Jailed British anti-Muslim activist Robinson released on bail

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

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.

 

 

If you are going to put a Analogy at least put up one that is comparable to what i said instead of waffling like an old woman, anyway would you like to answer the question ? 

Quote

so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?

  

Edited August 4, 2018 by alfieconn

[josephbloggs]

6 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

Instead of waffling, just answer the question 

  

Did you not understand my analogy?  I thought it was quite obvious.   Drink driving does not cause an accident every single time but it is illegal because it very well could do and in many cases does.

 

And who is to say it didn't prejudice the trial?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

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 ".

While it is clear from that comment you don’t understand conditional statements, I do feel it of benefit to present you with another:

 

I wonder what your response will be if the defendants in this child rape case go to appeal on the basis that Yaxley-Lennon has prejudiced their trial?

[alfieconn]

Just now, josephbloggs said:

Did you not understand my analogy?  I thought it was quite obvious.   Drink driving does not cause an accident every single time but it is illegal because it very well could do and in many cases does.

 

And who is to say it didn't prejudice the trial?

 

 

You still haven't  my question !!!!

Quote

so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?

 

[bert bloggs]

What i do not understand is ,if what he was doing was illegal ,why didnt the police officers that were standing behind him arrest him straight away , and please dont post that they couldnt hear him .

[josephbloggs]

2 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

You still haven't  my question !!!!

 

I give up.

[alfieconn]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While it is clear from that comment you don’t understand conditional statements, I do feel it of benefit to present you with another:

 

I wonder what your response will be if the defendants in this child rape case go to appeal on the basis that Yaxley-Lennon has prejudiced their trial?

Oh i get it, you can't answer my question so you ask me one ?? bi bi ?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, alfieconn said:

Oh i get it, you can't answer my question so you ask me one ?? bi bi ?

Don’t go far.

 

It is a near certainty that this question will come back via the news of the accused launching an appeal.

[alfieconn]

13 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

I give up.

The difference between my analogy and your's is that i can give an answer for your's !!! 

Quote

so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict ?

 

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by alfieconn

[alfieconn]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Don’t go far.

 

It is a near certainty that this question will come back via the news of the accused launching an appeal.

So why didn't the defendants Legal team just ask for a mis-trial ?

[ivor bigun]

What i do not understand is ,if what he was doing was illegal ,why didnt the police officers that were standing behind him arrest him straight away , and please dont post that they couldnt hear him .

Perhaps they thought what he was doing was not illegal,

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, alfieconn said:

No don't give up just answer the question 

 

 

 

“so why didn't his actions cause a mis -trial  or unsafe verdict”

 

 

You’re getting ahead of the appeals procedures.

 

The decision on whether a court conviction was a result of a mistrial or that the verdict was unsafe is one made by a court of appeal. 

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

25 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

So why didn't the defendants Legal team just ask for a mis-trial ?

Because the trials are not yet completed.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Example of appeals process in plain sight.

 

 

Yaxely-Lennon has just been released on bail awaiting retrial following his own appeal.

 

Take note of how long after is conviction the appeal was submitted and how long it took to release him on bail. Watch too how long it takes to obtain a final verdict.

 

 

[josephbloggs]

40 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

The difference between my analogy and your's is that i can give an answer for your's !!! 

 

 

Not sure what answer you are referring to - you have simply kept parroting the same inane question.  As I mentioned in an earlier reply to you, who's to say it didn't or won't prejudice this trial? 

 

Now a question for you.  Let's say, in this instance, the verdicts stick and the trial isn't reheld, was is it still right for Yaxley Lennon to do what he did when it was illegal and put the whole legal process in jeopardy?

Edited August 4, 2018 by josephbloggs
Typo

[newatthis]

How any sane person can believe the tripe that comes out of Yaxley Lennon's mouth is beyond me! Listening to the interview where he complains that the British prison was like Guantanamo Bay just shows how full of crap he is.

Firstly, it's an insult to those tortured detainees who have really suffered in Guantanamo Bay;

Secondly, it's an insult to the warden and prison officers who work at Her Majesty's prison where he was detained.

Thirdly, it shows his paranoia. "Oh, I was in solitary and the Muslims who were bringing me the food could have been poisoning me" type of BS.

Do British people really think like this? This is not patriotism; this is a cancer that will eat you from the inside out.

GB, you "ruled" the world once; now you're being conquered by voices like this man.

 

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, newatthis said:

GB, you "ruled" the world once; now you're being conquered by voices like this man.

Nope, though does apply to another country, some of whose so called 'elite' support T.

 

http://time.com/4327424/idiocracy/

[Grouse]

17 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 ?  

Depends on the defence.

 

However, in this specific case, your "hero" was in breach of specific instructions handed down by a judge. In short, these instructions amounted to reporting restrictions.

 

If these were breached for one second, a contempt would have been committed.

 

British justice is so good that this twit will be given another hearing because the last judge did not follow procedure to the letter. He's also been released on bail because there is little risk of flight.

 

I suspect the contempt will be reconfirmed and your man will be back inside PDQ. (Probably with the nonces for safety)

 

This is the UK not the USA; we don't need low rent rabble rousers.

 

I am an anti Muslim bigot BTW. (and a liberal).

Edited August 4, 2018 by Grouse

[anon537687643]

A hero! When there is a Situation of a judge recognising sharia law as was the case recently it proves how a religion in this case islam has power , oh and I have contributed to his defence , proud to

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/british-court-recognises-sharia-law-landmark-divorce-case/

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

[Grouse]

1 minute ago, markaoffy said:

A hero! When there is a Situation of a judge recognising sharia law as was the case recently it proves how a religion in this case islam has power


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Ear ear; I'm all ears

 

Back that up please.( or withdraw). I infer that you know  of a case where a judge accepted Sharia over our own law? There will be some cases where there is equivalence, I'm sure....

[evadgib]

37 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I suspect the contempt will be reconfirmed and your man will be back inside PDQ.

I'm no fan either but I can't see them banging him up again...

[simple1]

10 minutes ago, markaoffy said:

A hero! When there is a Situation of a judge recognising sharia law as was the case recently it proves how a religion in this case islam has power , oh and I have contributed to his defence , proud to

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/british-court-recognises-sharia-law-landmark-divorce-case/

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

Off topic and misinformed summary by you. The ruling was to protect the female from an action contrary to UK Law. No doubt there will be additional ruling in the future to affirm the primacy of UK Law. From your link...

 

He said the marriage was therefore "void" and that Mrs Akhtar is entitled to a decree of nullity. If he had ruled it was a non-marriage she would not have been able to make a case in the British divorce court. 

[scubascuba3]

Have a look at his Fox Youtube 5min+ interview the last couple days, good insight. Interviewer looked shell shocked

[alfieconn]

 4 hours ago, alfieconn said:

So why didn't the defendants Legal team just ask for a mis-trial ?

Quote

Because the trials are not yet completed.

Quote

 

You’re getting ahead of the appeals procedures.

 

The decision on whether a court conviction was a result of a mistrial or that the verdict was unsafe is one made by a court of appeal. 

 

How can you have a court conviction as a result of a mistrial, do you actually know what a mistrial is ?

 

Mistrials are trials that are not successfully completed. They're terminated and declared void before the jury returns a verdict or the judge renders his or her decision in a nonjury trial.

 

 

a trial that cannot be completed or whose result has no legal value, usually because a legal mistake has been made:

Edited August 4, 2018 by alfieconn

[7by7]

5 hours ago, alfieconn said:

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 ".

Do you know what the word 'if' means?

 

I ask, because the above comment indicates that you do not!

[pumpjack]

best news i have read in years !!

 

god bless tommy robinson !!!

 

PS,  what kind of a retarded prat  makes these headlines up ? he is not anti muslim , he is not a racist.....if anyone of you want to challenge my view on him feel free to post your evidence .

Edited August 4, 2018 by pumpjack

[7by7]

5 hours ago, alfieconn 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 

Why would he address an old lady as 'Officer?'

 

If he is asking her, why would he, and you, assume that her reply gives him police permission?

 

We do not, of course, see who he is addressing because he is very careful to keep his phone pointed at him throughout the conversation.

 

5 hours ago, alfieconn said:

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 !

Because he knew, or should have done as he claims to be a journalist, that naming the defendants and filming them as they entered court would break those restrictions.

 

His defence appears to be that he was given permission to do so; the court will decide whether that is true or not.

 

Yaxley-Lennon has a long record for lying in court, even at the previous contempt hearing he lied about his address.

 

5 hours ago, alfieconn said:

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.

 Low profile outside the court. That is trying to ensure the police did not see him filming because he knew he was breaking the reporting restrictions.

 

As you know so much about him, if he thought he was doing nothing wrong then tell us why he was using a phone instead of his usual film crew.

 

Obviously he knew he would eventually be found out, no doubt expected to so yet again he could use the suffering of children to promote his own publicity.

 

Unfortunately, due to the procedural mistakes at the original Leeds contempt hearing, his plan has worked even better than he could have hoped.

[alfieconn]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Example of appeals process in plain sight.

 

?

Yaxely-Lennon has just been released on bail awaiting retrial following his own appeal.

 

Take note of how long after is conviction the appeal was submitted and how long it took to release him on bail. Watch too how long it takes to obtain a final verdict.

 

 

 4 hours ago, alfieconn said:

So why didn't the defendants Legal team just ask for a mis-trial ?

Quote

Because the trials are not yet completed.

 

 

? ? ? I love it,  we've been discussing a mistrial and you try and prove yourself right by mentioning a retrial,  mistrial / retrial   two different things, do you understand ?

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

 4 hours ago, alfieconn said:

So why didn't the defendants Legal team just ask for a mis-trial ?

How can you have a court conviction as a result of a mistrial, do you actually know what a mistrial is ?

 

Mistrials are trials that are not successfully completed. They're terminated and declared void before the jury returns a verdict or the judge renders his or her decision in a nonjury trial.

 

 

a  trial that cannot be  completed or whose  result has no  legal  value, usually because a  legal  mistake has been made:

The salient point about a mistrial is it would result in the child victims of rape having to once again go through the trauma of recounting the rapes they were subjected to.

 

Interestingly, nothing you have said gives any indication you are concerned at all for the real victims in this case.

 

Your entire focus is a sting of conspiracy theories stitched together to paint Yaxely-Lennon a victim.

 

Yaxely-Lennon has used the suffering of the real victims to promote his agenda of hate. 

 

He disobeyed a judge’s instructions and he has suffered the consequences.

 

I look forward to hearing the verdict at his next trial.

[7by7]

5 hours ago, alfieconn said:

18 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 ?

 

I have explained it to you many times; including in the post you have quoted!

 

The meaning of 'retrospective.'

Quote

1.2 (of a statute or legal decision) taking effect from a date in the past.

Last time: the reporting restrictions were not retrospective, they took effect from the date they were made, not from the date last year when the BBC reported on the committal proceedings.

 

This particular horse is dead, and has been for some time. That you keep flogging it only shows your desperation!