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: 26
4
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: ScepticScot

For filming outside of a courthouse. I was wondering what above and beyond filming outside a courthouse he might have done.


Breaching reporting restrictions, on top of previous conviction for contempt.




posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: ScepticScot

For filming outside of a courthouse. I was wondering what above and beyond filming outside a courthouse he might have done.


Breaching reporting restrictions, on top of previous conviction for contempt.


So he was jailed for filming outside a courthouse, essentially.



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: ScepticScot

For filming outside of a courthouse. I was wondering what above and beyond filming outside a courthouse he might have done.


Breaching reporting restrictions, on top of previous conviction for contempt.


So he was jailed for filming outside a courthouse, essentially.


Only to the extend that getting jailed for speeding means you got jailed for driving.



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

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: Freeborn
a reply to: MadLad

Have you ever read The Guardian?



I have. It's not that strange that everyone's opinion on the subject suspiciously resembles each other's. I haven't heard a nuanced view between any of you. It's all the same.


Possibly because most the posters actually understand what they are talking about?

Nah must be just because we all read the same paper...


Yet you haven't been able to piece together a decent argument.


What like the post freeborn made back on about page 17 that you agreed with?

The one when pointed out that it was the same point he and everyone had been making you seem to completely forget?

I think your ability to understand what a good argument is might be less well developed than you like to think.



I was talking about you.


Yet at the top of this page you said all our options resemble each others. (All guardian readers remember)'



Yeah, that's right. Why do you guys all hold the same opinion? Is it a tribal thing?


No we all just correct.


Do you believe it is correct to jail a man for filming outside a courthouse?


If it is in contempt of court and putting the course of justice at risk by questioning the fairness of the trial then yes, especially if he has been warned about it.

How desperate are you right now to get the last say on this.

Honestly les the more and more you post the more convinced I am becoming that you're about 16.


How do you know he put the course of justice at risk?


Because that's how our legal system works.....

The accused have the right to anonymity.

Why do you care so much about this?



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

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: Freeborn
a reply to: MadLad

Have you ever read The Guardian?



I have. It's not that strange that everyone's opinion on the subject suspiciously resembles each other's. I haven't heard a nuanced view between any of you. It's all the same.


Possibly because most the posters actually understand what they are talking about?

Nah must be just because we all read the same paper...


Yet you haven't been able to piece together a decent argument.


What like the post freeborn made back on about page 17 that you agreed with?

The one when pointed out that it was the same point he and everyone had been making you seem to completely forget?

I think your ability to understand what a good argument is might be less well developed than you like to think.



I was talking about you.


Yet at the top of this page you said all our options resemble each others. (All guardian readers remember)'



Yeah, that's right. Why do you guys all hold the same opinion? Is it a tribal thing?


No we all just correct.


Do you believe it is correct to jail a man for filming outside a courthouse?


If it is in contempt of court and putting the course of justice at risk by questioning the fairness of the trial then yes, especially if he has been warned about it.

How desperate are you right now to get the last say on this.

Honestly les the more and more you post the more convinced I am becoming that you're about 16.


How do you know he put the course of justice at risk?


Because that's how our legal system works.....

The accused have the right to anonymity.

Why do you care so much about this?



Since when did accused rapists have the right to anonymity?

edit on 20/2/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

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: Freeborn
a reply to: MadLad

Have you ever read The Guardian?



I have. It's not that strange that everyone's opinion on the subject suspiciously resembles each other's. I haven't heard a nuanced view between any of you. It's all the same.


Possibly because most the posters actually understand what they are talking about?

Nah must be just because we all read the same paper...


Yet you haven't been able to piece together a decent argument.


What like the post freeborn made back on about page 17 that you agreed with?

The one when pointed out that it was the same point he and everyone had been making you seem to completely forget?

I think your ability to understand what a good argument is might be less well developed than you like to think.



I was talking about you.


Yet at the top of this page you said all our options resemble each others. (All guardian readers remember)'



Yeah, that's right. Why do you guys all hold the same opinion? Is it a tribal thing?


No we all just correct.


Do you believe it is correct to jail a man for filming outside a courthouse?


If it is in contempt of court and putting the course of justice at risk by questioning the fairness of the trial then yes, especially if he has been warned about it.

How desperate are you right now to get the last say on this.

Honestly les the more and more you post the more convinced I am becoming that you're about 16.


How do you know he put the course of justice at risk?


Because that's how our legal system works.....

The accused have the right to anonymity.

Why do you care so much about this?


I don’t like the unjust, authoritarian treatment of human beings. If it happened to you I’d be in your corner too.



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: ScepticScot

For filming outside of a courthouse. I was wondering what above and beyond filming outside a courthouse he might have done.


Breaching reporting restrictions, on top of previous conviction for contempt.


So he was jailed for filming outside a courthouse, essentially.


Only to the extend that getting jailed for speeding means you got jailed for driving.



Cheeky, but I like it.

But the argument that his filming might have led to these guys getting off has yet to prove itself.



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MadLad
a reply to: ScepticScot

For filming outside of a courthouse. I was wondering what above and beyond filming outside a courthouse he might have done.


Breaching reporting restrictions, on top of previous conviction for contempt.


So he was jailed for filming outside a courthouse, essentially.


Only to the extend that getting jailed for speeding means you got jailed for driving.



Cheeky, but I like it.

But the argument that his filming might have led to these guys getting off has yet to prove itself.


That general principle isn't really open for debate.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The issue of the appeal as I understand relate to the specifics of what he said and if it was already public knowledge.



posted on Feb, 20 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Since when did accused rapists have the right to anonymity?


When they are just accused.

They should lose their right to a hell of a lot of things once they are proven guilty.

One of the basic principles and cornerstones of our judicial system, and many other nations who have thought it right and copied it, is innocent until proven guilty

Do you disagree with that?


edit on 20/2/19 by Freeborn because: grammar....or beer



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

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: Freeborn
a reply to: MadLad

Have you ever read The Guardian?



I have. It's not that strange that everyone's opinion on the subject suspiciously resembles each other's. I haven't heard a nuanced view between any of you. It's all the same.


Possibly because most the posters actually understand what they are talking about?

Nah must be just because we all read the same paper...


Yet you haven't been able to piece together a decent argument.


What like the post freeborn made back on about page 17 that you agreed with?

The one when pointed out that it was the same point he and everyone had been making you seem to completely forget?

I think your ability to understand what a good argument is might be less well developed than you like to think.



I was talking about you.


Yet at the top of this page you said all our options resemble each others. (All guardian readers remember)'



Yeah, that's right. Why do you guys all hold the same opinion? Is it a tribal thing?


No we all just correct.


Do you believe it is correct to jail a man for filming outside a courthouse?


If it is in contempt of court and putting the course of justice at risk by questioning the fairness of the trial then yes, especially if he has been warned about it.

How desperate are you right now to get the last say on this.

Honestly les the more and more you post the more convinced I am becoming that you're about 16.


How do you know he put the course of justice at risk?


Because that's how our legal system works.....

The accused have the right to anonymity.

Why do you care so much about this?



Since when did accused rapists have the right to anonymity?


Four of the guys in the trial were also going to be tried later that year in a separate but linked child grooming court case. It was essential that their names and faces weren't broadcast to avoid victim intimidation, witness intimidation, right to fair trial and integrity of the trial.



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: MadLad

It seems clear that no amount of educating you about the UK legal system is going to be worth the bother so I will leave you to your own delusional version.


It's clear you are just unable to back up your claim.


It's clear that all this has been patiently explained to you over and over again so there is no point in repeating what has already been set out in great detail because it is obvious that you just like to wind people up - so - I do not propose to feed you anymore.



posted on Feb, 21 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: MadLad

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: MadLad

It seems clear that no amount of educating you about the UK legal system is going to be worth the bother so I will leave you to your own delusional version.


It's clear you are just unable to back up your claim.


It's clear that all this has been patiently explained to you over and over again so there is no point in repeating what has already been set out in great detail because it is obvious that you just like to wind people up - so - I do not propose to feed you anymore.


Repeating something doesn't make it true, but you pretend it does. It's clear you have no clue what you're talking about.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Seeing as how all you have done in this thread is just repeating something that is untrue over and over again, that is very ironic indeed.




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Here we are;

Facebook Bans TR's Page

Seems like our Tommy's been a naughty boy and has been engaging in "organised hate". Or, alternatively, he has been the victim of state sponsored censorship because in the UK we have no free speech.

I am betting that some of our ill-informed American friends will be plumping for the latter.......



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Here we are;

Facebook Bans TR's Page

Seems like our Tommy's been a naughty boy and has been engaging in "organised hate". Or, alternatively, he has been the victim of state sponsored censorship because in the UK we have no free speech.

I am betting that some of our ill-informed American friends will be plumping for the latter.......



“Organized hate”, another Orwellian excuse for censorship that an authoritarian Brit would applaud. The funny part is you lads have been saying much worse about Robinson.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Didn't bother actually reading the article, then?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad




According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including: a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags" a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied In January, YouTube suspended adverts on Mr Robinson's account, saying he had broken the site's advertising rules. At the time, Mr Robinson denied they contained any "hateful" content and said he was the victim of censorship. In November, PayPal said it would no longer process payments for Mr Robinson. In May, Mr Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court. The 13-month sentence sparked a series of #freetommy protests. The conviction was later quashed after procedural concerns. The case has now been referred to the attorney general. In March 2018, Mr Robinson was banned from Twitter. It is understood that his account was suspended for breaking its "hateful conduct policy".


Presumably you think all that is OK?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: MadLad




According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including: a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags" a post urging people to terrorise and behead those who follow the Koran a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied In January, YouTube suspended adverts on Mr Robinson's account, saying he had broken the site's advertising rules. At the time, Mr Robinson denied they contained any "hateful" content and said he was the victim of censorship. In November, PayPal said it would no longer process payments for Mr Robinson. In May, Mr Robinson, 35, was jailed for contempt of court. The 13-month sentence sparked a series of #freetommy protests. The conviction was later quashed after procedural concerns. The case has now been referred to the attorney general. In March 2018, Mr Robinson was banned from Twitter. It is understood that his account was suspended for breaking its "hateful conduct policy".


Presumably you think all that is OK?


Yes, I do.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: MadLad

Why am I not surprised?



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: MadLad

Why am I not surprised?


You don’t think it’s alright? What’s the problem, scared it might hurt someone’s feelings?




top topics



 
4
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join