O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[gwru]

My final word. I watched it unfold as it was happening on the TV. So is it a myth that it ended up with double fans in the Liverpool end than there should have been.

[a123]

My final word. I watched it unfold as it was happening on the TV. So is it a myth that it ended up with double fans in the Liverpool end than there should have been.

I suggest you go away, obtain a copy of the inquest report, read it, then it may all become clearer to you.

They didn't end up with double amount of fans in the Liverpool end, but due to the failure of the police to close the tunnel to the central pens they were hideously overcrowded whilst the side pens were virtually empty.

[rolymiller]

Gwru were you present at the match? All of the evidence for the enquiry was gathered from eye witnesses not just Liverpool fans by the way. There were probably hundreds of witness statements given to the enquiry. Surely this gives more credence tothe truth of what happened than some gut feeling you had about what happened. The truth came out from evidencefrom a large number of people who were there at the time. Surely you have to accept that.

[rolymiller]

Sometimes by the way we don't like the truth but we have to live with it. Do you have some sort of grudge against Liverpool fans?

[great_fire]

OK great fire you say I am an apologist for Muslim grooming gangs. Surel6 you then must be an apologist for white grooming gangs. Let's put a scenario to you. Let's say that all of the Muslim grooming gangs problem gets sorted. Are you saying that we don't then need to concetnourselves with white child rape. You have never acknowledged white child rape so I presume you think that's ok. Surely child rape is wrong whoever does it. I am sorry that I have to spell this out to you.

Of course white *****philes need to be arrested, where did I not say that? But this is something different, industrial scale organised grooming on an incredible level, deliberately targeting children of different faiths.

[great_fire]

Oh yea. And Stephen Yaxley Lennon is a fascist wannabe. Plain and simple.

In what way? He's just someone who got angry about Islamic extremists in his own town and decided to do something about it.

[mikemiller]

Here's one for EDL, fraudster "Tommy Robinson" (not his real name), etc

[KerrAvon]

There is a HUGE difference which you seem to have missed. The people I am talking about interning or deporting are people who are suspected terrorists. Suspects with good reason. Tommy Robinson is not suspected of anything of the sort.

You don't believe he is being persecuted? Okay then. Tommy Robinson was not granted bail because he used a mate's passport to enter America. He came back a day later on his own passport, was arrested and kept on remand.

These *****philes in the case of the video I just responded to, were granted bail after being suspected of raping little girls. The police had DNA evidence of this. The men were later jailed.

And what about the video where Tommy is shoved into a wall, then Kev Carroll is assaulted. I haven't seen you comment on that? Tommy and Kev were arrested, not the people who openly committed assault in front of the police.

What about him being thrown out of a pub by the police, when bar staff and security at the pub told the police on camera that he had caused no trouble, and he was there with his children?

Just three of numerous incidents, but you claim I am biased when I say he is being treated unfairly.

I'm not missing the point at all, Ellis. You aren't addressing it. Of course there is a difference between people on terrorism watch lists and the types of crimes that Tommy Robinson has been accused and convicted off, but why should that make any difference to the reliability of the state, which you put at 100% when dealing with the former, but say is essentially biased and unreliable when dealing with Robinson? The only HUGE difference is your attitude to the same, where it suits you to make the 100% reliability point about terrorism watch lists, but doesn’t where you are talking about Robinson. What is your explanation for that?

Bail is determined by the Bail Act 1976. Under that act, a deal of weight is attached to a person’s offending history to determine the level of risk of certain outcomes (failing to surrender to bail, committing further offences or interfering with witnesses being the main ones). In Robinson’s case, we know that he has a history of offending, that he has a history of failing to comply with bail conditions (as you point out in post 89) and, on the face of the facts of the case, has access to other people’s travel documents and was willing to disregard a bar imposed upon his entry to the US by the government of that country (again from your post 89).

It would have been far more surprising if he’d been granted bail.

We don’t know the details, but it’s fair to assume that three men in the Kent case who got bail had no offending history or breaching bail conditions. A fourth was remanded in custody, presumably because he had something in his history that justified that within the terms of the Bail Act. With a case of that type, a frequent consideration of bail would be the delay in the matter being charged – we know there is DNA evidence in the case (which wouldn’t have much of a bearing on the ‘consent’ defence that was run), which means that it is highly likely that there would be a significant delay in the investigation (instant DNA results are restricted to TV dramas) and they would have been bailed off by the police. If a defendant keeps out of trouble and complies with any pre-charge bail conditions and turns up when required before he is charged, it can then be an uphill battle to persuade a court that they are not suitable for bail.

In any event, unless it was the same court and bench that dealt with Robinson and the Kent defendants it’s meaningless to try to draw conclusions from the different outcomes.

If you are concerned about the risk that the Canterbury defendants pose, you must be furious with Robinson for his contempt of court. The contempt rules are there to protect the integrity of court proceedings and breaching them can endanger trials and/or convictions.

I’ve not seen a video where Robinson is shoved into a wall. I can see that he appears to stumble against it, but can’t see whether that is down to accident, the deliberate act of the person with the blue T-shirt or Carroll who appears to take exception to person with the blue shirt and starts pushing him. I then see the person in the blue shirt react to Carroll in what I’m sure he would claim to be an act of self-defence.

It’s a pity that we don’t have a reverse angle of what happened, but on the basis of the recording that we do have, I’d say that there is as much evidence of an assault by Carroll as there is against the man in the blue shirt. I don’t think the prosecution could secure a conviction against either of them on the basis of that video recording alone.

In any event, Robinson and Carrol are likely to be pleased with the way their ‘charity walk’ to the scene of the murder of Lee Rigby via the East London mosque went. Nearly four years on and the recording is still being bandied about on the internet as evidence of the biased and unreliable (but otherwise s 100% reliable) nature of the state in their dealings with them. And it’s not as though the outcome came as a surprise to them – according to the report of the incident in The Independent When asked yesterday on Twitter what weather he was expecting for [the day of the ‘charity walk’], Robinson had replied: "I’ll be in a cell by lunch time so won't matter. Ha ha" He also appears to have been well prepared fort events given that he appears to have been mic’d up for his ‘charity walk’ – take a look at the line of the neck of his t shirt.

I know nothing about any incident in which Robinson was thrown out of a pub, but I suspect it’s a bit like the position on bail where he has to live with the consequences of his past behaviour.

Please address the point that I made rather than one I didn't. For clarity, I'm saying that you are being biased when you say that the state is 100% accurate and reliable when it comes to Muslim watch lists but not when it comes to dealing with Robinson.

[KerrAvon]

1. I touched on this before. I have seen him speak out before that there should not be any no-go areas for ANYONE in our country and that everyone should be able to walk peacefully down any street. You and I both agree on that. So was he trying to prove that that is not the case? That's what I think. Of course, he could have been just trying to stir people up in that area. But if all he was doing, along with one other person, was a peaceful charity walk, he should have been able to do it anywhere without the fear of attack. Let's not try to twist this into anything else - any person in Britain should be allowed to walk down any street and not be attacked. The person innocently walking down a street can NEVER be the one in the wrong, only the people doing the assaulting.

So if you agree that anyone should be allowed to peacefully walk down any street, you would have been opposed to any attempt to ban the march that Anjem Choudary stated that he wished to hold in Wootton Bassett (the one where he said he wanted to parade empty coffins through the town to draw attention to Afghan war casualties)? And to be clear, you think the Home Secretary of the time was wrong when he said that he would ban it if the police requested him to?

2. As far as I recall, Tommy announced his intention to do a charity walk on Facebook/Twitter for this little girl. I can't pretend to know the full ins and outs of why it was decided which route, etc, because I can't remember reading it. Although, two possible reasons - though there could be completely different ones - are 1. Him making the political point he should be allowed to walk anywhere in his own country, and 2. That he wanted to inflame some radical Muslim to attack him. Again, probably to make a political point...... See, I am always honest.......

Your honesty is commendable, but how about taking a critical look at the two propositions that you have advanced?

Why would anyone not wanting to make a political point choose a route that went past the East London Mosque and ended at the scene of Lee Rigby's murder and why on earth would anyone concerned with raising money for charity choose to take the opportunity to make a political point?

There is something of a contradiction on the stance that you take towards the liberty of people who want to make provocative 'charity walks' and people who find themselves on the (100% reliable) terrorism watch lists. There appears to be the full spectrum there - from out and out libertarian to the draconian.

[celticmiller]

[QUOTE=Ellis_D;38542046]LITERALLY ALL you have EVER done on here is slag people off, calling them racists, far right, bigots, etc. And defend terrorists and *****philes. I have NEVER seen you post ANYTHING about Rotherham United. But you don't want anyone to link the fact you support Celtic to the fact you also defend terrorists and *****philes and insult anyone who attacks these people. Despite Celtic football club also supporting terrorists and defending *****philes.

Now, not all Celtic fans supported the IRA, of course. But I have seen thirty odd thousand of them singing songs in support of them. I guess you will try and play the old minority card, but that's a big minority. And Big Jock knew about children being abused by a coach at your club, and he decided to hide it under the carpet rather than inform the police.

Go back and support your terrorist supporting, *****phile protecting football club, because you certainly never come on here to show any kind of support for ours.[/QUOTE
Are you going to back up any of that bile filled s@@t?