O/T Tommy Robinson Speaks About Manchester Terror Attack

[Ellis_D]

So everybody on here is saying it had nothing to do with thousands of Liverpool fans turning up without tickets. It's all the SY police & a newspapers fault. I always make my own mind up. Mistakes were made but after storming the gates were there were more than likely legitimate fans there with tickets they get in the ground & don't have the decency to know they are crushing/killing there own fans. I know what's right & that isn't. Somebody tell me different cause if you can I've lived all my life wrong.

gwru, you CLEARLY have not looked into this. NOBODY stormed the gates - that was a lie. David Duckenfield opened the gates. Look, if you aren't going to even listen to us, there's no point in even discussing it with you.

You might always make your own mind up, but you clearly aren't armed with all the facts.

[Ellis_D]

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.

gwru, in simple terms, a new Match Commander, David Duckenfield was appointed to the game. He never had the experience or the knowledge of the ground. Liverpool got the smaller end at Hillsborough, Leppings Lane, when it would have made much more sense as they had more fans, to give the the Kop. Duckenfield should have closed the gate for the tunnel leading to pens 3 and 4 once they were full, but never understood the lay out of he ground. Because of the refusal to delay the kickoff, the fans were eager to get into the ground. Rather than be directed towards the almost empty pens 1 and 2, they went down the closest tunnel to pens 3 and 4. The fans had no idea those pens were so full. The pens - with the fans locked in on all sides - got fuller and fuller. None of the fans outside getting in to the ground knew any of this. The police should have acted. By the time they did it was too late. People were getting crushed to death and died.

Look, I really don't want to go into this any further. I have done my own research on it, you should do your own. I have sat there many nights reading documents, watching videos and studying photographs. It has caused me much anguish, lots of sleepless nights and a lot of tears.

But that is NOTHING compared to the victims, their families and anyone else there that day. The position you are taking is wrong, and highly offensive. You are just spouting the lies that were originally told, and it is wrong.

[Ellis_D]

Here's one for EDL, fraudster "Tommy Robinson" (not his real name)Attachment 4686, etc

Yet again, your lack of knowledge is apparent to anyone with a brain. Tommy Robinson, even if you are under the mistaken belief he is far right, is no more a Nazi than you are. He is just as much a Nazi as he is a Muslim extremist.

He hates both with a passion, he has spoken out against both of them repeatedly. He has carried the Israeli flag on marches and said he stands with Jewish people and Israel. He did everything he could to evict any Nazi influence from the EDL, including headbutting one who had infiltrated them.

I know that doesn't suit you because it's not what you read on your left wing websites, but all of it is the truth.

[mygiddypant]

Hundreds of thousands of children have been raped by Muslim gangs in the UK, that's far worse than anything British troops have done in the Middle East, and a million times worse than anything Tommy Robinson has ever done.

HUNDREDS of thousands? Source?

[rolymiller]

hp, Daddies maybe. The only source great fire uses is the stuff he puts on his chips. It's all made upnonsense to justify his intolerant views.

[Ellis_D]

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?

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.

Well I thought the point in your first paragraph had already been raised. It is clear what my explanation is - because of the pathetic political correctness we live under, just like in the Rotherham grooming scandal, the police bend over backwards to appease Muslims, and to do everything in their power to not look racist. This includes ignoring young white girls who tell them they are being raped and passed around Muslim men, this includes arresting a 13 year old white girl for being drunk and disorderly when they arrive at a house full of Muslim men and find her there - but none of the men are even questioned never mind arrested, this includes arresting the father of a 14 year old girl who arrives at a house to take his daughter home from a house full of Muslim *****philes and unbelievably leaving her in their clutches.... Yes, just a few little examples. And this also includes repeatedly harassing and persecuting a man who constantly criticises Islam - Tommy Robinson. And it also includes - although this is more down to law makers than law enforcers - not having tighter and stricter controls on people suspected of being terrorist links. Say what you like, but under my system, the Westminster and Manchester attackers would have been in prison and not able to murder loads of people.

I fully accept your points about bail. Although in my opinion, I think anyone charged with murder or a ***ual offence - especially against children - should not get bail, regardless of their lack of past offending.

Your points about the assault video are laughable though. You can tell from everyone's reactions EXACTLY what has happened. Watch it again, but this time with a little less prejudice, and actually try to tell the truth. You can clearly see the arm of the muppet in the blue top move to the side, as he elbows Tommy or shoves him. Unfortunately, you can't see exactly what he did of the two, or with how much force, because, as he does it, the muppet in the red top blocks the camera. However, Tommy falls into the wall. You can tell by Kev Carrolls' reaction that he knows EXACTLY what has happened, because he instantly shouts, "Oi lads! Won't you just facking get out of it."

Now, unlike you, I tell the full truth. You claim that what you saw next was, "Carroll who appears to take exception to person with the blue shirt and starts pushing him." Well, he certainly never starts pushing him. That phrase would indicate he pushes him a few times. In actual fact, you don't even see him push him once on camera. All you see is Carroll with his hands outstretched, well, that could be in a peaceful manner, a pacifist. The man in the blue shirt could have stumbled. You no more know that Kev Carroll pushed that man in the blue top than I do that the man in the blue top pushed Tommy. Try to fair and even-minded.

Again though, it is safe to say what happened because of people's reactions. The man in the blue top pushed Tommy. Tommy's reaction was to fall into the wall. Kev's reaction was to push the man in the blue top. Now, Kev Carroll's reaction to his younger cousin being pushed was to defend him and push back the man coming at him. The man in the blue top's reaction was to punch Kev in the stomach.

Again, you can tell everything that is happening by their reactions. Tommy Robinson and Kev Carroll then speak to the police. You can tell by how incensed Tommy and Kev are that the only person there who has assaulted anyone is the man in the blue top. You can also tell that the police fully understand that it was NOT self defence on the part of the man in the blue top because not one of them who witnessed it says anything of the sort.

Of course, the police were witnesses to the assault and were filming it from the other angle themselves. But they would allow the violent, fascist left to attack Tommy or his friend, and not provide any evidence to support the truth, because that would not allow them to continue with their persecution of Tommy.

The fact you see anything other than that, is, as I said, laughable.

In regards to Tommy's answer on Twitter about being arrested, he was joking. The joke being, the police often arrest him for very little anyway, but even he was surprised to be arrested that day.

And talk about being paranoid, he was mic'd up for the charity walk because his friend was filming it! He has been the victim of assault by Muslims and leftists thugs so many times that he films himself a lot, for his own safety and evidence.

Your last paragraph, I answered in my first paragraph. Although, I can't remember where I said the state were 100% accurate and reliable when it comes to Muslim watch lists. I said they have information of something as they don't just put random Muslims on this list for no reason. They don't just think, "Oh, he is brown or has a beard, or I once saw him walking past a mosque, so he MUST be a terrorist." They have clear information that puts them on that list. Information, that if they do not act upon will mean the murders of many people. If they had information that Tommy Robinson was a potential terrorist, then I would say indefinitely lock him up too. But they haven't. So instead they try to lock him up for loads of other things because he tells the uncomfortable truth that the left don't want to hear.

I had to cut your second paragraph out. Nothing sinister, my post was just too long.

[rolymiller]

Just a small but somewhat significant point thete is no such thing as a fascist left.left wing and right wing politics come from 2 totally different traditions. Socialism as inmarxism is to do with control by the proletariat ie the workers. Fascism is rule by a small elite. I always assumed you were a worker so I am surprised you are against party's who would naturally fight for you and your families causes.

[rolymiller]

Just to add importantly fascism is authoritarian so there is a good chance that not only me but also thee and our pal great fire would bethe first against the wall the wall if we slightly stepped out of line. Learn the lesson of the rise of the Nazis. Dont encourage these right wing groups.

[Ellis_D]

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?

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.

Firstly, Anjem Choudary is a hate preacher. Tommy Robinson is not, regardless of what the left might believe. Choudary has been involved with several proscribed organisations. Tommy has been involved with none. Choudary has been involved with radicalising and training people to go and fight for terrorist organisations abroad. Tommy has not. Choudary praised the murderers involved in the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks describing them as "magnificent martyrs". Tommy has NEVER praised ANY murderer. Choudary has regularly called for the deaths of British police and armed forces, Tommy has not.

That you would try to compare the two is baffling and again, frankly, laughable. But this is one of the most worrying things about the left. You seriously compare terrorists, and hate preachers like Anjem Choudary to people you consider to be far right like Tommy Robinson, and you don't even see how utterly ridiculous it is. One of them hates Britain, preaches hate and supports terrorism and murders. The other speaks out against that hate and terrorism.

That said, IF a Muslim who was NOT under suspicion of links to terrorists (I'd be amazed given the evidence if Choudary wasn't on that hate list) wanted to form some kind of protest about the war in Afghanistan, or any other country, even if it involved the quite bizarre spectacle of walking coffins through the street, then yes, they should be allowed to exercise their democratic right to protest. If the Home Secretary at the time told police he would ban the march if police wanted him to, then I can only assume that is because Choudary is a hate preacher and on the terror suspects list.

To be clear, any Muslim who is not suspected of this behaviour - and of course the Home Secretary would have access to this information - should be allowed to walk down any street they feel like and hold a PEACEFUL protest or demonstration.

'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?' - I'm sure I have already been over this and like I said, he probably did want to make a political point. And again, I'll be honest, he may have been trying to provoke an attack from a Muslim or Muslims. And then be able to say, 'Look at these Islamic extremists, this is how bad they are, they would even attack me on a charity march.'

I'm not agreeing with him if he WAS trying to make a political point out of supposedly just raising money for charity, just as I don't agree with other public figures or celebrities who use things like that for their own agenda. There is also of course the very realistic possibility that by taking such a deliberate and provocative route that he knew would gain the march maximum publicity. That would also have gained the charity maximum donations. And the parents of the little girl were happy enough with the ends justifying the means.

And finally, there is no contradiction. Just common sense. Everyone in Britain should have the freedom to peacefully walk down any street they like without fear of being attacked. The person doing the attacking should ALWAYS be the one in the wrong. I'd hazard a guess that if it was a Muslim walking down the street being attacked by white atheists or Christians you would be one of the first to speak out about how wrong it is. Simply walking down a street does not mean you might potentially murder tens, hundreds or thousands of innocent people, being a suspected terrorist does.

Again, that you can't see the vast difference between the two is extraordinary.

[celticmiller]

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.

Tick tock Ellis EDL . Put up or shut up.