2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Do agree with you this is confusing. I also think that if he had not mentioned any names he would have been ok.

Like i have mentioned on numerous times, he read out the names from a BBC website, so are you saying it was ok for the BBC to report the names but not Tommy ?

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Please read before making false accusations.

What false accusations have i made ?

1 minute ago, alfieconn said:

Like i have mentioned on numerous times, he read out the names from a BBC website, so are you saying it was ok for the BBC to report the names but not Tommy ?

Like has been pointed out to you many times, that website was there before the ban took effect.

Just now, alfieconn said:

What false accusations have i made ?

Don't remember your own post from a few minutes ago? " but no doubt he will say that it wasn't Tommy "

Just now, stevenl said:

Like has been pointed out to you many times, that website was there before the ban took effect.

Ok, so surely they should be up for contempt of court for not taking it down when there was press restriction ?

Just now, alfieconn said:

Ok, so surely they should be up for contempt of court for not taking it down when there was press restriction ?

I don't know if that website was still online.

Just now, stevenl said:

Don't remember your own post from a few minutes ago? " but no doubt he will say that it wasn't Tommy "

You need to learn what an "accusation " is !

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I don't know if that website was still online.

See my earlier post

Quote

 Like i have mentioned on numerous times, he read out the names from a BBC website, so are you saying it was ok for the BBC to report the names but not Tommy ?

 

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Consider the stink that Yaxley-Lennon and his 'supporters' would kick up if he had been allowed to continue is performance outside of the court and had brought about a mistrial or worse still an unsafe verdict. 

 

Imagine for a moment if the news was not 'Yaxley-Lennon' released on bail awaiting retrial but because of his actions it was:

 

'Child Rapists Released from Prison, Convictions Overturned as 'Unsafe' - Compensation will be paid'

 

 

 

He reported for 1h 15mins and people like yourself keep saying "it could have bought a mis-trial, blah blah blah" so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?  

52 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

He reported for 1h 15mins and people like yourself keep saying "it could have bought a mis-trial, blah blah blah" so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?  

Go ask the judge. It was his decision.

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

On 8/1/2018 at 6:38 PM, ivor bigun said:

 

See @ 5.42 min

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He asks someone he addresses as 'Officer' to confirm he can't use some chairs whilst filming on his mobile.

 

At no point does he ask if he can break the specific reporting restrictions, he doesn't even mention the case or the reason for his filming to the person he was addressing, and at no point does anyone give him permission to break the reporting restrictions.

 

I have to wonder why he was using his mobile instead of the film crew he usually employs. Could it be because he wanted to keep a low profile because he knew he was going to commit contempt of court?

 

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

See my earlier post

 

Which has no bearing at all on being online or not, he could have easily read from the website while it was off line.

 

7by7 has some good points in post #231 about the filming.

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

See my earlier post

Quote

 Like i have mentioned on numerous times, he read out the names from a BBC website, so are you saying it was ok for the BBC to report the names but not Tommy ?

 

 

You have been told numerous times, in this topic and the other, that the BBC report of the commital proceedings at the Magistrates court last year was well before any reporting restrictions were in place.

 

Therefore the BBC did not break any reporting restrictions because at that time there were no reporting restrictions to break!

 

When Yaxley-Lennon read the names out there were reporting restictions in place; where he got the names from is irrelevent.

 

Got it now?

 

 

1 hour ago, alfieconn said:

He reported for 1h 15mins and people like yourself keep saying "it could have bought a mis-trial, blah blah blah" so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?  

Because he was stopped in time?

 

How do we know that he didn't cause either, though? The men may appeal citing Yaxley-Lennon's publicity stunt as the reason why they did not recieve a fair trial!

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

Because he was stopped in time?

 

How do we know that he didn't cause either, though? The men may appeal citing Yaxley-Lennon's publicity stunt as the reason why they did not recieve a fair trial!

What was the outcome of the trial ?

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What was the outcome of the trial ?

The case he was discussing was subject to blanket reporting restrictions imposed under the Contempt of Court Act to ensure that three linked trials did not collapse.

 

Not sure if they've all finished yet.

 

The Section 4 (2) order makes it illegal for anyone, in any format, to publish information on any of the cases until the last trial had finished.

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

The case he was discussing was subject to blanket reporting restrictions imposed under the Contempt of Court Act to ensure that three linked trials did not collapse.

 

Not sure if they've all finished yet.

 

The Section 4 (2) order makes it illegal for anyone, in any format, to publish information on any of the cases until the last trial had finished.

The trial may have finished and the reporting restrictions still in place ?

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Do agree with you this is confusing. I also think that if he had not mentioned any names he would have been ok.

Not sure.

 

He was originaly arrested for heckling people and trying to film the defendants as they entered court.

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

The trial may have finished and the reporting restrictions still in place ?

Trials, plural. The order covers three related trials.

 

Once all the trials covered by a restriction have finished, reporting restrictions are lifted.

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Trials, plural. The order covers three related trials.

 

Once all the trials covered by a restriction have finished, reporting restrictions are lifted.

When are the trials scheduled to be finished ? 

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

When are the trials scheduled to be finished ? 

How long is a piece of string? 

 

I assume that they haven't all finished as I can't find reports of the result. 

 

But if anyone can, please post a link. 

On 8/1/2018 at 10:00 PM, Scott said:

Unless you are willing to provide a source, I will consider it trolling and posting mis-information.   Oh, and you might want to make it a credible source.  

 

 

Not that difficult to find if you want to. You obviously don't want to.

Tommy Robinson live stream

29 minutes ago, seahorse said:

Not that difficult to find if you want to. You obviously don't want to.

Tommy Robinson live stream

Continue to comment on moderation and you will get a suspension.   I am not interested, some of our members, however, were.  

 

Leave the legal system to do its work and justice WILL be done

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/13/eight-members-of-oxford-grooming-ring-jailed-for-sexual-assault

12 hours ago, alfieconn said:

He reported for 1h 15mins and people like yourself keep saying "it could have bought a mis-trial, blah blah blah" so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?  

So by your logic it was fine for me to drive whilst blind drunk yesterday because I didn't crash and got home safely even though my journey took me 1h 15 minutes.  Drink driving is illegal for a very good reason, but blah blah blah, why didn't it cause me to crash?  

 

So drink driving should be made legal then, right?  Or only for Tommy ?

 

Same logic you are using, think about it.

 

 

On 8/2/2018 at 11:04 PM, josephbloggs said:

My God that was cringeworthy to watch - what a fawning sycophant!

 

"Oh Tommy, where were Amnesty International?  Where were Reporters Without Borders?".   Seriously?  

"Oh Tommy, it's a form of torture!  They treat Guantanamo Bay prisoners better than you Tommy."

"He's like a POW who has been forced to build the Burma railway!"  Get a grip man!

"Rescued from torture".

"I know if Tommy were a Muslim prisoner in Guantanamo Bay, or a Brit or an American in North Korea or Iran, we would have a word for how Tommy was treated, and that word is torture".   

 

Pass the sick bucket, truly cringeworthy.

And, not surprisingly, it turns out that his claims that he was kept in solitary confinement are completely untrue.  Worse than Guantanamo Bay, what an insult to those people who who have been kept there without a trial, in isolation, and genuinely tortured.   Why do people continue to support this racist, violent, criminal liar?  

 

A Prison Service spokesman said: "Mr Yaxley-Lennon was treated with the same fairness we aim to show all prisoners - he had access to visits, television and showers - and it is totally false to say he was held in 'solitary confinement'.

 

"He was initially placed into the Care & Separation Unit for less than 48 hours while an assessment of the risk to his safety was undertaken by prison staff. He then joined the main prison population."

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go ask the judge. It was his decision.

Sorry ! i thought you knew the answer being as you made the comment "if he had been allowed to continue is performance outside of the court and had brought about a mistrial or worse still an unsafe verdict ".

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

He asks someone he addresses as 'Officer' to confirm he can't use some chairs whilst filming on his mobile.

That will be the old lady who happened to be walking by then 

 

Quote

At no point does he ask if he can break the specific reporting restrictions, he doesn't even mention the case or the reason for his filming to the person he was addressing, and at no point does anyone give him permission to break the reporting restrictions.

Why would he ask that ? anyway It has not been found that he has broken any reporting restriction's, the case hasn't gone to court yet !

 

Quote

I have to wonder why he was using his mobile instead of the film crew he usually employs. Could it be because he wanted to keep a low profile because he knew he was going to commit contempt of court?

Low profile ??? when he is live streaming to thousands of people.

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

Which has no bearing at all on being online or not, he could have easily read from the website while it was off line.

 

7by7 has some good points in post #231 about the filming.

It is still on line now, what is it with you ?

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have been told numerous times, in this topic and the other, that the BBC report of the commital proceedings at the Magistrates court last year was well before any reporting restrictions were in place.

 

Therefore the BBC did not break any reporting restrictions because at that time there were no reporting restrictions to break!

 

When Yaxley-Lennon read the names out there were reporting restictions in place; where he got the names from is irrelevent.

 

Got it now?

 

 

Can you read ? if so read my earlier post  

Quote

Ok, so surely they should be up for contempt of court for not taking it down when there was press restriction ?