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

[7by7]

36 minutes ago, evadgib said:

I have looked very hard for the smoking gun that would enable me to place TR into the 'Far Right/Racist/Nazi' box being peddled by the establishment & supported by MSM but as yet haven't been able to find one.

 

These opinions mirror my own:

 

So you provide lies from a racist to prove his mate isn't a racist!

[joecoolfrog]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you for the link to the Independent article, that clearly states:-

 

“This is part two of the trial … "the jury are making their verdicts now,” Robinson correctly stated"

 

Consequently, it is hardly suprising that the judge rejected the defense desperate attempt to ask for a mistrial.

 

 

 

Not quite that simple , all 3 trials were linked so the last trial , which hadn't started , may also have been in jeopardy.

[luckyluke]

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

where many recent terrorist attack/ers in mainland Europe

We indeed had, sadly, our part of the ignoble attacks of the terrorist. 

 

As any other country we have to go further with our lives. 

 

I am however shocked to read that a citizen, think and write that way about his country. 

 

When I read this topic and the Brexit topics (such an anymosity between Leavers and Remainers), I can only conclude that 

there is actually, definitely something very wrong in the U.K..

 

[7by7]

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you for the link to the Independent article, that clearly states:-

 

“This is part two of the trial … "the jury are making their verdicts now,” Robinson correctly stated"

 

Consequently, it is hardly suprising that the judge rejected the defense desperate attempt to ask for a mistrial.

 

 

 

But it could have succeeded, or more likely Yaxley-Lennon's antics could have been sufficient grounds for an appeal or even a mistrial being declared and the child rapists walking free.

 

The plain, simple fact that his supporters ignore is that reporting restrictions were in place and until those restrictions were lifted breaking them was contempt of court.

 

All Yaxley-Lennon had to do was wait, like the real media, until then; but he wouldn't have got all this free publicity and even more fools sending him money had he done that.

 

Edit:

See also @joecoolfrog's post above.

Edited July 7, 2019 by 7by7

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

 

When I read this topic and the Brexit topics (such an anymosity between Leavers and Remainers), I can only conclude that 

there is actually, definitely something very wrong in the U.K..

 

What is wrong with people disagreeing with each other ?

 

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

What is wrong with people disagreeing with each other ?

Nothing, as long as it is courteous. 

It is now, unfortunately, far beyond this point. 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, joecoolfrog said:

Not quite that simple , all 3 trials were linked so the last trial , which hadn't started , may also have been in jeopardy.

I didn't know there was another trial against the defendants in this case to follow - presumably any other trial is against different defendants?

 

In which case, how does "Judges on Friday found British far-right activist Tommy Robinson to be in contempt of court after he filmed defendants during a trial last year and posted the footage on social media, breaching reporting restrictions on the case."  affect a trial against entirely different defendants?

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What is wrong with people disagreeing with each other ?

 

Nothing; except when it descends into the childish abuse many Brexiteers and some Remainers resort to when they have no proper argument.

 

But this topic isn't about Brexit.

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you for the link to the Independent article, that clearly states:-

 

“This is part two of the trial … "the jury are making their verdicts now,” Robinson correctly stated"

 

Consequently, it is hardly suprising that the judge rejected the defense desperate attempt to ask for a mistrial.

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

But it could have succeeded, or more likely Yaxley-Lennon's antics could have been sufficient grounds for an appeal or even a mistrial being declared and the child rapists walking free.

 

The plain, simple fact that his supporters ignore is that reporting restrictions were in place and until those restrictions were lifted breaking them was contempt of court.

 

All Yaxley-Lennon had to do was wait, like the real media, until then; but he wouldn't have got all this free publicity and even more fools sending him money had he done that.

I'm still failing to see how the desperate defense attempt to ask for a retrial could have succeeded, bearing in mind the jurors were already deliberating on their decision?

[7by7]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

I didn't know there was another trial against the defendants in this case to follow - presumably any other trial is against different defendants?

 

In which case, how does "Judges on Friday found British far-right activist Tommy Robinson to be in contempt of court after he filmed defendants during a trial last year and posted the footage on social media, breaching reporting restrictions on the case."  affect a trial against entirely different defendants?

Some of the defendants were defendants in both.

 

So not entirely different defendants at all!

[dick dasterdly]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Nothing; except when it descends into the childish abuse many Brexiteers and some Remainers resort to when they have no proper argument.

 

But this topic isn't about Brexit.

Surely you have this the wrong way round?

 

But I agree with your general point.

[7by7]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

 

I'm still failing to see how the desperate defense attempt to ask for a retrial could have succeeded, bearing in mind the jurors were already deliberating on their decision?

It didn't succeed; but it gave the defense the excuse to ask for one.

 

Reporting restrictions were still in place, Yaxley-Lennon broke the law when he ignored those restrictions. Why can't you grasp that?

 

As I said

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

All Yaxley-Lennon had to do was wait, like the real media, until then; but he wouldn't have got all this free publicity and even more fools sending him money had he done that.

What don't you understand about that?

[petemoss]

1 hour ago, joecoolfrog said:

For those of you who are not British ; Despite the picture painted by some on this forum , the likes of Tommy Robinson are only supported by a tiny percentage of the population. 

Far right parties have always been soundly thrashed in every general election in my lifetime , that will not change.

Tommy Robinson only achieved 2% of the vote in the recent European elections, which indicated the true depth of his support. As you say, thrashed.

[sanemax]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Nothing; except when it descends into the childish abuse many Brexiteers and some Remainers resort to when they have no proper argument.

 

But this topic isn't about Brexit.

"Many Brexiteers and some Remainers"

Thanks to unbiased people such as yourself that more childish squabbles dont develop........................

[7by7]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

"Many Brexiteers and some Remainers"

Thanks to unbiased people such as yourself that more childish squabbles dont develop........................

Of course I am biased, so are you, so is everyone on this board who expresses their opinion!

 

But you seem to be saying that I am not allowed to express and argue for my opinion because it's different to yours!

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Of course I am biased, so are you, so is everyone on this board who expresses their opinion!

 

But you seem to be saying that I am not allowed to express and argue for my opinion because it's different to yours!

No, you were complaining about "Childish abuse " and then sort of said *Its their fault, not ours . they're to blame, not us, they are worse than us * , which is rather immature in itself  .

 I also wasnt saying that you shouldnt voice your opinion , just dont accuse others of being childish and then act in that way yourself 

[dick dasterdly]

12 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

It didn't succeed; but it gave the defense the excuse to ask for one.

 

Reporting restrictions were still in place, Yaxley-Lennon broke the law when he ignored those restrictions. Why can't you grasp that?

 

As I said

What don't you understand about that?

Perhaps time to start following your own advice about childish abuse? ????

 

It didn't succeed because it was obvious (?) that as the jurors were already deliberating their decision it was too late for their decision to be affected by anything happening outside the court.

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, sanemax said:

No, you were complaining about "Childish abuse " and then sort of said *Its their fault, not ours . they're to blame, not us, they are worse than us * , which is rather immature in itself  .

 I also wasnt saying that you shouldnt voice your opinion , just dont accuse others of being childish and then act in that way yourself 

Misquoting me doesn't help your argument. 

 

What I said was

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

40 minutes ago, sanemax said:

What is wrong with people disagreeing with each other ?

 

Nothing; except when it descends into the childish abuse many Brexiteers and some Remainers resort to when they have no proper argument.

 

But this topic isn't about Brexit.

 

Neither is it about your childish attempts to provoke me; so this is my last word on this matter here.

[sanemax]

Just now, 7by7 said:

Misquoting me doesn't help your argument. 

 

What I said was

 

Neither is it about your childish attempts to provoke me; so this is my last word on this matter here.

No, I didnt misquote you, I quite clearly stated "you sort of said" and then you put the blame onto others for being worse .

It was the "many Brexiteers and some Remainers" that I remarked upon .

The way that I see it , its mainly the Brexiters/Anti-Trump supporters that usually name call , that;s  my experience anyway , I quite often ask you lot to quit the name calling .

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Perhaps time to start following your own advice about childish abuse? ????

 

It didn't succeed because it was obvious (?) that as the jurors were already deliberating their decision it was too late for their decision to be affected by anything happening outside the court.

I repeat; it gave the defense the excuse to ask for a mistrial!!!!

 

That the attempt didn't succeed is irrelevant. 

 

His antics could also have seriously affected subsequent trials.

 

I'm sorry that my responses to you seem childish, but your continual refusal to accept these two simple facts is, to be honest, exasperating.

 

I would expect such denial from a Yaxley-Lennon supporter, but, despite our differences, thought better of you than that.

 

 

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

So you provide lies from a racist to prove his mate isn't a racist!

Declaring opinions 'lies' or the holders 'racist' simply because you don't like it suggests that @ 5am UK time (time of your post) you really should be in bed.

Edited July 7, 2019 by evadgib

[dick dasterdly]

28 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I repeat; it gave the defense the excuse to ask for a mistrial!!!!

 

That the attempt didn't succeed is irrelevant. 

 

His antics could also have seriously affected subsequent trials.

 

I'm sorry that my responses to you seem childish, but your continual refusal to accept these two simple facts is, to be honest, exasperating.

 

I would expect such denial from a Yaxley-Lennon supporter, but, despite our differences, thought better of you than that.

 

 

 

And so I repeat.....

 

47 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

It didn't succeed because it was obvious (?) that as the jurors were already deliberating their decision it was too late for their decision to be affected by anything happening outside the court.

Subsequent trials?

 

Please explain how this could have affected precisely which subsequent trials - and precisely how.

Edited July 7, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[7by7]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

And so I repeat.....

And I repeat, it could have done.

 

If you were the victim of an attempted mugging, would you dismiss it so easily because it didn't succeed?

 

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Subsequent trials?

 

Please explain how this could have affected precisely which subseqent trials - and precisely how.

As repeatedly said to you, subsequent trials in which some of the defendants were also defendants. Those trials could have been affected by the jury being prejudiced due to Yaxley-Lennon's antics.

 

In the UK we have a principle called the Assumption of Innocence. 

 

 

 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Who is exactly is 'my' hero?

From the numerous occasions you praise and quote him; it's obvious.

 

Hint; he's named in the headline I linked to.

[Sujo]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I repeat; it gave the defense the excuse to ask for a mistrial!!!!

 

That the attempt didn't succeed is irrelevant. 

 

His antics could also have seriously affected subsequent trials.

 

I'm sorry that my responses to you seem childish, but your continual refusal to accept these two simple facts is, to be honest, exasperating.

 

I would expect such denial from a Yaxley-Lennon supporter, but, despite our differences, thought better of you than that.

 

 

Its not really about the reason for it. Its the fact there was a court order in place that is the issue.

 

He broke the law, its that simple.

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

And so I repeat.....

 

Subsequent trials?

 

Please explain how this could have affected precisely which subseqent trials - and precisely how.

 

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

And I repeat, it could have done.

 

If you were the victim of an attempted mugging, would you dismiss it so easily because it didn't succeed?

 

As repeatedly said to you, subsequent trials in which some of the defendants were also defendants. Those trials could have been affected by the jury being prejudiced due to Yaxley-Lennon's antics.

 

In the UK we have a principle called the Assumption of Innocence. 

 

 

 

And so I ask again for a reply to my post.

 

"it could have done" isn't a reply.

[dick dasterdly]

Although, to be fair - it's pretty clear that 'the establishment' are out to convict robinson in this case....

 

As evidenced by "He successfully appealed against the jailing and was released. The Court of Appeal, however, ordered a rehearing and Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, the government's chief legal adviser, decided to start contempt proceedings against him."

 

????

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Although, to be fair - it's pretty clear that 'the establishment' are out to convict robinson in this case....

 

As evidenced by "He successfully appealed against the jailing and was released. The Court of Appeal, however, ordered a rehearing and Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, the government's chief legal adviser, decided to start contempt proceedings against him."

 

????

Dont disobey a court order then. Or should authorities just not bother about that because of who he is or it may upset the snowflake.

[sanemax]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Dont disobey a court order then. Or should authorities just not bother about that because of who he is or it may upset the snowflake.

Tommy isnt a "snowflake" , hes more like one of those hailstones that hit Mexico last week 

[7by7]

48 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

And so I ask again for a reply to my post.

 

"it could have done" isn't a reply.

It could have done because the judge could have ruled that had Yaxley-Lennon's stunt come to the attention of the jury then it could have influenced their verdict.

 

For a more detailed explanation, talk to a barrister.