Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
The leaders of the far-right group Britain First have been charged with causing religiously aggravated harassment.
Paul Golding, 35, and Jayda Fransen, 31, have been charged by Kent Police after allegedly distributing leaflets as four men stood trial for gang rape.
The trial involved three Muslim men and a teenager who were eventually convicted of rape and jailed.
Golding and Fransen, both from Penge in south-east London, were arrested on May 10.
They were investigated over their alleged behaviour during the trial of four men for raping a teenage girl above the 555 Pizza takeaway in Ramsgate.
Shershah Muslimyar, 21, Tamin Rahmani, 38, and Rafiullah Hamidy, 24, were sentenced to 14 years each in prison while a teenager was jailed for seven years after brutally attacking the girl in September last year.
As the men stood trial in May, Golding and Franser are said to have distributed leaflets in the Thanet and Canterbury areas, and posted online videos during the court proceedings.
Today they both tweeted a link to a petition claiming the Home Office is 'persecuting' them for 'exposing militant Islam'.
Shortly before entering the police station, Golding and Fransen filmed themselves vowing to 'never give up' on 'standing up for the British people'.
Golding said in the Facebook Live footage: 'It doesn't matter what happens today or what happens in the future, you can rest assured that you have two political party leaders here who will never give up under any circumstances.
'We will fight to the bitter end for our country and we will never surrender, we will never give up.'
Fransen has been charged with four counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment, and Golding three counts.
The maximum penalty on conviction of religiously aggravated harassment is two years' imprisonment.
Both have been bailed to appear before Medway magistrates on October 17.
Britain First says it is not a racist but a loyalist movement.
The group, which is opposed to all mass immigration, has staged a number of demonstrations around Britain, usually attracting a few hundred protesters.
The former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) was given a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court in May after filming outside the court during the same rape trial.
In a video posted online, Tommy Robinson filmed himself describing the defendants, who had not yet been convicted, as 'paedophiles' and claiming: 'It's going on across our country.'
Paul Golding, 35, and Jayda Fransen, 31, have been charged by Kent Police after allegedly distributing leaflets as four men stood trial for gang rape.
The trial involved three Muslim men and a teenager who were eventually convicted of rape and jailed.
Golding and Fransen, both from Penge in south-east London, were arrested on May 10.
They were investigated over their alleged behaviour during the trial of four men for raping a teenage girl above the 555 Pizza takeaway in Ramsgate.
Shershah Muslimyar, 21, Tamin Rahmani, 38, and Rafiullah Hamidy, 24, were sentenced to 14 years each in prison while a teenager was jailed for seven years after brutally attacking the girl in September last year.
As the men stood trial in May, Golding and Franser are said to have distributed leaflets in the Thanet and Canterbury areas, and posted online videos during the court proceedings.
Today they both tweeted a link to a petition claiming the Home Office is 'persecuting' them for 'exposing militant Islam'.
Shortly before entering the police station, Golding and Fransen filmed themselves vowing to 'never give up' on 'standing up for the British people'.
Golding said in the Facebook Live footage: 'It doesn't matter what happens today or what happens in the future, you can rest assured that you have two political party leaders here who will never give up under any circumstances.
'We will fight to the bitter end for our country and we will never surrender, we will never give up.'
Fransen has been charged with four counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment, and Golding three counts.
The maximum penalty on conviction of religiously aggravated harassment is two years' imprisonment.
Both have been bailed to appear before Medway magistrates on October 17.
Britain First says it is not a racist but a loyalist movement.
The group, which is opposed to all mass immigration, has staged a number of demonstrations around Britain, usually attracting a few hundred protesters.
The former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) was given a suspended prison sentence for contempt of court in May after filming outside the court during the same rape trial.
In a video posted online, Tommy Robinson filmed himself describing the defendants, who had not yet been convicted, as 'paedophiles' and claiming: 'It's going on across our country.'
Show More
Meanwhile FB keeps on featuring posts by Momentum,etc calling anyone who votes tory as vermin and rats and the police do nowt ? This whole affair reminds me of the posting about Douglas Murray suggesting the police are carving up anyone that doesnt buy into the right agenda at present.Widespread rape and child abuse has to be challenge instead of being swept under the carpet all the time.
Bit surprised both parties haven't been charged with "contempt of court", given their stated activities were during the trial. I am surprised that the quoted offences are senior to that, but that may explain it.
What the Police need to be Looking into is the Amount of So called asylum Seekers ,that appear to have sympathy towards the ISIS cause ,its getting Silly 
We need the Luvvies to come forward and explain why a quite a few of these people want to kill us .
We need the Luvvies to come forward and explain why a quite a few of these people want to kill us .
That'll be it then foolproof, you may have cracked the problem.
Religiously aggravated harassment?
Can I claim compensation next time a Jehovah Witness knocks on my door?
Can I claim compensation next time a Jehovah Witness knocks on my door?
mad mad moon - The answer is no, but then your ill-informed attempt to spoil a potentially interesting thread is a worthy contribution.
I assume this is the offending leaflet.
http://www.britainfirst.org.uk/muslim-grooming-brochure.pdf
http://www.britainfirst.org.uk/muslim-grooming-brochure.pdf
I can't be bothered reading all that, but had a quick look and noticed this quote at the top-
“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to
integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
- David Cameron, May 2007
After ten years of mainstream Britain bending, things seem worse than they have ever been.
“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to
integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
- David Cameron, May 2007
After ten years of mainstream Britain bending, things seem worse than they have ever been.
Blackburn doesn't understand , it's not possible to be in contempt of court unless you are in court.
Is it contempt of court to film outside the court?
No, it would be illegal to make filming outside the court contempt of court.
No, it would be illegal to make filming outside the court contempt of court.
Of course that is what they are trying to stop, the usual suspects .
lfc
Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
and only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time of the publication.
"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant. Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.
Proceedings also cease to be active where they conclude by, inter alia, acquittal/sentence, any other order bringing proceedings to an end, or by discontinuance/operation of law.
Note: Common law contempt may be committed where proceedings are pending or imminent (albeit not necessarily active for the purposes of the 1981 Act), and where there is actual intent to interfere with the administration of justice in those proceedings.
Hth
Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
and only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time of the publication.
"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant. Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.
Proceedings also cease to be active where they conclude by, inter alia, acquittal/sentence, any other order bringing proceedings to an end, or by discontinuance/operation of law.
Note: Common law contempt may be committed where proceedings are pending or imminent (albeit not necessarily active for the purposes of the 1981 Act), and where there is actual intent to interfere with the administration of justice in those proceedings.
Hth
I knew that.
My point was how is it possible to be in contempt of court if you are not in court?
That is the important thing.
My point was how is it possible to be in contempt of court if you are not in court?
That is the important thing.
You said I didn't understand. It appears that you still don't. Perhaps the Wiki description is simpler for you to understand
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial or linked trials are over and the juries have given their verdicts.
Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial or linked trials are over and the juries have given their verdicts.
that is just the point , there must be a law that has been broken, it is not enough to say we consider you to be in contempt of court.
There is no such law in reality outside the court.
There is no such law in reality outside the court.
You have to disrespect the court...yes but only if you are in court otherwise we could all be guilty.
or you have to have to defy a court injunction , that means you are breaking the law. The court has to set up such an injunction before you can break it.
or you have to have to defy a court injunction , that means you are breaking the law. The court has to set up such an injunction before you can break it.
How else can you decide if someone is in contempt of court?
Especially if he is not in court.
Especially if he is not in court.
You posted "Blackburn doesn't understand , it's not possible to be in contempt of court unless you are in court".
I have posted the relevant passage from the Contempt of Court Act that explains exactly how you can be in contempt of court without being "in court".
Anyway I give up.
I have posted the relevant passage from the Contempt of Court Act that explains exactly how you can be in contempt of court without being "in court".
Anyway I give up.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539