I'm assuming that he was refused a visa because he invented hipsterdom.
I believe that is a legitimate reason to refuse someone entry to our country.
Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed
Moderator: bbmods
-
watt price tully
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/ ... a/10573134
Tragically, it appears that Tommy has not yet even applied for a visa to visit here with us.
Tragically, it appears that Tommy has not yet even applied for a visa to visit here with us.
-
watt price tully
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
thesoretoothsayer wrote:I'm assuming that he was refused a visa because he invented hipsterdom.
I believe that is a legitimate reason to refuse someone entry to our country.
Yes both are dangerous to our community. Although I suspect I'd get a better almond latte through a hipster's cafe than through neo-nazis. The latters lattes are inherently if not invariably too bitter.
Then again if I got a latte from the Church of Latte day Saints then I could purchase them at the local branch of the Victorian Liberal party.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... roceedings
Tommy's rhetoric is pretty funny. As those of you who can read and write will recall, he pleaded guilty to the contempt charges when they were heard but had his (second) conviction for contempt (the first still stands) quashed on appeal because the judge had used the wrong process and the matter had to be sent back for re-hearing. Thus, to put it plainly, he is presently out of prison not because the Court of Appeal thought he hadn't committed a contempt but because they thought the judge had adopted the wrong procedure.
Tommy seems to be very concerned that the Attorney-General would want to do it again using the correct procedure. That would be because, having been caught "bang to rights", he's in what the rest of us might refer to as "a very tight corner".
But it will be no problem for Tommy - there is an answer - here, Buffy shows the way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPstZAl0Vjk
Tommy's rhetoric is pretty funny. As those of you who can read and write will recall, he pleaded guilty to the contempt charges when they were heard but had his (second) conviction for contempt (the first still stands) quashed on appeal because the judge had used the wrong process and the matter had to be sent back for re-hearing. Thus, to put it plainly, he is presently out of prison not because the Court of Appeal thought he hadn't committed a contempt but because they thought the judge had adopted the wrong procedure.
Tommy seems to be very concerned that the Attorney-General would want to do it again using the correct procedure. That would be because, having been caught "bang to rights", he's in what the rest of us might refer to as "a very tight corner".
But it will be no problem for Tommy - there is an answer - here, Buffy shows the way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPstZAl0Vjk
-
thesoretoothsayer
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:15 am
- Been liked: 23 times
Tommy Robinson loses discrimination case against Cambridgeshire police.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-47586480
I'm assuming that Robinson was either badly advised or seeking further publicity (or both) as it would be very hard to establish discrimination
without access to internal police communications or a police whistleblower.
A Section 35 dispersal order appears to be an oppressive, discretionary police power that allows individuals to be ordered out of a
locality (and basically marched to a train station) based on nothing more than "reasonable grounds". i.e. PC Plod doesn't like the look of you:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... view=plain
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bed ... s-47586480
I'm assuming that Robinson was either badly advised or seeking further publicity (or both) as it would be very hard to establish discrimination
without access to internal police communications or a police whistleblower.
A Section 35 dispersal order appears to be an oppressive, discretionary police power that allows individuals to be ordered out of a
locality (and basically marched to a train station) based on nothing more than "reasonable grounds". i.e. PC Plod doesn't like the look of you:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/20 ... view=plain
-
Skids
- Posts: 9940
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:46 am
- Location: ANZAC day 2019 with Dad.
- Has liked: 29 times
- Been liked: 44 times
The blind still can't see the reality.... watch the video, what a damn disgrace!
https://www.tr.news/islamic-attack-what ... in-oldham/
https://www.tr.news/islamic-attack-what ... in-oldham/
-
thesoretoothsayer
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:15 am
- Been liked: 23 times