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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

He was jailed for it and served time.

You guys have already proven you know little about justice and law, only how to repeat the words of those in the legal profession.

Let out early on appeal.

Retried.

Found guilty again.

As covered repeatedly to your apparent complete lack of understanding.

Convicted in an unfair trial, jailed, let out on appeal, convicted again, perhaps jailed again.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

No, i’m In opposition to the laws that would set a child abuser free because someone happened to film him. You defend the law and the judges who would set them free.

As already stated you can believe the laws on protecting free trials to be as flawed as you like.

Doesn't change that they exist and that Robinson knowingly and repeatedly broke them in a case involving child abuse.

a reply to: MickyKnox

That's what happens when you appeal convictions and are found to still be guilty.

Well, that and some extra time or community service ta boot for wasting the courts time.

What is it so hard to understand about the whole affair?

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: MickyKnox
It was a “fundamentally flawed process”.

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.”

Oh right. That's why there was an appeal. The process was flawed, but the illegality of what he did was not. Does that help you understand a bit about law?

He was jailed for it and served time.

You guys have already proven you know little about justice and law, only how to repeat the words of those in the legal profession.

Let out early on appeal.

Retried.

Found guilty again.

As covered repeatedly to your apparent complete lack of understanding.

Convicted in an unfair trial, jailed, let out on appeal, convicted again, perhaps jailed again.

Yes we tend to jail people who knowingly and repeatedly brake the law.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

No, i’m In opposition to the laws that would set a child abuser free because someone happened to film him. You defend the law and the judges who would set them free.

As already stated you can believe the laws on protecting free trials to be as flawed as you like.

Doesn't change that they exist and that Robinson knowingly and repeatedly broke them in a case involving child abuse.

A complete victimless non-crime, which you yourself said he should get 5 years for committing.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

No, i’m In opposition to the laws that would set a child abuser free because someone happened to film him. You defend the law and the judges who would set them free.

As already stated you can believe the laws on protecting free trials to be as flawed as you like.

Doesn't change that they exist and that Robinson knowingly and repeatedly broke them in a case involving child abuse.

A complete victimless non-crime, which you yourself said he should get 5 years for committing.

Getting child abusers off would be a victimless crime!

Now you are just being ridiculous.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

No, i’m In opposition to the laws that would set a child abuser free because someone happened to film him. You defend the law and the judges who would set them free.

As already stated you can believe the laws on protecting free trials to be as flawed as you like.

Doesn't change that they exist and that Robinson knowingly and repeatedly broke them in a case involving child abuse.

A complete victimless non-crime, which you yourself said he should get 5 years for committing.

Getting child abusers off would be a victimless crime!

Now you are just being ridiculous.

Yes, the laws and judges you defend would let child abusers free, while the guy who filmed them should go to jail for 5 years.

a reply to: MickyKnox

But the law has put them away and for somewhat more than 5 years!

Tommy will just need to wait and see what his prize is in a few weeks.

Second prize anyways.......again. LoL

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, our laws are what put the beasts away for quite some time.

Speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things in an uncouth manner in front of a judge will probably land you with contempt of court charge also if truth be told, they can be funny that way.

I'm about as much of a ""government lapdog"" as i am a good Christian. LoL

But like i said in another post "The Sun does shine on a dog's ass some days".

In this instance, i canny really fault there logic nor law.

In this case you anti-Tommy crowd have proven you’ll accept anything so long as a judge says so and simply repeating the opinion of the court suffices to defend it.

Under UK law Robinson's actions could have resulted in a mistrial that would have resulted in child abusers going free.

You might not like that, but it is the case and importantly Robinson was well aware of that. He was more concerned with his own self promotion than the possibility of causing a mistrial of child abusers.

That’s right under UK law a judge can let child abusers go free before the trial even began, and jail the man who filmed them. Absolutely brilliant.

You are entirely free to belief that that UK laws protecting the right to a fair trial are too strict. Feel free to start a thread to discuss.

That in no way changes the fact that Robinson was well aware of the law and the potential consequences of his actions.

You’re entirely free to appeal to law as if that was a sufficient argument.

Robinson never got a fair trial, and in fact you were applauding his unjust treatment and jailing.

It's not an appeal to law, its pointing out the law to someone who seems ignorant of it.

What was unfair about his most recent trial?

Since it has reached the same judgement as his original one what was unfair about his jailing?

You have also failed to address that Robinson was well aware that his actions could result in a child abusers walking free and apparently didn't care.

I looked at the responses to his first unfair trial on this board. You were applauding it, even saying you would be happy if he got more time.

His actions consisted of filming a video. Your coveted judge and the laws you appeal to would have resulted in the child abusers walking free.

As it turns out I was correct and he is guilty. I think someone willing to risk the trial of child abusers deserves the maximum penalty he can be given. If you disagree it says far more about you than me.

His actions consisted of live streaming a report in direct contraction of reporting restrictions in place to ensure a fair trial. You might disagree with those reporting restrictions but that in no way reduces the severity and potential consequences of Robinson's actions.

It says you care for fair trials only when it pertains to child abusers, not activists. You were wrong because the trial was deemed fundamentally flawed.

Procedural flaws in the original trial didn't mean he was wasn't guilty. He got his retrial and was found guilty again.

Seems much like Robinson you have little concern about the prospect of letting child abusers walk free.

Yes, it was an unfair trial, thus an unfair conviction for which he was punished. You applauded and even approved of more time.

But you’ll swiftly defend fair trials for child abusers, protecting them from the guy making a Facebook video.

No child abusers were let off, so all you’re left with the counterfactual “prospect”, the off-chance that in some other dimension child abusers received an unfair trial. They didn’t.

Unlike you I defend fair trials for everyone.

Robinson was guilty as now found in two separate trials (plus his previous conviction for a similar offence).

The appeal found his original conviction was expedited when it didn't need to be hence he got his retrial. Seems little doubt he was guilty as he was actually on his own video breaking reporting restrictions and had been warned specifically at his first conviction for contempt.

We are not talking some counter factual alternative dimension. Defence lawyers used Robinson's actions to try and get a mistrial.

www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org... sfield-a8990436.html?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.i ndependent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fcrime%2Ftommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html

Still keep defending someone who risks the trials of child abusers.

You’re on record applauding the fundamentally flawed trial of Tommy Robinson. I don’t believe you.

No, the appeal found much more than what you claim.

I continue to applaud the jailing of people found guilty of endangering the trial of child abusers.

The real question is why you don't?

No, i’m In opposition to the laws that would set a child abuser free because someone happened to film him. You defend the law and the judges who would set them free.

As already stated you can believe the laws on protecting free trials to be as flawed as you like.

Doesn't change that they exist and that Robinson knowingly and repeatedly broke them in a case involving child abuse.

A complete victimless non-crime, which you yourself said he should get 5 years for committing.

Getting child abusers off would be a victimless crime!

Now you are just being ridiculous.

Yes, the laws and judges you defend would let child abusers free, while the guy who filmed them should go to jail for 5 years.

Laws are there to ensue a fair trial.

Robinson knowingly and repeatedly broke them in a case involving child abuse (while under a suspended sentence for same offence)

a reply to: ScepticScot

Laws are there to ensue a fair trial.

I suppose your judges broke the law then because Robinson wasn’t ensured a fair trial.

originally posted by: MickyKnox
a reply to: ScepticScot

Laws are there to ensue a fair trial.

I suppose your judges broke the law then because Robinson wasn’t ensured a fair trial.

He appealed, got a retrial, found guilty again.

Procedural failings are not the same as breaking the law. You stretching is getting a bit desperate now.

a reply to: MickyKnox

Say what now???

What was unfair about his trial, or any of the other ones he has been involved with, and please be specific?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Say what now???

What was unfair about his trial, or any of the other ones he has been involved with, and please be specific?

the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.

And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.

Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.

Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.

www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Say what now???

What was unfair about his trial, or any of the other ones he has been involved with, and please be specific?

the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.

And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.

Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.

Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.

www.bbc.com...

The judges in his retrial where quite specific about what he did wrong.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Say what now???

What was unfair about his trial, or any of the other ones he has been involved with, and please be specific?

the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.

And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.

Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.

Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.

www.bbc.com...

The judges in his retrial where quite specific about what he did wrong.

The article is a year old.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Say what now???

What was unfair about his trial, or any of the other ones he has been involved with, and please be specific?

the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.

And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.

Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.

Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.

www.bbc.com...

The judges in his retrial where quite specific about what he did wrong.

The article is a year old.

Sorry was the line that 'no one to this day knows exactly what he did wrong' a quote from the article?

It didn't sound like BBC speak.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Say what now???

What was unfair about his trial, or any of the other ones he has been involved with, and please be specific?

the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.

And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.

Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.

Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.

www.bbc.com...

The judges in his retrial where quite specific about what he did wrong.

The article is a year old.

Sorry was the line that 'no one to this day knows exactly what he did wrong' a quote from the article?

It didn't sound like BBC speak.

Yes.

Haven’t read the whole thread

This line stuck out to me though from the op

The case was then referred back to Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, who announced in March that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings.
Speaking after the latest verdict, Mr Cox said the court's decision reflected the seriousness of posting online material which risks prejudicing legal proceedings.

"I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court," he added

www.bbc.com...

All of you people celebrating, that posted on ats before Robinson’s hearing that you knew he was guilty

Remember, the stage is being set for you to also be arrested for your social media posts as well

I will stand up for your right to free speech, but you will have no one but yourself to blame if your social media posts land you in jail

a reply to: Grambler

"Remember, the stage is being set for you to also be arrested for your social media posts as well"

Aye well, nonsensical repeat criminal racists seem to be at the head of the queue, so there is that i suppose.

It was not the social media posts that landed him in the mess he is in per-say, but where and when he chose to do so.

He was told by a judge, he refused to listen, and done it again Grambler, it's not like he did not get a warning first.

a reply to: MickyKnox

i wouldnt even waste your time replying to this low tier troll, he literally doesn't know what day it is and takes communist propaganda as fact