Tommy Robinson, that scoundrel.

originally posted by: SeenItBelieveIt
a reply to: ScepticScot

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

For Tommy fan boys certainly.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Well, except the appeals court ruling showing corruption of the legal system and ordering the initial ruling quashed and releasing Robinson from jail. Apart from that, no.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

Well, except the appeals court ruling showing corruption of the legal system and ordering the initial ruling quashed and releasing Robinson from jail. Apart from that, no.

So the appeals court showed corruption in the legal system yet never once mentioned it. Almost like you are just making stuff up...

a reply to: UKTruth

So nothing then. Thanks for confirming.

I also like how he tries to mask his clear anger by posting a "cool" emoji. Fooling absolutely no-one.

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

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.

Well, except the appeals court ruling showing corruption of the legal system and ordering the initial ruling quashed and releasing Robinson from jail. Apart from that, no.

So the appeals court showed corruption in the legal system yet never once mentioned it. Almost like you are just making stuff up...

If legal and due process had not been corrupted there would not have been a successful appeal - obviously.
In this reality Robinson was let out of jail and a new trial is set.

a reply to: UKTruth

I ken a guy that got 10 years for double rape.

He got out on appeal down to the fact that there was no other evidence than two woman's stories which were conflicting.

Went to appeal.

And they gave him 12 years instead.

Dude actually managed to get the European court of human rights to intervene in another affair before all this happened overturning a British court ruling thus allowing him to see, and have a medical say regarding his daughter, who was suffering from blastoma leukemia in her eye at the time.

Probably why he is serving 12 years for rape really, but that's another story.

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

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.

Well, except the appeals court ruling showing corruption of the legal system and ordering the initial ruling quashed and releasing Robinson from jail. Apart from that, no.

So the appeals court showed corruption in the legal system yet never once mentioned it. Almost like you are just making stuff up...

If legal and due process had not been corrupted there would not have been a successful appeal - obviously.
In this reality Robinson was let out of jail and a new trial is set.

Now you are conclusively making stuff up.

Corruption isn't the only cause for appeal.

In fact you even show a claim from.Robinson's legal team that mentions corruption as a reason for appeal?

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

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.

Well, except the appeals court ruling showing corruption of the legal system and ordering the initial ruling quashed and releasing Robinson from jail. Apart from that, no.

So the appeals court showed corruption in the legal system yet never once mentioned it. Almost like you are just making stuff up...

If legal and due process had not been corrupted there would not have been a successful appeal - obviously.
In this reality Robinson was let out of jail and a new trial is set.

Now you are conclusively making stuff up.

Corruption isn't the only cause for appeal.

In fact you even show a claim from.Robinson's legal team that mentions corruption as a reason for appeal?

The legal process was corrupted or the ruling would not have been overturned - it's not difficult. Stop conflating corruption with some dodgy dealings or conspiracy. Stop playing with words. You were wrong when you said that Robinson admitted to contempt of court. That is what we started our discussion on and even now you can't admit you were wrong. I'll leave you with your lies - to yourself.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You really need to gather some facts before spouting your bollocks at me.

Stephen - use his #ing name - was warned not to broadcast anything at the grooming trial and it was explained to him why.
Some of the defendants were also charged with involvement in another grooming trial.

According to UK Law any broadcasting of their names and alleged crimes could have jeopardised both trials.
It maybe a stupid law but its still the law.

Yaxley-Lennon was informed of this and was told in no uncertain terms that both cases could be dismissed if he proceeded with his plans.

So he did go ahead with his plans.

Where was his concern for the victims of these pieces of # who has abused them?
Where was his desire to see justice done?

It was more important for him to portray himself as the people's martyr than it was for justice to be carried out against those paedophiles.

How anyone can attempt to defend his actions is beyond me.

Don't ever be so presumptuous to think you know what or who I care for.

In this instance I would have thought everyone's priority would have been a successful conviction against these perverts and at least some small measure of justice for their victims.
Yaxley-Lennon's priority was to promote his own image of some sort of avenging warrior.
Far too many people's priority seems to be sucking up to the knobhead and defending him regardless.

a reply to: andy06shake

Robinson may get longer than 13 months this time around. It depends - he did do what he was ordered not to do the first time around. I'd say his only defence might be that the judge made a sentencing error the first time around when he was given 3 months suspended. We'll see, but I expect that he will be sent back down. I have no problem with that if two things are followed; 1) due process, 2) equal application of the law.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


Far too many people's priority seems to be sucking up to the knobhead and defending him regardless.

The priority should be the proper application of the law. That's all. Whether Robinson (that's the name he goes by, so that is the one I will use) is guilty of that we'll have to wait and see what happens at his trial. What we absolutely can not have in this country is a judge not following the law in order to punish an individual they deem has interfered with their trial. That is unacceptable and that is what happened.

The only issue here in 'defence' of Robinson is that he was not treated justly by our legal system.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

He wanted the grooming gang case to be public but your beloved police in UK and courts are protecting the rapists.

FFS, how many times does this have to be posted;
If the police and UK courts as you put it are protecting the rapists how come they were being prosecuted?
How come several other grooming cases have been successfully prosecuted and the nonces sentenced to jail and reporting restrictions lifted AFTER the trial?

Reporting restrictions are sometimes put in place for a variety of reasons including not wanting to prejudice the case and any related trials.

A good explanation;
www.examinerlive.co.uk...

Yaxley-Lennon was made aware of the reasoning behind the reporting restrictions and the dangers posed to the successful convictions of these scumbags if he persisted in his attempts.

To me that suggests he's more concerned about raising his own public profile than he is about gaining successful convictions against the defendants.

a reply to: UKTruth

The words "sorry i wont do anything like that again" accompanying such a plea might be an idea also.

He's already served some gaol time, and they wont wish to make and example in to a martyr.

He might walk away with with a community service order and be made to attend social work department every week for a couple of years.

Gaols are chock full, Tommy will be rather an expensive addition to any solitary confinement wing, which is where he would need to remain for his own safety.

If he's quiet, appears to be sorry, and has half an ounce of common sense he might walk away from this with a slap on the wrist, if he's lucky.

a reply to: Freeborn

I don't trust the police of social services to adequately deal with the issue.

Until The Times blew this story of widespread child rape gangs open, both the police and social services were turning a blind eye to it - for decades. So don't tell people to all of a sudden believe our police have it under control - they do not. We badly need people to speak out and shine a light on all cases.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth

The words "sorry i wont do anything that again" accompanying such a plea might be an idea also.

He's already served some gaol time, and they wont wish to make and example in to a martyr.

He might walk away with with a community service order and be made to attend social work department for every week for a couple of years.

Gaols are chock full, Tommy will be rather an expensive addition to any solitary confinement wing, which is where he would need to remain for his own safety.

If he's quiet, appears to be sorry, and has half an ounce of common sense he might walk away from this with a slap on the wrist.

We already know he has no common sense. In fact, I'd say he suffers from some sort of Torrets. Today he was on video decrying the case because he is being treated worse than 'Muslim rapists'. The guy does not know when to put a sock in it and play it smart.

a reply to: UKTruth

I certainly dont trust the likes of Tommy boy bawbag to deal with the issue. LoL

a reply to: UKTruth

We agree there.

Sometimes people really need to learn to be quiet.

Especially where ones liberty is concerned.

Gaols no fun its boring and actually quite dangerous.

Tommy wont do well that's a given.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth

I certainly dont trust the likes of Tommy boy bawbag to deal with the issue. LoL

I think we all should be on it and rooting it out of communities.
It has far more merit - and urgency - that the #metoo movement, for example.
The people who do these things are like vampires - they hate the light.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm not suggesting for one minute that the police and associated agencies etc have this under control.

The police, social workers and CPS have been petrified of bringing cases like this to court as they've been scared of accusations of racism etc.
The PC Brigade have held such sway over public policy etc that there was a blatant refusal to admit that there was/is a specific problem within a specific section of Muslim communities.

But people like Jack Straw and more recently Sajid Javid have worked hard to see that these cases are prosecuted and the guilty parties handed severe sentences - not severe enough in my eyes but I guess that's another discussion altogether.

There is growing awareness of the full extent of these crimes and a growing public sense that these cases must always be prosecuted....but it has to be in accordance with the law.

The eradication of this practice has to be the priority.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's antics do not help and only serve to aid his own agenda of self-promotion.

a reply to: UKTruth

These some merit to what you say.

However things would get out of hand rather sharpish.

Reminiscent of the witch hunts of old.

And don't expect any would be alleged pedophiles to be prosecuted fairly in our courts afterwards, that's if they were even alive.

What you propose is a rather slippery slope UKTruth.

I pick and choose which laws to pay lip service towards.

But i recognize what would happen without such rule of law, we would simply tear ourselves apart.

Then we really would be reminiscent, and no better off, than these Muslim Sharia law following 17th century caliphates.