Excuse me for not commenting upon your comments, Edy for I have you blocked.  I'll read them next time I'm here reading without logging on … maybe.

edy
04 Aug 18 08:53
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,815 | Blogger: edy's blog
Good luck with getting information if the journalists always insists on publishing the name of his source.

And spokesperson for xyz seems somewhat verifiable for everybody if you aren't a lazy git.

^

This was in several articles virtual word for word...

Prison officials have denied his claims that he was held in "solitary confinement" for two months, saying was treated as any other prisoner.

A Prison Service spokesman said: "Mr Yaxley-Lennon was treated with the same fairness we aim to show all prisoners - he had access to visits, television and showers - and it is totally false to say he was held in 'solitary confinement'.

"He was initially placed into the Care & Separation Unit for less than 48 hours while an assessment of the risk to his safety was undertaken by prison staff. He then joined the main prison population."

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tommy-robinson-farright-activist-compares-prison-to-guantanamo-bay-and-says-he-was-spat-on-by-a3902876.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tommy-robinson-lost-40lb-prison-13025119

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/tommy-robinson-fox-news-14985011

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-08-03/tommy-robinson-compares-prison-spell-to-guantanamo-bay-in-fox-news-interview/

There are lots more all saying exactly the same thing but no names given. I understand they may have been quoting someone but each article starts...

'Prison officials have denied his claims that he was held in "solitary confinement" for two months, saying was treated as any other prisoner.'

Which is not part of the direct quote.

Anyway either TR is lying of this unnamed source is lying.

edy
04 Aug 18 09:02
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,817 | Blogger: edy's blog
trillby, the court document in which his granted retrial is explained specifically says he admitted it.

We went through this to death yesterday Edy.

He did not admit it.

Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach  of  integrity  of  the  court
system”  which  his  actions  had  caused.  In  mitigation  it  was  emphasised  that  the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.

In this case, no particulars of the scope of the alleged contempt were ever formulated,
let alone in writing, or put to the appellant.  With respect to all those involved in the
hearing, there was some muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered, not
only in the short exchanges which represented such formulation as there was, but also
in the sentencing remarks.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-full-judgment-1.pdf

The judge said that he did not even know what he was supposed to be admitting. To this day we still do not know what he is meant to have done wrong.

Edy do you trust a paragraph from an unnamed source reprinted in several main stream media outlets over TR on what happened to him in Jail?

You realease someone somewhere has written that and it is exactly the same across multiple papers?

edy
04 Aug 18 09:15
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,819 | Blogger: edy's blog
yes, we went to death that you lack the most basic of comprehension skills regarding your native language and aren't able to understand a simple subsentence like "despite his having accepted on both occasions that he was in contempt of court"

^

Yes and this so called 'accepted' is a conclusion drawn from these actual details...

Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach  of  integrity  of  the  court
system”  which  his  actions  had  caused.  In  mitigation  it  was  emphasised  that  the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.

In this case, no particulars of the scope of the alleged contempt were ever formulated,
let alone in writing, or put to the appellant.  With respect to all those involved in the
hearing, there was some muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered, not
only in the short exchanges which represented such formulation as there was, but also
in the sentencing remarks.

Flying Spaghetti Monster, give me strength.

Edy how can someone admit doing something if they do not know what they are supposed to be admitting doing?

We had this out yesterday.

You never answered this key issue.

Then you come back again today claiming the same thing.

Yes simply cannot explain how:

someone admit doing something if they do not know what they are supposed to be admitting doing?

now go and try verifying the prison service spokesman. You're a seeker of truth, aren't you? Go on, do it then.

Did you seriously just quote a part that includes "no particulars" to back up your claim that no basics were spelt out? Seriously, mate, seriously? ...Dude...

Over the next four minutes the judge identified
for the benefit of counsel, the appellant having been formally identified, his concerns
about the appellant's conduct. He explained that he was conducting the second of three
trials involving a total of 28 Asian men, with the third expected to start in September.
He had made an order "prohibiting the publication of anything relating to these trials".
During his livestreaming the appellant had referred to the supposed religion of the
defendants, the ethnicity of the alleged victims, the costs of the prosecutions and
questioned why publication was prohibited. The judge said he considered it a seriously
aggravating factor that the appellant was encouraging others to share the video. "So that
is the nature of the contempt", he said.

I am beginning to understand why some people need a God sometimes to look up to and give them strength.

So break that down Edy.

1. What did he actually admit doing wrong?

2. And is this what you mean when you said he admitted doing something wrong?

Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach  of  integrity  of  the  court
system”  which  his  actions  had  caused.  In  mitigation  it  was  emphasised  that  the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.

I'm still sure you're too scared to even try because you fear that you won't like the answer, Balanced and completely unsheepish Seeker of Truth.

edy
04 Aug 18 09:49
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,828 | Blogger: edy's blog
I'm still sure you're too scared to even try because you fear that you won't like the answer, Balanced and completely unsheepish Seeker of Truth.

^

I am not willing to put my name to a freedom of information request for this. I am not someone brave enough like TR to put a target on my head.

That is the simple fact of this case up until now that edy refuses , for whatever reason , to accept

Can FOI requests be made under a pseudonym? #
Technically, you must use your real name for your request to be a valid Freedom of Information request in law. See this guidance from the Information Commissioner (October 2007). However, the same guidance also says it is good practice for the public authority to still consider a request made using an obvious pseudonym. You should refer to this if a public authority refuses a request because you used a pseudonym.

Be aware, though, that even if the authority follows this good practice, the pseudonym will probably make it impossible for you to complain to the Information Commissioner later about the handling of your request.

There are several good alternatives to using a pseudonym.

Use a different form of your name. The guidance says that “Mr Arthur Thomas Roberts” can make a valid request as “Arthur Roberts”, “A. T. Roberts”, or “Mr Roberts”, but not as “Arthur” or “A.T.R.”.
Women may use their maiden name.
In most cases, you may use any name by which you are “widely known and/or is regularly used”.
Use the name of an organisation, the name of a company, the trading name of a company, or the trading name of a sole trader.
Ask someone else to make the request on your behalf.
You may, if you are really stuck, ask us to make the request on your behalf. Please contact us with a good reason why you cannot make the request yourself and cannot ask a friend to. Do not impersonate someone else. This is an abuse of our terms of service - read more in our House Rules.
Historically, some public authorities used mySociety’s FOI Register software (which has since been discontinued) in order to use WhatDoTheyKnow as a disclosure log for all their FOI activity. When people made requests to the authority their names were usually withheld from publication just as they would in an authority disclosure log on an authority website.

Sometimes, for various reasons including proven endangerment to the individual, we will remove a user’s name from the site; when we do so we make this clear; typically by replacing the name with “[name removed]”. For more information, see our section on your right to erasure.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/privacy#real_name

Problem solved. You can just go with Insider Trader.

edy
04 Aug 18 09:57
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,829 | Blogger: edy's blog
You don't need to put your name to a freedom of information request as a start. You can start emailing people first.

^

This is the final confirmation that you are a troll.

I literally have to find evidence to prove whenever you make false statements. It is getting very boring now. Why are you doing this? Is your agenda to put down anyone that speaks out?

What are the legal requirements for a request?
For your request to be dealt with according to the Freedom of Information Act, you must:

contact the relevant authority directly;
make the request in writing, for example in a letter or an email. You can make a verbal or written request for environmental information;
give your real name; and
give an address to which the authority can reply. This can be a postal or email address.

So start trying to comprehend some basic sentences before you make a clown of yourself by claiming I make false statements all the time.

Who always makes up crazy stuff and puts all sorts of opinions into the mouths of others to create a more confortable discussion framework for himself.

I think I will advise myself to leave it there Edy following your suggestion. What is the point of continuing discussing stuff when you make suggestion like that and fail to understand the basics. lfc1971 has stated the situation more concisely than I did.

and, as outlined if you were to read the "Consideration of the identity ormotives of the applicant. Freedom of Information Act. Environmental Information Regulations" or "Recognising a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (Section 8)", both official documents published by the Information Commissioner's Office, you'd have found pieces like

"However, if the name provided is not an obvious pseudonym
and the public authority has no reason to believe that a
pseudonym is being used, the authority should just accept the
name provided at face value.
31. Whilst this may mean that some pseudonymous requests will
slip through the net, we would not want to see a situation
where authorities routinely carry out checks on requesters’
identities. The Act provides a public right to information, not a
right limited to certain individuals."

Sometimes, if there is great danger in using your real name, you need to use a pseudonym and the authorities perfectly understand this. So stop making excuses because you fear the pinch to your bubble and get onto it, mate.