165 1 min 4 yrs

Oh, not so good then. Everything that government touches, including censorship, goes wrong. Drudge has traffic in the billions per month. Someone need to be reminded that we have the web now.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

165 thoughts on “HOW GOES THE BLACKOUT?

  1. Alison Chabloz is also facing prison for satirising those who cannot be satirised. And jews have a sense of humour?

  2. Alex Jones is covering this on his web based radio stream, has interviewed people close to Mr Robinson, has loudly criticized the speech restrictions.

    He has said that there was a significant demonstration against this arrest at 10 Downing Street, and that those upset are not only the “ right wing “ . Is this true?

    I’ve long been a critic against British restrictions on speech. The speech restrictions here seem without any merit.

    And I recall that Theresa May was behind the unjustified ban on Michael Savage, who is not any enemy of the UK or it’s people. Is she in any way responsible for this speech restriction – the cops/judges know who the PM is. And was she , as Home Secretary, in any way responsible for the atrocious betrayal of duty by British police in this very case?

  3. Did the Drudge Report explain that if Robinson hadn’t broken the previous conditions imposed on him for being convicted of contempt of court that he would still be free to witter away on Facebook, Youtube and Twitter?

  4. Phantom –

    The Downing Street protest.

    I don’t know how many were there, but it’s not a bad turnout at 24 hour’s notice. There have also been demonstrations in Israel and Australia. One is planned for the US.

    They might be “far Right”, but bien pensant view in the UK is that you’re far Right if you oppose jihad rape.

    Theresa May was an atrocious Home Secretary. Her government is now putting together legislation to censor the web, under the guise of protecting the lickle children. The aim is to censor web content.

    Paul –

    No. Drudge doesn’t deal in fake news.

  5. Is that a photo of his most recent arrest?

    This coverage is leadership on the part of Matt Drudge – This story is not being prominently reported by most US media at all

    I imagine that the Theresa May regime is furious at him, Perhaps they can ban Matt Drudge next,

    It would create a firestorm if they tried to block his website, So I doubt that they will be stupid enough to try that.

    And Drudge will not submit to any self censorship of his content.

    So it’s Drudge vs the British government, And all supporters of free speech would support Drudge

  6. Paul

    In your opinion, what did he do that was wrong?

    I’m not interested in any legalistic response, The British courts and police are deserving of no respect in this situation

    What did he do that was bad or wrong?

  7. Paul

    Even if he violated some order by the crooked police or crooked court system, How would that justify the speech restrictions on the matter of his disappearance?

    That’s the story, even more than the false arrest

  8. Paul

    In your opinion, what did he do that was wrong?

    He broke the conditions of a suspended sentence imposed on him for a previous conviction after he tried to film inside a court during a court case.

    Now, regardless of whether you agree with that or not that’s the law in Britain where it happened. Would you suggest him above the law?

    I’m not interested in any legalistic response, The British courts and police are deserving of no respect in this situation

    What are you interested in then? What does that even mean in the sense that he got locked up because he breached the domestic judicial process?

  9. The British judges and UK police are deserving of no respect by any honest man in this situation. Let’s leave the machinations of those dishonest bodies aside.

    How did Robinson’s recent actions harm anyone or harm Justice

    And even if he did violate some condition of whatever, How would that justify the speech restrictions in this case

  10. Paul –

    Your new-found reverence for the British laws and the British judicial authorities is touching, though misplaced.

    Tommy Robinson asked the police where he could stand and he complied. Then he was arrested, imprisoned and a total reporting blackout imposed.

    But your view is noted. If NI ever goes hot again, I’ll be sure to inform HM government that West Belfast has no problem with summary arrests and news blackouts.

  11. I think that there once was a day when you would not have been such a loud supporter of British cops and British courts, especially in cases of sudden disappearances, etc

  12. Okay Phantom, there are three separate entangled issues here:

    – restrictions on reporting court cases:

    As I’ve said previously on another thread:

    As I explained to Dave earlier Pat / Phantom, I don’t know the circumstances of this particular case but reporting restrictions are usually imposed on sexual offence cases where there might be a possibility of identifying the victim.

    Now, I don’t know the reasons for the restrictions and the above is only an educated guess but ultimately there are restions on the case. You may not laike that and may disagree with it but that’s what it is.

    – Robinson’s arrest:

    Robinson wasn’t arrested and imprisoned because he was ‘defending free speech’ he was arested because he broke the conditions he was under from a previous conviction last year when he tried to film inside a court during a trial. it’s as simple as that, if Robinson hadn’t broken his conditions he’d have been able to waffle away on Twitter, Facebook and Youtube to his nose bled.

    – reporting restrictions in the Robinson arrest:

    Like the first point I don’t know why they’re imposed here but they are. If anyone is so concerned or angered at them then there’s always a FOI request regarding them here:

    Data Access and Compliance Unit

    Postal Point 10.31, Floor 10
    102 Petty France

    London

    SW1H 9AJ
    Email
    data.access@justice.gsi.gov.uk

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service

    Now, what else would you like me to do?

  13. Paul –

    Your new-found reverence for the British laws and the British judicial authorities is touching, though misplaced.

    Tommy Robinson asked the police where he could stand and he complied. Then he was arrested, imprisoned and a total reporting blackout imposed.But your view is noted. If NI ever goes hot again, I’ll be sure to inform HM government that West Belfast has no problem with summary arrests and news blackouts.

    I was wondering when that would come out. Pete’s obviously reverted to his frustrated default mode again.

    I absolutely have problems with summary arrests – Robinson’s arrest wasn’t a summary arrest as I’ve explained yet again in my point two above. But you knew that anyway when I explained it to you in strict liability terms last night.

    IF what you say is true about Robinson given permission to film and there’s evidence of it then that should be no problem for Robinson’s brief to get the conviction quashed and get Robinson a fair bit of tax payer’s wedge into the bargain.

    Restrictions on reporting cases isn’t a ‘news blackout’. As I’ve explained to Dave previously I’m not a big fan of reporting restrictions but also recognise that in some cases they’re a nessecary evil.

  14. I see no good reason given for the press restrictions

    I see zero evidence that what Robinson was doing could lead to anyone identifying any victim. Even the crooked police and crooked courts haven’t said that AFAIK

    And it isn’t the families of the victims that are criticizing Robinson, or who are calling for him to be sent away to a ” gulag “.

  15. The real questions that should be being asked, are why are there reporting restrictions, (D-notices), usually reserved for issues of national security, in place for criminal grooming gangs? And, why are there reporting restrictions on Tommy Robinson’s arrest and imprisonment?
    However you look at it, this whole situation is extremely worrying.

  16. The wiki description for the UK says that it is voluntary

    But maybe that means ” voluntary in name only ” where you have the national government making your life miserable in a hundred ways if you go against their guidance

  17. Phantom

    I didn’t realise they were voluntary. It looks like I’ll have to do some more reading up. Voluntary I’m not, the mainstream media certainly seem to obey them.

  18. Phantom,

    Mr Robinson looks like American athlete Tim Tebow

    I don’t see the resemblance to myself mate.

    It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Will Tommy be released early? Will this wave of protests just fade away. Will the mainstream Media grow some balls and stop reporting on it? Only time will tell.

  19. It’s quite late here but it’s too bloody hot to go to sleep.
    I’m going to have to get air conditioning in the bedroom.

  20. “ start “

    All the May regime did was to make Robinson more prominent, including internationally

  21. Phantom,

    I agree. The government really doesn’t have a clue. But then, when have they ever.
    If they had just ignored Tommy Robinson, hardly anyone would have seen his ‘news report’. Now, thanks to them arresting him thousands have.

  22. phantom one of the differences between UK and USA is its absolutely not allowed to film in court , even the old bailey reports big cases with cartoons
    beyond that paul is right, he broke his bail conditions, its as simmple as that, nothing to do with free speech at all .. perfidious pete led you up the garden path mate !

  23. Jude

    You are completely missing a major point

    Even if he broke the conditions of his bail, why should that lead to any restriction on press reporting?

    I have no objection to restrictions on cameras in court. Probably a good idea

  24. Robinson is a well known professional rabble rouser who may have hoped to start a riot. The police prevented him from doing so. It is not like he has high-minded intentions. Public safety is a police responsibility. This EDL punk was a threat to public safety. US media has enough home-grown right-wing nuts to cover without giving publicity to this ego driven bum

  25. As I said, there are three separate issues here:
    Reporting restrictions on original case
    Robinson’s arrest
    Reporting restrictions on Robinson arrest.

    The pros and cons of 1 and 3 are certainly up for philosophical debate. Number two isn’t.

  26. NY – if mass-rape of English girls by pakis doesn’t rouse the rabble, do you reaĺly believe that ‘Robinson’ will?

  27. NY – if mass-rape of English girls by pakis doesn’t rouse the rabble, do you reaĺly believe that ‘Robinson’ will?

  28. NY – if mass-rape of English girls by pakis doesn’t rouse the rabble, do you reaĺly believe that ‘Robinson’ will?

  29. There may well be sound legal reasons for reporting restrictions while a major sensitive trial is in progress but I see absolutely no reason for a reporting restriction being placed on the arrest and imprisonment of an individual for breaching bail conditions. Having said that, I read about Mr Robinson’s arrest and the Downing Street protest in one of the Saturday newspapers here in the U.K. so is it really the case that the media have been restricted from reporting the arrest or they have largely chosen not to ?

  30. Yes, Phantom and others: The most worrying aspects of this affair are the very rapid court appearance and sentence and jailing and, most of all, the total media blackout. The old dictum ‘Justice must be seen to be done’ has been dismissed. It is difficult not to make a parallel with totalitarian regimes, but some of even them do report jailings in their newspapers!

  31. The most worrying aspects of this affair are the very rapid court appearance and sentence and jailing and, most of all, the total media blackout.

    Eh? He violated the conditions of a previously imposed suspended sentence where court appearance and sentencing are a mere formality. It’s a summary offence dealt with in a Magistrate’s Court not OJ bloody Simpson.

  32. Colm, on May 29th, 2018 at 8:23 AM Said:
    There may well be sound legal reasons for reporting restrictions while a major sensitive trial is in progress

    If it wasn’t for Tommy Robinson, apart from Rotherham, and possibly one or two other Paki mass child rape cases, the public would never have heard of any other cases.

    It’s not like MSM report on them.

    Well, the cat has been let out of the bag now.

    Even now, this is just the tip of a very large iceberg heading our way.

  33. […] the public would never have heard of any other cases.

    It’s not like MSM report on them.

    I’m afraid that’s simply not true Harri.

  34. He allegedly violated the conditions

    No one here knows that he has violated anything, no one has read the court ruling in its entirety, no one here is a British lawyer

    Why in the world would anyone unquestioningly accept the view of the government?

  35. Petr Tarasov, on May 28th, 2018 at 10:21 PM Said:

    Straight to the gulag if there was any real justice.

    Blimey!, That’s a bit strong there Petr.

    Those paki child rapists at least deserve a fair trial.

  36. No one here knows that he has violated anything,

    Precisely.

    By the establishment trying to keep a lid on all this. They have in fact, made the situation a whole lot worse for themselves.

  37. No one here knows that he has violated anything, no one has read the court ruling in its entirety, no one here is a British lawyer

    Phantom, he was originally convicted of contempt of court:

    Contempt of Court Act 1981:

    1 The strict liability rule.
    In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
    2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.
    (1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.
    (2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

    You don’t need to be a rocket scientist.

    I’m an Irish guy that studied law and worked within the system in the UK, does that count?

  38. Phantom,

    He allegedly violated the conditions

    No one here knows that he has violated anything, no one has read the court ruling in its entirety, no one here is a British lawyer

    Why in the world would anyone unquestioningly accept the view of the government?

    My thoughts exactly Phantom.
    Also no one is asking the question; why do we reporting restrictions in place on these trials?
    I’ve seen reporters do far worse than Tommy Robinson at much higher profile trials.
    For example, when Rolf Harris turned up to court, reporters were shouting similar things to him as he entered the court house. No reporting restrictions or arrests there.

  39. No

    Which person said that he violated the law a few days ago? Where is the source material for this?

    It is not any attempt to be formal to ask that the word alleged be used or to say that “ the court said that he violated x “ What if the court was wrong?

    There is no reason for any fair person to automatically believe what the court, the cops or the govt say here

  40. Which person said that he violated the law a few days ago? Where is the source material for this?

    The source material is the strict liability rule S.2 (1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 of which he was originally convicted.

    The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

    Also no one is asking the question; why do we reporting restrictions in place on these trials?

    As I say above Dave, there are three issues being discussed here. What you ask above is a perfectly legitimate question worthy of discussion but is a separate debate entirely from the (re) arrest of Robinson.

  41. Paul

    Tommy Robinson might be playing the game better than most pelple realise.
    I’ve had him say in several interviews, that his days are numbered and he’ll be arrested again quite soon. This could all be part of a plan to Martyr himself and stir things up. And the establishment is playing right into his hands.

    As I say above Dave, there are three issues being discussed here. What you ask above is a perfectly legitimate question worthy of discussion but is a separate debate entirely from the (re) arrest of Robinson.

    I agree which is what I’ve been trying to point out in these threads.
    His supporters in London should not be concentrating on freeing in Tommy Robinson, they should be asking why the legal process, and reporting restrictions are being abused in this way.

  42. Even the Robinson-haters here don’t seem to have come up with any real justification for the government / court request for ( voluntary? ) non reporting of the case by the press.

    A request that Mr Drudge has refused to comply with, and which hopefully he will refuse to comply with going forward.

    I’ll wonder if some want him to be punished by the UK in some way. I would not recommend that the UK regime try it.

    Someone need to be reminded that we have the web now.

  43. No one gives you the right to freedom of the press. The press, and those who value it, must fight for it.

    In the US, the failing NY Times and Washington Post openly defied the Nixon Administration by printing The Pentagon Papers on the front page. I think in 1971. The case made it to the Supreme Court, and the Nixon regime lost.

    I’d like to see a major British paper cover the Robinson arrest on the front page. Let’s see a little spine.

    You need a First Amendment, but do not have one.

  44. Even the Robinson-haters here don’t seem to have come up with any real justification for the government / court request for ( voluntary? ) non reporting of the case by the press

    Ohhhhhh, you old Robinson lover you.

    The rape trial restrictions?

    Phantom, we comment on a blog and it’s not our place nor within our power to justify reporting restrictions on a rape case. I have speculated that to my knowledge restrictions have been placed previously where there’s a possibility of identifying the victim.

    If however you feel so strongly about the issue I provided a contact address for you last night to contact the court service for an FOI request.

    Dave, I’ve commented previously that Robinson might deliberately going for the martyr angle. I can see a big fat book deal somewhere in the not too distant future.

  45. I have speculated that to my knowledge restrictions have been placed previously where there’s a possibility of identifying the victim.

    The idea that this is so here is entirely preposterous.

    Your new zealotry in support of British courts and British judges is entirely interesting. May I recommend this for your next online purchase.

    All rise!:) as they say at Yankee Stadium.

  46. funny that paul
    phantoms new hero punk tommy jabberjaws who keeps landing in court, is UK’s answer to Jamie Robinson from Ulster, who is a similiar attention seeking know nothing pain in the arse. 🙂

  47. He’s not my hero

    But you’re supposed to believe in rights for all, not just those with whom you agree. ( wanting all opponents to be sent to ” the gulag ” )

    And any proper Irishman / Englishman / American should support a robust, free press that does not cower before bewigged justices, Trumps, Mays, any of that trash.

  48. err ph those links to leftie papers not enough for you mate, gonna keep digging ?

  49. Your British government asked them not to cover the story of the arrest.

    That’s a problem.

  50. Thanks for the links, Paul.

    It appears he was merely filming people (presumably the accused) going into court. As he hadn’t published image of the faces etc, that can hardly be a crime or justify loss of bail.

  51. It appears he was merely filming people (presumably the accused) going into court. As he hadn’t published image of the faces etc, that can hardly be a crime or justify loss of bail.

    That is exactly what Robinson’s aide/ally said on the radio a day or two ago.

  52. the cases involved are highly sensitive, when you make it your business to turn up outside with that profile it means you are there to provoke. A judgment has to be made that is wider than the narrow field of vision; sometimes they get it right others times they miss it.
    when you’re on bail its not a good idea to go and get mixed up with this, you’re supposed to be keeping out of trouble. that is just commonsense and smart thinking, not too smart is our erstwhile Knight.
    bye the way all that interests him and his supporters is division, so on a personal note i couldn’t give a damn about him. i opposed completely his standpoint ..

  53. i couldn’t give a damn about him.

    If you believe in civil liberties, you’re supposed to give a damn about the rights of those who you may disagree with. It comes with the territory.

  54. Your new zealotry in support of British courts and British judges is entirely interesting.

    Going into Pete frustration mode Phantom?

    I trained and worked as a lawyer and I know the law. You and others were asking why Robinson was arrested and I gave you the answers.

    If you don’t like the answers don’t ask the questions.

    As he hadn’t published image of the faces etc, that can hardly be a crime or justify loss of bail.

    Noel, he was arrested because of the conditions of the legislation of his previous conviction.

  55. After a fair trial, of course

    Phantom,

    He violated the conditions of a previously imposed suspended sentence where court appearance and sentencing are a mere formality. It’s a summary offence dealt with in a Magistrate’s Court not OJ bloody Simpson.

    Hope that helps.

  56. I do find it exceptionally interesting how people’s views are shaped by the political views of the person under discussion.

  57. I do find it exceptionally interesting how people’s views are shaped by the political views of the person under discussion.

    Shooting the messenger does no good.

    Opinions are not facts.

    Okay PVR, what have you done with Phantom?

    The legislation he was convicted under is fact. Argue with it.

  58. What came after as stated by you is conjecture.

    It is you who has gone all Patrick on us. What you say is not far from the ” Hillary is a felon ” malarkey.

    But that’s OK, since you don’t like Robinson! To the gulag!!

  59. //The legislation he was convicted under is fact. //

    But his removal from circulation doesn’t seem to be based on any conviction. (except on his convictions Tah Tah!)

    Paul, ask yourself: If some EDL types were convicted of racial attacks, including serious physical attacks on blacks and other foreigners, and if during their trial some black guy had taken photos of them in court, do you think the black guy would have been jailed for that?

    And if he had been jailed and later got out on bail, but then went into town to photograph more EDL thugs going into court, do you think he would have been arrested again and returned to jail?

    Anyone with an eye on the Irish Troubles must be aware that there’s a huge difference between the letter of the law and a massive bias in how it is enforced; which section of the population the police get heavy with and which can agitate and riot without fear of the law. etc.

  60. Phantom,

    Your British government asked them not to cover the story of the arrest.

    That’s a problem.

    Exactly.

    Paul

    Dave, I’ve commented previously that Robinson might deliberately going for the martyr angle. I can see a big fat book deal somewhere in the not too distant future.

    I saw him in an interview somewhere recently, saying he was working on another book.
    His previous book ‘Enemy of the State’ is already a bestseller on Amazon.
    I’ve got to say though, it’s pretty shit. The film where Will Smith plays Tommy, is much better.

  61. Phantom,

    Newspaper reports

    So they are defying the request?

    Very good!!

    Agreed. I just got a pop-up on my tablet saying the BBC are reporting this now.

  62. I think that I can speak for the entire British public in congratulating Matt Drudge for taking a stand for freedom of the press, thereby shaming the British press into doing their job.

  63. Well this member of the British Public agrees with you at least Phantom.

  64. Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 13 months for potentially prejudicing a court case while already on a suspended sentence for contempt of court. Reporting restrictions on Robinson’s arrest have now been lifted. Robinson’s knuckle-dragging supporters were triggered yesterday into claiming there was a conspiracy of silence and an establishment cover-up. In the real world, a judge ruled that Robinson’s actions could prejudice an ongoing case. Embarrassingly for the Breitbart crowd, reporting restrictions were only lifted following an application by the MSM…

  65. The swiftness with which injustice was meted out to Tommy Robinson is stunning. No, more than that: it is terrifying.

    Without having access to his own lawyer, Robinson was summarily tried and sentenced to 13 months behind bars. He was then transported to Hull Prison.

    Meanwhile, the judge who sentenced Robinson also ordered British media not to report on his case. Newspapers that had already posted reports of his arrest quickly took them down. All this happened on the same day.

    Swift Injustice – the Case of Tommy Robinson

    Due process, schmoo process. He’s not popular, so let him rot. Right lads?

  66. I wasn’t particularly concerned with ‘Robinson’ until now. If what Phantom pasted at 5.56pm is true then it is absolutely terrifying for anybody who disagrees with the Establishment. And from ATW, one sees that the likes of Paul, petr, jude are in agreement with the Establishment – Pete, harri and me are very much opposed, whilst others are mainly case-by-case.

    So, is what Phantom posted at 5.56pm true or not?

  67. One can view Robison as the racist agitator he is and still question his arrest, sentence and thee media blackout.
    There may be a valid reason to limit types of coverage of trials so as not to prejudice defendants. One does not want convictions overturned by Appellate Courts because a defendant was prejudiced. It seems that a total blackout is too ecessive to me.

  68. What came after as stated by you is conjecture.

    Okey Phantom, he was imprisoned for illegally entering the US……

    Noel, if the black guy had tried to film inside the court in the original case I don’t think he would’ve been jailed – I think he wuld have been given a suspended sentence like Robinsom was. If he was stupid enough to then do the same thing while under the suspension I think he would have been jailed like Robinson was.

    Newspaper reports

    So they are defying the request?

    Very good!! […]

    I think that I can speak for the entire British public in congratulating Matt Drudge for taking a stand for freedom of the press, thereby shaming the British press into doing their job.

    Those newspapers reports are from last Friday and Saturday respectively.

    Anyhow,

    Phantom, he was originally convicted of contempt of court:

    Contempt of Court Act 1981:

    1 The strict liability rule.
    In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
    2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.
    (1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.
    (2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

    You don’t need to be a rocket scientist.

    Robinson, from Bedfordshire, pleaded guilty to a charge of contempt of court. […]

    In footage which was played to the court on Friday, Robinson was seen filming himself and people involved in the trial.

    The court heard how the footage, which supposedly lasted around an hour, had been watched 250,000 times within hours of being posted online via Facebook.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640

    You’re welcome.

  69. Robinson was already subject to a suspended sentence for a contempt charge related to a separate case in Canterbury.

    The judge had warned him then he should expect to go to prison if he committed further offences.

    Robinson was given 10 months in jail for contempt of court, and a further three months for breaching the previous suspended sentence.

    Judge Geoffrey Marson QC initially imposed restrictions for fear that reporting his arrest would prejudice an ongoing trial.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640

    Sorry, what was that about Robinson being arrested and freedom of speech?

  70. This is a post on the case by the Secret Barrister.

    Who is the Secret Barrister and for whom does he/she work?

    The Secret Barrister writes for the New Statesman and iNews and has had copy distributed by The Sun, The Mirror and Huffington Post

    So hardly just an independent blogger, and this excerpt confirms it…….

    10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

    Contempt proceedings do not attract a jury trial. The procedure for a court dealing with a criminal contempt is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. These allow for a “summary procedure”, where the court, having made its own enquiries and offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away. The Crown Court can commit a contemnor to prison for up to two years. There is nothing unusual in him being dealt with on the day of the contempt. Courts are required to deal with contempts as swiftly as possible. There is no suggestion of any prejudice; Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by a barrister and would have received full legal advice.

    He also wasn’t tried in secret; his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions (under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 again), postponing reporting of the details of Lennon’s contempt until the trial, and the subsequent related trial, had concluded. This, you may think, is for obvious reasons. A media circus and orchestrated attempt at martyrdom by Lennon and his deranged followers – as was indeed attempted when the restrictions were defied by far-right blogs and foreign news outlets

    “deranged followers”, “far-right blogs” – these are terms used by jude, petr and Paul who would have Lennon-Robinson in the gulag.

    Bottom line – did ‘Robinson’ have legal representation at his trial and sentencing?

    Also noteworthy is this apparently triumphant closure to the case…….

    As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial.

    That merely shows that ‘Robinson’ has expedited proceedings applied to him. Are there any other examples of the judicial system being so efficient?

  71. Are there any other examples of the judicial system being so efficient?

    Yes:

    https://www.derrynow.com/news/derry-man-jailed-committing-offences-day-receiving-suspended-sentence/226705

    Bottom line – did ‘Robinson’ have legal representation at his trial and sentencing?

    Yes, he was defended by a Matthew Harding as per the link above.

    But that’s OK, since you don’t like Robinson! To the gulag!!

    These are terms used by jude, petr and Paul who would have Lennon-Robinson in the gulag.

    Could you please both stop attributing other people’s comments to me.

  72. Bottom line – did ‘Robinson’ have legal representation at his trial and sentencing?

    Yes, he was defended by a Matthew Harding as per the link above.

    Oh well – it looks as though ‘Robinson’ has earned some kind of custodial sentence for his stupidity

  73. Oh well – it looks as though ‘Robinson’ has earned some kind of custodial sentence for his stupidity

    I agree, he might have been a complete knob, but now at least yet another major paki child rape gang has been bought to the public’s attention.

    I think it’s safe to assume Tommy Robinson’s chances of survival in prison, is pretty slim.

  74. They had been apprehended Harri and this fuckwit nearly allowed them to go free. If it was deemed that his recording of them and broadcasting could taint the evidence or the jury then the judge would have ordered them acquitted. Tommy Robinson is not some free speech advocate. He is a glue bag that nearly let alleged child rapists get away with their crimes.

  75. Hear hear Seamus.

    It’ll be interesting to see if this thirteen months whack affects Robinsin’s ‘activism’ when he’s released.

    Incidentally, does anyone know if he’s gainfully employed?

  76. Paul

    I believe he had a business with his wife, but they had to shut it down due to constant threats.

    He is also a qualified aircraft engineer.

  77. does anyone know if he’s gainfully employed?

    Author.

    I believe Tommy Robinson has possibly worked more hours in a week, than his opposite number Anjem Choudery has done in his whole worthless life.

  78. A single offence of rape of a child under 13 by a single offender has a starting point in sentencing guidelines of 10 years in custody. Repeated rapes, by multiple offenders, and that starting point goes up.

    Normally when it comes to child sex rings the main people responsible receive several decades (20-30 years).

  79. I believe he and his wife had a business many years ago and a spell in jail for assaulting an off duty cop put paid to his engineering apprenticeship before it was finished Harri.

    I’m just wondering if he’s gainfully employed or if he’s a full time ‘activist’ and if so where he gets the finances to travel to different parts of Britain and abroad?

  80. I’m just wondering if he’s gainfully employed or if he’s a full time ‘activist’ and if so where he gets the finances to travel to different parts of Britain and abroad?

    I have no idea.

    I know Anjem Choudery is funded by benefits for all his past jaunts.

  81. He was an aircraft maintenance worker I think but was sacked after he was convicted of assaulting a police officer in 2003.

  82. Interesting that he has no visible means of income yet seems to be able to travel nationally and internationally at will.

    I wonder where he gets his funding?

  83. Slight difference is that boxers are expecting the punch and have a tendency to hit back.

  84. “Well he does have Irish parents.”

    Well whatever you do don’t send that one back.

  85. Parent?

    I’m sure his fighting skills will fare him well over the next thirteen months.

  86. Slight difference is that boxers are expecting the punch and have a tendency to hit back.

    Seamus.

    If someone threatened to kill me and my family. I would have knocked him out too.

    Hopefully.

    😏

  87. I’m sure his fighting skills will fare him well over the next thirteen months.

    I’m sure he will be outnumbered.

  88. I’ve watched the video a few times Harri. The man he hit did not seem to be overly threatening, mostly talking rubbish. If that is enough to earn a punch to the jaw then Robinson is in a lot of trouble.

  89. Seamus, on May 29th, 2018 at 8:16 PM Said:

    They had been apprehended Harri and this fuckwit nearly allowed them to go free. If it was deemed that his recording of them and broadcasting could taint the evidence or the jury then the judge would have ordered them acquitted.

    It appears not to be so. The pakis accused of rape of English girls had already been found guilty so there was no way that there could have been any influence on the trial – that part was over. Moreover, it appears that ‘Robinson’ had filmed from public grounds and also confirmed with a policeman beforehand that it was permissible to do so. Millenial Woes below as of 21.17 explains:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96D4Xeg-d4&t=1s

    So Robinson’s initial filming of proceedings in a court last May deserved a serious rebuke, and he got it. The reasons why are well explained. ‘Robinson’ was clearly a bit more canny this time and he was the only ‘media’ person present to film the guilty parties because the MSM didn’t bother about it, yet do so for so many other cases.

  90. It appears not to be so. The pakis accused of rape of English girls had already been found guilty so there was no way that there could have been any influence on the trial –

    Actually, that’s a good point. I believe they are being sentenced this Friday coming.

  91. It appears that ‘Robinson’ had filmed from public grounds and also confirmed with a policeman beforehand that it was permissible to do so. Millenial Woes below as of 21.17 explains

    Yeah, that’s why he pleaded guilty to contempt of court…….revealed two days after this video ‘explained’ it.

  92. Paul McMahon, on May 29th, 2018 at 8:39 PM Said:

    Interesting that he has no visible means of income yet seems to be able to travel nationally and internationally at will.

    I wonder where he gets his funding?

    https://apfeurope.com/2016/03/the-zionist-takeover-of-european-nationalism-and-the-mohammad-cartoons-plot/

    Parts of the document are now naturally dated, but the core section about how the EDL was founded and funded by a small clique employed directly or indirectly by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Policy Studies, remains very relevant. Through Alan Lake, Chris Knowles and several others, the EDL was from the outset a wholly owned subsidiary of an extremely wealthy neo-con/Zionist nexus whose central raison d’etre is to manipulate public opinion in the West in favour of the ultra-Zionist Likud regime in Israel.

    Faced with the hard and documented facts as to how the EDL was from the very beginning conceived, created, funded, organised and directed by precisely the same neo-con/Likudnik clique that used the WMD hoax to drag Britain and America into a War for Israel against Iraq, large numbers of more switched-on patriots ditched the ‘Tommy Robinson’ show and went off to ‘do their own thing’.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/former-edl-leader-tommy-robinson-pictured-holding-gun-on-israeli-tank-near-syrian-border-a3393256.html

    Far-right activist Tommy Robinson has been pictured holding a gun atop an Israeli tank in a war-torn region of the Middle East.

    The former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) posted the photo on Wednesday from the Golan Heights, an area of Syria occupied by Israel since 1967.

  93. The jury were still out. They had not rendered their verdict yet. So even if the verdict was not tainted by the broadcast, the defendants solicitors and barristers could have presented evidence to the court suggesting that it could have been. They don’t have to prove that it was just that it could have been. And the judge likely would’ve been, in those circumstances, forced to vacate the jury’s decision and order a retrial.

  94. Yeah, that’s why he pleaded guilty to contempt of court…….revealed two days after this video ‘explained’ it.

    But how so, given that he’d checked with a policeman outside the grounds of the Court that it was OK to film? Then suddenly a group of policemen grab ‘Robinson’ for breach of the peace.

    And, if the verdict had already been reached, how could there have been any influence on the jury?

  95. Allan@

    I was joking about the Jews..

    But I should have known better..😏

    Anjem Choudery is definitely not sponsored by the Jews, us, the taxpayers are doing that.

    I think he’s had a “bad back” for over twenty years?.

  96. Anti Islam activist Tommy Robinson funded by (((them))) (Harri was correct).

    Looks like they don’t want to flood Europe with Muslims after all.

  97. Now I hear that during the arrest, ‘Robinson’ shouts on one of his colleagues to get his lawyer. The lawyer contacts the police and is told that ‘Robinson’ shall be released, so the lawyer makes no effort to go to Leeds. But Robinson is detained and given a court-appointed lawyer, and the whole process is speedily concluded. One must wonder as to what ‘advice’ Robinson was given by the court-appointed lawyer.

    I can see exactly how and why ‘Robinson’ was given the initial suspended sentence, but this one looks very dodgy. I’m not bothered about the zio-placeman specifically but the repercussions as to how he was jailed are frightening for patriots – there are so many muslims in jail who would kill Robinson and he stated this to the judge. The judge’s reply was – “you knew what you were getting into”.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html

  98. It is worth pointing out that yes Robinson knew the risks he was taking with his life and wellbeing if he broke the law. However the prison service have a duty of care to ensure that he is not harmed while in prison.

  99. Harri,

    I think it’s safe to assume Tommy Robinson’s chances of survival in prison, is pretty slim.

    Supposedly, is in an isolated part of the jail at the moment.
    I don’t think he’ll be killed in jail. I don’t think the government would want to risk making a martyr of him. I think you’re probably be released in 6 months, possibly less.

  100. Harri, on May 29th, 2018 at 9:14 PM Said:

    Allan@

    I was joking about the Jews..

    harri – they fund both sides because they want to foment trouble. Muslims are brought in and the (((opposition))) are set up to be under their control. Any (((opposition))) that doesn’t name them is owned by them.

    An example on a larger scale is how Israel supported both Iraq and Iran during their conflict – it’s just what they do

  101. I think you’re probably be released in 6 months, possibly less.

    If he keeps his nose clean I would agree Dave.

    A@A

    Are there any other examples of the judicial system being so efficient?

    Yes

    Bottom line – did ‘Robinson’ have legal representation at his trial and sentencing?

    Yes

    A@A ‘Shit, I better find some other angle for an internet rumour’

    Have to say, now that Robinson seems to have outlived his usefullness it’s amusing to see him being thrown under the (((bus)))

  102. Have to say, now that Robinson seems to have outlived his usefullness it’s amusing to see him being thrown under the (((bus)))

    Oh, I doubt Tommy Robinson will give up Paul.

    Even if he serves the full 13 months, rest assured, the mass rape of white children by paki rape gangs will still be escalating.

    I can’t see TR sweeping it all under the carpet.

  103. Have to say, now that Robinson seems to have outlived his usefullness it’s amusing to see him being thrown under the (((bus)))

    Oh, I doubt Tommy Robinson will give up Paul.

    Even if he serves the full 13 months, rest assured, the mass rape of white children by paki rape gangs will still be escalating.

    I can’t see TR sweeping it all under the carpet.

  104. When you see Tommy Robinson with Israeli soldiers on a tank in the Golan Heights, it’s hard to know who is damaging whose image.

  105. So what is it H?

    Are (((they))) funding anti Muslim activism or do they want to fill Europe with Muslims?

  106. Bottom line – did ‘Robinson’ have legal representation at his trial and sentencing?

    yes – court-appointed solictor who told him to plead guilty to something which he was told by a policeman a couple of hours previously was OK. His own lawyer didn’t show because she was told by police that Robinson was to be released – police lied

    Paul McMahon, on May 29th, 2018 at 8:39 PM Said:

    I wonder where he gets his funding?

    As we see, Robinson was a zionist asset and was funded accordingly.

  107. Due process, schmoo process. He’s not popular, so let him rot. Right lads?

    shockingly dishonest phantom
    anyone who is on a suspended sentence and admits to another , as TR did in the case, its automatic that you serve the punishment for the 1st sentence and the 2nd.
    The Judge has no leeway, discretion whatsoever.

  108. Yes – court-appointed solictor who told him to plead guilty to something which he was told by a policeman a couple of hours previously was OK. His own lawyer didn’t show because she was told by police that Robinson was to be released – police lied

    There it is. Watch the legend grow.

    Do you think his own brief will use the alleged permission to film as evidence in order to get the conviction quashed and get Robinson a nice tidy wedge of tax payer’s dosh into the bargain for wrongful arrest?

  109. Are (((they))) funding anti Muslim activism or do they want to fill Europe with Muslims?

    There’s no ‘or’: it’s both. The EDL is jewish-funded as is the muslim/black invasion of Europe

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/when-israeli-volunteers-help-syrian-iraqi-and-pakistani-refugees/

    The American Jewish Committee said it was increasing funding to IsraAID, which is also supported by other American Jewish groups and the Israeli government.

    “During this holiest period of the Jewish year, we are proud to assist … in offering vital help to Syrians who fled the horrific war in their homeland and seek a new start,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris.

    For Shaltiel, the sight of tens of thousands of refugees walking across Europe was especially poignant.

    “When we say ‘Never again,’ it is also an obligation to do something,” she said. “Apparently I can’t stop the war in Syria, but I can do something.”

  110. There it is. Watch the legend grow.

    For the purposes of this discussion, Paul shall oppose the notion that police lie. Amazing mind-gymnastics from an Irish ‘nationalist’ 🙂

  111. If the Police lie it would result in an abuse of process. So if the police really did tell Robinson’s solicitor that he would be released, and because of that she did not travel to represent him, then that would be an abuse of process and the judge would be forced to vacate the decision and the sentence.

    So if it is true I’d imagine Tommy Robinson to be released within days.

  112. I find the claim he was unrepresented or his lawyer didn’t show based on a police representation far fetched.

  113. Oh I know the police lie. What I’m asking is will Robinson’s lawyer use the alleged permission to film as evidence in order to get the conviction quashed and get a nice tidy sum of taxpayer’s dosh as well?

    I’m an Irish Republican as I keep having to remind you.

    What evidence exists of the cop telling Robbo it was okay to film and telling his brief he’d be released?

  114. oh man he pled guilty in court to contempt today, that was added to the first sentence that he was handed last year – a suspended sentence, and its automatic both ran concurrent.
    Its really simple – but not for those who don’t want to see .

  115. Do you think his own brief will use the alleged permission to film……

    Here is the film and Paul makes an appearance at 2.25

    I asked a question about whether Robinson had his own legal representation because, until a few hours ago, the difficulties that a zionist gets himself into were not uppermost in my mind. Paul offered up a link to answer that question which prima facie should have closed the matter, as I believed. It turns out that the BBC lied by omission: police lied to divert Robinson’s own lawyer and he was given a court-appointed lawyer who certainly told him to plead guilty to contempt of court by filming in public grounds outside the court. At 5.42, Robinson confirms with a policeman the limits of where he can film.

    The free internet reporters in the US are providing information on this case which is now overwhelming the stack of lies created in the UK.

    Here’s Stefan Molyneaux, a Canadian alt-lite, but nazi in the UK:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=irhQtamQ6Mo

  116. Allan, what’s the evidence to suggest that the rozzers told Robinson he could film? The copper gives no such permission.

    How do you know that Robinson’s defense lawyer told him to plead guilty?

    What’s the evidence that the cops told Robinson’s lawyer he’d be released?

    Are you making these up?

  117. //Are these the D notices under discussion?

    This ( UK government? ) site claims that adherence to it is voluntary?

    Dave Alton, on May 29th, 2018 at 1:06 AM Said:

    They look like the same thing, but as far as I’m aware adherence to them is not voluntary. //

    It turns out Dave was right after all. According to the BBC, the ban on reporting is imposed by the court. In this case, the judge in the court that returned TR to prison imposed the ban because reporting the TM arrest and subsequent court case could, the judge said, possibly prejudice the jury in the case TM was filming.

    The ban was overturned in this case when the media (the normal media, not “Drudge”)complained.

  118. Allan, what’s the evidence to suggest that the rozzers told Robinson he could film? The copper gives no such permission.

    OK – I’ll give a short transcript:

    TR – Officer, are these stairs….I’m not allowed to go on these stairs whilst recording?

    Police Officer – (faint) property of the court

    TR – This isn’t the property of the court though? (indicating public thoroughfare) OK – I’ll stay off then, cool.

    The location from which Robinson was filming is agreed as being not court property.

    How do you know that Robinson’s defense lawyer told him to plead guilty?

    I don’t know as I wasn’t there – but Robinson pleaded guilty even though he agreed with a police officer the limits of location of filming. His own lawyer wasn’t there, and one would expect TR to have his own lawyer, yes?

    What’s the evidence that the cops told Robinson’s lawyer he’d be released?

    At 42.05 in the Millenial Woes summary of the case……

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96D4Xeg-d4&t=1s

  119. The cop didn’t give Robinson permission to film anywhere.

    You are doing what you normally do and zeroing in on one minute detail in order to advance the legend. This is somewhat academic as Robinson was jailed for ‘filming himself and people involved in the trial’

    I don’t know as I wasn’t there

    Then why did you say ‘court-appointed solictor who told him to plead guilty?’

    I suspect you’re making that up.

    At 42.05 in the Millenial Woes summary of the case……

    Some bloke on the internet says that ‘from what he can gather’ ‘apparently’ etc etc.

    That’s your evidence?

    I’m sure Robinson will be home tomorrow with that compelling stuff.

    You’re an eegit although I’m a bigger eegit for indulging such a warped mind.

  120. Paul – I don’t need permission to film anywhere that is a public thoroughfare. The police officer agreed that Robinson was filming from a location which is not court property, and that’s in keeping with restrictions.

    Robinson pleaded guilty for something which he obviously didn’t do, so it’s reasonable to believe that the court-appointed solicitor ‘advised’ him to do so. For some reason, Robinson’s own solicitor was unavailable – and it appears that it was because of police mendacity. We’ll see what more comes out of it but it’s very strange Robinson not having his own solicitor present then he pleads guilty for something which he took measures to avoid.

  121. You can’t film and then broadcast those involved in a trial when there are restrictions imposed – that’s what Robinson did.

    – The cop told Robinson that the steps were court property – nothing more.

    – Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court:

    1 The strict liability rule.
    In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
    2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.
    (1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

    He was clearly guilty of the above and that’s why he pleaded guilty.

    Robinson’s own solicitor wasn’t present so some bloke on the internet thinks that ‘from what he can make out’ it was ‘apparently’ because of some nefarious plot or something.

    I donn’t know why I waste my time trying to talk reason or logic to you as you are impervious to such things. Much like Richard Spencer being gubbed by someone who ‘had a spanner up his sleeve’ you are making this entire scenario up in your head.

    Good luck presenting your ‘evidence’, I’m sure Robinson will be freed in a matter of hours on the strength of it.

    FREE TOM ROBINSON – 2,4,6,8 IT’S NEVER TOO LATE.

  122. Pointing out that a conspiracy nutcase just made something up is pointless in discussions with said nutcase, they will continue to do so.

  123. what dya make of what the judge said mahons:

    “The judge who sentenced Robinson told him his actions may cost taxpayers “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”.” and how that reflects on the idiots on this site who have been swooning over him for the last few days ?

  124. For me the most unforgivable thing about the media blackout, was that I was forced to watch InfoWars for the first time, to try and find out what was going on.
    Alex Jones is a f****** nutcase. Do his supporters not realise that he lies constantly.

  125. Just on the reporting restrictions on the case as opposed to the arrest:

    Judge Geoffrey Marson QC initially imposed restrictions for fear that reporting his arrest would prejudice an ongoing trial.

    I think that’s fair enough.

    You poor bastard Dave

    Do his supporters not realise that he lies constantly.

    In post fact Trumplandia truth and reality mean nothing. Likewise with on or two of this parish.

    His actions may cost taxpayers “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”.

    That’s what Pete Moore was defending Jude.

  126. Alex Jones is the most interesting character.

    I again state that he is much, much smarter than the likes of Limbaugh Levin and Hannity. Not even close.

    And he will speak truth to power at times. I give him that.

    But yes he lies constantly. You get the one true comment, followed by the ten lies, and it is hard to keep up with them.

    I think that he is a very strong influence on Trump. Trump was always a liar, but he’s become an even bigger liar in recent years, as coached by the master liar. They correspond. They have mutual friends and allies( Roger Stone, Michael Savage )

    We live in interesting times.

  127. Your thoughts on the Robinson arrest / case Phantom now that the details are in the public domain?

  128. I think that there never should have been a gag order.

    And are all the relevant facts clear about the arrest?

  129. I think that there never should have been a gag order.

    But there was and the reasons for it were explained. You don’t have to agree with it.

    And are all the relevant facts clear about the arrest?

    Robinson, from Bedfordshire, pleaded guilty to a charge of contempt of court.

    In footage which was played to the court on Friday, Robinson was seen filming himself and people involved in the trial.

    The court heard how the footage, which supposedly lasted around an hour, had been watched 250,000 times within hours of being posted online via Facebook.

    A judge told him his actions could cause the ongoing trial to be re-run, costing “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”.

    What other relevant facts would you like?

  130. Phantom,

    I think that there never should have been a gag order.

    I agree. I haven’t changed my mind on this one either.
    The three points I origionaly raised were:
    Why was there a gag order on this trial?
    Why was there a gag order on the arrest of Tommy Robinson?
    How could Tommy Robinson be sentenced and imprisoned so swiftly without trial?
    Out of these three, the only one I’ve changed my mind on is the third. Tommy broke the conditions of a suspended sentence and pleaded guilty, so yes, he could be processed this swiftly. Although rapid sentencing like this is definitely the exception and not the rule.
    The gagging order on the original trial and Tommy Robinson’s arrest I still think are wrong though. If claiming that reporting on this trial could Prejudice it, then in all fairness, you’d have to apply That Rule to reporting on almost every other trial in the UK. And the gagging order on reporting on Tommy Robinsons arrest was pathetic. Authough that one has really backfired in their faces.

  131. Dave speaks for me pretty much

    And no one I believe is saying that what Robinson did the other day was particularly clever.

  132. I agree Phantom. I’m not defending Robinson here.
    This isn’t about him, this is about the free speech restrictions imposed around this trial and Robinson’s subsequent arrest.

  133. Out of these three, the only one I’ve changed my mind on is the third. Tommy broke the conditions of a suspended sentence and pleaded guilty, so yes, he could be processed this swiftly. Although rapid sentencing like this is definitely the exception and not the rule

    Good. I’m glad we can all agree that Robinson was arrested for contempt as per the strict liability rule and not as some freedom of speech martyr as some are trying to portray.

    Rearding your second point Dave, in my experience breaching a suspended sentence is generally swift conviction as it’s a summary offence and can be heard in a Magstrate’s Court without a jury etc. I gave an example above where a guy in Derry was given a suspended sentence one day and jailed the next for breach. Here’s another when two brothers were given a suspended sentence and jailed within the hour:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3465673/Brothers-jailed-judge-mocked-Facebook-suspended-sentences.html

    I honestly don’t know why there was a report restriction on the trial. I’ve given a speculative guess as to why but honestly don’t know. It should also be pointed out for clarity that once the trial verdict has been returned restrictions are lifted and reporters are free to report on the conviction.

    As to the restrictions surrounding Robinson’s court appearance, the arrest itself was widely reported, the judge gave the decision that he didn’t want Robinson’s arrest to taint the ongoing original trial:

    A judge told him his actions could cause the ongoing trial to be re-run, costing “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”.

    Seamus succintly explains it above:

    Seamus, on May 29th, 2018 at 9:07 PM Said:
    The jury were still out. They had not rendered their verdict yet. So even if the verdict was not tainted by the broadcast, the defendants solicitors and barristers could have presented evidence to the court suggesting that it could have been. They don’t have to prove that it was just that it could have been. And the judge likely would’ve been, in those circumstances, forced to vacate the jury’s decision and order a retrial.

    Any good brief worth their salt would have immediately been screaming the house down for a mistrial – I know I would have.

    And no one I believe is saying that what Robinson did the other day was particularly clever.

    Is that a strawman Phantom? I don’t believe anyone has made that accusation.

    Robinson got his suspended sentence activated and a further ten months for a second count of contempt. Not only was it not ‘particularly clever’ it was pretty bloody dumb and even more so for someone with such an intimate knowledge of the court and prison system.

  134. Well, apart from one…

    jude, on May 30th, 2018 at 12:48 PM Said:
    what dya make of what the judge said mahons:

    “The judge who sentenced Robinson told him his actions may cost taxpayers “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”.” and how that reflects on the idiots on this site who have been swooning over him for the last few days ?

    So pleasant.

    😏

  135. Harri, on May 30th, 2018 at 6:44 PM Said:
    Well, apart from one…

    jude, on May 30th, 2018 at 12:48 PM Said:
    what dya make of what the judge said mahons:

    “The judge who sentenced Robinson told him his actions may cost taxpayers “hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds”.” and how that reflects on the idiots on this site who have been swooning over him for the last few days ?

    So pleasant.

    😏

  136. Jude – I think a mistrial if caused by Robinson would be one of the reasons people should question his antics.

  137. ……and how that reflects on the idiots on this site who have been swooning over him for the last few days ?

    Nobody’s swooning over ‘Robinson’ especially given who funds his activities – only special people are allowed on Israeli tanks in the Golan Heights. There is something just not right about him and something just not right about the manner of his conviction.

  138. well I’m sorry Harri but the posts have been so idiotic, and suprising at that as most people here are savvy enough to know better, but there was a deliberate troll-fest of hysteria going on that was completely stupid. your hero may well have caused a mistrial, certainly the lawyers for the rapists suspect will argue that vociferously and probably win their case !
    Utter madness the blindness of some, will people ever stop to think , makes me angry, and idiots is me holding back bye the way ..

  139. Maajid Nawaz sums up my views on Tommy Robinson, and the sexual abuse of vulnerable girls perfectly in this video.

  140. Dave, it was absolutely wrong for grooming gangs to be ignored and those who done it through wilful intent rather than incompetence should be absolutely held to account.

    Now that the mythical hype of Robinson being arrested for being some kind of free speech warrior has been shown to be the misrepresentative canard it was we have the space to discuss the wider issue.

  141. I agree with you Paul.
    As i believe I said in previous post, Tommy Robinson, broke the conditions of a suspended sentence and was sentenced and imprisoned accordingly.
    However, I still stand by everything I’ve said previously. They’re should not have been reporting restrictions on these trials.

  142. They’re should not have been reporting restrictions on these trials.

    We’ll have to disagree on this mate. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences.

  143. Paul McMahon,

    We’ll have to disagree on this mate. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences.

    I agree Paul and I never said it did.
    My point here, is that the government seems more likly to use reporting restrictions on Trials that could cause them and/or the police embarrassment or show incompetence. Such as the reporting restrictions on the Grenfell Tower tragedy.
    It seems to me that there’s a massive double standard when it comes to these restrictions. High profile trials such as those of people in the media, who would suffer most from biased reporting, hardly ever have reporting restrictions.
    For example, Rolf Harris was almost tried and found guilty in the media, but the were no reporting restrictions in place for his trial. Obviously despite what you say Paul, his barrister was crap and didn’t get the case thrown out of Court. And let’s not forget the police actually informed the BBC about the raid on Cliff Richards house. How could that not Prejudice his trial?
    If you disagree with me that’s fair enough, but I know these reporting restrictions are being misused by the courts and the British people need to wake up to this fact.

  144. Reporting restrictions exist for a reasons that I can understand and in some cases agree with Dave.

    That doesn’t mean that like most judicial instruments they can’t be misued or applied equally.

Comments are closed.