It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 67
14
<< 64  65  66   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot

I'm beyond that, I'm afraid. Must...try...to stay.....awake.....




Please try to post actual content based on reference to facts and not try to demean or indulge in ad hominem. Suggesting the subject is boring isnt dealing with the issued raised. We are discussing child rape by Islamic gangs and people being put in prison for 14 months for reporting on that! If you find that boring then go somewhere else! I dont think child rape is something to joke about.




posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I am losing the will to live.


Maybe if YOU tried shouting RANDOM words it might HELP...

Maybe if you deal with the actual topic of Islamic gangs raping CHILDREN you might help!



posted on Aug, 29 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: oldcarpy
I am losing the will to live.


Maybe if YOU tried shouting RANDOM words it might HELP...

Maybe if you deal with the actual topic of Islamic gangs raping CHILDREN you might help!


That ISN'T the TOPIC.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: bartconnolly

Do get over yourself. What I find boring is your incessant flogging of a very dead horse.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
a reply to: oldcarpy
Try sticking to discussing the subject and it might help


I doubt it. That's already been tried quite extensively, to no avail.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
Wrong! again! You keep harping on about the DIFFERENT and DISMISSED charges! He was charged with three NEW and DIFFERENT charges none of which were "disrupting a trial"


I think you are living in a different reality. Are you reading the same court summaries as the rest of us? Are you a legal genius with ten, no, sixty years experience behind you?

Let's go back to basics.


Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, AKA Tommy Robinson, has today been sentenced to 6 months in prison for committing contempt of court by filming outside Leeds Crown Court during a trial. He was committed to prison for a further 3 months for a previous contempt.


Source AG's office

This is probably a useful read - the decision on penalty by the Attorney General


3. The contempts we have found proved were not ones of deliberate defiance; there was no intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and, in the event, neither the Akhtar trial or the trial that followed, were prejudiced. Nevertheless, the respondent’s conduct amounted to a serious contempt. It consisted of the reckless disobedience of an important court order imposed to protect the integrity of the Akhtar trial and subsequent trials, and of conduct which created a substantial risk of a serious impediment to the integrity of the trial process.


And of course the detail of the judgement by the Attorney General is found here even though these have been previously posted.

IF Robinson's legal team felt that this was all a stitch up and the law was being incorrectly applied, then they would have made a bit of noise, don't you think?



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I expect he will be along again some time to PROVE you WRONG with cited CASES and irrefutable PROOFS.

Me, I'm not playing any more.
edit on 30-8-2019 by oldcarpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: paraphi

I expect he will be along again some time to PROVE you WRONG with cited CASES and irrefutable PROOFS.

Me, I'm not playing any more.


Agreed think this is firmly into the stop feeding the under bridge dweller category.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes it is the topic. Tommy Robinson was put in prison because he referred to people who has raped children outside of a court house in which two of these child rapists were being sentenced. His references were accounced originally as threathening the outcome of the trial and a gagging order put on mentioning not only the trial but anything abouyt tommy Robinson in relation to it. Meanwhile in the trial the Judge accepted Tommy robinson did not do or say anything which affected the outcome of the trial and the prosecution agreed. the media didnt report this however and tommy Robinson appealed. the day before the appeal the media needed to be able to attack tommy Robinson again and got the ban on him lifted so they could attack him.
They still didnt mention that the Judge had changed his mind and accepted Tommy robinson never affected the outcome of the Islamic child rapists trial. Instead they started attacking TR again. But TR brought up the whole issue of the Judge changing his mind and it not being reported and the decision about threathening the Islamic child rapists sentences was overturned.
Then the Government tried to institute NEW charges and charged TR with beingin contempt because he affected the feelings of the child rapists. that was the main thread of th3e three new accusations. That Tommy robinson was affecting and targeting the Islamic Child rapists and their families.



posted on Sep, 1 2019 @ 07:06 PM
link   
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: bartconnolly



I think you are living in a different reality. Are you reading the same court summaries as the rest of us? Are you a legal genius with ten, no, sixty years experience behind you?

the Lord Chief Justice is and I already posted his opinion on the ORIGINAL accusations for contempt!
then the AG instituted DIFFERENT accusations.
Ill post them below



This is probably a useful read - the decision on penalty by the Attorney General


3. The contempts we have found proved were not ones of deliberate defiance; there was no intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and, in the event, neither the Akhtar trial or the trial that followed, were prejudiced. Nevertheless, the respondent’s conduct amounted to a serious contempt. It consisted of the reckless disobedience of an important court order imposed to protect the integrity of the Akhtar trial and subsequent trials, and of conduct which created a substantial risk of a serious impediment to the integrity of the trial process.


And of course the detail of the judgement by the Attorney General is found here even though these have been previously posted.
Which says


s. 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.


1. Thr RRO wasnt on theoir own system in the court
Para 35. "As a matter of fact, the RRO was not displayed or mentioned on the noticeboard or
Xhibit screen in the Reception area, or on the courtroom screen, or on the door of the
courtroom (as is common practice in some courts), or on CourtServe. ...
The evidence suggests, however, and we find, that two months after the order
was made the relevant information had not been inputted into CREST. This is a
regrettable departure from standard practice, which is accurately described in the
guidance issued by the Judicial College (Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
2015 (revised May 2016)) at para 5.1: “any reporting restriction is shown on the Crown
Court list under the name of the relevant case – allowing a ready means of checking
whether there are such restrictions in place”.

2. ... I will have to review "Strict liability" but I dont think the crown case is as strong as it seems.

3. They allege that his saying "why dont you go after the child rapists and their families" he was asking his supports to do that when he WAS NOT and was clearly referring to the MEDIA who were hounding the leader of Generation Identity and hounding Tommy Robinson and he was asking why dont they do the same to Islamic child rapists?


It is in paragraph 27 "After one
such confrontation, the respondent identified the person to his viewers as someone
facing charges in the trial, and spoke about harassing that individual. "

But he didn't! He spoke about how THE MEDIA harass people and asked why dont THE MEDIA behave the same to the Islamic child rapists!

It is in Paragraph 42. 8
"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?”

Who is the YOU in "you want to harass..." ? If you have seen the video he clearly says THE MEDIA. this isnt the first time this snipping of qoute context was done on Tommy Robinson. TV media did the same in an interview where he referred to a Dutch education video on Islamic rape gangs and was asked what if the video upset the parents in Holland. His response something like "I dont care what they think" referring to the Dutch parents need to see the video was snipped and it was made to appear he was talking about Muslims in the UK and not about parents of Dutch children abused by rape gangs.




IF Robinson's legal team felt that this was all a stitch up and the law was being incorrectly applied, then they would have made a bit of noise, don't you think?


They may be appealing. I dont know. But a lot of people dont because it isnt worth the cost.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 64  65  66   >>

log in

join