Tommy Robinson (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  Hrolf The Ganger  31 May 18 6.05pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Wouldn't say shining, but not wrong. I don't think that you or Dan are in a position to judge objectivity.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
cryrst  The garden of England 31 May 18 6.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Tom Rob knew he was going to get bird.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derby eagle Derby 31 May 18 6.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I don't think that you or Dan are in a position to judge objectivity. I would say I am though and I dont get involved in many of these spats. He was either stupid or knew exactly what he was doing. Either way, the reporting restrictions were there and he would have had more than ample opportunity to publicise the case once the case concluded. Unlike the Huddersfield case which Stirling talked about earlier where the restrictions were lifted so it could be reported. But like that one we would have got to the point where he could have said his piece after it finished. So if he or anyone else doesn't like the reporting restrictions which judges have the right to put in place you can always take up real politics and get the law changed. There are arguments for and against a USA styled set up. He could always have used that time more usefully and legally to watch the actual trial. Far less spectacular though.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 31 May 18 8.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by derby eagle
I would say I am though and I dont get involved in many of these spats. He was either stupid or knew exactly what he was doing. Either way, the reporting restrictions were there and he would have had more than ample opportunity to publicise the case once the case concluded. Unlike the Huddersfield case which Stirling talked about earlier where the restrictions were lifted so it could be reported. But like that one we would have got to the point where he could have said his piece after it finished. So if he or anyone else doesn't like the reporting restrictions which judges have the right to put in place you can always take up real politics and get the law changed. There are arguments for and against a USA styled set up. He could always have used that time more usefully and legally to watch the actual trial. Far less spectacular though. But why put reporting restrictions on this particular case?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 31 May 18 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
But why put reporting restrictions on this particular case? Because there's another two trials that are dependant / interdependent on this one. There are journalists in court, they just can't report yet
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 31 May 18 8.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I don't think that you or Dan are in a position to judge objectivity. Why?
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 31 May 18 9.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch
Because there's another two trials that are dependant / interdependent on this one. There are journalists in court, they just can't report yet Fair enough.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 31 May 18 9.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Why? Obviously, because you are not objective.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 31 May 18 9.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Obviously, because you are not objective. Why?
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 31 May 18 9.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by pefwin
Why? I don't know why you aren't objective. Too much reading The Guardian perhaps?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 31 May 18 11.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I don't know why you aren't objective. Too much reading The Guardian perhaps? So we are not objective because we do not agree with you. That's a slippery slope.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 31 May 18 11.21pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Fair enough.
Not arrested and imprisoned where his life is in danger. It's a joke and what is very apparent from the left is that they hate this man (which is ridiculous) They have zero objectivity. No one else has been arrested despite having reported....being outside the court is a weak excuse. It's not in the court where he could have been seen by jurors. I'll state it again, because it annoys me. This guy was shouting about these rapes years ago when left wingers were downplaying and denying the problem. If people had listened to Robinson far less girls would have been raped. Yet the state prosecute him. Edited by Stirlingsays (31 May 2018 11.49pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.