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: 23
4
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

"I wouldn’t entertain those who support silencing someone because they don’t like what they say either."

Well, you POTUS sure does.

He practices that particular sport on a daily basis.

Keep it up all this MAGA carap and your poor nation might be at it again quite soon.

Not that long ago you were burning books and practicing Eugenics, same with us, right up until the end of the 60s, eugenics that is, books were far to expensive to burn over here. LoL




posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

In the very word "No". LoL

You don't entertain Robinsons type as he's apt to piss in your pocket and tell you its raining Muslims.


If you fail to listen to people that you find disagreeable, it renders your opinion on their positions moot.
I see a lot of badly informed people willing to hate based on what they are told.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Ile listen to him UKTruth, have listened to him, i don't agree with him.

Nor will i entertain his presentation of other peoples homework for obvious personal gain and attempt to spread religious intolerant hatred.

If you wish to see a really ""badly informed"" person look no further than Mr Robinson.
edit on 18-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth

Ile listen to him UKTruth, have listened to him, i don't agree with him.

Nor will i entertain his presentation of other peoples homework for obvious personal gain and attempt to spread religious intolerant hatred.

If you wish to see a really ""badly informed"" person look no further than Mr Robinson.


Got to say, he seems pretty well informed on the issue of radical islam.
Much more so than the talking heads on TV or journalists.
From what I see of him he seems to know the detail of the Quran and is able to hold an informed conversation with Imam's.
He's done his homework.
Your view of him is yours to hold, but you fall well short of reasonable when you underplay his obvious knowledge. I daresay he knows a lot more about the subject he focuses than you do.

edit on 18/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Aye, he's quite up to date on anti-Islam and immigration issues also.

Nobody sensible likes or condones the actions of radical Islam.

Most Muslims that came to our shores in the past did so to avoid such backward thinking Sharia laws.

As to the TV or journalists, well you got me there.

Do you know i don't even think i have watched classical TV or NEWS in a couple of years, snippets that pop up on my NEWS feeds i suppose. LoL

"I daresay he knows a lot more about the subject he focuses than you do."

I dare say he knows a whole lot more about racism and hared than i do also.

It's not a competition but i dare say i know far more Muslims than soapbox Tommy.

I went to school with them, grew up with them, lived in the same area as them, and not one ever beasted us that memory serves.
edit on 18-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

I'd say he was quite knowledgeable about the religion of Islam and the issues with immigration. Not just anti-islam.
I think the latter is his position based on what he has learned. I don't hold the same view, but I do understand why some would consider allowing Islam to gain too much of a foothold in the UK to be a bad thing due to the obvious problem with radicalisation the religion has.

Like I said, from what he has said vs what you have written, I'd listen to him on the subject of Islam or immigration before you. I'd listen to you of course, but your knowledge seems inferior.

edit on 18/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Organized religious practice is a bad thing in general.

A lot to be said for keeping ones religious view private if truth be told.

But someones apt to bump their gums about crap they don't understand and claim God or the devil done it.

Next thing you know Woman are being burned at the stake for simply delivering children into the world.
edit on 18-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Where have i asked you to listen to "Me".

Your mindset seems inferior now. LoL

Do your own homework knowledge is the ticket, before anyone.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Religion overal is a good thing - as long as the religion evolves.
As a belief system I find it hard to follow many of the teachings, but as a moral compass there is much to gain - depending on the religion of course.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You didn't ask, but as you are posting I am reading.
My conclusion is a fairly obvious one.



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And on that note now i see you don't understand the game.

Religion seldom evolves, it controls free thought, encourages self-loathing.

Nevermind simply facilitates its priest cast at the expense of it's other subjects.

Why does Gods ""moral compass"" always point in the direction of our money?

What does he do with it given all that omnipotence?

Religion is for fools still afraid of the dark, well most of the organized religious practices i have come across.

But why waste my breath, ask the likes of Tommy what he thinks as his way of thinking is probably more up your street. LoL




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



posted on Feb, 18 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well, opinions are like bumholes UKTruth.

Everybody has one.

And other peoples tend to stink.

Conclude what you will from that.

Edit: Crap its half one im up in a few, i bid ye all fair evening.

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



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth

And on that note now i see you don't understand the game.

Religion seldom evolves, it controls free thought, encourages self-loathing.




You may need to study history.
Just a suggestion.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: Freeborn
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.




I said defending child abusers. Yes, you are defending child abusers from the only man who was there criticizing them. You wanted to see the critic of these child abusers locked up.


I’m sorry, but they were in COURT. You know? With lawyers, witnesses, judges and so on.

Only man my arse.


Exactly. Robinson was outside court. Who would let the child abusers free? Those outside court or inside court?


Those inside the court based on good ole Tommys actions causing a mistrial.

It’s kind of the law.


That’s right. Your silly law and your silly judge would have let them free.


Hold on. You are suggesting that if it were not for your hero TR (not his real name) the Court would have let these Defendant's free?

My goodness. What a steaming pile of BS.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

You may need to pray to an invisible Man in the sky that's a creation of Man.

Just a fact.

See if he can resolve the horrendous acts of depravity that beasts unleash upon poor weans and young adults?

Don't hold your breath all the same.

As to history, i think that covers what organized religious practices have gotten up to rather eloquently.

Tommy should study history, that's a given.

It's all one to me, place your faith in the likes of Robinson if you wish, after all, it's your life, your outlook, and your perspective, that's at play.
edit on 19-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: Freeborn
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.




I said defending child abusers. Yes, you are defending child abusers from the only man who was there criticizing them. You wanted to see the critic of these child abusers locked up.


I’m sorry, but they were in COURT. You know? With lawyers, witnesses, judges and so on.

Only man my arse.


Exactly. Robinson was outside court. Who would let the child abusers free? Those outside court or inside court?


Those inside the court based on good ole Tommys actions causing a mistrial.

It’s kind of the law.


That’s right. Your silly law and your silly judge would have let them free.


Hold on. You are suggesting that if it were not for your hero TR (not his real name) the Court would have let these Defendant's free?

My goodness. What a steaming pile of BS.


No, i’m saying your silly law and silly judge would have let them free. It’s there in plain English, if you can read it.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

They're not our laws per-say.

House of Lords and politicians make and propose those, common everyday people don't really have much to do with the implementations of law.

Your laws in the US are no better however, allowing the likes of defendants to be gagged and trussed up in court because they refuse to be quiet.

Where is this "silly law" in plain English that we can read, that would have set "them" free?

Any links?
edit on 19-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: Freeborn
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.




I said defending child abusers. Yes, you are defending child abusers from the only man who was there criticizing them. You wanted to see the critic of these child abusers locked up.


I’m sorry, but they were in COURT. You know? With lawyers, witnesses, judges and so on.

Only man my arse.


Exactly. Robinson was outside court. Who would let the child abusers free? Those outside court or inside court?


Those inside the court based on good ole Tommys actions causing a mistrial.

It’s kind of the law.


That’s right. Your silly law and your silly judge would have let them free.


Hold on. You are suggesting that if it were not for your hero TR (not his real name) the Court would have let these Defendant's free?

My goodness. What a steaming pile of BS.


No, i’m saying your silly law and silly judge would have let them free. It’s there in plain English, if you can read it.


I can read it just fine and I do know a bit about the law in this country what with being a lawyer. Unfortunately, it is quite clear that you have no clue about any of this.

But thank you for your thorough and learned analysis of our legal system anyway.



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: Freeborn
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.




I said defending child abusers. Yes, you are defending child abusers from the only man who was there criticizing them. You wanted to see the critic of these child abusers locked up.


I’m sorry, but they were in COURT. You know? With lawyers, witnesses, judges and so on.

Only man my arse.


Exactly. Robinson was outside court. Who would let the child abusers free? Those outside court or inside court?


Those inside the court based on good ole Tommys actions causing a mistrial.

It’s kind of the law.


That’s right. Your silly law and your silly judge would have let them free.


Hold on. You are suggesting that if it were not for your hero TR (not his real name) the Court would have let these Defendant's free?

My goodness. What a steaming pile of BS.


No, i’m saying your silly law and silly judge would have let them free. It’s there in plain English, if you can read it.


I can read it just fine and I do know a bit about the law in this country what with being a lawyer. Unfortunately, it is quite clear that you have no clue about any of this.

But thank you for your thorough and learned analysis of our legal system anyway.



One minute you guys are telling me Robinson's filming "could have" led to the judge to discharge the jury, essentially letting the criminals free, then the next minute there is no such law, no such judge. So which is it, lawyer?



posted on Feb, 19 2019 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MadLad

They're not our laws per-say.

House of Lords and politicians make and propose those, common everyday people don't really have much to do with the implementations of law.

Your laws in the US are no better however, allowing the likes of defendants to be gagged and trussed up in court because they refuse to be quiet.

Where is this "silly law" in plain English that we can read, that would have set "them" free?

Any links?


One minute you guys are telling me Robinson's filming "could have" led to the judge to discharge the jury, essentially letting the criminals free, then the next minute there is no such law, no such judge. So which is it?
edit on 19-2-2019 by MadLad because: (no reason given)







 
4
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join