Tommy Robinson asked to leave a restaurant because staff felt uncomfortable serving him…

[harriethoyle]

… AIBU to enjoy this?!

If you spout objectionable views, don’t be surprised if people object to you!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tommy-robinson-kicked-out-hawksmoor-london-b1231594.html

Indians can be racist, as much as people from any country.
Yaxley Lennon seems to reserve most of his ire for Muslims (as do many Indians)
I had to listen to an Indian lady last week tell me that she didn't want to live in an area with too many Muslims as if her son went to school with them he might pick up their bad habits as they have no idea how to behave.

No evidence oresented= Hitchen's razor.

My proof that Starmer is not hard left? His policies. Means testing the WFA, cutting disability benefits, the Island of Strangers speech- all politics of the right.

Wrong, again

I was sharing the same mantra about TR until less than a year ago, after his march last July, then I read a bit more. And I watch the collective largely facts-free, hysterical, performative hounding such as here.

You know that one by Voltaire (you probably don’t) « I do not share your views but I’ll fight to death for you to have the right to express them »

Starmer twists and turns to suit his new environment. He's got a lot more bedding in to do yet.

I have watched all of ‘Silenced’

Tommy makes claims whilst showing evidence to back up his claims that actually contradicts his claims.
For example he claims that staff from the closed down school have been paid NDAs to be silent about the incident, whilst displaying his FOI response stating that the column of figures shown (for the whole council) cover a range of payments, including PILON (payment in lieu of notice) on redundancies (that failing school having closed down)
Tommy points out that the person he spoke to on hidden camera who received a payment had no involvement in the case
Tommy fails to point out that the full FOI response to his question about NDAs regarding the incident states that there were no NDAs relating to the incident
Tommy also fails to point out that school staff are already subject to privacy regarding pupils
Tommy also fails to point out that of the two schoolboys in the original fight the one he has come to defence of is not a random school boy in a video that went viral but is the brother of a long term EDL buddy & convicted cocaine smuggler

Tommy uses this film to ‘justify’ his failure to pay damages for libel, and to show various pieces of ‘evidence’.
Tommy manages to show that he had been told things. These things he had been told have also been confirmed by Tommy himself when he went online to say that he had been lied to and believed rumours. (But that didn’t make the case go away so he went bankrupt, sacked his lawyers and defended himself)
These elements in Tommys video were subject to cross examination in court and failed due to inconsistency and contradictory evidence

The purpose of Tommys video is to continue the Tommy narrative and fundraise

Fascinating thread everyone from both sides!
MN at it's best.

Where can I watch Tommy's documentary though people are referring to it but it's not on x

There are probably quite a few people who would like to trip and accidentally spill some boiling hot molten soup in his lap.

Anyone can be racist. I am pointing out the accusations of TR being a racist fall flat when he is breaking bread with an Indian man who also got ejected as part of the group.

A person can be discriminatory towards Muslims but that doesn't make them racist. Islam isn't a race, it is a religion.

That is what is so pathetic about people who are quick to throw out labels they don't know the definition of.

So quick to violence. Often the way with the 'tolerant' left.

Great, then he could expect a nice pay out when the law did mak an entrance.

We had a thread the other week on here about someone complaining about racists remarks being made in a pub and that staff should intervene to stop this. The overwhelming view (and mine) is that there is freedom of expression and someone can express their view and staff should not be expected to police opinions.

However, it was also pointed out that the owner or landlord retained the right to refuse service. The same is true for Hawksmoor here. They retained that right.

His policies as PM are all the proof needed. He’s not left enough for me and I’m pretty centrist for a Labour voter. Like many other left leaning voters I’m disappointed by the lack of ambition of this government. He appointed David Gauke, a former Tory MP, to conduct the sentencing review - do you seriously think a hard left activist would do that?

@Tomikka thanks.

I have to admit I don't know much about aTR and the ins and outs but.... I have seen his team response in X to various events and it does feel like instant reactions to nasty thing's to try end drag race and Islam into it.
There didn't seem to be any rational consideration in the response.

So if what your saying is true it doesn't surprise me ie... basing facts actually not on facts at all.

Agreed.

And we are expected to ignore the accounts of staff and parents at the school? They said the Syrian boy was a bully and a menace. That boy wasn't targeted for his race he was targeted because he had threatened to rape the little sister of the boy who attacked him.

@blossomtoes
No I don't because they're too limited in their thinking.

If he's using a Tory to look into a review I trust as a barrister himself he's chosen this person as the best person for the job to hand regardless of political orientation.

If that's true imagine if all politicians could do this. Just get the best person for that job.

Well that’s fair enough, but I’m not policing his opinions. He’s allowed them, but we have freedom of speech not freedom of consequences.

If none of the staff will serve him, and the proprietor doesn’t want him there either - they can (and clearly have) refused to serve him.

It’s all performative nonsense. He’s all over X demanding the CEO contacts him, despite being clearly given the man’s details on a business card. You email him, Stephen, and he’ll tell you again you’re not welcome.

Wasn't Robinson successfully sued for spreading lies like these?

No idea what hitchens razor is but quoted on here alot so must be an intellectually tired quote that someone got from the Guardian. As a country we have got to make cuts as we are financially bankrupt - Starmer chose to cut the wfa and disability which shows he's bad at politics (and has backtracked) instead of benefits in general which cost a fortune. Island of strangers is just a desperate attempt to align with polls which show people are extremely worried about mass immigration - he won't actually cut it drastically and has done nothing about illegals. He supported Corbyn and tried to reverse Brexit and is an authoritarian- hard left.

@inkognitha unfortunately Voltaire probably also had a caveat that this didn't apply to his servants!

And you can dislike Islam without being racist, how come noone seems to have a problem with Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism if dislike of Islam is a front for racism? I am a Christian and support the persecuted Christians of all races around the world, Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world and it is clear that most persecution is done by Muslims.

Do you have proof of this? Isn't it this sort of statement that Yaxley-Lennon ended up being sued for?

No. Dont ignore the accounts of staff & parents. They contradict the claims

Those claims were made by Tommy Robinson In his original livestreams for which he was sued for defamation / libel
Tommy responded live streamed himself stating that they turned out to be untrue and he had been lied to

Tommy then went to court defending himself, and the claims made were unproven and also failed cross examination in court

Tommy failed to prove the defence of truth, and failed to pay damages (even going so far as to refuse donations as he would not pay that Muslim boy a penny)
Tommy repeated the claims on video
Tommy went to prison for contempt of court

It is.
That Syrian boy did absolutely nothing wrong

I suggest you read the full court documents like I have. He pled guilty to releasing 'Silenced' which breached the court order hence the contempt of court charges. He did not plead guilty to the libel case and maintains the contents of the documentary are true. The whole thing was a stitch up because the video of the boys fighting had gone viral and the school had to be closed down.