Tommy Robinson going back to prison?

Well he has a court date laster this month after his case was reviewed. He might go back he might not.

This video explains why he was originally held in contempt of court, i highly recommd watching it if you’re not familiar with U.K. law.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: AtlasHawk

The last time I checked,the U.S. still has the Constitution.There are a lot
of patriots who won't go down without a fight.

That's why Americans are very very very lucky. Meanwhile your liberals are trying to make sure to turn America into either Sweden or Western Europe.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

It’s not the constitution per say, it’s the 2nd amendment.

If Robinson and a bunch of AR-15s, the government would probably think twice about arresting him on PC crap.

Maybe the NRA could send some guns to the UK, like they did when they Nazis were a threat

www.americanrifleman.org...

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Echo007

Robinson isn't even speaking out against lslam, but only against pedophiles.
If a certain group has earned that hat let them wear it but it's not religious persecution.

The Attorney General has been sitting on the decision on whether to prosecute for months.
He made the call to push ahead after Robinson outed the BBC as liars - not a coincidence. This is retribution by the Govt on a citizen.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Ok, I just read a few news articles on the case and am left kinda wondering about what exactly he was trying to accomplish by interfering with a criminal trial like that?

I mean, fair enough if the trial was already over and the men were found not guilty.

But as far as I can see, all he did was put the prosecution's case at risk, for the pure purpose of self promotion.

Do you think jurors aren't swayed by outside influences as it is? Do you not think they would be influenced by the prosecution showing pictures of the victims? That would negate a fair trial in my mind, so how would someone reporting it, whether they show bias or not, do any worse? I guess we're just acknowledging ceremony at that point.

It's a weird law. Robinson's arrest hinges on the theory that him filming as such will prejudice the jury or outcome of the trial. The problem is, Robinson has no power to influence the outcome of a trial, nor does anyone else not involved in the proceedings. That lies solely on the shoulders of those involved in the proceedings. It's just weird.

originally posted by: NOS4A2
It's a weird law. Robinson's arrest hinges on the theory that him filming as such will prejudice the jury or outcome of the trial. The problem is, Robinson has no power to influence the outcome of a trial, nor does anyone else not involved in the proceedings. That lies solely on the shoulders of those involved in the proceedings. It's just weird.

What's weird about it. Jurors can't realistically ignore iwhat they might see in news coverage. The reporting restrictions are there to try an ensure the fairest trial possible.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Ok, I just read a few news articles on the case and am left kinda wondering about what exactly he was trying to accomplish by interfering with a criminal trial like that?

I mean, fair enough if the trial was already over and the men were found not guilty.

But as far as I can see, all he did was put the prosecution's case at risk, for the pure purpose of self promotion.

Do you think jurors aren't swayed by outside influences as it is? Do you not think they would be influenced by the prosecution showing pictures of the victims? That would negate a fair trial in my mind, so how would someone reporting it, whether they show bias or not, do any worse? I guess we're just acknowledging ceremony at that point.

The jury are meant to reach a decision based on the evidence presented, which has to done in way consistent with a fair trial.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Ok, I just read a few news articles on the case and am left kinda wondering about what exactly he was trying to accomplish by interfering with a criminal trial like that?

I mean, fair enough if the trial was already over and the men were found not guilty.

But as far as I can see, all he did was put the prosecution's case at risk, for the pure purpose of self promotion.

Do you think jurors aren't swayed by outside influences as it is? Do you not think they would be influenced by the prosecution showing pictures of the victims? That would negate a fair trial in my mind, so how would someone reporting it, whether they show bias or not, do any worse? I guess we're just acknowledging ceremony at that point.

The jury are meant to reach a decision based on the evidence presented, which has to done in way consistent with a fair trial.

Meant to, being the operative phrase here. Most people go in with their minds already made up, depending on how heinous the crime, and its up to the defense to change their minds. If the defense can't do that, then it doesn't really matter what influenced the jury.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Ok, I just read a few news articles on the case and am left kinda wondering about what exactly he was trying to accomplish by interfering with a criminal trial like that?

I mean, fair enough if the trial was already over and the men were found not guilty.

But as far as I can see, all he did was put the prosecution's case at risk, for the pure purpose of self promotion.

Do you think jurors aren't swayed by outside influences as it is? Do you not think they would be influenced by the prosecution showing pictures of the victims? That would negate a fair trial in my mind, so how would someone reporting it, whether they show bias or not, do any worse? I guess we're just acknowledging ceremony at that point.

The jury are meant to reach a decision based on the evidence presented, which has to done in way consistent with a fair trial.

Meant to, being the operative phrase here. Most people go in with their minds already made up, depending on how heinous the crime, and its up to the defense to change their minds. If the defense can't do that, then it doesn't really matter what influenced the jury.

In a high profile or more disturbing case it's probably impossible for a jury to be completely objective. However the aim of the legal system should be to ensure as fair a trial as possible.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

It's not about their feelings it's about the law. He nearly caused the cause to be thrown out with his behaviour.

Why was Stephen Yaxley Lennon trying to derail the case against them is what you should be asking! Either he wasn't clever enough to know his actions could jeapordise the case or this was a deliberate act, which I doubt...

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

i personally have nothing but contempt for the british courts

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Tommy 10 names is not the hero you seem to think.

Truth is he's a nasty little specimen.

A racist little coward with an axe to grind and agenda to satisfy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He should get community service working in the local Mosque.

Funny how the "progressives" are all pro-government now. Good little lads...Big Brother is proud of you. You make the rest of us puke.

It's obvious that this isn't about a point of law. It's about globalist philosophy and retribution.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Question is; does this mean any of the 14 will also be going to prison?

metro.co.uk...

The Conservative Party has suspended 14 members over alleged Islamophobic or racist social media posts. A string of racist slurs were unearthed on a pro-Jacob Rees-Mogg Facebook group, with one calling to ‘get rid of all mosques’.

a reply to: The GUT

It was the Police that arrested him and a Judge that gave him the gaol sentence for breaching the terms of his suspended sentence and contempt of court regarding a very similar offense, not the government per-say.

Not really much else the judge could do considering the repetition.

originally posted by: andy06shake
A racist little coward with an axe to grind and agenda to satisfy.

From everything I've seen of him he's not racist. He might be anti-islam, a lot of people are for valid reasons (just like many are anti-christianity), doesn't make them racists.

a reply to: Navieko

Ok if you wish to split hairs then.

He's a religious intolerance bastard.

An attention seeker.

Coke head.

Mortgage fradster.

And a thug who has been done with assault and served time for passport fraud.

Aside from all that im sure he's a lovely fellow who loves his Mum. LoL

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

i personally have nothing but contempt for the british courts

That is understandable, the justice system across the western world is a shambles and is effectively broken.