High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

. You say tommy jumped on a bandwagon, yet despite being asked repeatedly no one can show any example of people talking about police covering for grooming gangs before tommy

For goodness' sakes. How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that we are not stuck in 2010/2011 and that he has been on this bandwagon for the past few years?

This is just one example of how you inaccurately represent what others have said.

Do you even understand what jumping on a bandwagon is?

If I am a Chicago cub fan starting in 1995, and root for them every year, I didn’t jump on the bandwagon in 2015 when they got good

Similarly if tommy was basically the first public figure to be talking about the police allowing grooming gangs to run free, he didn’t jump on the bandwagon by continuing to discuss it when other did

a reply to: Grambler

First my and others went through the fact the people were already found guilty, and it was the sentencing phase

Did you respond to my post? I must have missed that.

Then you commented that if tommy was bad because he could have jeopardized the case, then everyone who discussed how horrible tommy was and how guilty he was before the end of his case was also bad

I said that, did I? Please remind me where I said that.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Was a typo I meant I not you

You were the one defending police as not complicit who treated rape victims line criminals

See I remembered your great claim!

I’ll make sure to remind you of it routinely!

a reply to: Grambler

For the umpteenth time; no-one is excusing or forgiving the past failings of the police, politicians, social workers and all others involved in previous grooming cases.
How many #ing times have I stated that?

Its unforgiveable and those responsible should be prosecuted.

FFS, I and many others have repeatedly stated that.....yet still it doesn't seem to sink in with you.
You obviously just choose to ignore what is said even though its been stated in a manner that really can't be misconstrued.

Why do you absolutely refuse to acknowledge this when it has been so clearly stated so many bloody times?

And I'm no lawyer - unfortunately had a few dealings with criminal lawyers in years gone by - I wasn't talking about me.

a reply to: Freeborn

Did a poster say that the police were not complicit in allowing these rapes to occur?

Did a poster say in response to being shown that the police treated child rape victims like criminals that they just weren’t a well oiled machine?

You don’t think that’s defending the actions or downplaying of those police?

This has been mentioned on probably ten posts in this thread, yet you just ignore it

a reply to: Grambler

Please show where and I'll show you the posts where people stated the previous actions of the police et al are inexcusable and that those responsible need punishing in accordance with the law.

Come on, a challenge.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Was a typo I meant I not you

You were the one defending police as not complicit who treated rape victims line criminals

See I remembered your great claim!

I’ll make sure to remind you of it routinely!

You might want to get your memory checked out, it appears to be a bit glitchy. This is what I actually said:

Stop splitting hairs. If you mean by "complicit" they took no action then you are, of course, correct. To lie and accuse me of "going out of my way" to defend them is just bollox.

Don't worry - I'll be sure to remind you to get your memory checked out, routinely, of course!

a reply to: Grambler

Did a poster say that the police were not complicit in allowing these rapes to occur?

No, I did not.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Trump's senility rubbing off on the populace per-chance?

a reply to: andy06shake

Dementia is a terrible thing, and no joking matter.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Watched my poor wee Granny go with Vascular Dementia.

Jokes or not, the signs are all there with that Man.

a reply to: Freeborn

oldcarpy

The police were "complicit" in these crimes, were they?

I think that you should check what that word actually means.

As has been pointed out by another poster, the police certainly lacked the "balls" to do anything about this, but complicit? - no.

Hope something is the posters name

After saying no one allowed the rapes to occur, and me posting that they did allow them and treated victims like criminals

Look grambler no one ever said the police force is a well oiled machine, because it's not.

Yes after these defense of the police were called out, they changed their tune

But this is what they initially said

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes you feigned ignorance of what the word complicit meant

What a great defense for you!

Meanwhile as I showed, it wasn’t just the police allowed it to happen, it was they treated the victims like criminals

It was they tried to silence the London Times when they wrote the story in 2012

But hey, you stick to your guns that me calling them complicit was wrong

a reply to: Grambler

Well, unlike you, I am happy to admit when I am wrong, which I did and agreed with you. And I don't routinely misrepresent what others have said.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

Did a poster say that the police were not complicit in allowing these rapes to occur?

No, I did not.

Liar

I posted exactly what you said

Shall I do it again

police certainly lacked the "balls" to do anything about this, but complicit? - no.

You say I have a bad memory?

Seems I remembered your lie quite clearly

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

Well, unlike you, I am happy to admit when I am wrong, which I did and agreed with you. And I don't routinely misrepresent what others have said.

Again you are lying

You just said in a post above you never said the police weren’t complicit

You clearly did as I have shown

So you didn’t admit when you were wrong

You lied about it

a reply to: Grambler

Yes you feigned ignorance of what the word complicit meant

Oh, do stop it. Your trying to rewrite history is pretty tedious. What I actually said is there in black and white for all to see.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: oldcarpy

Watched my poor wee Granny go with Vascular Dementia.

Jokes or not, the signs are all there with that Man.

Yes I must have dementia, the signs are there

Oops what’s that, name accurately remembered what oldcarpy said?

This is exactly what I am talking about

You people stick together even when shown that one of you is lying

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

Yes you feigned ignorance of what the word complicit meant

Oh, do stop it. Your trying to rewrite history is pretty tedious. What I actually said is there in black and white for all to see.

Yes it is

You said the police weren’t complicit

You then lied and said you never said that

Your buddy agreed with you that I must have dementia because you did never say that

Meanwhile I posted the exact quote

Are you still claiming that you never said police weren’t complicit despite your own quote?

a reply to: Grambler

Yes, but I then posted this afterwards:

Stop splitting hairs. If you mean by "complicit" they took no action then you are, of course, correct. To lie and accuse me of "going out of my way" to defend them is just bollox.

Things move on you see.

Except you, of course.