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

He didn’t get a custodial sentence for the film being racist. He got a custodial sentence because the content of the film is not true, has been proven not to be true and he was using it to harass an innocent child. He knows this, he was told by the courts to stop doing it because it’s libellous and told he’s be in contempt of court if he continued.

I don’t think that people should be censored for their political views but that isn’t the only issue with YL. If he wasn’t YL most people on this thread wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire and would think whatever he got served him right. I’ve never known MN to be so pro drug dealers and violent men other than when it comes to him.

I'm not arguing with you about it. I've provided the judgement giving the reasons for the guilty verdict. He was found guilty of libel.

I am. You have said "He was found guilty given all the evidence.' Don't you mean lack of?

Yes that exactly. We don’t know. A basic reason was given, but with little detail. Service was refused, Robinson’s party were not charged. So all of that seems within the restaurant’s rights. Without more, what else can you say? This is a case of they said, they said. But on the face of it, the restaurant acted lawfully.

Yes. But not if the reason is illegal discrimination.

The whole point is that a lot of people believe he was illegally discriminated agaisnt... or rather might well have been. And a lot of people believe that if he was discriminated against because of belief, and it was legal discrimination, then the law needs changing, because lots of people are not hateful authoritarians and like freedom of belief and speech

I’m not sure they thought that but from that statement they could be asked why did you feel uncomfortable?

He provided evidence. The evidence was found not to be true. He was found guilty of libel.

It's come to an end now anyway. Thankfully.

Presumably his convictions for fraud, harassment, violence, stalking and possession with intent to supply were all travesties of justice to in your eyes?

I guess you've also no problem with him defending his convicted paedophile mate, Richard Price when he was caught making indicent images of children, claiming he was a "top bloke who'd been stitched up"?

Wrong. It was decided to be hearsay by the judge. Like I said the staff and parents must just enjoy lying.....

Whole different topic. Typical lefty red herrings and strawman arguments.

Yes your first line is in line with earlier post. It cant be done on that basis.

On the face of it the only reason he was denied service was because of his beliefs, and the perception many people have - maybe rightly - that he is racist. I can see no other explanation that has been hinted at let alone stated.

On the face of it I think that there is a very good chance he was illegally discriminated against.

I also think that if he was discriminated against for his beliefs, and it was legal discrimination, the majority of the country would assert that the law needs changing, because the majority support freedom of belief and expression much more than labour and tories do.

The judge found that his evidence fell 'woefully short' of proving his case. He didn't prove his case and was found guilty of libel.

Because of behaviour beliefs, presumably. And given the lack of allegations of bad behaviour that leaves beliefs.

You mean the truth as opposed to obfuscation?

Because the judge had already determined his guilt before he set foot in the court. How can anyone watch the accounts of the parents and staff and just say 'oh well, they are ALL liars.' Like I said, Kangaroo.

Connolly called for the murder (by burning alive) of innocent people during a febrile period of far-right violence where Britain’s most lobotomised idiots tried running pogroms on mosques & refugee hotels.

I think that it’s actual evidence you need. Without it, any claim of discrimination will go nowhere.

In terms of changing the law, well, I think it is very hard to change the basic principle that a business may contract with who it likes, and does not have to.

It sounds like - from what was posted on this thread - that he failed to prove his case because he was repeating what others had said. If those people did say what he said they had said, and had been called as witnesses and repeated it in front of the court, then maybe he would have proven his case. Why did these people not stand as witnesses? Was it an error in the TR defence strategy? Were the witnesses requested but refused to turn up? Were they banned from appearing by the judge?

No. I mean talking about his paedo associates is irrelevant to this topic.

Says the right whinger who claims the justice system is a kangaroo court because their racist idol was found guilty.

But seriously, why are you so happy to overlook all his previous convictions and the associations he keeps?

There’s not much critical thinking about these days.

I was talking to someone the other day that said they were ‘terrified’ Reform would get in at the next election.
I asked them what they were scared of. They said “well it just doesn’t feel right, like we are going backwards”
I asked them which of Reform’s policies in particular they took issue with.
They couldn’t answer or give me any concrete reason why.

Now, I won’t be voting reform. That’s not the point I am making. I support no party at the moment. I’m just fascinated by how much parroting goes on.

I'm shocked that one of Robinson's devotees thinks he was stitched up.

Who said I was... That is your assumption.