No obfuscation pz97, you've just been demotedThat sounds like a political promise wayneL. As an independent thinker I don't buy that either.
You are obfuscating PZ99 with pz98 - and you're seeking facts ?
Fact: Toto is a rock band
Thanks, but I already know what in toto means, waynekNo obfuscation pz97, you've just been demoted
And for your edification ->
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/in-toto
It's a pity that such an effort on your long reply is undermined by an inability to accept that Tommy does not have, on his criminal record, a charge for breaching the public order act.
You were challenging that in your first reply in this thread and it appears that in doing so you're relying on the possibility that some previously undiscovered evidence might produce itself, or be produced and render not only my previously stated version of events, but also the official version, as erroneous. It's a big call and that's why the onus is on you to deliver the goods
Jaywalking across public roads is an offence. Has every person guilty of doing so been charged for such offence? If not, does that mean none have ever been charged?During this discussion I noticed that you've avoided addressing many of my points in order to suit your desired outcome that Tommy had been incarcerated for using his right to speak his values... in your opinion. One example being my question as to whether Boris Johnson ever had been jailed for speaking his values - which you ignored - obviously because he hadn't.
Please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly, or not at all!!From there you've used the red herring about the media laws being violated, a theory about concerted censorship and the assertion that I've somehow been conned by this whole event being distorted by prejudicial media sources, and somewhere in there SJWs and/or demonic Nazis have managed to find some relevancy as well
If you are talking about the most recent of entries into your annoying series of misconstruances of my postings, then I strongly disagree. I do not consider either of us to be in the position to rightly claim to having such exemplary conduct, as being beyond reproach.So to answer your question I have no need to feel any form of reproach for my conduct if I compare it with yours as described above.
Official version of events!!! Which of the official versions remains unproven?!!! Would it be those versions prior to, or those post the release of the findings for Tommy's appeal?If you feel you can disprove the official version of events with personal distrust and/or mathematical formulae then that's entirely your prerogative but happily, it's not compulsory for anyone to take it seriously, particularly given the unlikelihood that you were there when Tommy's offences were committed or were present at any of his trials.
I am unsure as to whether or not I am misunderstanding you here.If Tommy was some innocent person accidentally caught up in a situation beyond his control or really had been locked away for simply having a viewpoint I would obviously condemn the whole process as would many others all over the UK. But this guy has form for being deceptive and violent and no attempt has ever been made to prove otherwise - least of all by Tommy himself, indeed it appears he wears it as a badge of honour. What a hero.
So what? Who cares? Free speech and breach of the peace are two separate things.Note the use of the words "breach of the peace" by one of the arresting officers featured in that video!
How is that analogy even relevant to the comment you were quoting?Jaywalking across public roads is an offence. Has every person guilty of doing so been charged for such offence? If not, does that mean none have ever been charged?
I trust that you are intelligent enough to recognise the distinction being made here!
I've quoted your comments exactly as you posted them.Please do me the courtesy of quoting me correctly, or not at all!!
So we're both baddies now? As for misconstructions, see my first point, violated media laws, censorship, prejudicial media sources, SJWs, demonic Nazis are all your inventions, not mine.If you are talking about the most recent of entries into your annoying series of misconstruances of my postings, then I strongly disagree. I do not consider either of us to be in the position to rightly claim to having such exemplary conduct, as being beyond reproach.
Official version of events. Excatly as stated.Official version of events!!! Which of the official versions remains unproven?!!! Would it be those versions prior to, or those post the release of the findings for Tommy's appeal?
Sure thing. But for the purposes of avoiding misconstructions what actual question are you asking me?I am unsure as to whether or not I am misunderstanding you here.
Perhaps you could clarify.
Are you putting words in my mouth are just being obtuse? I said right from the start this dude shouldn't be given the hero status based entirely on his form. So He's a criminal.Are you saying that you would, or would not, be concerned if a person with "form" was wrongfully convicted?
Also if a person with "form" was rightfully convicted, and subsequently mistreated during incarceration, would you, or would you not, be concerned?
If you are truly disinterested, then perhaps my time can be better spent elsewhere.So what? Who cares? Free speech and breach of the peace are two separate things.
The arresting officer might even have said "Good morning" so does that mean it's a good morning?
Could I have truly overestimated another's intelligence so greatly? Surely not! You are just pretending to misunderstand the relevance, aren't you?How is that analogy even relevant to the comment you were quoting?
Is Boris Johnson a jaywalker or something?
Is your reply an attempt to digress from the point?
That passage is your personal composition, not mine! I trust that you are already well aware of how annoying it can be to have one's opinions misrepresented by another. Hence my insistence, paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!I've quoted your comments exactly as you posted them.
Yes! Do you? Actually read what I am posting?Do you actually read what you're posting?
Okay, I am willing to acknowledge, and apologise, for having on occasions made errors in some of my choices of wording. Perhaps "paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!" would be a more correct way of expressing the complaint I have with your penchant for misconstruing my statements.So we're both baddies now? As for misconstructions, see my first point, violated media laws, censorship, prejudicial media sources, SJWs, demonic Nazis are all your inventions, not mine.
Why should I feel reproach for rebutting your continual false claims of being misquoted?
Okay thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for neglecting to word those questions with greater care.Official version of events. Excatly as stated.
Sure thing. But for the purposes of avoiding misconstructions what actual question are you asking me?
Are you putting words in my mouth are just being obtuse? I said right from the start this dude shouldn't be given the hero status based entirely on his form. So He's a criminal.
These current events - regardless of how they play out - don't change his past. So frankly I don't care whether he gets mistreated or not. That's your hang up - not mine.
Are you putting words in my mouth are just being obtuse? I said right from the start this dude shouldn't be given the hero status based entirely on his form. So He's a criminal.
These current events - regardless of how they play out - don't change his past. So frankly I don't care whether he gets mistreated or not. That's your hang up - not mine.
Firstly, I don't believe him. Secondly I'm simply stating he doesn't deserve the airtime because he's obviously a prune - based on his history. What part of that don't you understand?
Ok, so thanks for your self induced indignation, your insult, your disinterest and your apology all rolled into one post. There seems little point in reciprocating all that emotivity so I'll just go with apologies from me as well. Now can I please just go back to my original point before we got into this sideshow of alternative/irrelevant possibilities? I was more interested who the British in working class could use as a figurehead to deal with the deterioration of society as alluded to by some previous posts. I mentioned Anne Marie Waters in a previous post but these must be others ?If you are truly disinterested, then perhaps my time can be better spent elsewhere.
Could I have truly overestimated another's intelligence so greatly? Surely not! You are just pretending to misunderstand the relevance, aren't you?
That passage is your personal composition, not mine! I trust that you are already well aware of how annoying it can be to have one's opinions misrepresented by another. Hence my insistence, paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!
Yes! Do you? Actually read what I am posting?
Okay, I am willing to acknowledge, and apologise, for having on occasions made errors in some of my choices of wording. Perhaps "paraphrase me correctly, or not at all!" would be a more correct way of expressing the complaint I have with your penchant for misconstruing my statements.
Okay thanks for the clarification, and my apologies for neglecting to word those questions with greater care.
I think that would be very unfortunate. You will just end up with yet another generation of violent haters and law breakers. People here complain about union thuggery but that's nothing compared to what would happen if society really deteriorated to such a level where violence is the only possible way of conveying our messages. If anything the response you would end up with is a police state style totalitarianism and quality of life would irreversibly go down the gurgler.I'm sure there are lots of little boys and girls ( whether abused or not) who will see him as a hero when they grow up.
Fact: Toto is a rock band
No, under the harsh light of publicity they had to revert to the actual rule of law. In any case you may have noticed that I was specifically referring to the circumstances of his imprisonment, which clearly be breached his human rights under British law.
It is alarming that you guys are actually ignoring this or waving it off as some sort of beat up. Also not the least bit surprised that the likes of basilio are referring to the initial falsehoods of secret barrusterr for the fact of the matter rather than referring to the actual truth of the matter.
****ing sinister.
Aye, true that. But that's a double edged sword. Earlier in this very thread you'll see condemnation of extreme leftist hate and violence... even going as far as citing an analogue of Sudanese gang violence. That really bad right?Re: Tommy Robinson - It's important to target the message not the messenger.
Aye, true that. But that's a double edged sword. Earlier in this very thread you'll see condemnation of extreme leftist hate and violence... even going as far as citing an analogue of Sudanese gang violence. That really bad right?
But when Tommy and his supporters do it - it's all glossed over and he's a working class hero?
“I’m gonna find Mark Rowley,”
No Tommy, Mark Rowley and a bunch of flowers will find you real quick
LOL. thanks for that. Actually considering my last sentence in that post I could've split that one into two separate wordsLast time I used the word "analogue" I got ridiculed for using big words ....watchout PC101
CleverLOL. thanks for that. Actually considering my last sentence in that post I could've split that one into two separate words
But..... can't they find a law abiding citizen to speak their values?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?