@Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

I can't watch that at the moment but surely any valuable assessment of a story is to take evidence/views from more than just the self promoting victim?

If you want to take what Yaxley says without question that is your prerogative but I will be casting a critical eye, just as I did with that prison officers view.

Now now, no building strawmen here fella.

Yep, for sure there are 3 sides to every story. His truth, her truth and the actual truth.

My stance has always been that the government is discriminating against a man shining a spotlight on a nasty stain. I find his record of events and obvious public depersonification as more compelling and realistic than the government and media's justifications for such harsh treatment.

Put simply, the bigger kid is fair wailing on the little kid in this playground scrap. He's smashing the shit out of him and it's all getting a bit macabre

@Crucial based on his last, erroneous, prison visit.

How about critiquing his version of events?

Should be easy to dispute, thanks to Dana's knowledgeable insights

Here it is

@Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

Apparently quite balanced and independent view of Yaxley's potential prison experiences here. Clears away a lot of the hyperbole and describes the actual (high) risks and mitigations available.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/43jy7w/stephen-yaxley-lennon-tommy-robinson-muslim-prison-guard-gang-claims

First 2 paragraphs of the apparently quite balanced and independent view:

First of all, I’d like to point out that I’m a fair and unbiased person,

and then

I’ve never personally come across a single Islamic extremist in prison, let alone entire gangs of them.

That's the calibre of report from one female guard that Nick Chester: I got in touch with Dana, who works as a guard at a prison with one of the highest proportions of Muslim inmates in the country. Here’s what she had to say about her experience of so-called prison gangs.

Highest muslim prison population and not one extremist? Come on. There are government reports of extremism in every Muslim prison population

That's the best you can do to further your TR is racist scum (sic)?

Give us some proper dirt on this scumbag man! Mortgage fraud, assault, contempt of court, something like that that screams "beware this man will ruin England if he's not put away permanently"

Just joking. You've got your ideas and I've shown you some of mine

I'm sorry, I haven't explained my position or reasoning properly

I've seen hours (but one of his docos will do) of TR talking into a microphone explaining his life in great detail. Detail that would be easily refuted with a few google searches, phone calls and an Uber.

As a liar, he's got easily disputable narratives. He names people, he cites laws, explains every criminal charge against him.

You could rip apart anyone of his homemade docos and promote the fuck out of it as Sunday night vilification. It'd rate through the roof! Tommy Robinson's Lies, premiering 8pm BBC1

I've also seen a prominent BBC reporter performing and admitting to frabrication and entrapment tactics. It's the Panodrama doco. That's a flag. The guy is being filmed. The BBC owns the show.

I've seen, the house of commons speakers talk of the hate he propagates, yet there are no racist quotes. Given his status as a person not fit to have social media, banking services or liberty, surely we all could rattle off a few of his "Trumpisms"? 3 letters of a youtube search would surely show him, fog horn in hand spouting minutes of "hate"speech to a packed carpark of Nazis?

Yet no. The truth is the best we've got, aside from government generated charges, is vitriol, incessant screeches of racist, (and he's in the company of a muslim - yes it does! If you're going to call racist then it's kroptonite is simply a friend of the oppressed race), and EDL refernces.

No one constantly refers to Majid Nawaz's past

The best I've seen on the fern is "Islam has blood on it's hands" - cartoonist blood? And I asked

He's famous because Britain stood by while too many of it's little girls got fucked over on a scale unprecedented, (and unfathomable) in a functioning peacetime democracy.

These british girls got fucked over, by sociopaths, and then they got fucked over by the very people we were all told, taught and thought would protect us. "Find a policeman"

Cassie Pike, raped by more than 100 men, gets arrested 5 times and 8 years later she helps police identify them again and they're down the hole.
5 arrests (of an under 15 year old naked girl in a room with 7 men with their cocks out) and 8 years later we have justice - contemporary British justice.

How many thousand kids got this horror from the world founder of order and accountability?

"Wasn't that many girls.Exagerrated", some may proffer.

Well what's the threshold then? 10 Cassie Pikes?

100 girls raped 100 times is just, "well that's modern life..." or "kids grow fast these days"?

It's fucken thousands of the most precious wee creatures on earth (sure, flowery talk but girls, kids, are one of life's delights), and what is Britain doing about this decades old infection?

Who gave orders that these girls were willing participants? What progress determining their accountability?

What is Britain doing to address the 3rd party in this ridiculous rampaging rape epidemic? I loves me some alliteration.

Well they're going to unprecedented lengths to de-person and smear a guy that continues to speak about it.

They're locking him up in a weekend, in a Muslim dominated criminal prison (for a civil offence?) and putting him in solitary for a widely acknowledged torturous length of days, all for his own safety.

No other options for his safety?

None?

For contempt of court?

Sentence passed by a judge with no jury? Ain't that illegal for a custodial sentence exceeding 9 months, English common law and Magna Carta - one of Tommy's pieces of info, might be bullshit, easy to know.

All that over a weekend, found to be wrong, TR released, tried again, back in the hole? Apparently with no defense counsel - easily refutable

For contempt of court?

Tommy tells me (in one video) that no individual in the last 60 years has been sentenced to prison for contempt of court for a publication breach of a reporting order. The court clerk admitted the court did not follow it's own guidelines for the media in terms of notifying the public of standard information.

Every other entity in the last 60 years has been given a fine for this charge, including Rod Liddle prejudiced the Steven Lawrence murder trial, 5 grand fine for his paper, the Spectator.

Daily Mail, Daily Mirror reporters in the , Levi Bellfield trial where an 11 year old was murdered. The trial was sqauashed because of this breach. Justice not served. 10 grand fines.

So why the big hullabaloo about this loud mouth whose given no quotes?

Prison and national condemnation for TR. What has he done so heinous? Nothing of any substance.

Hate speech? with no quotes

You couldn't pin anything else on this man you despise?

Nah, I'm sorry, again. None of this adds up. Least of all motives.

Motive for Tommy? He's the most hated man in Britain

Motive for the government?

Motive for the media?

dunno

Finally, and thanks for the chest relieving exercise, this TR thing is full of persecution from what used to be easily the greatest country and system on Earth. A place where great modern civilisation and public morals were created.

The best justice system anyone has ever seen

An example of how to run things

Not anymore Britain. You're not so special anymore. You get nothing done anymore and look mock worthy and inept.

Still a fine country for many many reasons I know but do we judge anything on the best attributes or the worst?

Is Britain the Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby of nations?

Seems about right - great if you ignore the rapings

@Bones well, not quite. I meant that one side inserts personality into the issue.

Most of the information I go by are his videos and his associates and non MSM social commentators. Now I know the perils of that but then again I believe the details of his personal experiences are such that he's not making this up.

So, I've read both sides and there's a lot missing. I'd suggest that 40,000 voters might think the same thing. Easier to label them all racists though.

Just his life story and a worldly experience of media and legal precedents (yes, whataboutery, in a legal sense) is enough to know that something doesn't add up with the mainstream media.

Of course the elephant in the room is that he's primarily associated with the widespread cover up of mass rapings by police and government authorities. A festering sore that no other peacetime 1st world country has never experienced and one that Britain has yet to sufficiently deal with - not the rapings, but the government response to the victims and their families.

But, believe what you want. I don't live in Britain so I've absolutely no right or stance to comment on this though, right?

I've seen this in Asia and non Christian/Anglo Saxon cultures.

It's very disturbing the first few times, but then you see people (women too) that you know and trust doing it and then you wonder about our Victorian era puritan influences vs " just another part of the body"

To clarify, the times I've seen it was more like when we poke a toddler in the belly with a "gotcha" or "gootchyy goo" type of gesture.

Of course the difference is which body part. My experience tells me that other cultures don't revere and taboo genitalia as stringently as the west.

A cultural difference rather than a sexual predator, For better or worse

@Chris-B umm, what scenario is that?

Should add that all completed runs before the hit are counted and if no run after the batsman is hit to account for the dubious scenario of fielders throwing at batsmen to prevent a run???

If hit trying complete the first run (single), ball rebowled might work

A scenario I can't see happening, what if the fielder trying to save runs by hitting the batsman, misses? Team going to be happy with non backed up overthrows?

Not much of a percentage play that one, unless there's something I'm missing.

@MN5 no. That's a run out. Totally irrelevant- you should stick to bagging the spin bowler that beat India with 2 for 7 off 6

@Mokey yep this.
I've played hundreds of games of organised cricket matches. Every time a throw hits the batsman, there's an awkward moment of whether to run or not. 8 times out of 10 the batters don't take the run, mostly out of guilt because everyone knows they didn't "earn" that run - seldom do they ricochet to the boundary.

ICC should make a blanket law that deems every throw hitting a batter as dead. I can't think of any downside to that

We already have laws for obstructing the field

@Salacious-Crumb the "victim" admitted he behaved inappropriately, as did his friends with him, and refused to press charges.

So there's some context