Connections Puzzle #328 Sat 4 May
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
'tommy Robinson' "not Well Known As He Thinks He Is ... " Shock-Horror!!!!
241 Answers
https:/
I am saying nothing at this stage - I think the report, and the result of the case, says it all.
I am saying nothing at this stage - I think the report, and the result of the case, says it all.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. 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.
retrocop
/// I am taking an adjournment. Been on this OP too long this morning. My son will be here any minute and we are going to watch yesterday's rugby matches. Been fun debating with you. Back later. ///
Go easy on the water Retro and don't get mouthing off to your son, or you may get a knock on the door. :0)
/// I am taking an adjournment. Been on this OP too long this morning. My son will be here any minute and we are going to watch yesterday's rugby matches. Been fun debating with you. Back later. ///
Go easy on the water Retro and don't get mouthing off to your son, or you may get a knock on the door. :0)
Here we go again: another Robinson thread with hundreds of posts.
There seem to be two justifications offered on this thread for the police action in removing Robinson and his children out of a Cambridge pub and, indeed, out of Cambridge.
One is that Robinson is "far right" and has "a hidden agenda" which is the kind of thing it's "worth seeing the police bend some rules to suppress". So, see Lennon, any place, any time...
This justification seems to a layman like me a rejection of the rule of law. However, AB's second greatest jurist has herself posted on this thread and may be willing to correct a possible misunderstanding on my part.
The other justification, and the one the police appear to have used ( and at least makes sense) is that Robinson as a convicted football hooligan (see above reference to his conviction in 2011) on a day out watching football in a pub would be likely[i to cause public disorder.
So, how likely you might ask? Well, without his kids, and with a group of mates who have been bevying all day, and are all getting lairy, you might answer highly likely. But being in the bar with two other guys with seven kids among them and (in Robinson's case) not drinking [i]and with the testimony of the landlady] you might think rather unlikely.
Now I think the people on here who hate Robinson would, if forced, probably agree with me on that point, but such is their pleasure in seeing the discomfort of Robinson that they don't actually care, do they? (Annoyingly, by the way, I can't find the judge's summary. It would be interesting to see her spin.)
PS: Robinson didn't come to public notice because he is a convicted football hooligan; he came to public notice for publicising some particularly heinous crimes. Pity the police didn't show the same determination and zeal in arresting the perpetrators as they have "suppressing" Robinson. Same point to Lennon haters here.
There seem to be two justifications offered on this thread for the police action in removing Robinson and his children out of a Cambridge pub and, indeed, out of Cambridge.
One is that Robinson is "far right" and has "a hidden agenda" which is the kind of thing it's "worth seeing the police bend some rules to suppress". So, see Lennon, any place, any time...
This justification seems to a layman like me a rejection of the rule of law. However, AB's second greatest jurist has herself posted on this thread and may be willing to correct a possible misunderstanding on my part.
The other justification, and the one the police appear to have used ( and at least makes sense) is that Robinson as a convicted football hooligan (see above reference to his conviction in 2011) on a day out watching football in a pub would be likely[i to cause public disorder.
So, how likely you might ask? Well, without his kids, and with a group of mates who have been bevying all day, and are all getting lairy, you might answer highly likely. But being in the bar with two other guys with seven kids among them and (in Robinson's case) not drinking [i]and with the testimony of the landlady] you might think rather unlikely.
Now I think the people on here who hate Robinson would, if forced, probably agree with me on that point, but such is their pleasure in seeing the discomfort of Robinson that they don't actually care, do they? (Annoyingly, by the way, I can't find the judge's summary. It would be interesting to see her spin.)
PS: Robinson didn't come to public notice because he is a convicted football hooligan; he came to public notice for publicising some particularly heinous crimes. Pity the police didn't show the same determination and zeal in arresting the perpetrators as they have "suppressing" Robinson. Same point to Lennon haters here.
VE, this isn't the summary but it may be of help. Scroll down and the blog gives details of what all was said.
https:/
There are several words or phrases in square brackets but it is not clear if it is the Judge or the reporter's version that has being corrected.
https:/
There are several words or phrases in square brackets but it is not clear if it is the Judge or the reporter's version that has being corrected.
retrocop - // //Wow, I bet your ex-colleagues really appreciate that support!
Well seeing as you implied on an earlier OP I was a corrupt and racist cop I can tell you I take a fair,impartial unbigoted view. That was the way the Police operated in my day. //
I implied no such thing, and you are, again, assuming something that does not exist.
// As soon as I see a TR OP from you I can expect irrational foam specked spittle as you vent your spleen. //
A little dramatic in your imagery there, I am not 'venting' anything I assure you.
// Your bias shows no bounds and your opinions lose credibility. //
That's your opinion, it is not a fact, it is simply an opinion which obviously I would disagree with.
// You would swear on the bible that TR was an accomplice in the Bonfire Plot! //
It's actually the Gunpowder Plot, but don't let getting facts wrong impede your view, which again is incorrect - I would not swear on the Bible, I am an atheist.
Well seeing as you implied on an earlier OP I was a corrupt and racist cop I can tell you I take a fair,impartial unbigoted view. That was the way the Police operated in my day. //
I implied no such thing, and you are, again, assuming something that does not exist.
// As soon as I see a TR OP from you I can expect irrational foam specked spittle as you vent your spleen. //
A little dramatic in your imagery there, I am not 'venting' anything I assure you.
// Your bias shows no bounds and your opinions lose credibility. //
That's your opinion, it is not a fact, it is simply an opinion which obviously I would disagree with.
// You would swear on the bible that TR was an accomplice in the Bonfire Plot! //
It's actually the Gunpowder Plot, but don't let getting facts wrong impede your view, which again is incorrect - I would not swear on the Bible, I am an atheist.
tambourine - // The moral of this TR debacle is:- Don't report molestation of young girls or the law will hound you out of this land! //
I thnk the moral actually is, don't make a career out of being an attention-seeking loudmouth, or you will get the attention - but it may not be the kind you would like.
Except here it is exactly what 'Tommy' likes - the chance to paint himself as the victim of a state conspiracy, forgetting of course that, as the judge has pointed out, he is simply not that important.
I thnk the moral actually is, don't make a career out of being an attention-seeking loudmouth, or you will get the attention - but it may not be the kind you would like.
Except here it is exactly what 'Tommy' likes - the chance to paint himself as the victim of a state conspiracy, forgetting of course that, as the judge has pointed out, he is simply not that important.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.