UK ATS members declaring Tommy Robinson guilty should turn themselves in to be arrested

a reply to: Grambler

I think the issue is that you think posting on ATS will influence the jury as much as going to the courthouse and interfering on location. Don’t forget Tommy’s prior history as well.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

Then he shouldnt have been charged in the first place.

Again, we have been told that he needed to be charged because he could have swayed potential jurors.

Did you even read what he did in the past? He was directly interfering with people involved in a trial on the courthouse steps. It is his past record that justified his ban from being on the courthouse property during the trial, which in turn justified his arrest. Even so, thanks for engaging in debate.

Double post

a reply to: Grambler

Was misinformed, there was a complete ban on the info to try and prevent mistrial today, only got word on Sunday and posted about it a few pages back. Obviously only had public domain links to back it up now ban is lifted.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Grambler

I think the issue is that you think posting on ATS will influence the jury as much as going to the courthouse and interfering on location. Don’t forget Tommy’s prior history as well.

Show me one juror tommy interacted with in any of the cases.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Grambler

Was misinformed, there was a complete ban on the info to try and prevent mistrial today, only got word on Sunday and posted about it a few pages back. Obviously only had public domain links to back it up now ban is lifted.

Yet you were so certian when you posted that.

Where did you get that info from that you were reporting?

Surely you didnt just make it up, so I would like to see the source.

Or are you admitting to straight oout making stuff up to answer objections people had to this verdict?

Are we down to showing images of jurors now, FFS!

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Grambler

I think the issue is that you think posting on ATS will influence the jury as much as going to the courthouse and interfering on location. Don’t forget Tommy’s prior history as well.

And also, its not a matter of the amount of influence, it is rather or not any influence on pontetial jurors should be allowed.

I would think that people that are so worried about influencing potential jurors would themselves take steps to make sure they are not doing the same.

It seems to me that as usual with these type of things, some people feel that the amount they are doing is perfectly acceptable, its just people who they percieve as doing more of the same things are guilty.

originally posted by: bastion
Are we down to showing images of jurors now, FFS!

I dont know why I am discussing tis with you; I have now caught you blatantly lying three times about this.

Was tommy influencing any jurors when he was arrested?

he was live streaming, so surely you will have no problem going to that video and pointing out which jurors he was influencing.

And another pretzel fest. Twisting arguments to fit what one wishes were happening. @@

a reply to: Grambler

Check the law, the amount of likes and facebook friends a person has, teitter followeres, retweets, youtube watches influences contempt or not - a forum post is just chat in public - doesn't amount to contempt plus no jury in contempt cases.

Source is secret due to judge's order but was given misinterpreted info from someone covering it, same thing that happened with all the 404's, teams of lawyers have worked the weekend clearing it all up.

I'm not revealing jurors faces just because you made a thread about a non-existent arguement.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Grambler

I think the issue is that you think posting on ATS will influence the jury as much as going to the courthouse and interfering on location. Don’t forget Tommy’s prior history as well.

Show me one juror tommy interacted with in any of the cases.

Show me one juror anyone on ATS has interacted with or influenced in the Tommy Robinson case. As for Tommy, here is an example of when he was interfering with a trial by trying to "interview" defendants of the case at the courthouse, where it is entirely feasible a member of the jury would be influenced.

Controversial political activist Tommy Robinson has been arrested for contempt of court after attempting to interview four men on trial for raping a 16-year-old girl in Thanet.

Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, who took on the alias Tommy Robinson during his stint as leader of the English Defence League (EDL), was warned by police outside Canterbury Crown Court on Monday (May 8).

Robinson, flanked by two cameramen from his media organisation Rebel Media, were hoping to interview the accused, before being ushered away by officers.

Kent Live

As for his YouTube live feed, check this out.

The founder of the English Defence League has been sent to Hull Prison after he filmed outside court, which had the potential to cause a major trial to collapse, it can now be reported.

Tommy Robinson streamed an hour-long Facebook Live outside Leeds Crown Court last Friday. Within hours, it had been watched more than 250,000 times.

Hull Live

I bet you would love it if one of your threads had 250,000 views!

a reply to: Grambler

And now you're insisting on namecalling after the only adult in the room admitted a simple mistake. Great. And who was lying about the media ban now, you? Liar!

Is there something you wont do for your sacred identity politics?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I bet Grambler never makes mistakes. What's that Grambler, you don't? I thought you might say that! It's all right though, we all make mistakes in the end. The important part is learning from them.

a reply to: darkbake

So its just the amount of Tommys followers that make him guilty?

Meanwhile, interviewing defendants should not be a crime (whihc I know is irrelevant to this discussion), and is not necessary for a crime to be committed under the 1981 contempt of court act that is listed in the OP.

a reply to: Grambler

In my opinion, it was interviewing them at the courthouse during the trial that had the potential to influence the jury. And I don't think his YouTube live broadcast was central to his arrest, from what I heard it was because he violated a court order to stay off the courthouse property during one of these trials.

As for his YouTube stream, yes, I think that the number of views he gets on his video should influence a decision on whether or not that video has a chance of influencing a trial if a decision like that was to be made. This is the central argument as to why someone posting on ATS is in the clear.

How many views would you guess this thread has? I would bet under 1,000. Tommy Robinson has 180,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel. No offense intended, but I notice you have 4 friends. I think if you lived in the UK you would be in the clear.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Grambler

And now you're insisting on namecalling after the only adult in the room admitted a simple mistake. Great. And who was lying about the media ban now, you? Liar!

Is there something you wont do for your sacred identity politics?

When did I lie about the media ban?

This user said with conviction that he knew that Tommy would face another hearing tuesaday, and would have been out monday if not for a holiday.

That user now admits they entirely made that up.

That is a lie. That user could have said "Well it is possible that tommy will have another hearing, but I dont know right now because of the media ban" But they didnt, because they were in a rush to lie to shut up people that had a problem with the quick jailing and gag order.

That user also lied by claiming to post 4 articles that showed that the UK courts had ruled that posting on facebook or twitter could uniquely violate the 1981 contempt of court law, and yet not only did those articles not say that, the last of those articles said blogs in general (such as ATS) could violate that.

That user then proceeded to claim jurors were present at the court when tommy was arrested, and posted an article that said nothing about jurors being present.

I have not made up anything. Please show me where I lied

As far as pushing identity politics, only would someone like you liken pushing for free speech to be idneity politics.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I bet Grambler never makes mistakes. What's that Grambler, you don't? I thought you might say that! It's all right though, we all make mistakes in the end. The important part is learning from them.

Of course I make mistakes.

However, claiming that you know that there is another hearing coming up, and then admitting later you had no way of knowing this because there was a media gag order is not a mistake.

That is a lie.

a reply to: darkbake

Again though, I dont feel that the amount of views should be relevant.

The people defending tommys arrest said his facebook stream could have influenced jurors (I have yet to see proof there were even jurors at this trial at the time of the livestream, though there may have been).

They should then refrain from posting on online boards things that could potentially influence jurors in any case.

They rightfully though want to express their opinions on tiommy, which I support and find totally legitimate.

yet tommy, who didnt even call the defendants guilty (unlike the people here about him), these people feel he should be jailed.

I look forward to all of these people clamoring for the jailing of any meetoo movement person who will be outside the trial of weinstein, or who was outside the cosby trial.

Dont these women know they just need to shut up!

a reply to: darkbake


The free speech crowd is never misinformed and a beacon of intellectual honesty. How dare you post offensive crap like that, liar!