Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The one from 2014..?" The one that was released a few days ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The one from 2014..? The one that was released a few days ago. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where? And how does it relate to the politics forum?" I watched on X. If you know anything about Tommy Robinson you'll know why I've put it in this forum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always wanted to like Robinson, then he opens his stupid mouth and spoils everything." I didn't watch the documentary because I "like" him. I like documentaries. It's definitely worth a watch. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always wanted to like Robinson, then he opens his stupid mouth and spoils everything. I didn't watch the documentary because I "like" him. I like documentaries. It's definitely worth a watch. " I am no longer on X (aka Twitter). Is it available anywhere else? I am very opposed to his views but always keen to try and understand other POVs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always wanted to like Robinson, then he opens his stupid mouth and spoils everything. I didn't watch the documentary because I "like" him. I like documentaries. It's definitely worth a watch. I am no longer on X (aka Twitter). Is it available anywhere else? I am very opposed to his views but always keen to try and understand other POVs. A quick Google tells me it's on X (you don't need an account if you search in browser), Rumble & YouTube. Tbh, I didn't look any further as YouTube works for all. " TBH I should have just searched 
Thanks for answering though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always wanted to like Robinson, then he opens his stupid mouth and spoils everything. I didn't watch the documentary because I "like" him. I like documentaries. It's definitely worth a watch. I am no longer on X (aka Twitter). Is it available anywhere else? I am very opposed to his views but always keen to try and understand other POVs." A quick Google tells me it's on X (you don't need an account if you search in browser), Rumble & YouTube. Tbh, I didn't look any further as YouTube works for all. Forget that he's presenting it and try to watch (it's nearly 2 hrs) through a non-partisan lense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone?" You definitely should watch it  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forget that he's presenting it and try to watch (it's nearly 2 hrs) through a non-partisan lense." I don't have 2 hours to spare. Would someone like to summarise it for me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forget that he's presenting it and try to watch (it's nearly 2 hrs) through a non-partisan lense. I don't have 2 hours to spare. Would someone like to summarise it for me?" I really can't (there's too much) . He speaks with teachers and pupils at the school who DO NOT agree with the story told by the press and courts. This was by hidden camera as there are NDA's stopping them speaking out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it "I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss."Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'. Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone?" Yes that’s the one. He is so confident in it that he fled the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself. "Like I said, I’m not big on supporting men who beat women but you do you. I do wonder why Yaxley-Lennon didn’t call the girl as a witness in the libel trial though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself. "I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening? "The libel relates to the race elements that he claims were the motivation I believe. This was tested in court and found to be untrue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
Like I said, I’m not big on supporting men who beat women but you do you. I do wonder why Yaxley-Lennon didn’t call the girl as a witness in the libel trial though?"She was called as a witness, they said she was lying, along with multiple others. This is why you should watch, maybe even read the judgment? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening? "The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too. "So in what way did woman beating thug, Yaxley-Lennon, libel the schoolboy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The libel relates to the race elements that he claims were the motivation I believe. This was tested in court and found to be untrue. "The libel didn't relate to race elements, it related to all of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too.
So in what way did woman beating thug, Yaxley-Lennon, libel the schoolboy?"You want me to answer for the judge? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too.
So in what way did woman beating thug, Yaxley-Lennon, libel the schoolboy?
You want me to answer for the judge?"I’m just wondering what it was that he said that the court found to be libellous? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too. "I will watch it and see what’s what, mainly because there are a lot of dismissive comments from people who I’m guessing haven’t watched the film, it has piqued my interest purely on that front. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too.
So in what way did woman beating thug, Yaxley-Lennon, libel the schoolboy?
You want me to answer for the judge?
I’m just wondering what it was that he said that the court found to be libellous?"Read the verdict. It's easy to find. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? You definitely should watch it
I’m not a big fan of woman beating thugs, so I’ll give it a miss.
Thought you might say that. You can watch it to see the young girl who was beaten with a hockey stick by the boy who was 'libelled'.
Or you can just bury your head and keep repeating yourself.
I'm catching up with this, haven't watched the film though.. If i understand correctly, he was found guilty of libel because he accused some kid of beating a girl with a hockey stick, and the film actually shows that happening?
The film doesn't show it happening. It does show the girl in question saying it happened. There's plenty of covert recordings of teachers too.
I will watch it and see what’s what, mainly because there are a lot of dismissive comments from people who I’m guessing haven’t watched the film, it has piqued my interest purely on that front."I expected those comments tbh. Usual suspects too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. " If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAs" did these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?)" It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. " Are you on commission? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission?" Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone?" Is this the one where he has again repeat the allegations that lost him his liable case a few years back…. And has now been charged with contempt of court for doing so, so has now fled the country! Is it that Tommy Robinson we are talking about?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum "That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? Is this the one where he has again repeat the allegations that lost him his liable case a few years back…. And has now been charged with contempt of court for doing so, so has now fled the country! Is it that Tommy Robinson we are talking about?? " Not sure about 'fled'. He's retuned to his overseas residence using his Irish passport. But what a patriot he is!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Is that the one in which Yaxley-Lennon, whose first criminal conviction was for assaulting a police officer (who stepped in to stop Yaxley-Lennon beating up his then girlfriend), repeats libellous claims about someone? Is this the one where he has again repeat the allegations that lost him his liable case a few years back…. And has now been charged with contempt of court for doing so, so has now fled the country! Is it that Tommy Robinson we are talking about?? " I'm certainly not sticking up for him but believe his main residence is in marbella so as he was released on unconditional bail, the authorities can't stop him from going home. Also I don't believe it's mandatory to turn up for your first hearing as it's only to state your name and plea. This can be done without you there, however if he misses the 2nd court date then he might be in trouble | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit."Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Also I don't believe it's mandatory to turn up for your first hearing as it's only to state your name and plea. This can be done without you there, however if he misses the 2nd court date then he might be in trouble" I'm not sure on the exact law around this but I do know the judge has said the warrant shouldn't be executed until Oct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh "Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct."You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Also I don't believe it's mandatory to turn up for your first hearing as it's only to state your name and plea. This can be done without you there, however if he misses the 2nd court date then he might be in trouble I'm not sure on the exact law around this but I do know the judge has said the warrant shouldn't be executed until Oct. " Well certainly that's how it works at a magistrates court and it can be referred to Crown Court without you there. To be honest I'm not 100% sure of all the details of this case. I best do some googling! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised "Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women."You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?"Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions."Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?"Google is your friend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. " not to worry. I would have thought a school covering up a serious assault with a cricket bat would have stuck in memory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?
Google is your friend."I can’t find anything on google that says he beat up his wife. His rep was convicted of that but not him as far as I can tell. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?
Google is your friend."It's really not. I've seen 'having an argument', I've seen 'believed he was going to assault', I haven't seen assaulted. Can you help me out? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. not to worry. I would have thought a school covering up a serious assault with a cricket bat would have stuck in memory. " It was a hockey stick, the girl saying he hit her sticks in the head, I don't know about everything the teachers said about it, if anything at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?
Google is your friend.
It's really not. I've seen 'having an argument', I've seen 'believed he was going to assault', I haven't seen assaulted. Can you help me out?
"If you’ll recall, that’s not how it works, according to your good self. I’m happy to be corrected on the beating up women point if that’s not the case. However I also don’t support racist thugs so it’s a moot point when it comes to whether I’ll watch the video. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?
Google is your friend.
It's really not. I've seen 'having an argument', I've seen 'believed he was going to assault', I haven't seen assaulted. Can you help me out?
If you’ll recall, that’s not how it works, according to your good self. I’m happy to be corrected on the beating up women point if that’s not the case. However I also don’t support racist thugs so it’s a moot point when it comes to whether I’ll watch the video."In which case, if that's how it works, why do you repeatedly lie about him? Blinded by hatred possibly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?
Google is your friend.
It's really not. I've seen 'having an argument', I've seen 'believed he was going to assault', I haven't seen assaulted. Can you help me out?
If you’ll recall, that’s not how it works, according to your good self. I’m happy to be corrected on the beating up women point if that’s not the case. However I also don’t support racist thugs so it’s a moot point when it comes to whether I’ll watch the video.
In which case, if that's how it works, why do you repeatedly lie about him? Blinded by hatred possibly?"I don’t hate anyone, it’s a very negative emotion that has no place in my life. And as I’ve said I’m happy to stand corrected if the domestic incident between Yaxley-Lennon and his now wife did not involve violence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. not to worry. I would have thought a school covering up a serious assault with a cricket bat would have stuck in memory. It was a hockey stick, the girl saying he hit her sticks in the head, I don't know about everything the teachers said about it, if anything at all. " no idea why I wrote cricket bat. Need coffee. It was a part of his libel trial, to show the "truth" if the kids violent character. I'm guessing the film is more than just about this bullying case? (If I'm going to spend 2 hours watching something I'd need to know a synopsis to decide of I'm interested!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems a video of a kid being beaten up went viral. The Mail Online ran an article on it. The libel appears to have been on FB whereby TR, a day later, said the boy in the video had, as sort of a gang, participated in a violent assault on a young girl, which had caused her serious injuries, and threatened to stab another child. In showing this to be true he presented 5 witnesses who did not prove to be credible, and tended to be contradictee under cross examination, and there was little school records supporting many of their claims, including an attack with a hockey stick that appeared to have one witness. And was never recorded. Much of the witness evidence was done via hidden camera and TR had a habit of asking leading questions. I'm not sure where the whole NDA angle has come from, but many of the school reports were redacted as they were from a personal information request. If you watch the documentary, TR covertly films teachers saying they can't talk about things because of NDAsdid these teachers explain why there werw no records of the hockey attack. Or the attack at the back gates ? (Also, can't see he references NDAs in court. Would they stand up in such cases ?) It was 2 hours long, I can't remember every bit of it. That's why I'm telling people to watch it. Are you on commission? Of course. His Israeli backers offered a tidy sum
That’s a relief, for a minute there it looked like you believed in his racist bullshit.
Of course I believe it, we have the same backers, duh
Well I reckon 50% of that sentence is correct.
You can believe whatever you like. It's crazy you try to attack me because you refuse to watch it for yourself. Not that I'm surprised
Like I said, I don’t support thugs who beat up women.
You keep repeating that. Do you have proof he beat up any women?
Yes, that’s what he was doing when he assaulted a police officer that resulted in the first of many criminal convictions.
Are you sure the police officer didn't step in to break up an argument?
Google is your friend.
It's really not. I've seen 'having an argument', I've seen 'believed he was going to assault', I haven't seen assaulted. Can you help me out?
If you’ll recall, that’s not how it works, according to your good self. I’m happy to be corrected on the beating up women point if that’s not the case. However I also don’t support racist thugs so it’s a moot point when it comes to whether I’ll watch the video.
In which case, if that's how it works, why do you repeatedly lie about him? Blinded by hatred possibly?
I don’t hate anyone, it’s a very negative emotion that has no place in my life.
And as I’ve said I’m happy to stand corrected if the domestic incident between Yaxley-Lennon and his now wife did not involve violence."there's nothing I've seen that says any violence was seen, the off duty cop was woken by the shouting and saw the girl sobbing and crying and wanting nothing to do with TR (balance: both TR and gf deny this, tho gf credibility was questioned as may have been on drugs) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
