Tommy Robinson

[CosbehFox]

9 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah exactly. The law is slightly different for reporting pre-trial hearings though, if that's what you're referring to? There's nothing potentially prejudicial in reporting those details before a trial begins, which is why papers were allowed to do it.

The article I saw refer to exactly what you mean VB. It's simply a set of facts about the trial - quite structured. Nonetheless it's coverage and the limit of what can be reported. 

 

https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/trial-dates-set-29-people-13022848

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39580591

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3319712/27-men-and-two-women-appear-in-court-charged-with-horrific-crimes-against-18-children-including-rape-trafficking-and-neglect/

 

I don't think you get much more 'MSM' than BBC and The Sun. 

 

Another huge part what's missed on media coverage of court cases is how the victims loses their anonymity. 

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Never a truer word said.

 

The left's intolerance to alternate opinions has a lot to answer for in terms of the world we find ourselves living in. 

 

Just look at what happened during a minute's silence for Tessa Jowell in Hampstead and Kilburn the other day. Some of the ultra left are just as insane as the far right.

 

2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Very well said - also like or not, it seems very 'stereotype' but there is a working class, white population in this country what feel left behind. Is that the failure of the country or those people to 'evolve' ? Let's have a proper debate with intelligence than batting it down. 

The political class quite simply don't care what the public has to say. Especially the native, white working class. When 4 million people vote for UKIP in 2015 and get zero representation in parliament, that's derided and ignored. And then a year later, Brexit happens and everyone's shocked as if it came from nowhere. And of course, they're all racists. (I voted remain BTW). Publics across Europe consistently tell their governments to slow down or stop mass immigration and it is overwhelmingly ignored.

 

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

I've seen a video of his EDL days, where someone came on stage with him at a rally and said "send the black ***** home" to a massive cheer from seemingly everyone there. I've been unwittingly caught up in a march and from first hand experience it's not lazy to say his movement was filled with racists... they were and little was done to discourage them.

 

He's a fairly smart bloke and he's smart enough to position himself in a way as to not be seen as racist. But you only have to stray into facebook conversations, comments sections or actual events to see that much of the crowd he's playing to absolutely are.

 

Sure, there is a discussion that can be had about about a lot of what he says, there is a grain of truth in there which might have been a worth while discussion, before he used it to fan the flames of the baying mob that often follow him. A group that don't stop at just questioning Islam, they take it a step further, for which people need to accept he has to share some culpability.

Of course a movement like that is going to attract the knuckle dragging racist idiots. Again though, it's a response to the authorities ignoring the problem. When the politicians say after every terrorist attack that it's got absolutely nothing to do with Islam, you're going to create a movement that says it's got everything to do with it. They need to be challenged, and the way to do that is not by silencing them, which does the opposite. Best example I can give is where the BBC had Nick Griffin on Question Time. Worst thing that could have happened to him and his party was having his views challenged in public.

Edited 29 May 2018 by urban.spaceman

[Lionator]

He's a moron, I remember recently seeing a video of his where he chased and harassed a Muslim kid going to work in Luton until the kid flipped and then he used that as a reason why Muslims don't integrate. His supporters complain about Muslims not respecting British law and then throw a hissyfit about British law when their dear leader gets himself put in the slammer for contempt of court on three occasions. He promotes the idea that if you disagree with him, you're somehow a grooming gang/ISIS sympathiser despite the two being mutually exclusive. He can rot for all I care, absolute scumbag.   

[yorkie1999]

Jailing him for breaking the law, fair enough, but a gagging order on the british press is bad.

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, yorkie1999 said:

Jailing him for breaking the law, fair enough, but a gagging order on the british press is bad.

even if it's to protect young child victims in the case...?

[stripeyfox]

2 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Jailing him for breaking the law, fair enough, but a gagging order on the british press is bad.

there is no "gagging order". the trial that he was trying to disrupt is subject to reporting restrictions (to protect the victims). So his arrest, being connected with said trial, also cannot be reported (I think)

 

[woznotwos]

6 hours ago, lifted*fox said:

the guy is a ****ing moron. 

 

you'd like to think there's a good chance of him getting shanked inside but probably surrounded by screws / in isolation 24/7. 

Surrounded by screws ? you'd be lucky . The whole prison estate is desperate for staff.  Isolation though maybe . I wouldn't come out my cell if i was him , so maybe self isolation.

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, m4DD0gg said:

Nonsense the mainstream media report on court cases all the time. 

 

Robinsons very point was that in the case there was nothing. 

 

He fkd up and is now paying the penalty. 

 

I see you've edited this post now, but you're still wrong. If you have to read this response 100 times before you understand it then I recommend you do.

 

- The mainstream media report on court cases all the time, you're right on that. Often while the trial is ongoing.

- They are free to do this unless reporting restrictions are put in place by the judge. Reporting restrictions can be put in place for a variety of reasons (protection of children, keeping sex offence victims anonymous, age of defendant etc)

- In this case, the judge has decided to impose such restrictions. This is most likely to help prevent the victims from being identified, because this is a complex case involving multiple defendants and journalists could run the risk of identifying the victims through the way they report the ongoing evidence - this is known as "jigsaw identification", and journalists could be fined or even jailed if they breach this.

- Once the verdicts are returned, or possibly beforehand if the judge believes it is safe to do so, an agreement on what can be reported will be made allowing the case to be reported safely and relevant details being put into the public domain without the victims being put at risk.

- This is not unusual practice at all in cases involving sex offences, and especially in cases involving children. It's how media companies have covered similar cases in recent years. There is no fvcking conspiracy.

- Most importantly, the fact that nothing has been reported from proceedings YET (remember that word from my earlier post?) has absolutely bollock-all to do with a narcissistic, self-important, far-right tosser who thinks he's above the law and hasn't the first fvcking clue about the potential consequences his actions could have.

[stripeyfox]

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

 

Ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson jailed at Leeds court

• 1 hour ago

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

 

 

Media captionTommy Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court

Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson has been jailed for potentially prejudicing a court case, it can be reported.

Robinson, who appeared in the dock under real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was arrested in Leeds on Friday.

The 35-year-old was broadcasting on social media outside the city's crown court where a trial was ongoing.

A ban on reporting his 13-month sentence at the same court was lifted after being challenged by the media.

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

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

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionTommy Robinson founded the EDL in 2009 but quit the group in 2013

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.

During Friday's hearing, Matthew Harding, defending, claimed that his client had "deep regret" for what he had done.

"He was mindful, having spoken to others and taken advice, not to say things that he thought would actually prejudice these proceedings," Mr Harding said.

"He did not try to cause difficulties for the court process."

Judge Geoffrey Marson QC said: "Not only was it a very long video, but I regard it as a serious aggravating feature that he was encouraging others to share it and it had been shared widely.

"That is the nature of the contempt.

---

Why contempt of court matters?

By Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent

Contempt of court is the crime of ignoring the court and its constitutional role in making sure that justice is done.

Robinson was convicted of contempt for interfering with a trial in Canterbury.

His attempts to film defendants on that occasion could, the judge said, have "prejudiced" the jury, leading to an unfair verdict - and he was warned he'd go to jail if he did anything remotely similar again.

Why couldn't we initially report Robinson's arrest and jailing? Reporting restrictions are a long-standing part of the British legal system. In this case, the judge ordered a temporary media black-out because he feared reporting Robinson's conviction could influence the jury in the very case Robinson was targeting.

This is not some new form of censorship directed at Robinson. These are rules that apply to us all, equally. If he is unsure about that, he's now got time on his hands to read a copy of Essential Law for Journalists.

---

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.

Following the arrest there were protests outside Downing Street over the weekend.

Robinson founded the far-right EDL in 2009.

It became known for its street marches and demonstrations in towns and cities before he quit the group in 2013.

[yorkie1999]

17 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

there is no "gagging order". the trial that he was trying to disrupt is subject to reporting restrictions (to protect the victims). So his arrest, being connected with said trial, also cannot be reported (I think)

 

I’m on about a gagging order was put in place on Robinson’s court appearance and sentencing and was lifted after a press application to lift it which has been explained now

Edited 29 May 2018 by yorkie1999

[whoareyaaa]

What a bell

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

7 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Each to their own. I'd rather we didn't give someone like him any platform whatsoever. 

I cant stand the guy, but I do believe that everyone in this country should have the to say what they think. Let the people think what they will, with the vast majority considering him a c..t. Democracy is paramount though.

[Finnegan]

52 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

I cant stand the guy, but I do believe that everyone in this country should have the to say what they think. Let the people think what they will, with the vast majority considering him a c..t. Democracy is paramount though.

 

He's not been arrested for having an opinion though, DT. 

[Guest MattP]

Social Media is turning society completely mental.

 

100,000 sign a petition calling for a not guilty verdict on a man who pleaded guilty.

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Social Media is turning society completely mental.

 

100,000 sign a petition calling for a not guilty verdict on a man who pleaded guilty.

https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson?recruiter=878125034&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

 

485,000.

[Strokes]

He is the master of his own problems and is lucky the sentence isn’t greater tbh.

The media not reporting has been adequately explained and if you don’t understand that then you’re as big of an idiot as he is.

Its a shame because when he hits on a good point which he occasionally does, he ruins that point because it came from his vile mouth. As Matt said, it’s a shame he isn’t still with majid, as he seemed to tone down the putrid nature.

[the fox]

7 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Probably the most extreme person I've spoken to over this says that white people are being oppressed by Islam and the elites turn a blind eye to it as it is also their goal.

 

As a Muslim, I would really want to hear about the logic behind that statement. Islam doesn't tolerate racism and opposed to some other religions, Arabs aren't put ahead of the whitest of white men or the blackest of black men or any other race for that matter. 

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

Social Media is turning society completely mental.

 

100,000 sign a petition calling for a not guilty verdict on a man who pleaded guilty.

 

 

No, it's just giving morons a voice.

[Col city fan]

25 minutes ago, MattP said:

Social Media is turning society completely mental.

 

100,000 sign a petition calling for a not guilty verdict on a man who pleaded guilty.

I couldn’t agree more with the first sentence. The more I read so many views on social media, the more I think wtf?

[Ashley]

3 hours ago, stripeyfox said:

there is no "gagging order". the trial that he was trying to disrupt is subject to reporting restrictions (to protect the victims). So his arrest, being connected with said trial, also cannot be reported (I think)

 

I've not really read much about it or other cases however, why when the likes of Rolf Harris, the movie guy and other kiddy fiddlers courts etc have come forward and said we want this as open as possible so people can speak out? 

 

Why is this case different? 

[Guest FriendlyRam]

You can't tell his supporters he's been rightfully arrested and sent to jail though, he's been on a suspended sentence because he's done this before 

 

The "alt right" media are calling it "the end of free speech" and our government has gone full rogue, some are calling for mass riots, and one bloke on youtube my god, he's literally calling vigilantes to murder the judges family in front of the judge, and then kill the judge after. Its bonkers, god help the next generation with these loonies roaming the streets.

[stripeyfox]

13 minutes ago, Ashley said:

I've not really read much about it or other cases however, why when the likes of Rolf Harris, the movie guy and other kiddy fiddlers courts etc have come forward and said we want this as open as possible so people can speak out? 

 

Why is this case different? 

I don't know to be honest mate. I guess the judge in each case determines what can and cannot be reported

 

[Voll Blau]

50 minutes ago, Ashley said:

I've not really read much about it or other cases however, why when the likes of Rolf Harris, the movie guy and other kiddy fiddlers courts etc have come forward and said we want this as open as possible so people can speak out? 

 

Why is this case different? 

 

36 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

I don't know to be honest mate. I guess the judge in each case determines what can and cannot be reported

 

 

Yeah, it varies from case to case dependent on the particular circumstances.

 

In the Yewtree cases I think a lot of the victims had already waived their automatic right to anonymity in order to publicly encourage other potential victims to come forward. Therefore there was no need to protect their identities in court because they were already in the public domain and there would have been no point.

Edited 29 May 2018 by Voll Blau

[StanSP]

 

[HankMarvin]

3 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

 

 

Yeah, it varies from case to case dependent on the particular circumstances.

 

In the Yewtree cases I think a lot of the victims had already waived their automatic right to anonymity in order to publicly encourage other potential victims to come forward. Therefore there was no need to protect their identities in court because they were already in the public domain and there would have been no point.

 

Agreed I think they were older, 

This particular case being dealt with has younger people who obviously want to say anonymous and I suspect TR short sightedness potentially  puts them at risk of having to go through the whole process again - if the case would’ve have collapsed.

 

 

His gonna need that right hook he gave the Italian immigrant to survive 6

months inside.