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

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

So it's OK for you to call Judges "proven liars" but not for me to point out that your boy is most definitely one?

That's deflection, is it? No, it's you having double standards, that is.

Yeah sorry if I have higher standards for courts than some activist.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

That sort of depends if you feel comfortable as describing this as "next to nothing":

In a written ruling, Dame Victoria said Robinson had claimed his intention in making the broadcast was to "denounce the media" for their behaviour. But the judges found he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him". This created "a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded", she said.

You know, like endangering a trial of numerous rapist scum.

You OK with that?

He encouraged the media to do their job, to harass child rapists instead of people like him.

Yes, child rapists need to be exposed but the media’s silence on it was deafening, something I’m sure you and the courts are fine with.

Here you go!! You're repeating Lennons lies right here!

Once ALL cases against these scumbags were heard, guess what??? the cases appeared all over the press!

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

That sort of depends if you feel comfortable as describing this as "next to nothing":

In a written ruling, Dame Victoria said Robinson had claimed his intention in making the broadcast was to "denounce the media" for their behaviour. But the judges found he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him". This created "a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded", she said.

You know, like endangering a trial of numerous rapist scum.

You OK with that?

He encouraged the media to do their job, to harass child rapists instead of people like him.

Yes, child rapists need to be exposed but the media’s silence on it was deafening, something I’m sure you and the courts are fine with.

Here you go!! You're repeating Lennons lies right here!

Yeah I proved your judge was a liar that in fact Robinson did not say what they claimed.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Wow, you really have a thing for this fraudster, you need to take a step back and look at ALL the cases that were on-going at the time. By supporting Lennon, you're supporting someone who nearly helped a bunch of paedophile rapists get off scot free.

From judges comments.

“We are entirely satisfied that [Robinson] had actual knowledge that there was an order in force restricting reporting of the trial,” the judges concluded. “He said as much, repeatedly, on the video itself.”

Robinson was found to have committed contempt by breaching a reporting restriction, risked impeding the course of justice and interfered with the administration of justice by “aggressively, and openly filming” the arrival of defendants at court.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

So it's OK for you to call Judges "proven liars" but not for me to point out that your boy is most definitely one?

That's deflection, is it? No, it's you having double standards, that is.

Yeah sorry if I have higher standards for courts than some activist.

Nice deflection.....

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Wow, you really have a thing for this fraudster, you need to take a step back and look at ALL the cases that were on-going at the time. By supporting Lennon, you're supporting someone who nearly helped a bunch of paedophile rapists get off scot free.

From judges comments.

“We are entirely satisfied that [Robinson] had actual knowledge that there was an order in force restricting reporting of the trial,” the judges concluded. “He said as much, repeatedly, on the video itself.”

Robinson was found to have committed contempt by breaching a reporting restriction, risked impeding the course of justice and interfered with the administration of justice by “aggressively, and openly filming” the arrival of defendants at court.

Repeat the judge’s comments 9 more times and it will become true.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

So it's OK for you to call Judges "proven liars" but not for me to point out that your boy is most definitely one?

That's deflection, is it? No, it's you having double standards, that is.

Yeah sorry if I have higher standards for courts than some activist.

Nice deflection.....

You still have nothing. Maybe repeat the judges comments again. That will surely work.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Yeah I proved your judge was a liar that in fact Robinson did not say what they claimed.

Then I trust that you will be straight onto your boy and sort out his appeal for him. Must be very straightforward if any of what you have spouted is true, eh?

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Yeah, like the Judges' carefully reasoned Judgment counts for nothing, because you say so?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Yeah I proved your judge was a liar that in fact Robinson did not say what they claimed.

Then I trust that you will be straight onto your boy and sort out his appeal for him. Must be very straightforward if any of what you have spouted is true, eh?

Like his first trial? Yeah it was pretty straight forward that that trial was an unfair one.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Yeah, like the Judges' carefully reasoned Judgment counts for nothing, because you say so?

Because they lied, not because I say so.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

In which case his Appeal will be in the bag, then?

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

By just repeating " say that again bla bla bla it will become true" sounds like a children's playground tactic.
Maybe go and spend some time looking into the case, come back with some points other than what Lennon has spouted about "his innocence" and "Judges lied" to be taken seriously!!

The evidence is there plain as day, he tried to interfere with an on going set of court cases by filming possible defendants, victims and witnesses going into court.

I said my peace on the issue.

I’ll just say I hope tommy is treated humanely in prison and not intentionally out into a position to cause harm to him beyond his sentence

a reply to: Grambler

It looks like they will keep Lennon in solitary for his "protection", he'll only do about 19 weeks.

After he had finished his submission, Furlong was asked to make a number of other points, including that he was likely to be held in solitary confinement for his own safety.

a reply to: oldcarpy

The ironic thing is Yaxley-Lennon will take Rule 43 and be locked up with all the nonces and beasts he alleges to hate so much.

To be honest I don't know if he deserves a prison sentence....but the law is the law and he knew the potential outcome but insisted on doing what he did.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

By just repeating " say that again bla bla bla it will become true" sounds like a children's playground tactic.
Maybe go and spend some time looking into the case, come back with some points other than what Lennon has spouted about "his innocence" and "Judges lied" to be taken seriously!!

The evidence is there plain as day, he tried to interfere with an on going set of court cases by filming possible defendants, victims and witnesses going into court.

The judge did lie and you bought it on pure faith.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

The judge did lie and you bought it on pure faith.

Oh ok, I'm sure they did! (pats Bucky on the head and gives him a wolly pop)

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

The judge did lie and you bought it on pure faith.

Oh ok, I'm sure they did! (pats Bucky on the head and gives him a wolly pop)

You can look for yourself but I suppose taking the court is words on faith suffices enough.

I said the court didnt follow its own rules about notifying others that reporting restrictions were in place.
the reporting restrictions (have you seen the order) as far as I remember was on the progress of the trial i.e. what was oping on INSIDE the court.

You are making this up as you go along. Trying to find reasons to blame others for Robinson's stupidity, or claim that he's a victim and hard done by. Do your really have a belief Robinson was so unable to comprehend what he was doing? There is no expectation that there will be neon signs around courts. There is an expectation that people will inform themselves of the prevailing instructions. I often feel the world has gone to pot due to a complete loss of perspective and common sense, or at least to try and use that excuse.

We live in a society where people need to be responsible for their own actions and face the consequences otherwise.