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.

 

High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The High Court ruled Tommy Robinson was in contempt of court when he live streamed from outside of a trial of a sexual grooming gang , no surprise really.


Following the verdict, he told the BBC he had been convicted "for who I am, not what I have done".

No Tommy , you were convicted for thinking you are above the law , now go do your porridge like a good boy.


One of the senior judges, Dame Victoria Sharp, said the court will consider what penalty to impose for the contempt - which carries a maximum penalty of two years - and give full reasons for the decision at a later date.

She said he breached the reporting restriction imposed on the trial by live-streaming a video from outside the public entrance to the court and by "aggressively confronting and filming" some of the defendants.

The judge said the content of the video "gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in that case would be seriously impeded" and the confrontation of the defendants was a direct interference with the course of justice
www.bbc.co.uk...


Robinson is expected to be sentenced next week.




posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Ahhh good another scumbag off our streets



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
So what happened to the defendants that he was supposedly "aggressively confronting and filming"? Were they found guilty?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blueracer
So what happened to the defendants that he was supposedly "aggressively confronting and filming"? Were they found guilty?


Yes but why is that relevant?

ETA- on second thoughts it is relevant as the fact that they where guilty just underlines how grossly stupid and irresponsible Robinson was.
edit on 5-7-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Blueracer

Yes , the combined sentence for all of them amounted to over 220 years


Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.

The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.

Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven-year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011.

At Leeds Crown Court, the ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life with a minimum of 18 years.

Other members of the gang were jailed for between five and 18 years but the court heard many perpetrators have never been identified.
www.bbc.co.uk...

edit on 5-7-2019 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blueracer

Yes , the combined sentence for all of them amounted to over 220 years


Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.

The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.

Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven-year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011.

At Leeds Crown Court, the ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life with a minimum of 18 years.

Other members of the gang were jailed for between five and 18 years but the court heard many perpetrators have never been identified.
www.bbc.co.uk...


It looks like Tommy didn’t get them off like his critics promised us.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blueracer

Yes , the combined sentence for all of them amounted to over 220 years


Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.

The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.

Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven-year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011.

At Leeds Crown Court, the ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life with a minimum of 18 years.

Other members of the gang were jailed for between five and 18 years but the court heard many perpetrators have never been identified.
www.bbc.co.uk...


It looks like Tommy didn’t get them off like his critics promised us.


Really who promised that?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Blueracer

Yes , the combined sentence for all of them amounted to over 220 years


Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.

The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.

Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven-year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011.

At Leeds Crown Court, the ringleader, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 35, was jailed for life with a minimum of 18 years.

Other members of the gang were jailed for between five and 18 years but the court heard many perpetrators have never been identified.
www.bbc.co.uk...


It looks like Tommy didn’t get them off like his critics promised us.


Really who promised that?


I remember people saying he was going to get pedophiles free.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   
In the UK you can be held in remand until your trial date. That's what happened to him the first time, but he appealed and got off remand until his trial date, which was today.




top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join