Tommy Robinson, that scoundrel.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

What did I say, exactly, quote it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Perhaps you were just being a little immature... maybe you should clarify what else you intended should happen to Robinson... or do you not have the guts to say what you think?

a reply to: UKTruth

Quote what I said... you know, so I can own it.

Or are you just spinning what you've seen and opinion and creating a fact from it to argue with? I mean, that would be hypocritical of you so it can't be that.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Quote what I said... you know, so I can own it.

Or are you just spinning what you've seen and opinion and creating a fact from it to argue with? I mean, that would be hypocritical of you so it can't be that.

I did better, I linked your post.
So you have the opportunity to clarify, or like I said, do you not have the guts?

Stephen deserves this and much more

Come on... have the courage of your convictions... spell it out man, or shy away. Your choice.

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: 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.

And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...

We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.

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

You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?

My only reference to the Canterbury case is that the judge made an error in his final judgement - there was no successful appeal, mainly because he had a week in that case to pull together a proper defence. The particulars of that case were also very different. In my opinion he got what he deserved.

I believe description was one of 'form rather than substance'

So now we have established he is categorically guilty of the first offence perhaps it would be good to look at the warning he was given regarding his sentence.

I assume you are familiar with it from your research?

The judge was pretty clear on that. It has nothing to do with the judges corruption of due process and the law in the Leeds case, which in turn has no bearing on whether Robinson will be found guilty or innocent in the upcoming trial.

What you seem unable to accept is that Robinson did not plead guilty - you still have not admitted you were wrong - and you also seem unable to accept the appeals court ruling that Robinson was treated terribly and denied due process in the Leeds case. They are the points I am making and not whether Robinson is innocent or guilty.

People can read the section you handily quoted and decide you is wrong.

Still waiting for your evidence of this corruption.

Or is that another tommy says one?

a reply to: UKTruth

So you can't provide the quote...

How am I supposed to own my words if you can't even tell me what words they are?
You've already made comment on them so why do I need to clarify, apparently you already know.

You're doing a lovely job of dodging my question, provide the quote.

lol squirm squirm squirm provide my "words" unless you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong.

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: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...

We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.

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

You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?

My only reference to the Canterbury case is that the judge made an error in his final judgement - there was no successful appeal, mainly because he had a week in that case to pull together a proper defence. The particulars of that case were also very different. In my opinion he got what he deserved.

I believe description was one of 'form rather than substance'

So now we have established he is categorically guilty of the first offence perhaps it would be good to look at the warning he was given regarding his sentence.

I assume you are familiar with it from your research?

The judge was pretty clear on that. It has nothing to do with the judges corruption of due process and the law in the Leeds case, which in turn has no bearing on whether Robinson will be found guilty or innocent in the upcoming trial.

What you seem unable to accept is that Robinson did not plead guilty - you still have not admitted you were wrong - and you also seem unable to accept the appeals court ruling that Robinson was treated terribly and denied due process in the Leeds case. They are the points I am making and not whether Robinson is innocent or guilty.

People can read the section you handily quoted and decide you is wrong.

Still waiting for your evidence of this corruption.

Or is that another tommy says one?

Already dealt with... so you can pretend you are waiting if you like.
You can also keep pretending that Robinson admitted to contempt of court, but those who actually take the time to read the appeals court documents know that to be a lie. You do now too, but you clearly have trouble admitting your error. I guess it would bring down your house of cards that holds your hatred - tough spot.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

So you can't provide the quote...

How am I supposed to own my words if you can't even tell me what words they are?
You've already made comment on them so why do I need to clarify, apparently you already know.

You're doing a lovely job of dodging my question, provide the quote.

lol squirm squirm squirm provide my "words" unless you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong.

Yep, I thought you were gutless and so it transpires. I can spot the uninformed 'drive by' posters a mile away. All show and no go.
At least some others actually have an argument.

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: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.

And what was the appeal court finding with regard the Canterbury case again?

What with all your research...

We're not discussing the Caterbury case.
However, that was ruled to have been judged in error too, which I have already referenced. In that case basic legal definitions were incorrect... another mistake by the judge.

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

You specifically referenced the Canterbury case on the previous page. So dd he successfully appeal it or not?

My only reference to the Canterbury case is that the judge made an error in his final judgement - there was no successful appeal, mainly because he had a week in that case to pull together a proper defence. The particulars of that case were also very different. In my opinion he got what he deserved.

I believe description was one of 'form rather than substance'

So now we have established he is categorically guilty of the first offence perhaps it would be good to look at the warning he was given regarding his sentence.

I assume you are familiar with it from your research?

The judge was pretty clear on that. It has nothing to do with the judges corruption of due process and the law in the Leeds case, which in turn has no bearing on whether Robinson will be found guilty or innocent in the upcoming trial.

What you seem unable to accept is that Robinson did not plead guilty - you still have not admitted you were wrong - and you also seem unable to accept the appeals court ruling that Robinson was treated terribly and denied due process in the Leeds case. They are the points I am making and not whether Robinson is innocent or guilty.

People can read the section you handily quoted and decide you is wrong.

Still waiting for your evidence of this corruption.

Or is that another tommy says one?

Already dealt with... so you can pretend you are waiting if you like.
You can also keep pretending that Robinson admitted to contempt of court, but those who actually take the time to read the appeals court documents know that to be a lie. You do now too, but you clearly have trouble admitting your error. I guess it would bring down your house of cards that holds your hatred - tough spot.

What was he admitting to exactly then?

And no you have posted exactly zero evidence iof corruption.

If he is found not guilty on appeal he a still a convicted thug and fraudster. So no won't really affect my opinion of him one bit.

a reply to: gallop

Tommy, Tommy, whats the score?

Certainly not Facebook or YouTube anymore.

Then again he should take that for the gift horse that it is. LoL

a reply to: UKTruth

Not my fault you don't know the difference between a quote and a link.

All talk and no balls. You told me to own my words and then proceeded to ask me what my words were. lol clown.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

What was he admitting to exactly then?

And no you have posted exactly zero evidence iof corruption.

If he is found not guilty on appeal he a still a convicted thug and fraudster. So no won't really affect my opinion of him one bit.

The corruption of the legal system is shown in black and white in the appeals hearing ruling - including but not limited to the completely innacurate sentencing which does not apply to any contempt of court charge. You are confusing the corruption of the legal system by the judge with some shady back room dealings.

As part of the law the defendent has the opportunity to provide mitigation to his charge. That mitigation is not an admission of guilt. The appeals judgement made clear that no plea was requested or heard and was one of the reasons that the Judge's sentencing was over ruled and we go to a new trial. The lack of due process in this case is undeniable. Robinson was treated unfairly. You don't have to admit it, it's just true.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Not my fault you don't know the difference between a quote and a link.

All talk and no balls. You told me to own my words and then proceeded to ask me what my words were. lol clown.

It's flattering that you've resorted to mimicking.

a reply to: UKTruth

Still waiting for that quote so I can "own my words".

Or we can go a different way, considering all the extremely racist comments you've posted on this site its no surprised you've taken this approach.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

Still waiting for that quote so I can "own my words".

Or we can go a different way, considering all the extremely racist comments you've posted on this site its no surprised you've taken this approach.

Lol, subject change. Totally gutless.
I didn't think it would be long before the cries of 'wacism!'. Get an argument.
You know this is not the mudpit, right?

a reply to: UKTruth

That's a lot of emoji's and errors, are you ok? Stroke? High blood pressure? Rage typing?
What subject did you want to discuss? I'm still waiting for those words of mine that you told me to own.

Keep dodging though. You've twisted yourself into a corner you can't get out of, despite your attempts to diverge "gutless".

From what i've seen every post you've made is mudpit material.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: UKTruth

That's a lot of emoji's and errors, are you ok? Stroke? High blood pressure? Rage typing?
What subject did you want to discuss? I'm still waiting for those words of mine that you told me to own.

Keep dodging though. You've twisted yourself into a corner you can't get out of, despite your attempts to diverge "gutless".

From what i've seen every post you've made is mudpit material.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

What was he admitting to exactly then?

And no you have posted exactly zero evidence iof corruption.

If he is found not guilty on appeal he a still a convicted thug and fraudster. So no won't really affect my opinion of him one bit.

The corruption of the legal system is shown in black and white in the appeals hearing ruling - including but not limited to the completely innacurate sentencing which does not apply to any contempt of court charge. You are confusing the corruption of the legal system by the judge with some shady back room dealings.

As part of the law the defendent has the opportunity to provide mitigation to his charge. That mitigation is not an admission of guilt. The appeals judgement made clear that no plea was requested or heard and was one of the reasons that the Judge's sentencing was over ruled and we go to a new trial. The lack of due process in this case is undeniable. Robinson was treated unfairly. You don't have to admit it, it's just true.

There is absolutely no mention of corruption in the appeal court ruling. Again you making your baseless opinion out as fact.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

What was he admitting to exactly then?

And no you have posted exactly zero evidence iof corruption.

If he is found not guilty on appeal he a still a convicted thug and fraudster. So no won't really affect my opinion of him one bit.

The corruption of the legal system is shown in black and white in the appeals hearing ruling - including but not limited to the completely innacurate sentencing which does not apply to any contempt of court charge. You are confusing the corruption of the legal system by the judge with some shady back room dealings.

As part of the law the defendent has the opportunity to provide mitigation to his charge. That mitigation is not an admission of guilt. The appeals judgement made clear that no plea was requested or heard and was one of the reasons that the Judge's sentencing was over ruled and we go to a new trial. The lack of due process in this case is undeniable. Robinson was treated unfairly. You don't have to admit it, it's just true.

There is absolutely no mention of corruption in the appeal court ruling. Again you making your baseless opinion out as fact.

The appeals court document outlines the corruption of the legal system - pages of it. Again, you are looking for some back room shady dealing. That's not my point.

Corruption : the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased. "a record of a word's corruption" synonyms: alteration, falsification, doctoring, manipulation, manipulating, fudging, adulteration, debasement, degradation, abuse, subversion, misrepresentation, misapplication;

Note the last two synonyms in particluar.

a reply to: ScepticScot

But but Tommy said there was? In that video. Surely that's proof enough.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

What was he admitting to exactly then?

And no you have posted exactly zero evidence iof corruption.

If he is found not guilty on appeal he a still a convicted thug and fraudster. So no won't really affect my opinion of him one bit.

The corruption of the legal system is shown in black and white in the appeals hearing ruling - including but not limited to the completely innacurate sentencing which does not apply to any contempt of court charge. You are confusing the corruption of the legal system by the judge with some shady back room dealings.

As part of the law the defendent has the opportunity to provide mitigation to his charge. That mitigation is not an admission of guilt. The appeals judgement made clear that no plea was requested or heard and was one of the reasons that the Judge's sentencing was over ruled and we go to a new trial. The lack of due process in this case is undeniable. Robinson was treated unfairly. You don't have to admit it, it's just true.

There is absolutely no mention of corruption in the appeal court ruling. Again you making your baseless opinion out as fact.

The appeals court document outlines the corruption of the legal system - pages of it. Again, you are looking for some back room shady dealing. That's not my point.

Corruption : the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased. "a record of a word's corruption" synonyms: alteration, falsification, doctoring, manipulation, manipulating, fudging, adulteration, debasement, degradation, abuse, subversion, misrepresentation, misapplication;

Note the last two synonyms in particluar.

Still can't show any evidence then. Thought so.