public view.
I do find it quite surprising that some people are not as moved to start threads about them... oh well.