McRamFan Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 12 hours ago, G STAR RAM said: The right of fair trial? The trial had finished and was at sentencing stage. I will challenge you again and ask what he reported that was not already in the public domain? No it had not. Go read the article. You are really looking out of touch with the the actual facts. There was three trails, all interlinked and all had a media blackout, until the conclusion of the third trial. No information was 'out there' no names of either the victims or the people on trial, not even the actual charges. This is what stephen actually said. “This is part two of the trial … the jury are making their verdicts now,” Robinson correctly stated shortly before his arrest on 25 May 2018. “I won’t be able to share [the full video] with you until the reporting restrictions are lifted, and I don’t think that will be for possibly another six months.” Verdict stage, that can take days - not sentencing. Or are you calling stephen a liar. He knew he was breaking the law, he pleaded guilty, he is in jail. His get rich scheme is running out of steam, he may have made the money, however his dream of living in North America is quickly fading. In summary get your facts right, and stop guessing/making poo up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 10 minutes ago, McRamFan said: No it had not. Go read the article. You are really looking out of touch with the the actual facts. There was three trails, all interlinked and all had a media blackout, until the conclusion of the third trial. No information was 'out there' no names of either the victims or the people on trial, not even the actual charges. Quick search on google returned this from 2017; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405262/27-men-2-women-court-child-sex-neglect-case.html all the names and charges. It was also stated by the Judge (and the Judge in a previous trial) that Tommy Robinson did nothing to cause the case to collapse - hence the new charge they convicted with. He also never pleaded guilty, this was made up by the media following his 10 minute trial (that subsequently got quashed for being illegal) in which he wasn't given the opportunity to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SSD Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 I've wrote a post on Tommy Robinson in the past. His views are based from his childhood experiences, Muslim gangs attacking members of his family and friends. A major cultural change to a town in a very short space of time. I sympathise for his upbringing. Do I agree with the way he expresses his points of view? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 14 minutes ago, maxjam said: Quick search on google returned this from 2017; That is the arrests and before the Crown Court case started. Specifics of the trail where blocked from the media. They may have had the names and charges, however they did not know what was going to be disclosed, what charges would 'stick', who would plead guilty or not guilty, who would 'grass up', how the three trials where interlinked, who, if any, where involved in more than one trial. That is just from the side of the accused. What about the protection of the victims? Getting board of stepen fan boi's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 JRM showing what a clown he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, McRamFan said: That is the arrests and before the Crown Court case started. Specifics of the trail where blocked from the media. They may have had the names and charges, however they did not know what was going to be disclosed, what charges would 'stick', who would plead guilty or not guilty, who would 'grass up', how the three trials where interlinked, who, if any, where involved in more than one trial. That is just from the side of the accused. What about the protection of the victims? Getting board of stepen fan boi's. The point is you said; 1 hour ago, McRamFan said: No information was 'out there' no names of either the victims or the people on trial, not even the actual charges. - when clearly their was. Tommy Robinson's defence was that he only ever revealed information that was already in the public domain. Two judges in separate cases said that his antics were never likely to cause the case to collapse which was why the prosecution added 'causing anxiety to people arriving at court' by asking them 'how they were feeling about their verdict today?' - something they could actually get him on. The Judge also added that they weren't sure as to how much further he would have gone if he hadn't have been detained and wanted to make an example of him to prevent other citizen journalists in the future. So we're heading into Minority Report levels of department of pre-crime for any film buffs out there! I've watched the livestream of the event and don't recall him ever mentioning anything about victims and I'm pretty sure he didn't film anyone's face (although I might just be thinking of wives and friends accompanying the accused) I don't doubt that what he did was foolish and he put himself in the position of being at risk of being jailed but the charges they actually nailed him for were imo very weak and the media has distorted facts/outright lied throughout the whole saga. If it wasn't Tommy Robinson it would have just been a rap on the knuckles - they guy from the Sikh Awareness Society for example was doing more-or-less exactly the same thing (reporting from outside court during the trial) but their was no clamour for his arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, maxjam said: - when clearly their was. The actual court case was sealed, suspect names where out there, yes, who was actually standing trial was not. Regardless stephen broke the law. So you missed stephen telling people to follow them, knock on their doors? 1 hour ago, maxjam said: I've watched the livestream of the event and don't recall him ever mentioning anything about victims and I'm pretty sure he didn't film anyone's face (although I might just be thinking of wives and friends accompanying the accused) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 2 hours ago, rynny said: JRM showing what a clown he is. Being as Europe don't really play cricket, we went to 1 European, 1 Caribbean and 2 southern hemisphere countries for help... Morgan - Dublin Stokes - NZ Archer - Barbados Roy - SA Curran - SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Okay so we've gone from 'no information was out there' 3 hours ago, McRamFan said: No information was 'out there' no names of either the victims or the people on trial, not even the actual charges. to 'suspect names were out there' 12 minutes ago, McRamFan said: The actual court case was sealed, suspect names where out there, yes, who was actually standing trial was not. Regardless stephen broke the law. now you just have to take the next step and admit that what they were charged with was also readily available (as per the link I posted) then we'll be in agreement on what was public domain information ? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405262/27-men-2-women-court-child-sex-neglect-case.html 18 minutes ago, McRamFan said: So you missed stephen telling people to follow them, knock on their doors? Nope, don't recall that - not saying it didn't happen, it may well have done but I'd like to see it again for myself in context. Hardly worthy of a 9 month jail sentence though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 13 minutes ago, maxjam said: Okay so we've gone from 'no information was out there' to 'suspect names were out there' now you just have to take the next step and admit that what they were charged with was also readily available (as per the link I posted) then we'll be in agreement on what was public domain information ? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4405262/27-men-2-women-court-child-sex-neglect-case.html Nope, don't recall that - not saying it didn't happen, it may well have done but I'd like to see it again for myself in context. Hardly worthy of a 9 month jail sentence though is it? Hmm, so why is stephen in jail? Convenient that https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-reckless-video-grooming-trial-huddersfield-old-bailey-a8988721.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 38 minutes ago, McRamFan said: Hmm, so why is stephen in jail? Convenient that https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-reckless-video-grooming-trial-huddersfield-old-bailey-a8988721.html Not sure what that video was supposed to show me tbh? As for why he is prison the judge found that Tommy Robinson committed a contempt of court in 3 respects; 1. Breaching reporting restriction 2. Live-streaming video outside the court 3. Aggressively confronting and filming defendants However the judge also acknowledged that Tommy Robinson 'was not trying intentionally to interfere; and she notes the trial was not in fact disrupted'. From a lot of peoples perspective regarding the above points; #1 he reported only public domain information #2 stupid, but he wasn't on court property and as was admitted in court, staff had failed to put up reporting restriction notices in 4 different places. #3 A new charge bought in at the 11th hour to ensure conviction imo - basically jailed for asking paedophiles 'how they were feeling about their verdict'. Furthermore the Judge also said that she wanted to make an example out of Tommy. (Which was also what Attorney General said -- he asked the court to punish citizen journalists.) IMHO Tommy Robinson put himself in a situation whereby he could end up in prison and has been jailed for who he is and what he stands for rather than what he actually did. As I mentioned previously, other people were doing the same thing and faced no consequences. What really winds me up however is the fact that the so called mainstream media abuse their position, outright lie and push a narrative to further their agenda, whilst putting 'why you can trust us' links at the bottom of every article. For example, Tommy Robinson did not plead guilty to contempt of court yet every outlet reported that he had. There was also the classic 'I don't care if I incite violence' headline that he literally never said. If you only ever get your news and opinion from The Independent or The Guardian etc you are regularly being misled and spoon fed their agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 2 hours ago, maxjam said: If it wasn't Tommy Robinson it would have just been a rap on the knuckles Probably the fact he was still under a suspended sentence for the same offence didn't help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said: Probably the fact he was still under a suspended sentence for the same offence didn't help either. Well there is no denying that despite 'legal training' he was stupid to put himself in a position whereby he could get himself arrested again. Given who he is, his history and his following he has to appear to be whiter than white (no pun intended) otherwise its just another excuse to lock him up again - not sure thats sunk in yet lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtoileSportiveDeDerby Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 6 hours ago, rynny said: JRM showing what a clown he is. Yep, to 99.99% of Europeans cricket is a type of grasshopper and JRM is a type of scary clown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 18 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said: Yep, to 99.99% of Europeans cricket is a type of grasshopper and JRM is a type of scary clown Four immigrants and the son of an immigrant in the starting XI. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 12 hours ago, McRamFan said: No it had not. Go read the article. You are really looking out of touch with the the actual facts. Oh the irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 Some really lame attempts at disinformation regarding Yaxley-Lennon's contempt of court charges, so let's examine a few facts, shall we? At the time of his livestream, Yaxley-Lennon was already under a suspended sentence for a contempt charge relating to a rape trial in Canterbury. He has freely admitted that he knew reporting bans were in place at the time of his livestream and repeats this in the livestrream itself Yaxley-Lennon confronted several defendants entering court and filmed them in direct contravention of the ban he knew to be in place - sentencing had not taken place and in so much this was another clear breach of the Contempt of Court Act and the specific reporting restrictions put in place for the three trials in question Yaxley-Lennon also incited viewers to harass the defendants: “Harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing” All this prior to guilty verdicts being handed down and again in breach of reporting and contempt of court rulings for any case, not just the cases in question On the basis of the above and the many inconsistencies contained in the evidence provided by Yaxley-Lennon during his trial, the judges quite rightly handed down a guilty verdict concluding that, “The rule of law demands that those who act in such a way as to subvert due process should be held to account, whether or not they actually threaten the fairness of the end result,” Given the above facts and the fact that Yaxley-Lennon was already carrying a suspended sentence for the same offence, a custodial sentence was not only fair and appropriate, but also inevitable. Given the maximum sentence is 2 years for this offence, I'd venture that Yaxley-Lennon was rather lucky to escape with a sentence that means that in all likelihood, he will only serve around 9 weeks. By all means witter on about state controlled media and infer that those who agree with the sentence are too simple to understand the case or are being wilfully hoodwinked by a media intent on precipitating Yaxley-Lennon's downfall, but please do not bandy about crass comments about the irony of this stance when the real irony in play here is that which surrounds the defendants right to appeal as a direct result of Yaxley-Lennon's actions, appeals which may well result in some or all of the scumbags jailed walking free. If they do, I think the rest of us will know exactly who we should be looking at should even one more child fall prey to these animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: Some really lame attempts at disinformation regarding Yaxley-Lennon's contempt of court charges, so let's examine a few facts, shall we? At the time of his livestream, Yaxley-Lennon was already under a suspended sentence for a contempt charge relating to a rape trial in Canterbury. He has freely admitted that he knew reporting bans were in place at the time of his livestream and repeats this in the livestrream itself Yaxley-Lennon confronted several defendants entering court and filmed them in direct contravention of the ban he knew to be in place - sentencing had not taken place and in so much this was another clear breach of the Contempt of Court Act and the specific reporting restrictions put in place for the three trials in question Yaxley-Lennon also incited viewers to harass the defendants: “Harass him, find him, go knock on his door, follow him, see where he works, see what he’s doing” All this prior to guilty verdicts being handed down and again in breach of reporting and contempt of court rulings for any case, not just the cases in question On the basis of the above and the many inconsistencies contained in the evidence provided by Yaxley-Lennon during his trial, the judges quite rightly handed down a guilty verdict concluding that, “The rule of law demands that those who act in such a way as to subvert due process should be held to account, whether or not they actually threaten the fairness of the end result,” Given the above facts and the fact that Yaxley-Lennon was already carrying a suspended sentence for the same offence, a custodial sentence was not only fair and appropriate, but also inevitable. Given the maximum sentence is 2 years for this offence, I'd venture that Yaxley-Lennon was rather lucky to escape with a sentence that means that in all likelihood, he will only serve around 9 weeks. By all means witter on about state controlled media and infer that those who agree with the sentence are too simple to understand the case or are being wilfully hoodwinked by a media intent on precipitating Yaxley-Lennon's downfall, but please do not bandy about crass comments about the irony of this stance when the real irony in play here is that which surrounds the defendants right to appeal as a direct result of Yaxley-Lennon's actions, appeals which may well result in some or all of the scumbags jailed walking free. If they do, I think the rest of us will know exactly who we should be looking at should even one more child fall prey to these animals. <TR fanboi logic> Ah, so it was 'attempted contempt'. Do they give Nobel Prizes for 'attempted chemistry?' </TR fanboi logic> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said: whether or not they actually threaten the fairness of the end result,” This is the main point being missed by those who think "but the trial wasn't even affected by his actions" is some sort of argument. Contempt of court is the offence regardless of whether it has a material effect AND regardless of whether you are aware that you are doing it! Like driving 70mph in a 40mph zone - doesn't matter if you didn't injure anyone, or that you didn't see the speed limit signs. The offence is what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade 86 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, eddie said: <TR fanboi logic> Ah, so it was 'attempted contempt'. Do they give Nobel Prizes for 'attempted chemistry?' </TR fanboi logic> Tommeh's quite big on attempting chemistry by all accounts. Some very well funded research too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.