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.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
I'm beyond that, I'm afraid. Must...try...to stay.....awake.....
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...
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!
originally posted by: bartconnolly
a reply to: oldcarpy
Try sticking to discussing the subject and it might help
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?