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.

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.

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...

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.

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

Or was it the Sun?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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.

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

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 ...