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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Neither

I am not criticizing people for not doing enough

I am criticizing members of a community that has law enforcement allow the rape of their children for three decades, who spend more anger at a guy who was outraged by those rapes than the people who allowed them to continue

I have spent more time criticizing the law enforcement and authorities, this it’s not hypocrisy

All you have done is post on a thread about Robinson exact same as everyone else, yet you have tried to assume some moral superiority and claim others haven't done enough.

I’m not claiming a moral superiority

I’m a crap person

Yes I posted in a tommy thread

Notice my posts have largely been about the offices and authorities

I am just saying that in my opinion people seem to have more anger toward tommy than toward the officials that allowed rape, and if that were to change maybe the officials would be held accountable

Robinson is the topic of this thread.

Do we need to go over all your posts where you have accused others of not caring enough.

If yo my were even a half way decent human you would apologize.

Apologize for what

Pointing out people saying the police weren’t complicit, or they could stop the rapists but they don’t feel like it?

Or for pointing out it seems people like you spend way more time hating tommy than rapists and the authorities that allow the rapes

a reply to: Grambler

Course you don't have kids, hence you have no idea how far a father would go to protect them.

What i suggest is not hard in the slightest.

Just illegal.

Then again so is raping little girls.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Grambler

Course you don't have kids, hence you have no idea how far a father would go to protect them.

What i suggest is not hard in the slightest.

Just illegal.

Then again so is raping little girls.

What are you talking about?

I never criticized you for what you would do to people that hurt your children

I totally understand

My criticism is i don’t think you would be able to easily do this as you claim, and if it is, why don’t you take the rapists out now

That is not criticizing you for being a father that would take actions into their own hands

That btw is what many people who supported tommy did

When law enforcement refused to help, they tried to take care of it themselves and most times the police went after them

a reply to: Grambler

Same thing everyone else is. LoL

Like i said the law is simply all that most people have to protect them, and its nowhere near enough where beasts are concerned.

What Tommy did was still a crime though, and could have jeopardized these filthy animals being removed from our streets.

Tommys still a nasty little racist who uncovered nothing, as to the people who support him, i think most of us can establish their reasonings.

Need to go cook dinner for my own weans now.

Dragging us back to topic. This is an interesting read. I love following the legal arguements.

Attorney General judgement

3. In summary, the Attorney General alleges that the respondent’s conduct amounted to contempt of court in three different respects. First, the online publication involved a breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials. Secondly, the Attorney General alleges that the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”. Thirdly, it is alleged that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at Court, doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure.

a reply to: paraphi

Ok On number one

We know that other outlets with more reach than tommy published facts about the case

So they would have all been guilty of this as wel, yet none were charged

The second point is tied into the first, and all the outlets that published facts of the case would violate that as well. In addition, the case was already decided and was in the sentencing phase

As to poinr three I have posted people aggressively filming and confronting Gary glitter, Rolf Harris and others outside of court

They went uncharged

And other than the filming outside, many people commented on Tommy’s guilt before the end of his trial

Now you may say the fact tommy did all three is why he was charged

But that’s not how the law is supposed to work

If you break the law, you should be held accountable

The fact that so many have and only tommy is charged, and only he is given jail time of the few who have been charged with breaking this law, suggests bias to me

This is further exhibited on the fact the judge silenced all media in the uk from discussing this case even after he was found guilty, which was incredibly terrible and unique

It doesn’t seem beyon the imagination that the same legal system tommy had been fighting for years as allowing child rapes decided to throw the book at him in a unique way to get back at him

Just had a quick catch up of the 55 pages devoted to this arsehole.
Got to admit I've had a little chuckle to myself here and there at some of the posts.

I really can't be arsed to trawl through it again and reply to the many posts that I possibly should do.

a reply to: Grambler

On number one
We know that other outlets with more reach than tommy published facts about the case

I thought you said no-one else was reporting on these cases?
Seems like you are now stating that relatively popular MSM outlets were in fact reporting on this case and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon wasn't the sole avenging angel that he has been portrayed as.

Now if they were, which I know they were, they would have been reporting in accordance with the restrictions placed by the judge.

The second point is tied into the first....

No.
The second point is all about the necessity for the reporting restrictions.
One, or more, of the defendants - who as you correctly point out had been found guilty thus disproving your theory that no-one wanted to prosecute and punish those responsible for these awful crimes - were also awaiting trial in a completely separate case for similar offences.
If their identities had been made public along with the outcome and sentence of the current case then defence lawyers could make a move for dismissal - as they did in the case that was ongoing - in the future trials.

Now that maybe a stupid law - a discussion for another time and place - but the fact is that it is the law and must be adhered to.
If Yaxley-Lennon feels so passionately that it is a stupid law then he should campaign to change the law instead of jeopardising trials and risking the conviction of sexual offenders, rapists and paedophiles.

He was specifically told what laws he was potentially breaking, how he was breaking them and the possible consequences of doing so.
He knew full well that his actions could have resulted in the accused sex offenders walking free.
Yet still he persisted on doing it.....why?

Now as for the other stuff; I don't think you really believe that people here have posted support for the incompetent, weak., politically motivated pieces of # who were either too scared or were too career minded to pursue and prosecute similar grooming cases in the past.
I think we all would like to see these cowards and disgusting pieces of filth identified and prosecuted in full accordance of English Law.

The bickering, bitching and the seemingly endless stream of verbal ping pong whilst occasionally mildly amusing hardly shows anyone involved in a good light.

Perhaps it'd be better if we just put that one to bed for now?

Oh and by the way....sobriety is way, way over-rated.
Three nights in a row not gone to the pub....there will not be a fourth!!

originally posted by: Freeborn

On number one
We know that other outlets with more reach than tommy published facts about the case

I thought you said no-one else was reporting on these cases?


Seems like you are now stating that relatively popular MSM outlets were in fact reporting on this case and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon wasn't the sole avenging angel that he has been portrayed as.

Nobody else was at the court reporting on the sentencing. REMEMBER The trial was under reporting restrictions.
A few local papers printed the names of the convicted rapists. The BBC mirrored these.
The trial was NOT reported on widely and the activities of the convicts wasnt even AFTER teh restrictions were lifted and the trial was over. If you can produce ANY ARTICLES about what they did like nailing a girls tongue to a table for speaking or branding another girl who tried to run away I would like to see thoise articles. Can you show then to me?



Now if they were, which I know they were, they would have been reporting in accordance with the restrictions placed by the judge.

No.
The second point is all about the necessity for the reporting restrictions.
One, or more, of the defendants - who as you correctly point out had been found guilty thus disproving your theory that no-one wanted to prosecute and punish those responsible for these awful crimes - were also awaiting trial in a completely separate case for similar offences.


In 2018! when the abuses were going on for DECADES!

[quoite]
If their identities had been made public along with the outcome and sentence of the current case then defence lawyers could make a move for dismissal - as they did in the case that was ongoing - in the future trials.


The defence lawyers DID make a motion to dismiss AFTER Tommy Robinson read out the BBC report on them from outside the courthouse. the Judge had placed reporting restrictions on anything about Tommy Robinson in addition to the ongoing caase at this time. And the court ADMITTED that Tommy Robinsons video and I assume the BBC article TR quoted didnt affect the ongoing trials. the press didnt report this.Later on teh press needed to write about TR and appealed the ban and it was lifted and they proceeded to attack TR but they never mentioned this admission that his video according to Judge Marsden DID NOT AFFECT the trial or the jury. that is on court record.

a reply to: Freeborn

1. I never said no one else reported on it. I said hardly anyone was reporting on the fact police were covering for grooming gangs before tommy was saying it on tv in 2011

2. Your claim they reported on it with court restrictions is laughable. Show me where you saw that. The law says any reporting before the case ended could jeopardize the case. Therefore the media did

youre assuming they didn’t break the law because they weren’t charged. This is exactly what I am criticizing. Selective application of laws, and people show the fact people weren’t charged as proof they were innocent

Which is ironically exactly what happened for thirty years with grooming gangs. The police didn’t charge anyone, so the narrative was their must not be grooming gangs breaking the law

3. I do feel some people made comments belittling the terrible officials role of this travesty

But I concede they probably just did it in an effort to argue points with me, and probably don’t really like the authorities that allowed this to happen

Just like I am sure you would concede that o really don’t defend racism

I honestly have followed a lot of the story around tommy for two years

I believe he felt he was doing the right thing, and I believe he did raise awareness before many others did

I also know some used his message to be horrible racially

And I don’t know if tommy is a racist. I see a lot of claims, but not much evidence

Someone did in this thread show me video of him saying all Muslims were responsible for 7/7

That is despicable and even if his changed he has only himself to blame

But my take on this has always been more of a free speech/ holding corrupt authorities to account more than defending tommy

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Freeborn

1. I never said no one else reported on it. I said hardly anyone was reporting on the fact police were covering for grooming gangs before tommy was saying it on tv in 2011

2. Your claim they reported on it with court restrictions is laughable. Show me where you saw that. The law says any reporting before the case ended could jeopardize the case. Therefore the media did

youre assuming they didn’t break the law because they weren’t charged. This is exactly what I am criticizing. Selective application of laws, and people show the fact people weren’t charged as proof they were innocent

Which is ironically exactly what happened for thirty years with grooming gangs. The police didn’t charge anyone, so the narrative was their must not be grooming gangs breaking the law

3. I do feel some people made comments belittling the terrible officials role of this travesty

But I concede they probably just did it in an effort to argue points with me, and probably don’t really like the authorities that allowed this to happen

Just like I am sure you would concede that o really don’t defend racism

I honestly have followed a lot of the story around tommy for two years

I believe he felt he was doing the right thing, and I believe he did raise awareness before many others did

I also know some used his message to be horrible racially

And I don’t know if tommy is a racist. I see a lot of claims, but not much evidence

Someone did in this thread show me video of him saying all Muslims were responsible for 7/7

That is despicable and even if his changed he has only himself to blame

But my take on this has always been more of a free speech/ holding corrupt authorities to account more than defending tommy

1. The first criminal conviction in relation to the Rotherham child abuse scandal was 2010. So yes It was talked about before Robinson. Robinson had nothing to do with brining this to light as pointed out to you numerous times.

2. Show any other media reporting on details of the case in breech of recreating restrictions.

3. Robinson is ex member of racist groups who had been convicted for violence and fraud. He has made numerous public bigoted comments which can be easily verified. Even Nigel Farage thinks he is a Thug. And before there is any comment about people can change or him being a reformed character last month punched someone outside a football game.

Little to nothing He has done has been to actually investigate or raise awareness of child abuse. Instead he has 'reported' on trials already on going for self promotion and push his own agenda. Claiming he was the one brining this to light is a gross disservice to those who actually did contribute to bringing these scrum to justice.

originally posted by: Grambler
We know that other outlets with more reach than tommy published facts about the case

To be honest, I think you are living in an alternative reality. I say that nicely, BTW!!!

The case against Robinson has consistently described how what he was doing was over and above the reporting restrictions in place. While other responsible media may have been reporting the case, they would have been doing so within the context of the restrictions.

You are confusing apples and oranges. They are both fruits, but quite different.

This is further exhibited on the fact the judge silenced all media in the uk from discussing this case even after he was found guilty, which was incredibly terrible and unique

Um. You need to put this in the context of the trial he was trying to disrupt. Think through the logic and you arrive at a point that says "ah, I see".

a reply to: paraphi

The Judgment sets things out very clearly. This bit is for those that seem to think that Y-L's antics came after guilty verdicts were entered:

The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said. On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent’s arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded. His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected. On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.

Y-L's Facebook was read by 1.2 million people so that was a significant factor.

What is clear from these proceedings is that Y-L knew what he was doing was against the law and knew the likely consequences, then there are his guilty pleas.

An interesting perspective from The Secret Barrister here:

thesecretbarrister.com...

So those are my closing musings. I have no issue at all – and nor should any of us – with Robinson seeking to and succeeding to challenge the lawfulness of his treatment at the hands of the courts. We are all entitled to due process, and should all expect, however abominable others may consider us to be, that the law will be applied fairly and correctly. My concern, contrary to what the Breitbarters would like to pretend, has always been the mob lining up behind Robinson to spread lies and quite literal fake news as to what took place, what the factual and legal issues are and how the law operates. Those peddlers of hate and deceit – the UKIPs, the Breitbarts, the Rebel Media, the Infowars, the unmentionable Twitter favourites – I will continue to resist as long as I keep up this vainglorious mission to bring law to the people who own it.

Indeed.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Freeborn

1. The first criminal conviction in relation to the Rotherham child abuse scandal was 2010. So yes It was talked about before Robinson. Robinson had nothing to do with brining this to light as pointed out to you numerous times.

2. Show any other media reporting on details of the case in breech of recreating restrictions.

3. Robinson is ex member of racist groups who had been convicted for violence and fraud. He has made numerous public bigoted comments which can be easily verified. Even Nigel Farage thinks he is a Thug. And before there is any comment about people can change or him being a reformed character last month punched someone outside a football game.

Little to nothing He has done has been to actually investigate or raise awareness of child abuse. Instead he has 'reported' on trials already on going for self promotion and push his own agenda. Claiming he was the one brining this to light is a gross disservice to those who actually did contribute to bringing these scrum to justice.

1. Please PAY ATTENTION! He didn't claim NO ONE ever reported on it. He claimed it was not a national issue and no oine was going round the country like TR was saying this is a hidden issue that needs to be addressed . Until Andrew Norfolk in 2012 that is. Even then no one followed Norfolk's or TR's line about ISLAMIC gangs or mentioned that they were muslims. They occasionally mention "Pakistani" and usually say "asian". I'm not aware of anyone AFTER 2012 other than Norfolk or TR who drew attention to them being muslim. NB this was the MAIN REASON Norfolk took up this issue. He realised authorities were NOT ACTING BECAUSE the offenders were muslims.

2. Please pay attention. The court ALREADY ADMITTED that TR did not prejudice any trial by breaching reporting restrictions. The Judgement coming out thursday says that the Judges acknowledge this charge was CHANGED ( which to me amounted to "double Jeopardy") He was accused of this contempt on breaching the restrictions which might have prejudiced a jury and this was defeated! So they now try him for the SAME CONTEMPT EVENT AGAIN but say it was incitement of a gang to siege the court ( which is odd because in spite of having 1 million facebook followers and the most active followers group in the UK NOT ONE arrived at that court that day OR ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT DAY to attack the rapists. Probably because he did not incite them to do it! )
So TR did not breach the reporting restrictions and prejudice a jury and nor did any other media.
BUT
TR is now found guilty of saying things which amount to "molesting" [their words in the charge] defendants. THIS IS THE VERY THING MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE DOING to TR. that is the point being made here!

3. " Robinson is ex member of racist groups who had been convicted for violence and fraud"
?????? Do you know anything about prejudice??????
You cant try a current case based on past events.
If you are on trial for rape and I brought up that you had been charged with rape six times in the past or mentioned iot to a member of the jury that would be grounds to dismiss the case!
In nay case St. Paul was an ex member of an anti christian group who went around Palestine killing Christians. Tommy robinson has admitted he made mistakes in the past and regrets them and would not do today what he did as a teenager. He knows better now.
In general WHAT IS THE PRISON SYSTEM FOR? If you are going to say anyone convicted of any crime has to be treated like dirt you are stigmatising them! If your time is served it is served. Move on from that and deal with issues as they arise and don't depend on Bigotry to help you arrive at a fair verdict.

" Even Nigel Farage thinks he is a Thug." Hitler was a vegetarian and loved dogs. By your logic the RSPCA should be closed down and vegans arrested!

4. "Little to nothing He has done has been to actually investigate or raise awareness of child abuse."????
Id suggest you contact Tony Bugle and ask her if that is true and she will give you many examples of he "Justice for ..." campaigns. there are several and the families in each case will admit that TR is the one who got behind them when no one else publicised it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I'll just park this here before I go off for a few beers over a lie or two, as is my wont, apparently:

twitter.com...

Not much love love for Tommy here.

Tee hee......

Yes isn’t it strange how all of those people can spend time posting their hatred of tommy

Not many of them demanding the officials who allowed rapists off be held accountable though

Almost lie they care more about tommy than the rapists and officials that let them get away with it

Can you provide a link to all the actions you have personally taken to make these officials accountable.

Please pay attention! His poiont is that others like you spend most of their comments attacking TR and not attacking the reason why TR got involved in this in the first place i.e. the perceived threat of sharia as manifested in Islamic rape gangs.
Asking HIM what he is doing about Islamic Rape gangs is CHANGING THE ISSUE!
Put it this way if someone Lets say a man called Rommy Tobinson said
"The IRA would not be committing terrorism is we can remove their reasons for doing it. their reasons are
A They do not believe the people in their communities are represented and they are segregated gerrymandered and oppressed and never were given a free choice to be governed
B They do not believe the police can be trusted and collude with Loyalists"
Note these are REASONS the IRA commit terrorist acts. This is not a justification for such acts it is just suggesting these are the reasons

Now Rommy Tobinson says that if you have a local parliament, local housing executives, ability to tax and spend etc. and have all the people vote on a document which shows how this is done including getting people in the Republic of Ireland toi vote on the same document then the REASON A that "the Irish People on the whole Iseland nevcer agreed to any structures" is removed
In addition to this Rommy Tobinson suggests that the RUC be reformed and you do things like recruit Catholics and recruit from the areas that claim in A to be disenfranchised and have people from there policing their own areas then the need for the IRA to police toose areas is gone.


Lets say Rommy Tobinson then becomes involved with criminal allegations say a dodgy property deal or a member of his family accused of child sex abuse and other saying he must have known about this or say he simply gets into a fight in a pub or is caught in possession of cannabis.
YOU then come along and say "Rommy Tobinson is a criminal who associates with criminals and known terrorists."
I then come along and say "So what . what about his plan for getting rid of terrorism"
How does you then asking me what I have done to stop terrorism have anything to do with whether Rommy tobinson's plan to remove A and B is a good idea"
All you are doing is "shifting the burden of proof" and "moving the goalposts"
You are getting bogged down in the issue of not liking someone and bigotry against them
the issue is whether the State acted appropriately on Islamic grooming gangs.
I am being to wonder if you even accept these gangs exist?
If the state did not act is it not a reasonable conclusion that anyone standing out and exposing such abuse would become a target of the state?

a reply to: bartconnolly

So they now try him for the SAME CONTEMPT EVENT AGAIN but say it was incitement of a gang to siege the court ( which is odd because in spite of having 1 million facebook followers and the most active followers group in the UK NOT ONE arrived at that court that day OR ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT DAY to attack the rapists. Probably because he did not incite them to do it! )

Please read the Judgment which makes it very clear why the AG was applying for him to be committed - not charged.
He was not being tried again. Also, this:

At another point, the respondent incited viewers to harass the criminal defendants. The words relied on are:“ You want to harass someone’s family? You see that man who was getting aggressive as he walked into court, the man who faces charges of child abduction, rape, prostitution – harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing. You want to stick pictures online and call people and slander people, how about you do it about them?”

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Note these are REASONS the IRA commit terrorist acts. This is not a justification for such acts it is just suggesting these are the reasons

The Provisional IRA existed to force a united Ireland over the will of the majority in Northern Ireland. Their actions caused segregation of communities through violence, even to Catholics who did not comply. In their dying days, the IRA were no more than a criminal racket brutalising the people they purported to represent.

The IRA were eventually dragged into a peace process because they were being defeated, and the attitude of the wider population was changing. That’s regardless of the fact a small band of die-hard republicans carry on with the violence.

There is not much that is similar in circumstance between gangs of culturally backward Pakistanis abusing vulnerable white girls, and armed thugs blowing up a pub.

a reply to: Grambler

youre assuming they didn’t break the law because they weren’t charged. This is exactly what I am criticizing. Selective application of laws, and people show the fact people weren’t charged as proof they were innocent

Because they were not on a suspended sentence for previous contempt?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: paraphi

The Judgment sets things out very clearly. This bit is for those that seem to think that Y-L's antics came after guilty verdicts were entered:

The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said.

WHICH proves that TR's comments were not prejudiced. Note ADDITIONAL The Reporting Restrictions ON TR in addition to the trial of these rapists were put in place on 25th May so NOTHING about the 29 May decision that TR had not prejudiced any jury were reported even AFTER the restrictions were lifted. i remember readint the secret Barristers comments at the time and is is wholly contradicted by the admission in court by the Judge on the 29th that TR did not prejudice the jury.

On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent’s arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded.

Why was he at large? The judge allowed him out in public. Nobody can blame any people protesting outside a trial causing a defendant to abscond! People have a right to be there. In fact saying that nobody should publicise such trials or that nobody should gather outside such trials is SUPPORTING the idea that such trials shoudl be "covered up#2 and not reported on! Which is the very thing Tommy Robinson was claiming to be true!

His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected.

EXACTLY! the court itself admitted that people gathering outside, and others asking them to gather is not grounds to dismiss the case.

On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.

Which shows the people outside did not predjudice the case.

Y-L's Facebook was read by 1.2 million people so that was a significant factor.

Significant oion WHAT WAY? significant because he was reporting that there was a trial on for grooming gangs and the people being accused of raping children were called Mohammad or Ahmed etc. In fact one of them was a 2016? convert to Sikhism and the Sikh community instantly disowned him and said his actions were not part of their religious beliefs. all the rest were muslims as far as I am aware but I am happy to acknowledge any corrections. I am not aware of any Imams disowning them or saying no scriptures supports their behaviour.

What is clear from these proceedings is that Y-L knew what he was doing was against the law and knew the likely consequences, then there are his guilty pleas.

What is clear is TR knew what he was doing DID NOT prejudice any Jury and the court agreed with him on that. after the later court got the gagging order lifted they realised the charge of jury tampering was wrong and dumped it. the AG then retried the same case using "molesting the accused" i.e. saying to them "how do you feel about your verdict" was a serious miscarriage of justice . enough to warrant over a year in prison? when the BBC do the same to TR and don't even get reprimanded for it? and when no journalist has done a day in prison since WWII the worst case being a £5000 fine.

An interesting perspective from The Secret Barrister here:

thesecretbarrister.com...

this guy impressed me too until I discovered he was WRONG!

We are all entitled to due process, and should all expect, however abominable others may consider us to be, that the law will be applied fairly and correctly.

But posters here dont agree with that! they think due process should not apply and someone should be convicted based on you opinion of what they may have done in the past instead of the FACTS OF THE CASE.

My concern, ..., has always been ..., what the factual and legal issues are and how the law operates.

And the court reports WHEN RELEASED after teh gasggin order was lifted showen and the Recorder of London agreed that due process did not apply. This clearly a broader political issue where the Prime Minister has asked police not to prosecute and to ignore teenagers where Islamic gangs were involved. WHAT PAPER IS REPORTING THAT?
Tommy Robinson according to a Judge in court did not prejudice a jury. WHAT PAPER IS REPORTING THAT?

The Secret Barrister was WRONG! I thought he nmade sense at the time but later AFTER THE GAGGING ORDER WAS LIFTED I saw that he was wrong and NO PAPER REPORTED IT!
Tommy robinson was moved to the far side of england to the highest Muslims population prison in the UK. WHAT PAPER REPORTED THAT?
He was refused permission to buy his own food WHAT PAPER REPORTED THAT?
Human excrement was dumped in his ground floor window and they refused to move him off the ground floor WHAT PAPER REPORTED THAT?
The reason he requested solitary is becausse he was being put in a cell with five muslim convicted murderers LIFERS when he was serving 12 month for saying something a court didnt like and he was a known critic of Islam. WHAT PAPER REPORTED THAT?

a reply to: bartconnolly

the AG then retried the same case using "molesting the accused" i.e. saying to them "how do you feel about your verdict" was a serious miscarriage of justice

No, TR had already pleaded "guilty" to contempt. The AG was not re-trying him, he was applying to have him committed to prison. Please read the Judgment.

a reply to: bartconnolly


I appreciate that to non-lawyers Judgments like this can be a bit impenetrable (they are to lawyers quite often!) but you have misunderstood the process.