Tommy arrested again

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

what the hell are you both on about? 

I think I reported one post to the mods once as it was outrageously racist and they deleted it (it used the "n" word if I remember correctly).

No idea what you or GG are on about, seriously, he has delusions about me, imagining me living in different countries and running different companies, he should seek help.

Oh my god not the "n" word   and you actually reported it.     like a schoolboy snitch    i know enough already,    Fair play to Georgia seems to have you sussed, with out any help at all,     

[johnnybangkok]

10 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

On a scale of 1 to 10   1 being "not at all"  and 10 being "extremely"     how woke do you consider yourself?

You are more than welcome to debate any of the FACTS in my original post but I can imagine your echo chamber doesn't allow for anything much more than name calling. VERY predictable.

You don't have to be 'woke' to know that Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon is a hypocritical POS, with only one VERY racist/Islamaphobic agenda. 

[BobBKK]

11 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

not using his full name in this particular case is clearly the same as using a different name   Alexander de Pfeffel  just would not have worked 

 There are no parts of Tommy Robinson that contain his hyphenated REAL name, and you know it.

[BobBKK]

13 hours ago, Kinok Farang said:

Big deal.

 
Yes it is, but we know you love Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon - why not use his real name? what's the problem?

[ElwoodP]

Flame and reply removed.

[BarraMarra]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13687429/anjem-choudary-attacks-london-bridge-jailed.html

[BarraMarra]

Just now, BarraMarra said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13687429/anjem-choudary-attacks-london-bridge-jailed.html

This is what the UK has put up with. Choudary jailed this time for life and its not the first time he has been jailed for preaching hatred. It looks like we have finally had enough of these Islamists and some are now being targeted. Many Mayors particularly in the North of England are Muslim Areas such as Glodwick in Oldham are no go areas for whites Bradford is known as Bradistan due to the high number of Pakistani people living there Leeds again areas taken over by British born Pakistani family's. What they do is take over an Area and become a smaller Islam School kids being taught the koran instead of Christian books, Some Churches converted to Mosques if the locals complain there accused of Islamophobia, or  motivating  racial hatred. Already this morning reports are coming in of an attack on a Mosque near the fatal stabbing in Southport of course the EDF and outside interferences  are being blamed for it.

[Kinok Farang]

32 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

This is what the UK has put up with. Choudary jailed this time for life and its not the first time he has been jailed for preaching hatred. It looks like we have finally had enough of these Islamists and some are now being targeted. Many Mayors particularly in the North of England are Muslim Areas such as Glodwick in Oldham are no go areas for whites Bradford is known as Bradistan due to the high number of Pakistani people living there Leeds again areas taken over by British born Pakistani family's. What they do is take over an Area and become a smaller Islam School kids being taught the koran instead of Christian books, Some Churches converted to Mosques if the locals complain there accused of Islamophobia, or  motivating  racial hatred. Already this morning reports are coming in of an attack on a Mosque near the fatal stabbing in Southport of course the EDF and outside interferences  are being blamed for it.

We have been at war with the Islamist jihadists for years but nobody will admit it.The time for strong leadership is now.

[BarraMarra]

Unless you live here in the UK you cannot comment on what its like to live in the UK. it is now us who are the minority. If a crime is committed by a Muslim or a black his identity is withheld as seen in most videos there faces are blurred out. Every terrorist has Islamist connections 90% of the grooming gangs are British Pakistani so cannot be thrown out once they completed there sentence. Some in Bradford are even walking the streets laughing at the judicial system. If we complain we have the threat of arrest but we are filmed and portrayed as far left were not far left we want justice.  

[Bday Prang]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 There are no parts of Tommy Robinson that contain his hyphenated REAL name, and you know it.

So just like cliff richard  elton john then ?  Still no big deal to anybody except you

[BarraMarra]

If there is no Islamification as one poster posted why are some Schools in big cities in England 90% Muslim students with Imam teachers teaching the Koran. If there born and bred in the UK you are English by Birth. Some Schools have had to change there dinners to avoid food inappropriate to Islamic children such as pork. Our leaders bend over backwards to appease them what the fail to see is there not interested in integrating into British life.

[Will B Good]

1 hour ago, Kinok Farang said:

We have been at war with the Islamist jihadists for years but nobody will admit it.The time for strong leadership is now.

 

 

55555

 

Is this a line from "The Life of Brian"?

[BarraMarra]

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

So just like cliff richard  elton john then ?  Still no big deal to anybody except you

What's Elton and Cliff got to do with this thread ??

[Bday Prang]

20 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

What's Elton and Cliff got to do with this thread ??

Nothing at all, but the member I was replying to seems to base a lot of his hatred of Tommy Robinson on the fact that it is not his real name. I was merely pointing out that there are other people who use different names, and it is not a big deal or  a valid reason to hate them 

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

Nothing at all, but the member I was replying to seems to base a lot of his hatred of Tommy Robinson on the fact that it is not his real name. I was merely pointing out that there are other people who use different names, and it is not a big deal or  a valid reason to hate them 

 

 

It's a big deal when you are trying to enter the US....555

[Bday Prang]

27 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Our leaders bend over backwards to appease them what the fail to see is there not interested in integrating into British life.

It's far worse than that ,  its not that they are merely not interested in integration,   they detest our culture and values in the same way that they detest all cultures and values other than their own .  They hate us , the koran tells them to , they are resisting and refusing integration with every fibre of their being. They would rejoice at our destruction. Its actually quite worrying now, thankfully I won't be around to see how things are in 20 years time   Like a burning oil refinery we might  have it under control to a degree at present, but it is showing signs of getting out of control and we will eventually be inevitably overwhelmed.  Once that happens , god help us 

[Bday Prang]

9 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

It's a big deal when you are trying to enter the US....555

It would be  for an immigration officer,  but personally  I couldn't really give a toss, his criminal record is no secret, and not really a surprise, 

[kimamey]

On 7/29/2024 at 1:25 AM, FruitPudding said:

I don't see what he did wrong.

 

Terrorism charges? Lol

 

He isn't Muslim enough to get a pass on that.

He showed a film he was ordered not to by a British court. The film makes allegations about the schoolboy Jamal Hijazi which the court deemed false. That in itself wouldn't be so much of a problem if it weren't for threats made to Jamal Hijazi and his family which necessitated them moving house. I think the use of anti terror laws is based on the fact that what Robinson does and says can cause acts and threats of violence even if he isn't involved himself. The recent case of Anjem Choudary is based on what he said rather than what he did. The anti terror laws allow police greater scope to demand answers I believe. Of course this is just what I've read as I'm not involved.

 

Tommy Robinson is an interesting person. Why call yourself Tommy Robinson when your name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon? Is it so he doesn't seem upper class. He's used other names as well. He also made a lot of money from his activities although I think that has reduced. He seems to have been involved in football violence as well.

[Bday Prang]

2 hours ago, Kinok Farang said:

We have been at war with the Islamist jihadists for years but nobody will admit it.The time for strong leadership is now.

It certainly isn't time to appear weak.   There is never a time for appearing weak or to be seen allowing oneself to be taken advantage of repeatedly,  The damage the lefty enablers and apologists are doing is incalculable , they should be tried for treason and then dealt with traditionally 

[Bday Prang]

12 minutes ago, kimamey said:

He showed a film he was ordered not to by a British court. The film makes allegations about the schoolboy Jamal Hijazi which the court deemed false. That in itself wouldn't be so much of a problem if it weren't for threats made to Jamal Hijazi and his family which necessitated them moving house. I think the use of anti terror laws is based on the fact that what Robinson does and says can cause acts and threats of violence even if he isn't involved himself. The recent case of Anjem Choudary is based on what he said rather than what he did. The anti terror laws allow police greater scope to demand answers I believe. Of course this is just what I've read as I'm not involved.

 

Tommy Robinson is an interesting person. Why call yourself Tommy Robinson when your name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon? Is it so he doesn't seem upper class. He's used other names as well. He also made a lot of money from his activities although I think that has reduced. He seems to have been involved in football violence as well.

They presumably could not arrest him for "normal" reasons and had to rely on the wider powers granted them by terror legislation and it sounds better for  the narrative to use such words.    If as they claim he had broken a high court injunction surely that would have been a sufficient reason to arrest him     No need to allude to terrorism

  

[Kinok Farang]

2 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

55555

 

Is this a line from "The Life of Brian"?

No,but now i see it in print,it does look a tad over-dramatic doesn't it?

Hey ho.

[kimamey]

8 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

They presumably could not arrest him for "normal" reasons and had to rely on the wider powers granted them by terror legislation and it sounds better for  the narrative to use such words.    If as they claim he had broken a high court injunction surely that would have been a sufficient reason to arrest him     No need to allude to terrorism

  

 

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the details but it looks to me from the little I know that the Terrorism Act 2000 may well apply. Had he abided by the judgement regarding the video and repeating claims made in it which were deemed false then there probably wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to like doing that so the police have to act. Keep in mind that the police don't make the rules, they just have to use the rules they have but they can't use them if they clearly don't apply.

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting this next section.

 

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

 

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

 

My guess would be that they might be using using section 1 and in section 2 (d) possibly (c)

 

From what I can see Robinson tries to inflame anger against Muslims. Clearly some are violent and dangerous people, but then so are some Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists etc. He doesn't seem so concerned about them.

[Bday Prang]

3 hours ago, kimamey said:

 

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the details but it looks to me from the little I know that the Terrorism Act 2000 may well apply. Had he abided by the judgement regarding the video and repeating claims made in it which were deemed false then there probably wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to like doing that so the police have to act. Keep in mind that the police don't make the rules, they just have to use the rules they have but they can't use them if they clearly don't apply.

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting this next section.

 

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

 

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

 

My guess would be that they might be using using section 1 and in section 2 (d) possibly (c)

 

From what I can see Robinson tries to inflame anger against Muslims. Clearly some are violent and dangerous people, but then so are some Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists etc. He doesn't seem so concerned about them.

The UK does not have the same social issues with "Buddhists, Hindus Atheists etc"  I have yet to hear of a follower of those religions being responsible for A terrorist attack . A beheading or joining a grooming gang. or indeed The mass stabbing of 3 little girls,   I might be wrong , perhaps your extensive legal knowledge can enlighten me.   Are you sure you're not a lawyer ? 

              I doubt there are any state secrets exposed in your comment . What law do you think you have broken,  Oh god am I implicated now?   I didn't actually  read it all  anyway just the end bit honest

[Kinok Farang]

3 hours ago, kimamey said:

 

I'm not a lawyer and I don't know all the details but it looks to me from the little I know that the Terrorism Act 2000 may well apply. Had he abided by the judgement regarding the video and repeating claims made in it which were deemed false then there probably wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to like doing that so the police have to act. Keep in mind that the police don't make the rules, they just have to use the rules they have but they can't use them if they clearly don't apply.

I hope I'm not breaking any rules by posting this next section.

 

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

 

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

 

My guess would be that they might be using using section 1 and in section 2 (d) possibly (c)

 

From what I can see Robinson tries to inflame anger against Muslims. Clearly some are violent and dangerous people, but then so are some Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists etc. He doesn't seem so concerned about them.

Your argument about other religions just doesn't hold water mate.There have been at least 6 different serious incidents in a week involving Muslims in the UK.I can't recall 6 incident in the last 20 years or so involving other religions.I know this and what's more you know this.

[georgegeorgia]

Yes arrest that Tommy guy 

 

He is not into Cultural enrichment and diversity ,how dare this fascist think that way 

 

Why isn't he being sent to a UK re-education camp ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 31 by georgegeorgia

[Kinok Farang]

As ever GG,thanks for joining in but can i suggest you concentrate on posts concerning other subjects such as trans-rights or the correct use of pronouns and leave this one to people that know what they're talking about.