This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Status
Not open for further replies.
If we did not have the police standing in front of us, good and bad, the thin blue line, the world would be so dangerous that many could not leave their houses, go out to work or the shops, take their children to school or nurseries, go out for a friendly pint with friends.

So I applaud them all, the good, the few bad, for standing there and taking the abuse and the blows and the bullets that we avoid in our comfortable lives.
 
Police around these parts are pretty good, have BIG problems with the neighbour below me, her and her on off boyfriend have kicked off pretty much every day since they moved in 6 months ago. Depending on the issue, it has been 999 or 101 and their response has been superb, this morning it was officers with tasers arresting the boyfriend, nice show for a Sunday morning.

Thankfully the police have liaised with the housing association and matters are under way, I guess small town police have a lot less to deal with than a larger town or city.
 
Ayahuasca said:
If someone slandered your child and it was a grifter with a substantial platform, would you be happy if they ignored a cease-and-desist order and went ahead releasing a film harassing them further?
Click to expand...
It's a civil case ie a none criminal case. Yet suddenly it's now terrorism!?

IF he has been arrested for terrorism because of a banned film I find it insulting to all the people who have died through real terrorism. This as diluted the seriousness of terrorism.

You, and others, don't like TR. I'm not a fan either. I agree he is a grifter. But we have to be very careful of the State using examples to take away our freedoms by using bogiemen.

We have seen the same tactic deployed by the right arm of the State constantly attacking the ECHR and making it all about immigrants and asylum seekers. There is very few people in the media saying that the ECHR rights are British people's rights too and we'd be losing them.

In both left and right examples the establishment focus on the target, remove context, and before anyone realises it the people have lost rights and freedoms.

I'd sue TR in court if the film is lying about my son. I'd keep suing him each time it's shown unless he compromised with a right of reply in a new version. I wouldn't expect the anti terrorism squad to suddenly arrest him for a video about my son. Would you?
 
BowdonUK said:
It's a civil case ie a none criminal case. Yet suddenly it's now terrorism!?

IF he has been arrested for terrorism because of a banned film I find it insulting to all the people who have died through real terrorism. This as diluted the seriousness of terrorism.
Click to expand...
Our terrorism laws are horribly onerous and a threat to democracy. Previously used to seize Icelandic banks' assets in the credit crunch, and to raid the offices of MP expense scandal whistleblowers.

Labour proposing to make them even more extensive, so as to be used against people traffickers moving people on small boats.

Terror laws simply shouldn't be so broad as to be put to use in these ways.
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
It's a civil case ie a none criminal case. Yet suddenly it's now terrorism!?
Click to expand...
Ignoring a court order is not a civil case. It doesn't matter what the original was, you're now in breach of a serious legal order.

It's ignoring what the court has specifically told you, it's the sort of thing that takes something that might be dealt with via a fine to something that is now going to put you in jail. as ignoring the court order in itself is very serious, separate offence.
It's similar to how you can get jailed for speeding in a 30 zone, if the court finds out you've lied and blamed your au pair, you've now not only committed the original speeding offence but an offence against the court and the legal system (as IIRC an MP and their spouse found out the very hard way) - both lying to the court AND breaching court orders are classed as separate serious crimes regardless of what the original problem was.

Basically if a court has issued an order to you, you have to be spectacularly stupid to breach that order in a public way as you are basically saying to the court that you actively refuse to acknowledge the law, and the court. Judges tend deal with this by taking the logical step of jail time if the person is incapable or unwilling to obey the court order whilst free, especially if, as little Tommy has, you have a long and colourful history of breaking the law and ignoring court orders of a similar nature.

In short.
Tommy either thinks he's above the law, or the blows to the head as a football hooligan have affected his ability to understand basic instructions and learn from previous experiences.
 
Last edited:
throwaway4372 said:
There was a stream going round the march interviewing people, they were just normal people. Football yobs may have been there, but the bulk of the crowd wasn't them, it was normal people sick of immigrants taking resources that we don't have.
Click to expand...
Is it really immigrants taking resources or is it the wealthy/powers that be?

www.bbc.co.uk

Labour accuse Tories of 'cover up' over public services

Environment Secretary Steve Reed says the public finances inherited by Labour are "catastrophic".
www.bbc.co.uk

Here's another nugget:

Central government grant funding for councils dropped by 40 per cent in real terms between 2009-10 and 2019-20 (from £46.5bn to £28bn).


On a semi-related note:

Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. In 2020, the ONS calculated that the richest 10% of households hold 43% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 9%.7 More than that, for the UK as a whole, the WID found that the top 0.1% had share of total wealth double between 1984 and 2013, reaching 9%. Worldwide, the top 0.01% owned 11% of the global wealth by 2021, part of the trend towards a massive increase in wealth for billionaires.
 
Last edited:
I've been away for the last couple of days, so I have been catching up, I'm absolutely laughing at how the whole thing spectacularly fell apart for those grifters in a matter of 48hrs. I was sure that the stomping was fully justified, beating up 3 armed police officers in a strict high-security area like an airport? They were lucky as hell not to get shot frankly. A head stomping is getting off lightly.

Then the full video came out, the family sacked the grifter lawyer and the only ones still supporting those stupid idiots are the usual suspects of their community and liberal window-lickers. How the worms turned :cry:
 
Werewolf said:
Ignoring a court order is not a civil case. It doesn't matter what the original was, you're now in breach of a serious legal order.

It's ignoring what the court has specifically told you, it's the sort of thing that takes something that might be dealt with via a fine to something that is now going to put you in jail. as ignoring the court order in itself is very serious, separate offence.
It's similar to how you can get jailed for speeding in a 30 zone, if the court finds out you've lied and blamed your au pair, you've now not only committed the original speeding offence but an offence against the court and the legal system (as IIRC an MP and their spouse found out the very hard way) - both lying to the court AND breaching court orders are classed as separate serious crimes regardless of what the original problem was.

Basically if a court has issued an order to you, you have to be spectacularly stupid to breach that order in a public way as you are basically saying to the court that you actively refuse to acknowledge the law, and the court. Judges tend deal with this by taking the logical step of jail time if the person is incapable or unwilling to obey the court order whilst free, especially if, as little Tommy has, you have a long and colourful history of breaking the law and ignoring court orders of a similar nature.

In short.
Tommy either thinks he's above the law, or the blows to the head as a football hooligan have affected his ability to understand basic instructions and learn from previous experiences.
Click to expand...
Him being arrested will only gain him support. He's the victim in all this, as are his supporters. The bad guys are the deep state and the immigrants, taking our resources and women.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Ignoring a court order is not a civil case. It doesn't matter what the original was, you're not in breach of a serious legal order.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced this latest issue is anything to do with the film.

A court order is serious, I agree with you. But it's (shouldn't) nothing to do with being arrested under the terrorism act.

From I've heard he was arrested in a secure area of the Eurostar train station under section 7 of the Terrorism act 2000;

Terrorism powers factsheet

On the law, the history, and the statistics behind the search power arguably reserved for the most extreme circumstances
www.stop-watch.org www.stop-watch.org

Schedule 7, the border control stop and search power: allows officers and customs officials at the UK border to stop, search, and detain any person in order to determine whether they are a terrorist – without the need for prior authorisation or ‘reasonable suspicion’
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
It's called Silence because your brain turns off if you watch it and refuses to turn back on
Click to expand...
Have you watched it?
Tell me which parts you disagreed with?
Otherwise commenting is very similar to commenting on the original airport video. Comprende?
 
SkodaMart said:
Have you watched it?
Click to expand...
No it looks like nothing that would interest me, if it were 30mins long maybe I'd give it a chance

looked like it had less production value than a youtube AI video tbh

GarethSouthgate said:
Him being arrested will only gain him support. He's the victim in all this, as are his supporters. The bad guys are the deep state and the immigrants, taking our resources and women.
Click to expand...
kinda stupid if he ends up in prison though, wherever he goes will have a lot of muslims who hate him.

wasn't he complaining last time he was in danger and they wouldn't move him to a safer wing or something.


Maybe if he would have gave only a link he could argue he's not broadcasting it in public and if people wan to watch it on their phones so be it.


Nothing against the guy personally and I'm sure his support will only grow as the downfall of the UK continues.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom