British far-right activist jailed for contempt of court

[petemoss]

18 minutes ago, jayboy said:

There is absolutely no evidence he "went with boys" at all so you are either lying or easily duped.

I agree. However there were rumours. I was just saying that I never heard any of the more distasteful rumours that another poster referred to.

[7by7]

6 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't like the fact that he has been convicted by judges, and sentenced to a significant jail term without the benefit of a trial in front of his peers, a jury. That right to trial by jury is a cornerstone of the British judicial system. We (quite rightly) condemn other countries when they take such actions; especially in cases which have political undertones.

 Yaxley-Lennon has not been treated any differently to any other person accused of contempt of court under English law.

 

Contempt cases in England and Wales are never heard before a jury, always before the judge in the original case or judges at a later trial.

 

Why do you say significant jail term? He was sentenced to 9 months, but the 8 weeks he's already served combined with the usual eligibility for parole after serving half one's sentence have been taken into account means he will be out after 10 weeks!

 

6 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't like the fact (as I understand it) that his two jail sentences are to be served consecutively, when many who receive multiple jail sentences (often for more henious crimes) serve them concurrently.

From where did you get this information?

 

As you say, the norm in English law is for sentences for multiple convictions to run concurrently.

 

I can find nothing to say that Yaxley-Lennon has been treated any differently from this such that his two sentences are to run consecutively.

 

6 hours ago, JAG said:

I don't like the fact that the lassitude shown

and incompetent/inadequate protection given to many of the most vulnerable children under the supervision of the Social Services, and any possible political or racial undertones in the inadequacy of that protection, is not really being effectively investigated.

 

I don't like the fact that the ongoing (and long overdue) court proceedings are being used as a justification to further prorogue or carry out such investigations in camera.

The failings of Social Services and others has been, and still is being, investigated.

 

For examples, see:-

 

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 – 2013)

 

House of Commons Home Affairs Committee; Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming; Second Report of Session 2013–14; Volume I and Vol 2 

 

House of Commons Home Affairs Committee; Child sexual exploitation and the response to localised grooming: follow-up; Sixth Report of Session 2014–15

 

It is my understanding that many of these investigations are held in camera in order to protect the witnesses, many of whom are victims of the gangs, from being identified.

 

But maybe you'd prefer their names to be plastered all over the media?

 

6 hours ago, JAG said:

Whilst Robinson's "journalism" went some way to exposing this, I am suspicious of his motives. I don't think that they merit nine months in jail, effectively handed down by a summary trial.

Not a summery trial; see above.

 

Yaxley-Lennon's self called journalism had absolutely nothing to do with exposing anything. He has never exposed a single paedophile. Indeed, as shown in previous posts he has ignored those he is associated with through the EDL and even defended one of them!

 

You are right to be suspicious of his motives. His sole interest is generating publicity so that the gullible send him more money to fund his luxury lifestyle. His lack of action over his former EDL mates convicted of child sexual abuse shows that defending and protecting children is not very low on his list of priorities; it isn't even on that list!

 

He obviously considers a further 10 weeks in prison a worthwhile price to pay in order to get his hands on the gullible people's cash. After all, his many custodial sentences for violence and fraud mean that he's used to life inside.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2019 by 7by7
Typo

[7by7]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

All the connected trials are over, which is why the reporting restrictions have now been lifted.

 

The men were all convicted.

 

Could you post a link to the subsequent trials ?

 

One of many reports at the time: Huddersfield grooming gang jailed for abusing vulnerable girls

 

Quote

Reporting restrictions lifted on ‘vile and wicked’ crimes with ringleader imprisoned for life

 

Jurors in three trials heard how the men, mostly from Huddersfield (above), abused the girls in car parks, hotels, takeaways, snooker halls, on moors and by reservoirs across the region. 

 

You really should pay attention to the news if you want to comment upon it!

Edited July 13, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[7by7]

3 hours ago, sanemax said:

Defendants are only bought back to Court AFTER the juries have come to a verdict  , as they could be deliberating for days 

 Even defendants on bail still have to attend the court building, maybe even be held in the cells, while the jury is deliberating so that they are ready to go up to the court itself once a verdict has been reached.

 

If on bail, they are allowed home at night, if remanded in custody they are returned to prison each night.

 

You seem to have forgotten that while filming the defendants entering the building, Yaxley-Lennon commented that a verdict had not yet been reached.

 

Are you calling him a liar?

[sanemax]

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You really should pay attention to the news if you want to comment upon it!

Didnt  I say that to you a few days ago ?

Are you copying me ?

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Even defendants on bail still have to attend the court building, maybe even be held in the cells, while the jury is deliberating so that they are ready to go up to the court itself once a verdict has been reached.

 

If on bail, they are allowed home at night, if remanded in custody they are returned to prison each night.

 

You seem to have forgotten that while filming the defendants entering the building, Yaxley-Lennon commented that a verdict had not yet been reached.

 

Are you calling him a liar?

Are you saying that he is trustworthy ? 

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

16 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You really should pay attention to the news if you want to comment upon it!

Didnt  I say that to you a few days ago ?

Are you copying me ?

 If you did, then maybe you should put your own house in order first?

 

4 minutes ago, sanemax said:

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You seem to have forgotten that while filming the defendants entering the building, Yaxley-Lennon commented that a verdict had not yet been reached.

 

Are you calling him a liar?

Are you saying that he is trustworthy ? 

 Far from it; but as you have been defending him I thought maybe you'd like to say why you don't believe him on this one occasion.

 

Or maybe you'd simply forgotten what he had said and couldn't be bothered to check?

 

I know he is a liar; he'll say one thing now and deny it later. His testimony in his contempt trials proves that.

 

Do you now agree that he's a liar?

Edited July 13, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[petemoss]

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Why do you say significant jail term? He was sentenced to 9 months, but the 8 weeks he's already served combined with the usual eligibility for parole after serving half one's sentence have been taken into account means he will be out after 10 weeks!

His sentences did indeed run concurrently. For sentences of 6 months the defendant will normally serve 2/3ds of his sentence, 4 months, which in prison terms is taken as 17 weeks. Having served 8 weeks already he will be out in 9 weeks.

 

Should have been given the maximum sentence, 2 years, in which case he would have been out in one year minus 8 weeks. Sounds fairer to me.

[sanemax]

20 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Even defendants on bail still have to attend the court building, maybe even be held in the cells, while the jury is deliberating so that they are ready to go up to the court itself once a verdict has been reached.

 

If on bail, they are allowed home at night, if remanded in custody they are returned to prison each night.

 

You seem to have forgotten that while filming the defendants entering the building, Yaxley-Lennon commented that a verdict had not yet been reached.

 

Are you calling him a liar?

No , you are wrong , Tommy didnt state that a verdict hadnt been reached , he asked the defendants what they thought about the verdict .

Theres a difference between a verdict not yet being reached and defendants not yet receiving that verdict .

Jurys come to verdicts and then the defendants are called in to receive those sentences  , otherwise the defendants could be waiting for days 

[sanemax]

26 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

You seem to have forgotten that while filming the defendants entering the building, Yaxley-Lennon commented that a verdict had not yet been reached.

 

Are you calling him a liar?

No, Tommy did not say that , Tommy isnt the liar, in this instance . 

[joecoolfrog]

11 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

No you are wrong, the rapists involved had already been convicted and the collapsing the trial is a nonsense. When was the last time a trial all but over was collapsed by somebody reporting on it in the street when no reporting restrictions had been posted at court?

You have been informed several times , including by Robinson on his live stream , that the trial was the second of 3 LINKED trials. Im sorry if the concept is beyond your comprehension but rest assured that if what you state had any validity it would have been used in Robinsons defence.

[joecoolfrog]

On 7/12/2019 at 1:33 AM, TopDeadSenter said:

Sorry but you can't "un-report" something. After the mainstream media(BBC in this case) ran the story naming the defendants - thats it - it's in the public domain. Normally people liken this sort of thinking that you can unreport something as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

 Just outrageous that Tommy has been locked up for his role as a hero in exposing the industrial scale rape of children based on their skin colour. I have sent another donation to him, don't suppose he needs it but glad to help in any way I can to stop these grooming gangs being covered up in the future by the establishment.

Please give one example of one case he has exposed , one person who has been arrested because of his evidence.

Until you do , go away and keep your vile lies and bigotry to yourself.

[CG1 Blue]

10 hours ago, 7by7 said:

The figures show that some, albeit a small number, of the victims of these gangs were Muslim girls, just as the figures show that some members of the gangs were white non Muslims.

 

But what was the reason why the majority of victims were white non Muslims?

 

All the victims were chosen because they were vulnerable and, more importantly, approachable. 

 

I am not trying to shift the blame upon the victims in any way, even partially. But it is a fact that young non Muslim girls are far more likely to be outside alone or in groups and so vulnerable to being approached than are young Muslim girls.

"I am not trying to shift the blame upon the victims in any way, even partially."

I think you are. At the very least you're trying to divert attention from the facts. 

 

I've heard countless people of Pakistani heritage talk about how ashamed they are that these men view white girls as trash and legitimate targets for their predatory activities. They are ashamed that these men from the lower classes in Pakistani society view these actions as normal and acceptable. 

 

I'm just thankful the authorities are finally putting these animals behind bars now after years of turning a blind eye due to political correctness. I don't condone a lot of the things TR does, but I applaud his bravery in helping to expose the truth on this topic. 

Edited July 13, 2019 by CG1 Blue

[katana]

11 hours ago, 7by7 said:

He originally pleaded guilty. Why?

You keep repeating this misinformation, even when corrected. The particulars of the contempt were not put to Tommy by Judge Marson so how could he know what he was pleading guilty to? However, the mainstream press just claimed he pleaded guilty and this was lapped up by his detractors.
What happened was after initially being arrested for breach of the peace last year in May 2018 outside Leeds Crown Court, he was then suddenly told the charges had changed and he was now guilty of contempt of court by Judge Marson. He was summarily sent down within a few hours of arrest in what can only be described as a modern day equivalent of a drumhead trial. That's why he got off on appeal and Marson was lacerated by the appeal judge Lord Chief Justice Burnett for procedural irregularities.
Here's what appeal judge Lord Chief Justice Burnett ruled on 01/08/18 in his 3 page appeal summary, which found in Robinson's favour and allowed the appeal:
...No particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant. There was a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered...
...There was no clarity about what the appellant was admitting or on what basis he was being sentenced...
In other words, how can you plead guilty, if you don't know what you were pleading guilty to?
https://www.therebel.media/ezra_levant_analyzes_judges_scorching_ruling_on_tommy_robinson_case

 

7by7 wrote:

Quote

He has never exposed a single paedophile; not one

He's not a police officer. However, despite their resources I would imagine a lot of their convictions arise from someone reporting the crime rather then them exposing it on their own. Tommy has warned about and highlighted grooming gangs, bringing them into public conciousness and awareness, preventing further occurrences, after they were covered up and kept quiet for so many years.
You have to ask, why are all these grooming gang trials being subjected to reporting restrictions with no press coverage allowed until the final day, when a short article appears in the press giving the guilty verdict and sentences, until the next trial, which is treated in a similar manner?

[elliss]

15 hours ago, simple1 said:

Non Muslim girls as well as Muslim heritage girls were sexually abused as clearly identified in the Rotherham Report to which you constantly refer. One could assume you are deliberately misrepresenting facts. However, just in case you're not, but are suffering from loss of memory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal#British_Asian

 

 

 

      Rotherham report,  Cyril Smith comes to mind .

A true christian brit ,  elected to local council .  Safe inside the establishment..

 

 

 

[petemoss]

46 minutes ago, katana said:

Tommy has warned about and highlighted grooming gangs, bringing them into public conciousness and awareness, preventing further occurrences, after they were covered up and kept quiet for so many years.
You have to ask, why are all these grooming gang trials being subjected to reporting restrictions with no press coverage allowed until the final day, when a short article appears in the press giving the guilty verdict and sentences, until the next trial, which is treated in a similar manner?

He hasn't warned about any grooming gangs before they were previously exposed in the MSM. Not one.

All trials involving sex offenders have reporting restrictions placed on them. It's a fairly recent thing due to harrasment by the likes of Tommy Islam, before they are found guilty.

[simple1]

7 hours ago, elliss said:

 

      Rotherham report,  Cyril Smith comes to mind .

A true christian brit ,  elected to local council .  Safe inside the establishment..

 

 

 

That's correct. Police have admitted he should have been charged as a serial child sex offender.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith

 

 

[Sujo]

17 hours ago, sanemax said:

Defendants are only bought back to Court AFTER the juries have come to a verdict  , as they could be deliberating for days 

Wrong.

 

Defendants are also brought back to court if the jury has a question before reaching a verdict. Also if the judge wishes to issue a direction to a jury that is having trouble reaching a verdict.

[7by7]

20 hours ago, sanemax said:

No , you are wrong , Tommy didnt state that a verdict hadnt been reached , he asked the defendants what they thought about the verdict .

Theres a difference between a verdict not yet being reached and defendants not yet receiving that verdict .

Jurys come to verdicts and then the defendants are called in to receive those sentences  , otherwise the defendants could be waiting for days 

 

The point is moot.

 

This was the second of three trials involving some or all of the accused. Whatever stage the Leeds trial was at, the restrictions applied to all three trials and were not lifted until the third had been completed.

 

Yaxley-Lennon obviously knew this because in the video he clearly states that restrictions are still in place and will be for at least a further 6 months. Obviously meaning until the third and final trial had been completed.

 

At least one of the convicted has used Yaxley-Lennon's actions as grounds for an appeal claiming they prejudiced the jury against him: Tommy Robinson caused Huddersfield grooming gang member to appeal conviction, court ruling reveals. That the application was dismissed does not excuse Yaxley-Lennon's actions in putting the conviction and imprisonment of these vile child abusers at risk.

[7by7]

16 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

"I am not trying to shift the blame upon the victims in any way, even partially."

I think you are. At the very least you're trying to divert attention from the facts. 

 

The facts are that these vile men, like all of their kind, preyed upon those who were not only vulnerable, but accessible.

 

For mainly socioeconomic reasons, in these cases the majority of those were young, white, non Muslim girls vulnerable teenagers from deprived, dysfunctional backgrounds. For a variety of reasons, this made them easy prey. Just as in the children's homes abuse cases the majority of victims were young white Christians. Does this mean those abusers deliberately targeted Christian children? No, of course not.

 

As previously said by @simple1 and others, these particular monsters didn't just prey on non Muslims, Muslim girls were among their victims as well. 

 

16 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I've heard countless people of Pakistani heritage talk about how ashamed they are that these men view white girls as trash and legitimate targets for their predatory activities. They are ashamed that these men from the lower classes in Pakistani society view these actions as normal and acceptable. 

Yes, Muslim spokespeople, religious leaders and ordinary Muslims in the street have all condemned the actions of these men as un Islamic and against Islamic law. Unfortunately, Yaxley-Lennon and his supporters ignore that.

 

But I would dispute your last sentence. No proper Muslim, regardless of their class and/or nationality and/or ethnicity, considers the actions of these men to be normal and acceptable. Their actions are, as previously said, expressly forbidden under Islamic law.

 

16 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I'm just thankful the authorities are finally putting these animals behind bars now after years of turning a blind eye due to political correctness. I don't condone a lot of the things TR does, but I applaud his bravery in helping to expose the truth on this topic. 

 I, too, am thankful that these men, as well as the children's homes abusers, as well as the football clubs abusers etc., are finally getting the punishment they deserve.

 

But to claim that Yaxley-Lennon had anything to do with exposing them is a compete fabrication. Don't fall for his lies.

 

[7by7]

16 hours ago, katana said:

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 3:29 AM, 7by7 said:

He originally pleaded guilty. Why?

<snip>

You keep repeating this misinformation, even when corrected

 He admits on his video that there is a reporting restriction in place and would continue to be in place until the third and final trial had been completed.

 

In this latest trial he admits that despite being advised by a court security to check with the court office to see if that restriction was still in place, he chose not to do so.

 

He knew exactly what he was doing; a grandiose publicity stunt designed to con even more cash from the gullible to fund his luxury lifestyle. maybe he thought, despite serving a suspended sentence for the same offence, that he'd get away without a custodial sentence. But even serving a few months inside is nothing to an old lag like him.

 

16 hours ago, katana said:

,snip.

https://www.therebel.media/ezra_levant_analyzes_judges_scorching_ruling_on_tommy_robinson_case

So your source is an alt right organisation which employs Yaxley-Lennon. Not very independent.

 

16 hours ago, katana said:

7by7 wrote:

Quote

He has never exposed a single paedophile; not one

He's not a police officer.

No, he is not. Neither are Sara Rowbotham and Ann Cryer who both worked tirelessly to get the police and CPS to take the Rochdale and other victims seriously. Neither was Nazir Afzal, the newly appointed chief prosecutor for the North West England CPS who finally got the CPS to take the victims seriously and start proceedings against the perpetrators.

 

16 hours ago, katana said:

 However, despite their resources I would imagine a lot of their convictions arise from someone reporting the crime rather then them exposing it on their own.

If the victims do not report the crime, then the police cannot investigate it. But yes, as we all know, there were failings by both the police and CPS, they did ignore victims or not take them seriously. Until people such as the three named above finally got both organisations to take action.

 

What part did Yaxley-Lennon play in all this? None at all.

 

16 hours ago, katana said:

Tommy has warned about and highlighted grooming gangs, bringing them into public conciousness and awareness, preventing further occurrences, after they were covered up and kept quiet for so many years.

 Yes, they were covered up for far too many years; as were other scandals such as the children's homes abuse cases and those committed at football clubs.

 

But, again, Yaxley-Lennon played no part in exposing any abuse, no part in preventing further scandals.

 

Others have been challenged to name just one paedophile Yaxley-Lennon has exposed. No one has answered; can you?

 

He may not have exposed any, but he has defended one; Richard Price. He has also refused to condemn former EDL mates of his who have been convicted of child sex abuse in one form or another. The EDL have paedophiles in their ranks but Tommy Robinson evidently doesn’t condemn them

 

Protector and defender of children? Exposer of paedophiles? No, he is not.

 

16 hours ago, katana said:

You have to ask, why are all these grooming gang trials being subjected to reporting restrictions with no press coverage allowed until the final day, when a short article appears in the press giving the guilty verdict and sentences, until the next trial, which is treated in a similar manner?

In the UK we have something called the presumption of innocence. In other words, all accused are considered innocent until proven otherwise. This is a fundamental of law in all parts of the UK.

 

Do you want this fundamental principle abolished for all? Or only when the accused are of a particular ethnicity and/or religion?

 

In cases where a jury could be prejudiced against an accused by media coverage the court will issue reporting restrictions. This is particularly so in instances where the accused is subject to more than one trial; as here.

 

Once the trial, or trials, are complete then the restriction is lifted and the media are free to publish as many details as they wish. In this instance most MSM published lengthy articles on the history of the cases etc.. For example Huddersfield grooming gang jailed for abusing vulnerable girls

 

[simple1]

@7by7. Want to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and effort rebutting the nonsense posted by some members. Well done - bringing light to darkness!

[7by7]

8 minutes ago, simple1 said:

@7by7. Want to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and effort rebutting the nonsense posted by some members. Well done - bringing light to darkness!

You're welcome.

 

You have played your part, too.

[Orton Rd]

Never mind he will be out in a few weeks and can continue his brave campaign against rape gangs, sharia law, mass immigration, jihad being taught in the UK, hate preachers, fgm and 'honor' killings, all of which are dominated by one section of society. They will not shut him up for speaking the truth. People accuse him of being a racist and a white supremacist but can never come up with any real evidence, the man is a true patriot although that might be a crime as well before too long.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Orton Rd

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

Never mind he will be out in a few weeks and can continue his brave campaign against rape gangs, sharia law, mass immigration, jihad being taught in the UK, hate preachers, fgm and 'honor' killings, all of which are dominated by one section of society. They will not shut him up for speaking the truth.

 

You have obviously fallen for all his lies.

 

But you can't name a single paedophile he has exposed!

 

Edit:

Altering your post after it's been quoted in a reply only shows your desperation. 

 

Yaxley-Lennon is a fraudster, a liar, a con man.

Edited July 14, 2019 by 7by7
Addendum

[Orton Rd]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have obviously fallen for all his lies.

 

But you can't name a single paedophile he has exposed!

Who claimed he has exposed any pedophiles? he has mentioned the prophet a few times, but he was exposed as one by the haddith in the early days of Islam! That and the Quran are the inspiration for the grooming gangs he has highlighted.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Orton Rd

[transam]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have obviously fallen for all his lies.

 

But you can't name a single paedophile he has exposed!

 

Edit:

Altering your post after it's been quoted in a reply only shows your desperation. 

 

Yaxley-Lennon is a fraudster, a liar, a con man.

And you what....?

Edited July 14, 2019 by transam

[7by7]

1 minute ago, Orton Rd said:

Who claimed he has exposed any pedophiles? he has mentioned the prophet a few times, but he was exposed as one by the haddith in the early days of Islam! That and the Quran are the inspiration for the grooming gangs he has highlighted.

 

Lots of people in this topic alone!

 

A hadith written 150 years after the events, by an author who wrote another hadith pacing Ayesha at an event which, if here age was as you believe, occurred 20 years before her birth!

 

But tell us, how many of these men claimed to have been inspired by the hadith?

 

How can they have used anything in the Koran when not only is rape forbidden in Islamic law, but so is sex outside of marriage?

 

 

[7by7]

1 minute ago, transam said:

7 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

You have obviously fallen for all his lies.

 

But you can't name a single paedophile he has exposed!

 

Edit:

Altering your post after it's been quoted in a reply only shows your desperation. 

 

Yaxley-Lennon is a fraudster, a liar, a con man.

And you....?

 I think it is very obvious that I have fallen for none of Yaxley-Lennon's lies.

 

How about you?

 

Yes, I see that Orton Road quoted my post while I was editing it. Not after I had quoted it, as he did mine.

[Orton Rd]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Lots of people in this topic alone!

 

A hadith written 150 years after the events, by an author who wrote another hadith pacing Ayesha at an event which, if here age was as you believe, occurred 20 years before her birth!

 

But tell us, how many of these men claimed to have been inspired by the hadith?

 

How can they have used anything in the Koran when not only is rape forbidden in Islamic law, but so is sex outside of marriage?

 

 

The haddith of bukkari is kept next to the Quran and is accepted by about 95% of Muslims worldwide as being authentic, you have another opinion which is not theirs, or mine. Rape of those possessed by the hand (captives) is clearly condoned in the Quran unless you want to play on words as usual. Mohammad is seen as the perfect man there fore having sex with slaves and a nine year old (according to scripture) is bound to influence the people who idolize him and who see his life as an example of how to live.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Orton Rd