# Yaxley going back to jail



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

What a great start to the weekend. 

Perhaps the thick fucker could take a journalism course while he is there.


----------



## Third Party (Jul 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> What a great start to the weekend.
> 
> Perhaps the thick fucker could take a journalism course while he is there.


Who is Yaxley?


----------



## Intolerant (Jul 5, 2019)

Who gives a shit what goes on in your country.


----------



## Dekster (Jul 5, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > What a great start to the weekend.
> ...



A far-right, anti-Muslim activist in the UK.  He was originally arrested for live-streaming a criminal trial involving Muslim defendants in violation of the court's order.  He was released on a technicality after his original contempt proceeding and now is  rearrested.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

Intolerant said:


> Who gives a shit what goes on in your country.


American trash are funding the ****.
Tommy Robinson faces jail after judges find him in contempt of court


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 5, 2019)

Tommy defends fascism in action yet again.

Is anybody surprised?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 5, 2019)

Robinson is being persecuted because of who he is and his political stance which is pro West and anti Muslim.
Nothing more. It's purely politically driven persecution.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 5, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tommy defends fascism in action yet again.
> 
> Is anybody surprised?



Fascism has a proud tradition in the UK.  From the BUF to present day.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Robinson is being persecuted because of who he is and his political stance which is pro West and anti Muslim.
> Nothing more. It's purely politically driven persecution.


He isnt being persecuted. He broke the law.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy defends fascism in action yet again.
> ...


And Mosley and his mates got their heads kicked in.


----------



## Meathead (Jul 5, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > What a great start to the weekend.
> ...


And wtf cares?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> He isnt being persecuted. He broke the law.


The law is enforced selectively, to say the least. The media isn't hamstrung by this seldom enforced law.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > He isnt being persecuted. He broke the law.
> ...


Actually they are. There are several high profile cases where they have been held to account. Generally the professional press understands the rules and keeps to them. There were 29 separate but linked trials that this clown put at risk. Fuck him.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Actually they are. There are several high profile cases where they have been held to account. Generally the professional press understands the rules and keeps to them. There were 29 separate but linked trials that this clown put at risk. Fuck him.


I just dispute the whole premise that taking someone's picture puts him in legal jeopardy. It's all bullshit. Ever hear of a gent named O.J. Simpson by any chance?

I watched the slow speed car chase when the LA cops were following O.J. _en masse _down the LA freeway at bar in Sonoma, California with my brother on a big screen t.v. because the NBA playoff game we were trying to watch had been preempted due to this nationally watched event.
Maybe aside from Charles Manson no case in history had the public attention O.J. got.

And yet he was acquitted. Publicity does NOT equal "at risk". When the British press descended on Jimmy Saville's home with helicopters there were no repercussions for them maybe because they weren't taking an unpopular stance against grooming gangs.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 5, 2019)

Once Briton becomes a colony of Belgium, none of this will matter.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Actually they are. There are several high profile cases where they have been held to account. Generally the professional press understands the rules and keeps to them. There were 29 separate but linked trials that this clown put at risk. Fuck him.
> ...


It was Cliff Richards home not Savilles, But this was a different situation. Cliff wasnt on trial, I dont even think he was charged. And he wreaked his revenge  in the civil courts afterwards.I thought that was a shocking episode and I also wondered how he would have had a fair trial after it. Having said that I understand why the police did it.

Some of the defendants in the Yaxley case applied to have their cases dismissed on the back of all of this. That would have been a travesty.

This is a decent article on the subject.
Tommy Robinson case: What is contempt of court?

This lists a few other cases of contempt.

*What other famous cases have there been?*
*In 2011, the Sun and the Daily Mail were found guilty of contempt for pictures they published during a murder trial. They had shown the defendant holding a gun, which risked prejudicing the jury.

The following year, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror were found guilty of contempt, following serial killer Levi Bellfield's conviction for the murder of schoolgirl Milly Dowler.

Their articles were part of an "avalanche" of bad character information about Bellfield. The Daily Mirror article detailed his violent treatment and sexual abuse of his ex-wife and a former partner.*


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Robinson is being persecuted because of who he is and his political stance which is pro West and anti Muslim.
> ...


He broke Sharia law, true.

.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 5, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Can you quote that law ?


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 5, 2019)

Intolerant said:


> Who gives a shit what goes on in your country.



Obviously the whole turd population of Wales cares deeply!

Normal Welshmen?


NAW....they're too busy.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 6, 2019)

Traffic warden laughs as he slaps ticket on Tommy Robinson’s 'battle bus'




The only popular traffic warden in Britain.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 6, 2019)

England loves the process of submitting to Islam, it seems. They can't wait to become absorbed into the UK caliphate.


----------



## jillian (Jul 6, 2019)

Intolerant said:


> Who gives a shit what goes on in your country.


Cool how you live up to your nic


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 6, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy defends fascism in action yet again.
> ...



Looks like Trump rally to me






Oh, no, wait. 20,000+ American Nazis, my mistake.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 6, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


Oh good, that means they can behead him in prison...


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 6, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh good, that means they can behead him in prison...


Seemingly a facetious wish but not that far from the truth, I would wager.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh good, that means they can behead him in prison...
> ...


Just pulling Aletheophobe's chain. Yaxley would be as safe in prison as any other anti-Muslim RWNJ. Nothing happened to him last two or three times he's been in prison (I lose count).


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 6, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Just pulling Aletheophobe's chain. Yaxley would be as safe in prison as any other anti-Muslim RWNJ. Nothing happened to him last two or three times he's been in prison (I lose count).


From my understanding it all depends on where the authorities place him. He could get the shiv at any moment or he might stay alive in a higher security designation. It's all up to the good graces of a government that seems to want him permanently shut up.
Intervention and appeals from other governments might be his strongest defense against outraged Muslim forces.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 6, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Oh good, that means they can behead him in prison...




So, I see Tommy Taint isn't the only enthusiastic supporter of child rape.

A person opposes the absolutely massive incidences of child rape and so you brainwashed cretins want him tossed in jail and beheaded.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 6, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > What a great start to the weekend.
> ...



Yaxley is the given name of the activist Tommy Robinson, who is attempting to raise awareness as to the massive and widespread rape of children at the hands of Muslim men. In Rotherham, over a thousand girls have been raped repeatedly by organized Muslim gangs, and that is out of a total metro population of just 300,000 people.  the same thing is happening all over Britain, where underaged girls are groomed and then passed around among Muslim been who violate them repeatedly and very cruelly because the girls are white.

 Tommy Taint and Vagabond are supporters of these child rapes and so want Tommy Robinson in jail for trying to raise awareness of the widespread nature of the issue. They hope to silence opposition so as to facilitate more child rapes, as they somehow feel superior for doing so.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > Just pulling Aletheophobe's chain. Yaxley would be as safe in prison as any other anti-Muslim RWNJ. Nothing happened to him last two or three times he's been in prison (I lose count).
> ...



If that were the case, regardless of the incompetence of our current "government", to have Yaxley killed on prison would only make him a "martyr" to his RWNJ anti-Muslim "followers". If anyone wants him dead, it will be those Fascists who would benefit from his "martyrdom". Blame the Muslims, blah blah.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 6, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Yaxley is the given name of the activist Tommy Robinson, who is attempting to raise awareness as to the massive and widespread rape of children at the hands of Muslim men. In Rotherham, over a thousand girls have been raped repeatedly by organized Muslim gangs, and that is out of a total metro population of just 300,000 people. the same thing is happening all over Britain, where underaged girls are groomed and then passed around among Muslim been who violate them repeatedly and very cruelly because the girls are white.








Aletheophobe's RW wet dream fantasy. Was there an child sex ring in Rotherham? Yes. Was it mishandled by the authorities because there were Muslim men involved? Yes. Were the perpertators finally brought to justice? Yes. Did Yaxley-Lennon jeoparise the process? yes.



Dogmaphobe said:


> Tommy Taint and Vagabond are supporters of these child rapes and so want Tommy Robinson in jail for trying to raise awareness of the widespread nature of the issue. They hope to silence opposition so as to facilitate more child rapes, as they somehow feel superior for doing so.








Can't be bothered to respond to this drivel.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 6, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> If that were the case, regardless of the incompetence of our current "government", to have Yaxley killed on prison would only make him a "martyr" to his RWNJ anti-Muslim "followers". If anyone wants him dead, it will be those Fascists who would benefit from his "martyrdom". Blame the Muslims, blah blah.


I doubt England is frightened of the human tsunami backlash Robinson/Yaxley's death would cause.
They aren't that smart or care that much. They _should_ be concerned, perhaps. But I bet they aren't.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the case, regardless of the incompetence of our current "government", to have Yaxley killed on prison would only make him a "martyr" to his RWNJ anti-Muslim "followers". If anyone wants him dead, it will be those Fascists who would benefit from his "martyrdom". Blame the Muslims, blah blah.
> ...


He is just a common thug.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 6, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> . Were the perpertators finally brought to justice? Yes.


ALL of them? EXCLUSIVE: How UK Authorities Cover Up Child Abuse by Muslim Grooming Gangs
That's a bold unproven claim (falsehood).



> Did Yaxley-Lennon jeoparise the process? yes.


Right. Because bringing attention to a severe social problem always jeopardizes solving the problem.
That's just common sense. And the corollary is the girls who were repeatedly raped by these gangs jeopardized their situation by not being somewhere else.

Just like Yaxley/Robinson they contributed to the problem by bringing attention to it. 
Everyone knows that.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 6, 2019)

Once again, the backward British savages remind us Americans why we kicked them out of our country more than two centuries ago.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 6, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > . Were the perpertators finally brought to justice? Yes.
> ...


It's always interesting to watch the mental gymnastics of those who support the brutal rape of children.  They call people "thugs" for opposing it.  They call others "right wing nut jobs" for opposing it. They call people bigots and Islamophobes and racists and a whole bevy of other names aimed at creating the impression that it is actually the opposition to the rape of children that is suspect and not their own support for child rape. 

It is downright Orwellian how these extremely disturbed individuals try to portray what is a very normal human reaction to child rape by trying to portray it as somehow dirty even as they support the rape because it is politically correct to do so.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > . Were the perpertators finally brought to justice? Yes.
> ...


But he hasnt done anything apart from jeopardise the trials. These cases are well known and extensively covered on tv and in the press. People have worked hard to bring these animals to trial and yaxley steps in to try and wreck that. He is a fucking disgrace. 

He makes a good living out of US extremists who are funding his pop star lifestyle. But to do that he has to provide them with shock horror stories. A few months inside is jut a part of that.

Number of rape gangs exposed by Tommy Robinson still trending at zero.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Robinson is being persecuted because of who he is and his political stance which is pro West and anti Muslim.
> ...


LOL

Filming the from the street and the court house doors..............Muslim Sex abusers.............who did little kids......Court did a Media Ban of the trial.  How did he film the trial from the city street ......................

Your country and that judge did the ban because it's NOT PC to film Muslim child sex criminals...........Might offend a Muslim.  OMFG.........

Did they hang those pricks..........


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2019)

_Hey Tommy...........did you know the police let the inmates know that an incoming prisoner raped kids here in this country......

Doesn't work out well for them.............

Those he filmed were raping children and the gag order wasn't about protecting a trial..............it was about PC because they were Muslim.   But a man filming outside the court house is the real criminal here.

What a bunch of freaking losers the British have become._


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jul 7, 2019)

A time when the people in England were heroes.............What have you done to your country Tommy............you suck now.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > He isnt being persecuted. He broke the law.
> ...





Report on Muslim gang rapes, go to jail in minutes. 


Actually do Muslim gang rapes, be allowed to do so for years, and literally thousands of times, before being arrested.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




It is actually worse than that. The local police and government were aware of the problem for many years, and refused to do anything, for fear of being called racist.

One brave local female government worker said something about the massive reports of muslim rapists, and was punished and sent to sensitivity training. Literally.  THe rapes continued for years after that point.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 7, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> What a great start to the weekend.
> 
> Perhaps the thick fucker could take a journalism course while he is there.


Tommy is going to look ravishing in his hijab


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Vagabond63 said:
> ...




I find it hard to believe that Fascists are the ones primarily concerned about mass child rape rings in the UK.


And I don't think the Left worries about creating Martyrs, in their attempt to silence opposition. They seem confident in their ability to deal with any anger generated by their policies.


----------



## Correll (Jul 7, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the case, regardless of the incompetence of our current "government", to have Yaxley killed on prison would only make him a "martyr" to his RWNJ anti-Muslim "followers". If anyone wants him dead, it will be those Fascists who would benefit from his "martyrdom". Blame the Muslims, blah blah.
> ...





They seem to expect the citizens to meekly accept whatever shit they pass down onto them.


You see the same arrogance of power in liberals here.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 7, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> But he hasnt done anything apart from jeopardise the trials. These cases are well known and extensively covered on tv and in the press. People have worked hard to bring these animals to trial and yaxley steps in to try and wreck that. He is a fucking disgrace.


 
_Stop and think about that._ The "cases are well known and extensively covered on tv and in the press" yet supposedly because this one guy (who the government hates because he is harping on the extent to which the UK has bent over to placate Islamists) took some pictures of grooming gang animals entering a building this whole master plan to eradicate these sex criminals is going to go up in smoke? Really? That's crazy.

Get the fuck out of here!  It's absurd to a ridiculous degree and you just line up behind all the other sheep bleating your ass off and you don't even know why. or care. You hate because you are told to hate. Robinson ripped the "plaster" off the Muslim problem England has and the government *hates* him for it. So you do too.

You have no idea how foolish your claims are.



> He makes a good living out of US extremists who are funding his pop star lifestyle.


Sure. He lives just like Justin Bieber. ....if Justin Bieber spent most of his time trying to keep fascist authorities from sending him to prison where Muslim animals can stick a shiv in his back.



> But to do that he has to provide them with shock horror stories. A few months inside is jut a part of that.


Again, such bullshit! The plan is to get UK authorities to send him to prison so his stories will sound better? I can't believe you spent five seconds, if that, thinking about what you actually posted and how absurd it sounds.



> Number of rape gangs exposed by Tommy Robinson still trending at zero.


Robinson has made the shameful issue of UK authorities turning a blind eye to Muslim rape gangs an international issue and people
can hardly believe such a thing could be true. But it was, and is. and guess who is eager to send Robinson to prison?
*The very same system that covered for grooming gangs! 
*
So he, Robinson/Yaxley, has made the whole sordid business of faceless UK bureaucrats covering for grooming gangs a huge issue. We would not be discussing this scandal right now without Tommy Robinson. So for you to claim he has done nothing to expose rape gangs is just idiotic busllshit! It's unbelievably stupid. It's unforgivably
dishonest. Not to make too fine a point but your ignorance is stunning. 

I was going to ignore your whole regrettable post but once I saw just how thoroughly foolish and malicious it was
I couldn't help but send this obnoxious turd down the toilet.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 7, 2019)

Correll said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...


And they continue to this day for the same reason.

The jailing of Tommy Robinson is being undertaken as a warning to any others who do not wish the rapes to continue.


It's an odd world when those who support the rape of children apply the word "thug" to those who oppose the rape instead of the child rapists, themselves, and where people are accused of being nut jobs for being against child rape instead of supporting it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Robinson encouraged 'vigilante action'

*The judges also rejected Robison's evidence that he had made checks in the court over reporting restrictions as "not credible".

They found that he "quite deliberately" reported on the case, which he had told his viewers was the subject of a reporting restriction.

Dame Victoria said Robinson's right to freedom of expression "could not justify an interference with fair trial rights".
*
Well there you have it. 
I reckon 18 months and out in 9.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Robinson encouraged 'vigilante action'
> 
> *The judges also rejected Robison's evidence that he had made checks in the court over reporting restrictions as "not credible".
> 
> ...




How many other political prisoners in the UK?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Robinson encouraged 'vigilante action'
> ...


I dont think there are any.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




So, Tommy is your first? How many more do you want?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


He isnt a political prisoner. He broke the law. You know that, everybody knows that. Contempt of court is an offence in the US as well.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




How many years, did the police, know about rape ring in Rotherham and let it go on?


While Tommy reports on it, and gets arrested in minutes?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


You seem to be confused. He was commenting on the trial of people who had already been arrested and charged. His actions could have caused a mistrial. The proper journalists followed the rules and did not get arrested. His actions could have caused guilty men to go free. Is that what you want ?


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Sure. I get it. It is embarrassing to have someone report on the horrors that your policies inflicted on the UK citizens. 

Someone doing that, needs arrested far more promptly than mass rapists. 


That is your nation. That is what you support.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


This explains it very well.
*Dame Victoria said Robinson's right to freedom of expression "could not justify an interference with fair trial rights".*

And she is spot on. A fair trial goes back to Magna Carta. It is our right. I suspect it may be a right in your constitution.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...





Where was she when thousands of your nation's young girls were being raped and the cops were looking the other way?


What was Dame Victoria doing about their right to not be raped and tortured and enslaved?


Or does she save herself for the big fights, like locking up reporters?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



You are all over the place now. Why dont you explain why the judgement is wrong ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Here ya go............

9-39.000 - Contempt Of Court


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Yet Tommy was arrested, tried in a kangaroo court a mere few hours later and in jail already by evening.


Only a person who is completely retarded and completely dishonest would  possibly think the fix wasn't in.


----------



## Correll (Jul 9, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




You brought up Dame Victoria, as an Authority on Rights. 


So, where was she, when the rights of thousands of young girls were begin violated by them being raped and tortured and enslaved, with the knowledge and de facto permission of the local UK government.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> You brought up Dame Victoria, as an Authority on Rights.
> 
> 
> So, where was she, when the rights of thousands of young girls were begin violated by them being raped and tortured and enslaved, with the knowledge and de facto permission of the local UK government.


Yaxley/Robinson is clearly being targeted because he isn't afraid to point out how the UK government has provided cover for Muslim rape gangs. He is an embarrassment to them and he's saying things that make them accessories to sex crimes against young girls.

Clearly Dame Victoria, whoever this pompous officious person is, wants Robinson shut up and put away.
She isn't interested in the law or people's well being. If she was she wouldn't  be part of a cover up machine.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You brought up Dame Victoria, as an Authority on Rights.
> ...


of the

So which part of law did she get wrong ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 9, 2019)

Correll said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Where  were you  ?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jul 9, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Yet Tommy [Robinson] was arrested, tried in a kangaroo court a mere few hours later and in jail already by evening.
> 
> 
> Only *a person who is completely retarded and completely dishonest* would  possibly think the fix wasn't in.



  A perfect description of Tainted Tommy.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 11, 2019)

Oh please Mr President, take him...the people of the Uk will be so gratefull to you...I'll even build a statue of you on my village green. Tommy Robinson begs Donald Trump to grant him political asylum


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> ALL of them? EXCLUSIVE: How UK Authorities Cover Up Child Abuse by Muslim Grooming Gangs
> That's a bold unproven claim (falsehood).



I never said all of them; just those for which there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, it's all about this inconvenient legal principle of people being considered innocent until proven guilty.



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Right. Because bringing attention to a severe social problem always jeopardizes solving the problem.
> That's just common sense. And the corollary is the girls who were repeatedly raped by these gangs jeopardized their situation by not being somewhere else.
> 
> Just like Yaxley/Robinson they contributed to the problem by bringing attention to it.
> Everyone knows that.



Yaxley-Lennon wasn't bringing attention to a severe social problem, he was just pursuing his racist anti Muslim agenda. Had he been bringing attention to a severe social problem, he'd be talking about all the white "christian" grooming and rape gangs.



Dogmaphobe said:


> Only a person who is completely retarded and completely dishonest would possibly think the fix wasn't in.



"Only a person who is completely retarded and completely dishonest would possibly think the fix WAS in"

There, fixed it for you. No don't bother thanking me.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 11, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > ALL of them? EXCLUSIVE: How UK Authorities Cover Up Child Abuse by Muslim Grooming Gangs
> ...


I think that they only get their news filtered through info wank and similar. Yaxley is everything they profess to hate. Odd behaviour.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 11, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> I never said all of them; just those for which there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, it's all about this inconvenient legal principle of people being considered innocent until proven guilty.


The British government until relatively recently just got serious about this important issue. If there are gangs out there still plying their trade of addicting and raping young girls who fall somehow under their influence it's due to the lax attitudes of officials afraid of being accused of anti Muslim attitudes.

It's vigilance that's lacking..not evidence. That Yaxley-Robinson still has a target on his back for exposing the duplicity of British officials is proof of that. Convicted, sentenced and put in prison all in a matter of a few hours.
Proof positive right there!


Vagabond63 said:


> Yaxley-Lennon wasn't bringing attention to a severe social problem, he was just pursuing his racist anti Muslim agenda. Had he been bringing attention to a severe social problem, he'd be talking about all the white "christian" grooming and rape gangs.


Utter bullshit!
The problem of grooming gangs has been almost entirely a Muslim one. Look at who has been prosecuted if you doubt that. Talk about white Christian rape gangs is a diversion and a weak one at that.

75% of these sex criminal gangs are "Asian". Only 21% were all white or mostly white. What do we know about the ethnicity of sexual abuse gangs?
Clearly 3/4 of the problem is caused by Pakistani immigrants to the UK. That remaining quarter consists of scumbags already residing as natives in the country and little can be done about them (with regard to limiting their numbers).

So where should the focus be if not on the vast majority of the problem? Figure it out, smart guy. When a fire is put out should most of the attention not be paid to 75% of the blaze? Jeeezus you are lame.

Robinson is talking about limiting further damage, quite rightly, and
controlling the problem with the only variable that can be managed. Can you not understand this?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 11, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> There, fixed it for you. No don't bother thanking me.




Thank you Vagabond

It is good to have those who support the rape of children identifying themselves so clearly.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said all of them; just those for which there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, it's all about this inconvenient legal principle of people being considered innocent until proven guilty.
> ...


Robinson is a career criminal making a good  living out of racist American chumps. Thats it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 11, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Robinson is a career criminal making a good living out of racist American chumps. Thats it.


Be a good sheep and go away like you said you would.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 11, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > There, fixed it for you. No don't bother thanking me.
> ...


You make these accusations without any evidence. You are a fucking clown.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Robinson is a career criminal making a good living out of racist American chumps. Thats it.
> ...




He and two others in this thread have made a deliberate decision to enable and facilitate the rape of children. 

When these soulless individuals hear about the massive numbers of children being raped by misogynistic, racist Muslim men, instead of feeling horror at it all, they feel pleasure.  Now, this pleasure they feel isn't because they are actually thinking about the plight of these poor children and enjoy their suffering as they have so dehumanized these children that they do not even exist. The fact that these are white British children being targeted for their ethnicity relegates them to that of a necessary sacrifice.  The actual pleasure they feel is more of an anticipatory one in that they know that their support for the rapists will earn them praise by their fellow supporters of child rape. 

 This is the nature of the true believer, where people can support truly horrific things as long as it is reinforced thoroughly as being a virtue. Their facilitation of child rape is actually a search for virtue, and the praise they all give each other for supporting it is all the proof they need that they are, indeed, virtuous. 

It's little beyond a conditioned response when it gets down to it as these individuals are missing something vital -- the sense of self-awareness that allows them to place themselves in the shoes of the victims and feel empathy for them. They aren't true psychopaths, however, as this is more a case of cult-like behavior than anything else.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 11, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> He and two others in this thread have made a deliberate decision to enable and facilitate the rape of children.


I don't take pleasure especially in calling people assholes but for people who are more alarmed by Yaxley-Robinson's presumed Islamophbia (as if being fearful of creeping Shariah, or gang rape,  is "hateful") than the epidemic of rape of young intentionally drug addicted women in the UK are assholes!

There is no other word for them.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > He and two others in this thread have made a deliberate decision to enable and facilitate the rape of children.
> ...




I consider them as bearing at least some guilt for the rapes, themselves due to the way they are so actively facilitating them.

 That goes WAY beyond asshole in my book.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said all of them; just those for which there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, it's all about this inconvenient legal principle of people being considered innocent until proven guilty.
> ...



Were this true, I'd agree with you, however the CEOP reports of 2011 and 2013 clearly state that the data was incomplete and inconsistant enough so that it was impossible to draw national conclusions about the overall ethnicity of abusers. The 75% figure is at best inaccurate, at worst, made up.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 11, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Were this true, I'd agree with you, however the CEOP reports of 2011 and 2013 clearly state that the data was incomplete and inconsistant enough so that it was impossible to draw national conclusions about the overall ethnicity of abusers. The 75% figure is at best inaccurate, at worst, made up.


So you claim. 
But what else can you say? Do a photo search, as I did, of those arrested and convicted of being in grooming gangs.
See if you notice a common thread, as I did. And grow up and stop being so disingenuous. You are absurd.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




Dame Victoria is pretending to be so concerned about the rights of people. Asking about the far, far larger and far more serious violation of rights that was the Rotherham (and other) rape gangs, and her lack of concern about them, 


reveals that her supposed concern is utter bullshit. As is yours.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > You brought up Dame Victoria, as an Authority on Rights.
> ...




Agreed. And tommy doesnt' want to answer because it is obviously true.


----------



## Correll (Jul 11, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...




I was against the policies and culture that caused it to happen, because I knew that they would cause shit LIKE that, though I had no idea of the massive scale.


So, I repeat, where was she?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 11, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Vagabond63 said:
> ...


So, are you supporting Muslims raping British children because you are a Muslim who knows this is traditional Islamic behavior to intimidate and demoralize the people of the culture they are supplanting or are you supporting Muslims raping British children because you are so intimidated and demoralized as to help them supplant you rather than opposing them?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 14, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> But what else can you say? Do a photo search, as I did, of those arrested and convicted of being in grooming gangs.



You are saying you did a photo search of over 60,000 perpetrators (according to 2017 UK statistics)? Wow, I'm impressed. Care to provide links to back up your assertions?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 14, 2019)

Here's a link to the highly respected Snopes fact checking site regarding Yaxley-Lennon
FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
So anyone not a RWNJ, can get the real facts as opposed to agenda driven conspiracy theories. Cue RWNJ rants....go!


----------



## Correll (Jul 14, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > But what else can you say? Do a photo search, as I did, of those arrested and convicted of being in grooming gangs.
> ...





What policy changes do you support to avoid having such rape rings in the future?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 14, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Here's a link to the highly respected Snopes fact checking site regarding Yaxley-Lennon
> FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
> So anyone not a RWNJ, can get the real facts as opposed to agenda driven conspiracy theories. Cue RWNJ rants....go!


You support the rape of children, so call people who oppose the rapes "right wing nut jobs" to try to convince others to support the rape of childten, too.

Heaven forbid that anybody would reject kiddie rape with a legion of you rape supporters calling them names if they don't .


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 14, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> You are saying you did a photo search of over 60,000 perpetrators (according to 2017 UK statistics)? Wow, I'm impressed. Care to provide links to back up your assertions?


Nope. Not saying that at all but I guess it helps your weak case to pretend I did. 

Let me offer support (that you have failed to disprove) once more that shows the problem of "Asian" grooming gangs has been well known and that the reactionary fools who want to put fingers in their ears as they lock Robinson/Yaxley away out of sight have done nothing to diminish his message. British-Pakistani researchers say grooming gangs are 84% Asian

It exist whether you lock up the messenger or not. You only make yourself and your ilk look like losers.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 14, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Here's a link to the highly respected Snopes fact checking site regarding Yaxley-Lennon
> FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
> So anyone not a RWNJ, can get the real facts as opposed to agenda driven conspiracy theories. Cue RWNJ rants....go!


Snopes is only "highly respected" by the leftists who enjoy the cover Snopes has invented for itself as a non biased disinterested arbiter of the truth. The facts show otherwise. Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 14, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a link to the highly respected Snopes fact checking site regarding Yaxley-Lennon
> ...


Yep 

They refer to Tommy Robinson as a " far right" activist.  This is a framing device calculated to create a negative impression among their readers.

Do they ever refer to any "far left" activists? No, of course not because they pattern themselves after the mainstream media in the careful selection of language.

All they did was ask the government why they arrested Tommy Robinson.  This is the SAME government responsible for abetting the rapes in the first place.

of COURSE they told Snopes he was arrested for contempt of court since that is their official story as well as that of the child rape supporters in this thread 

Nowhere was the question of legitimate  justification even addressed .


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> *Do a photo search, as I did,* *of those arrested and convicted of* *being in grooming gangs*. *See if you notice a common thread, as I did.* And grow up and stop being so disingenuous. You are absurd.





Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Nope. Not saying that at all but I guess it helps your weak case to pretend I did.



Really? Who's being disingenuous again?


----------



## Vagabond63 (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying you did a photo search of over 60,000 perpetrators (according to 2017 UK statistics)? Wow, I'm impressed. Care to provide links to back up your assertions?
> ...



Ah, the Quilliam figures, old news and since proven incorrect. The Quilliam Foundation came out with this statistic in December 2017 however subsequent analysis of the study’s methods show that its conclusions are, at best, dubioust. Specifically, the study underestimated, by more than six times, the number of white men convicted of child sexual exploitation offences and implied a racial motive for the selection of victims, information that didn't exist in the cases they looked at.

Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon wasn't locked up for being a "messanger"; stories have been constantly reported in the MSM years before he crawled out from under whatever stone he came from; he was locked up for demonstating contempt for Britains's legal system and putting a fair trial at risk. The scumbag could have been responsible for letting the vermin convicted, getting off scot free.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 15, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Really? Who's being disingenuous again?


You are. Your mendacity is amazing.
I searched photos featured on UK newspapers because they are the only ones I have access to. 
Your absurd straw man acts as if I claimed to have access to a law enforcement data bank. 
I don't and no rational honest person would presume I somehow did gain that access.

Your claim is supposed to make me look ridiculous. Guess who wound up looking like an ass himself? That's you.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > . Were the perpertators finally brought to justice? Yes.
> ...


What attention did Yaxley bring that wasnt already there?


----------



## Mindful (Jul 15, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Vagabond63 said:
> ...



He only did what mainstream newspapers have been doing for years. And getting away with it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > Really? Who's being disingenuous again?
> ...


How did you find these pictures if the stories are not being reported ?


----------



## Mindful (Jul 15, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Vagabond63 said:
> ...



That's your problem.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 15, 2019)

Vagabond63 said:


> Ah, the Quilliam figures, old news and since proven incorrect. The Quilliam Foundation came out with this statistic in December 2017 however subsequent analysis of the study’s methods show that its conclusions are, at best, dubioust. Specifically, the study underestimated, by more than six times, the number of white men convicted of child sexual exploitation offences and implied a racial motive for the selection of victims, information that didn't exist in the cases they looked at.


So you claim again, still without any backing
documentation or proof whatsoever. Fuck off again. 



> Tommy Robinson/Stephen Yaxley-Lennon wasn't locked up for being a "messanger"; stories have been constantly reported in the MSM years before he crawled out from under whatever stone he came from; he was locked up for demonstating contempt for Britains's legal system and putting a fair trial at risk. The scumbag could have been responsible for letting the vermin convicted, getting off scot free.


Taking a photo of defendants walking towards a courthouse puts trials in jeopardy? On what planet?

Remember O.J..'s low speed police chase that was broadcast in real time to the entire stunned nation? Tell me how that chase throughout Southern California got him convicted.  Oh...right. *It didn't!
*
You are contemptuous because your bullshit defense of a nation that persecutes the messenger of bad news and lets the criminals operate for years with their cover and blessings is absolutely corrupt and amoral. 
What do you get out of carrying water for the anti-Robinson zealots, beside the self satisfaction a quisling derives when he assits those who pervert justice?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 15, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> How did you find these pictures if the stories are not being reported ?


Stories *are *being reported now that Robinson has turned a light on the vermin embedded in the British bureaucracy.
And he's being persecuted for it too.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Vagabond63 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, the Quilliam figures, old news and since proven incorrect. The Quilliam Foundation came out with this statistic in December 2017 however subsequent analysis of the study’s methods show that its conclusions are, at best, dubioust. Specifically, the study underestimated, by more than six times, the number of white men convicted of child sexual exploitation offences and implied a racial motive for the selection of victims, information that didn't exist in the cases they looked at.
> ...


Because you do not understand the law doesnt make it wrong. Yaxley understood the law and thats why he pleaded guilty.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > How did you find these pictures if the stories are not being reported ?
> ...



I'm pleased you call him Robinson. 

Other than those  two fucktards, who have serious issues.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 15, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > How did you find these pictures if the stories are not being reported ?
> ...


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 15, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Its not his name. Its the name of his hero, a football hooligan.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 15, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Because you do not understand the law doesnt make it wrong.


Context, Poindexter. Doesn't make what wrong?



> Yaxley understood the law and thats why he pleaded guilty.


People plead guilty to bad laws all the time because bad law is still the law. I wasn't privy to his legal decisions which are between Yaxley-Robinson and his lawyer,
presumably. Neither were you.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 15, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




You're the pits. Whatever your motive is.

You don't convince me.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

It turns out that Robinson was arrested for podcasting outside of the courtroom where a sentencing hearing was scheduled. *A sentencing hearing. *Not a trial itself. The trial had already been held. Robinson was putting nothing in jeopardy because the trial of pedophile gang members had already been held.

So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go fuck yourselves!
It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
Ezra Levant has the whole story and I will be posting that link soon. 

You anti free speech cretins are all just as low and vile as I suspected. Now I have proof of it.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 18, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > What a great start to the weekend.
> ...


Tommy Robinson


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

(WATCH) Ezra Levant on Glenn Beck: Who is Tommy Robinson and why is he in prison?

Educate yourselves. Anyone who wants to know about this issue listen to the link.
You have to if you want to claim to know.


----------



## Death Angel (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


What do you call "Elton John"?

Reginald Kenneth Dwight


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> What attention did Yaxley bring that wasnt already there?


That's idiotic, like asking to prove a negative but for one thing, the awareness in North America and Australia of this British cover up increased considerably and no doubt has contributed to the English hustling Robinson off to prison after a trail that lasted about as long as a lunch break (*a ten minute trial, actually*).

Now he's in prison for "jeopardizing" a trial that had already been held and could not be jeopardized at all.

Fuck UK 'justice" and fuck the simple minded quislings who have covered for the real cowardly criminals behind this all.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It turns out that Robinson was arrested for podcasting outside of the courtroom where a sentencing hearing was scheduled. *A sentencing hearing. *Not a trial itself. The trial had already been held. Robinson was putting nothing in jeopardy because the trial of pedophile gang members had already been held.
> 
> So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go fuck yourselves!
> It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
> ...


They would rather protect those who rape children than run the risk of being called the sorts of names they call any who do not support the rapes.

It doesn't get much more vile than that .  The more children raped, the more opportunities for them to signal their virtue for supporting the rape, which elicits positive feedback from their fellow social justice warriors. Hearing of British children being raped actually stimulates the pleasure centers of their brain as they anticipate all that approval they will receive for being so supportive of rape jihad .


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What attention did Yaxley bring that wasnt already there?
> ...


in past discussions, she has actually laughed about the rape of children and has done so more than once.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It turns out that Robinson was arrested for podcasting outside of the courtroom where a sentencing hearing was scheduled. *A sentencing hearing. *Not a trial itself. The trial had already been held. Robinson was putting nothing in jeopardy because the trial of pedophile gang members had already been held.
> 
> So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go fuck yourselves!
> It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
> ...


You are pretty much wrong on all counts. I look forward to reading your "proof".


----------



## Mindful (Jul 18, 2019)




----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> in past discussions, she has actually laughed about the rape of children and done so more than once.


A real vile bitch!


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> You are pretty much wrong on all counts. I look forward to reading your "proof".


And you are pretty much full of shit! Listen to the Ezra Levant interview I provided and tell me where he is lying.
Tell me exactly where he's perverting the truth.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

It shows right in Tommy Robinson's own broadcast (post #113) what he got arrested for was that he was there (across the street from the Leeds Courthouse) broadcasting the day that verdicts were handed down. *The* *Verdicts! *Not any of the trial itself but the verdict....the part that happens at the end of a trial.

The day Tommy Robinson was arrested by the English injustice machine for interfering with a trial the trial itself was already decided and all over. 

Now how is Tommy Robinson threatening or jeopardizing a trial that has already been completed?  That's what I would like shitbag quislings to explain to me  Explain that please. How?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > You are pretty much wrong on all counts. I look forward to reading your "proof".
> ...


Yeah I listened to it up to the 3 minute mark when Ezra started lying.
The trial was not over and the jury had not returned a verdict. That pretty much destroys your loopy case.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It says right in Tommy Robinson's own broadcast (post #113) that he was arrested for that he was there (Leeds Courthouse) the day that verdicts were handed down. *Verdicts! *Not any of the trial itself but the verdict....the part that happens at the end of a trial.
> 
> The day Tommy Robinson was arrested by the English injustice machine for interfering with a trial the trial itself was already decided and all over.
> 
> Now how is Tommy Robinson threatening or jeopardizing a trial that has already been completed?  That's what I would like shitbag quislings to explain to me  Explain that please. How?


Trial not completed. The last trial , covered by  the order hadnt even started.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Yeah I listened to it up to the 3 minute mark when Ezra started lying.
> The trial was not over and the jury had not returned a verdict. That pretty much destroys your loopy case.


Prove it! Tommy Robinson was arrested, sentenced and jailed, all in the matter of a few short hours, the day verdicts were handed down at the Leeds Courthouse. 
The trial itself was over at that point. You know the verdict comes after the trial, right?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I listened to it up to the 3 minute mark when Ezra started lying.
> ...


Yaxley was arrested on May 25th. The jury returned their verdict on June 5th. Hardly the day that yaxley was arrested.

Of course if you have a different timeline I would like to see it.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Trial not completed. The last trial , covered by the order hadnt even started.


Robinson read the names on his broadcast that day from a list of defendants published by the BBC that very same day. So tell me quisling, why is Robinson guilty but not the BBC? 
Why are there two sets of rules in play here?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Trial not completed. The last trial , covered by the order hadnt even started.
> ...


You are all over the place now. Have you actually read the judgement ?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> You are all over the place now. Have you actually read the judgement ?


You forgot to answer the BBC question. Why is that?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > You are all over the place now. Have you actually read the judgement ?
> ...


It isnt germane. You posted lies that you could not backup and you are now chucking shit in the hope that it will stick. Do you acknowledge that the trial was not over or are you still clinging to Ezra as your proof ?
Have you checked out the dates that i schooled you with that destroys your shite ?
Maybe you should go down on your hands and knees and apologise ?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> It isnt germane. You posted lies that you could not backup and you are now chucking shit in the hope that it will stick. Do you acknowledge that the trial was not over or are you still clinging to Ezra as your proof ?
> Have you checked out the dates that i schooled you with that destroys your shite ?
> Maybe you should go down on your hands and knees and apologise ?


First of all you need to document what you claim as you are stupid and dishonest AF. I don't trust a thing you say
and you are of course an amoral quisling.


Secondly, if the BBC was making public names of the defendants in Leeds Courthouse that very same morning as Tommy Robinson was reading those names off the BBC's own site, why is he committing a crime but the BBC was not?

What is he guilty of? _Divulging publicly known information?_ Either it's legal to divulge those names or it is not. Either the BBC was guilty of jeopardizing a trial or they were not. Either Robinson has the right to read information from the BBC or he does not!  Wrap your tiny mind around that and let me know what you come up with.

The issue of Robinson being arrested for divulging publicly known information is absolutely germane. You are just too fucking cowardly to admit it. Color me not surprised.

I'll tell you what's not germane...the date of any other trial because Robinson wasn't
jeopardizing a thing by reading the names of defendants already identified by the BBC.
So suck on that, sheep shagger.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > It isnt germane. You posted lies that you could not backup and you are now chucking shit in the hope that it will stick. Do you acknowledge that the trial was not over or are you still clinging to Ezra as your proof ?
> ...


You thick fucker. You quote rebel media as a source and expect educated adults to take you seriously. Some of us have read the judgement and base our views on that. You have watched a video from the looney fringes as befits a member of the underclass.
What issues do you have with the actual judgement rather than  the "video" that you are wanking over ?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> You thick fucker. You quote rebel media as a source and expect educated adults to take you seriously. Some of us have read the judgement and base our views on that. You have watched a video from the looney fringes as befits a member of the underclass.
> What issues do you have with the actual judgement rather than the "video" that you are wanking over ?


You only have to answer one question, stooge. Is it illegal for Tommy Robinson to broadcast the information recently put into the public record by the BBC? Is it, or is it not illegal?

If it isn't, why is he in prison? If it is, why isn't someone from the BBC in prison?

Your opinion of Rebel Media is absolutely inconsequential. Stop dithering and answer the question, you thick fucker.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > You thick fucker. You quote rebel media as a source and expect educated adults to take you seriously. Some of us have read the judgement and base our views on that. You have watched a video from the looney fringes as befits a member of the underclass.
> ...


Admit that you lied ya fuckin nonce.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Admit that you lied ya fuckin nonce.


Let me just stop your game of chicken right here as it's obvious you have no intention of answering the BBC question and that in itself is an admission on your part. So please go about your business and continue fucking your livestock now.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Admit that you lied ya fuckin nonce.
> ...



Suck on that you ignorant fuck.

_*51. An RRO imposed under s 4(2) operates to prohibit reporting of the proceedings to which it refers, from the time it is made until the end point identified in the order. The fact that there has already been reporting, or that matters that are later given in evidence have previously been made public in some other context does not debar the Court from making an order under s 4(2). Nor is there any implied public domain proviso to orders of this kind, permitting reporting of aspects of the proceedings so long as the facts in question have been publicised before. Indeed, previous reporting may be a reason for making an order. One of the cases cited by Mr Furlong illustrates the point. Montgomery v HM Advocate [2003] 1 AC 641 concerned a notorious murder. A great deal of prejudicial publicity had appeared between the passing of some sentencing remarks in a case brought against one person accused of the murder and 26 August 1999, when a s 4(2) order was made to prevent prejudice to the trial of three others who had been separately indicted. The Privy Council upheld the decisions of the courts below, that the defendants could still have a fair trial. Nobody suggested that s 4(2) order was wrongly made, or that it was of limited or no effect from the date it was made because of previous publicity. 5*_


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Suck on that you ignorant fuck.
> 
> _*51. An RRO imposed under s 4(2) operates to prohibit reporting of the proceedings to which it refers, from the time it is made until the end point identified in the order. The fact that there has already been reporting, or that matters that are later given in evidence have previously been made public in some other context does not debar the Court from making an order under s 4(2). Nor is there any implied public domain proviso to orders of this kind, permitting reporting of aspects of the proceedings so long as the facts in question have been publicised before. Indeed, previous reporting may be a reason for making an order. One of the cases cited by Mr Furlong illustrates the point. Montgomery v HM Advocate [2003] 1 AC 641 concerned a notorious murder. A great deal of prejudicial publicity had appeared between the passing of some sentencing remarks in a case brought against one person accused of the murder and 26 August 1999, when a s 4(2) order was made to prevent prejudice to the trial of three others who had been separately indicted. The Privy Council upheld the decisions of the courts below, that the defendants could still have a fair trial. Nobody suggested that s 4(2) order was wrongly made, or that it was of limited or no effect from the date it was made because of previous publicity. 5*_


Ooohhh...so many words.
Tell me now specifically how this pertains to Tommy Robinson and his arrest for broadcasting the news of the day.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Suck on that you ignorant fuck.
> ...


I will explain it to you once you have admitted that you lied about the trial being over. I dont mind doing a bit of educating.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 18, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > What a great start to the weekend.
> ...


The last real journalist in England.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 18, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I will explain it to you once you have admitted that you lied about the trial being over. I dont mind doing a bit of educating.


I said that the verdict was in on the trial Robinson was concerned with in Leeds. No lies at all.

And you don't have to pretend you can explain to me how Robinson disseminating public information is illegal.  It's a little embarrassing to watch you make believe and we both know you are in over your head. 

Let's just say you will never ever answer that question you've been ducking now for post after post. And it's not like your
idiotic opinions are worth shit anyway.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > It turns out that Robinson was arrested for podcasting outside of the courtroom where a sentencing hearing was scheduled. *A sentencing hearing. *Not a trial itself. The trial had already been held. Robinson was putting nothing in jeopardy because the trial of pedophile gang members had already been held.
> ...


Dude.  That is frothing at the mouth nuts.  No one here supports the rape of children.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Oh?  In what way?

Everything he “reported” had already been reported by the media.

What stories did he break?


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What attention did Yaxley bring that wasnt already there?
> ...



It isn’t asking you to show us that he actually in journalism.  You lot seem to think he has been busy breaking stories when all he does is get it from the media that already broke it.  That and making false accusations I guess.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



You support, enable and facilitate the rape of children and you do so quite intentionally.

It's because the perps are Islamic and the child victims British, and instead of acknowledging it is the MUSLIMS who are the racists here, you try to posit that any who reject them are the racists so as to try to shame people into silence thus removing any impediment to their continued rape of British children.

 You deliver children right into their clutches when you indulge in this calculated ruse of yours trying to silence and shame any who do not share your enthusiastic support for the agenda involved.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



My goodness   I had no idea I was so busy.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




Meh

Your heroes rape 11 and 12 year olds.

 I can remember the time you said terrorists are often heroic, so I am not surprised.  It always boils down to your love for Islamists.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...




I did?  Perhaps you can supply a link to that statement 

I am pretty clear on my heros, I dont confuse thugs, Nazis, rapists and criminals with real heros, such as people trying to end child marriage,  promote education for girls, or equslity for homosexuals, or freedom of religion, press freedom and who are often threatened with death or incarceration.

Real heros.  Not self serving football hooligans pretending to be journalists to stir up hatred against ethnic minorities.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Real heroes do not rape children.
.
You are one very confused child rape supporter.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...



You are right.  They do not rape children and they do not incite violence toward children.

No.  I dont think I am confused at all


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Yet you have a 100% track record of supporting Muslims raping Kaffir children.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


that is intetesting.  I had no idea.  Perhaps you can provide some examples of this "track record" you refer to.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> that is intetesting.  I had no idea.  Perhaps you can provide some examples of this "track record" you refer to.




Well, there is always this thread for the astute observer.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > that is intetesting.  I had no idea.  Perhaps you can provide some examples of this "track record" you refer to.
> ...


Which post?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


All of them collectively.

It is obvious.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


Cant be specific huh?


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Good and decent people are smart enough to see through your crap.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Dogmaphobe said:
> ...


They also dont consider thugs to be heros ...and will say so.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 18, 2019)

^^^^^^^^^

This is the face of evil, folks.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 18, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> This is the face of evil, folks.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I will explain it to you once you have admitted that you lied about the trial being over. I dont mind doing a bit of educating.
> ...


I have shown you that the verdict came in several days after Yaxley was arrested. Please show me where I am wrong. 

I was actually taking the date from the judgement itself but maybe you have a video from rebel that disproves this?


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Why is this such an obsessive issue for you?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


I am schooling a member of the information underclass. Its sort of like missionary work.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 19, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...


What?

You don't have to break a news story to be a real journalist.  The only requirement is telling the truth, even in the face of government oppression.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I have shown you that the verdict came in several days after Yaxley was arrested. Please show me where I am wrong.
> 
> I was actually taking the date from the judgement itself but maybe you have a video from rebel that disproves this?


You can't and won't show everyone why Tommy Robinson was arrested for reading information across the street from the Leeds courthouse made public that very day by the BBC. Is it illegal in England to read the news?


Unless you can address this question I've put to you many times now I really don't want to hear from you. I mean, I don't anyway because you are so dimwitted. But this matter
puts a fine point on things.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I have shown you that the verdict came in several days after Yaxley was arrested. Please show me where I am wrong.
> ...



I noticed those two Pakistani guys didn't hold back from interacting. Shouldn't they have kept stumm too?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> What?
> 
> You don't have to break a news story to be a real journalist. The only requirement is telling the truth, even in the face of government oppression.


Leftists and statists like to believe that only real government approved and college indoctrinated "journalists" can disseminate the approved news to the people. That's how you keep your death grip on information and propaganda.

When the left can't control what the masses hear and read they are unable to win the propaganda wars.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I have shown you that the verdict came in several days after Yaxley was arrested. Please show me where I am wrong.
> ...


I provided you with that information from the judgement. But you were too stupid to understand it. The BBC article was published at time of arrest in 2017 not during the trial. Its in the fucki g judgement dopey.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > What?
> ...


In another thread, the child rape supporters have gone so far as to invoke the holocaust in their zeal to defend the practice -- I/e, that opposing the right of Muslims to rape any British child they wish is JUST like killing 6 million Jews.

Now, these are obviously not thinking individuals to begin with, but the way they have been trained to be so deferential to Islam as to go THAT far in their desperation I find downright chilling.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



It's as if those kids weren't relevant to the issue.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...




When a person is so far gone as to identify with a child rapist instead of the child, they have abandoned their very sense of humanity so completely that it is probably irrevocable. 

I cannot even imagine being brainwashed so thoroughly that I would place my political agenda above the suffering of a child.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I provided you with that information from the judgement. But you were too stupid to understand it.


Oh, yeah, the citation you were going to specifically link to the Robinson case but somehow never got around to it. What a fat, ignorant, detestable liar you are! 



> The BBC article was published at time of arrest in 2017 not during the trial. Its in the fucki g judgement dopey.


Nice deflecting attempt, loser. And even if you weren't lying, which you are, Tommy Robinson was arrested for, in an online broadcast made across the street from  the Leeds courtroom where rape gang defendants were assembled to 
hear the verdicts of trials _already_ conducted, reading the names of people already identified and made public by the BBC!

All the worse for an ass like you and your friends if the information Robinson was being persecuted for revealing was in the public sphere for two whole years before his arrest but you are too stupid to realize that and it's not true anyway.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I provided you with that information from the judgement. But you were too stupid to understand it.
> ...



The trial was not over until the jury came back with the verdict. Which they did a week later.
And
The last trial  hadnt even  started. The last trial was also covered by the gagging order. Yaxley knew this and stated so on his  
wretched film.
Why do you persist with your bovine defence of this idiot ?
This debunks all of your claims.Every fucking one.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...axley-lennon-2019-ewhc-1791-qb-rev1-final.pdf


----------



## Coyote (Jul 19, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...


What if it isnt the truth?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


He is just exercising his right to lie.
On a serious note if yaxley was an actual journo he would have known that he could have applied to have the gagging order over turned. But he just wanted a circus for his funders.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> The trial was not over until the jury came back with the verdict. Which they did a week later.


So why were grooming gang defendants in the Leed's courthouse? Just visiting with the judge? And why was the BBC publicizing the names of defendants if their trial was ongoing? Because the law only applies to Tommy Yaxley-Robinson? 



> And
> The last trial hadnt even started. The last trial was also covered by the gagging order. Yaxley knew this and stated so on his
> wretched film.


Yaxley-Robinson made no reference to any other trial. Please state specifically how Robinson's broadcast put ANY trial in jeopardy? Please let everyone know what he said that jeopardized a trial already over and another that hadn't even started. Go ahead and inform us all. Please.




> Why do you persist with your bovine defence of this idiot ?
> This debunks all of your claims.Every fucking one.
> https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...axley-lennon-2019-ewhc-1791-qb-rev1-final.pdf


Why do you persist 
sticking your nose up your master's butts and following their lead so willingly? So you can be closer to their inspirational magnificence? 

Why so eager, quisling, to help persecute a political prisoner? What in that document addresses a ten minute trial
(_literally_ a ten minute trial) and then being whisked off to prison in an absolute parody of justice by the authorities you worship all to get rid of a political thorn in their sides? 
_And you've yet to explain why Robinson is guilty of broadcasting news from the BBC_. 
You've squealed like a piggy and hissed a lot, like a cornered rat,  but haven't answered that basic question. 

You slobbering slavish devotion to an undeniably corrupt system sickens people with a brain and even a sliver of conscience. The same rotten, crooked infrastructure (police, judges, social workers, politicians) that for years
covered up the shameful diseased system that made it possible for these rape gangs to flourish (until people like Robinson started to yell and point fingers) is putting the screws to Robinson now on trumped up charges.
And quislings like you try to defend it all. Just sickening!


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > The trial was not over until the jury came back with the verdict. Which they did a week later.
> ...



It's still going on. In other areas. Did you see what the lady policewoman said?

Heads should roll. If they haven't already.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> It's still going on. In other areas. Did you see what the lady policewoman said?
> 
> Heads should roll. If they haven't already.


No. Please inform briefly if you would. 

As I said the same people who were covering up for primarily Pakistani gangs (who detest women as a rule) while young girls were being raped unmercifully are in charge of the system that is persecuting Robinson right now!

That's how you get a ten minute trial and verdict followed by being sentenced to and delivered to prison all in a few hours.

Can anyone defend this or tell me it's normal?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > The trial was not over until the jury came back with the verdict. Which they did a week later.
> ...


Ive given you the judgement. Why dont you read it and then come back to me. I will help you with the big words.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Ive given you the judgement. Why dont you read it and then come back to me. I will help you with the big words.


And I've given you reasons why the judgement is bullshit! Not surprisingly you don't want to deal with any of that.
That's what makes you such a bloated piece of shit, I suppose. 

You remind me of the amoral quislings here who defend the Kennedy coup by pointing to the Warren Commission report as if it somehow magically makes all the duplicity, fraud and law breaking disappear. Fuck that!


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > It's still going on. In other areas. Did you see what the lady policewoman said?
> ...


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Ive given you the judgement. Why dont you read it and then come back to me. I will help you with the big words.
> ...


Your "reasons" are not supported by the facts. Read the judgement. Lets discuss it on the basis of the facts not a bullshit report by "rebel media".


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...





Tommy Tainant said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...





Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Ive given you the judgement. Why dont you read it and then come back to me. I will help you with the big words.
> ...


All that matters to any of the three child rape supports is that Muslim men can continue to rape the Kaffir children at will as a symbol of their cultural dominance and any who object to that cultural dominance must be silenced by any means necessary.

All the rest of their babble is just window dressing on top of the real agenda they are pushing.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Your "reasons" are not supported by the facts. Read the judgement. Lets discuss it on the basis of the facts not a bullshit report by "rebel media".


I've given you facts. You've deflected, ignored, lied about and tried to explain them all away. Your opinions of Rebel Media are irrelevant and I couldn't give a crap about how you feel about them.

Here's a fact: Tommy Robinson got arrested for naming grooming gang defendants during a podcast that came from a publicly released BBC source.
For the hundredth time, tell me how Robinson is breaking the law by discussing publicly known material from the BBC.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Mindful-------Everything in the video reflects what has already been said...a conscious effort by highly placed English sources to deny and cover up the atrocities of rape gangs because of the nature of the rapists themselves, by and large Pakistani men taking girls from poor white families making them dependent on drugs and raping them over and over and over again for months on end and even years.

And the people responsible for looking the other way are still in charge and no doubt running the political persecution of Tommy Robinson. Who has ever been outed for giving grooming gangs cover? I've never heard of a single person.

It's a monstrous injustice made even worse by all the dimwitted quislings backing up the lies and untruths.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Mindful-------Everything in the video reflects what has already been said...a conscious effort by highly placed English sources to deny and cover up the atrocities of rape gangs because of the nature of the rapists themselves, by and large Pakistani men taking girls from poor white families making them dependent on drugs and raping them over and over and over again for months on end and even years.
> 
> And the people responsible for looking the other way are still in charge and no doubt running the political persecution of Tommy Robinson. Who has ever been outed for giving grooming gangs cover? I've never heard of a single person.
> 
> It's a monstrous injustice made even worse by all the dimwitted quislings backing up the lies and untruths.



That first arrest happened because the judge was looking out of the window at a crucial moment at Leeds Crown Court.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Mindful-------Everything in the video reflects what has already been said...a conscious effort by highly placed English sources to deny and cover up the atrocities of rape gangs because of the nature of the rapists themselves, by and large Pakistani men taking girls from poor white families making them dependent on drugs and raping them over and over and over again for months on end and even years.
> 
> And the people responsible for looking the other way are still in charge and no doubt running the political persecution of Tommy Robinson. Who has ever been outed for giving grooming gangs cover? I've never heard of a single person.
> 
> It's a monstrous injustice made even worse by all the dimwitted quislings backing up the lies and untruths.


You havent read the judgement have you ?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

If this happened in the US there would be a torrent of class action law suits on behalf of the victims and the scum who
thought it was better to ruin the lives of young girls and let them become victims of hellish rape gangs than possibly offend Muslim communities and be seen as racists would be rooted out and tossed in prison themselves.

But Brits don't have the balls to do the right thing. It's easier to demonize someone like Tommy Robinson and
hope he gets a knife in the back while in prison so the guilty can wash their hands of the whole mess. It's pathetic.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Ive gathered together all of your bullshit on this thread and responded with appropriate parts of the judgement. You will very quickly see that you have been lied to by rebel media and yaxley. 

Eric says - It turns out that Robinson was arrested for podcasting outside of the courtroom where a sentencing hearing was scheduled. A sentencing hearing. Not a trial itself. The trial had already been held. Robinson was putting nothing in jeopardy because the trial of pedophile gang members had already been held.

Tommy says - In the UK a verdict is considered an important part of the trial. And sentencing comes after the verdict. How could it be a sentencing hearing when the verdict did not come in for another 2 weeks ?



*The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said. On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent’s arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded. His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected. On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.*



Eric says - The day Tommy Robinson was arrested by the English injustice machine for interfering with a trial the trial itself was already decided and all over. 

Tommy says - See previous point. The trial was still going on.



Eric  says - Robinson read the names on his broadcast that day from a list of defendants published by the BBC that very same day. So tell me quisling, why is Robinson guilty but not the BBC? 


Tommy says - The BBC published their info in May 2107 when there was no gagging order in place. Yaxleys list was a cutting from the Huddersfield Examiner not the BBC. The BBC have no case to answer. 


*In the meantime, on 11 May 2017, there was a directions hearing before HHJ Marson QC in the Crown Court at Leeds, when the Judge made orders in respect of the Huddersfield charges. He directed that those charges should be tried in a series of three trials in Leeds, commencing in January, April, and September 2018. The first case was called R v Dhaliwal and others. The Akhtar case was the second of the three. These proceedings were reported in the Huddersfield Examiner and other media, including the BBC. *


Eric says - What is he guilty of? Divulging publicly known information? Either it's legal to divulge those names or it is not. Either the BBC was guilty of jeopardizing a trial or they were not. Either Robinson has the right to read information from the BBC or he does not! Wrap your tiny mind around that and let me know what you come up with.


Tommy says - This is what he is guilty of. The ruling is  quite clear. 

_*On 19 March 2018, in the Crown Court at Leeds, the RRO was made by HHJ Marson QC. It was headed, in capitals, “Notice to the Press – Reporting Restriction” and “Postponement Order”. It was made in the Akhtar proceedings, and provided that “The publication of any report of these proceedings shall be postponed until after the conclusion of this trial and all related trials.” *_


Eric says - You only have to answer one question, stooge. Is it illegal for Tommy Robinson to broadcast the information recently put into the public record by the BBC? Is it, or is it not illegal?


Tommy says - It is illegal.Refer you to a previous answer. It was illegal and the BBC info was published in 2017 when there were no restrictions.


Eric says - I said that the verdict was in on the trial Robinson was concerned with in Leeds. No lies at all.


Tommy says - Nope. Yaxley was arrested on May 25th. The verdict came in on June 5th.

_*The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said. On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent’s arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded. His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected. On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.*_


Eric says -  And you don't have to pretend you can explain to me how Robinson disseminating public information is illegal. It's a little embarrassing to watch you make believe and we both know you are in over your head. 

Tommy says -The court made an order forbidding it. To break that order is contempt of court.It doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with the order. The order has been made and that is the end of it. 


_*47. Mr Caldecott argues that the actus reus of this offence is committed by the reporting in and of itself. The fact, if it be so, that some information is in the public domain has no bearing on the question of whether an act of contempt has been committed. As to mens rea, he submits that negligence may be sufficient, but in any event subjective recklessness as to the existence and terms of the RRO is enough as a matter of law. 


48. Mr Furlong accepts that breach of a s 4(2) order is capable of amounting to contempt. In his skeleton argument, he made four main submissions as to the law. First, he argued that contempt of this variety can only be made out on proof of “disobedience to an order of the court properly made”. Secondly, he invited us to conclude that on a proper analysis this RRO was not “properly made”. Next, he argued that contempt cannot be made out unless it is proved that the respondent had knowledge that an order was in force, postponing publication; it is not enough to establish reckless in that respect. He further argued that it would be wrong to import recklessness into this branch of the law at all. 

49. We cannot accept either of Mr Furlong’s first two propositions. It is a fundamental principle of long standing that orders of the court must be obeyed whilst they remain in force; disobedience to an order will therefore amount to a breach, capable of amounting to contempt, even if on later examination it proves to have been wrongly made: see Woodward v Earl Lincoln (1674) 3 Swan App 626, 36 ER 1000, and other authorities cited in Arlidge, Eady & Smith at 7-173 and 9-230 to 9-235. More than this, Mr Furlong’s submission is contrary to authority. In the Horsham Justices case, the DAME VICTORIA SHARP, P & MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment AG v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) Page 16 majority of the Court of Appeal (Ackner and Shaw LJJ) rejected a submission advanced by Mr Beloff QC on behalf of the appellant journalists that the Court confronted with a committal application could and should reconsider the decision to make a s 4(2) order: see [1982] 1 QB 798B-C (Shaw LJ), 805B-E, 806E-F (Ackner LJ). See also the obiter remarks of Brooke LJ in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 3) [1992] 1 WLR 874, 884H-885A, which are to the same effect. We agree with the conclusion of the editors of Arlidge, Eady & Smith (at 7-319) that “the validity of a s 4(2) order cannot be made the subject of challenge in contempt proceedings based upon a breach.” In his oral submissions, Mr Furlong made clear that he did not seek to argue otherwise. *_

Basically the Judge told him to study his law books.



Eric says - So why were grooming gang defendants in the Leed's courthouse? Just visiting with the judge? And why was the BBC publicizing the names of defendants if their trial was ongoing? Because the law only applies to Tommy Yaxley-Robinson? 

Tommy says -  See previous answers.The BBC were not publicising the names during the trial. They did so a year earlier when there were no restrictions.




Eric says- Yaxley-Robinson made no reference to any other trial. Please state specifically how Robinson's broadcast put ANY trial in jeopardy? Please let everyone know what he said that jeopardized a trial already over and another that hadn't even started. Go ahead and inform us all. Please.


I have underlined the pertinent part. It isnt in dispute.


*(1) The respondent told viewers that the Akhtar trial was going on, and that it was the second of three trials. He recited the defendants’ names and the charges they were facing, gave further information about the alleged offending, and stated that the jury were presently considering their verdicts.*


He wasnt just found guilty of broadcasting. There were 3 separate strands in the Crowns case. I paste them here in case you missed them.


*In summary, the Attorney General alleges that the respondent’s conduct amounted to contempt of court in three different respects. 

First, the online publication involved a breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials. 


Secondly, the Attorney General alleges that the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”. 


Thirdly, it is alleged that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at court, doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure. *

Open and shut   He had no defence and he lied to the court. Not a victim, just a naughty boy.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 19, 2019)

You're a zealot, TT.

There must be something driving your insatiable agenda.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 19, 2019)

Mindful said:


> You're a zealot, TT.
> 
> There must be something driving your insatiable agenda.


He does seem to have an endless amount of time to devote to his little hobby.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

*With regard to the arrest of Tommy Robinson:

Gerard Batten MEP‏Verified account @GerardBattenMEP 20h20 hours ago*

*I am trying to recall a legal case where someone was convicted of a ‘crime’ which cannot be reported on. Where he can be cast into prison without it being possible to report his name, offence, or place of imprisonment for fear of contempt of court. Can anyone remember such a case

Ezra Levant speaks about Tommy Robinson's unprecedented sentence — Steemit*


"In this case Tommy Robinson was reporting on a group of child rapists, and despite clear failings of processes relating to reporting restrictions not being published correctly, he was convicted in the highest court in the land (one reserved normally for the most heinous of crimes, not contempt hearings, which are actually civil proceedings) and sent to one of the most dangerous prisons in the UK, where he will more than likely spend his time again in solitary confinement because the risk to his life by Jihadi gangs who are well known to 'run the prison'.

This trial as a whole, and especially the sentence, is unprecedented, and his supporters have no doubt that this was a political trial, simply because this was Tommy Robinson, the enemy of the state."

Look at the zeal with which the British government has gone to unprecedented extents to
throw Robinson in prison for a civil matter. Is there any doubt he is a political prisoner?

It is the continuation of a vast cover up in which English officials of all sorts helped "Asian" grooming gangs commit years of crimes in which raping young English girls with impunity
was carried on mostly in the North of England.
And it only stopped when Tommy Robinson most publicly brought attention to the crimes.

Robinson sits in prison while the bureaucrats and officials who worked on behalf of the rapists
to continue their hellish assault on the young working class girls of the North are still anonymous and they may likely never pay for their roles as facilitators of rape and other crimes.
This is an incredibly shameful chapter in English history and the people who assist this cover up, in and outside of the government, all deserve to rot in hell for their role in helping ruin the lives of so many innocent girls.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> *With regard to the arrest of Tommy Robinson:
> 
> Gerard Batten MEP‏Verified account @GerardBattenMEP 20h20 hours ago*
> 
> ...


Mate, I just destroyed you and your bullshit and you comeback with nothing. You are so beneath me.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

By the way, the very same corrupt shameful "justice" system who jailed Robinson for reporting on these rapists on trial
and sent him to prison for it, after a ten minute trial, banned any reporting on the issue and put a total news embargo on even discussing the matter in sick old England through the media (who are mostly asleep anyway).

Does this sound like Communist China or Cuba more than a formerly respected Western nation? Yes it does.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> By the way, the very same corrupt shameful "justice" system who jailed Robinson for reporting on these rapists on trial
> and sent him to prison for it, after a ten minute trial, banned any reporting on the issue and put a total news embargo on even discussing the matter in sick old England through the media (who are mostly asleep anyway).
> 
> Does this sound like Communist China or Cuba more than a formerly respected Western nation? Yes it does.


Ezra lies and so so do you. You have nothing.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Tommy says - The BBC published their info in May 2107 when there was no gagging order in place. Yaxleys list was a cutting from the Huddersfield Examiner not the BBC. The BBC have no case to answer.


This is not clear at all. You have no evidence what you claim is so. 


Tommy Tainant said:


> Tommy says - It is illegal.Refer you to a previous answer. It was illegal and the BBC info was published in 2017 when there were no restrictions.


Again, this is you contention. That is all. 


Tommy Tainant said:


> Tommy says -The court made an order forbidding it. To break that order is contempt of court.It doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with the order. The order has been made and that is the end of it.


So if Tommy Robinson is merely repeating what the BBC has reported it would seem they are guilty also of violating the court order. Yet we see no one from the BBC sitting in prison. Why not?


Tommy Tainant said:


> Tommy says - See previous answers.The BBC were not publicising the names during the trial. They did so a year earlier when there were no restrictions.


More of the same. You claim something for which you have provided no evidence at all corroborating your claim. 
Aren't you forgetting something...like proof?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Ezra lies and so so do you. You have nothing.


Ironic coming from a talking pile of pig shit. Your credibility level is so low it is subterranean.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Ezra lies and so so do you. You have nothing.


Who is Tommy Robinson and why is he in prison?
An encore. Be sure to spot the lies.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy says - The BBC published their info in May 2107 when there was no gagging order in place. Yaxleys list was a cutting from the Huddersfield Examiner not the BBC. The BBC have no case to answer.
> ...


I have backed up my opinions with facts. You fail to mention these. It looks like you are out of your depth. You have been lied to but lack the grace to admit it. Adults are laughing at you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I have backed up my opinions with facts. You fail to mention these. It looks like you are out of your depth. You have been lied to but lack the grace to admit it. Adults are laughing at you.


I already pointed out some of the places that isn't true. And beside you haven't responded to any of my points, like for instance the extraordinary unprecedented lengths to which the English government is going after Robinson, invoking laws for the first time in a century and treating a civil matter like a serious criminal prosecution.

So fuck off, sheep shagger. Don't worry about my responses until you've made some of your own and I don't mean
"no he didn't" or "you are wrong". I mean substantive responses. Adults are giving you the finger.


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 19, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


What if it is.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 19, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Darkwind said:
> ...



Presumably, by your definition it is journalism.  But what if it Isn’t? Yaxley has been caught in fabrications, which in one case resulted in a child he falsely identified being brutally beaten. 

Is that journalism?


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 19, 2019)

Coyote said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


So has about a thousand others.  All English no doubt.  

This guy is telling a story, a true story and the English government is oppressing him for it.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 20, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I have backed up my opinions with facts. You fail to mention these. It looks like you are out of your depth. You have been lied to but lack the grace to admit it. Adults are laughing at you.
> ...


I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jul 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.


I can easily believe you pee all over yourself but I don't buy your story for all the reasons I've already gone over and over again. Launching into personal attacks with all sorts of absurd insults won't make things better. You only look more idiotic.

Your desperation is obvious and it clearly demonstrates you realize you are defending the acts of a banana republic government that provides cover for gangs of
Pakistani rapists and then comes down hard when someone alerts fellow citizens as to what is going on.
Evil is protected (or at least it was until Tommy Robinson made an issue of things) and the whistle blower is punished. How fucked up is that?

Not hard to believe England protects sex criminals. The queen knighted a well known pedophile not that long ago.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jul 21, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.
> ...


ZZzzzzzzzz. You have the facts, why dont you read them.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Jul 22, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.
> ...




He rolls on his back and pees on his belly every time one of his Islamic masters walks by,

It makes him happy when he hears about British children getting raped, because this gives him an opportunity to perform for them.


----------

