2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

It was in british waters the french should even be there

How does that excuse Yobbo Tommo slashing an inflatable boat with a knife?

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

You posted a video as some sort of "triumph". I pointed out at least four factual inaccuracies in it - actual whoppers. Not just little errors, but massive, huge whoppers, big old lies. Can you at least respond to this or will you deflect or rubbish me for watching the video you posted and commenting on it? Do you just want us all to watch whatever you post and go "Bravo BarraMarra, great video!!"? no matter if it is truthful or not?

And now it's my fault for pointing that out?

My plasma TV has nothing to do with it. Illegal migrants exist. Crime exists. But if I post a video with a man telling a load of lies (and not even trying to provide evidence to back them up - because there isn't any) I would expect to be called out on it. Anyone should do that, it keeps us all honest.

But when I do it you cry.

So I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself. Can you respond to the four claims in the video I highlighted as being fabricated? What's your opinion on them?

I'm not playing your game Joebloggs you wont answer the questions either instead your trying to deflect the simple question. You are correct though on one assumption, i am stupid for trying to converse with you. This will end now goodbye. Oh and buy the way i don't care when you respond to this with your usual winding up point scoring and telling tales to your little membership on here.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How does that excuse Yobbo Tommo slashing an inflatable boat with a knife?

Errrrr so it can't be used again.

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I guess your eyes aren't as good as you think they are. I've made it bigger and changed the color. Maybe that will help.

Jeez. That was your worthless copy and paste. Nobody claimed there were migrants on it. But there was, clearly, a French rescue worker in high viz (just so you don't miss it, that's the bright orange jacket) on the boat when Thomas approach it, shouted at it, then slashed it. Ask your AI if that's the case.

That is the discussion, that is what I claimed. Not a single person here has said there were migrants on the boat so I have no idea why you are copy and pasting that worthless bit of AI yet again.

If you like you can ask AI if there were any elephants or potatoes on the boat. It has the same relevance as no-one claimed there were elephants or potatoes on it. Here - case closed. No elephants or potatoes, AI said so.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by josephbloggs

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Quote

1. What is your approach to the justice aspect regarding Tommo? Wait for the full facts surrounding all of the circumstances or string him up because you watched a video that gave you a slice of the entire event?

My approach to that is I can look at the video he posted, as can you. I can comment on what I think of the video, as can you. I can comment on my interpretation of that video, as can you. That is open to anyone. I can't comment on what happened before the video started or after it stopped. And nor have I.

I can comment on what I think of him as a person.

I can comment on what crimes I think may have been committed, as can you.

What I can't comment on is what crimes he may or may not be charged with, that will be down to the police and CPS. And guilt will depend on his plea (if he pleads guilty) or the result of a trial if he pleads not guilty.

Is that all clear now? If you want to ask me the same AI question again I probably won't bother answering, just so you kno

I haven't begrudged you from expressing your thoughts and feeling, e.g. commenting. In fact I said, "Good." And that includes commenting on what crimes you think he may have committed. So no worries there, mate. We;'re on the same page.

The point is you've made up your mind already as to his guilt or innocence despite admitting that all the facts aren't in yet. A bit premature? That's how lynch mobs are formed. Sure, you're free to voice your opinion. But I'd suggest you make damn certain your opinion is grounded on all of the facts, not just some of them. Despite how obvious they may appear in and by themselves.

Again, how did the French rescue worker get on the dinghy? He obviously didn't swim out to it. If he got on in the dinghy from a boat then he could just as easily get back on the boat, true? I'm just suggesting a possible and plausible scenario. What happened to him anyway? I take it he didn't drown else we would have heard about that.

Lots of things we don't know yet. We don't know yet what potential peril he was in, if any. Yet you seem to talk with absolute certainty.

Why not just comment with lots of qualifiers. Like "if this then . . " "If not then . . . " "It appears to me . . . but I really don't know."

You'd then start sounding highly intelligent. Like a guy who thinks things through before spouting off with a bunch of comments that could be dead wrong.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by Tippaporn

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How does that excuse Yobbo Tommo slashing an inflatable boat with a knife?

no excuse required he slashed an abandoned boat that had been involved in a crime, and was either a shipping hazard or likely to become one or more worryingly could possibly be reused for a similar crime,

Do i really have to explain everything for you ?

3 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Errrrr so it can't be used again.

That’s true of many things destroyed by criminal damage.

Yobbo Tommo will hopefully face the consequences of his knife crime.

27 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

At least get your f. cking facts right before you post B/S.

Oh this is golden! I'm printing this out and having it framed.

1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

no excuse required he slashed an abandoned boat that had been involved in a crime, and was either a shipping hazard or likely to become one or more worryingly could possibly be reused for a similar crime,

Do i really have to explain everything for you ?

The boat had an occupant so was by definition not ‘abandoned’.

Regardless, there is no excuse for criminal damage, hopefully Yobbo Tommo will face the consequences of his knife crime.

Edited September 24Sep 24 by Chomper Higgot

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why not just comment with lots of qualifiers. Like "if this then . . " "If not then . . . " "It appears to me . . . but I really don't know."

You'd then start sounding highly intelligent. Like a guy who thinks things through before spouting off with a bunch of comments that could be dead wrong.

He would be better off staying silent

A classic example which reiforces the old adage that Its better to remain silent and allow others to suspect ones an idiot than to open ones mouth and prove it

6 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Jeez. That was your worthless copy and paste. Nobody claimed there were migrants on it. But there was, clearly, a French rescue worker in high viz (just so you don't miss it, that's the bright orange jacket) on the boat when Thomas approach it, shouted at it, then slashed it. Ask your AI if that's the case.

That is the discussion, that is what I claimed. Not a single person here has said there were migrants on the boat so I have no idea why you are copy and pasting that worthless bit of AI yet again.

If you like you can ask AI if there were any elephants or potatoes on the boat. It has the same relevance as no-one claimed there were elephants or potatoes on it. Here - case closed. No elephants or potatoes, AI said so.

Keep your eye on the ball, Joe. "Unattributed." Remember? Why not just admit that my copy and paste did have attributions and say you made a mistake (at best). Life is so much easier when folks admit to errors rather than go on and on and on in a wasted effort to be right when clearly they're not.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The boat had an occupant so was by definition not ‘abandoned’.

Regardless, there is no excuse for criminal damage, hopefully Yobbo Tommo will face the consequences of his knife crime.

I'm sure he will face consequences , once Burnham gets advised as to the most politically advantageous out come and instructs the judiciary accordingly,, It certainly won't have anything to do with "criminal damage" however they word it

5 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

He would be better off staying silent

A classic example which reiforces the old adage that Its better to remain silent and allow others to suspect ones an idiot than to open ones mouth and prove it

Lefties will never admit to being wrong about anything. Has anyone else noticed that? These threads would be much, much shorter if they adhered to the old adage, "Honesty is the best policy."

On 9/23/2026 at 1:25 PM, BKKBike09 said:

Rather like some on this forum, living as (I presume) legal migrants to Thailand, who praise the authorities whenever they catch and deport people who are here illegally. I don't see them calling for the Thai authorities to say "oh well, they made it Thailand so we should just take care of them now".

Betting there is no response to this post from the soy boys on here because they know it’s true.

Just now, Bday Prang said:

I'm sure he will face consequences , once Burnham gets advised as to the most politically advantageous out come and instructs the judiciary accordingly,, It certainly won't have anything to do with "criminal damage" however they word it

It’s not a suprise you now switch to conspiracy.

If, as I hope, Yobbo Tommo faces the consequences for his criminal damage knife crime it will be because he provided the police the evidence against himself.

Thick as mince.

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I haven't begrudged you from expressing your thoughts and feeling, e.g. commenting. In fact I said, "Good." And that includes commenting on what crimes you think he may have committed. So no worries there, mate. We;'re on the same page.

The point is you've made up your mind already as to his guilt or innocence despite admitting that all the facts aren't in yet. A bit premature? That's how lynch mobs are formed. Sure, you're free to voice your opinion. But I'd suggest you make damn certain your opinion is grounded on all of the facts, not just some of them. Despite how obvious they may appear in and by themselves.

Again, how did the French rescue worker get on the dinghy? He obviously didn't swim out to it. If he got on in the dinghy from a boat then he could just as easily get back on the boat, true? I'm just suggesting a possible and plausible scenario. What happened to him anyway? I take it he didn't drown else we would have heard about that.

Lots of things we don't know yet. We don't know yet what potential peril he was in, if any. Yet you seem to talk with absolute certainty.

Why not just comment with lots of qualifiers. Like "if this then . . " "If not then . . . " "It appears to me . . . but I really don't know."

You'd then start sounding highly intelligent. Like a guy who thinks things through before spouting off with a bunch of comments that could be dead wrong.

I'll give you credit for engaging politely and reasonably and eloquently. Probably shouldn't talk about lynch mobs though, eh?

I gave my opinion based on what I have seen (that he posted). I haven't seen what happened before, or after, the video was recording. I haven't seen any video evidence from the other boats but I am sure that will be available to the police (the RNLI all carry cameras, and I encourage anyone to watch the superb BBC series "Saving Lives At Sea").

I don't see what else can come out to show that he didn't, in fact, attempt to puncture another vessel on high waters while it had an occupant. But will be up to the police's interpretation.

I also take issue with the "but the other guy didn't drown" or the "but there were other boats nearby" defence. It stands for nothing. It does not change his actions one bit.

Let's say I run down the street and randomly kick a car. The car owner is very angry and calls the police and he has me on video kicking his car. Can my defence be "but the dent isn't that bad, it didn't hurt anyone"? No, it's still a criminal act.

If there's a man running for a bus and I physically restrain him and prevent him boarding. Can my defence be "but there was another bus right behind, he wasn't late for work"?

Edited September 24Sep 24 by josephbloggs

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Keep your eye on the ball, Joe. "Unattributed." Remember? Why not just admit that my copy and paste did have attributions and say you made a mistake (at best). Life is so much easier when folks admit to errors rather than go on and on and on in a wasted effort to be right when clearly they're not.

Ok, we can keep playing word games all day. But by unattributed I mean with no link to the source.

And it doesn't change my point that you were posting - and highlighting - to showthat there were no migrants on board when nobody ever claimed there was.

Let's leave it there.

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Lefties will never admit to being wrong about anything. Has anyone else noticed that? These threads would be much, much shorter if they adhered to the old adage, "Honesty is the best policy."

Honesty is the best policy. It's why I post links and evidence to every claim I make.

So you think lying is for "lefties"? How do you feel about BarraMarra posting a video that is full of huge whopping great lies. Pretty sure he wouldn't like being called a "lefty". And then he gets upset when I challenge them.

Any thoughts on those lies?

Edited September 24Sep 24 by josephbloggs
Very stupid typo

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

I'm sure he will face consequences , once Burnham gets advised as to the most politically advantageous out come and instructs the judiciary accordingly,, It certainly won't have anything to do with "criminal damage" however they word it

It’s not a suprise you now switch to conspiracy.

Reminds me of the Casablanca scene:

Captain Renault: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

Chomper: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that politiking is going on in here!"

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not a suprise you now switch to conspiracy.

If, as I hope, Yobbo Tommo faces the consequences for his criminal damage knife crime it will be because he provided the police the evidence against himself.

Thick as mince.

yes he should have acted covertly and then claimed responsibility for it later , those who do that seem to evade your negative comments Never heard you refer to them as "thick as mince" not even the ones who blow themselves up believing 72 virgin (goats?) await them

2 hours ago, sungod said:

Did you make all this up whilst sat on the bog this morning?

No need to make it up, its common sense. Even the officer said much the same today when he made the arrest "Footage of the arrest, shared online by far-right activist Tommy Robinson, shows Thomas being approached by officers at a petrol station.

An officer can be heard telling him: "I've got information to suggest that you've been involved in some damage.""

Just because someone has an opinion about something, doesn't give them carte blanche to destroy others property!

45 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

no excuse required he slashed an abandoned boat that had been involved in a crime, and was either a shipping hazard or likely to become one or more worryingly could possibly be reused for a similar crime,

Do i really have to explain everything for you ?

Chances are it would have been towed back to the French Coast and reused in an identical crime.

So technically Danny Thommo was preventing a criminal act.

12 minutes ago, Palatus said:

Just because someone has an opinion about something, doesn't give them carte blanche to destroy others property!

And who owns the said dinghy Bud?

Are those Human Traffickers going to lodge a complaint?

Just as a side note to this discussion its good to see net migration is well down this year as are the boat crossings down.Personally i believe it should be the job of the french police to slash the boats (thats what they are paid for).

• Net Migration: According to Office for National Statistics (via Net migration to the UK), net migration dropped to 171,000 for the year ending December 2025. This is down more than 80% from its peak of 944,000 in 2023.

  Migration Observatory +3

From what I have read, there was a French rescue worker on board at the time, so a lot will depend on what crime, if any, he is charged with, but if the powers that be wanted to get rid of him for a long time.

Under English law, destroying or damaging property while being reckless as to whether life is endangered is an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

9 minutes ago, 23RD said:

And who owns the said dinghy Bud?

Are those Human Traffickers going to lodge a complaint?

I think we can dispense with the " Human traffickers " nonsense.

This is a well oiled criminal enterprise.

3 minutes ago, supersomchai said:

Net Migration: According to Office for National Statistics (via Net migration to the UK), net migration dropped to 171,000 for the year ending December 2025. This is down more than 80% from its peak of 944,000 in 2023.

You can thank Sunak for that fall, by

Raising the financial thresholds

Cutting dependents from various categories of Visa's.

14 minutes ago, 23RD said:

Chances are it would have been towed back to the French Coast and reused in an identical crime.

So technically Danny Thommo was preventing a criminal act.

Chances are nothing of the sort - unless you have evidence that the French coastguard tow them back to reused. Yeah, thought not.

Just make any old nonsense up.

Why on Earth has this got into ASEAN news? I know - because the MSM in UK is so obsessed with calling anyone who cares about security of the nation "FAR right" and does everything they can peddle that meme anywhere - particularly FAR left rags like the Guardian.
The article omits to mention that there were NO migrants in the boat when he slashed it (they had already let the dinghy via the RNLI taxi service) and he did it to stop the French taking it back to ferry the next lot over to us. These dinghies also have several air compartments so slashing one does not sink it so the 'dangerous' bit is completely over-blown.

3 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

Under English law, destroying or damaging property while being reckless as to whether life is endangered is an offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

So why hasn't every individual Invader that crossed from France on the said vessel been changed with the above offence?

It a Human Traffickers dinghy not a P&O Ferry.