ChatterBank1 min 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.
andy-hughes
Spicerack - // Andy, why would the police offer to settle out of court, twice, if they hadn't been in the wrong? //
/// I have no idea, but since that is not part of this debate, you'll excuse me for not pursuing it. ///
Of course it is part of this debate, or is it just another excuse for not answering the question, because you once again have your back to the wall, with nowhere to go?
Spicerack - // Andy, why would the police offer to settle out of court, twice, if they hadn't been in the wrong? //
/// I have no idea, but since that is not part of this debate, you'll excuse me for not pursuing it. ///
Of course it is part of this debate, or is it just another excuse for not answering the question, because you once again have your back to the wall, with nowhere to go?
https:/
This is the video of a 'professional' TV journalist from Canada.It is 31mins long and shows various clips from TR's camera.
I have just sat through it in its entirety. It is patently obvious that AH has been very selective on the newa items he cherry picks.If he has watched the video then I would suggest only a fool would come up with such nonsense with regard to the events.
The Cambridge PS was not on his own when entering the pub.
When asked why he was being told to leave the premises by TR the PS was floundering for an answer. When repeatedly asked for an explanation the PS,"If you keep asking me I will arrest you"It was then decided to serve a 35 order on TR.
When asked why he was being served the order again the PS flunders and says,"It says so in the form" The PS's colleagues shrugs his shoulder and says,"You will have to take it up with the boss"
Meanwhile a female security officer and female landlady approach the confrontation and inform the police that TR,family and friends have been drinking in the pub,( water in the case of TR) for some time and are causing absolutely NO disturbance.
Obviously the licensee did not have any problem with TR's presence and DID not summons the police and inform them of TR being in the pub.
The 'Intel' that the PS allegedly received was that there was likely to be trouble because TR was in town and in the pub.
The Alleged intel provider.,the PS said ,was an anonymous Peterborough drunk that the PS knew.
A Luton Police spotter who is part of a police team that follows Luton FC to away matches said in court that TR was with his kids and saw no trouble caused by him. That appears to have been ignored by the judge.
Police video evidence mysteriously was deleted when TR asked for a copy prior to this appearance.
The evidence of the landlady was dismissed as irrelevant in court by the judge when she asserted that TR was not the instigator of any disorder in her pub. The judge ruled that it was what'might 'of happened and not about what actually did not happen.
This is a joke and a police stitch up and the judge is no better.
What saddens me is people support a police state now in this country. Something that decent police officers were always proud not to be part of.
This is the video of a 'professional' TV journalist from Canada.It is 31mins long and shows various clips from TR's camera.
I have just sat through it in its entirety. It is patently obvious that AH has been very selective on the newa items he cherry picks.If he has watched the video then I would suggest only a fool would come up with such nonsense with regard to the events.
The Cambridge PS was not on his own when entering the pub.
When asked why he was being told to leave the premises by TR the PS was floundering for an answer. When repeatedly asked for an explanation the PS,"If you keep asking me I will arrest you"It was then decided to serve a 35 order on TR.
When asked why he was being served the order again the PS flunders and says,"It says so in the form" The PS's colleagues shrugs his shoulder and says,"You will have to take it up with the boss"
Meanwhile a female security officer and female landlady approach the confrontation and inform the police that TR,family and friends have been drinking in the pub,( water in the case of TR) for some time and are causing absolutely NO disturbance.
Obviously the licensee did not have any problem with TR's presence and DID not summons the police and inform them of TR being in the pub.
The 'Intel' that the PS allegedly received was that there was likely to be trouble because TR was in town and in the pub.
The Alleged intel provider.,the PS said ,was an anonymous Peterborough drunk that the PS knew.
A Luton Police spotter who is part of a police team that follows Luton FC to away matches said in court that TR was with his kids and saw no trouble caused by him. That appears to have been ignored by the judge.
Police video evidence mysteriously was deleted when TR asked for a copy prior to this appearance.
The evidence of the landlady was dismissed as irrelevant in court by the judge when she asserted that TR was not the instigator of any disorder in her pub. The judge ruled that it was what'might 'of happened and not about what actually did not happen.
This is a joke and a police stitch up and the judge is no better.
What saddens me is people support a police state now in this country. Something that decent police officers were always proud not to be part of.
//There is no evidence in the link that the pub security team were present, or that they offered the officer the benefit of their opinion - I would suggest that he would have ignored them anyway, were they arrogant enough to intervene in a police matter, which I seriously doubt. //
AH
If you take the time to watch relevant clips from the link I provided you will see that a female with SECURITY written on her tabbard approached the Police and remonstrated with them. She and the landlady told the posse that TR and Co were causing NO trouble.
You are correct in one thing though. The police did ignore them!
Your 'serious doubt' is misplaced
AH
If you take the time to watch relevant clips from the link I provided you will see that a female with SECURITY written on her tabbard approached the Police and remonstrated with them. She and the landlady told the posse that TR and Co were causing NO trouble.
You are correct in one thing though. The police did ignore them!
Your 'serious doubt' is misplaced
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.