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

By that logic you can ban black people from your pub because most of your clients are white racists. You can't

He was found guilty given all the evidence. He went to jail because he is a nasty piece of work who was determined to continue to repeat lies. He makes a living from being a persecuted truth teller repressed by the 'establishment'.

Why was he prepared to go to jail for ruining a child abuse trial?

That could well be a lie given the contradictory account given by the group.

Do you think that a business who illegally discriminated based on belief (or, to be more fair, might have done) would massage the truth?

Do you support "being a nasty piece of work" being a criminal offence subject to prison?

That's not what you were doing as you're perfectly aware. You were repeating lies as though they were the truth. Robinson was found guilty of libel because he was found to have lied.

I don’t think that takes you any further. Which bit do you think is a lie and why?

The two things seem contradictory. People including staff felt uncomfortable but not about politics or beliefs.

Don't be obtuse.

What evidence was that then?

Hasn’t “management reserves the right to refuse service” always been a thing?

I often wonder how many people who firmly state that TR is racist could actually back that up with evidence. Or whether it’s similar to JKR is a transphobe

By a judge in a Kangaroo court after an international media frenzy surrounding the viral clip of the boys altercation. His evidence was passed off as hearsay despite having statements and footage of people directly involved.

For behaviour maybe?

But for just feeling uncomfortable not for those who hold beliefs including politics. They need to meet criteria though.

That would require critical thinking and putting down the Guardian's phrase book. I suspect very few.

All this incident has done has pushed me to look into TR beyond what I know.

He's been on my radar but a small insignificant blip in the distance

The most significant element of the damages award that I fix will be the need for vindication. This judgment – but more importantly – the award of damages will mark clearly that the Defendant has failed to demonstrate the truth of his allegations.
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. The Claimant has had to face them in the full glare and publicity of a High Court trial. It is my responsibility to make clear that the Defendant
has failed in his defence of truth, to vindicate the Claimant and to award him a sum in damages that represents fair compensation. The sum I award is £100,000.

Copying and pasting the judgement is not the same as providing the 'evidence' that was relied upon to reach that sentence.

Evidence please?

He was found after presenting all his evidence, to have failed in his defence of the truth. It wasn't a kangaroo court, you're talking absolute nonsense.

He provided his evidence in court which was found not to be true. I thought you were familiar with the case.

I do not know why they were asked to leave. Given that their behaviour does not appear to have been bad, it would appeat to be because customers and/or waiting staff objected to TRs presence due to his beliefs, or, potentially, the bosses of the company got wind he waas there and they objected to his presence despite being upstairs in the office, or at head office, and not in the same room as him.

For any reason - including none - that the business owner chooses.

I am not being obtuse - you implied that being a nasty piece of work should be criminal.

Because they dismissed his evidence as hearsay despite actual footage of people who knew the Syrian schoolboy confirming he was a indeed bully.

This was a trial by media and we all know the judiciary is as corrupt as it comes. You only have to look at Lucy Connolly to see that.

No I didn't. Reread what I said.

They felt that they were at physical risk of attack? What reasonable basis did they have for feeling threatened?