^

A person who fails to understand the legal situation around the TR is now advising me to go against the legal requirements for a FOI request.

There is nothing else for me to comment on this with you Edy. I am not going to carry on feeding your unsatisfiable trolling appetite.

You complain and spout off that everything is fake news because newspapers don't add the name, which would've added absolutely nothing for the readers, of a prison service spokesperson. But then you're neither willing to inquire through non-FOI emails, nor willing to use a pseudonym for a FOI, which the Information Commissioner's Office itself says in its guidelines is acceptable practice.

It doesn't get much more silly than that quite frankly and I really, really, really hope you realize that.

Insider Trader brought it up. If you want to voice complains about any deflection, he is the obvious person to address.

I see

^ the mans life is in danger from savages in prison and that is the sort of nonsense he comes out with

now we get the silly faces , from a  silly person

if I posted silly faces every time lfc did a dumb post, there would be a lot more from me

he has been warning us for years

The leftists would be screaming (along with everyone else) if it was a leftist activist treated like this.

This is what the 'Secret Barrister' who many leftists and mainstream-believers quoted on previous threads has admitted he was wrong but tried to justify it!

14. This shows that you know NOTHING, fake barrister. You were wrong, weren’t you?

Yes. My initial impression, based on the limited information available, was that the summary procedure was appropriate in the Leeds case. As the Court of Appeal explained, it was not. There were alternatives open to the judge which should have been explored. There were also obvious failings to abide by the procedural rules, although I would plead in mitigation that none of that information was available at the time that the story was first reported. As a result, the hearing was not fair. Whether the sentence was appropriate was not decided by the Court of Appeal and may perhaps be best assessed by what the freshly-constituted Crown Court decides to do, (although my position on that was neutral – I observed simply that the sentence was not out of the ordinary for serious contempts of court.)

So I hold my hands up – imperfect information makes for imperfect predictions. But is there a wider issue here, among me and other legal commentators? Were we too quick to dismiss the case with a “nothing to see here” wave of the hand, blinded by the unappealing nature of Robinson’s supporters and the organised maelstrom of fake news stirred up here and abroad? Maybe we were. Maybe we could have – should have – cleared our ears and browsers of the white (pride) noise and paid greater heed to the arguments of due process. Maybe a little more humility is required in these difficult cases. I am normally conscious in all legal blogging to couch in terms of conditionals – if this report is accurate, then the explanation might be X. Was I too quick to assume, wrongly, that the judge had acted correctly?

I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

InsiderTrader • August 4, 2018 12:32 PM BST
The leftists would be screaming (along with everyone else) if it was a leftist activist treated like this.

Like after the Charlottesville murder when your primary concern was to point out that the other guys had communist flags and create moral equivalence between Nazis and counter protestors? Alright then.

Though technically it wasn't the same kind of treatment I guess.

^^^ The epitome of the complete opposite of reality. In a single post. ^^^

Tommy is out? He should be preparing for the next elections. Things couldn't have been better for him in terms of popularity among his own fanbase and potential conversion of other voters.

No.

see if you can follow my lead, lfc.

edy
04 Aug 18 10:47
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,879 | Blogger: edy's blog
You complain and spout off that everything is fake news because newspapers don't add the name, which would've added absolutely nothing for the readers, of a prison service spokesperson. But then you're neither willing to inquire through non-FOI emails, nor willing to use a pseudonym for a FOI, which the Information Commissioner's Office itself says in its guidelines is acceptable practice.

It doesn't get much more silly than that quite frankly and I really, really, really hope you realize that.

^

This enough evidence for you Edy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKgyv9JRyr0

The actual letter exposing the lies is in the video

Edy, there is no need now. The letter shows that the spokesman was not telling the truth. The evidence is out in the public domain.

Edy,

The anonymous  'prison spokesperson's' comments reported in the press contradict what the prison letter says.

If you cannot see that there is not much more I can add. Even if I got that private letter from a FOI (which they would not give me) you would still dispute me so what is the point?

The facts have been presented.

Hopefully ukip make the correct decision.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkUFVy-FCjk