View previous topic | View next topic

Tommy Robinson

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

bobwilson
1285747.  Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:20 pm Reply with quote

Spud McLaren wrote:
I like that idea. Very much.

Only, a protest in support of something - isn't a protest, surely?

< ponders >


even better -

an event, a celebration - life affirming

Ding-dong the witch is dead

Be funny to see the "truthers" turn up to argue that point

 
bobwilson
1288429.  Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:12 pm Reply with quote

OK - well, this has now started appearing much more widely and has come to my attention outside of these forums.

An acquaintance drew my attention to an interview conducted by Robert Peston with Nigel Farage in which the matter was (briefly) mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfj6MipMYaY (start at 27:34 for the relevant bit)

I want to send a letter to OFCOM regarding this - would welcome any suggestions for improvements before I send it.

Quote:
Dear Sir,

I have recently seen a programme published by ITV News where Robert Peston is interviewing Nigel Farage and I wish to draw your attention to a segment within that programme where the jailing of Mr Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (also known as Tommy Robinson) is briefly discussed.

I am concerned that the tenor of this segment gives the impression that Mr Yaxley-Lennon has been unjustly imprisoned for exercising the basic human right of freedom of speech.

Surely, as a broadcaster in the UK, ITV has a duty to provide information in a fair and balanced way – this segment clearly fails to do that and should, in my opinion, be subject to censure by yourselves.

The full programme is available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfj6MipMYaY) and the offending segment begins at 27:34 in that video.

Quote:
Peston: Tommy Robinson has been jailed for contempt of court. Hundreds of thousands, I looked yesterday, more than 600,000 people have now signed a petition calling for

Farage: (I know)

Peston: his release. What does that tell us about this country?

Farage: It tells us that people are getting quite scared. They’re getting scared of what’s happening in their communities, they’re getting scared about division, and their lives are being fundamentally changed by bad Government policy, by state-sponsored multiculturalism, and people are scared about it – and all they’ve said – I’ve spoken to them, alright, I’ve spoken to them. All they see, they see Tommy Robinson, a working-class lad, standing up and telling the truth and being put in prison for it. What they don’t see is the (Peston: I mean you….) legal side of the argument.


This leaves the impression that Mr Yaxley-Lennon was imprisoned on a “legal technicality” (of the type much favoured in second-rate 1970’s American TV police dramas which glorified vigilantism).

As you will know, Mr Yaxley-Lennon – who is a convicted football hooligan – was imprisoned for contempt of court. He was imprisoned after having been warned about his behaviour which was prejudicing a current trial. He was imprisoned after repeating the behaviour about which he had been warned.

Mr Yaxley-Lennon’s actions were likely to lead to the abandonment of the trial. At the very least this would have led to the victims in the case having to repeat the ordeal of attending a second trial – not a pleasant experience given the nature of the alleged offences; in the worst-case scenario, the entire case might have been permanently dismissed, leaving the victims with no legal recourse to justice.

This segment gives no explanation of what Mr Farage quite rightly describes as the “legal side of the argument” i.e. that by effectively calling for a lynch mob to dispense summary justice Mr Yaxley-Lennon was perverting the course of justice to such an extent that it would be possible, even likely, that dangerous criminals would be free to continue their offending.

If Mr Yaxley-Lennon had NOT been imprisoned, any future trials of dangerous criminals could be thwarted by the simple expedient of having “friendly antagonists” imitating Mr Yaxley-Lennon and corrupting those trials in a similar manner.

Under the circumstances, and given the very serious misreporting of this matter across the internet, I feel a suitable punishment for ITV would be to REQUIRE them to produce a high quality drama which sets out the true circumstances of Mr Yaxley-Lennon’s imprisonment to be shown at prime-time on their principal channel within the next 6 months, starring A-list actors, and with guest appearances (as themselves) by well-recognisable faces from ITV’s news and current affairs section.

Mr Yaxley-Lennon appears to be an idiot who is unaware that his actions were likely to lead to predatory paedophiles being given a “free pass”. For that he should be pitied.

Mr Peston is presumably NOT an unaware idiot (and presumably does not wish to sabotage criminal trials of alleged paedophiles by the simple expedient of declaring them guilty before the conclusion of the trial) – and I feel sure that ITV would welcome this opportunity to set the record straight.

I look forward to your prompt response.



Any suggestions on wording would be welcome.

 
suze
1288432.  Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:11 pm Reply with quote

Just one thing.

Mr Yaxley-Lennon's first prison sentence was for assaulting a police officer. It was the "other" Tommy Robinson - a Luton Town thug, and apparently a distant cousin of Mr Yaxley-Lennon's - who went to jail for football hooliganism. Tommy Robinson is the real name of the football thug, and Mr Yaxley-Lennon took his pseudonym from him.

Probably, anyway. It has occasionally been noted that not everything that Mr Yaxley-Lennon says in interviews is entirely true.

 
Spud McLaren
1288495.  Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:41 am Reply with quote

Mr Y-L has also been convicted of mortgage fraud, I believe. Not a man to be given credence.

 
bobwilson
1288586.  Fri Jun 29, 2018 7:11 pm Reply with quote

It has also occurred to me that it is now possible to petition parliament (not something I would usually bother with, but desperate times need desperate measures).

I looked on the relevant .gov.uk website and there are dozens of petitions (all dismissed) calling for the release of this prat.

It seems to me that a petition in the opposite direction might have a salutary effect. Assuming that the original targets of Mr Y-L's ire have now been found guilty and sentenced (if that's not the case, and I can't figure out whether that's true or not, then this won't work):

What I had in mind was a petition asking Parliament to:

take note of the fact that Mr Y-L's actions seem to be deliberately designed to sabotage the prosecution of dangerous paedophiles;
that Mr Y-L was specifically made aware of this fact when the relevant court orders against him were made;
and that notwithstanding his claims to be a "nationalist hero" his actions indicate that he has a secret agenda to operate in league with these dangerous criminals to ensure that they could never be brought to justice

and further asking Parliament to make representations to the parole board when they (the parole board) are due to consider any early release of Mr Y-L such that the parole board will take into consideration the failure of Mr Y-L to correct the misapprehension that he (Mr Y-L) is the victim of a witch hunt when his actions would clearly have the effect of ensuring dangerous criminals to roam the streets

I'm not putting that very well am I? What I mean is - his actions had the effect of making it difficult, if not impossible, to bring to trial dangerous criminals - and as such he must be in league with those criminals.

The rules of petitioning parliament require an initial 5 signatories apparently. If we could work out a suitable wording which basically makes it sound as if he's done this to ASSIST the defendants.......... well, you see my point?

 
suze
1288593.  Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:32 am Reply with quote

The first time that Mr Y-L was arrested outside a court was in Canterbury in May of last year. He was convicted of contempt and given a suspended sentence. The details of that case upon which he attempted to "report" can be seen on the Kent Messenger; all four defendants were convicted and jailed, Three are named in the KM piece; the fourth was a minor.

He was arrested for a similar offence outside a court in Leeds this May. As a result of this, the suspended sentence was "activated" and he was sent to prison. Details of the case upon which he was attempting to "report" this time seem not to be readily available. I dare say that a man with your connexions could find them out if he really wanted, but it may be that the case remains ongoing and that reporting restrictions are in place.

 
bobwilson
1288676.  Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:06 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
I dare say that a man with your connexions could find them out if he really wanted


I could (of course) find out what I needed to know - but I'm lazy, busy and currently absent.

I'll see if I can draw up a suitably worded petition to Parliament that'll highlight YL's idiocy. What I want to avoid is overtly calling for (for example) YL to be strung up from the nearest lamp-post - better to call for an inquiry to investigate possible links between him and paedophile gangs since his actions seem to be deliberately designed to ensure they can never be brought to justice.

 
crissdee
1288682.  Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:05 am Reply with quote

I'm not saying you're wrong Bob, but isn't there a small chance that you are suggesting criminality where stupidity would also meet the facts?

 
'yorz
1289118.  Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:09 am Reply with quote

A planned march to show support for jailed EDL founder Tommy Robinson has been rescheduled because it clashes with England's World Cup quarter final tie against Sweden..

“What do we want?”

“JUSTICE!”

“When do we want it?”

“Umm, it can probably wait a bit, tbf”

 
bobwilson
1289271.  Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:53 pm Reply with quote

crissdee wrote:
I'm not saying you're wrong Bob, but isn't there a small chance that you are suggesting criminality where stupidity would also meet the facts?


Yes - absolutely. To call him stupid would to just piss into the ocean.

But to state categorically that he's NOT stupid - and that the only possible explanation for his actions would be a deliberate attempt on his part to get paedophiles released on to the streets - is a lot more difficult for him to deal with.

What can he say "erm - I'm not a paedophile supporter - I'm just stupid - er hang on a minute, I mean, I'm not stupid erm - I'll get back to you on that one"

 
Spud McLaren
1289955.  Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:22 pm Reply with quote

Any update on the petition, bob?

*********

Just spotted this from the Army Rumour Service (ArRSe) site, and I think I shall be taking up the suggestion -

Quote:
Tommy Robinson has been arrested for breach of the peace whilst filming the court case (from outside only)

Sign the petition to release him....

Petition unterschreiben

Quote:
No.

Quote:
Nope.

Quote:
No.

Quote:
Is this a new euphemism for taking a shit?
"I'll be with you in five, I just have to release Tommy Robinson"
PS: No.

 
brunel
1290102.  Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:18 am Reply with quote

So, it would seem that Mr Yaxley-Lennon's links to individuals who support the Trump administration has resulted in pressure from some of Trump's diplomats.

It is now being reported that Sam Brownback, the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, told the British Ambassador that, if the British Government did not treat Mr Yaxley-Lennon in a more sympathetic light, the Trump administration might publicly criticise the way in which the British Government has treated his case.

It is also being reported that the Republican Congressman Paul Gosar is scheduled to speak in favour of Yaxley-Lennon at a rally by his supporters in London, which is expected to merge with another rally planned to support Trump's visit to the UK.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-trump-britain-robinson/trumps-ambassador-lobbied-britain-on-behalf-of-jailed-right-wing-activist-tommy-robinson-idUKKBN1K331C

 
Jenny
1290133.  Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:11 am Reply with quote

That would be Sam Brownback the former economy-wrecking governor of Kansas, I presume?

 
suze
1290199.  Sun Jul 15, 2018 7:37 am Reply with quote

brunel wrote:
If the British Government did not treat Mr Yaxley-Lennon in a more sympathetic light, the Trump administration might publicly criticise the way in which the British Government has treated his case.


I doubt that even the Trump administration would actually do that, much as it doesn't mind if Mrs May's people think that it might.

Criticizing another major developed nation for following its proper legal processes really isn't done, and the US does not welcome other nations criticizing its gun laws or its eagerness to execute people.

In any case, even if Mr Trump were to say in "Release Mr Y-L now, or we drop the bomb", Mrs May wouldn't do it. She is well aware how unpopular Mr Trump is in Britain, even among her own party, and under no circumstances will she let herself be seen to do something just because he said so.

 
brunel
1290222.  Sun Jul 15, 2018 3:58 pm Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
That would be Sam Brownback the former economy-wrecking governor of Kansas, I presume?

It is the same figure indeed, and his character does seem little changed between then and now.

suze wrote:
brunel wrote:
If the British Government did not treat Mr Yaxley-Lennon in a more sympathetic light, the Trump administration might publicly criticise the way in which the British Government has treated his case.


I doubt that even the Trump administration would actually do that, much as it doesn't mind if Mrs May's people think that it might.

Criticizing another major developed nation for following its proper legal processes really isn't done, and the US does not welcome other nations criticizing its gun laws or its eagerness to execute people.

In any case, even if Mr Trump were to say in "Release Mr Y-L now, or we drop the bomb", Mrs May wouldn't do it. She is well aware how unpopular Mr Trump is in Britain, even among her own party, and under no circumstances will she let herself be seen to do something just because he said so.

It might not be the done thing under conventional circumstances, but I think that few will dispute that Trump and his administration is conventional in any sense.

After all, in a period where there is infighting within the UK government, it would generally not be "the done thing" to publicly support those acting to destabilise the administration - but, with Trump, that is exactly what we got when we heard him offer public support for Boris Johnson as PM.

The idea, therefore, that his administration might publicly criticise the treatment of Mr Y-L, particularly in a period when his virulently Islamophobic ideas has given him quite a lot of links and support amongst the more extreme right in the US and with figures in Trump's administration, makes the idea of Trump's officials making such a move seem to be much more probable than might have been in the past.

Now, as you say, whether the UK government would do anything more than pay lip service to his comments is another matter - you would hope that was the case.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group