Tommy Robinson

[pritch]

you could make a counter argument that Tommy's breach of the contempt of court restrictions was part of a valid protest and that the restrictions on the case, placed by the Judge were contrary to the public interest and that Tommy was acting within the Public interest (and so his actions were justified, possibly even lawful).

No you couldn't, now you're just being silly.

Circling back to the point made by Douglas Murray - It is clear that they are using every technicality to throw the book at Tommy, with the hopes of shutting him up.

The only reason he was "shut up" was to prevent a mistrial. There are no "technicalities" involved.

You seem to have forgotten, he pleaded guilty.

[Katman]

No you couldn't, now you're just being silly.




The only reason he was "shut up" was to prevent a mistrial. There are no "technicalities" involved.

You seem to have forgotten, he pleaded guilty.

Do you think Tommy Robinson (and every other English person for that matter) would be justified in feeling aggrieved by the apparent systemic failing of the English justice system to deal with Muslim rape gangs?

[TheDemonLord]

No you couldn't, now you're just being silly.

I'm being very serious. I've been very critical of numerous protests, but I hold the right to protest in the highest esteem - it is one of the checks and balances upon which our civilization relies.

Given the failings of the current system and that the UK government does not seem to have dealt to this issue, then yes, I do believe that this

The only reason he was "shut up" was to prevent a mistrial. There are no "technicalities" involved.

You seem to have forgotten, he pleaded guilty.

Or, because just like at Rotherham, certain groups (political, religious, social etc.) don't want to address this problem.

[Banditbandit]

There are some who think that the blanket restrictions are more about trying to downplay the problem and cover it up, as opposed to any impact on the trial.

Given what we know of recent UK government behaviours - I tend to fall on that side.

Yeah - but Robinson broke the law - there are better ways to bring the ideas to the fore than deliberately breaking the law in that way ..

[husaberg]

Not at all - can you point to where I've suggested that?

However, in a wider context (given certain socio-political happenings in the UK) you could make a counter argument that Tommy's breach of the contempt of court restrictions was part of a valid protest and that the restrictions on the case, placed by the Judge were contrary to the public interest and that Tommy was acting within the Public interest (and so his actions were justified, possibly even lawful).

His actions were not lawful though were they I would expect if anyone else had blatantly and repeatedly did what he did they would suffer the same fate.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/867...me-suppression
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/natio...ression-orders

There has been a well documented failing, at multiple levels of Governance to address the problem(s) that Tommy is speaking out against.
Do you not find it interesting, that there is a correlation between the rise of the EDL and the rise of arrests against Tommy?

I again, refer to Douglas Murray's point - it seems clear that these were politically motivated. I think his current actions fall within the purview of Civil Disobedience - Namely, the current laws have objectively failed (Rotherham, failure to deal with extremist clerics/imams/Mosques etc.) and Tommy is protesting this.

Here's a question for you, Husa - Put aside your character judgements of Tommy for the moment - do you think that the issues have

1: Been correctly dealt with by the UK governmental structure
and
2: that the current legal means of redress have been working correctly

I put it to you that the objective answer to both questions is No. This then leads to the follow question:

3: If you assume my a priori position (and that of Tommy's) that the answer to question 1 and 2 is no - what other means is there to enact change?

All the issues with Tommy have been dealt with by the legal system in a clear and transparent manner (as clear as could be)
Simply put If Tommy had simply chosen not to continually do illegal things he would not have been jailed.
Its pretty simple, irrespective of your own beliefs that he was trying to do good, he was clearly in contempt of court.
By filming and identifying people prior to their being found guilty (despite how abhorrent their crimes were), when their was a media ban in place and by filming court proceedings he clearly broke the law.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah - but Robinson broke the law - there are better ways to bring the ideas to the fore than deliberately breaking the law in that way ..

I agree - but it seems to me that those better ways have been tried and failed...

I'll appeal to your Anarchistic tendencies - When legitimate means fail, what is left apart from illegitimate means?

[TheDemonLord]

All the issues with Tommy have been dealt with by the legal system in a clear and transparent manner (as clear as could be)
Simply put If Tommy had simply chosen not to continually do illegal things he would not have been jailed.
Its pretty simple, irrespective of your own beliefs that he was trying to do good, he was clearly in contempt of court.
By filming and identifying people prior to their being found guilty (despite how abhorrent their crimes were), when their was a media ban in place and by filming court proceedings he clearly broke the law.

I think I didn't frame the question properly - the Issues I referred to was that of Muslim Pedophile gangs, not the issue of Tommy himself.

[husaberg]

I think I didn't frame the question properly - the Issues I referred to was that of Muslim Pedophile gangs, not the issue of Tommy himself.

The issue is with Tommy actions, thats the name of the thread
The issue with the Accused pedophiles was clearly being dealt with by the courts. that's where Tommy was filming and live streaming them.
Tommy was breaking the law, Tommy was warned, Yet Tommy continued to do so.
You seem to be somehow pushing the legal system should favour Tommy rights to repeatedly contravene the media blackout regarding the case.
Its pretty simple and has been spelled out with the judgement. Thats its clearly not his right to free speech being contravened.

according to Judge Heather Norton, "this is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness. It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it's about being innocent until proven guilty. It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate 'reporting', if that's what it was

The media and individuals have rules that they must follow.
Tommy previous record of criminal behavior does not interfere with him getting a fair hearing in the legal system, but it does mean he will not be treated as a first offender on his subsequent sentencing.


By continuing to flaunt a law, resulted in exactly what he should have expected to happen happening. Tommy apparently wishes to be a martyr for a cause.

On 25 May 2018, Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court during a trial on which reporting restrictions had been ordered by the judge

In May 2017, Robinson was convicted of contempt of court for using a camera inside Canterbury Crown Court and received a

]suspended sentence

In May 2017, he was arrested for contempt of court after he attempted to take video of the defendants in a child rape case outside Canterbury Crown Court.

[Katman]

The problem seems to stem from the fact that a significant proportion of the English public have lost all faith in the integrity of the justice system when it comes to dealing with crime within the Muslim community.

[Katman]

I would expect if anyone else had blatantly and repeatedly did what he did they would suffer the same fate.

Or maybe they wouldn't.

If Tommy Robinson had been grooming and raping young girls in Rotherham (and had been reported to the police for doing so) do you think he'd be allowed to carry on doing so for 15 years?

[husaberg]

Or maybe they wouldn't. If Stephen Yaxley-Lennon had been grooming and raping young girls in Rotherham (and had been reported to the police for doing so) do you think he'd be allowed to carry on doing so for 15 years?

If Stephen Yaxley-Lennon had been doing that, he would also be with in his basic rights to expect a fair impartial trial which is something he was not so keen on giving the accused.
You would have to be a special kind of idiot to infer there was a travesty of justice against Stephen Yaxley-Lennon when you know and admit he continued to knowingly and repeatedly attempt interfere with the fair impartial process judicial process of others

according to Judge Heather Norton, "this is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness. It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it's about being innocent until proven guilty. It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate 'reporting', if that's what it was

Marson sentenced Robinson to ten months for contempt of court and his previous three months' suspended sentence was activated because of the breach. Stephen Yaxley-Lennons lawyer said that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon felt "deep regret" after comprehending the potential consequences of his behaviour.Robinson was told that if a retrial had to be held as a result of his actions the cost could be "hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds

Here is part of the ruling from the first time he was sentenced to three months (suspended)

Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, on 8th May of this year in the course of ongoing proceedings for allegations of rape faced by four defendants at this court, that trial still in fact being in progress, you attended, together with another, and carried out some filming.

Your intention in being at this court and in carrying out the actions that you did was, on your own account, to film the defendants.

You were told very clearly by security staff at this court that you were to stop filming and that if you were to film then you would be potentially committing an offence and may be held in contempt of court.

These were deliberate actions on your part. They were deliberate actions intending to take photographs of the defendants; they were actions which you continued to take, despite having been told that you should not do it, and I find, as a clear logical inference, that your intention on coming into the court building was to seek out the defendants, who you referred to in the way in which we have all seen and heard.

The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.

Not to mention a pretty good chance that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon actions have provided the defendants (that were subsequently found guilty) grounds that they can attempt to appeal for a mistrial.where was Stephen Yaxley-Lennon on about how long it has taken for some priests to be finally brought to justice, or are they not in his sights on account of them being white? on about how long it has taken for some priests to be finally brought to justice, or are they not in his sights on account of them being white?

[TheDemonLord]

The issue is with Tommy actions, thats the name of the thread
The issue with the Accused pedophiles was clearly being dealt with by the courts. that's where Tommy was filming and live streaming them.
Tommy was breaking the law, Tommy was warned, Yet Tommy continued to do so.
You seem to be somehow pushing the legal system should favour Tommy rights to repeatedly contravene the media blackout regarding the case.
Its pretty simple and has been spelled out with the judgement. Thats its clearly not his right to free speech being contravened.

The media and individuals have rules that they must follow.
Tommy previous record of criminal behavior does not interfere with him getting a fair hearing in the legal system, but it does mean he will not be treated as a first offender on his subsequent sentencing.


By continuing to flaunt a law, resulted in exactly what he should have expected to happen happening. Tommy apparently wishes to be a martyr for a cause.

You're missing a key point - the causal factor for all of Tommy's activism - that being a systemic silencing and ignoring of some exceptionally serious crimes being committed by a certain demographic.

To be clear - I'm originally from the UK - and the news does report on court cases and even ongoing court cases. So why the Gag order? It's entirely possible that it is just for the purpose as stated - fair trial etc.

But, it is also possible that it is part of the same systemic silencing that caused the issue in the first place.

Then there is the issue - how can you be certain of a fair judicial process for Tommy, when objectively, the judicial process has been anything but fair in respect to the grooming gangs?

The institutions integrity is predicated on fairness - and the Rotherham scandal (both in terms of length of time and seriousness of the offending) has severely tarnished that reputation.

This leads to the question as to what legal standard to adhere to: The letter of the law or the Spirit of the law.

[husaberg]

You're missing a key point - the causal factor for all of Tommy's activism - that being a systemic silencing and ignoring of some exceptionally serious crimes being committed by a certain demographic.

To be clear - I'm originally from the UK - and the news does report on court cases and even ongoing court cases. So why the Gag order? It's entirely possible that it is just for the purpose as stated - fair trial etc.

But, it is also possible that it is part of the same systemic silencing that caused the issue in the first place.

Then there is the issue - how can you be certain of a fair judicial process for Stephen, when objectively, the judicial process has been anything but fair in respect to the grooming gangs?

The institutions integrity is predicated on fairness - and the Rotherham scandal (both in terms of length of time and seriousness of the offending) has severely tarnished that reputation.

This leads to the question as to what legal standard to adhere to: The letter of the law or the Spirit of the law.

The key factor in Stephen performances is publicity. He in case you missed it,Even has a stage name.
He needs Publicity to sell books and boost subscribers, the reason he was focused on the trial was because most of the offenders were of Middle easten descent.
he was not protesting at the trial of catholic bishops and cardinals now was he.
As for the speed of justice against Stephen Its pretty simple Stephen was caught bang to rights, multiple times, he was already on a suspended sentence, he then pleaded guilty.
As a contrast the others drew out the procedings as long as they could, Some of the delay in justice being served against the sex offenders was likely due to what would clearly appear to be a lack of effective policing. thats already been established during multiple inquiries and has resulting in plenty of people being dismissed, some delays would be the victims reticeince to come forward. due to deaths and threats against them and their age and vunerability.
its pretty hard to break a code of silence of a ring of criminals when neither the victims or the preperators talk.
One only needs to draw the obvious parrallels with the sex offending of the Christian Comunity, Centerpoint or the greater catholic church.
The gag order i believe was placed to protect other vulnerable parts of the comunity in this case it was imigrants and victims.
One would expect they also wanted to make sure that they had no effective grounds for a mistrial or for further appeals.

What Stephen did was clearly illegal. whether you believe he had good intentions is irelevent in assesing his obvious guilt.

[pritch]

The problem seems to stem from the fact that a significant proportion of the English public have lost all faith in the integrity of the justice system when it comes to dealing with crime within the Muslim community.

The South Yorkshire Police sat on their hands for decades. It's possible that they were too busy with the Hillsborough cover up though. Anyway they and others have lurched into action. The Rotherham gang was eventually prosecuted and jailed. Other cases are proceeding such as the one "Robinson" was endangering. So the system is dealing with crimes by muslims now, and with idiots that interfere.

Big improvement.

[TheDemonLord]

The key factor in Stephen performances is publicity. He in case you missed it,Even has a stage name.

Cause it's not like Islam has a record of murdering people that critique their religion or their Prophet - do I need to bring up Charlie Hebdo?

He needs Publicity to sell books and boost subscribers, the reason he was focused on the trial was because most of the offenders were of Middle easten descent.

You are putting the Cart before the Horse: It's because of their middle eastern descent and values that they committed the crimes they did, It's the values that Tommy is objecting to.

As for the speed of justice against Stephen Its pretty simple Stephen was caught bang to rights, multiple times, he was already on a suspended sentence, he then pleaded guilty.

Indeed - now compare the actions of the Police against Tommy (raiding his house, picking him up on multiple technicalities) vs the actions of the Police in Rotherham (20 years of inaction)

Do you see the double standard and why people are a little bit annoyed?

he was not protesting at the trial of catholic bishops and cardinals now was he.
As a contrast the others drew out the procedings as long as they could, Some of the delay in justice being served against the sex offenders was likely due to what would clearly appear to be a lack of effective policing. thats already been established during multiple inquiries and has resulting in plenty of people being dismissed, some delays would be the victims reticeince to come forward. due to deaths and threats against them and their age and vunerability.
its pretty hard to break a code of silence of a ring of criminals when neither the victims or the preperators talk.
One only needs to draw the obvious parrallels with the sex offending of the Christian Comunity, Centerpoint or the greater catholic church.

You're trying to setup a false equivalence - There's a very key difference between the Catholic Church offences and these offences:

With the Catholic church, they were investigated by the police multiple times, however the Church actively hindered investigations (such as posting a cardinal to another country, paying off the victims etc.)

In the Rotherham (and subsequent cases) The police, the Council and other institutions colluded to actively NOT investigate the cases for fear of being labelled racist

So no, there aren't parrallels to be drawn.

The gag order i believe was placed to protect other vulnerable parts of the comunity in this case it was imigrants and victims.
One would expect they also wanted to make sure that they had no effective grounds for a mistrial or for further appeals.

You mean - they didn't want people angry at the Islamic community for raping their daughters? So they abused the legal system to prevent people from talking about it? Why! Thanks for proving my entire point!

This is entirely in line with their previous actions, so from there - it's rather plain to see why people are objecting to it - they are seeing that the political class has not learned from Rotherham and are committing the same mistakes.

What Stephen did was clearly illegal. whether you believe he had good intentions is irelevent in assesing his obvious guilt.

It's entirely relevant - ever heard of a Jury acquittal?