Tommy Robinson sent back to prison for 13 months

IT - if you want to get down to brass tacks there are no such things as races. There is nothing genetic that connects you, me and a few million others as Brits. Doesn't exist. Therefore the British aren't a race. Races are merely political tools used by the powerful to either corral a group together or drive a wedge between people.

An interesting topic when you get under its skin.

the judge keeps court informed as to any reporting restrictions

stephen lawrence the only racist murder ever.... according to the bbc FILTH

The judge says so early on in the proceedings. (May actually be before the trial itself if the crown states it's important so all defendants get a fair trial and the judge agrees).

The judges says where? In the court? How does someone standing outside the court reading stuff off another public website know these restrictions are in suddenly in place?

Passed on by Chinese Whispers? (Hope that's not racist btw)

its reporters job to find out

FFS Donny making it up as he goes along.
Reporter "are there any restrictions in place"
Court Officer "Sorry I can't tell you"

Fooball Marches Appear to be attracting Gay couples  the Disabled and some non white People , Now its strange that the BBc 

is not Covering that kind of Diversity, or a Seikh man infront of a Diverse crowd saying he agrees with Robinson 'A few Cheers from

Tommy's Supporters but certainly no negative cheers from what was a crowd with Black people and what appeared asian People

in it,

As the Main speaker was condemning Pedo Rapists not Surprising ,But once again not the Kind of Diversity our luvvie friends

want to see .

reporter is made aware of restrictions, often sat in court to hear, ...

have you been drinking aka?

Donny beat me to it.

Ignorance is no excuse.

It's beholden on the news org, or ad seller with an iPhone, to inform himself before jumping in. I believe reporters are allowed in to cover the trial, they juat can't file copy till the ban is lifted.

pp,

You are suggesting that is what TR is? An ad seller with an iPhone? That would be a low attack even for you.

What are the TV news organisations? Ad sellers with a TV cameras?

why would it be an attack , hes merely included everybody as having to obey
the same restrictions

be it a friend of a witness looking for a selfie or cnn

So the only way to find out if you can read out public information available online about a case on social media is to go into the court and listen to the judge saying if their is a restriction?

are you really not aware ?

IT - frankly you're just doing some repetitive sealioning now.

If you're really interested in the reporting restriction process I'm sure you can find out rather than spend an entire evening on a betting forum asking question after question.

there you go

i can test you on it next week if you like


https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf

You're a patient man don.

Jun 3, 2018 -- 10:22PM, PorcupineorPineapple wrote:

IT - if you want to get down to brass tacks there are no such things as races. There is nothing genetic that connects you, me and a few million others as Brits. Doesn't exist. Therefore the British aren't a race. Races are merely political tools used by the powerful to either corral a group together or drive a wedge between people.An interesting topic when you get under its skin.

There are no such thing as races but you still call people racists ...hilarious stuff, which is it ?

The dim comment intended for porcupine not inside trader btw

I try and make allowances for you being incredibly dim , but if you are classifying religion as a " race " than someone criticising Tom cruises scientology as nonsense would be a " racist". Put the little racism drum down, and realise people are rightly criticising a barbaric cult and not the colour of someones skin using your silly banana analogy there's a good lad.


You do understand there's a bit of a diffetence between criticising a faith and denigrating everyone who follows it? Imo, Islam - like them all - is daft. Ramadam, veils, pork, booze. Why choose to place such arbitrary obstacles in your path on your short time on earth? Now if you instead say all scientologists are crazed sheep botherers then that is racist. That's the (fairly huge and unmissable to most) difference. If you make spurious claims like "these guys are paedophiles and are also muslims therefore a huge number of muslims must be paedos then that is discrimination and if you make it on the grounds of religion it is racism. If you don't believe me check the laws. Say derogatory comments about muslims in Hyde Park Corner and you'll be done for inciting racial hatred, not anti-religious hatred.



As for your races v racism comment, I thought someone woukd run with that and to be honest you were odds on.

I'll keep it simple. There's no such thing as race, such as an English race. Not genetically or biologically speaking. It is a political construct.

There is such a thing as racism. Because racism is simply the name given to prejudice against others based on their nationality, skin colour or religion. It's actually fairly broad.

nonsense to say there is no such thing as different races

Sometimes I think I might be Chinese

who could disagree with that

Point is lfc, if you took a billion Chinese dna samples you wouldn't find a defining characteristic that wasn't found in a German or Somalian.

I don’t care about dna

I "denigrate" everyone following a so called faith steeped in the values Islam incorporates. You spend half your time ranting on about racism Porcupine and the second half saying there is no such thing as race... are you on some form of medication and if not.. why not? A crazed lunatic may decide to worship a dead badger in the garden, if you take away the badger discriminating against his religion you are racist then and open to being jailed by the precious laws you keep quoting.

You can't use one law for muslims and other laws for different groups.. if I decide to worship the cactus on my windowsill and my wife decides not to water it or throws it in the bin can she be jailed for racism as it's my new adopted religion by definition? Incidentally the comment about their not being races but stating racism exists is embarrassing as racism by law is defined as   " prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

Jesus wept, what is it with you and your stupid comparisons. You can't just debate like a grown up but have to compare a mainstream religion to worshipping a bottle or banging on about trespassing hundreds of years ago.


As for race v racism I've tried to be helpful.  Racism covers religions. It just does. Write 4 signs saying all muslims/jews/blacks/spaniards are paedos and you will be charged with the same offence every time. No difference.

As for race, I said it is a political construct. Do try to keep up.

you have to differentiate between genuine concern and fear of any organisation or religion from the charge of racism
Tgat is a very big danger because it stops progress and puts peoples lives in danger

You need to stop being obsessed with labels and terms porcupine such as racism blindly thrown about crying over what the law says or doesn't say pedantically trying to find silly arguments over there being no race but racism. I couldn't care less what your little student law textbook says about "racism", I discriminate against behaviour which is religion and not skin tone or country of origin. You're too backwards to grasp analogies so no point making them if you can't understand a simple comparison of how rounding up religion under the racism umbrella is fundamentally wrong. If my religion commands me to shoot you in the head, do you condemn my religion and become a racist by your definition? Why should I accept people following a book based on a dirty paedophile inciting mass murder ? If a religion is inhumane such as Islam stuck in the dark ages I condemn anyone following it and so should any other sane person.

it’s not good enough for a religion to say , these are our beliefs , this is how we want to live and this is the kind of country and laws that we want to live under
And you have to respect these things , ah well no I don’t
Not necessarily

If you are prejudiced against muslims en masse you are racist. It's just that simple.

Anti-Semitism, racist. Trump's travel ban, racist. Rohingya genocide, racist. Putting bacon on the door of a mosque, racist.

If you think you are superior to another person based purely and solely on the religion he follows then you are a racist. Own it.

PP talking like a D grade sixth form sociology student on this thread.



PorcupineorPineapple
04 Jun 18 00:24
Joined: 03 Dec 15
| Topic/replies: 4,906 | Blogger: PorcupineorPineapple's blog

You do understand there's a bit of a diffetence between criticising a faith and denigrating everyone who follows it? Imo, Islam - like them all - is daft. Ramadam, veils, pork, booze.

PorcupineorPineapple
04 Jun 18 01:04
Joined: 03 Dec 15
| Topic/replies: 4,906 | Blogger: PorcupineorPineapple's blog
If you are prejudiced against muslims en masse you are racist. It's just that simple.

If you think you are superior to another person based purely and solely on the religion he follows then you are a racist. Own it.

^

PP is saying it is OK to criticise Islam like he has above. This is exactly what TR did on Good Morning Britain and yet for some bizarre reason PP thinks TR is racist.

are you ready for your test it?

Halal meat being fed at OUR KIDS schools =  Racist... the choice given is eat it or bring a packed lunch ... Why the fcuk is this allowed .

Donny as you well know that was a generic guide from 2 years ago. I had obviously already seen that just from googling.

I was asking for a list of cases with specific restrictions which you could not provide.

As others have said you are making things up as you go along.

its not just a list of restrictions it answers your questions as to how you find out about restrictions

or were you simply trolling?

'In March 2014 the Law Commission recommended that there should be a single publicly accessible
website enabling the media and members of the public to find out if an order had been made under
s.4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.107 This website would include a restricted area where, for
a charge, certain users could find out the details of the reporting restriction and could sign up for
automated alerts of new orders. At the time of writing, this website had not been established. '

I asked you for a link to this website that had not been established back in 2016. And you simply link to the same pdf doc.

Donny if anyone is trolling it is you.

How can the public find out this information. Even if they had established the website only 'certain users' would be able to access it.

I ask you again how is a member of the public outside the court commenting on social media supposed to know if a restriction is in place?

Why so many questions of everyone, Insider Trader?
Here are some for you.

What are you trying to achieve on this forum?
I've seen it asked, but never answered... where (approximate will do) do you live?
Do you EVER post on any other topic than promoting the right(ish) position on several political 'discussions'?

Sure

What are you trying to achieve on this forum?
Nothing. Just chatting about current affairs the same as you or anyone else.

I've seen it asked, but never answered... where (approximate will do) do you live?
Was in London for many years. Now in another town in the south east.

Do you EVER post on any other topic than promoting the right(ish) position on several political 'discussions'?
I comment on anything to do with civil liberties. So the snoopers charter I opposed. The EU undemocratically deciding policies I oppose. Uncontrolled immigration without consultation I oppose. Unaccountable corporations and banks deciding policies I oppose.  Estate agents not licenced I oppose. Police cuts on patrol I oppose. The law being applied differently to different groups I oppose.

you also asked questions such as the one posed at 10.22

why would you ask such a question if the answer was already known to you

it... internet troll ?

IT - that's quite the jump. So Tommy has had one public appearance, where he said one thing and I've leapt to a massive conclusion?


If Tommy had solely criticised the faith and had also expressed equally vocal criticism for others so as not to just single out one repeatedlty then I would apologise.

But we both know I don't need to.

STUDYFORM, I also oppose child abuse. In fact any kind of abuse of power.

IT is just taking sealioning to the max on this thread. He knows the conviction was just but is just thrashing about, asking the same thing over and over hoping for something he can poumce on to re-direct the convetsation so he and his kind are the victims.

do you oppose those likely to see child abusers freed by their actions ?

i know that pop

but he isnt doing a very good job of it

InsiderTrader
03 Jun 18 22:22
Joined: 25 Aug 05
| Topic/replies: 5,296 | Blogger: InsiderTrader's blog
If there is no list how do people know they cannot report?

^

I dont know that is the point. The doc we have both seen was written in 2016 and highlighted lack of information as an issue. I do not know what has happened since then. You talk so confidently about the situation I assumed you did.

Now it is clear neither of us know.

it is in the document...

And as if by magic


Someone throw him a fish for God's sake.

tommy pleaded guilty

so must have accepted as a reporter he should have known...

should have read, and remembered what was in the document and acted accordingly

donny osmond
04 Jun 18 12:40
Joined: 02 Mar 08
| Topic/replies: 76,497 | Blogger: donny osmond's blog
do you oppose those likely to see child abusers freed by their actions ?

^

This has not happened. People do walk free all the time though. The amount of cases that even go to court for child abuse and rape in general are the tip of the iceburg. The burden of proof has to be on the accused. If the victim is not beleived there is zero support afterwards.

that has not happened because the police arrested and jailed a man that could have caused it to happen

do you agree that their timely intervention saved the trial

donny osmond
04 Jun 18 12:45
Joined: 02 Mar 08
| Topic/replies: 76,499 | Blogger: donny osmond's blog
tommy pleaded guilty

so must have accepted as a reporter he should have known...

should have read, and remembered what was in the document and acted accordingly

^

He did plead guilty I cannot argue with that. I am not sure about the second bit 'remembered what was in the document'. Where did you get that information from? That is certainly contrary to what his manager/assistant said.

what did hois manager/assistant say ?

his

donny osmond
04 Jun 18 12:46
Joined: 02 Mar 08
| Topic/replies: 76,500 | Blogger: donny osmond's blog
that has not happened because the police arrested and jailed a man that could have caused it to happen

do you agree that their timely intervention saved the trial

^

How did it save the trail? He spoke for over an hour. He read out the names at the start of the 'broadcast' and filmed people walking past on the street. The 'broadcast' is still online.
What difference did his arrested over an hour later make? Have you actually watched the 'broadcast'? 99% of it is a rant after the first 5 mins.

its basic stuff for a reporter to know the law on reporting restricions

donny osmond
Date Joined: 02 Mar 08
Add contact | Send message
04 Jun 18 12:48
Joined: 02 Mar 08
| Topic/replies: 76,502 | Blogger: donny osmond's blog
what did hois manager/assistant say ?

^

youtube search 'tommy robinson manager'

51 mins in...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fovXM_4MYGo

cant be on with youtube

what did he say?

was it related to tommys knowledge of reporting restrictions or is it a tangent ?

Yes it was exactly related to that. About 5 minetes explaining exactly what he thought a saw outside and in the court room for TRs case.

He claimed everything TR said was already reported elsewhere in papers and websites.

can you find other videos filmed contemporaneously to tommys?

Sorry I do not know what that means:

'existing, beginning, or occurring in the same period of time Derived Formscontemporaneity'

It is the only account of what happened I can find.

He was obviously on thin ice.

The Canterbury case was a bad one where he was convicted on Criminal Justice Act not Contempt of Court.

Then there was suggestion over the Darren Obsborne case as well:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/feb/06/police-assess-contempt-claims-over-tommy-robinson-videos

What I find shocking is:
1. The access to information of what cannot and can be reported needs to be improved (as your 2016 doc states).
2. The fact that a judge with no jury can give someone 10 months and be from the street to prison in 5 hours just at that judge's discretion with no time to get own legal representation.

In fact the Kent one was for filming inside the court building.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/far-right-activist-spared-jail-126340/

Clearly he did not do that again as was outside Leeds Court. He even asked the police where the court property started.

These cases resulted in no prison time:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/two-jurors-found-guilty-of-contempt-of-court

Deborah Dean, a juror in a trial in September and October 2014 involving 5 defendants facing various charges of rape, sexual exploitation for trafficking and sexual activity with a child, was sentenced to 3 months in prison, suspended for 12 months, after she wrote letters to two of the defendants after the trial concluded and disclosed accounts of jury deliberations.

Dean sent two letters to Usman Ali (convicted of sexual activity with a child) and a letter to Shakeal Rehman (convicted of trafficking and rape). The letters came to light in the course of appeals against conviction and sentence being pursued by Mr Ali and Mr Rehman.

James Smith was sentenced to 9 months, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to pay a fine of £900 for disclosing the results of internet research to other members of the jury in a drugs case at Liverpool Crown Court in December 2014.

Smith deliberately researched information including press articles about one of the defendants in the case on his mobile telephone. He then discussed the results with other members of the jury, directly ignoring the repeated direction of the judge not to conduct internet research. This led to the trial having to be abandoned, which resulted in the waste of approximately £80,000 of costs to the Court Service and Crown Prosecution Service.

tommy got no prison time first time, it was suspended

dont forget he is not without previous conviction and this could affect a judge when
he passes sentence

True.

It looks like they have been constantly reviewing how to get the information out on what is and is not allowed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785

Jury not allowed to research on the internet.

In his ruling, he said that "every attempt is made to try and warn jurors not to use the internet or social sites for any purpose in relation to the case".

He added: "They have done this so that no juror can subsequently claim that he or she did not understand what they should not do and what the consequences might be."

But Sir John said he would invite courts to consider whether a practice adopted by some judges of also handing out a printed notice should be "universally followed".
Speaking after the case, Attorney General Dominic Grieve said jurors who use the internet to research a case "undermine justice".

Mr Grieve added: "It creates a risk that the defendant will be convicted or acquitted, not on the evidence, but on unchallenged and untested material discovered by the juror.

pretty standard for juries to be told this during their induction

there must be a huge temptation to find out what was happening when you , the jury, were booted
out of court when a witness strays onto banned territory...

Surely that is the side to stop it.

This what the Attorney general Dominic Grieve said about it:

The problem posed by the internet, Grieve urged, needs to be addressed. "All kinds of prejudicial information [is] 'out there' on the internet' ", he said. "This could be in the form of archived news reports about the defendant's previous court appearances, or it could be, to use the words of the old authorities in a modern context, mere chaff and banter about the case on someone's Facebook page or Twitter feed. But the chances of a juror seeing such material are fairly slim, providing they haven't gone looking for it.

"By creating a specific criminal offence of misconduct by a juror, the proposals emphasise the importance of jurors following judges' directions, and can give clarity to jurors about what is and is not permissible. But crucially, the proposals also provide jurors with an additional layer of protection when they are accused of such misconduct, as they would themselves be able to advance a defence to a jury of their peers."

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/11/jury-system-web-search-contempt-jail-grieve

To be fair going looking for it merely involves a google search and clicking on a few links.

It's hardly accessing the dark web.

Still there's the chance and if the juror is of a mind to search rape gangs for example then there'd be a good chance he could come across Tommy's video and half-unwittingly see a vid about the current case. The whole point of these is getting as many views for their ads as possible so they know how to extend their reach.

Jun 4, 2018 -- 12:25PM, InsiderTrader wrote:

SureWhat are you trying to achieve on this forum?Nothing. Just chatting about current affairs the same as you or anyone else.I've seen it asked, but never answered... where (approximate will do) do you live?Was in London for many years. Now in another town in the south east.Do you EVER post on any other topic than promoting the right(ish) position on several political 'discussions'? I comment on anything to do with civil liberties. So the snoopers charter I opposed. The EU undemocratically deciding policies I oppose. Uncontrolled immigration without consultation I oppose. Unaccountable corporations and banks deciding policies I oppose.  Estate agents not licenced I oppose. Police cuts on patrol I oppose. The law being applied differently to different groups I oppose.

Fair enough and well answered, thank you for that.

InsiderTrader  • June 4, 2018 12:38 PM BST 
STUDYFORM, I also oppose child abuse. In fact any kind of abuse of power.

Don't you think everyone else does too?

My assertion - to you, in the main, is that there is - even in these days of a much depleted forum - more than just politics to discuss.

Jun 4, 2018 -- 12:11PM, STUDYFORM wrote:

Why so many questions of everyone, Insider Trader?Here are some for you.What are you trying to achieve on this forum?I've seen it asked, but never answered... where (approximate will do) do you live?Do you EVER post on any other topic than promoting the right(ish) position on several political 'discussions'?

he's a plant, we have called him out before but the evidence is overwhelming now.
do you think they get a bunch of websites to cover & they have to hammer home the
disinformation at all times? отличная работа

https://tinyurl.com/yakhdufa

Bold of his fanclub to go on a naked march in support of him today.

^

Someone has been reading the Express as their news source.

Or was it the Sun?

There was some trouble but hardly extreme. Most of it started by their planted agitators and tanked up blokes can't resist a fight with the cops esp when they out number them 5 to 1.

Any coverage of a counter demo at all ? A trend appears to be whenever a counter demo is organised there will be a clash and police having to intervene.

Tommy's gang were more interested in fighting the police going of the footage

if you cant free him....join him!

20,000 regular people. a few nutters. 5 arrests.

it reminded me of the time liverpool won the cup...

If you zoom in you might see me marching in support of our favourite ad seller.

I know. Me too.

Hey, what's wrong with a natural tooth gap? I hereby issue an official warning for promoting hatred towards people with diastema.

gap-toothed  what an odd insult in this context.

Chaucer famously described The Wife of Bath as 'gap-toothed',  which back in the day was said to be equate with nymphomaniacal tendencies.

There's gap-toothed as in Vanessa Paradis gap-toothed.

And then there's gap-toothed as in black hole in middle of grid due to scrapping or poor hygiene.



I've checked but I've not seen many Vanessa Paradis-lookalikes on the march sadly.

Have you checked for freckles or ear lobe size?  Could be significant.

To be fair I googled Vanessa to compare and got a bit distracted

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQcEdBXFxYc

They are now fear mongering about Tommy being sent to a majority muslim prison and he faces "certain death"

Absolutely disgusting. No way would he be in jail if the people he had been reporting on had been white. This is a deliberate attempt to have Tommy killed by the govt, just hope that doesn't happen, but if he is killed or injured  hope Lord Pearson carries out his threat to sue Sajid Javid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=kQcEdBXFxYc

He's going to cause riots and that's exactly what they want

You can't win through street riots, they have the weapons and tanks

Who made the decision to move Tommy to a predominantly muslim jail! No prizes.

In his biography, Enemy of the State, Robinson actually acknowledged the importance of being seen as the “victim”. He enjoyed being in the minority during television debates because he knew that “the whole place was going to gang up on me and that I would come off as the victim … it was exactly as I wanted it to go”.

So Robinson’s deliberate and sustained breach of court orders needs to be called out for exactly what they are –- a calculated strategy rather than heroic self-sacrifice.

can't blame all tommy supporters for the actions of a few isolated nutters. hold on, that's exactly what they do. as you were.

This is a deliberate attempt to have Tommy killed by the govt, just hope that doesn't happen, but if he is killed or injured  hope Lord Pearson carries out his threat to sue Sajid Javid.
If someone was trying to kill Tommy, wouldn't it be easier to just stab him somewhere in London? Much easier to control than officially sending him to a muslim majority jail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yNvQQ0Rno0&lc=z23rcbeyoquncfy5r04t1aokgxaq2teboye0tkvxa4tfbk0h00410.1528674002389962


=====================
Here is my response to your invitation to make a substantive counter-argument to your video. I hope you honour your promise to 'probably reply'.

First of all, you claim that there are hundreds of examples of racist hate speech by Tommy Robinson, yet you haven’t shown a single one. You obviously have the software because you’ve included a clip from Nigel Farage later in the video, so if there are so many examples available why not show us at least one to support your claim?

That quote from Mark Rowley was part of his evidence in the Darren Osborne case, in which he tried to implicate Tommy Robinson as a radicalising influence on Osborne. However, he couldn’t present any evidence to support this allegation and the claim that Osborne had received emails from Tommy Robinson backfired on him because they turned out to be automated replies from his employer of the time, Rebel Media. It really does look like deliberate cherry picking to cite Mark Rowley as you did without also including this crucial contextual information - i.e. despite his rank and presumed access to privileged information, Mark Rowley was reduced to merely expressing a personal opinion without any solid evidence to support it.

Now, onto the events outside Leeds Crown Court. In your video, you accept without question that Tommy Robinson was (a) within the court precincts, (b) he was making statements that presumed the guilt of the defendants before they’d been convicted, and (c) was making statements that could have prejudiced the administration of justice both in the trial going on at the time and the future (linked) trial due to start in September.

The fact that you’ve made these three claims is a clear indication that, in your supposedly scrupulous research on this topic, you didn’t take the trouble to look at Tommy’s hour-long live stream, which is freely available on You Tube here. https://youtu.be/TTdJaHWvLbk

Was this very obvious oversight deliberate? Maybe you didn’t want to know the truth because you prefer to nurture and amplify your own prejudices and biases. Because the truth is there in that 75 minute recording. You could have looked at it, but you didn’t and consequently all your arguments are discredited and null and void.

Here, in as much of a nutshell as I can manage, are the FACTS:
1. The court case being heard in Leeds Crown Court on 25 May, and which Tommy was there to comment on, was the second of three linked trials of 29 individuals charged with a variety of crimes against under-age girls, including rape, pimping, supplying drugs, etc.
2. An order delaying publication of reports of the CONTENT of all three trials was in place. This was so that the administration of justice would not be jeopardised by anything said in one trial prejudicing the right to a fair trial of the defendants in subsequent trials.
This is a video recording of crowds outside Leeds Crown Court on the first day of the first of these three linked trials. None of the people present (who were very rowdy and aggressive) was arrested for a breach of the peace or for contempt of court. https://youtu.be/hi14KjS03Zk
Contrast the people in this video with Tommy Robinson’s very mild, non-aggressive demeanour.
3. On 25 May the jury were due to deliver their verdict on the 10 defendants facing charges in the second of the three linked trials.
Tommy Robinson stood outside the court (not in the precincts of the court, but on the public thoroughfare), waiting for the defendants to arrive. He spoke to each of them, asking questions like ‘How are you feeling?’ ‘Is that your prison bag?’ ‘What do you think about the verdict?’.
4. At no time did Tommy Robinson refer to them as anything other than ‘alleged’ perpetrators.
5. Most of his chat during the 70 minutes up until his arrest was about grooming gangs in general, with reference to the details of other trials in which the perpetrators had been convicted. He talked about the role of the police and the press in covering up these scandals, complained about the lack of national media coverage of heinous religiously-motivated crimes. None of this, by any stretch of the imagination, could be deemed to have prejudiced either this or the next of the linked trials.
6. While Tommy Robinson was on the pavement doing his livestream, he had friendly exchanges with passers-by; he deliberately did not approach anyone entering the court who was clearly not one of the defendants. There was no suggestion, either in his behaviour or that of anyone else in the vicinity, that a breach of the peace was being committed, yet this was the given reason for his arrest. The police may very well arrest someone for one thing, as you suggest, and another - worse - crime comes to light during the course of investigation. But the reason for the original arrest has to be valid in the first place.
7. The judge who gave him a suspended sentence for contempt of court in Canterbury gave Tommy Robinson clear instructions - do not attribute crimes to people before they’re convicted, and do not film in the court’s precincts - which Robinson explicitly took great pains to abide by while outside Leeds Crown Court. He referred to it several times, saying “I have to be careful what I say and do”.
8. When he was being arrested, Robinson asked his friends to get him a lawyer and they did contact the lawyer who had helped him with his defence in Canterbury. She made contact with the Leeds Metropolitan Police, who told her that Tommy Robinson had already been released so there was no need for her to travel to Leeds. Meanwhile, Robinson was charged with contempt of court and appointed a solicitor by the court (who presumably, but I have no confirmation of this, advised him to plead guilty). The trial apparently lasted no more than 10 minutes, and the judge looked at no more than 5 minutes of Robinson’s 75 minute live stream. As I've already said, there is nothing in that live stream that could have prejudiced the trials.

Now can you see why a lot of people are concerned that this contempt of court conviction is unsafe? Do yourself a favour and acquaint yourself with the (freely available) evidence before you, too, go ahead and condemn someone. If you’re an honest soul, I expect you to retract much of the content of your video now that you’re better acquainted with the facts of the case.

===============
P.S

l also have an unrelated picture  to send, when I can find it.

Regards

he can appeal

but could face a stiffer sentence

choice is his, if his brief was misled by police he should have no problem getting appeal

put him in the same shovel as the shitbags that killed soldier Rigby in woolwich... and let em have a straightner ...  he might end up on a cosy spur like them with all mod cons .... anyway... hes living it up in some hotel at the mo ...