Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tommy Robinson Prison Sentence

Options
  • 18-07-2019 1:49pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭


    Just to make it clear I'm Centre right in my political views not far right or far left. So my question is about the sentence that was given to Tommy Robinson last week was what he did outside Leeds court last year actually breaking the law and if so why was he given jail time last year for the amount of time and also why was he retried with additional charges and has been given 9.5 weeks. From what he has been previously convicted off is that why he has been sentenced.
    It feels to me this is a political message to people on the right and make Tommy Robinson silenced for his views. I would be curious to know in UK law history how many people have been jailed for contempt of court as I've heard it usually results in a warning and a fine. If any lawyers or people who know more about this could weigh in would appreciate it.


«134567

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,656 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    Just to make it clear I'm Centre right in my political views not far right or far left.

    This old shtick again...
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    It feels to me this is a political message to people on the right and make Tommy Robinson silenced for his views. I would be curious to know in UK law history how many people have been jailed for contempt of court as I've heard it usually results in a warning and a fine. If any lawyers or people who know more about this could weigh in would appreciate it.

    Stephen has been doing this repeatedly so it makes sense that the sanctions are going to increase.

    If you're interested in some reading, I like the Secret Bannister:

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

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    It feels to me this is a political message to people on the right and make Tommy Robinson silenced for his views.

    That point is really only being pushed by Tommy Robinson and his fans. It's not a point of view sincerely held by serious people.


  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    Just to make it clear I'm Centre right in my political views not far right or far left. So my question is about the sentence that was given to Tommy Robinson last week was what he did outside Leeds court last year actually breaking the law and if so why was he given jail time last year for the amount of time and also why was he retried with additional charges and has been given 9.5 weeks. From what he has been previously convicted off is that why he has been sentenced.
    It feels to me this is a political message to people on the right and make Tommy Robinson silenced for his views. I would be curious to know in UK law history how many people have been jailed for contempt of court as I've heard it usually results in a warning and a fine. If any lawyers or people who know more about this could weigh in would appreciate it.

    Reporting restrictions were put in place so the victims of these cases could be protected.

    Stephen Yaxley-Lennon completely ignored the rules set out by the court regarding these, and very nearly had them thrown out. So yes, he absolutely was in contempt of court and his previous record doesn't give him much rope.

    'Centre-right' then raising concerns about someone who did his level best to leave victims of awful sexual crimes being exposed and the perpetrators being let off. Pull the other one, mate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Reporting restrictions were put in place so the victims of these cases could be protected.

    Stephen Yaxley-Lennon completely ignored the rules set out by the court regarding these, and very nearly had them thrown out. So yes, he absolutely was in contempt of court and his previous record doesn't give him much rope.

    'Centre-right' then raising concerns about someone who did his level best to leave victims of awful sexual crimes being exposed and the perpetrators being let off. Pull the other one, mate.

    Not very fair at all, the poster asked a question why are you so quick to label him far-right? basically calling him a racist. You must be an aul fascist yourself so


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    He almost collapsed a trail of serious crimes so if a strict sentence prevents others from doing the same then good for the judge.

    It is a serious crime with severe consequences if monsters get away with their crimes due to trails collapsing.

    Are you suggesting that there is some left wing pro islamic conspiracy in the judiciary in the UK.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Reporting restrictions were put in place so the victims of these cases could be protected.

    Stephen Yaxley-Lennon completely ignored the rules set out by the court regarding these, and very nearly had them thrown out. So yes, he absolutely was in contempt of court and his previous record doesn't give him much rope.

    'Centre-right' then raising concerns about someone who did his level best to leave victims of awful sexual crimes being exposed and the perpetrators being let off. Pull the other one, mate.

    Not very fair at all, the poster asked a question why are you so quick to label him far-right? basically calling him a racist. You must be an aul fascist yourself so
    Nobody called anyone anything. Jesus christ us everyone on the right just dying to be accused of racism. You are putting words in people's mouths

    You can be right or far right without being a racist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    Nobody called anyone anything. Jesus christ us everyone on the right just dying to be accused of racism. You are putting words in people's mouths

    You can be right or far right without being a racist.

    You weren't calling him far-right Pull the other one, mate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,726 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    Nobody called anyone anything. Jesus christ us everyone on the right just dying to be accused of racism. You are putting words in people's mouths

    You can be right or far right without being a racist.

    You weren't calling him far-right Pull the other one, mate.
    I didn't call anyone anything. Mate. That was another poster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    Nobody called anyone anything. Jesus christ us everyone on the right just dying to be accused of racism. You are putting words in people's mouths

    You can be right or far right without being a racist.
    I didn't call anyone anything. Mate. That was another poster.

    He was calling him far-right Mate basically same thing as calling him racist Mate I replied to him Mate then you replied said he wasn't so then I replied. Mate. Never said you called him anything. Pal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,598 ✭✭✭Fionn1952


    I see we're off to the usual high standard of debate for these threads


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭MrLucidLJ


    This old shtick again...



    Stephen has been doing this repeatedly so it makes sense that the sanctions are going to increase.

    If you're interested in some reading, I like the Secret Bannister:

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

    Thanks I will read this later. I saw his video on Sargon of Akkaad saying stuff about him not breaking any rules in regarding to this and a US lawyer who doesn't particular like him who says he didn't do anything wrong presenting the facts of the case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭MrLucidLJ


    That point is really only being pushed by Tommy Robinson and his fans. It's not a point of view sincerely held by serious people.

    Well what do you think I'm a bit lost in it all as it feels like that's what has happened. This is why I am asking why has he been retried for prison again when he severed 10 weeks last year for the same crime and how often if someone is in contempt they get that sort of jail time and not just a fine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭MrLucidLJ


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Reporting restrictions were put in place so the victims of these cases could be protected.

    Stephen Yaxley-Lennon completely ignored the rules set out by the court regarding these, and very nearly had them thrown out. So yes, he absolutely was in contempt of court and his previous record doesn't give him much rope.

    'Centre-right' then raising concerns about someone who did his level best to leave victims of awful sexual crimes being exposed and the perpetrators being let off. Pull the other one, mate.

    How often are reporting restrictions put on these type of cases of cases such as peadofiles and rapists. It seems strange there was a reporting restrictions put in place for this when there was stuff on BBC website about the names of the men before. From what he said in video he said he's studied some contempt of court thing before and he said he was very careful to not put guilt onto the men for their accused crime. He has stated as well there was nothing on their website to say there was a reporting restriction nor on the court door or in the building which is procedure that's meant yo be done apparently.
    I think it's a stretch to say he compromised the case that much when this was the sentencing portion and not even the case it self. The men were very hostile going into court towards him. Plus he was outside the court too I mean if I made a YouTube video from my house about the case in another country how does the law apply then it seems complex enough and a lot of nuances involved with it all.
    Well I'm not sure what his previous convictions are he got the thing in Canterbury at a similar case and something to do with a passport and mortgage thing too. Yes I'll post my political compass test if you don't think I'm Centre right. Well I don't agree with you in the slightest I don't understand why this wasn't publicised as it's been going on around the country of UK for years and for some reason covered up and hidden but now as a result of this and trials coming up these grooming gangs are being exposed. It also shows that a majority of the grooming gangs are from the Muslim community which is very worrying and needs to be addressed why so high of s percentage this is happening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭MrLucidLJ


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    Not very fair at all, the poster asked a question why are you so quick to label him far-right? basically calling him a racist. You must be an aul fascist yourself so

    Well I just wanted some of these questions answered from my point of view it seems unjust and unfair the whole thing and feels like a political statement for people on the right we can do this to you as well. I'm far from a racist or fascist that's for sure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 477 ✭✭MrLucidLJ


    He almost collapsed a trail of serious crimes so if a strict sentence prevents others from doing the same then good for the judge.

    It is a serious crime with severe consequences if monsters get away with their crimes due to trails collapsing.

    Are you suggesting that there is some left wing pro islamic conspiracy in the judiciary in the UK.

    The judge who was serving the 29 people who were involved in that grooming case are their notes where he said Tommy nearly collapsed the trial? But this is my point surely others have been in contempt of court before and not received jail time and only fines but because it's Tommy Robinson everyone hates his gutsand the full extent of the law will be applied.
    But the part of the trail was the sentencing part so how would they collapse the case was their a jury involved with the case too? There is something dodgy going on for sure on the left wing side the fact that there has been multiple grooming gangs who are predominately Muslim is very strange and that they are only coming into light now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭SexBobomb


    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    Well I just wanted some of these questions answered from my point of view it seems unjust and unfair the whole thing and feels like a political statement for people on the right we can do this to you as well. I'm far from a racist or fascist that's for sure.

    No,I wasn't saying you were, the opposite actually. You said you were centre-right, then other poster said that because you were talking about Robinson you weren't centre right and by implication you were far-right. I was stating that asking questions doesn't make you far right or far left just someone asking questions. Sorry if you thought I was directing that at you.


  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    How often are reporting restrictions put on these type of cases of cases such as peadofiles and rapists.

    When it involves children, quite often.
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    It seems strange there was a reporting restrictions put in place for this when there was stuff on BBC website about the names of the men before.

    Was there? That’s interesting if so. Have you a link?
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    From what he said in video he said he's studied some contempt of court thing before and he said he was very careful to not put guilt onto the men for their accused crime.

    Doesn’t matter. The court ruled that they weren’t to be named or identified in any way. He can’t make up the rules to suit himself.
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    He has stated as well there was nothing on their website to say there was a reporting restriction nor on the court door or in the building which is procedure that's meant yo be done apparently.

    Absolute bollocks. The reason why he ‘exposed’ them is because there was reporting restrictions.
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    I think it's a stretch to say he compromised the case that much when this was the sentencing portion and not even the case it self.

    Doesn’t matter. The ruling by the judge was don’t identify them.
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    The men were very hostile going into court towards him. Plus he was outside the court too I mean if I made a YouTube video from my house about the case in another country how does the law apply then it seems complex enough and a lot of nuances involved with it all.

    What has any of that got to do with what’s going on here?

    You asked questions about his sentence. I’m answering them. That chunk in the last quote has nothing to do with your original OP
    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    Well I don't agree with you in the slightest I don't understand why this wasn't publicised as it's been going on around the country of UK for years and for some reason covered up and hidden but now as a result of this and trials coming up these grooming gangs are being exposed. It also shows that a majority of the grooming gangs are from the Muslim community which is very worrying and needs to be addressed why so high of s percentage this is happening.

    I couldn’t give a flying f*ck what your political compass says, this chunk is far-right conspiracist bollocks.

    The cases had been reported on, the attackers weren’t allowed to be identified to protect their victims from being identified. What part of that have you got a problem with?


  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    SexBobomb wrote: »
    Not very fair at all, the poster asked a question why are you so quick to label him far-right? basically calling him a racist. You must be an aul fascist yourself so

    ‘Basically calling him a racist’

    Show me where I called him a racist please. Anywhere at all. In fact, find any post where I used the word ‘racist’ in this thread (apart from this post, obviously).

    You must think he’s a racist if you’re so quick to jump in accusing me of calling him one when I’ve done nothing of the sort.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,224 ✭✭✭Billy Mays


    MrLucidLJ wrote: »
    He almost collapsed a trail of serious crimes so if a strict sentence prevents others from doing the same then good for the judge.

    It is a serious crime with severe consequences if monsters get away with their crimes due to trails collapsing.

    Are you suggesting that there is some left wing pro islamic conspiracy in the judiciary in the UK.

    The judge who was serving the 29 people who were involved in that grooming case are their notes where he said Tommy nearly collapsed the trial? But this is my point surely others have been in contempt of court before and not received jail time and only fines but because it's Tommy Robinson everyone hates his gutsand the full extent of the law will be applied.
    But the part of the trail was the sentencing part so how would they collapse the case was their a jury involved with the case too? There is something dodgy going on for sure on the left wing side the fact that there has been multiple grooming gangs who are predominately Muslim is very strange and that they are only coming into light now.
    Maybe others who were found in contempt of court weren't jailed because they don't have a criminal record as long as your arm. Tommy does you see and has already served 3 prison sentences including one for beating up an off duty cop who was protecting Robinson's girlfriend from him.

    It's standard practise for judges to take into account a person's criminal record when handing down sentenced


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    TR is one of those totally polarizing people.
    It’s impossible to have a civilized conversation about him.
    The blame for all of this must really be laid at the door of
    1. The disgusting depraved perverts who used mostly neglected vulnerable young girls like pieces of meat. The fact that they are almost exclusively from origins in Sth Asia and the girls are almost exclusively white British cannot be ignored despite the efforts of the hard left to pretend otherwise:
    2. Multi agencies in Rotherham who were so afraid of being accused of racism in the hard left Labour heartland that they preferred to turn a blind eye rather than step in and put a stop to it.

    Sending TR back to prison is just further stoking the mounting fury in a certain section of badly educated disenfranchised white British people, mostly men, who already feel outnumbered by the Sth Asian community.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    splinter65 wrote: »
    TR is one of those totally polarizing people.
    It’s impossible to have a civilized conversation about him.
    The blame for all of this must really be laid at the door of
    1. The disgusting depraved perverts who used mostly neglected vulnerable young girls like pieces of meat. The fact that they are almost exclusively from origins in Sth Asia and the girls are almost exclusively white British cannot be ignored despite the efforts of the hard left to pretend otherwise:
    2. Multi agencies in Rotherham who were so afraid of being accused of racism in the hard left Labour heartland that they preferred to turn a blind eye rather than step in and put a stop to it.

    Sending TR back to prison is just further stoking the mounting fury in a certain section of badly educated disenfranchised white British people, mostly men, who already feel outnumbered by the Sth Asian community.

    So you would rather leave victims open to being identified? You would rather children who were victims to be identified?

    Good to know. You've no excuse for wanting these scumbags identified because the reason they weren't is to protect their victims.

    But sticking it to the lefty Labourites is more important than these children according to your post unless you'd like to correct me otherwise.

    What are your thoughts about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon being the leader of an organisation full of child murderers and paedophiles? Or are only the brown people the culprits?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    Faugheen wrote: »
    So you would rather leave victims open to being identified? You would rather children who were victims to be identified?

    Good to know. You've no excuse for wanting these scumbags identified because the reason they weren't is to protect their victims.

    But sticking it to the lefty Labourites is more important than these children according to your post unless you'd like to correct me otherwise.

    What are your thoughts about Stephen Yaxley-Lennon being the leader of an organisation full of child murderers and paedophiles? Or are only the brown people the culprits?

    Calm down.
    Where did I say I thought anyone should be identified?
    Where did I express any support for TR or condemnation of his being sent down?
    Nowhere.
    You on the other hand seem to be frothing at the mouth at even the mere mention of the hard facts in this case.
    And your gagging to play your racist card.
    So I’ll put it up to you now.
    Will you agree now that it is a fact, that numerous gangs consisting of men of mostly Sth Asian origin shamelessly and repeatedly raped and abused hundreds of white British girls in a depraved and disgusting manner for which they must be punished?
    And multi agencies, tasked with protecting us all from this sick behavior, failed to do so because they were too afraid of being labeled racist, just as you are doing here?
    Or have you a different version of what happened?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,559 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Calm down.
    Where did I say I thought anyone should be identified?
    Where did I express any support for TR or condemnation of his being sent down?
    Nowhere.
    You on the other hand seem to be frothing at the mouth at even the mere mention of the hard facts in this case.
    And your gagging to play your racist card.
    So I’ll put it up to you now.
    Will you agree now that it is a fact, that numerous gangs consisting of men of mostly Sth Asian origin shamelessly and repeatedly raped and abused hundreds of white British girls in a depraved and disgusting manner for which they must be punished?
    And multi agencies, tasked with protecting us all from this sick behavior, failed to do so because they were too afraid of being labeled racist, just as you are doing here?
    Or have you a different version of what happened?

    What?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    pjohnson wrote: »
    What?

    Can’t help you. What don’t you understand?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,559 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Can’t help you. What don’t you understand?

    How was Tommy Batman Robinson protecting the Irish?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    pjohnson wrote: »
    How was Tommy Batman Robinson protecting the Irish?

    Nothing in my post about the Irish. You must be confusing me with another poster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,559 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Nothing in my post about the Irish. You must be confusing me with another poster.

    You said "protecting us"

    Who is the "us"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    pjohnson wrote: »
    You said "protecting us"

    Who is the "us"?

    Ahhh... I see... have you no other comment to make on the content of the post? Just pointing out that I used us instead of them?
    I see.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,097 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Ahhh... I see... have you no other comment to make on the content of the post? Just pointing out that I used us instead of them?
    I see.....




    Who is the "us" then?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,559 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Ahhh... I see... have you no other comment to make on the content of the post? Just pointing out that I used us instead of them?
    I see.....

    Is it actually against your religion to ever answer a question?


    Who has this British Batman protected?


Advertisement