nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tommy Robinson jailed

[Deleted User]

Apparently according to Lauren Southern, Tommy has been sentenced to 13 months but there is a UK wide embargo on reporting.

Anyone else got any info?

Edit. Not too sure about the authenticity of the embargo. I'm assuming that it's for this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html?amp

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Captain Obvious

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Are you stupid? NO don't answer. I already know that you are. You've proven it plenty of times. That statement does not suggest a support for a mistrial.

You didn't specify what you wanted proof of. Your continued defence of actions that would jeopardise a trial is the evidence that you don't care if the trial is successful or not.

thebull85 wrote: »

They expect people not to want to know the identity of rapists living among them? Really?

They expect people to obey the legal restrictions which have been established to ensure a fair trial.

Also media blackout?

Grayson

thebull85 wrote: »

There has also been a load of news outlets than ran the story of the arrest and then got rid of quite quickly. Last i heard even breitbart were not reporting on it ffs

The stories are all still there. You can just google them. None of the links that were put up here have gone dead. And one of the stories I linked to was from last night.

I'd say there's been a slowdown because there's not much to say until he's arraigned.

pitifulgod

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If that is all it takes to cause a mistrial then the British Justice System is in a sad state of affairs.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Where did I say that? I said that if that's all it takes to cause a mistrail than the British Justice System is in a sad state of affairs.

External influences on a jury can cause mistrials anywhere with a high quality justice system. Ireland, the US, UK etc. It's pretty fundamental to the judicial system.

Call Me Jimmy

pitifulgod wrote: »

External influences on a jury can cause mistrials anywhere with a high quality justice system. Ireland, the US, UK etc. It's pretty fundamental to the judicial system.

Are there jurors in this trial? And there is a gag order.

thebull85

Captain Obvious you are probably correct about there being no media blackout.

But on Friday after it happened there were articles up online on about 4 different sites that got pulled for whatever reason.

seachto7

Fair play to him showing up outside court. Saw that 2017 video before and liked the “go on , do something then”. No they won’t because they are cowards.
More people should be protesting at these court hearings.

pitifulgod

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Are there jurors in this trial? And there is a gag order.

I'm referring to the trial he disrupted. Here's the judge's statement.... He was negatively affecting the judicial process and the rules are there for a reason.

“This is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness,” the judge told Robinson at the time

“It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it’s about being innocent until proven guilty.

“It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate ‘reporting’, if that’s what it was.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html

thebull85

seachto7 wrote: »

Fair play to him showing up outside court. Saw that 2017 video before and liked the “go on , do something then”. No they won’t because they are cowards.
More people should be protesting at these court hearings.

Same as the scumbag yesterday, running away from Tommy then when he got about 20 feet away start giving it the big i am.

They are known for being cowards.

Call Me Jimmy

Ah brainfart. Yea I'm a bit torn. it is stupid in that it could give defendants a slim possibility of appealing (although after being convicted I don't know how this could be argued). But I do think there is some weirdness going on the UK.

Grayson

seachto7 wrote: »

Fair play to him showing up outside court. Saw that 2017 video before and liked the “go on , do something then”. No they won’t because they are cowards.
More people should be protesting at these court hearings.

Not punching someone outside a courthouse is cowardice?

Now because the guy is behind a mask I can't say who he is so I have no idea if he did something horrific. There's a good chance that he's a complete bastard and he was found guilty of horrible crimes. However I do have to argue with the logic that someone is a coward because they won't attack someone who's taunting them outside a courthouse. And if we flip it on it's head it makes no sense. That would mean that someone who punches someone outside a courthouse is brave.

And no, I'm not defending a rapist. If that guy was one he's scum and deserves to be in jail. I'm just pointing out that your logic makes no sense.

thebull85

Grayson wrote: »

Not punching someone outside a courthouse is cowardice?

Now because the guy is behind a mask I can't say who he is so I have no idea if he did something horrific. There's a good chance that he's a complete bastard and he was found guilty of horrible crimes. However I do have to argue with the logic that someone is a coward because they won't attack someone who's taunting them outside a courthouse. And if we flip it on it's head it makes no sense. That would mean that someone who punches someone outside a courthouse is brave.

And no, I'm not defending a rapist. If that guy was one he's scum and deserves to be in jail. I'm just pointing out that your logic makes no sense.

well he went to put it on tommy and when tommy stood up to him he backed off. Thats a coward, Trying to intimidate and failing.

Grayson

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Ah brainfart. Yea I'm a bit torn. it is stupid in that it could give defendants a slim possibility of appealing (although after being convicted I don't know how this could be argued). But I do think there is some weirdness going on the UK.

In most countries they have strict rules about what can and can't happen in a court case. Jurors for example aren't allowed watch news about the case it a lot of places. It's designed to make sure they are impartial. In some high profile cases they'll even put the jury into a hotel. Having someone outside the court approaching them could be considered contempt if it taints their view.

Here's the thing though. I haven't heard of a case like this recently where people have gotten off. The justice system may have been slow to react but no-one can say that the court system isn't working. These people are going to trial and being found guilty.

So it's weird that right wingers would protest about a system that's actually working and jailing rapists.

deco nate

The ban on reporting on his case is in force until the case against the pedophiles has concluded...

Call Me Jimmy

deco nate wrote: »

The ban on reporting on his case is in force until the case against the pedophiles has concluded...

Which is insane in anyone's book surely? Can someone justify that?

deco nate

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Which is insane in anyone's book surely? Can someone justify that?

Apparently he's locked up for 13 months now the papers can't report on it

Grayson

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Which is insane in anyone's book surely? Can someone justify that?

That's a catch 22 question to ask. The reason the ban is in place according to that document, assuming it's real (where did it come from), is to protect an ongoing case. It would have to be because of a piece of information that, if disclosed, could prejudiced the ongoing abuse case.
However you're asking people to say exactly why. People can't since it's currently protected information. You're asking people to answer a question that's currently impossible to answer.

Edit: I've tried for a couple of minutes to find a similar doc online and I can't. However the few court documents I found have a letterhead with a crest and/or a stamp. Not saying it's not real, it's just that there have been so many lies flying about on twitter, and even a few here, that I'm taking some of this stuff with a pinch of salt.

Call Me Jimmy

Grayson wrote: »

That's a catch 22 question to ask. The reason the ban is in place according to that document, assuming it's real (where did it come from), is to protect an ongoing case. It would have to be because of a piece of information that, if disclosed, could prejudiced the ongoing abuse case.
However you're asking people to say exactly why. People can't since it's currently protected information. You're asking people to answer a question that's currently impossible to answer.

Edit: I've tried for a couple of minutes to find a similar doc online and I can't. However the few court documents I found have a letterhead with a crest and/or a stamp. Not saying it's not real, it's just that there have been so many lies flying about on twitter, and even a few here, that I'm taking some of this stuff with a pinch of salt.

Fair enough. That is the problem, it is hard to find solid information. My ears go up when I hear of someone being sent to jail (for whatever reason) and there is a gag order. There has been other fruity things the UK has been doing recently which means I'm not just looking at this in isolation.

JohnMc1

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You didn't specify what you wanted proof of.

You just wanted to run your ignorant mouth again.

deco nate

Full stream that got Tommy 13 months.
Make your own minds up

https://youtu.be/TTdJaHWvLbk

Grayson

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Fair enough. That is the problem, it is hard to find solid information. My ears go up when I hear of someone being sent to jail (for whatever reason) and there is a gag order. There has been other fruity things the UK has been doing recently which means I'm not just looking at this in isolation.

If by midway through next week there's no proper news I'll think that it was probably a gag order. On a Sunday though, when he was arrested on a Friday afternoon, I'm not 100% sure.

Grayson

deco nate wrote: »

Full stream that got Tommy 13 months.
Make your own minds up

https://youtu.be/TTdJaHWvLbk

Jaysus, that's an hour long. Don't suppose you have a transcript?
(semi serious. I could read that in 10 minutes. However I don't want to spend an hour on a Sunday evening listening to that)

seachto7

Grayson wrote: »

Not punching someone outside a courthouse is cowardice?

Now because the guy is behind a mask I can't say who he is so I have no idea if he did something horrific. There's a good chance that he's a complete bastard and he was found guilty of horrible crimes. However I do have to argue with the logic that someone is a coward because they won't attack someone who's taunting them outside a courthouse. And if we flip it on it's head it makes no sense. That would mean that someone who punches someone outside a courthouse is brave.

And no, I'm not defending a rapist. If that guy was one he's scum and deserves to be in jail. I'm just pointing out that your logic makes no sense.

He was all mouth and shapes until he was asked to “do something”. Ran off like a rat.

deco nate

Grayson wrote: »

Jaysus, that's an hour long. Don't suppose you have a transcript?
(semi serious. I could read that in 10 minutes. However I don't want to spend an hour on a Sunday evening listening to that)

Lol. No I don't, but breach of the peace looks like a stretch. Just finished watching it myself. He puts out some stats about grooming gangs, facts that 90 per cent of pedophiles are white, and goes into the stats of Muslim grooming gangs vs white grooming gangs.

Edit:he called them alleged pedophiles, was respectful of people walking into court and not videoing them. He did ask a couple of the accused questions. They told him to do something to his mum. Lots of people asking for selfies. Ect

Snake Plisken

Tommy is stitched up by the cops and his leg is in danger from the Muslim gangs in the prison he is in. He needs to be kept in solitary confinement for his own safety

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

Lol. No I don't, but breach of the peace looks like a stretch. Just finished watching it myself. He puts out some stats about grooming gangs, facts that 90 per cent of pedophiles are white, and goes into the stats of Muslim grooming gangs vs white grooming gangs.

Edit:he called them alleged pedophiles, was respectful of people walking into court and not videoing them. He did ask a couple of the accused questions. They told him to do something to his mum. Lots of people asking for selfies. Ect

An arrest can be made for breach of the peace were the police believe a breach has occurred or will occur. It sounds like he was arrested for the latter based on his previous actions which were shown in the video above.

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Tommy is stitched up by the cops and his leg is in danger from the Muslim gangs in the prison he is in. He needs to be kept in solitary confinement for his own safety

That was a good episode of Oz

deco nate

Captain Obvious wrote: »

An arrest can be made for breach of the peace were the police believe a breach has occurred or will occur. It sounds like he was arrested for the latter based on his previous actions which were shown in the video above.

That was a good episode of Oz

Did you watch the full video I posted?he even referred to his suspended sentence, he was going by the book so as not to be arrested. Or are you talking about the year old video?

Sand

You have to hand it to the UK police. They're very good at silencing political dissent. Not so good at protecting British children from grooming gangs.

Captain Obvious

deco nate wrote: »

Did you watch the full video I posted?he even referred to his suspended sentence, he was going by the book so as not to be arrested. Or are you talking about the year old video?

You can be arrested for breach of the peace if your actions are likely to cause a breach of the peace. There is evidence, in the video from last year, that his actions outside the court are likely to occasion a breach of the peace.

WinnyThePoo

Sand wrote: »

You have to hand it to the UK police. They're very good at silencing political dissent. Not so good at protecting British children from grooming gangs.

So your looking for a mistrial?

thebull85

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

So your looking for a mistrial?

Why would there be a mistrial?