Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
01 Aug 18
15:13
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Aug 05
his morning, the Lord Chief Justice's ruling in Robinson's appeal underlined that the rule of law - the rules that apply to us all - must be applied fairly in all circumstances.
And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.
Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.
Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.
Tommy Robinson is still convicted of contempt in relation to his behaviour at Canterbury last year where he received his three month sentence for potentially derailing a fair trial.
Today, the Court of Appeal said that very same right to a fair hearing means Robinson should have a full opportunity to put his case without rushing to judge.
At an earlier hearing, Robinson's QC argued that procedural "deficiencies" had caused "prejudice" in Leeds.
Lord Burnett said the judge should not have commenced contempt proceedings the same day he was arrested.
He explained "no particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant", and there was "a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45029755
Amazing criticism of the judge really.
Shows all those people on here who thought it was all above board how he was arrested and jailed in 4 hours were totally and utterly wrong.
And that's why the Court of Appeal ruled that Robinson's second conviction in a year for contempt of court was flawed. In essence, the five hours from arrest to sentence at Leeds Crown Court was rushed.
Robinson wasn't told what specific parts of his activity at the court had been potentially prejudicial to a jury - meaning nobody to this day knows exactly what he did wrong.
Further, he immediately removed the offending video from Facebook on the court's order and the judge should have then adjourned the matter to give him longer to prepare a defence.
Tommy Robinson is still convicted of contempt in relation to his behaviour at Canterbury last year where he received his three month sentence for potentially derailing a fair trial.
Today, the Court of Appeal said that very same right to a fair hearing means Robinson should have a full opportunity to put his case without rushing to judge.
At an earlier hearing, Robinson's QC argued that procedural "deficiencies" had caused "prejudice" in Leeds.
Lord Burnett said the judge should not have commenced contempt proceedings the same day he was arrested.
He explained "no particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant", and there was "a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45029755
Amazing criticism of the judge really.
Shows all those people on here who thought it was all above board how he was arrested and jailed in 4 hours were totally and utterly wrong.
Show More
https://youtu.be/Q96elyZaxq8
Tommy taking to Paxman in Feb 2011 highlighting Muslim rape gangs. Paxman doing the establishment thing and obfuscating.
Watch from 7 minutes.
Tommy taking to Paxman in Feb 2011 highlighting Muslim rape gangs. Paxman doing the establishment thing and obfuscating.
Watch from 7 minutes.
Safaa Boular: UK's Youngest female terror plotter handed life sentence
Safaa Boular, the youngest woman convicted of plotting a terror attack on British soil, has been jailed for life with a minimum of 13 years.
The 18-year-old was sitting her GCSEs when she was seduced by IS fighter Naweed Hussain, originally from Coventry and more than 15 years her senior.
She hid her Islamic State-inspired plans in coded conversations about preparations for an innocent Mad Hatter's tea party.
Judge Mark Dennis QC sentenced Boular to life imprisonment with a minimum of 13 years at the Old Bailey on Friday - making her the last member of Britain's first all-women terror cell to be jailed.
https://news.sky.com/story/safaa-boular-jailed-youngest-woman-convicted-of-plotting-uk-terror-attack-handed-life-sentence-11459560
Safaa Boular, the youngest woman convicted of plotting a terror attack on British soil, has been jailed for life with a minimum of 13 years.
The 18-year-old was sitting her GCSEs when she was seduced by IS fighter Naweed Hussain, originally from Coventry and more than 15 years her senior.
She hid her Islamic State-inspired plans in coded conversations about preparations for an innocent Mad Hatter's tea party.
Judge Mark Dennis QC sentenced Boular to life imprisonment with a minimum of 13 years at the Old Bailey on Friday - making her the last member of Britain's first all-women terror cell to be jailed.
https://news.sky.com/story/safaa-boular-jailed-youngest-woman-convicted-of-plotting-uk-terror-attack-handed-life-sentence-11459560
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dean Haydon said: "After Safaa was arrested and charged, her mother and sister tried to pick up where she left off....
"Working with the security services, we tracked their plans and stopped them before they were able to put them into practice.
"All three women were filled with hate and toxic ideology, and were determined to carry out a terrorist attack. Had they been successful, it could well have resulted in people being killed or seriously injured."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45062647
"Working with the security services, we tracked their plans and stopped them before they were able to put them into practice.
"All three women were filled with hate and toxic ideology, and were determined to carry out a terrorist attack. Had they been successful, it could well have resulted in people being killed or seriously injured."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45062647
Tommy keeps warning the UK. Why are the prophets always ignored??
Was he really ? Why do so many people try to live their lives based on the example he set ? They can't ALL be misguided , surely ?
Yes, they can. After all, their belief system goes back to ishmael, the bast@rd son of Abraham, so they are, quite literally, the bast@rd pf `religions`.
If that was really the case surely our Government would be quick to clamp down on them before the situation got out of control and became a serious risk to national security .....
What a fred about news 
I guess you would rather have a leftist haven, like old times where everyone agreed with you.
God this place has gone downhill.
I guess you would rather have a leftist haven, like old times where everyone agreed with you.
God this place has gone downhill.
I haven't written anything to agree or disagree with.
Again
If everyone isn't all over a thread like this showing unity and affiliation (lets call it agreeing), they're a leftist or libtard in your little world, Sonko.
What you really seem to want to see is everyone agreeing with you.
hmmm.
If it helps I agree with your last sentence.
Again
If everyone isn't all over a thread like this showing unity and affiliation (lets call it agreeing), they're a leftist or libtard in your little world, Sonko.
What you really seem to want to see is everyone agreeing with you.
hmmm.
If it helps I agree with your last sentence.
I love the way you label people, this world is bigger than you know.
Media doesnt expel anyone.
Not seen anyone agree with me, name them, id like to add them as friends
Media doesnt expel anyone.
Not seen anyone agree with me, name them, id like to add them as friends
Questions for British Home Secretary re: Tommy Robinson
https://youtu.be/l-Umjrnrp2s
https://youtu.be/l-Umjrnrp2s
I hadn't heard of Paul Weston before but that is eleven minutes of essential viewing for both pro & anti-Tommy types alike.
Will Home Secretary Javid (who swore his oath of political office on the koran
) answer any of the dozen questions?
What about the final question to all the anti-Tommys? A-T, what about you? Facts? You both seem quite vociferous about this. Do you still feel the same having watched that? You will watch it, won't you?
Thank you for posting Broadsword and I look forward to Paul's follow-up.
Will Home Secretary Javid (who swore his oath of political office on the koran
) answer any of the dozen questions?What about the final question to all the anti-Tommys? A-T, what about you? Facts? You both seem quite vociferous about this. Do you still feel the same having watched that? You will watch it, won't you?
Thank you for posting Broadsword and I look forward to Paul's follow-up.
Will Home Secretary Javid (who swore his oath of political office on the koran ShockedCrazy) answer any of the dozen questions?
swearing on anything other than a non-religious constitution (or bill of rights) of any given country is indeed preposterous and should not happen. I fully agree with you.
swearing on anything other than a non-religious constitution (or bill of rights) of any given country is indeed preposterous and should not happen. I fully agree with you.
If the mainstream media are to regain any power they are going to have to start naming who is giving them fake information.
Things like 'sources close to the investigation said' and a 'spokesperson for xyz said' is a massive red flag.
If there are a no names given how can the information be verified.
Despite what has happened the media continue to write biased articles.
Rather than be outraged at his flawed conviction and treatment in prison they attack his message. Why is this?
Things like 'sources close to the investigation said' and a 'spokesperson for xyz said' is a massive red flag.
If there are a no names given how can the information be verified.
Despite what has happened the media continue to write biased articles.
Rather than be outraged at his flawed conviction and treatment in prison they attack his message. Why is this?
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.
And spokesperson for xyz seems somewhat verifiable for everybody if you aren't a lazy git.
The Sun's reaction..
THE SUN SAYS
TOMMY Robinson is a nasty thug and a grandstanding idiot.
He is not a freedom fighter. Nor is he the hero he is made out to be in the sewer which social media has become.
Nor is he a “reporter” fearlessly exposing an establishment cover-up of rapes by gangs of Asian men. That scandal has been exposed by actual journalists.
In fact Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, almost wrecked the trial of some accused of serious crime, thus potentially denying both them and their alleged victims justice.
Yesterday he was freed on appeal over his contempt of court. Supporters say he was locked up too hastily and for too long. But he was already serving a suspended sentence for the same offence.
His many convictions stretch from violence to fraud. We have no sympathy.
The case he jeopardised in Leeds had reporting restrictions, temporarily preventing details being publicised. They’re neither unusual nor a politically-correct cover-up. They’re to avoid prejudicing and collapsing other trials linked to it.
Robinson blatantly flouted them, was in contempt — and admitted it.
Yes, our legal system IS too secretive. On this occasion it was crucial in the interests of justice.
It’s time his supporters grasped it.
The Times:
Rather than anti-migrant rhetoric, the message that ‘MSM’ are concealing the truth is fuelling his right-wing populism
After Tommy Robinson was released from prison this week, his cheerleader Raheem Kassam was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme. Martha Kearney raised Robinson’s violent criminal record, his insidious “warning”, as English Defence League leader, to all Muslims after terrorist attacks. With facts and tough questions, Kearney sought to unpick the persona of “citizen journalist” Honest Tommy.
Yet many have argued that the BBC should not host Kassam at all. To interview him or Robinson or Steve Bannon, with whom both are working to build a trans-European far-right movement, is to legitimise hatred, normalise fascism and draw Islamophobia into the mainstream.
It would be great never to see again the veneered smile of Robinson: the girlfriend-beating football thug and mortgage fraudster, too thick or arrogant…
THE SUN SAYS
TOMMY Robinson is a nasty thug and a grandstanding idiot.
He is not a freedom fighter. Nor is he the hero he is made out to be in the sewer which social media has become.
Nor is he a “reporter” fearlessly exposing an establishment cover-up of rapes by gangs of Asian men. That scandal has been exposed by actual journalists.
In fact Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, almost wrecked the trial of some accused of serious crime, thus potentially denying both them and their alleged victims justice.
Yesterday he was freed on appeal over his contempt of court. Supporters say he was locked up too hastily and for too long. But he was already serving a suspended sentence for the same offence.
His many convictions stretch from violence to fraud. We have no sympathy.
The case he jeopardised in Leeds had reporting restrictions, temporarily preventing details being publicised. They’re neither unusual nor a politically-correct cover-up. They’re to avoid prejudicing and collapsing other trials linked to it.
Robinson blatantly flouted them, was in contempt — and admitted it.
Yes, our legal system IS too secretive. On this occasion it was crucial in the interests of justice.
It’s time his supporters grasped it.
The Times:
Rather than anti-migrant rhetoric, the message that ‘MSM’ are concealing the truth is fuelling his right-wing populism
After Tommy Robinson was released from prison this week, his cheerleader Raheem Kassam was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme. Martha Kearney raised Robinson’s violent criminal record, his insidious “warning”, as English Defence League leader, to all Muslims after terrorist attacks. With facts and tough questions, Kearney sought to unpick the persona of “citizen journalist” Honest Tommy.
Yet many have argued that the BBC should not host Kassam at all. To interview him or Robinson or Steve Bannon, with whom both are working to build a trans-European far-right movement, is to legitimise hatred, normalise fascism and draw Islamophobia into the mainstream.
It would be great never to see again the veneered smile of Robinson: the girlfriend-beating football thug and mortgage fraudster, too thick or arrogant…
"almost wrecked the trial of some accused of serious crime" - that is a very serious allegation.
"the same offence" - ah, will they elaborate as to the actual offence?
"the same offence" - ah, will they elaborate as to the actual offence?
"Robinson blatantly flouted them, was in contempt — and admitted it." - FAKE NEWS!!!
The Sun & the Times, lol - the two front runners from Murdoch's stable 
trillby, the court document in which his granted retrial is explained specifically says he admitted it.
I know it's fashionable to just shout fake news at everything you don't fancy these days though.
I know it's fashionable to just shout fake news at everything you don't fancy these days though.
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.
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.
Paul Weston mentioned a good few names. I'll watch again later and note them all.
They need to be questioned, Shirley?
They need to be questioned, Shirley?
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.
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.
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"
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?
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.
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.
Aug 4, 2018 -- 9:16AM, InsiderTrader wrote:
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?
No, I hadn't at all I had been under the impression that different prison service spokespeople had said the exact same words to a number of newspapers and tabloids.
Again, have you even bothered doing anything to verify the information? Maybe send an email to prison, the some general prison service, to the newspapers maybe before you start spouting your crazy fake news **** simply because you don't fancy it?
I betcha you're scared of actually trying to verify it because you are scared of not liking the answer.
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?
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?
You need to look up the words particular and in detail. The court document says that basics were lined out, which is what was accepted by Mr. Yaxley-Lesson, but that the rules say that it must be presented in great detail, which didn't happen.
I can't really help you if you refuse to understand your native language because it would burst your bubble and bias.
I can't really help you if you refuse to understand your native language because it would burst your bubble and bias.
now go and try verifying the prison service spokesman. You're a seeker of truth, aren't you? Go on, do it then.
edy
04 Aug 18 09:30
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,824 | Blogger: edy's blog
You need to look up the words particular and in detail. The court document says that basics were lined out, which is what was accepted by Mr. Yaxley-Lesson, but that the rules say that it must be presented in great detail, which didn't happen.
I can't really help you if you refuse to understand your native language because it would burst your bubble and bias.
^
No they do not.
I have read the document.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-full-judgment-1.pdf
It clearly states that:
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'
The 'basics' as you put it were never laid out.
Please quote the list of the 'basics' from the court documents.
04 Aug 18 09:30
Joined: 13 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 188,824 | Blogger: edy's blog
You need to look up the words particular and in detail. The court document says that basics were lined out, which is what was accepted by Mr. Yaxley-Lesson, but that the rules say that it must be presented in great detail, which didn't happen.
I can't really help you if you refuse to understand your native language because it would burst your bubble and bias.
^
No they do not.
I have read the document.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/yaxley-lennon-full-judgment-1.pdf
It clearly states that:
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'
The 'basics' as you put it were never laid out.
Please quote the list of the 'basics' from the court documents.
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.
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 have just re-read this entire thread and have come to the conclusion that one particular contributor is actually in favour of the mistreatment of prisoners within the British prison system (or maybe just one specific prisoner) regardless of the alleged crime and regardless of the transparency of their conviction which has subsequently been drawn into question by a more senior member of the judiciary .
It raises the question as to whether this is a genuine opinion or one that is simply expressed in order to incite others to react (google:attention seeking)
It raises the question as to whether this is a genuine opinion or one that is simply expressed in order to incite others to react (google:attention seeking)
I am beginning to understand why some people need a God sometimes to look up to and give them strength.
Thanks for posting that clip Broadsword.As already stated its a MUST watch for anyone slightly interested in this case.
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.
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.
That's part of his acceptance. (Angebliche) Unwissenheit schützt vor Strafe nicht.
Either way
edy • August 4, 2018 9:31 AM BST
now go and try verifying the prison service spokesman. You're a seeker of truth, aren't you? Go on, do it then.
Either way
edy • August 4, 2018 9:31 AM BST
now go and try verifying the prison service spokesman. You're a seeker of truth, aren't you? Go on, do it then.
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,
Is this what you mean by admitted 'it' (when we do not know what he is supposed to have admitted):
Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused.
Is this what you mean by admitted 'it' (when we do not know what he is supposed to have admitted):
Through counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused.
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.
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.
The judge can claim that TR breached the integrity of the court
TR can state that he regretted that if that was the case
Whether or not he had breached the integrity of the court was not established by the judge or the court
Therefore TR did not admit to anything
TR can state that he regretted that if that was the case
Whether or not he had breached the integrity of the court was not established by the judge or the court
Therefore TR did not admit to anything
That is the simple fact of this case up until now that edy refuses , for whatever reason , to accept
You don't need to put your name to a freedom of information request as a start. You can start emailing people first.
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.
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.
TR did not plead guilty , he did not accept that he was knowingly guilty of anything
He said if he was guilty he regretted it
Neither the judge or the court were able to show that he was guilty at that hearing before he was sentenced
He said if he was guilty he regretted it
Neither the judge or the court were able to show that he was guilty at that hearing before he was sentenced
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.
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.
Gosh, man.
That was about you not having to go nuclear from the beginning and start your verification quest with a FOI. It was, as I had suggested twice before in this thread, that you start by emailing the prison, some general prison service, or the newspapers.
That was about you not having to go nuclear from the beginning and start your verification quest with a FOI. It was, as I had suggested twice before in this thread, that you start by emailing the prison, some general prison service, or the newspapers.
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.
^
Edy suggests I break the legal requirements while at the same time fails to understand the basic law in the TR case.
I don't think I will be taking legal advise off him.
Edy suggests I break the legal requirements while at the same time fails to understand the basic law in the TR case.
I don't think I will be taking legal advise off him.
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.
Bit sad the big Seeker of Truth is too scared of the potential answer and a pinch to his wonderful bubble to send a bunch of non-FOI emails to folks.
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.
"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.
^
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.
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.
Yeah, just keep making excuses so you can keep spouting off your nonsense.
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.
It doesn't get much more silly than that quite frankly and I really, really, really hope you realize that.
Why are you deflecting attention away from the fact that his basic human rights as a prison inmate (whether his incarceration was justified or not) were quite clearly violated ?
Insider Trader brought it up. If you want to voice complains about any deflection, he is the obvious person to address.
thoughts on Tommy being upset about not having a TV in his room?
^ the mans life is in danger from savages in prison and that is the sort of nonsense he comes out with
Sums up the left lfc. They think it is ok to endanger someones life and joke about it.
if I posted silly faces every time lfc did a dumb post, there would be a lot more from me
255 posts and yet to see a single one that constructively and reasonably defends his mistreatment whilst imprisoned ............
meanwhile ALL the authorities cover up or completely ignore it
VOTES VOTES VOTES too many of them now - too many votes to loose
got to pander to them
eventually they will have their own people in parliament
VOTES VOTES VOTES too many of them now - too many votes to loose
got to pander to them
eventually they will have their own people in parliament
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/
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/
the secret barrister is what the left turn to when they want biased results, a proven raving leftie with no care for justice.
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 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 leftists would be screaming (along with everyone else) if it was a leftist activist treated like this.
if you actually read people who define themselves as 'leftists' rather than just the people who disagree with the things you like (Trump, Brexit etc), you'd actually see something nuanced on this.
it's not the left who have been painting prisons as a land of joy and fun for years until one of their own was there and found out it was actually very bad
if you actually read people who define themselves as 'leftists' rather than just the people who disagree with the things you like (Trump, Brexit etc), you'd actually see something nuanced on this.
it's not the left who have been painting prisons as a land of joy and fun for years until one of their own was there and found out it was actually very bad
Aug 4, 2018 -- 12:46PM, Ibrahima Sonko wrote:
the secret barrister is what the left turn to when they want biased results, a proven raving leftie with no care for justice.
is the full evidence of them being a leftie, that they dislike TR?
It was known at the time that the judge who sentenced TR watched him perform his webcast & the judge did not watch the video that TR made but chose to sentence him anyway.
aaronh you need to read the secretbarrister blog, he called fans of TR knuckledraggers, how can he ever be judged as neutral.
I find the left come on freds like this with no care of justice but with an agenda, to defend their cult no matter what.
aaronh you need to read the secretbarrister blog, he called fans of TR knuckledraggers, how can he ever be judged as neutral.
I find the left come on freds like this with no care of justice but with an agenda, to defend their cult no matter what.
^^^ 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.
Please explain more mr study(leftie) ?
I want you to breakdown my post so i can possibly learn from better people.
I want you to breakdown my post so i can possibly learn from better people.
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
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
All the more reason now for you to finally get off your arse and send a FOI.
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.
We can't be sure it's telling the whole story. Unless of course you elect to gullible sheep that takes everything at face value instead of getting to the bottom of things (instead of wasting away your talents endlessly arguing against self-constructed points on the chit chat and politics section of a betting exchange's forum)
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.
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.
a friend of mine says don't bother arguing with the progressives as arguing with idiots is a waste of time
most of them haven't a clue
a lot of the moralisers and eu supporters talk from behind 'safe doors' and don't live in the'community' etc
many live well away from the issues/problem areas
I subscribe to the latter but not the idiot part
most of them haven't a clue
a lot of the moralisers and eu supporters talk from behind 'safe doors' and don't live in the'community' etc
many live well away from the issues/problem areas
I subscribe to the latter but not the idiot part
Hopefully ukip make the correct decision.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkUFVy-FCjk
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkUFVy-FCjk
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539