High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

a reply to: andy06shake

But that’s just it

People shouldn’t be singled out by the law just because some find them unlikable

Perhaps tomorrow it will be you the government find unlikable

Peoples feelings on tommy as a person should not matter

You just had a uk attorney general say in the bbc that everyone better watch what they say on social media because the government may come after them

That is incredibly scary, and I’m afraid many uk citizens are whistling to the graveyard

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: ClovenSky

Again as I understand it, the courts allow media after the trial, I guess they allow the public to know there is a trial so people think the system works (which is rubbish as we all know the system is #ed) I dunno man it's a strange one, all I am certain of is Tommy is a victim of his own stupidity.

For many trials here, there is a publication ban, usually requested by prosecution, or defence at the get go. The ban covers public persons and media from revealing details of the trial..evidence, witnesses..etc.

a reply to: Grambler

I hope so i certainly don't like them.

End of the day this is not about feelings, it's about Tommy repeatedly doing what he was told not to by a judge.

Only the stupidest kind of moronic muppet disregards there advice and expects nothing to happen.

Tommy knew fine well what the outcome of his actions may be because he was bloody told in advance.

I'm not scared, and i don't think many of the rest of us are neither too be honest.

Our gaols are already bursting at the seems do you really imagine "They" have the space nevermind inclination to be gaoling every Tom, Dick, or Harry that bumps his gums in a controversial manner on social media sites?

I mean Prisons are a grown industry, but they would need to build 100s of them to accommodate the numbers.

a reply to: andy06shake

I know your not scared

Your government is selectively enforcing laws

In one hand they let pedophiles gang rape girls for years and enforce the laws as lightly as possible

On the other hand the selectively enforce laws at the person calling out pedophiles

I bet all the parents of the tapes girls weren’t worried about the government selectively enforcing laws either

By the time your scared it will be too late

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ClovenSky

Did tommy film while the jury was there?

Cause i read they had already decided and were no longer part of the trial

There was a series of linked trials covered by the reporting restriction. This has already been covered.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
And the public are falling over themselves to condemn this shockingly abhorrent action that Tommy Robinson took.

Not a single one of those very people gave even the slightest condemnation of the rapists.

I guess what Tommy did is so shocking and awful that the organised and systematic rape of HUNDREDS of underaged girls just pales in comparison.

Faux outrage.

Robinson's actions endangered the trial of child abusers. Thus has been stated numerous times on this thread and others.

Those defending Robinson (who had absolutely nothing to do with uncovering their crimes or getting them to trial) are the the ones showing no concern for the actual victims.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

I know your not scared

Your government is selectively enforcing laws

In one hand they let pedophiles gang rape girls for years and enforce the laws as lightly as possible

On the other hand the selectively enforce laws at the person calling out pedophiles

I bet all the parents of the tapes girls weren’t worried about the government selectively enforcing laws either

By the time your scared it will be too late

The breaches of reporting restriction commited by Robinson were detailed by the court. Show me anyone else doing what he was doing and we can discuss if the law has been selectively applied.

Why are people citing double jeopardy laws? He is not being punished twice for the same crime.

He was convicted and jailed for an offence. Whether you agree with the nature of the offence is irrelevant. The initial trial was found to be flawed so he was released. This does not mean that he was innocent, just that the process for convicting him was not followed correctly. This typically results in a re-trial to allow his and the public's right to due process. This is common practice in many countries including the UK and US. A flawed trial does not mean a get out of jail free card, it means you get a re-trial.

The re-trial finds him guilty so he goes back to jail. In all likelihood time already served under the original conviction is taken into account and removed from the subsequent sentence. No second punishment.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

originally posted by: PaddyInf
Why are people citing double jeopardy laws? He is not being punished twice for the same crime.

He was convicted and jailed for an offence. Whether you agree with the nature of the offence is irrelevant. The initial trial was found to be flawed so he was released. This does not mean that he was innocent, just that the process for convicting him was not followed correctly. This typically results in a re-trial to allow his and the public's right to due process. This is common practice in many countries including the UK and US. A flawed trial does not mean a get out of jail free card, it means you get a re-trial.

The re-trial finds him guilty so he goes back to jail. In all likelihood time already served under the original conviction is taken into account and removed from the subsequent sentence. No second punishment.

Why is this such a difficult concept?

Because certain posters are so desperate to find some conspiracy against Robinson that they will manufacture some supposed human rights abuse despite the fact that appeals process has nothing to do with double jeopardy.

A little Fact Buster for those who have an inability, or unwillingness, to grasp English law.

This is an interesting read. A bit outdated, but gives good context for where we are now. It may help address some of the erroneous comments and views expressed in this thread so far.

Barrister Blog

Anyway. The sun is out and I'm off to walk the hills.

a reply to: Grambler

Please explain how 'the government' are 'selectively enforcing laws'?

The government doesn't decide who gets prosecuted, the Criminal Prosecution Service does;

The Crown Prosecution Service advises the police on cases for possible prosecution and reviews cases submitted by the police.

They determine what defendants should be charged with in more serious or complex cases.

Their decision whether or not to prosecute is based on two tests; whether there is enough evidence to prove the case, and whether it is in the public interest to bring the case to court.

www.police.uk...-happens-when-someone-is-charged-with-a-crime

Have you got any proof or supportive evidence that suggests 'they let pedophiles gang rape girls for years and enforce the laws as lightly as possible'?

The very fact that these grooming gangs are being prosecuted and are receiving relatively severe sentences - not severe enough in my mind - and that they are widely reported on after the investigation/trials and sentencing are completed are proof that your assertion just isn't true.

There is an increasing acknowledgement that we have a problem with people from within a specific section of society deliberately targeting, exploiting and abusing poor, young vulnerable girls.
More and more of these people are being brought to task and are being prosecuted under UK Law.
Where exactly is the problem?

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's grandstanding deliberately jeopardised the trial of paedophiles for the sole purpose of raising his own public profile.
That is simply unforgivable.
He knew the legalities and he knew the potential consequences.
Yet still he persisted....

I am sure other members have already explained all this to you.....yet still you persist with this nonsense that Yaxley-Lennon is somehow being victimised.

To put it bluntly he's nothing but a self-aggrandising bell end.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

I know your not scared

Your government is selectively enforcing laws

In one hand they let pedophiles gang rape girls for years and enforce the laws as lightly as possible

On the other hand the selectively enforce laws at the person calling out pedophiles

I bet all the parents of the tapes girls weren’t worried about the government selectively enforcing laws either

By the time your scared it will be too late

The breaches of reporting restriction commited by Robinson were detailed by the court. Show me anyone else doing what he was doing and we can discuss if the law has been selectively applied.

I showed the law

I showed multiple examples of people breaking the law, even people filming outside the courthouse of child sex court cases

None of those people were charged even though the law shows they were clearly guilty

And many are fine with it because they don’t like tommy

And meanwhile the ag in the Uk specifically says that everyone better watch what they say on social media or they could be charged

But hey, I get it, you don’t like tommy, so you cheer for this

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

I know your not scared

Your government is selectively enforcing laws

In one hand they let pedophiles gang rape girls for years and enforce the laws as lightly as possible

On the other hand the selectively enforce laws at the person calling out pedophiles

I bet all the parents of the tapes girls weren’t worried about the government selectively enforcing laws either

By the time your scared it will be too late

The breaches of reporting restriction commited by Robinson were detailed by the court. Show me anyone else doing what he was doing and we can discuss if the law has been selectively applied.

I showed the law

I showed multiple examples of people breaking the law, even people filming outside the courthouse of child sex court cases

None of those people were charged even though the law shows they were clearly guilty

And many are fine with it because they don’t like tommy

And meanwhile the ag in the Uk specifically says that everyone better watch what they say on social media or they could be charged

But hey, I get it, you don’t like tommy, so you cheer for this

Where those people live streaming a report (250k views I believe)?


Did they approach the accused in an aggressive and accusatory manner?

Did they talk about 'muslim paedophiles' while naming the accused across all the trials?

Where they under suspended sentence for similar events at a previous case?

ETA- you are correct about one thing I don't like him. That's because he is a racist biggoted thug and liar. However that is irrelevant to his guilt in this case.

a reply to: Freeborn

Isn’t the prosecution service part of the the government?

And yes there is proof authorities knew of the child rape gangss and did nothing for decades, even treating victims that came to them like prostitutes

If I not they cared as much about child rapists being brought to justice as much as they did as they do about tommy, thouayof girls may have been spared from being raped

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

I know your not scared

Your government is selectively enforcing laws

In one hand they let pedophiles gang rape girls for years and enforce the laws as lightly as possible

On the other hand the selectively enforce laws at the person calling out pedophiles

I bet all the parents of the tapes girls weren’t worried about the government selectively enforcing laws either

By the time your scared it will be too late

The breaches of reporting restriction commited by Robinson were detailed by the court. Show me anyone else doing what he was doing and we can discuss if the law has been selectively applied.

I showed the law

I showed multiple examples of people breaking the law, even people filming outside the courthouse of child sex court cases

None of those people were charged even though the law shows they were clearly guilty

And many are fine with it because they don’t like tommy

And meanwhile the ag in the Uk specifically says that everyone better watch what they say on social media or they could be charged

But hey, I get it, you don’t like tommy, so you cheer for this

Where those people live streaming a report (250k views I believe)?


Did they approach the accused in an aggressive and accusatory manner?

Did they talk about 'muslim paedophiles' while naming the accused across all the trials?

Where they under suspended sentence for similar events at a previous case?

Show me in the law that says live-streaming is the only thing that makes someone guilty

The other people were filming live for network tv which has an even bigger reach

Show me in the law we’re ot says accusatory approach is the only thing that makes guilty

It says any reporting or discussion can make you guilty, and Tommy never said they were guilty only alleged

Show me in the law where is says only people saying Muslim pedophiles are guilty?

Many other people during the Rolf and glitter trial discussed wealthy pedophiles and weren’t charged

And as far as tommy being charged before

Wel at some point he was charged for the first time, and none of the other people were ever charged for breaking the same law

Do you think the bbc is lying when it quotes the ag saying everyone now should be careful what their social media posts say?

If not, I would find that comment very scary

a reply to: ScepticScot

And when all else fails call someone a racist

Too bad you spend so much energy hating him and not enough hating pedophile gamgs and the government officials and law enforcement that knew of them and let them continue raping girls for decades

Tell me, I’m the USA we have had a Catholic child sex scandal

Do you think the people who investigate and are furious about that are racist as well?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

And when all else fails call someone a racist

Too bad you spend so much energy hating him and not enough hating pedophile gamgs and the government officials and law enforcement that knew of them and let them continue raping girls for decades

Tell me, I’m the USA we have had a Catholic child sex scandal

Do you think the people who investigate and are furious about that are racist as well?

I think he is a racist because of his history of membership of racist groups and his racist comments.

Personally I have no trouble hating racists and child abusers and it really takes minimal energy. Sorry if you find that difficult.

We have had several church sex scandals in UK as well. Strangely enough racists like Robinson are only concerned with Muslim child abusers.

a reply to: Grambler

Just because we don't like Tommy does not mean he did not break the law.

Most racist twats go down like a lead balloon over here.

The CPS(Crown Prosecution Service) and COPFS (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service) are who prosecute you in the UK.

Why not take any issue you seem to have with Tommy being prosecuted up with them?

I'm sure they could explain the little idiosyncrasies of how and why Tommy 10 names was prosecuted to the full extent of our laws.

a reply to: paraphi

From your link which appears to be a very well constructed hit piece:

Reporting restrictions? What’s that about?

If something is said in court surely it can be reported? Actually, no. Until a verdict is delivered, only things said in court in the presence of the jury can be reported. Legal argument invariably takes place while jurors are relaxing in the comfort of their retiring room (the lucky ones among them may even get to re-read a 2011 Woman’s Realm several times), and it cannot be reported until the trial is over. Very often the argument is about the admissibility of evidence. Obviously if you report arguments about admissibility of evidence then jurors may read about evidence even if it is ruled inadmissible, which is hardly very fair.

I wonder, could anyone give the exact status of this trial on May 25th 2018? From everything that I have read it stated this trial was in final deliberation where the jury was deciding the verdict. Do they have access to live media in deliberation?

The point is that it was capable of intimidating members of the public, and prejudicing jurors against the defendants.

So the real stickler here per brit law was the stage of the trial itself?

Coming to court is enough of an ordeal without having to worry about an aggressive Tommy Robinson thrusting his mobile phone in your face and demanding that you say something. The judge learnt what he was up to, and directed that the jurors and defendants leave by a separate entrance. He was told to stop, but he carried on filming anyway. Unable to find any defendants to film, he made a glorified selfie of himself, talking to the camera both inside and on the steps outside the court building.
He then posted the film on You Tube under the headline: “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury, exposing Muslim child rapists. Police help them escape.”
His commentary referred to the defendants as “Muslim paedophiles.” The judge decided that this behaviour was a clear contempt of court. It was:

The Judge instructed both jurors and defendants to leave by a side entrance so no contact was made. That would indicate the trial was over.

Robinson may have cut the timing a little close but when can someone officially report on the results of a completed deliberated and sentenced trial? Does some official have to ring a bell that signals the media they can now speak about a trial. Does it need to be given to an officially sanctioned news station and then once reported on can be regurgitated by the rest of the corps?

For serious trial here in the states, jurys are sequestered/isolated where public opinion may sway their decision. Why wasn't that done in this case? Do you have jury sequestration?

I guess I don't really have a dog in this fight. Being a conspiracy site, there have been other suggestions that these grooming gangs get off very lightly there and that in itself is very interesting. If these gangs receive the same justice as do our politicians here, I can see why anyone trying to publicize this would be considered an enemy. It is just very interesting is all.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: paraphi

From your link which appears to be a very well constructed hit piece:

Reporting restrictions? What’s that about?

If something is said in court surely it can be reported? Actually, no. Until a verdict is delivered, only things said in court in the presence of the jury can be reported. Legal argument invariably takes place while jurors are relaxing in the comfort of their retiring room (the lucky ones among them may even get to re-read a 2011 Woman’s Realm several times), and it cannot be reported until the trial is over. Very often the argument is about the admissibility of evidence. Obviously if you report arguments about admissibility of evidence then jurors may read about evidence even if it is ruled inadmissible, which is hardly very fair.

I wonder, could anyone give the exact status of this trial on May 25th 2018? From everything that I have read it stated this trial was in final deliberation where the jury was deciding the verdict. Do they have access to live media in deliberation?

The point is that it was capable of intimidating members of the public, and prejudicing jurors against the defendants.

So the real stickler here per brit law was the stage of the trial itself?

Coming to court is enough of an ordeal without having to worry about an aggressive Tommy Robinson thrusting his mobile phone in your face and demanding that you say something. The judge learnt what he was up to, and directed that the jurors and defendants leave by a separate entrance. He was told to stop, but he carried on filming anyway. Unable to find any defendants to film, he made a glorified selfie of himself, talking to the camera both inside and on the steps outside the court building.
He then posted the film on You Tube under the headline: “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury, exposing Muslim child rapists. Police help them escape.”
His commentary referred to the defendants as “Muslim paedophiles.” The judge decided that this behaviour was a clear contempt of court. It was:

The Judge instructed both jurors and defendants to leave by a side entrance so no contact was made. That would indicate the trial was over.

Robinson may have cut the timing a little close but when can someone officially report on the results of a completed deliberated and sentenced trial? Does some official have to ring a bell that signals the media they can now speak about a trial. Does it need to be given to an officially sanctioned news station and then once reported on can be regurgitated by the rest of the corps?

For serious trial here in the states, jurys are sequestered/isolated where public opinion may sway their decision. Why wasn't that done in this case? Do you have jury sequestration?

I guess I don't really have a dog in this fight. Being a conspiracy site, there have been other suggestions that these grooming gangs get off very lightly there and that in itself is very interesting. If these gangs receive the same justice as do our politicians here, I can see why anyone trying to publicize this would be considered an enemy. It is just very interesting is all.

There where reporting restrictions in place due to a number of linked trials. There has been pointed out numerous times.

Robinson actions could have resulted in child abusers walking free.

Sentebcesnces given to those convicted are all a matter of public record. Personally I think the sentences given to child abusers are too light but these were in line with sentencing guidelines.