ChatterBank0 min ago
Robinson Sued
// Lawyers representing a Syrian boy who was attacked at school have served a legal letter at Tommy Robinson’s home in an attempt to sue him for defamation.
The anti-Islam activist posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in the months before the incident, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. //
One of the drawbacks of accepting £millions in donations from gullible far right but jobs, he is now worth suing.
The anti-Islam activist posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in the months before the incident, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. //
One of the drawbacks of accepting £millions in donations from gullible far right but jobs, he is now worth suing.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"and ‘thugs’ are ostracized for doing the right thing in speaking out? Why?"
Where to start? Being ostracised is surely a better outcome than being beaten and burned to death over a false allegation? (References at the end).
Who decides what is the 'right thing'? Tommy Robinson had jeopardised a trial by broadcasting details. He was warned not to, but did the same again. There was nothing to gain but publicity for him, while his actions could have caused a mistrial, even potentially putting the accused back on the streets. Was that the right thing to do?
There is a way of speaking out that is generally accepted. There are newspapers and broadcasters who I don't like, but they have a role to play. Robinson calls himself a journalist but apparently thinks he alone is exempt from things like fact checking. He is not sanctioned for speaking out but for crimes.
The stench of false allegations lingers. Harvey Proctor says he lost his relationship, job and home over false claims. Cliff Richard successfully sued the BBC for publicising a search of his home. The BBC and police came away looking stupid, but Richard is still tainted, as were the Guildford Four and others.
If Robinson is right, and I am not in a position to prove him wrong, why would he resort to hooligan tactics to prove it? Vetuste_ennemi (I think) posted a video of Andrew Norfolk discussing his role as a journalist, with not a mob in sight. The knife crime thread currently on AB highlights public concerns about safety on the streets. How many would feel safer if large gangs were roaming, dishing out summary justice without any other evidence than skin colour or religion? There are Jewish night patrols in New York. What about Moslem patrols in UK?
Child rape in Rotherham might be similar to child rape in Rochdale, but knowing that does not push an investigation forwards. The evidence must relate to the specific incidents. A police officer is not the person to do the search for links. We already tried that with Satanic abuse. Each incident is unique. Journalists can and do look for the bigger picture, and rightly so, but it sells newspapers, it doesn't protect children. I have had to remove a good worker from a team because they were too busy trying to make connections to other cases that they were not focusing on the children they were supposed to be protecting.
Tommy Robinson is not making children safer, but he is putting innocent people at risk.
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
Where to start? Being ostracised is surely a better outcome than being beaten and burned to death over a false allegation? (References at the end).
Who decides what is the 'right thing'? Tommy Robinson had jeopardised a trial by broadcasting details. He was warned not to, but did the same again. There was nothing to gain but publicity for him, while his actions could have caused a mistrial, even potentially putting the accused back on the streets. Was that the right thing to do?
There is a way of speaking out that is generally accepted. There are newspapers and broadcasters who I don't like, but they have a role to play. Robinson calls himself a journalist but apparently thinks he alone is exempt from things like fact checking. He is not sanctioned for speaking out but for crimes.
The stench of false allegations lingers. Harvey Proctor says he lost his relationship, job and home over false claims. Cliff Richard successfully sued the BBC for publicising a search of his home. The BBC and police came away looking stupid, but Richard is still tainted, as were the Guildford Four and others.
If Robinson is right, and I am not in a position to prove him wrong, why would he resort to hooligan tactics to prove it? Vetuste_ennemi (I think) posted a video of Andrew Norfolk discussing his role as a journalist, with not a mob in sight. The knife crime thread currently on AB highlights public concerns about safety on the streets. How many would feel safer if large gangs were roaming, dishing out summary justice without any other evidence than skin colour or religion? There are Jewish night patrols in New York. What about Moslem patrols in UK?
Child rape in Rotherham might be similar to child rape in Rochdale, but knowing that does not push an investigation forwards. The evidence must relate to the specific incidents. A police officer is not the person to do the search for links. We already tried that with Satanic abuse. Each incident is unique. Journalists can and do look for the bigger picture, and rightly so, but it sells newspapers, it doesn't protect children. I have had to remove a good worker from a team because they were too busy trying to make connections to other cases that they were not focusing on the children they were supposed to be protecting.
Tommy Robinson is not making children safer, but he is putting innocent people at risk.
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
JF85. Your objections appear to revolve around the possibility of false allegation but the allegations against the grooming gangs weren’t false – and the criminals weren’t burned or beaten to death either. Their crimes were hidden – and by extension condoned by the establishment. If anything puts children at risk, that does.
//Child rape in Rotherham might be similar to child rape in Rochdale, but knowing that does not push an investigation forwards. The evidence must relate to the specific incidents.//
What do you mean “might be”? There’s a very definite link between these crimes – one that few, including you it seems, are prepared to acknowledge. You may as well say that if a serial killer is at large, despite the fact that each of his crimes bear the same hallmark, he shouldn’t be investigated as a serial killer but on each individual murder separately - which is abject nonsense. If there’s a link it must be acknowledged.
//Child rape in Rotherham might be similar to child rape in Rochdale, but knowing that does not push an investigation forwards. The evidence must relate to the specific incidents.//
What do you mean “might be”? There’s a very definite link between these crimes – one that few, including you it seems, are prepared to acknowledge. You may as well say that if a serial killer is at large, despite the fact that each of his crimes bear the same hallmark, he shouldn’t be investigated as a serial killer but on each individual murder separately - which is abject nonsense. If there’s a link it must be acknowledged.
//How many would feel safer if large gangs were roaming, dishing out summary justice..//
As has been pointed out previously TR himself has been physically assaulted and put in hospital and he and his family needed to move home.He also has bodyguards.
So what,many would say,he deserves it or reaps what he sows,but daring to speak out should not result in such drastic measures being taken.
As to 'it's not up to the police to make links', this is part of the problem.It is always somebody else's responsibility except that there have been numerous collective multi-agency failings.We are often told lessons will be learnt so why are there so many cases that have resulted in tragedy?
When heads are buried in the sand and a refusal to acknowledge that problems exist,it will end in disaster and perpetuate.
Perhaps,if just once in a while,the real wheat from the chaff of TR's output is taken more seriously,then he would not be so easily dismissed.
As has been pointed out previously TR himself has been physically assaulted and put in hospital and he and his family needed to move home.He also has bodyguards.
So what,many would say,he deserves it or reaps what he sows,but daring to speak out should not result in such drastic measures being taken.
As to 'it's not up to the police to make links', this is part of the problem.It is always somebody else's responsibility except that there have been numerous collective multi-agency failings.We are often told lessons will be learnt so why are there so many cases that have resulted in tragedy?
When heads are buried in the sand and a refusal to acknowledge that problems exist,it will end in disaster and perpetuate.
Perhaps,if just once in a while,the real wheat from the chaff of TR's output is taken more seriously,then he would not be so easily dismissed.
naomi24: I was not trying to suggest that allegations against the grooming gangs were false. What I was trying to say, in my inarticulate way, was that false allegations do happen. If all allegations are investigated by people with training and expertise, the two can be separated and the law applied where necessary. Where we allow mobs to decide on the accuracy of allegations we put ourselves in a scary place. I did not suggest the criminals were beaten or burned, I showed clearly, with links, that innocent people have suffered through false allegations, including being killed by vigilantes.
The crimes of the grooming gangs were not hidden. We know that they were being investigated very carefully, and the lengthy prison sentences are an indicator that the work was done thoroughly.
The children involved were using illegal drugs and being sexually abused. To have details of their lives broadcast or printed in newspapers would have been unjust. For all that they thought they were in adult relationships and rebelling against parental or establishment values, they were not. Local people would have had a view on who was involved. My children were not in trouble with the police or going missing for long periods, but I would still have objected strongly to details of their activities being made public. Children have a right to privacy, and for their confidential information to be kept that way.
Whilst I understand what you say about serial killer methods, we appear to be approaching it from opposite ends. The hunt for Peter Sutcliffe was set back by the fake letter sent to police. It seemed to fit what police expected but was a red herring. Donal Neilson kept his victim down a drain, but police would not refuse to search houses or woods if he kidnapped a second victim. Peter Sutcliffe, remember, was not caught killing people but stealing number plates. Fortunately the police weren't solely focused on his murderous activities.
In the example I discussed earlier, the crime would be what happened to the victim in Rotherham. Any links to Rochdale could lead to further enquiries, but if thosevenquiries found nothing the Rotherham child had still been harmed.
Any incidents like the events in Rotherham are examined in detail at Serious Case Reviews. Versions of these are available to the public for at least a year after they end, and can be found online with no paywall and not surrounded by click bait or information about cookies that is so deliberately difficult as to be worthless.
What this means, briefly, is that you can read the true story of what happened and what went wrong far more readily through informed and independent documents than through garish headlines and speculation.
The crimes of the grooming gangs were not hidden. We know that they were being investigated very carefully, and the lengthy prison sentences are an indicator that the work was done thoroughly.
The children involved were using illegal drugs and being sexually abused. To have details of their lives broadcast or printed in newspapers would have been unjust. For all that they thought they were in adult relationships and rebelling against parental or establishment values, they were not. Local people would have had a view on who was involved. My children were not in trouble with the police or going missing for long periods, but I would still have objected strongly to details of their activities being made public. Children have a right to privacy, and for their confidential information to be kept that way.
Whilst I understand what you say about serial killer methods, we appear to be approaching it from opposite ends. The hunt for Peter Sutcliffe was set back by the fake letter sent to police. It seemed to fit what police expected but was a red herring. Donal Neilson kept his victim down a drain, but police would not refuse to search houses or woods if he kidnapped a second victim. Peter Sutcliffe, remember, was not caught killing people but stealing number plates. Fortunately the police weren't solely focused on his murderous activities.
In the example I discussed earlier, the crime would be what happened to the victim in Rotherham. Any links to Rochdale could lead to further enquiries, but if thosevenquiries found nothing the Rotherham child had still been harmed.
Any incidents like the events in Rotherham are examined in detail at Serious Case Reviews. Versions of these are available to the public for at least a year after they end, and can be found online with no paywall and not surrounded by click bait or information about cookies that is so deliberately difficult as to be worthless.
What this means, briefly, is that you can read the true story of what happened and what went wrong far more readily through informed and independent documents than through garish headlines and speculation.
///If Robinson is right, and I am not in a position to prove him wrong, why would he resort to hooligan tactics to prove it? Vetuste_ennemi (I think) posted a video of Andrew Norfolk discussing his role as a journalist, with not a mob in sight.///
You either failed to watch the video or failed to understand it.
You either failed to watch the video or failed to understand it.
agchristie: Whether TR has been assaulted himself is not relevant, any more than whether you or I have. He is a journalist but chooses to ignore all the basics of journalism such as fact checking, then hides from his responsibility. In the case of the Syrian child bullied in Huddersfield, for example, he said a woman told him Jamal had bullied another student but he now knew this to be untrue. No reference to his second and third sources to back up the original claim, just a shrug and a cheeky grin.
If he feels he has to protect his family, why post footage of himself doorstepping somebody he thought had trolled him? Doesn't that simply show bad people how to do it? 'Speaking out' is not the cause of any difficulties he might have. Hundreds, thousands, speak out every day without having to move home. Neither he nor his family deserve to be harassed, but then neither do the people he harasses. There are better ways to speak out.
The next time a person requires immediate help, I wonder if they will be asked whether they would prefer the police officer to deal with the situation in front of them or to go away and search for connections to other offences in the area? That is not what we ask of the police. People with more time and resources can deal with those statistics; the police have higher priorities.
You too might want to look at a few Serious Case Reviews in your area, neighbouring areas or places, where you know there has been an incident of concern. You might have read some already, I don't know, but I am sure you will get a clearer idea of how issues are investigated and lessons implemented.
As for the wheat and the chaff, there's a reason farmers thresh their grain in the first place. As a journalist, shouldn't TR be separating the two, not publishing a mountain of trash with the occasional fragment of truth? If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to find the serious bits and leave the chaff behind.
If he feels he has to protect his family, why post footage of himself doorstepping somebody he thought had trolled him? Doesn't that simply show bad people how to do it? 'Speaking out' is not the cause of any difficulties he might have. Hundreds, thousands, speak out every day without having to move home. Neither he nor his family deserve to be harassed, but then neither do the people he harasses. There are better ways to speak out.
The next time a person requires immediate help, I wonder if they will be asked whether they would prefer the police officer to deal with the situation in front of them or to go away and search for connections to other offences in the area? That is not what we ask of the police. People with more time and resources can deal with those statistics; the police have higher priorities.
You too might want to look at a few Serious Case Reviews in your area, neighbouring areas or places, where you know there has been an incident of concern. You might have read some already, I don't know, but I am sure you will get a clearer idea of how issues are investigated and lessons implemented.
As for the wheat and the chaff, there's a reason farmers thresh their grain in the first place. As a journalist, shouldn't TR be separating the two, not publishing a mountain of trash with the occasional fragment of truth? If he wants to be taken seriously, he needs to find the serious bits and leave the chaff behind.
This is a longer video with more background to Norfolk's investigation firstly in Rochdale (remember BBC1's "Three Girls"?) and subsequently in Rotherham in which he presents incontrovertible evidence of a cover-up by both Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police.
Norfolk found a whistle-blower who provided him with police intelligence reports and social services case files going back more than ten years[i. That's ten years! (Begins 12 minutes into the video).
These official reports include the names of victims, the names and car registration numbers of the suspected rapists [i]and] the locations used by the gangs.
Norfolk found a whistle-blower who provided him with police intelligence reports and social services case files going back more than ten years[i. That's ten years! (Begins 12 minutes into the video).
These official reports include the names of victims, the names and car registration numbers of the suspected rapists [i]and] the locations used by the gangs.
'First they came for Tommy'. Which statements on this link are untrue? With hard evidence please
https:/
https:/
"No, he's not, he's an agitator with a video camera, anyone can do what Robinson does."
These are changing times. However he wants to identify is fine by me, and I'm sure he affords others the same option.
He is, however, employed as a journalist so I am in no position to dispute it. To the best of my knowledge there are guidelines for respected journalists, such as fact checking, but I haven't actually claimed TR is a reputable journalist.
These are changing times. However he wants to identify is fine by me, and I'm sure he affords others the same option.
He is, however, employed as a journalist so I am in no position to dispute it. To the best of my knowledge there are guidelines for respected journalists, such as fact checking, but I haven't actually claimed TR is a reputable journalist.
JF85 - // He is, however, employed as a journalist so I am in no position to dispute it. //
I am.
'Tommy Robinson' is employed for what he is, a loud-mouthed bigoted thug with a large following and a level of self-obsession that Donald Trump would envy.
Calling him a 'journalist' because he speaks into a camera is like calling an ass a horse, you can call it a horse, but you can't shorten its ears.
I am.
'Tommy Robinson' is employed for what he is, a loud-mouthed bigoted thug with a large following and a level of self-obsession that Donald Trump would envy.
Calling him a 'journalist' because he speaks into a camera is like calling an ass a horse, you can call it a horse, but you can't shorten its ears.
Latest Posts
Fao Buenchico / Barmaid Re Wills
Law5 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching7 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching11 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
