Tommy Robinson, the alt rights latest pinup boy

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: ScepticScot

Wanting to preserve the culture and values of your nation isn’t about skin color nor is the idea racist.

What culture isbthe west trying to preserve?
The us literally has no culture. You can walk from one side of new York city to the other and you'll be overwhelmed by it's multiculturalism.
The UK also brought these immigrants in. And they didn't suddenly bring the concepts of rape and sexual assault with them, it's always been there!

This Tommy guy is just picking on an easy target.

New York City is very different when compared to the rest of the country. Especially throughout the Midwest.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Robinson was still under a suspended sentence for doing exactly this same thing before. This is why he was arrested. Its that simple.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

No he's citing UK Law - read it here, applies in an y and every court case. www.bbc.co.uk...

--publicisng
It is irrelevant whether or not you actually intended to commit contempt.

These rules apply to all courts and tribunals exercising the judicial authority of the state. The risk is highest when the case is due to be heard by a lay jury - for example, in criminal trials.

Reporting restrictions - what can I report?

Certain laws also limit what can be said about specific types of hearing and cases.

In most cases, the court has the discretion to lift the reporting restrictions.

In this section, we cover some of the more common types of reporting restrictions you might come across. But there are various types of possible reporting restrictions, some of which apply automatically and some of which are at the discretion of the court, so you should always check the position with the particular case you are reporting:

Magistrates’ court and crown court

A number of rules automatically restrict what can be said in certain early hearings in both the magistrates’ and the crown court. These rules do not apply to reporting trials in the crown court and the magistrates’ court. The courts also have discretion to lift these restrictions depending on the circumstances of the case, including on the application of the media.

In the magistrates’ court, rules apply and limit what can be reported about preliminary hearings in indictable only and either way cases, and also to pre-trial hearings in cases regarding summary offences. Issues such as bail and transfer to the crown court are dealt with at these types of hearings.

In the crown court, similar rules apply to applications for a case to be dismissed, pre-trial hearings and preparatory hearings, all of which are heard by the judge without a jury. The aim of these hearings is for the judge to rule on issues such as what evidence a jury will be told about and to rule on legal issues.

The restrictions are designed to limit publication of any information that might prejudice a subsequent jury trial, so prevent the reference, for example, to any of the evidence in the case and previous convictions.

Note that these types of restrictions even apply to preliminary hearings in summary cases in the magistrates’ court. This is because, even though a decision will usually have been made at an early stage that the case is not serious enough for the crown court, as the case develops the magistrates may decide to refer the matter to the crown court - for example, if new evidence comes to light.

The rules work by setting out what can be said about these types of hearing but, in summary, limit reporting to:

The name of the court
The judges dealing with the case
A summary of the charges
The names, addresses, ages and occupations of the defendants and witnesses
The lawyers involved and arrangements as to bail.

Whilst these rules restrict what can be said, they do not prevent you from attending these hearings if you are following a case.
---

What you're claiming is a load of disproven nonsense, it's been covered in Indy, Evening Standard, Metro, Sun, Mirror, Local Papers.

There is a current ban on reporting the gang rape case in any detail yet due to the size, scale and fact publicisng it before a verdict was in would cause the kind of interferrence and mistrial Tommy has caused.

Tommy was hauled before the judge and given a bollocking at 2pm on Friday and hit with a 42,43,46,47 banning him from any reporting on the case. He's not been jailed, that's made up.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


So a guy who is against rape gangs is arrested for "breach of peace".

Some want the guy arrested because he has opinions that differ from others.

Some don't think the guy should be arrested.




I'm a simple guy so I like to keep things simple.

Is this it?

So why does he need to be violent act like a hormonal drama queen teenager to advocate his dislike for the gangs?
Is he against rape in general or just suspected gang rapes caused by immigrants?
I can make a guess he has never been against rape or sexual assault until stuff like this started to become well known, he probably couldn't give two $&%#s about women and men being raped if it was a gang of white dudes doing it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Simple, sure I don't write the laws, he hasn't been arrested for his opinions, he's been arrested for his actions.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I don't need to support him to support an effort to expose rape gangs.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


So a guy who is against rape gangs is arrested for "breach of peace".

Some want the guy arrested because he has opinions that differ from others.

Some don't think the guy should be arrested.




I'm a simple guy so I like to keep things simple.

Is this it?

So why does he need to be violent act like a hormonal drama queen teenager to advocate his dislike for the gangs?
Is he against rape in general or just suspected gang rapes caused by immigrants?
I can make a guess he has never been against rape or sexual assault until stuff like this started to become well known, he probably couldn't give two $&%#s about women and men being raped if it was a gang of white dudes doing it.

do you actually believe that?

The Ctrl-Left is nothing but racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

They are everything they like to preach about. They project all their hate on anyone who dare disagree with them.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


So a guy who is against rape gangs is arrested for "breach of peace".

Some want the guy arrested because he has opinions that differ from others.

Some don't think the guy should be arrested.




I'm a simple guy so I like to keep things simple.

Is this it?

So why does he need to be violent act like a hormonal drama queen teenager to advocate his dislike for the gangs?
Is he against rape in general or just suspected gang rapes caused by immigrants?
I can make a guess he has never been against rape or sexual assault until stuff like this started to become well known, he probably couldn't give two $&%#s about women and men being raped if it was a gang of white dudes doing it.

do you actually believe that?

Just a guess judging from his character. He's a criminal, and not just a petty one, he's a fraudster.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

Simple, sure I don't write the laws, he hasn't been arrested for his opinions, he's been arrested for his actions.

So he was violent?


Was it a fight? Or did he attack someone?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

Simple, sure I don't write the laws, he hasn't been arrested for his opinions, he's been arrested for his actions.

So he was violent?


Was it a fight? Or did he attack someone?

He filmed AND spoke.....

the horror......the HORROR

a reply to: strongfp

He has actually spoken about it in general. While he and the EDL/NWI often present the argument badly there is a unique set of behaviors when it comes to Male grooming gangs usually second generation Pakistani. The grooming gangs usually find young vulnerable white girls, lure them in with fast cars and money, get them addicted to drugs or announce they have to pay a debt off for all the 'sugar daddy' via prostitution or sex slave for all their friends.

Back when he started authorities were covering this up, same as saville politicians, and were scared to look into it as there was a genuine case of poltical correctness gone mad and they were ignoring it and refusing to take action based on misplaced fears of being racist. Thankfully a judge told police and councils they were being stupid, its not racist to investigate crime or to use a unique approach to try and help vulnerable kids before they can be contacted by gangs and work within the Pakistani community to remove shame of rape and a more proactive approach to reporting suspected cases.

He knowingly did this to cause a trial to collapse and the repeated rape of 100 kids to go unpunished.

That's the horror.

He'd been told by judges before about this, he was well aware, it was deliberately done to make clueless idiots think there's a police state.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

Simple, sure I don't write the laws, he hasn't been arrested for his opinions, he's been arrested for his actions.

So he was violent?


Was it a fight? Or did he attack someone?

He filmed AND spoke.....

the horror......the HORROR

Oh.

So he was arrested for thinking differently.

A thought crime.

Okay. Thanks. Laws in the UK confuse me.

originally posted by: bastion
He knowingly did this to cause a trial to collapse and the repeated rape of 100 kids to go unpunished.

That's the horror.

He'd been told by judges before about this, he was well aware, it was deliberately done to make clueless idiots think there's a police state.

the very fact that a case can fall apart because of some citizen journalist reporting on it, to me, is abusrd

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed


So a guy who is against rape gangs is arrested for "breach of peace".

Some want the guy arrested because he has opinions that differ from others.

Some don't think the guy should be arrested.




I'm a simple guy so I like to keep things simple.

Is this it?

So why does he need to be violent act like a hormonal drama queen teenager to advocate his dislike for the gangs?
Is he against rape in general or just suspected gang rapes caused by immigrants?
I can make a guess he has never been against rape or sexual assault until stuff like this started to become well known, he probably couldn't give two $&%#s about women and men being raped if it was a gang of white dudes doing it.

do you actually believe that?

Just a guess judging from his character. He's a criminal, and not just a petty one, he's a fraudster.

People should stop and think why he changed his name from Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to Tommy Robinson.

I'll give them a clue - the list of charges and convictions against SYL are much longer and more serious than those you will find if you do a Google search on TR.

originally posted by: bastion
He knowingly did this to cause a trial to collapse and the repeated rape of 100 kids to go unpunished.

That's the horror.

He'd been told by judges before about this, he was well aware, it was deliberately done to make clueless idiots think there's a police state.

The Police State has been here for quite some time, my friend

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: bastion
He knowingly did this to cause a trial to collapse and the repeated rape of 100 kids to go unpunished.

That's the horror.

He'd been told by judges before about this, he was well aware, it was deliberately done to make clueless idiots think there's a police state.

The Police State has been here for quite some time, my friend

The type of society Robinson and his ilk propose would make what you consider to be today's police state look like a Utopian paradise in comparison.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: bastion
He knowingly did this to cause a trial to collapse and the repeated rape of 100 kids to go unpunished.

That's the horror.

He'd been told by judges before about this, he was well aware, it was deliberately done to make clueless idiots think there's a police state.

the very fact that a case can fall apart because of some citizen journalist reporting on it, to me, is abusrd

I don't disagree, the law is outdated and anti-quainted and in many cases it does seem an over reaction to something that happens all the time on social media, but the place to change it is appeal to the attourney general, not by making hundreds of child groomers go free in his misinterpretation of English common law.

Reporting is allowed to an extent, it's just illegal to report anything that perverts the cause of Justice. By live broadcasting himself trying to interview Jury, witnesses and defendants and wrongly claiming they were guilty when the trial was ongoing he's broken the presumption of innocence.

----
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial or linked trials are over and the juries have given their verdicts.

Section 2 of the Act limits the common law presumption that conduct may be treated as contempt regardless of intention: now only cases where there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a trial are affected.
---

The US has the same law: digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...

It's incredibly rare for it ever to happen as no journalist or newspaper is stupid enough to be a Court Reporter without the relevant/required training and qualifications (fou to five years) and encyclopedic knowledge of several thousand pages of legalese.

As far as I know Tommy is the UK's first Contempt of Court recidivist, he may be jailed for a month or up to two years, serving 18 months, depending on what if any charges the judge brings forward.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

It is not just you weirded out by this. Pretty much anyone who runs to the leftist media complex as soon as they hear ideas that make them uncomfortable have come out of it speaking the same nonsense.