It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tommy Robinson, that scoundrel.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SeenItBelieveIt


Actually I am referring to and quoting court documents and not the TV - that's the point

I would have thought the language in the quotes would have made that obvious to someone with even a modicum of intellect. I'll make it more explicit next time for those who don't.


I most certainly do have a problem when our legal system is corrupted - that is what I have a hard on for.
Robinson has been treated horribly by our legal system - it has totally let him down. I don't care who he is. Our legal system must be just.

If you are against that premise then you are not in step with a civilised society. Whether I like him or not, I'd put Robinson a notch above those people who would cheer the removal of due process so they can burn their latest witch.




edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Clearly, as my post went straight over your head.

I guess that means you've never been involved in the events and marches Tommy's arranged over the years. No? Keeping that quiet?

I think you'll find YOU are not in step with modern society, Stephen deserves this and much more, don't like it then you can leave with Brexit.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Clearly, as my post went straight over your head.

I guess that means you've never been involved in the events and marches Tommy's arranged over the years. No? Keeping that quiet?

I think you'll find YOU are not in step with modern society, Stephen deserves this and much more, don't like it then you can leave with Brexit.


Never been on any march organised by extremists, thanks very much, and never will.
What else does Robinson deserve - do tell...?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?


Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?


You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.


The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.


And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?


Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?


You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.


The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.


And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...





We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given


edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Why are you guys even bothering to try debating with UKTruth....?

It’s like trying to debate creationism with a creationist
edit on 9-3-2019 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Why are you guys even bothering to try debating with UKTruth....?

It’s like trying to debate creationism with a creationist


Well I am actually referencing court documents exclusively - so I guess if you liken the law and written judgement to creationism, that explains a lot.


It's a fact that Robinson was treated very badly by our legal system - laws were broken in putting hin in jail and they had significant impact. This is not opinion, it's fact as laid out by the appeals court.

The point that I have been making, and has been underlined by the response, is that some people not only can't admit that Robinson was treated very poorly by our Govt., but they cheer for it. That can only be driven by pure hatred of the man overriding the consideration for due process for all. This is why those that hate Robinson so much are more of a danger to this country than he is, by a wide margin.
edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Clearly, as my post went straight over your head.

I guess that means you've never been involved in the events and marches Tommy's arranged over the years. No? Keeping that quiet?

I think you'll find YOU are not in step with modern society, Stephen deserves this and much more, don't like it then you can leave with Brexit.


Never been on any march organised by extremists, thanks very much, and never will.



Its not nice to lie UKTruth, I mean you follow this extremist thread to thread defending him and now you say your not a follower in real life? Ok.



What else does Robinson deserve - do tell...?





posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Clearly, as my post went straight over your head.

I guess that means you've never been involved in the events and marches Tommy's arranged over the years. No? Keeping that quiet?

I think you'll find YOU are not in step with modern society, Stephen deserves this and much more, don't like it then you can leave with Brexit.


Never been on any march organised by extremists, thanks very much, and never will.



Its not nice to lie UKTruth, I mean you follow this extremist thread to thread defending him and now you say your not a follower in real life? Ok.



What else does Robinson deserve - do tell...?




Follower? I am afraid I don't subscribe to that way of thinking. If you do then I would suggest you quickly extract yourself from whoever you follow... it's not healthy.

So you think he should do a walk of shame in front of a baying crowd? I see. That kind of makes my point wonderfully. Thanks.


edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Haha its funny he gets so worked up about these perceived horrors.

And when confronted he hides behind empty rhetoric about just wanting fairness. He's a relic in today's society who can't deal with change.

I imagine forums like this is the only place he feels safe to show his true self so he lets all his anger out.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well I'm happy you've made your point, its garbage, but at least you're happy about it.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?


Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?


You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.


The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.


And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...





We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given



You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Haha its funny he gets so worked up about these perceived horrors.



Percieved as in the judgement of the appeals court?
Hmm.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Haha its funny he gets so worked up about these perceived horrors.



Percieved as in the judgement of the appeals court?
Hmm.


Can you show where the appeals court says it was corruption. One of your claims?
edit on 9-3-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?


Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?


You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.


The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.


And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...





We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given



You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?


My only reference to the Canterbury case is that the judge made an error in his final judgement - there was no successful appeal, mainly because he had a week in that case to pull together a proper defence. The particulars of that case were also very different. In my opinion he got what he deserved.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Haha its funny he gets so worked up about these perceived horrors.



Percieved as in the judgement of the appeals court?
Hmm.


Can you show where the appeals court says it was corruption. One of your claims?


Not one of my claims.
I called the judge corrupt - because he broke the law and corrupted the legal system, which is fully documented in the appeals ruling.
Nice try, though.

edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?


Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?


You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.


The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.


And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...





We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given



You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?


My only reference to the Canterbury case is that the judge made an error in his final judgement - there was no successful appeal, mainly because he had a week in that case to pull together a proper defence. The particulars of that case were also very different. In my opinion he got what he deserved.


I believe description was one of 'form rather than substance'

So now we have established he is categorically guilty of the first offence perhaps it would be good to look at the warning he was given regarding his sentence.

I assume you are familiar with it from your research?


edit on 9-3-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Well I'm happy you've made your point, its garbage, but at least you're happy about it.


No, you made my point - you think a citizen should be forced to do a walk fo shame in front of a baying crowd because you hate him. I do think that is indeed garbage, but it is the kind of thing I would expect a hateful person to want to do to another person.

You said it, so you should own it.

edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?


Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?


You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.


The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.


And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...





We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.


The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given



You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?


My only reference to the Canterbury case is that the judge made an error in his final judgement - there was no successful appeal, mainly because he had a week in that case to pull together a proper defence. The particulars of that case were also very different. In my opinion he got what he deserved.


I believe description was one of 'form rather than substance'

So now we have established he is categorically guilty of the first offence perhaps it would be good to look at the warning he was given regarding his sentence.

I assume you are familiar with it from your research?



The judge was pretty clear on that. It has nothing to do with the judges corruption of due process and the law in the Leeds case, which in turn has no bearing on whether Robinson will be found guilty or innocent in the upcoming trial.

What you seem unable to accept is that Robinson did not plead guilty - you still have not admitted you were wrong - and you also seem unable to accept the appeals court ruling that Robinson was treated terribly and denied due process in the Leeds case. They are the points I am making and not whether Robinson is innocent or guilty.

edit on 9/3/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

What did I say, exactly, quote it.




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join