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

a reply to: Grambler

I have to pop out for a couple of hours or so on some business.

I will be back!

a reply to: Grambler

I'm going on about Trump primarily.

You're not senile Grambler.

In this instance, however, you seem to be a racist sympathizer, that loves a good old word salad and an argument, and your refusal to accept the facts about Tommy for what they are, nor in the spirit in which they are offered just does not make any sence.

a reply to: Grambler

No, I did not lie. Your pathetic attempts to twist my words are transparent.

Yes, I did initially say that the police were not "complicit" and then I revised my position as follows:

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.

You see, I am quite able to have my mind changed for me. Which is generally regarded as a good thing.

a reply to: oldcarpy

So you lied just a few minutes ago when you said you never said they weren’t complicit

a reply to: andy06shake

I may have to go back to the wasps, at least it isn't half as unpleasant as constantly being called a liar by a tedious keyboard warrior.

Crazy. The UK gov, who failed the victims of these gangs, is now jailing it’s own critics.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Me:

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

You:

“No, I did not”

Minutes later also you

“Yes, I did initially say that the police were not "complicit"


You are a liar

a reply to: andy06shake

I am not defending a racist

Meanwhile you could take care of child rapists so easily according to you, but as long as it’s not your child raped you can’t be bothered to do anything

One of the most disgusting comments I have heard on a long time

Great job!

I can't believe a thread about Stephen Y-L getting banged up is on the 48th page!

To Grambler, the problem is that SYL was an idiot with how he went about it. If he had filmed his rant from home (for example), he may have got a slap on the wrist but probably not even that.

He didn't though, he filmed right outside court as defendents were due to be brought into court. This is something that he had previously been warned about by judges as that is the bit that really crosses the line as far as potentially prejudicing the trial goes.

He ignored the judicial advice that he was already on a warning for. That is stupidity and therefore entirely his own fault - there is literally no defence for it. His own lawyers have stated this was also explained to him, ad nauseum, by themselves in order to explain what the judges comments meant.....and he ignored it.

If i take you at face value, and this is only about freedom of speech and the laws being applied equally, then you can't really argue with jail time for ignoring all this can you? If you provoke the judiciary, the judiciary tends to bite back - and they have far more clout than you or i.

So, again, if he had filmed this at home or anywhere away from the court, he would have been fine - instead he chose to try to make a facile point and it has backfired on him big time.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
Crazy. The UK gov, who failed the victims of these gangs, is now jailing it’s own critics.

Typically deluded response as far as anything Stephen Yaxley-Lennon related goes......

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Grambler

I have to pop out for a couple of hours or so on some business.

I will be back!

Look forward to it

Meanwhile, I have no doubt you can post people saying they don’t condone what the police did

My point was they did initially make the comments I said (then lied about it in one case)

Sure it’s easy after being called out to change your position, but intaly they made excuses for the police ignoring these crimes and treating victims like criminals

a reply to: Grambler

Sigh. Look. I initially did say that they were not complicit and then I changed my mind. It's allowed, you know.

Please go back to your pictures of Yaxley-Lennon with your box of tissues.

If it's a battle of wits your'e after you should know that out of principle I never engage an unarmed man.

a reply to: Flavian

Not yjenlaw does not say it’s ok to film at home but not at the courthouse

And as my initial comment was in this post, the ag actually said that everyone should watch their social media posts because even they can make you guilty of contempt

This is my concern for the people of the uk

As I posted, the Epstein case may drag even a prince from the uk into it

If that prince or any other prominent us person goes on trial, according to the ag, it will technically be against the law for anyone in the uk to comment on it

It will be up to them to decide who gets to discuss the case at that point, and arrest who they like

That is horrendous and no matter your feelings in tommy should frighten you

a reply to: Grambler

So you finally agree that Tommy is a racist then?

I would protect my family and friends with my life Grambler.

Canny be responsible for the 66.04 million other souls of the nation, as i simply don't have the time. LoL

Whats quite simply disgusting is your refusal to see Tommy for what he is.

Plain as day really.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

Sigh. Look. I initially did say that they were not complicit and then I changed my mind. It's allowed, you know.

Please go back to your pictures of Yaxley-Lennon with your box of tissues.

If it's a battle of wits your'e after you should know that out of principle I never engage an unarmed man.

Ok so you knew you initially said that

Then just around a half an hour I ago you lied and said you didn’t say that

You could have said “I I initially said that but changed my mind “

But you didn’t; you lied

So you are a liar

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
Crazy. The UK gov, who failed the victims of these gangs, is now jailing it’s own critics.

Typically deluded response as far as anything Stephen Yaxley-Lennon related goes......

Well some folks in the UK will jump off a cliff if their gov told them to, so i’m Not surprised you’d applaud such horrible treatment for such a minor crime.

a reply to: Freeborn

As far as I'm aware no-one here on ATS has tried to defend the failures of our politicians, police, social workers, CPS etc in the past.

You must not have read this discussion then because it is full of that.

That they deliberately chose to ignore these cases is completely indefensible and anyone, regardless of previous public standing or stature, should held accountable and prosecuted in full accordance with UK Law.

But instead of that the full weight of the state is thrown against the people saying children are being raped and the state is not doing anything about it and the State is scared to act because they might be called racist. And then WHEN anyoine says this they are called a racist and a nazi and the state and media only attack them and dont focus on dealing with the child rapists or the role of Islam in it.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: oldcarpy

Me:

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

You:

“No, I did not”

Minutes later also you

“Yes, I did initially say that the police were not "complicit"


You are a liar

Except that's not quite how it went, is it?

a reply to: andy06shake

No I don’t agree tommy is a racist

I think he hates Islam, like you hate Christianity

You can’t provide anything for your claim tommy is a racist, just saying google it

So far one user posted something of tommy I had never seen; him saying after 7/7 that all Muslim communities were responsible

That’s terrible and I’m glad I saw that

He has aense changed his mid like oldcarpy, and says he has does not blame all Muslims and has Muslim friends

Is that true? I don’t know

If he is a racist, I condemn that

I haven’t seen proof though, and my “defense” of him is defending free speech and a system silencing critics and being harsher in him than child rapists

a reply to: Flavian

What is illegal about filming or ranting outside a court? There is no law against it!