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

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: MickyKnox

I think for authoritarians it goes like this: “Whatever the judge says man”.

We live and prosper under a law based system , looking at the US prison population I think it a bit rich calling us authoritarian but we all are subject to and enslaved by the law.
www.prisonpolicy.org...

Deflect to the US. Brilliant.

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

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

a reply to: MickyKnox

But he was a criminal before he was a ""activist"" mate, quite simple.

And if ""activist"" not a stretch to describe that bawbag i dinna ken what the feck is.

You might want to look into the history of the Muppet in question, just a thought. LoL

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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished.

What part was unfair? Please elaborate, or are you just thinking it was unfair because you don't understand English law?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished.

What part was unfair? Please elaborate, or are you just thinking it was unfair because you don't understand English law?

It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

Since he thinks double jeopardy means you can't have a retrial I doubt he will understand.

a reply to: MickyKnox

Whats fundamentally flawed is your understanding of the whole entire matter.

At least that's how it seems to me.

Tommy is not short of a few fundamental flaws himself if truth be told.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

He was jailed for it and served time.

You guys have already proven you know little about justice and law, only how to repeat the words of those in the legal profession.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

Since he thinks double jeopardy means you can't have a retrial I doubt he will understand.

I think double jeopardy means you can’t be punished twice for the same crime.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

Since he thinks double jeopardy means you can't have a retrial I doubt he will understand.

I think double jeopardy means you can’t be punished twice for the same crime.

You thought it would apply in this case when it never would have. You lack of understanding made clear over numerous posts.

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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

He was jailed for it and served time.

You guys have already proven you know little about justice and law, only how to repeat the words of those in the legal profession.

Let out early on appeal.

Retried.

Found guilty again.

As covered repeatedly to your apparent complete lack of understanding.

a reply to: MickyKnox

How many times has he been jailed and served time?

The legality of the matter is what in fecking question is it not???

What other terminology would you prefer?

Coz i think we are all out of Crayola at the moment.

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

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: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

Since he thinks double jeopardy means you can't have a retrial I doubt he will understand.

I think double jeopardy means you can’t be punished twice for the same crime.

You thought it would apply in this case when it never would have. You lack of understanding made clear over numerous posts.

You already proven you have no clue what double jeopardy is, speak out of both sides of your mouth when it comes to unfair trials, applaud unjust trials, and applaud the jailing of a man for making a Facebook video.

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

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: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

No, i’m In opposition to the laws that would set a child abuser free because someone happened to film him. You defend the law and the judges who would set them free.