Tommy Robinson loses libel case brought by Syrian schoolboy

You fuckers cant even hold an election without a circus so spare me your idiocy.
I know. How do you suggest we rid ourselves of these neo-Communists that first plotted to take away
the extra security needed and then flooded the mob with FBI informers/provocateurs like John
Sullivan. But you don't know anything about that, do you.
 
I know. How do you suggest we rid ourselves of these neo-Communists that first plotted to take away
the extra security needed and then flooded the throng with FBI informers/provocateurs like John
Sullivan. But you don't know anything about that, do you.
You could stop picking whiny loser fucks from running for office.
 
That's what I always heard when Robinson was opposing the grooming gangs.
He's a hooligan. He's the problem. Sorry but I don't think you need to be Jesus to
sound an alarm.

The Muslims are something of a protected class in the UK. Even you grant that.

I understand what you're saying.

I've done a little more research on this case. Yaxley-Lennon represented himself and did it badly.


"Robinson, who represented himself, maintained his comments were broadly true, saying he had “uncovered dozens of accounts of aggressive, abusive and deceitful behaviour” by Hijazi."

"But High Court judge Matthew Nicklin said Robinson had failed to prove his allegations"

"Nicklin said, “The defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed. In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short. He has, however, persisted with the serious allegations he originally made, and has even added to them during the proceedings.”"

Essentially Yaxley-Lennon read some stuff somewhere, and didn't know anything. Even when he went to court, instead of investigating this and finding out the truth, he went in with his lies.

No doubt someone will pick up his tab. Yaxley-Lennon was probably using court as a way of spreading his anti-Muslim nonsense again.

He doesn't need the truth, because his supporters are emotional and not too bright. Whip them up with emotion and they're very malleable.
 
As already said I will reserve judgement until I can get a look at how Robinson handled things myself.

I know how the UK courts have tried to railroad him before and he is none too popular with them.
And of course when you accuse Muslims of ill behavior, that smacks of "racism" there,
whether it is or not.

And using Aljazeera to help make your case doesn't exactly inspire me to admire your impartiality.
Just the opposite, actually.
 
I understand what you're saying.

I've done a little more research on this case. Yaxley-Lennon represented himself and did it badly.


"Robinson, who represented himself, maintained his comments were broadly true, saying he had “uncovered dozens of accounts of aggressive, abusive and deceitful behaviour” by Hijazi."

"But High Court judge Matthew Nicklin said Robinson had failed to prove his allegations"

"Nicklin said, “The defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed. In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short. He has, however, persisted with the serious allegations he originally made, and has even added to them during the proceedings.”"

Essentially Yaxley-Lennon read some stuff somewhere, and didn't know anything. Even when he went to court, instead of investigating this and finding out the truth, he went in with his lies.

No doubt someone will pick up his tab. Yaxley-Lennon was probably using court as a way of spreading his anti-Muslim nonsense again.

He doesn't need the truth, because his supporters are emotional and not too bright. Whip them up with emotion and they're very malleable.
I understand what you're saying.

I've done a little more research on this case. Yaxley-Lennon represented himself and did it badly.


"Robinson, who represented himself, maintained his comments were broadly true, saying he had “uncovered dozens of accounts of aggressive, abusive and deceitful behaviour” by Hijazi."

"But High Court judge Matthew Nicklin said Robinson had failed to prove his allegations"

"Nicklin said, “The defendant took on the burden of proving his allegations to be true. He has failed. In reality, and for the reasons I have explained, his evidence fell woefully short. He has, however, persisted with the serious allegations he originally made, and has even added to them during the proceedings.”"

Essentially Yaxley-Lennon read some stuff somewhere, and didn't know anything. Even when he went to court, instead of investigating this and finding out the truth, he went in with his lies.

No doubt someone will pick up his tab. Yaxley-Lennon was probably using court as a way of spreading his anti-Muslim nonsense again.

He doesn't need the truth, because his supporters are emotional and not too bright. Whip them up with emotion and they're very malleable.
So THAT'S why you are on record supporting the gang rape of children, which you claim was just "tapping up" these children with nothing forced.. You think it makes you look intelligent.
 
As already said I will reserve judgement until I can get a look at how Robinson handled things myself.

I know how the UK courts have tried to railroad him before and he is none too popular with them.
And of course when you accuse Muslims of ill behavior, that smacks of "racism" there,
whether it is or not.

And using Aljazeera to help make your case doesn't exactly inspire me to admire your impartiality.
Just the opposite, actually.
They are doing this intentionally since they KNOW that accusations of racism silence those who do not support the rape of children like they do.

The truth of the matter, is that the rapes, themselves, were a revolting exercise IN racism. They know this, too, yet they lie.
 
"Intelligent" is not what I would call rationalizing child rape.
According to the reports, children were doused with gasoline and threatened that it would be set on fire. Other children were forced to watch as a different child was raped in especially violent ways and told they would be next. We are talking kids as young as 11, here

For this thing to say they were just getting "tapped up" and were engaging in consensual sex goes well beyond the realm of intelligent and stupid. It lies in a different realm, entirely, just as it does with the other child rape supporters here. They do nothing but sneer and posture because they are such twisted cteatues that all that counts to them is their false sense of superiority and not the children involved. Their political correctness has taken them to such extremes that they are really nothing but sociopaths.
 
As already said I will reserve judgement until I can get a look at how Robinson handled things myself.

I know how the UK courts have tried to railroad him before and he is none too popular with them.
And of course when you accuse Muslims of ill behavior, that smacks of "racism" there,
whether it is or not.

And using Aljazeera to help make your case doesn't exactly inspire me to admire your impartiality.
Just the opposite, actually.
Thats right. You keep an open mind on this. LMAO
 
^^^there it is. as predicted.
You have to understand how important yaxley is in their crazy imagination. It really irritates them that a Syrian kid has rinsed him, mainly because he is stupid.
I suspect that there is an element of martyrism at play here. He is probably banking on some kind of crowdfunding to settle the account for him. gets him on the front pages again though.
 
He isnt a journalist. They are trained to understand the libel laws. He is a football hooligan with an iphone.
Well, better luck next time eh...here we had a similar thing happen except it was the entire industry that went after this catholic kid
190119194820-maga-teens-native-american-march-exlarge-169.jpg
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top