Free Speech In The Uk

[Cinaruco]

No, it came down to his breaking the law, no matter how many people want to reframe it as something else.

 

Does anyone actually want to try and understand my country? Does it take too much effort to actually listen to what the people whom live here actually say?

The beautiful thing is that this line might have come from Tommy's lips.

[Mr King]

In British prison, kebab remove you

[Briganza]

If tossing a guy for filming in a courthouse makes all of this more palatable to you, then good. Its still some Banana Republic shit. Tommy reminds me of my school friend that ended up as a political prisoner for 100 days, same story, same physical decay.

 

 

Contrary to what many think he has not been found not guilty, he is to have a retiral and looking at what the appeal court has said he is going down, again.

 

I am glad you are enjoying Tommy's situation. And thank you for clarifying that Tommy could still spend allot of time in Kebab jail.

 

I mean, sending the guy to the largest musilm prison in Britain, that is something the courts do only when they wish to punish people, and not legally, but by abusing their power.

Your talking absolute rubbish. He got off with a suspended sentence because he used the "I got 3 kids and if I went to jail they don't like me" card.

 

Kent is a long way from Leeds.

 

As a contempt conviction he would be treated differently from a criminal conviction, see the appeal court ruling.

 

Robinson's situation is of his own making. He was given a warning and told not to do it again or else. Robinson did not heed the warning and so paid the price of being a dick.

 

Please clarify to me what is the largest Muslim prison in the UK?

 

I was not aware that we locked people up by religion. As I understand it you are locked up in relation to your crime not your religion. He would be incarcerated in a prison in England not Britain and generally one that is close to your home if possible, particularly if your crime is of a low level, probably an open prison in his case.

 

I take it you did not read the "facts" part of the appeal or you would have seen that as well as filming within the court, and unlike the US cameras are not allowed in court, he also filmed defendants in contradiction of a court orders that could have jeopardized further criminal case and those who had been charges could have got off.

 

On the hole I am very please with how he was dealt with, because I would have been very upset if those that had raped children got off because prats like Robinson thought that they were above the law.

 

Or do your think it is ok for rapists to get off due to publicity stunts by prats.

 

Think carefully now, publicity stunt or conviction for raping a child, which would you vote for.

[rmgill]

Does anyone actually want to try and understand my country? Does it take too much effort to actually listen to what the people whom live here actually say?

 

CAN YOU?

 

You're the guy who claims to be ensconced away in the Cotswalds away from everything and can't be bothered to go over to the next county because it's TOO FAR. How about YOU listen to the folks who are in the relevant areas? Sargon can come to the US to do talks, go to Leicester to speak, and travel to other parts of the UK to talk to people.

 

 

[rmgill]

Contrary to what many think he has not been found not guilty, he is to have a retiral and looking at what the appeal court has said he is going down, again.

 

 

Interesting bits from the decision by Lord Burnett:

 

"A central criticism advanced on behalf of the appellant of the proceedings in Leeds is that the judge was wrong to proceed to deal with the contempt as quickly as he did. We consider that there is merit in this point. In contrast to the procedure followed in Canterbury, where the appellant had over a week to secure representation and to prepare his response to the allegations against him, the appellant at Leeds was commencing a term of imprisonment of thirteen months within five hours of the conduct complained of. Such haste gave rise to a real risk that procedural safeguards would be overlooked, the nature of the contempt alleged would remain inadequately scrutinised and that points of significant mitigation would be missed. Those risks materialised. "

 

Within 5 hours of committing the following offense, the accused was convicted and sentenced with some council found to effect some level of defense.

 

More on that:

"A further difficulty arises from the limited opportunity available to the appellant's counsel to investigate matters relevant to mitigation at Leeds Crown Court. Had this been a criminal case, the Court would have been obliged, unless it thought it unnecessary, to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report pursuant to section 156(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We have little doubt that if a pre-committal report had been requested by the judge it would have been provided. It would be unusual, to say the least, for a man with three young children to be sent to prison at a first hearing without some independent inquiry into his family's circumstances. "

 

As to the offenses:

"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. "

 

 

In summary, the finding of contempt made in Leeds must be quashed because:

 

(i) It was inappropriate to proceed immediately on the motion of the court to deal with the alleged contempt after immediate steps had been taken to remove the offending video from the internet. An adjournment was necessary to enable the matter to proceed on a fully informed basis; in any event

 

(ii) The failure to comply with Part 48 of the Rules resulted in there being no clear statement, orally or in writing, of the conduct said to comprise a contempt for contravening the section 4(2) order in place;

 

(iii) It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order;

 

(iv) The haste with which the contempt proceedings were conducted led to an inability of counsel to mitigate fully on the appellant's behalf.

 

From the conclusion:

"For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the decision at Leeds Crown Court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for Part 48 of the Rules gave rise to unfairness. There was no clarity about what parts of the video were relied upon as amounting to contempt, what parts the appellant accepted through his counsel amounted to contempt and for what conduct he was sentenced. Indeed, we would emphasise that, save for those cases involving obstructive, disruptive, insulting or intimidating conduct in the courtroom or its vicinity or otherwise immediately affecting the proceedings, the judge, having taken such steps as are necessary to bring the misconduct to an end and mitigate its consequences, should usually resist the temptation to initiate contempt proceedings on his or her own motion. In the circumstances of this case, whilst the judge was entitled to deal with the contempt himself, the urgency went out of the matter when the appellant agreed to take down the video from Facebook. There should have been an adjournment to enable the particulars of contempt to be properly formulated and for a hearing at a more measured pace, as had happened in Canterbury. The judge might have referred the matter to the Attorney General to consider whether to institute proceedings. That course would have avoided the risk of sacrificing fairness on the altar of celerity. "

[rmgill]

As a contempt conviction he would be treated differently from a criminal conviction, see the appeal court ruling.

Except his treatment was as a convicted offender instead of someone who was in contempt of court. Lord Burnett's point on that is clear in his order. Such treatment was improper.

 

 

Robinson's situation is of his own making. He was given a warning and told not to do it again or else. Robinson did not heed the warning and so paid the price of being a dick.

He was treated as a convicted criminal and confined in solitary because of his own actions? No, that was the mistakes on the part of the British Government.

 

 

I take it you did not read the "facts" part of the appeal or you would have seen that as well as filming within the court, and unlike the US cameras are not allowed in court, he also filmed defendants in contradiction of a court orders that could have jeopardized further criminal case and those who had been charges could have got off.

The offense for which he was 'convicted' was for filming OUTISDE of the court wasn't it though. Characterizing it as "IN THE COURT" is incorrect is it not?

 

On the hole I am very please with how he was dealt with, because I would have been very upset if those that had raped children got off because prats like Robinson thought that they were above the law.

 

That's a point that's fair I think. But, in the first case, the juries had already been sent to decide and the defendants were on their exit from the court. What effect was likely there?

 

From Lord Burnett's order:

Canterbury Crown Court

On 8 May 2017, the appellant attended Canterbury Crown Court during the trial of four defendants for rape. The jury had already been sent out to consider their verdicts. There, he carried out filming on the steps of the court and then inside the court building. He did not enter the courtroom itself. He filmed two pieces to camera during the course of which he commented on the trial which he described as being of "Muslim child rapists". His interest in that trial, and indeed the one in Leeds, was apparently sparked by the ethnicity or religion of the defendants by contrast with the alleged victims. He published the footage he had taken on the internet. By his own admission, he had intended to film the defendants but, in the meantime, his activities had been brought to the trial judge's attention. She took immediate steps to ensure that the defendants were escorted out of the building by another exit. On learning this, the appellant referred in his recordings to "going round their house" with the intention of capturing the defendants on camera there. Notices throughout the court building had made it clear that filming or taking photographs at court amounted to an offence and might also amount to a contempt of court. Furthermore, the appellant had been told by security staff to stop filming and that if he continued he might be committing an offence or be in contempt of court.

 

Think carefully now, publicity stunt or conviction for raping a child, which would you vote for.

One of the points that Tommy has made is that the court trials themselves were publicity stunts as the number of offenders actually brought to justice was a token handful instead of the larger percentage of people responsible.

[rmgill]

Does this guy sound British enough?

[Briganza]

 

As a contempt conviction he would be treated differently from a criminal conviction, see the appeal court ruling.

Except his treatment was as a convicted offender instead of someone who was in contempt of court. Lord Burnett's point on that is clear in his order. Such treatment was improper.

 

 

Robinson's situation is of his own making. He was given a warning and told not to do it again or else. Robinson did not heed the warning and so paid the price of being a dick.

He was treated as a convicted criminal and confined in solitary because of his own actions? No, that was the mistakes on the part of the British Government.

 

 

I take it you did not read the "facts" part of the appeal or you would have seen that as well as filming within the court, and unlike the US cameras are not allowed in court, he also filmed defendants in contradiction of a court orders that could have jeopardized further criminal case and those who had been charges could have got off.

The offense for which he was 'convicted' was for filming OUTISDE of the court wasn't it though. Characterizing it as "IN THE COURT" is incorrect is it not?

 

On the hole I am very please with how he was dealt with, because I would have been very upset if those that had raped children got off because prats like Robinson thought that they were above the law.

 

That's a point that's fair I think. But, in the first case, the juries had already been sent to decide and the defendants were on their exit from the court. What effect was likely there?

 

From Lord Burnett's order:

Canterbury Crown Court

On 8 May 2017, the appellant attended Canterbury Crown Court during the trial of four defendants for rape. The jury had already been sent out to consider their verdicts. There, he carried out filming on the steps of the court and then inside the court building. He did not enter the courtroom itself. He filmed two pieces to camera during the course of which he commented on the trial which he described as being of "Muslim child rapists". His interest in that trial, and indeed the one in Leeds, was apparently sparked by the ethnicity or religion of the defendants by contrast with the alleged victims. He published the footage he had taken on the internet. By his own admission, he had intended to film the defendants but, in the meantime, his activities had been brought to the trial judge's attention. She took immediate steps to ensure that the defendants were escorted out of the building by another exit. On learning this, the appellant referred in his recordings to "going round their house" with the intention of capturing the defendants on camera there. Notices throughout the court building had made it clear that filming or taking photographs at court amounted to an offence and might also amount to a contempt of court. Furthermore, the appellant had been told by security staff to stop filming and that if he continued he might be committing an offence or be in contempt of court.

Think carefully now, publicity stunt or conviction for raping a child, which would you vote for.

One of the points that Tommy has made is that the court trials themselves were publicity stunts as the number of offenders actually brought to justice was a token handful instead of the larger percentage of people responsible.

 

I've just spent the last hour going through that to rebut it and the system asked if I was a robot and bind it all.

 

Rather than do that again I will just oint out that the token hand full was 18 sentanced in 2016 and a further 20 arrested in 2018 (which these cases may be part of) and if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdomyou will see that a number of others have also been convicted. Definitely not a taken handful.

 

The CPS need evidence to bring people before the courts but if they do not have any there is no point in a trial.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Does anyone actually want to try and understand my country? Does it take too much effort to actually listen to what the people whom live here actually say?

CAN YOU?

 

You're the guy who claims to be ensconced away in the Cotswalds away from everything and can't be bothered to go over to the next county because it's TOO FAR. How about YOU listen to the folks who are in the relevant areas? Sargon can come to the US to do talks, go to Leicester to speak, and travel to other parts of the UK to talk to people.

 

 

 

 

Well gee Ryan, I only live here. What can I possibly know about where I live and all.

[rmgill]

Rather than do that again I will just oint out that the token hand full was 18 sentanced in 2016 and a further 20 arrested in 2018 (which these cases may be part of) and if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdomyou will see that a number of others have also been convicted. Definitely not a taken handful.

Don't the reports put the number of people involved in the hundreds?

 

The CPS need evidence to bring people before the courts but if they do not have any there is no point in a trial.

Have you seen how the police in the UK have whole departments devoted to dealing with people saying mean things on the internet?

[rmgill]

Well gee Ryan, I only live here. What can I possibly know about where I live and all.

What can Sargon? Or PJW? Or Pat Condell? Or Tommy Robinson? Or Theodore Darymple? Or Peter Hitchens? Or Milo?

 

Or are they the wrong class as far as you're concerned?

Edited August 4, 2018 by rmgill

[Briganza]

 

Rather than do that again I will just oint out that the token hand full was 18 sentanced in 2016 and a further 20 arrested in 2018 (which these cases may be part of) and if you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexual_abuses_perpetrated_by_groups#United_Kingdomyou will see that a number of others have also been convicted. Definitely not a taken handful.

Don't the reports put the number of people involved in the hundreds?

 

There could have been thousands (and probably was that is not the point) but it still makes no difference. If you have no evidence you can't convict. A number of men were convicted because they found DNA evidence on the victims cloths some time after the incidents happened. The victim could not identify many of the attacker due to the use of drugs and alcohol given to her. A number were identified by CCTV from location she was kept and attacked. A number may have been identified as an attacker but they can't identify the person but that info will be kept till the can and then charges placed before the court.

 

You demand evidence to convict Robinson but are happy that there is no need for evidence to convict others.

 

The CPS need evidence to bring people before the courts but if they do not have any there is no point in a trial.

Have you seen how the police in the UK have whole departments devoted to dealing with people saying mean things on the internet?

 

Define a whole department, two men and a dog or just one and a computer. When I worked at the RUC HQ of B Div in Belfast next door to my office was the rape team, three women and two men to cover all West Belfast. The sign on the door does not indicate the size of the team. Well after someone said mean things about people and threaten to murder them and on a number of occasion have followed through I have no problem with that. May be if dicks like Robinson stopped posting rubbish on the internet then the police could spend more time collecting evidence on more important crime. We have 250 detectives involved in the mess that Russia dumped on our doorstep and that does not include those in uniform dragged in off other tasks. Thousands of police from across the country were involved in the protection of Trump.

 

You could also say the police have whole departments dealing with underwater search, trafic, murder, close protection, anti terrorism, drugs, administration and many more, so what They can do more than one thing at a time. A number of years ago some bright spark came up with the idea of bining how police were controlled and brought in police commissioners. Police commissioners now dictate to the CC how they should deploy their officers. They are the ones who decide if they should have a whole department looking at internet hate.

[rmgill]

There could have been thousands (and probably was that is not the point) but it still makes no difference. If you have no evidence you can't convict. A number of men were convicted because they found DNA evidence on the victims cloths some time after the incidents happened. The victim could not identify many of the attacker due to the use of drugs and alcohol given to her. A number were identified by CCTV from location she was kept and attacked. A number may have been identified as an attacker but they can't identify the person but that info will be kept till the can and then charges placed before the court.

Well if the police are digging up and spending resources making twitter safe for folks with weak self confidence but aren't devoting those man hours of time investigating sex crimes..there's certainly not going to be any evidence.

 

 

You demand evidence to convict Robinson but are happy that there is no need for evidence to convict others.

Well, it's rather evident that Robinson was given less due process (or what ever the british term is for it) than he was due. That's PER the determination of the Lord High Judge or what ever his title is.

 

Define a whole department, two men and a dog or just one and a computer. When I worked at the RUC HQ of B Div in Belfast next door to my office was the rape team, three women and two men to cover all West Belfast. The sign on the door does not indicate the size of the team. Well after someone said mean things about people and threaten to murder them and on a number of occasion have followed through I have no problem with that. May be if dicks like Robinson stopped posting rubbish on the internet then the police could spend more time collecting evidence on more important crime. We have 250 detectives involved in the mess that Russia dumped on our doorstep and that does not include those in uniform dragged in off other tasks. Thousands of police from across the country were involved in the protection of Trump.

 

You could also say the police have whole departments dealing with underwater search, trafic, murder, close protection, anti terrorism, drugs, administration and many more, so what They can do more than one thing at a time. A number of years ago some bright spark came up with the idea of bining how police were controlled and brought in police commissioners. Police commissioners now dictate to the CC how they should deploy their officers. They are the ones who decide if they should have a whole department looking at internet hate.

Enough for £1.7 Million over 2 years? 5 specially trained officers for this example.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39692811

 

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/police-online-hate-crime-hub-met-police

 

How much money and time is being spent on the Gollywog case? What about Count Dankula?

 

 

I've cited multiple critics of British Policing and government. Several of them have made very pointed observations about the misapplication of resources and the rank fear that the police have of being seen to be 'unfair' to 'asians' so they spend MORE time looking away and veering off of the problems. The details of the large grooming gang case are clear that some of the police were turning the victims BACK over to their assailants during the events as they transpired. This is part of the problem. Years later then wringing their hands and saying they don't have the evidence is rather poor performance.

 

From the Daily Mail:

 

 

Among the alleged crimes for which no one was prosecuted were:

• A 14-year-old girl being forced to perform sex acts on five men – four Pakistanis and an Iraqi Kurd asylum seeker;
• A British Pakistani man was found in a car with a bottle of vodka and a 12-year-old. Both were arrested on suspicion of stealing the car. Police also found pornographic images of the girl on the 22-year-old’s phone;
• A 14-year-old girl missing for a week was found under the influence of drugs in a car with a man 20 years older. They had had sex but he was arrested only for drug possession;
• A 13-year-old girl was found drunk at 3am in a derelict house with a ‘large group of adult males’ who had plied her with vodka. She was arrested for a public order offence while the men walked away.

From the Independant Rotherham Report:

 

 

5.9 In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and 
tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be 
arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. In a small 
number of cases (which have already received media attention) the victims 
were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and 
disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and 
sexual assault against children.

5.21 Child A (2000)6 was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became 
known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly 
taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of 
the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that 
they had intercourse with Child A. Child A continued to go missing and 
was at high risk of sexual exploitation. A child protection case conference 
was held. It was agreed by all at the conference that Child A should be 
registered. However, the CID representative argued against the category 
of sexual abuse being used because he thought that Child A had been ‘100% 
consensual in every incident’. This was overruled, with all others at the 
case conference demonstrating a clear understanding that this was a crime 
and a young child was not capable of consenting to the abuse she had suffered. 
She was supported appropriately once she was placed on the child protection register. 

5.24 Child D (2003) was 13 when she was groomed by a violent sexual 
predator who raped and trafficked her. Her parents, Risky Business 
and Child D herself all understood the seriousness of the abuse, violence 
and intimidation she suffered. Police and children’s social care were 
ineffective and seemed to blame the child. A core assessment was done but 
could not be traced on the file. An initial assessment accurately described 
the risks to Child D but appeared to blame her for ‘placing herself at risk 
of sexual exploitation and danger’. Other than Risky Business, agencies 
showed no comprehension that she had been groomed at 13, that she was terrified 
of the perpetrators, and that her attempts to placate them were themselves 
a symptom of the serious emotional harm that CSE had caused her. Risky Business 
worked very hard with Child D and her parents. None of the other agencies 
intervened effectively to protect her, and she and her parents understandably 
had no confidence in them.

5.30 Child H (2008) was 11 years old when she came to the attention of the 
Police. She disclosed that she and another child had been sexually assaulted 
by adult males. When she was 12, she was found drunk in the back of a car 
with a suspected CSE perpetrator, who had indecent photos of her on his phone. 
Risky Business became involved and the Locality Team did an initial assessment 
and closed the case. Her father provided Risky Business with all the information 
he had been able to obtain about the details of how and where his daughter had 
been exploited and abused, and who the perpetrators were. This information was 
passed on to the authorities. Around this time, there were further concerns 
about her being a victim of sexual exploitation. She was identified as one of a 
group of nine children associating with a suspected CSE perpetrator. Her case 
had not been allocated by children’s social care. The Chair of the Strategy 
meeting expressed concern about her and considered she needed a child protection 
case conference. This does not appear to have been held. Three months later, the 
social care manager recorded on the file that Child H had been assessed as at no 
risk of sexual exploitation, and the case was closed. Less than a month later, 
she was found in a derelict house with another child, and a number of adult males. 
She was arrested for being drunk and disorderly (her conviction was later set aside) 
and none of the males were arrested. Child H was at this point identified as being 
at high risk of CSE. Risky Business, social care workers and the Police worked to 
support Child H and her father and she was looked after for a period. She suffered 
a miscarriage while with foster carers. Her family moved out of the area and Child 
H returned home. Some of the perpetrators were subsequently convicted.

This is clearly one of the cases mentioned in the Daily Mail article above.

 

An 11 year old is found drunk and obviously just fucked in a car by an adult. She's arrested for drunk and disorderly and the adult male is let go? Seriously? How many other cases were found? I'd be curious to see what Murph would say about such a case happening in his department and what he'd recommend for such an officer.

 

How many other cases were treated with the same sort of lack of concern?

 

South Yorkshire Police
8.1 We deal with the response of South Yorkshire Police at some length 
throughout this report. While there was close liaison between the Police, 
Risky Business and children’s social care from the early days of the Risky 
Business project, there were very many historic cases where the operational 
response of the Police fell far short of what could be expected. The reasons 
for this are not entirely clear. The Police had excellent procedures from 
1998, but in practice these appear to have been widely disregarded. Certainly 
there is evidence that police officers on the ground in the 1990s and well 
beyond displayed attitudes that conveyed a lack of understanding of the problem 
of CSE and the nature of grooming. We have already seen that children as young 
as 11 were deemed to be having consensual sexual intercourse when in fact they 
were being raped and abused by adults.

Young, working class girls, not worthy of consideration by the police. No wonder folks like Tommy are up in arms.

Edited August 4, 2018 by rmgill

[rmgill]

From that independent report...

26. 8.28 It has not proved possible to follow up any individual cases where there were references to the Crown Prosecution Service in files and minutes dating back to 1997. We were told that those in the CPS before 2010 who would have dealt with CSE had all retired. For much of the period under review, the Police would cite the requirements of the CPS and their unwillingness to charge alleged perpetrators as the main reason so few prosecutions were pursued. In 2003, an SSI inspection noted that when Police had investigated and referred a case to the CPS, it had taken them nine months to decide not to proceed with the case.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Well gee Ryan, I only live here. What can I possibly know about where I live and all.

What can Sargon? Or PJW? Or Pat Condell? Or Tommy Robinson? Or Theodore Darymple? Or Peter Hitchens? Or Milo?

 

Or are they the wrong class as far as you're concerned?

 

 

No, they are all twats as far as im concerned. I dont tend to listen to Twats or Nazi's. Im picky like that.

[Chris Werb]

I'm just hoping the racist criminal Robinson keeps breaking the law and getting banged up. Happily, I'm seeing a lot of cause for optimism.

[Briganza]

I'm just hoping the racist criminal Robinson keeps breaking the law and getting banged up. Happily, I'm seeing a lot of cause for optimism.

Money well spent. Is there a donate page you can use to keep him in longer. I would hate him getting out early due to funding problems with prisons. Has he ever had a job and paid tax or has he and his family been living off me.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im happy to donate to keep him in the manner to which he is accustomed (flatscreen tv, dvd, all the trimings) as long as they actually DO keep him.

 

He did earn a living once, I read he had an apprenticeship doing something at Heathrow airport, before he was arrested for being in a fight with someone. So clearly in some quarters, all you need to qualify as an authority is be arrested by the police for affray. I cant think why ive never tried it.

[Jeff]

 

Contrary to what many think he has not been found not guilty, he is to have a retiral and looking at what the appeal court has said he is going down, again.

 

Interesting bits from the decision by Lord Burnett:

 

"A central criticism advanced on behalf of the appellant of the proceedings in Leeds is that the judge was wrong to proceed to deal with the contempt as quickly as he did. We consider that there is merit in this point. In contrast to the procedure followed in Canterbury, where the appellant had over a week to secure representation and to prepare his response to the allegations against him, the appellant at Leeds was commencing a term of imprisonment of thirteen months within five hours of the conduct complained of. Such haste gave rise to a real risk that procedural safeguards would be overlooked, the nature of the contempt alleged would remain inadequately scrutinised and that points of significant mitigation would be missed. Those risks materialised. "

 

Within 5 hours of committing the following offense, the accused was convicted and sentenced with some council found to effect some level of defense.

 

More on that:

"A further difficulty arises from the limited opportunity available to the appellant's counsel to investigate matters relevant to mitigation at Leeds Crown Court. Had this been a criminal case, the Court would have been obliged, unless it thought it unnecessary, to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report pursuant to section 156(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We have little doubt that if a pre-committal report had been requested by the judge it would have been provided. It would be unusual, to say the least, for a man with three young children to be sent to prison at a first hearing without some independent inquiry into his family's circumstances. "

 

As to the offenses:

"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. "

 

 

In summary, the finding of contempt made in Leeds must be quashed because:

 

(i) It was inappropriate to proceed immediately on the motion of the court to deal with the alleged contempt after immediate steps had been taken to remove the offending video from the internet. An adjournment was necessary to enable the matter to proceed on a fully informed basis; in any event

 

(ii) The failure to comply with Part 48 of the Rules resulted in there being no clear statement, orally or in writing, of the conduct said to comprise a contempt for contravening the section 4(2) order in place;

 

(iii) It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order;

 

(iv) The haste with which the contempt proceedings were conducted led to an inability of counsel to mitigate fully on the appellant's behalf.

 

From the conclusion:

"For the reasons we have given, we are satisfied that the decision at Leeds Crown Court to proceed to committal to prison so promptly and without due regard for Part 48 of the Rules gave rise to unfairness. There was no clarity about what parts of the video were relied upon as amounting to contempt, what parts the appellant accepted through his counsel amounted to contempt and for what conduct he was sentenced. Indeed, we would emphasise that, save for those cases involving obstructive, disruptive, insulting or intimidating conduct in the courtroom or its vicinity or otherwise immediately affecting the proceedings, the judge, having taken such steps as are necessary to bring the misconduct to an end and mitigate its consequences, should usually resist the temptation to initiate contempt proceedings on his or her own motion. In the circumstances of this case, whilst the judge was entitled to deal with the contempt himself, the urgency went out of the matter when the appellant agreed to take down the video from Facebook. There should have been an adjournment to enable the particulars of contempt to be properly formulated and for a hearing at a more measured pace, as had happened in Canterbury. The judge might have referred the matter to the Attorney General to consider whether to institute proceedings. That course would have avoided the risk of sacrificing fairness on the altar of celerity. "

 

 

I don't know how things work on that side of the pond, but over here that's a judicial smack down.

[Jeff]

I was raised under the "when you're right , you're right and when you're wrong, you're wrong" rule. This guy may be a complete racist douche BUT he may also be right in this instance. Either way, he's due his rights under the law and full due process, which he appears not to have gotten from the ruling posted. From the comments here, you're all pretty ok with that because, you know, doucheness. That's a dangerous road to travel, however much your emotions may be justified.

[Mikel2]

Tommy Robinson on the Rubin show.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by Mikel2

[Cinaruco]

No, it came down to his breaking the law, no matter how many people want to reframe it as something else.

 

Does anyone actually want to try and understand my country? Does it take too much effort to actually listen to what the people whom live here actually say?

By recording a video in front of a Courthouse? That deserves jail time? This is some Bolivarian nonesense. I don't think you realize what the problem is here.

[Colin]

Pretty clear someone in government wanted to make an example of him, I think that is going to come back to haunt them. Even in democracies there are people who abuse their authority and powers. Sometimes by doing to much or not doing anything. the big difference is sooner or later there is an accounting of sorts. I think the handling of his case was utter stupidity and they just tossed massive fuel on the fire and proved everything he is saying is correct. In the UK it seems the Muslims hardliners are getting the slack, in the US, it's blacks gangs, in Canada it's the First Nation gangs in the Prairies. Ignoring these problems because they are political hard to deal with is common and eventually come back to bite everyone.

[Cinaruco]

 

If tossing a guy for filming in a courthouse makes all of this more palatable to you, then good. Its still some Banana Republic shit. Tommy reminds me of my school friend that ended up as a political prisoner for 100 days, same story, same physical decay.

 

 

Contrary to what many think he has not been found not guilty, he is to have a retiral and looking at what the appeal court has said he is going down, again.

 

I am glad you are enjoying Tommy's situation. And thank you for clarifying that Tommy could still spend allot of time in Kebab jail.

 

I mean, sending the guy to the largest musilm prison in Britain, that is something the courts do only when they wish to punish people, and not legally, but by abusing their power.

Your talking absolute rubbish.

 

Seems to me this is what you think Free Speech is, rubbish.

 

Robinson's situation is of his own making. He was given a warning and told not to do it again or else. Robinson did not heed the warning and so paid the price of being a dick.

Nope, even if the jailing was justified (and I say no, it wasn't), solitary for a month? Shit getting tossed into his cell?

 

You are actually OK with this?

 

Please clarify to me what is the largest Muslim prison in the UK?

 

I was not aware that we locked people up by religion. As I understand it you are locked up in relation to your crime not your religion. He would be incarcerated in a prison in England not Britain and generally one that is close to your home if possible, particularly if your crime is of a low level, probably an open prison in his case.

 

Now you are being willfully obtuse. In America they don't jail people because the color of their skin, but I guarantee you that there is a prison somewhere with the largest percentage of blacks. Are you saying that this does not happen in the UK?

 

 

I take it you did not read the "facts" part of the appeal or you would have seen that as well as filming within the court, and unlike the US cameras are not allowed in court, he also filmed defendants in contradiction of a court orders that could have jeopardized further criminal case and those who had been charges could have got off.

 

On the hole I am very please with how he was dealt with, because I would have been very upset if those that had raped children got off because prats like Robinson thought that they were above the law.

 

Wasn't Tommy the dude that broke the news about the fact that there are Muslim pedo-rings/groomers in the first place? He got incarcerated for bringing into the spotlight the exact same thing you want to be punished. As for me, the fact that your country has a problem of this magnitude and is more interested in jailing the people that report on the news, rather than the actual rapist, can only be compared to how the Church dealt with their own pedos.

[Cinaruco]

 

I'm just hoping the racist criminal Robinson keeps breaking the law and getting banged up. Happily, I'm seeing a lot of cause for optimism.

Money well spent. Is there a donate page you can use to keep him in longer. I would hate him getting out early due to funding problems with prisons. Has he ever had a job and paid tax or has he and his family been living off me.

 

JFC.

 

Comandante Corbyn already has half of his work done for him. Now wonder the UK is ripe for the socialists, that and the fact that May is Tory Hillary.