Tommy Robinson 'arrested over assault at Center Parcs pool'

  • Thread starter Deleted member 29235
  • Start date

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
I appreciate a reply in good faith. I still find the coverage biased. As to the question of what it is evidence of, surely of what was alleged? One can decide that in the end the evidence does not prove the allegation, but nothing is even called 'evidence' without an allegation, which we have. We have at least two 'types' of evidence in the video - the evidence of witness and documentary evidence. There are two witnesses - TR and his daughter. The video also documents the police talking to him about the allegation. They obviously know they are being filmed and none of them challenge any of his statements. No other motive has been given for the assault. Even people with previous don't - let's say 'necessarily', to be on the safe side - just commit acts of random violence.
The video has him making a claim to the police. When you make assertions like "none of them challenges any of his statements" or "why did they cut the video at that point" and then fill in your own answers and use that as the basis for further speculation you're building a weak argument.
Unfortunately there is a real problem where victims were ignored.
This man has capitalized on that in the past and he may be capitalizing on it now.
His daughter's testimony should be taken by a trained police detective or a counselor and it should be taken seriously.
It's evidence of something, but what? It is not proof that what he is alleging is true, and that is the point.

These things do happen and what his daughter is saying on the video may be true, and it's a shame that it's being handled this way if so.
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
It would be nice to say the left were heroes on this subject, considering it was mostly under their watch but apart from Sarah Champion and a lesser extent Jack Straw, who were both vilified by some in Labour for speaking out.......I'd say what Lennon's done is pretty heroic.
Yes, I understand you think he is a hero. I stated that explicitly. I also wrote my opinion that standing outside a courtroom and jeopardizing cases that are finally being paid some attention due to his own attention seeking behavior is moronic. It's almost as if it was more about him getting some attention than about the actual victims, which is a pretty good reason that everyone isn't taking this video at face value.
Like you, announcing your grand achievement of being banned from twitter, he wants to make it about himself not realizing that he comes across as a fool. So I think that concludes anything we have to say to each other. I'll let you have the last word.
 

Stephen Hofmann

Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand you think he is a hero. I stated that explicitly. I also wrote my opinion that standing outside a courtroom and jeopardizing cases that are finally being paid some attention due to his own attention seeking behavior is moronic. It's almost as if it was more about him getting some attention than about the actual victims, which is a pretty good reason that everyone isn't taking this video at face value.
Like you, announcing your grand achievement of being banned from twitter, he wants to make it about himself not realizing that he comes across as a fool. So I think that concludes anything we have to say to each other. I'll let you have the last word.

It's probably not worth it.
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
jclq4qq.png


Can't see your posts. Maybe you should spend your energy on something else.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes, I understand you think he is a hero. I stated that explicitly. I also wrote my opinion that standing outside a courtroom and jeopardizing cases that are finally being paid some attention due to his own attention seeking behavior is moronic. It's almost as if it was more about him getting some attention than about the actual victims, which is a pretty good reason that everyone isn't taking this video at face value.
Like you, announcing your grand achievement of being banned from twitter, he wants to make it about himself not realizing that he comes across as a fool. So I think that concludes anything we have to say to each other. I'll let you have the last word.
:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
 

DreamingofStew

Active Member
The video has him making a claim to the police. When you make assertions like "none of them challenges any of his statements" or "why did they cut the video at that point" and then fill in your own answers and use that as the basis for further speculation you're building a weak argument.
Unfortunately there is a real problem where victims were ignored.
This man has capitalized on that in the past and he may be capitalizing on it now.
His daughter's testimony should be taken by a trained police detective or a counselor and it should be taken seriously.
It's evidence of something, but what? It is not proof that what he is alleging is true, and that is the point.

These things do happen and what his daughter is saying on the video may be true, and it's a shame that it's being handled this way if so.

Right, and now we're going in circles. I never said it was proof. I was talking about the press coverage, which is obviously biased. You accuse me of speculation, but then say, "and he may be capitalizing on it now". And? So this part of the story should be cut? Why? He may be capitalising on it now so he is capitalising on it now? In other words, ignore this part of the story as the press is doing. You've chosen a bias.

Edit: Somehow I missed your final line before. I'm not sure what to make of that since what comes before it seems to be disagreeing with me, but the last line seems to be a non sequitur agreeing with me. Maybe it's too late at night for me to understand the point.
 
Last edited:

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
Right, and now we're going in circles. I never said it was proof. I was talking about the press coverage, which is obviously biased. You accuse me of speculation, but then say, "and he may be capitalizing on it now". And? So this part of the story should be cut? Why? He may be capitalising on it now so he is capitalising on it now? In other words, ignore this part of the story as the press is doing. You've chosen a bias.

Edit: Somehow I missed your final line before. I'm not sure what to make of that since what comes before it seems to be disagreeing with me, but the last line seems to be a non sequitur agreeing with me. Maybe it's too late at night for me to understand the point.
It's a complicated question that can't be decided based on a video clip from a source some would find unreliable.
The press coverage isn't "obviously biased." If someone you know well tells you about an experience they had your opinion of them will determine how confident you are in the truth of their story and how likely you are to repeat it.
I don't mean to accuse you of anything. I believe you're acting in good faith or I wouldn't bother discussing it. But when you build an argument based on questions it does ad up to speculation. "Why would they do that?" is fair. "Probably because _______ which means ____________," gets into a Rorschach test where everyone is going to come up with the conclusion they're seeking.
I believe that the UK press is very sensitive about naming suspects of sexual crimes. Now add in that the man wasn't actually arrested and it might be kind of shaky legal ground, even without naming him. Now add in that Tommy Robinson is about 65% likely to name the man in the next couple of days when this story needs another chapter to keep it in the headlines, and that could be a reason.
But everything starting with "I believe" is speculation on my part making it completely meaningless. Who cares what I think? And who cares what reasons you might attribute to the press. We don't know.

That's the whole thing. We don't know. And the video doesn't tell us anything. If the video showed the man in the vicinity of his daughter and her reacting to that moment she was allegedly grabbed then it would be real evidence that this took place.
One of the problems with prosecuting crimes dealing with sexual assault is that there often is no evidence at all, so it comes down to credibility occasionally.
The girl deserves to be heard but based on his history, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the girl is put up to making the video. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it did. It means that he's used videos before during his brief occupation as a journalist, and who benefited from that other than him?
If he has capitalized on this type of thing in the past and he MAY be capitalizing on it now, then you can see that as a bias but the UK press is not responsible to help him do this by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Does it really matter how much of the story is immediately told?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It's a complicated question that can't be decided based on a video clip from a source some would find unreliable.
The press coverage isn't "obviously biased." If someone you know well tells you about an experience they had your opinion of them will determine how confident you are in the truth of their story and how likely you are to repeat it.
I don't mean to accuse you of anything. I believe you're acting in good faith or I wouldn't bother discussing it. But when you build an argument based on questions it does ad up to speculation. "Why would they do that?" is fair. "Probably because _______ which means ____________," gets into a Rorschach test where everyone is going to come up with the conclusion they're seeking.
I believe that the UK press is very sensitive about naming suspects of sexual crimes. Now add in that the man wasn't actually arrested and it might be kind of shaky legal ground, even without naming him. Now add in that Tommy Robinson is about 65% likely to name the man in the next couple of days when this story needs another chapter to keep it in the headlines, and that could be a reason.
But everything starting with "I believe" is speculation on my part making it completely meaningless. Who cares what I think? And who cares what reasons you might attribute to the press. We don't know.

That's the whole thing. We don't know. And the video doesn't tell us anything. If the video showed the man in the vicinity of his daughter and her reacting to that moment she was allegedly grabbed then it would be real evidence that this took place.
One of the problems with prosecuting crimes dealing with sexual assault is that there often is no evidence at all, so it comes down to credibility occasionally.
The girl deserves to be heard but based on his history, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the girl is put up to making the video. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it did. It means that he's used videos before during his brief occupation as a journalist, and who benefited from that other than him?
If he has capitalized on this type of thing in the past and he MAY be capitalizing on it now, then you can see that as a bias but the UK press is not responsible to help him do this by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Does it really matter how much of the story is immediately told?
All perfectly rational.

The UK media reported the facts. I know many in here have an allergy to facts. More information may come to light that suppports YL's allegations but for now all the evidence revolves around the word of YL. Not the most credible of witnesses.

If you watch the video particularly the section with the police all that can be seen and heard is a thug out to provoke.

The section with his daughter suggests it was recorded after the police incident after he was charged. e.g. in the police section YL insists 3 men on their own were in the pool. He daughter later says 'his friend wasn't with him' or words to that effect to which YL replies in the confirmatory 'he was on his own'.

YL launched Alliance to an all but empty room only 2 days before this 'allegation' was made. Coincidence? Maybe?

Time will tell .....
 
Tags
far-right thug
Top Bottom