UK far-right activist Tommy Robinson convicted in contempt-of-court case

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, sanemax said:

We can just assume that Tommy wasnt reading out a BBC report then .

And that was a false report by yourself 

Tommy got found in contempt of Court for live streaming the defendants arriving .

Is that an attempt to make Yaxley Lennon seem less guilty?

 

For the crime he was found guilty off, refer (as I suggested ) to the court records.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[petemoss]

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You continually tell us you are wary of/no fan of Yaxley Lennon yet expend a great deal of energy defending him.

 

 

Brexiteers stick together.

[KhaoYai]

12 hours ago, yogi100 said:

Well what do you think the point is!

I wouldn't be asking if I knew.

[expatfromwyoming]

'I Need Evacuation From This Country' says Robinson

"I want to make a genuine appeal to President Trump, to the Republican Party: Please consider me and my family for political asylum," said Robinson, who has a following among the far-right in the U.S.

 

Perhaps even a seat in Trumps cabinet will be forthcoming

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

We can just assume that Tommy wasnt reading out a BBC report then .

And that was a false report by yourself 

Tommy got found in contempt of Court for live streaming the defendants arriving .

Not true.

[KhaoYai]

One of the mods has already commented that there has been little new material here - we are just going round and round.

 

Fortunately the British courts have convicted 'Robinson' because he committed a criminal offence - he did that even after the benefit of being warned. Not so may people get the benefit of a warning. I would also point out once again, that this was not his first conviction for contempt.

 

It is also fortunate that the vast majority of the British public, whilst abhoring grooming, sex trafficing and other paedophilic bevaviour, do not support the racist and biggoted views of people like 'Tommy Robinson'.

 

'Robinson's' criminal record speaks for itself in identifying his character and that is not a swipe at people with criminal records - some make mistakes and pay for them. Robinson is a serial offender with a documented history of violence, membership of groups known to committ violent offences and whom nobody can deny are racist. He is and continues to be, a particularly unsavoury character.

 

Thankfully, those who support 'Robinson', no matter how vociferous they may be, are very much in the minority in the UK.

 

I'm done with this topic.

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Not true.

What was the truth then ?

[petemoss]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

What was the truth then ?

7

[sanemax]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

One of the mods has already commented that there has been little new material here - we are just going round and round.

 

Fortunately the British courts have convicted 'Robinson' because he committed a criminal offence - he did that even after the benefit of being warned. Not so may people get the benefit of a warning. I would also point out once again, that this was not his first conviction for contempt.

 

It is also fortunate that the vast majority of the British public, whilst abhoring grooming, sex trafficing and other paedophilic bevaviour, do not support the racist and biggoted views of people like 'Tommy Robinson'.

 

'Robinson's' criminal record speaks for itself in identifying his character and that is not a swipe at people with criminal records - some make mistakes and pay for them. Robinson is a serial offender with a documented history of violence, membership of groups known to committ violent offences and whom nobody can deny are racist. He is and continues to be, a particularly unsavoury character.

 

Thankfully, those who support 'Robinson', no matter how vociferous they may be, are very much in the minority in the UK.

 

I'm done with this topic.

Yes, Tommy maybe a bit of a brute , but he has stood up against pedos , pedos who were previously untouchable, because they were Pakistani .

Tommy may not be a nice person, but all the nice people were content to see children being raped and not say anything , because they were nice and didnt want other people to think that they were horrible, like tommy 

[bristolboy]

Just now, sanemax said:

What was the truth then ?

Look for my 2 posts on the previous page.

[petemoss]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Yes, Tommy maybe a bit of a brute , but he has stood up against pedos , pedos who were previously untouchable, because they were Pakistani .

Tommy may not be a nice person, but all the nice people were content to see children being raped and not say anything , because they were nice and didnt want other people to think that they were horrible, like tommy 

Tommy Islam has stood up to nothing. He has exposed not one paedophile. He merely repeats and embellishes what the MSM have already reported. Fake reporter.

[sanemax]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Look for my 2 posts on the previous page.

This is confusing .

You have posted a link that agrees with my post .

You said that my post wasn't true and then you posted a link to show that my post was correct  .

Chomper claimed that Tommy read a BBC report out in a live FB post , I stated that Tommy didnt .

You claimed that I was wrong and then posted a link to prove that I was correct and that you and chomper were wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[evadgib]

3 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Tommy Islam has stood up to nothing. He has exposed not one paedophile. He merely repeats and embellishes what the MSM have already reported. Fake reporter.

That seems to be his own point too. If true how was he in contempt...?

[petemoss]

4 minutes ago, evadgib said:

That seems to be his own point too. If true how was he in contempt...?

The MSM complied with the court order and removed any offending content from their outlets. Mr Islam, thinking that he was above the law, continued to post content that was in breach of the judge's order.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, petemoss said:

The MSM complied with the court order and removed any offending content from their outlets. Mr Islam, thinking that he was above the law, continued to post content that was in breach of the judge's order.

So...............Tommy was exposing them ?

[evadgib]

6 minutes ago, petemoss said:

The MSM complied with the court order and removed any offending content from their outlets. Mr Islam, thinking that he was above the law, continued to post content that was in breach of the judge's order.

Not according to his latest rant(s) which, as ever, seem to be supported by evidence to the contrary.

Edited July 10, 2019 by evadgib

[Sujo]

Why is this topic still going.

 

There was a court order, he breached it, broke the law.

 

its that simple.

[usviphotography]

Just now, Sujo said:

Why is this topic still going.

 

There was a court order, he breached it, broke the law.

 

its that simple.

Yeah, just like Assange, right? Nothing to see here. Move right along. UK is the land of freedom and lollipops. 

[evadgib]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why is this topic still going.

 

There was a court order, he breached it, broke the law.

 

its that simple.

Yeah, Lets close it & start again after his next court appearance....

 

TOMORROW

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

So...............Tommy was exposing them ?

No, give it up will u. He exposed nothing.

 

The court put a stay on any reporting. Everyone complied except him. He even said what he was doing was against the law.

 

He breached the court order. Guilty.

[sanemax]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Why is this topic still going.

 

There was a court order, he breached it, broke the law.

 

its that simple.

It isnt that simple .

Tommy asked the Courts whether there were any restrictions and he was told that there were none .

He looked on the list and there was no mention of any restrictions on him .

He went and made his voice heard and they arrested him .

They claim thaT THEY  mistakenly left his name off the list and that there were restrictions on him 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It isnt that simple .

Tommy asked the Courts whether there were any restrictions and he was told that there were none .

He looked on the list and there was no mention of any restrictions on him .

He went and made his voice heard and they arrested him .

They claim thaT THEY  mistakenly left his name off the list and that there were restrictions on him 

Another one of those cracking legal arguments that evaded his legal team.

[sanemax]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Another one of those cracking legal arguments that evaded his legal team.

I wasnt in Court, but I expect that Tommys legal team did indeed make that point to the Judge 

[nontabury]

13 hours ago, simple1 said:

You keep misrepresenting the situation in Rotherham. According to the Jay Report. 

your constant one sided dialogue blame laying does not reflect the reality at the time.

Thankfully those who committed the awful child abuse over many years were imprisoned with some ongoing cases. Most of those convicted are from Muslim heritage, but not all. For those interested Operation Stovewood is the criminal investigation...

 

https://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/100003/community_and_living/1159/convictions_for_child_sexual_exploitation/7

 

Example non Muslim heritage conviction.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-44004360

 

 As I have already pointed out, I have lived in Rotherham most of my 

Iife, and still have relatives and friends there. They tell me that the grooming gangs were made up of Muslims. All you have done by your post, is to show that Yes white British men can also be peodophiles. But as far as i’m aware,they do not hunt in gangs, with the sole intentions of abusing young vulnerable girls,solely on account of their religion or colour.

 

[sanemax]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

 

 As I have already pointed out, I have lived in Rotherham most of my 

Iife, and still have relatives and friends there. They tell me that the grooming gangs were made up of Muslims. All you have done by your post, is to show that Yes white British men can also be peodophiles. But as far as i’m aware,they do not hunt in gangs, with the sole intentions of abusing young vulnerable girls,solely on account of their religion or colour.

 

And the most important thing .

The Muslims grooming gangs were doing it with impunity from the law or authorities .

It was well known what they were doing , but no one tried to stop them (apart from the BNP & Thomas R)

The online pedos were hunted by the Police , authorities and vigilantes .

The law was stopping (trying to stop) the online pedos and the same people turned a blind eye to the Muslim gangs 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I wasnt in Court, but I expect that Tommys legal team did indeed make that point to the Judge 

And it would have been rejected.

 

From the UK Government news website:

 

The Attorney General was granted permission to bring proceedings on the basis of:

1. Publishing information that was subject to a restriction prohibiting any reporting of the trial until a later, related trial had concluded

 

AND

 

Speaking after the hearing, the Attorney General said:

I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court.

The argument that Yaxley Lennon’s name(s) needed to be on some kind of list for the Court Order banning reporting on the case to apply to him is utter hogwash.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stephen-yaxley-lennon-held-in-contempt-of-court

Edited July 10, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And it would have been rejected.

 

From the UK Government news website:

 

The Attorney General was granted permission to bring proceedings on the basis of:

1. Publishing information that was subject to a restriction prohibiting any reporting of the trial until a later, related trial had concluded

 

AND

 

Speaking after the hearing, the Attorney General said:

I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court.

The argument that Yaxley Lennon’s name(s) needed to be on some kind of list for the Court Order banning reporting on the case to apply to him is utter hogwash.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stephen-yaxley-lennon-held-in-contempt-of-court

I was reading a media report about it today  , said that his name wasnt on some list of restrictions or something like that .

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I was reading a media report about it today  , said that his name wasnt on some list of restrictions or something like that .

I’m sure you were.

 

The UK Government site gives the Attorney General’s own words.

 

Your media report has misrepresented the facts, there is no list, it’s a fabricated hogwash argument of no legal merit.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Slip]

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

I was reading a media report about it today  , said that his name wasnt on some list of restrictions or something like that .

Well that seems legit then.

[petemoss]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

I was reading a media report about it today  , said that his name wasnt on some list of restrictions or something like that .

Why would it. He's not a journalist. Does he have an NUJ card? He's just a YouTube vlogger. Should Kevin Burt's name have been on the list?