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

originally posted by: paraphi
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.

What consequences? Absolutely nothing was affected by Robinson’s actions. You live in a society that jails people for exposing child rapists, whom at that point were still living free, some even given enough time to leave the country.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

What consequences? Absolutely nothing was affected by Robinson’s actions. You live in a society that jails people for exposing child rapists, whom at that point were still living free, some even given enough time to leave the country.

If he had exposed them before they were found guilty, don't forget that several cases were ongoing, they could have used that exposure by Lennon as part of their defence in the case, and possibly walked free.
You keep repeating the same crap that Lennon kept repeating.
You seem to want to live in a society that thinks it's ok to jeopardize a criminal case as long as someone gets their 10minutes of fame on social media.
The pedo scumbags were exposed and the case was reported on in the press ONCE they were all found guilty.

66 days he got in gaol.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
What consequences? Absolutely nothing was affected by Robinson’s actions. You live in a society that jails people for exposing child rapists, whom at that point were still living free, some even given enough time to leave the country.

Two points -

1. You are incorrectly attributing my name to your words. Can you correct that in your post by removing my name above the quoted text.
2. The judge clearly detailed that Robinson nearly collapsed a criminal trial by his antics. That was the consequence. The court summaries are in the public domain and readily available. Links have been posted numerous times in this discussion. Please read them. Furthermore, I live is a society which has the rule of law, and every scumbag has the right to a fair trial with guilt being revealed on a verdit.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: oldcarpy

So Robinson's original sentence, less the time already served, has be reinstated.

Putting Robinson's politics to one side, as this is not a trial of his politics, I think this is the right course of action. It's simply unacceptable for anyone to attempt to wreck a criminal trial. Especially important when the substance of the trial is so serious.

Those people who think that justice is not served need to consider the impact of the trial being collapsed. The impact to the victims, not least to the cost of having to start a re-trial. Justice delayed by a collapsed trial, is justice denied.

Robinson should be pleased the trial ran its course and the defendants all got long prison sentences. Surely that’s what he wanted?

MO! He wanted the case to be WIDELY PUBLICISED and shown as part of a broader number of Islamic rape gangs dooing this for decades and nothing happening until now.
He didn't try to "wreck a criminal trial" And point of FACT nothing he doid affected the outcome of the trial in any way! The Judge admitted that! He has been convicted of doing things that upset the convicted child rapists.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bartconnolly

You should know the REASON behind these laws isnt to protect the accused but to protect the VICTIMS.

No, contempt of court laws exist to ensure people get a fair trial. The idea is that juries must not be influenced by anything but the evidence they hear in Court.

Please, stop shouting in capitals.

WRONG! Robinson was convicted of "molesting" the now convicted child rapists!
the "affecting the jury" idea was thrown out months ago because the Judge said it never happened and he said that after the defence entered a motion to dismiss on the grounds that it did happen.
So they entered a NEW accusation of upsetting the convicted rapists on their way into court by aggressively confronting them which TR didn't do!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Lennon put at risk a string of court cases, and his actions were stupid. If he had waited till all the cases had been seen, then none of this would have happened, it's that simple.

But the Judge himself said in court WHEN THE DEFENCE PUT A MOTION FOR DISMISSAL based on this arguement that the video did not put any kury at risk!

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
What consequences? Absolutely nothing was affected by Robinson’s actions. You live in a society that jails people for exposing child rapists, whom at that point were still living free, some even given enough time to leave the country.

Two points -

1. You are incorrectly attributing my name to your words. Can you correct that in your post by removing my name above the quoted text.
2. The judge clearly detailed that Robinson nearly collapsed a criminal trial by his antics. That was the consequence. The court summaries are in the public domain and readily available. Links have been posted numerous times in this discussion. Please read them. Furthermore, I live is a society which has the rule of law, and every scumbag has the right to a fair trial with guilt being revealed on a verdit.

WRONG!
Judge Marsden saif this then put a gagging order on FRIDAY on anything about robinson.

Monday was a bank holiday so the court was convened oin tuesday when the defence brought a motion for dismissal based on your claim above that "Robinson nearly collapsed a criminal trial by his antics" Now under reporting restrictions on the trial and on Robinson teh Judge and the prosecution both agreed that Robinsons video had no effect on any jury or on the trial. when the reporting restrictions were lifted this information became available but the media DID NOT REPORT IT!
So you believe what the Judge himself contradicts!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

What consequences? Absolutely nothing was affected by Robinson’s actions. You live in a society that jails people for exposing child rapists, whom at that point were still living free, some even given enough time to leave the country.

If he had exposed them before they were found guilty, don't forget that several cases were ongoing, they could have used that exposure by Lennon as part of their defence in the case, and possibly walked free.
You keep repeating the same crap that Lennon kept repeating.
You seem to want to live in a society that thinks it's ok to jeopardize a criminal case as long as someone gets their 10minutes of fame on social media.
The pedo scumbags were exposed and the case was reported on in the press ONCE they were all found guilty.

Not SEVERAL but ONE case was ongoing as far as I know. the only non muslim in the whole gang. and the Judge Marsden in court agreed that Tommy Robinsons video did not affect the jury at all!

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

And all you are repeating is the lies of Lennon and his ego rubbing rubbish. There were 20 or so cases going on at the time, that were all linked, and by jeopardizing one, it jeopardized all of them, it could have been used to get these scumbag child molesters out.

WRONG!
List the 20 cases!
the Judge in court said that Robinson did not jeopardise any case! In fact TR has been campaigning for more cases. How many are going on. we are talking over a million child rapes and how many suspect rapists have been tried?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: YouSir

You Sir should be reading and posting FACTS, not spouting Rubbish, and spreading the lies that people like Lennon spread.

as posted by Gortex further up on page 1 of this thread…

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

If this was about justice then Lennon should have waited till all the defendants had been tried and found guilty .

the problem is people have waited DECADES! Why didnt they charge rapists before in the last 20 years? so when they dont people try to bring MEDIA ATTENTION to the issue

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!

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

WRONG!
There are over a million rapes over 20 years. List the convictions please? And show where ANY press referred to ANY of them as muslims? Show were the press said the vast majority of them were muslims and ALL the victims were non muslims?

originally posted by: paraphi
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.
There is no expectation that there will be neon signs around courts. ? Actually there is! the courts own guidelines which they admitted they did not follow!

www.youtube.com...

62 pages and not one person has changed their mind despite all the arguments and counter arguments.

Time to give it a rest guys?

originally posted by: paraphi

ME
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.

paraphi
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.

1. I believe you are misquoting the attribution as someone elses words not mine.

2. The RRO is about the proceedings of the trial it is about " what was going on INSIDE the court."
www.judiciary.uk...
page 27-28
" Likewise, courts have no power under s.4(2) to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain"
3. "You are making this up as you go along. " Im quoting the courts own guidelines and the actual cases
4. "Do your really have a belief Robinson was so unable to comprehend what he was doing?"
A. He was not prejudicing the trial as is evident from the FACT that the defence took a motion to dismiss over this and the Judge said that Robinsons video did not affect the trial!
B. Because the defendants were not reported on one LEFT THE UK and is not now in prison and nobody could even know what he looked like at the time.
C. Robinson was QUOTING THE BBC . If he is guilty of contempt because of this content affecting the trial then so are they and they should be tried but HE IS NOT GUILTY of contempt on these grounds! Teh court tried to CHANGE the guiudelines by ADDING CONDITIONS to the actual terms used in the guidelines in paragrah 52 of their judgement
www.judiciary.uk...
We believe the point the
Judicial College was striving to make was that a s 4(2) Order cannot prevent the
publication of information in the public domain which is not or does not purport to be
a report of the relevant proceedings
Note they ADDED which is not or does not purport to be
a report of the relevant proceedings?
But Robinson didnt in any case report anything of the proceedings other than a list from the BBC of the charges made!
5. " There is an expectation that people will inform themselves of the prevailing instructions."
Which Robinson did and which the court DID NOT FOLLOW. They didnt have it on their notice boards as their rules require or posted on the door and claimed he was lying when he said he checked . BUT he took a photo of the screen and of the door which he didn't submit as evidence!

originally posted by: Freeborn
62 pages and not one person has changed their mind despite all the arguments and counter arguments.

Time to give it a rest guys?

So if the State fit someone up and fail and then concoct more charges for the same offence and someone is imprisoned unjustly we should just leave it go?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

If he had exposed them before they were found guilty, don't forget that several cases were ongoing, they could have used that exposure by Lennon as part of their defence in the case, and possibly walked free.

THEY DID! they raised it the very next day. and the Judge said that Robinsons video did not affect the jury or the trial!
The only one to "walk free" was the one the Judge allowed out on bail and he left the country before sentencing.

You seem to want to live in a society that thinks it's ok to jeopardize a criminal case as long as someone gets their 10minutes of fame on social media.
The pedo scumbags were exposed and the case was reported on in the press ONCE they were all found guilty.

1. He did not affect the case at all!
2. Because no exposure was made of the "pedo scumbags" one of them left the country and no papers reported on it or mentioned him being at large WHY? Because of REPORTING RESTRICTIONS!

originally posted by: Freeborn
62 pages and not one person has changed their mind despite all the arguments and counter arguments.

Time to give it a rest guys?

Yeah, you are right. There is no point continuing a discussion with posters who have there heads so far up TR's posterior that they can't see anything but his #e.

I learn't a while ago that trying to reason with a poster who shouts in capitals at you is like banging your head against a brick wall. Anyway, it's Friday so all is good.

a reply to: bartconnolly7

I've made my feelings on this matter perfectly clear.....time and time and time again.

Re-read the thread or simply view my posts in the thread if you still aren't quite sure where I stand.
But I really can't be arsed to repeat myself for the umpteenth time.....I can only play verbal ping pong for so long.

As carpy said; it's Friday and it'll soon be pub o'clock....all is good.