Tommy Robinson, that scoundrel.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more iformation becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

Stop with the wholly inaccurate 'prejudice the jury' nonsense. The appeals judge already said that there was nothing reported that could prejudice the jury. You're using media propaganda as an argument. It's like the total media lie that Robinson admitted guilt in court. Loads of people just repeated that lie too.

I think it is wholly pertinent to the case if the guy actually sought permission prior to acting, taking into account his previous conviction as the basis for the check.

The judge did over reach by placing a reporting restriction on the details of Robinsons conviction for contempt of court - that is different to a gag order on the pakistani rape gang trial.

As I have said before, those that support arresting a person, rushing them to jail without giving them access to their lawyer and sticking them in solitary confinement for the crime of live streaming into an iphone are just driven by hate and are far worse and more dangerous to society than Robinson.

He did admit and pleaded mitigation. The appeal court found that it was not made sufficiently clear exactly what he was admitting to. Not that he didn't admit to breaching the reporting restrictions.

He was given access to an experienced barrister. Stop making it sound as if he was denied legal representation.

To the best of my knowledge we only have his word (again proven liar) that he checked what he was allowed to say and stayed within the restrictions. If you have a source to show this has been confirmed please share. Otherwise it will be subject to be decided at his trial.

Not correct - not only did he admit to no crime, he was not even asked.
He was specifically refused access to his own legal counsel.

That he checked what he was allowed to do will be important in the trial - he claims he has evidence he checked. We'll see.

His barrister submitted a plea of mitigation. That is something that happens when you admit the offence.

So at the moment you are just accepting the word of proven liar Robinson . You are entitled to that option but please don't present it as fact.

You are spinning.

From the actual court documents:

That hearing began with reference to the appellant’s antecedents and was followed by mitigation. At no stage were particulars of the alleged contempt put to the appellant for him to accept or deny them. Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court system” which his actions had caused. In mitigation it was emphasised that the appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not falling foul of the order by what he had done. Indeed, when he first arrived at court that morning he had asked to read the order. In the course of his broadcast the appellant refers to the order and appears to be trying to abide by its terms.

Robinson expressed regret for "breaching the integrity of the court system". At no point did he ever admit to contempt of court and he was not even told what he was specifically being charged for.

You were lied to by the media and you ran with it - without proper research.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: gallop

He borke the law, was warned by the court then he went out and done it again. He put the course of justice again rapists at risk for his own xenophobic agenda.

Do you really want to be siding with a guy who knowingly jeopardised the trial against these sick men just so he could raise his public profile in the name of his xenophobic agenda?

Not only are you not clear on what actually happened, you've already determined his guilt.

Here's some detail:
- Robinson actually checked prior to filming that he was allowed.
- He went into the court to read the official notices on restrictions.
- He read out details already in the public domain, reported by the BBC - and others. There was never any danger of the jury being influenced any
more than the reporting they may have already seen.
- He was arrested for public disorder, not contempt of court.
- He was rushed in front of the judge and was refused access to his attorney and found guilty of contempt of court based on 5 minutes of video and
no review of the full video or any of the circumstances leading up to the filming.
- The media lied to everyone and said he pleaded guilty - that lie was used over and over, including on ATS.
- The judge over reached his authority by gagging people from talking about the arrest and imprisonment.

You really need to put aside your hatred for the guy and start understanding that we must not let a govt arrest their targets and rush them to jail through without following due process.

Doesn't matter what he was arrested for, getting charged for something different is common when more iformation becomes available.

Doesn't matter if he read the restrictions, if he then broke them. He has admitted to doing this.

The judge hadn't over reached his authority to put reporting restriction on an on going trial.


Contempt of court proceedings are dealt with quickly for the incredibly obvious reason that they can prejudice an on going trial. The appeal found that as he had to one down the video the was no need to proceed as quickly. Not that he hadn't actually broke the restrictions.

You really need to put aside your fanboy love for the guy and understand he is being charged with breaking the law, not some conspiracy to silence him.

Stop with the wholly inaccurate 'prejudice the jury' nonsense. The appeals judge already said that there was nothing reported that could prejudice the jury. You're using media propaganda as an argument. It's like the total media lie that Robinson admitted guilt in court. Loads of people just repeated that lie too.

I think it is wholly pertinent to the case if the guy actually sought permission prior to acting, taking into account his previous conviction as the basis for the check.

The judge did over reach by placing a reporting restriction on the details of Robinsons conviction for contempt of court - that is different to a gag order on the pakistani rape gang trial.

As I have said before, those that support arresting a person, rushing them to jail without giving them access to their lawyer and sticking them in solitary confinement for the crime of live streaming into an iphone are just driven by hate and are far worse and more dangerous to society than Robinson.

He did admit and pleaded mitigation. The appeal court found that it was not made sufficiently clear exactly what he was admitting to. Not that he didn't admit to breaching the reporting restrictions.

He was given access to an experienced barrister. Stop making it sound as if he was denied legal representation.

To the best of my knowledge we only have his word (again proven liar) that he checked what he was allowed to say and stayed within the restrictions. If you have a source to show this has been confirmed please share. Otherwise it will be subject to be decided at his trial.

Not correct - not only did he admit to no crime, he was not even asked.
He was specifically refused access to his own legal counsel.

That he checked what he was allowed to do will be important in the trial - he claims he has evidence he checked. We'll see.

His barrister submitted a plea of mitigation. That is something that happens when you admit the offence.

So at the moment you are just accepting the word of proven liar Robinson . You are entitled to that option but please don't present it as fact.

You are spinning.

From the actual court documents:

That hearing began with reference to the appellant’s antecedents and was followed by mitigation. At no stage were particulars of the alleged contempt put to the appellant for him to accept or deny them. Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court system” which his actions had caused. In mitigation it was emphasised that the appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not falling foul of the order by what he had done. Indeed, when he first arrived at court that morning he had asked to read the order. In the course of his broadcast the appellant refers to the order and appears to be trying to abide by its terms.

Robinson expressed regret for "breaching the integrity of the court system". At no point did he ever admit to contempt of court and he was not even told what he was specifically being charged for.

You were lied to by the media and you ran with it - without proper research.

That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

Once again you fail to do any proper research even after being guided.
The apology for 'breaching the integrity of the court system' did not constitute an admission of contempt of court

In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name.

In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order.

The confusion was apparent in the mitigation which opened with these words:

"Of necessity, the exercise in a civilised society of freedom of speech means that individuals … are allowed to engage in behaviour which the majority may find to be offensive and unpalatable, and there may be many who ... have found that which [the appellant] says and does unpalatable, offensive and unpleasant. But … the issue here is, in some respects, an aspect of a civilised society which is even more important and that is the integrity of the court system. [He] now … feels deep regret for the breach of that integrity that his action this morning caused."

The breach of an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act is concerned with the reporting of what has occurred in court covered by the order. It had nothing to do with any otherwise offensive remarks made by the appellant. These opening remarks of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Yaxley-Lennon v R counsel illustrate what we perceive to have been a common misunderstanding in the very short contempt proceedings of what was in scope, and what was not.

You need to be accurate and stop letting your emotional feelings about Tommy Robinson guide your thinking.

There was no admission of contempt of court. The media lied to you and you perpetuated that lie. You can give that up now, unless you want to pretend that the ruling from the appeal was not accurate, whilst your media sources are.

As I have advised you several times, the judge denied Robinson due process and sent him to jail on grounds that look like they were not even in the scope of the gag order.

a reply to: gallop

Tommy Robinson is paid opposition and a complete knucklehead. The only thing he'll be changing is his pants if he steps out of line.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot


That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

Once again you fail to do any proper research even after being guided.
The apology for 'breaching the integrity of the court system' did not constitute an admission of contempt of court

In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order. The confusion was apparent in the mitigation which opened with these words: "Of necessity, the exercise in a civilised society of freedom of speech means that individuals … are allowed to engage in behaviour which the majority may find to be offensive and unpalatable, and there may be many who ... have found that which [the appellant] says and does unpalatable, offensive and unpleasant. But … the issue here is, in some respects, an aspect of a civilised society which is even more important and that is the integrity of the court system. [He] now … feels deep regret for the breach of that integrity that his action this morning caused." 67. The breach of an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act is concerned with the reporting of what has occurred in court covered by the order. It had nothing to do with any otherwise offensive remarks made by the appellant. These opening remarks of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Yaxley-Lennon v R counsel illustrate what we perceive to have been a common misunderstanding in the very short contempt proceedings of what was in scope, and what was not.

I say the appeal court found it wasn't clear what he was admitting to.

And you post an extract confirming exactly that as proof that I haven't done research?

Ok...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot


That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

Once again you fail to do any proper research even after being guided.
The apology for 'breaching the integrity of the court system' did not constitute an admission of contempt of court

In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order. The confusion was apparent in the mitigation which opened with these words: "Of necessity, the exercise in a civilised society of freedom of speech means that individuals … are allowed to engage in behaviour which the majority may find to be offensive and unpalatable, and there may be many who ... have found that which [the appellant] says and does unpalatable, offensive and unpleasant. But … the issue here is, in some respects, an aspect of a civilised society which is even more important and that is the integrity of the court system. [He] now … feels deep regret for the breach of that integrity that his action this morning caused." 67. The breach of an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act is concerned with the reporting of what has occurred in court covered by the order. It had nothing to do with any otherwise offensive remarks made by the appellant. These opening remarks of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Yaxley-Lennon v R counsel illustrate what we perceive to have been a common misunderstanding in the very short contempt proceedings of what was in scope, and what was not.

I say the appeal court found it wasn't clear what he was admitting to.

And you post an extract confirming exactly that as proof that I haven't done research?

Ok...

That was not what you claimed, but your new claim is also incorrect. You see I have read the findings and clearly you have not. You've based your views on what you were told by the media and have been unable to objectively assess the situation.

The appeals court stated clearly that he was never told the specifics of what he was being charged with, that he was not asked to plead and that it is not clear what his statement about "breaching the integrity of the court" referred to.

You can cling to media lies if you like. That is up to you, but as you do so, you underline my point that your emotions are clouding your judgment.

The judge who sent him to jail has been booted off the case and proper process will now ensue. If he is guilty, he will be punished. Until such time, he is innocent of the charges. That's how it works, whether you hate the guy or not.

Your cheering for the previous judges' actions at the time was just so wrong. You were cheering for due process being taken away from a citizen because you didn't like him and justifying your position using media lies (which I suspect you didn't even know were lies) - and THAT is what makes you far more dangerous to society than Tommy Robinson - or Mr Yaxley-Lennon - whatever you want to call him.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot


That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

Once again you fail to do any proper research even after being guided.
The apology for 'breaching the integrity of the court system' did not constitute an admission of contempt of court

In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order. The confusion was apparent in the mitigation which opened with these words: "Of necessity, the exercise in a civilised society of freedom of speech means that individuals … are allowed to engage in behaviour which the majority may find to be offensive and unpalatable, and there may be many who ... have found that which [the appellant] says and does unpalatable, offensive and unpleasant. But … the issue here is, in some respects, an aspect of a civilised society which is even more important and that is the integrity of the court system. [He] now … feels deep regret for the breach of that integrity that his action this morning caused." 67. The breach of an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act is concerned with the reporting of what has occurred in court covered by the order. It had nothing to do with any otherwise offensive remarks made by the appellant. These opening remarks of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Yaxley-Lennon v R counsel illustrate what we perceive to have been a common misunderstanding in the very short contempt proceedings of what was in scope, and what was not.

I say the appeal court found it wasn't clear what he was admitting to.

And you post an extract confirming exactly that as proof that I haven't done research?

Ok...

That was not what you claimed, but your new claim is also incorrect. You see I have read the findings and clearly you have not. You've based your views on what you were told by the media and have been unable to objectively assess the situation.

The appeals court stated clearly that he was never told the specifics of what he was being charged with, that he was not asked to plead and that it is not clear what his statement about "breaching the integrity of the court" referred to.

You can cling to media lies if you like. That is up to you, but as you do so, you underline my point that your emotions are clouding your judgment.

The judge who sent him to jail has been booted off the case and proper process will now ensue. If he is guilty, he will be punished. Until such time, he is innocent of the charges. That's how it works, whether you hate the guy or not. Your cheering for the previous judges actions at the time was just so wrong. You were cheering for due process being taken away from a citizen because you didn't like him and THAT is what makes you far more dangerous to society that Tommy Robinson.

It's in the section you have quoted.

Try reading it slowly, it might help you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot


That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

Once again you fail to do any proper research even after being guided.
The apology for 'breaching the integrity of the court system' did not constitute an admission of contempt of court

In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order. The confusion was apparent in the mitigation which opened with these words: "Of necessity, the exercise in a civilised society of freedom of speech means that individuals … are allowed to engage in behaviour which the majority may find to be offensive and unpalatable, and there may be many who ... have found that which [the appellant] says and does unpalatable, offensive and unpleasant. But … the issue here is, in some respects, an aspect of a civilised society which is even more important and that is the integrity of the court system. [He] now … feels deep regret for the breach of that integrity that his action this morning caused." 67. The breach of an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act is concerned with the reporting of what has occurred in court covered by the order. It had nothing to do with any otherwise offensive remarks made by the appellant. These opening remarks of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Yaxley-Lennon v R counsel illustrate what we perceive to have been a common misunderstanding in the very short contempt proceedings of what was in scope, and what was not.

I say the appeal court found it wasn't clear what he was admitting to.

And you post an extract confirming exactly that as proof that I haven't done research?

Ok...

That was not what you claimed, but your new claim is also incorrect. You see I have read the findings and clearly you have not. You've based your views on what you were told by the media and have been unable to objectively assess the situation.

The appeals court stated clearly that he was never told the specifics of what he was being charged with, that he was not asked to plead and that it is not clear what his statement about "breaching the integrity of the court" referred to.

You can cling to media lies if you like. That is up to you, but as you do so, you underline my point that your emotions are clouding your judgment.

The judge who sent him to jail has been booted off the case and proper process will now ensue. If he is guilty, he will be punished. Until such time, he is innocent of the charges. That's how it works, whether you hate the guy or not. Your cheering for the previous judges actions at the time was just so wrong. You were cheering for due process being taken away from a citizen because you didn't like him and THAT is what makes you far more dangerous to society that Tommy Robinson.

It's in the section you have quoted.

Try reading it slowly, it might help you.

I can see it is hard for you to let go of your lies you got from the media.
You can;t even admit you have done no research at all on the subject.
As you can tell, no doubt, I have.

In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order.

Get it?

If you bothered to read all the court order - as I have done - you'd have a better grasp of this issue.
It is fact that there is no record of Robinson admitting to contempt of court and that he was not even asked to plead, plus no clarity from the judge on what he was actually ruling upon.

That is a far cry from your position, which you are shifting from now given new knowledge I have given you, that Robinson admitted to contempt of court. You were simply wrong.

Perhaps if you had bothered to do even the slightest bit of research beyond media headlines, you'd know that a statement of regret/apology is not an admission of guilt in a court of law. It is an explicit part of the process to afford the defendent the opportunity to do such. The 'drive-by' media conclusion that you bought into that he was 'guilty because he admitted it' was bogus. They are just the facts of the case and the judge was thoroughly rebuked.

We should all be for due process even if we can't agree elsewhere. That you were not, says a lot.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot


That confirms exactly what I was saying. The appeal court found that hadn't been given sufficient details of his charge. Are you sure you understand what you are reading?

The same court also says he may have breeched reporting restrictions with prejudicial remarks and should re tried.

Again there is no conspiracy to silence of him. He is being tried for contempt of court. A charge He as already been convicted of on a previous occasion.

Once again you fail to do any proper research even after being guided.
The apology for 'breaching the integrity of the court system' did not constitute an admission of contempt of court

In our judgment the failure to follow the requirements of Part 48 of the Rules was much more than a technical failure. In contempt proceedings, touching as they do on the liberty of the subject, there is a need for the contempt in question to be identified with precision and the conduct of the alleged contemnor identified with sufficient particularity to enable him, with the assistance of legal advice, to respond to what is a criminal charge, in all but name. In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order. The confusion was apparent in the mitigation which opened with these words: "Of necessity, the exercise in a civilised society of freedom of speech means that individuals … are allowed to engage in behaviour which the majority may find to be offensive and unpalatable, and there may be many who ... have found that which [the appellant] says and does unpalatable, offensive and unpleasant. But … the issue here is, in some respects, an aspect of a civilised society which is even more important and that is the integrity of the court system. [He] now … feels deep regret for the breach of that integrity that his action this morning caused." 67. The breach of an order under section 4(2) of the 1981 Act is concerned with the reporting of what has occurred in court covered by the order. It had nothing to do with any otherwise offensive remarks made by the appellant. These opening remarks of Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Yaxley-Lennon v R counsel illustrate what we perceive to have been a common misunderstanding in the very short contempt proceedings of what was in scope, and what was not.

I say the appeal court found it wasn't clear what he was admitting to.

And you post an extract confirming exactly that as proof that I haven't done research?

Ok...

That was not what you claimed, but your new claim is also incorrect. You see I have read the findings and clearly you have not. You've based your views on what you were told by the media and have been unable to objectively assess the situation.

The appeals court stated clearly that he was never told the specifics of what he was being charged with, that he was not asked to plead and that it is not clear what his statement about "breaching the integrity of the court" referred to.

You can cling to media lies if you like. That is up to you, but as you do so, you underline my point that your emotions are clouding your judgment.

The judge who sent him to jail has been booted off the case and proper process will now ensue. If he is guilty, he will be punished. Until such time, he is innocent of the charges. That's how it works, whether you hate the guy or not. Your cheering for the previous judges actions at the time was just so wrong. You were cheering for due process being taken away from a citizen because you didn't like him and THAT is what makes you far more dangerous to society that Tommy Robinson.

It's in the section you have quoted.

Try reading it slowly, it might help you.

I can see it is hard for you to let go of your lies you got from the media.
You can;t even admit you have done no research at all on the subject.
As you can tell, no doubt, I have.

In this case there was no clarity at all about what the appellant was admitting and for what parts of his broadcast he was considered by the judge to be guilty of contempt of court for breach of the section 4(2) order.

Get it?

If you bothered to read all the court order - as I have done - you'd have a better grasp of this issue.
It is fact that there is no record of Robinson admitting to contempt of court and that he was not even asked to plead, plus no clarity from the judge on what he was actually ruling upon.

That is a far cry from your position, which you are shifting from now given new knowledge I have given you, that Robinson admitted to contempt of court. You were simply wrong.

Perhaps if you had bothered to do even the slightest bit of research beyond media headlines, you'd know that a statement of regret/apology is not an admission of guilt in a court of law. It is an explicit part of the process to afford the defendent the opportunity to such. The 'drive-by' media conclusion that you bought into that he was guilty because he admitted it was bogus. That's just the facts of the case.

I think you are desperately interpreting the appeal court findings (which lets not forget sent this back for retrial) in order to justify one of the multitude of claims made by you and other Robinson supporters.

Pretty much everyone of which has now been shown to be false or incomplete.

Robinson will now have his day in court. We already know he is guilty of contempt from his first charge. The only real question is if he breached the terms of his suspended sentence sufficiently to get jailed.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Actually it's just me proving conclusively that Robinson did not admit to contempt of court.
Like I said - you were wrong to say he did.
You only have the admission to yourself left. That's your burden and one you alone must choose to take.
I can only provide you with the facts.

Even if admitting you were wrong is too much for you to take, I'd encourage you to be careful about media lies and do a little research in the future.



By the way, we've not even covered the judge's actions, which were so far outside the law as to be scandalous - far more so than anything Robinson did. You seem to not care about any of that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: gallop

I care about him now. I care that a racist thug and his ignorant cronies are trying to bully their way into politics, threatening and intimidating people in their homes. And let's use his real name shall we? Not a persona he's adopted to try and hide his past and appeal to the stupid.

Ok provide a racist comment made by him?

You haven’t got anything just far left accusations from a George Soros funded propaganda group 😂

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

Actually it's just me proving conclusively that Robinson did not admit to contempt of court.
Like I said - you were wrong to say he did.
You only have the admission to yourself left. That's your burden and one you alone must choose to take.
I can only provide you with the facts.

Even if admitting you were wrong is too much for you to take, I'd encourage you to be careful about media lies and do a little research in the future.

If that's what you need to believe feel free. Not sure what you think he was admitting to.

Believing the lies if Robinson and co doesn't make you special or 'woke'' It means you believe a proven liar and racist. Wonder why...

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: gallop

I care about him now. I care that a racist thug and his ignorant cronies are trying to bully their way into politics, threatening and intimidating people in their homes. And let's use his real name shall we? Not a persona he's adopted to try and hide his past and appeal to the stupid.

Ok provide a racist comment made by him?

You haven’t got anything just far left accusations from a George Soros funded propaganda group 😂

Ex BNP member Robinson.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: gallop

I care about him now. I care that a racist thug and his ignorant cronies are trying to bully their way into politics, threatening and intimidating people in their homes. And let's use his real name shall we? Not a persona he's adopted to try and hide his past and appeal to the stupid.

Ok provide a racist comment made by him?

You haven’t got anything just far left accusations from a George Soros funded propaganda group 😂

Let's be clear here - Robinson is bigoted towards Muslims, particularly Pakistani's. I don;t think that can be denied. I think it is religious prejudice as opposed to racism. He seems to have no problem with Sikhs, Hindu's , black people, far eastern people etc... just Islam. He often fails to qualify his issue as being focused on radical islam and that is where he runs into trouble. He's also what I would call a chancer - he'll break some minor laws if he can get away with it.

Let's not confuse disgust with the way he has been treated by our Govt with validation of the negative aspects of his character and history.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.


Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?

a reply to: AtlasHawk

Naw mate they got the tin pale, no thanks to Tommy.

They deserve far worse, but the were indeed prosecuted to the full extent of our laws.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.

Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?

Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Unfortunately yes, it seems that they are indeed.

With little to no real checks when they come back home.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's not what I believe, it's what the appeals court believes and has made judgement on.
Feel free to believe the newspaper, though.

Still no thoughts from you on the abuse of power by the judge who 'convicted' Robinson in the first place? Why am I not surprised you don;t care about that. I mean, what's the problem with a corrupt judge when you have Tommy Robinson to hate on, eh?

Care to show evidence of that corruption.

The appeals court said he made the wrong decision. Nothing about corruption or illegality of any type.

Or is this just another made up claim?

You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

The judge broke the laws laid out for contempt of court and in so doing corrupted the legal process - whether he made a mistake or not. How come Robinson making a mistake is not a defence but the judge is OK to make a serious and fundamental error in the legal process.? LOL. What the judge did is far worse and ended up having significantly worse consequences.

A contempt case is not one subject to criminal sentencing, yet the judge 'convicted' Robinson (not only in this case but in the previous Canterbury case too)

The order drawn by the court says on its face that it is an “Order for Imprisonment - Made under the Criminal Justice Act 2003”. The term of thirteen months is described as a “sentence” and the suspended order of committal made at Canterbury Crown Court is identified as a “suspended sentence”. None of this is correct, for reasons we have already given. Although this is a matter of form capable of correction it does have serious consequences. Such errors should not be allowed to occur again. Judges making findings of contempt and sentencing in consequence should check an order or record going out in the court’s name for accuracy.

Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides:

Classification of prisoners
7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or
for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be
done or left undone:

(a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this
rule;
(b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to
associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to
do so; and
(c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner
under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the
effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the
freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits
and the sending and receipt of letters.

We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person
committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving
one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will
be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in
the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for
contempt.

The judge broke the law - fundamentally - with his ruling.
It was a significant corruption of the legal system in our country and was ruled as such.

originally posted by: UKTruth

You have't got even the slightest clue about this issue, have you...? You've just been watching TV and now have a hard on for Robinson.

Uhmm... hate to break it to you UKTruth but this sounds 100% like you. Your argument is based on your hurt feelings and misinterpreting the same MSM feeds you complain others use for information.

You've literally spent hours trying to defend this man and claim others have a hard-on for him. I mean, its not like your a member of his Facebook Fan page is it?

You glow. Anyone who buys Tommy's bleeding heart videos and virtue signalling is either ignorant or highly gullible. You need to stay away from the infomercials, you'd be an easy mark.