Tommy Robinson, that scoundrel.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

a reply to: gortex

Forced to release them... That's beyond comical, great idea to put the world's biggest clown into the too job...

a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

He determined his own guilt by broadcasting in contempt of a court order , whether you agree with that court order or not doesn't change the fact.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more information becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

a reply to: Freeborn

Why does he still insist on using a false name?

Tommy Robinson Is one of those characters you would expect to find in the old Commando comics. It sounds much more British than Stephen Lennon. Fearless Freddie and Smudger Smith had already been taken.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more iformation becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

Stop with the wholly inaccurate 'prejudice the jury' nonsense. The appeals judge already said that there was nothing reported that could prejudice the jury. You're using media propaganda as an argument. It's like the total media lie that Robinson admitted guilt in court. Loads of people just repeated that lie too.

I think it is wholly pertinent to the case if the guy actually sought permission prior to acting, taking into account his previous conviction as the basis for the check.

The judge did over reach by placing a reporting restriction on the details of Robinsons conviction for contempt of court - that is different to a gag order on the pakistani rape gang trial.

As I have said before, those that support arresting a person, rushing them to jail without giving them access to their lawyer and sticking them in solitary confinement for the crime of live streaming into an iphone are just driven by hate and are far worse and more dangerous to society than Robinson.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more iformation becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

Stop with the wholly inaccurate 'prejudice the jury' nonsense. The appeals judge already said that there was nothing reported that could prejudice the jury. You're using media propaganda as an argument. It's like the total media lie that Robinson admitted guilt in court. Loads of people just repeated that lie too.

I think it is wholly pertinent to the case if the guy actually sought permission prior to acting, taking into account his previous conviction as the basis for the check.

The judge did over reach by placing a reporting restriction on the details of Robinsons conviction for contempt of court - that is different to a gag order on the pakistani rape gang trial.

As I have said before, those that support arresting a person, rushing them to jail without giving them access to their lawyer and sticking them in solitary confinement for the crime of live streaming into an iphone are just driven by hate and are far worse and more dangerous to society than Robinson.

He did admit and pleaded mitigation. The appeal court found that it was not made sufficiently clear exactly what he was admitting to. Not that he didn't admit to breaching the reporting restrictions.

He was given access to an experienced barrister. Stop making it sound as if he was denied legal representation.

To the best of my knowledge we only have his word (again proven liar) that he checked what he was allowed to say and stayed within the restrictions. If you have a source to show this has been confirmed please share. Otherwise it will be subject to be decided at his trial.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Looking into some of the links on his Wiki page it would appear my skepticism about him being a "wife beater" was exactly on point, who would've imagined it...

The officer had come to the rescue of Robinson's then girlfriend - now wife (who he asked the Huffington Post UK not to name as it would “endanger her and my kids”). The couple were “drunk arguing” at 3am. The cop wanted to walk Robinson’s girlfriend home.

Robinson: “I was being heated, and arguing, but I've never, ever, ever, ever, ever assaulted my missus and my wife. So I'm like, '# off man, what-you-talking-about'."

At that point Robinson said the officer "rugby tackled him" to the floor.

Tommy Robinson: Stephen Yaxley-Lennon Explains The Making Of An Alter-Ego Even His Wife Can't Stand

Wikipedia as a source? He probably edited that himself or one of his worshippers did.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more iformation becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

Stop with the wholly inaccurate 'prejudice the jury' nonsense. The appeals judge already said that there was nothing reported that could prejudice the jury. You're using media propaganda as an argument. It's like the total media lie that Robinson admitted guilt in court. Loads of people just repeated that lie too.

I think it is wholly pertinent to the case if the guy actually sought permission prior to acting, taking into account his previous conviction as the basis for the check.

The judge did over reach by placing a reporting restriction on the details of Robinsons conviction for contempt of court - that is different to a gag order on the pakistani rape gang trial.

As I have said before, those that support arresting a person, rushing them to jail without giving them access to their lawyer and sticking them in solitary confinement for the crime of live streaming into an iphone are just driven by hate and are far worse and more dangerous to society than Robinson.

He did admit and pleaded mitigation. The appeal court found that it was not made sufficiently clear exactly what he was admitting to. Not that he didn't admit to breaching the reporting restrictions.

He was given access to an experienced barrister. Stop making it sound as if he was denied legal representation.

To the best of my knowledge we only have his word (again proven liar) that he checked what he was allowed to say and stayed within the restrictions. If you have a source to show this has been confirmed please share. Otherwise it will be subject to be decided at his trial.

Not correct - not only did he admit to no crime, he was not even asked.
He was specifically refused access to his own legal counsel.

That he checked what he was allowed to do will be important in the trial - he claims he has evidence he checked. We'll see.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more iformation becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

Stop with the wholly inaccurate 'prejudice the jury' nonsense. The appeals judge already said that there was nothing reported that could prejudice the jury. You're using media propaganda as an argument. It's like the total media lie that Robinson admitted guilt in court. Loads of people just repeated that lie too.

I think it is wholly pertinent to the case if the guy actually sought permission prior to acting, taking into account his previous conviction as the basis for the check.

The judge did over reach by placing a reporting restriction on the details of Robinsons conviction for contempt of court - that is different to a gag order on the pakistani rape gang trial.

As I have said before, those that support arresting a person, rushing them to jail without giving them access to their lawyer and sticking them in solitary confinement for the crime of live streaming into an iphone are just driven by hate and are far worse and more dangerous to society than Robinson.

He did admit and pleaded mitigation. The appeal court found that it was not made sufficiently clear exactly what he was admitting to. Not that he didn't admit to breaching the reporting restrictions.

He was given access to an experienced barrister. Stop making it sound as if he was denied legal representation.

To the best of my knowledge we only have his word (again proven liar) that he checked what he was allowed to say and stayed within the restrictions. If you have a source to show this has been confirmed please share. Otherwise it will be subject to be decided at his trial.

Not correct - not only did he admit to no crime, he was not even asked.
He was specifically refused access to his own legal counsel.

That he checked what he was allowed to do will be important in the trial - he claims he has evidence he checked. We'll see.

His barrister submitted a plea of mitigation. That is something that happens when you admit the offence.

So at the moment you are just accepting the word of proven liar Robinson . You are entitled to that option but please don't present it as fact.

originally posted by: UKTruth


- Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.

- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.

- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others.

Once again the intelligence of the perp comes into question. So he checked he was allowed to film (which he wasn't because of the usual kind of reporting restrictions placed on such high profile cases). He went into the court and read the restrictions that were in place (yet still chose to ignore them and carry on filming anyway). And he read the stuff already out there on the case (and still reported in a manner that breached the reporting restrictions). Why does anyone support this moron?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

Anyone who supports Yaxley-Lennon is thinking with their heart and not with their head...

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

Anyone who supports Yaxley-Lennon is thinking with their heart and not with their head...

I would suggest it's a different part of their anatomy...

originally posted by: UKTruth

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

I think that just applies to you. I'm against wife beaters, conmen and those who stir up hatred (and claiming those of us who aren't fans of the Thug Formelry Known as Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon are filled with hate just doesn't wash, no matter how much you repeat it) but I'm also against corruption within Government, unfortunately, in the UK I don't think it's possible to untangle Corruption from Government, and I fear it's the same in most countries...

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

Anyone who supports Yaxley-Lennon is thinking with their heart and not with their head...

I am not in the slightest bit interested in supporting Robinson - I am, however, very interested in ensuring our Govt' does not target and persecute citizens to close down opinions they find disagreeable.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

Anyone who supports Yaxley-Lennon is thinking with their heart and not with their head...

I am not in the slightest bit interested in supporting Robinson - I am, however, very interested in ensuring our Govt' does not target and persecute citizens to close down opinions they find disagreeable.

But they're targeting him because he was in contempt of court, a load of pedophiles nearly walked free as a direct result of his actions. You seem to think this is OK for some reason...

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: UKTruth

Robinson was detained outside Leeds Crown Court after using social media to broadcast details of a trial which is subject to blanket reporting restrictions.
www.irishtimes.com...

You think Yaxley-Lennon is not bound by rules that apply to everyone else ?
Blanket reporting restrictions apply to all forms of media.

You article includes the lie that Robinson admitted guilt - I stopped reading the propaganda at that point.

You need to find yourself a new hero to worship, you're glowing.

Little Tommy

Lol, being against a corrupt govt means worshipping Robinson? Your lame 'shame' attempts don't have any effect on me. I stick to my principles and don't let my emotions or media propaganda dictate my thinking.

Anyone who supports Yaxley-Lennon is thinking with their heart and not with their head...

I am not in the slightest bit interested in supporting Robinson - I am, however, very interested in ensuring our Govt' does not target and persecute citizens to close down opinions they find disagreeable.

But they're targeting him because he was in contempt of court, a load of pedophiles nearly walked free as a direct result of his actions. You seem to think this is OK for some reason...

No, they didn;t nearly walk free - once again, the judge who reviewed the appeal said that there was nothing mentioned by Robinson that could prejudice the court. You are repeating media lies.

You are also showing that you are not doing any work to investigate what is going on - like the police outside Robinson's house with recording equipment - wtf is that all about? It's not to do with any crime, it's an effort to eavesdrop and get him for something he said inside his own home. If you are for this kind of behaviour then , like I said, you are blinded by hatred and are a much bigger problem than Robinson.