4 hours ago, Sujo said:

To which TR gave an avenue for acquittal by his breaking the law.

No he did not.

1 minute ago, yogi100 said:

No he did not.

1. Lawyers defending the vile rapists argued for the dismissal of the jury as a direct result of Yaxley Lennon.

 

2. These vile rapists have a right to appeal, therefore your categorical denial of Yaxley Lennon’s impact on the trial has any merit.

 

I sincerely hope Yaxley Lennon’s behavior has not endangered the verdict, but to say it does not USA baseless claim.

 

14 minutes ago, yogi100 said:

We've yet to hear of what's happened in Telford and Huddersfield.

Not true. The BBC have just made a 4 part documentary on the problems in Asian areas in Huddersfield. Fronted by an Asian journalist from Huddersfield. Coverd the grooming gangs in Huddersfield. A really good and informative watch.......unless you are a white supremacist bigot with a closed mind of course.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

These vile rapists have a right to appeal, therefore your categorical denial of Yaxley Lennon’s impact on the trial has any merit.

Can't help but wonder if these pedos appeal, will they be let out of prison to carry on life in their "chicken shops" and taxis like they were during the trial that Tommy was following in his capacity as a journalist? Does anybody here see an inherent problem with these gang rapists of children being free to interact with children while out on bail? 

 Thank goodness for Tommy highlighting all this. It is an absolute disgrace. It will be no surprise that while out on bail - one of the rapists did a runner. But that's OK, ace judge Marston(yes same one that persecuted Tommy) found it all very amusing.

 

"After the jury had delivered their verdicts, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC explained to the them: "Sajid Hussain has, as they would say in the films, done a runner."

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/fury-over-rapist-run-15309220

26 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Can't help but wonder if these pedos appeal, will they be let out of prison to carry on life in their "chicken shops" and taxis like they were during the trial that Tommy was following in his capacity as a journalist? Does anybody here see an inherent problem with these gang rapists of children being free to interact with children while out on bail? 

 Thank goodness for Tommy highlighting all this. It is an absolute disgrace. It will be no surprise that while out on bail - one of the rapists did a runner. But that's OK, ace judge Marston(yes same one that persecuted Tommy) found it all very amusing.

 

"After the jury had delivered their verdicts, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC explained to the them: "Sajid Hussain has, as they would say in the films, done a runner."

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/fury-over-rapist-run-15309220

You imagine these vile rapists being set free during appeal and then ask if anyone sees anything wrong with it.

 

Well, yes, it’s something you imagined.

 

What you should concern yourself with is the likelihood of the trial verdict being found ‘unsafe’ due to Yaxley Lennon’s actions.

 

Such an outcome would result in these vile rapists being set free.

 

 

Let’s just remind ourselves again of how our Peado champion failed to do acknowledge his own Paedo chums in his previous gang. 

 

https://politicsandinsights.org/2018/05/29/the-edl-have-paedophiles-in-their-ranks-but-tommy-robinson-evidently-doesnt-condemn-them/

Edited July 10, 20197 yr by Kadilo

7 hours ago, nontabury said:

Correct in what you say,except for the last paragraph. T.R did not expose the crimes of these Muslim (Pakistani) peadophiles, the first person to speak out about this subject was a local women called Jayne Senior,and this was then followed up by a news reporter.

 And yes the authorities were well aware of what was going on, yet they decided to keep quite,in the interest of race relations.

 One M.P. from another area of Yorkshire, was Labours ANN Cryer, who when she went public in 2001 with what Pakistani Muslims in her constituencie were doing, was shunned by those at the top of the Labour Party. All part of pretending that nothing was happening. Political correctness must be adhered too. And to hell with the young vulnerable girls, who just happened to be white British.

 

    Yes, other people did initially expose them , but the investigations were swept under the carpet , the media generally ignored the investigations and didnt report on them .

Just compare the media coverage that Adam Johnson and Cliff Richard received  , compared to the media coverage that the Muslim grooming gangs received .

   There was an attempt by the media  hush up the grooming gangs and not report/expose them  and that is why Tommy felt the need to personally publicise them .

 

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

 

    Yes, other people did initially expose them , but the investigations were swept under the carpet , the media generally ignored the investigations and didnt report on them .

Just compare the media coverage that Adam Johnson and Cliff Richard received  , compared to the media coverage that the Muslim grooming gangs received .

   There was an attempt by the media  hush up the grooming gangs and not report/expose them  and that is why Tommy felt the need to personally publicise them .

 

“There was an attempt by the media  hush up the grooming gangs and not report/expose them  and that is why Tommy felt the need to personally publicise them .”

 

By standing outside the court and reading from a BBC report.

Numerous off topic posts, along with a bunch of bickering and discussion of posters sex lives have been removed.

I have seen very little new here in the last dozen pages.

Keep it on topic, polite and without personal comments, or the topic will be closed.

Still to see a convincing explanation of how asking a convicted criminal how he felt about the verdict could have 'collapsed' the trial

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“There was an attempt by the media  hush up the grooming gangs and not report/expose them  and that is why Tommy felt the need to personally publicise them .”

 

By standing outside the court and reading from a BBC report.

No, he got prosecuted for filming it and live streaming it and he stated that all the information that he relayed, was already in the public domain 

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Still to see a convincing explanation of how asking a convicted criminal how he felt about the verdict could have 'collapsed' the trial

TR opened a New Website as a result of being de-platformed and has outlined his defence in a video dated 04 July. I had no idea that either existed until driven to look by some of the more extreme views aired in this thread (but not necessarily by 'his' side!).

 

Stifling one side while allowing the other a free hand presents a lop-sided view which is why i have posted these & If it isn't already clear I am extremely wary of TR but have yet to find a smoking gun to satisfy my own idle curiosity.

Edited July 10, 20197 yr by evadgib

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Still to see a convincing explanation of how asking a convicted criminal how he felt about the verdict could have 'collapsed' the trial

The guy was approaching defendants before conviction outside the Court and then broadcasting live. Thankfully in this instance the Judge dismissed the appeal.

 

The Independent revealed that Robinson’s Facebook live video sparked an application by five defence lawyers to dismiss a jury who were deliberating on charges against men who groomed and raped girls in Huddersfield.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-trump-asylum-us-infowars-alex-jones-contempt-case-a8996166.html

Nonsense from a left wing rag, the men were already convicted and pleading by the lawyers does not mean the trial could have collapsed, also they did that after Robinson was frogged marched off to prison illegally. Where is the precedent for somebody in public addressing a convicted criminal leading to the collapse of a court hearing?

21 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Nonsense from a left wing rag, the men were already convicted and pleading by the lawyers does not mean the trial could have collapsed, also they did that after Robinson was frogged marched off to prison illegally. Where is the precedent for somebody in public addressing a convicted criminal leading to the collapse of a court hearing?

You have already demonstrated you use the likes of Breibart who are proven not to be credible. Provide factual link. 

Edited July 10, 20197 yr by simple1

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

TR opened a New Website as a result of being de-platformed and has outlined his defence in a video dated 04 July. I had no idea that either existed until driven to look by some of the more extreme views aired in this thread (but not necessarily by 'his' side!).

 

Stifling one side while allowing the other a free hand presents a lop-sided view which is why i have posted these & If it isn't already clear I am extremely wary of TR but have yet to find a smoking gun to satisfy my own idle curiosity.

You continually tell us you are wary of/no fan of Yaxley Lennon yet expend a great deal of energy defending him.

 

 

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

No, he got prosecuted for filming it and live streaming it and he stated that all the information that he relayed, was already in the public domain 

I did not mention his arrest in post #458, and for good reason. 

 

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim of a media ‘hush up’ given Yaxley Lennon read from a BBC ( media) report.

 

There was no media hush up.

 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You continually tell us you are wary of/no fan of Yaxley Lennon yet expend a great deal of energy defending him.

 

 

Maybe he as an open mind and he isnt biased and maybe he doesnt grab a pitchfork and chase the witches down the street  as soon as someone shouts out "Witch"

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You continually tell us you are wary of/no fan of Yaxley Lennon yet expend a great deal of energy defending him.

That's unfortunately necessary to prevent the likes of you spoonfeeding 'my' opinion to your supporters as seen yet again in this example.

 

BTW: The DM has a story on TR today which leads to an interesting rant in which he pleads for asylum from Trump. I won't bother posting but you get my drift.

 

If it wasn't for the behavior i have identfied in this thread there's a good chance that the ordinary decent posters that are intrigued by it's content might never have bothered to have looked.

Edited July 10, 20197 yr by evadgib

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Nonsense from a left wing rag, the men were already convicted and pleading by the lawyers does not mean the trial could have collapsed, also they did that after Robinson was frogged marched off to prison illegally. Where is the precedent for somebody in public addressing a convicted criminal leading to the collapse of a court hearing?

Since you asked:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-13905765

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did not mention his arrest in post #458, and for good reason. 

 

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim of a media ‘hush up’ given Yaxley Lennon read from a BBC ( media) report.

 

There was no media hush up.

 

 

   There was mass rape of Children going on over decades  and the media kept it hushed up  , as I seem to recall  , Tommy read out the names of the defendants that were written in the Courts .

   

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

 

   There was mass rape of Children going on over decades  and the media kept it hushed up  , as I seem to recall  , Tommy read out the names of the defendants that were written in the Courts .

   

Yaxley Lennon has been convicted for breaching a court order.

 

Paint that as you wish, tge crime he committed and the verdict are a matter of court record.

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did not mention his arrest in post #458, and for good reason. 

 

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of the claim of a media ‘hush up’ given Yaxley Lennon read from a BBC ( media) report.

 

There was no media hush up.

 

What was the BBC report that Tommy read out that got him into trouble ?

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What was the BBC report that Tommy read out that got him into trouble ?

What am I your research assistant already?!

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

What am I your research assistant already?!

You are not my reseach assistant , no 

You stated that Tommy read out a BBC report live on FB and I asked you what it was that he read out .

Surely you know what it was that he read out and can provide a link to the report  (which was read out)?

Just now, sanemax said:

You are not my reseach assistant , no 

You stated that Tommy read out a BBC report live on FB and I asked you what it was that he read out .

Surely you know what it was that he read out and can provide a link to the report  (which was read out)?

Again, I’m not your research assistant.

 

The court has handed down a verdict that he breached a court order.

 

He’s been found guilty.

 

Not at all surprising when he  broadcast a video of him breaking the law and made reference to the law he was breaking as he did so.

 

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, I’m not your research assistant.

 

The court has handed down a verdict that he breached a court order.

 

He’s been found guilty.

 

Not at all surprising when he  broadcast a video of him breaking the law and made reference to the law he was breaking as he did so.

 

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

We can just assume that Tommy wasnt reading out a BBC report then .

And that was a false report by yourself 

Tommy got found in contempt of Court for live streaming the defendants arriving .

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, I’m not your research assistant.

 

The court has handed down a verdict that he breached a court order.

 

He’s been found guilty.

 

Not at all surprising when he  broadcast a video of him breaking the law and made reference to the law he was breaking as he did so.

 

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

If you make a claim, you should be able to back it up. And for what it's worth the mods really don't like it when you tell other people it's up to them to research your claims. I think the reasons for this are obvious.

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

We can just assume that Tommy wasnt reading out a BBC report then .

And that was a false report by yourself 

Tommy got found in contempt of Court for live streaming the defendants arriving .

Not just that by any means:

The court heard the "reckless" footage, broadcast on May 25, 2018, saw Robinson urge his followers to harass the defendants on trial for grooming children while the jury considered its verdict.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-case-contempt-court-ruling-old-bailey-edl-sentencing-a8996396.html

Tommy Robinson encouraged vigilante action, judges say

"Tommy Robinson broadcast reports that encouraged “vigilante action” and “unlawful physical” aggression against defendants in a sexual exploitation trial, according to the judges who found him guilty of contempt of court.

The full decision of the high court, released on Tuesday, explains their reasons for ruling against the former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) , whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/09/tommy-robinson-encouraged-vigilante-action-judges-say