Europe submits voluntarily

[repoman]

Celebrate diversity!

I thought that using "I" in a scientific journal is a massive no-no.

 

[Derec]

And their detention, trial, and conviction is somehow an indication of submission on the part of Europe?
Or are you using this case to illustrate the inherent falsehood and idiocy of the thread title?

No, I am using it to illustrate the idiocy of letting large numbers of Islamists into Western countries.

 

[Derec]

You continually confuse refugees with migrants. It makes it very hard to take you seriously

Refugees are a subset of migrants.
It is European media that confuses the two, referring to "refugees" when they mean migrants regardless of why they migrate. To news media like Der Spiegel, if they come to Europe from Middle East. Central Asia or Africa they are automatically "refugees", especially if they are Muslim.

Take this example:
Die neuen Fluchtwege auf dem Balkan

The article talks about a new migration route through Albania but the headline refers to it as "escape route", implying that these migrants are fleeing some danger.
However,

Wohl auf dieser Route sind vor ein paar Tagen auch zwei Männer gekommen, die sich als Ziaul Haq und Mehran Habib vorstellen. Die beiden Pakistaner, 26 und 27, sitzen jetzt im Innenhof des Asylzentrums Spuz nahe der montenegrinischen Hauptstadt Podgorica, der einzigen offiziellen Unterkunft für Flüchtlinge im Land. Sie kommen aus der Umgebung der nordpakistanischen Stadt Lahore, von dort sind sie vor einem halben Jahr aufgebrochen. Mehran Habib sagt, er habe als Sunnit in seinem Dorf Probleme mit der schiitischen Mehrheit gehabt, Ziaul Haq erzählt, er sei arbeitslos gewesen, nachdem er bis Ende 2016 in Saudi-Arabien als Verkäufer in einem Mobiltelefonladen gearbeitet habe und dann nach Pakistan zurückgeschickt worden sei.

Basically this paragraph is talking about two of these fakefugees, both from Pakistan. One of them, "Habib" claims that he had problems with the Shiite majority in his village. But to escape that he could have just moved to another town - Pakistan has a large Sunni majority. It does not require going 1000s of miles to Europe, unless the persecution by the Shiites is just a pretext. His friend "Haq" does not even bother with any story - he merely says he was unemployed in Pakistan. To Spiegel authors and editors that makes him a "refugee".

So yes, it is not angelo that confuses these two terms.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When added to all other terrorist attacks happening in Europe, how anyone can ignore the truth of what's happening is criminal! A crime against Western culture and values, a crime against our forefathers who fought and died to give you the freedom of speech you're using now. It's a crime against our future generations who will look back and ask why this generation let all these freedoms be destroyed by allowing a barbaric, supremacists ideology take over from a Western
Democracy that has contributed more to the world in 300 years than all the others had over 100s of thousands of years.

At least you didn't write this hyperbole in all caps. Thank you for that.

 

[angelo]

Hyperbole? Of course it is according to your warped leftist mind!

 

[TSwizzle]

What a sorry state of affairs in the UK.

The English Defence League founder (Tommy Robinson) was then taken before a judge who jailed him for 13 months after he pleaded guilty to contempt of court and breaching the terms of a suspended sentence for a similar offence.

DailyMail


Tommy was in breach of his suspended sentence, collared and sent down, then the press were instructed not to report on it. Subsequently lifted the gag order but still. It's pretty obvious the establishment does not like the oiks bringing attention to the menace these grooming gangs present on vulnerable communities.

 

[bilby]

What a sorry state of affairs in the UK.

The English Defence League founder (Tommy Robinson) was then taken before a judge who jailed him for 13 months after he pleaded guilty to contempt of court and breaching the terms of a suspended sentence for a similar offence.

DailyMail


Tommy was in breach of his suspended sentence, collared and sent down, then the press were instructed not to report on it. Subsequently lifted the gag order but still. It's pretty obvious the establishment does not like the oiks bringing attention to the menace these grooming gangs present on vulnerable communities.

Yet again, we see the dangers of reading and trusting the Daily Mail on, well, anything at all.

The establishment doesn't like 'oiks' who break the law, after being explicitly instructed by a judge not to do so. They don't like people undermining the legal process, and risking the acquittal on legal technicalities of people who may well be guilty of serious crimes.

Here is an analysis of Tommy Robinson's (or, to use his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's) case:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done. However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations – from automatic restrictions preventing the identification of a complainant in a sexual allegation, to restrictions preventing reporting of Youth Court proceedings, to discretionary restrictions protecting the identity of child witnesses in the adult courts. Further details, if you are interested, can be found here.

One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of drug networks involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end. Where there is a separate-but-related issue, such as a contempt of court involving a third party, this can also be the subject of a section 4(2) order. The test is:

1. Would a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of the proceedings (or part thereof) published in good faith create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings?
2. Is an order postponing the publication of such reports necessary and are its terms proportionate? Would such an order eliminate the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice? Could less restrictive measures achieve the objective?
3. On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?

This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.

Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.

...

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

The imprisonment of a person for a second offence, after being convicted and given a suspended sentence and an explicit warning from the judge as to the consequences should he re-offend, is exactly what we should expect from out legal system.

The 'gag order' was a routine and normal procedure applied by the English courts to ensure a fair trial. The US system wherein details of live cases can be reported upon (and potentially result in biasing of jurors and/or witnesses) is bloody stupid; Your system is stuck with it, but the English system is not - and that's a very good thing for English justice.

Nothing is being concealed or suppressed. The press are completely free to report on the case - but only AFTER the jury has handed down a verdict, and are no longer at risk of seeing biased or incorrect information that could prejudice the trial. Jurors should decide cases ONLY on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court. Anything that puts that in jeopardy is the antithesis of justice.

Having some ranting skinhead with delusions of adequacy broadcasting pictures of defendants with commentary declaring them guilty, before the conclusion of their trial, is not in the interests of justice, or of the wider society that the justice system is intended to protect.

The guy's a cunt. He deserved what he got. The establishment did everything precisely as it should, both legally and morally.

 

[angelo]

Yet again, we see the dangers of reading and trusting the Daily Mail on, well, anything at all.

The establishment doesn't like 'oiks' who break the law, after being explicitly instructed by a judge not to do so. They don't like people undermining the legal process, and risking the acquittal on legal technicalities of people who may well be guilty of serious crimes.

Here is an analysis of Tommy Robinson's (or, to use his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's) case:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done. However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations – from automatic restrictions preventing the identification of a complainant in a sexual allegation, to restrictions preventing reporting of Youth Court proceedings, to discretionary restrictions protecting the identity of child witnesses in the adult courts. Further details, if you are interested, can be found here.

One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of drug networks involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end. Where there is a separate-but-related issue, such as a contempt of court involving a third party, this can also be the subject of a section 4(2) order. The test is:

1. Would a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of the proceedings (or part thereof) published in good faith create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings?
2. Is an order postponing the publication of such reports necessary and are its terms proportionate? Would such an order eliminate the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice? Could less restrictive measures achieve the objective?
3. On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?

This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.

Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.

...

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

The imprisonment of a person for a second offence, after being convicted and given a suspended sentence and an explicit warning from the judge as to the consequences should he re-offend, is exactly what we should expect from out legal system.

The 'gag order' was a routine and normal procedure applied by the English courts to ensure a fair trial. The US system wherein details of live cases can be reported upon (and potentially result in biasing of jurors and/or witnesses) is bloody stupid; Your system is stuck with it, but the English system is not - and that's a very good thing for English justice.

Nothing is being concealed or suppressed. The press are completely free to report on the case - but only AFTER the jury has handed down a verdict, and are no longer at risk of seeing biased or incorrect information that could prejudice the trial. Jurors should decide cases ONLY on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court. Anything that puts that in jeopardy is the antithesis of justice.

Having some ranting skinhead with delusions of adequacy broadcasting pictures of defendants with commentary declaring them guilty, before the conclusion of their trial, is not in the interests of justice, or of the wider society that the justice system is intended to protect.

The guy's a cunt. He deserved what he got. The establishment did everything precisely as it should, both legally and morally.

Why is this guy a "cunt" when he was just reporting what was already common knowledge?
It seems to !many fair minded people that Robinson was sentenced and jailed in record time simply because he was reporting on the " religion of peace!"
Had these barbaric sexual groomers being of any other ideology, Robinson wouldn't even have been charged let alone jailed in the manner he was.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yet again, we see the dangers of reading and trusting the Daily Mail on, well, anything at all.

The establishment doesn't like 'oiks' who break the law, after being explicitly instructed by a judge not to do so. They don't like people undermining the legal process, and risking the acquittal on legal technicalities of people who may well be guilty of serious crimes.

Here is an analysis of Tommy Robinson's (or, to use his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's) case:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/


...

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

The imprisonment of a person for a second offence, after being convicted and given a suspended sentence and an explicit warning from the judge as to the consequences should he re-offend, is exactly what we should expect from out legal system.

The 'gag order' was a routine and normal procedure applied by the English courts to ensure a fair trial. The US system wherein details of live cases can be reported upon (and potentially result in biasing of jurors and/or witnesses) is bloody stupid; Your system is stuck with it, but the English system is not - and that's a very good thing for English justice.

Nothing is being concealed or suppressed. The press are completely free to report on the case - but only AFTER the jury has handed down a verdict, and are no longer at risk of seeing biased or incorrect information that could prejudice the trial. Jurors should decide cases ONLY on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court. Anything that puts that in jeopardy is the antithesis of justice.

Having some ranting skinhead with delusions of adequacy broadcasting pictures of defendants with commentary declaring them guilty, before the conclusion of their trial, is not in the interests of justice, or of the wider society that the justice system is intended to protect.

The guy's a cunt. He deserved what he got. The establishment did everything precisely as it should, both legally and morally.

Why is this guy a "cunt" when he was just reporting what was already common knowledge?
It seems to !many fair minded people that Robinson was sentenced and jailed in record time simply because he was reporting on the " religion of peace!"
Had these barbaric sexual groomers being of any other ideology, Robinson wouldn't even have been charged let alone jailed in the manner he was.

I second the opinion that Tommy Robinsson is a cunt. I fully support Tommy Robinsson's right to say whatever he wants and be as cuntish as he likes... I still think he's a cunt.

I've followed this guys career. Not impressed. The Alex Jones of Britain. I think he'll say anything to get attention.

 

[bilby]

Yet again, we see the dangers of reading and trusting the Daily Mail on, well, anything at all.

The establishment doesn't like 'oiks' who break the law, after being explicitly instructed by a judge not to do so. They don't like people undermining the legal process, and risking the acquittal on legal technicalities of people who may well be guilty of serious crimes.

Here is an analysis of Tommy Robinson's (or, to use his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's) case:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/


...

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

The imprisonment of a person for a second offence, after being convicted and given a suspended sentence and an explicit warning from the judge as to the consequences should he re-offend, is exactly what we should expect from out legal system.

The 'gag order' was a routine and normal procedure applied by the English courts to ensure a fair trial. The US system wherein details of live cases can be reported upon (and potentially result in biasing of jurors and/or witnesses) is bloody stupid; Your system is stuck with it, but the English system is not - and that's a very good thing for English justice.

Nothing is being concealed or suppressed. The press are completely free to report on the case - but only AFTER the jury has handed down a verdict, and are no longer at risk of seeing biased or incorrect information that could prejudice the trial. Jurors should decide cases ONLY on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court. Anything that puts that in jeopardy is the antithesis of justice.

Having some ranting skinhead with delusions of adequacy broadcasting pictures of defendants with commentary declaring them guilty, before the conclusion of their trial, is not in the interests of justice, or of the wider society that the justice system is intended to protect.

The guy's a cunt. He deserved what he got. The establishment did everything precisely as it should, both legally and morally.

Why is this guy a "cunt" when he was just reporting what was already common knowledge?
It seems to !many fair minded people that Robinson was sentenced and jailed in record time simply because he was reporting on the " religion of peace!"
Had these barbaric sexual groomers being of any other ideology, Robinson wouldn't even have been charged let alone jailed in the manner he was.

I second the opinion that Tommy Robinsson is a cunt. I fully support Tommy Robinsson's right to say whatever he wants and be as cuntish as he likes... I still think he's a cunt.

I've followed this guys career. Not impressed. The Alex Jones of Britain. I think he'll say anything to get attention.

He also wasn't 'just' reporting what was already common knowledge - He was broadcasting images of defendants in an active trial, in breach of a postponement order - an offence for which he had recently been convicted at another court, at which time he was explicitly warned by the judge not to do it again. As to 'common knowledge', it is common knowledge that in law a defendant is considered innocent until convicted. So what he was saying wasn't 'knowledge'; It was his legally incorrect opinion. An opinion that the law allows him to broadcast at the conclusion of the trial, should the accused be convicted, because it is a 'postponement order', not a 'prohibition order' - it doesn't prevent him from airing his opinion, it just says he has to wait so as not to prejudice the trial.

The "many fair minded people" who think this has anything to do with the specific defendants, and not to do with the general principle that he, you, or anyone else will be arrested, charged, and (if convicted) jailed if they are in breach of ANY postponement order under made section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The identities and religious beliefs of the defendants have exactly nothing to do with it - if you don't believe me, go to Leeds Crown Court, film the white anglo-saxon protestant defendants in a burglary trial and broadcast that while a postponement order is in force, and see what happens. You will be arrested, charged, and rapidly tried under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and if you do it a second time while under a suspended sentence for doing it previously, you will go to jail.

And rightly so - what he did could have led to the defendants being released on a technicality. I think it is a good thing that the law protects the public from paedophiles, by preventing stupid cunts with an agenda from derailing their trials.

It seems to me that by "many fair minded people", angelo means "Lots of rabidly bigoted monomaniacs with a persecution complex and scant knowledge of, regard for, or respect for the law or the courts".

 

[angelo]

Yet again, we see the dangers of reading and trusting the Daily Mail on, well, anything at all.

The establishment doesn't like 'oiks' who break the law, after being explicitly instructed by a judge not to do so. They don't like people undermining the legal process, and risking the acquittal on legal technicalities of people who may well be guilty of serious crimes.

Here is an analysis of Tommy Robinson's (or, to use his real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's) case:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/


...

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

The imprisonment of a person for a second offence, after being convicted and given a suspended sentence and an explicit warning from the judge as to the consequences should he re-offend, is exactly what we should expect from out legal system.

The 'gag order' was a routine and normal procedure applied by the English courts to ensure a fair trial. The US system wherein details of live cases can be reported upon (and potentially result in biasing of jurors and/or witnesses) is bloody stupid; Your system is stuck with it, but the English system is not - and that's a very good thing for English justice.

Nothing is being concealed or suppressed. The press are completely free to report on the case - but only AFTER the jury has handed down a verdict, and are no longer at risk of seeing biased or incorrect information that could prejudice the trial. Jurors should decide cases ONLY on the evidence presented (and cross-examined) in court. Anything that puts that in jeopardy is the antithesis of justice.

Having some ranting skinhead with delusions of adequacy broadcasting pictures of defendants with commentary declaring them guilty, before the conclusion of their trial, is not in the interests of justice, or of the wider society that the justice system is intended to protect.

The guy's a cunt. He deserved what he got. The establishment did everything precisely as it should, both legally and morally.

Why is this guy a "cunt" when he was just reporting what was already common knowledge?
It seems to !many fair minded people that Robinson was sentenced and jailed in record time simply because he was reporting on the " religion of peace!"
Had these barbaric sexual groomers being of any other ideology, Robinson wouldn't even have been charged let alone jailed in the manner he was.

I second the opinion that Tommy Robinsson is a cunt. I fully support Tommy Robinsson's right to say whatever he wants and be as cuntish as he likes... I still think he's a cunt.

I've followed this guys career. Not impressed. The Alex Jones of Britain. I think he'll say anything to get attention.

https://youtu.be/F5_uZQThmck

 

[angelo]

What no apologist for the "religion of peace" has not answered is the fact that if Robinson was covering say, protestants, or Catholic , would that Sharia loving judge have jailed him!

 

[bilby]

What no apologist for the "religion of peace" has not answered is the fact that if Robinson was covering say, protestants, or Catholic , would that Sharia loving judge have jailed him!

I just answered that question; And the answer is a resounding YES, despite your completely unjustified slander of referring to His Honour Judge Geoffrey Marson QC (or perhaps to Her Honour Judge Heather Norton QC, who previously convicted Mr Yaxley-Lennon of contempt; or perhaps both) as "Sharia loving".

Both are highly respected members of the English legal profession who have dedicated their lives to the upholding of English Law. I have seen absolutely nothing that so much as hints that either Judge has any love for Sharia. Their sentencing history suggests that they have acted impartially to apply the law, including the Contempt of Court Act 1981, in every case that has come before them, without regard for the defendants or their victims religious beliefs.

Had Mr Yaxley-Lennon (alias 'Tommy Robinson') been in breach of a postponement order under the Contempt of Court Act by broadcasting information about a Protestant or Catholic defendant in a live trial, I have no doubt that these judges would have acted in the same way, and imposed similar sentences. If you have any evidence that this is not the case, then I recommend that you pass it on to the Law Commission (https://www.lawcom.gov.uk), who take a very dim view of unlawful bias on the part of judges.

But, of course, your only evidence is your rather sad personal bias, and irrational persecution complex.

 

[angelo]

https://youtu.be/eUYPGNvsHXk


Charged and jailed the same day. Not even a serial killer of children would get such swift "justice?"

 

[bilby]

https://youtu.be/eUYPGNvsHXk


Charged and jailed the same day. Not even a serial killer of children would get such swift "justice?"

He would if he was already under a suspended sentence; and if his crime was as clear cut as contempt of court.

Your ignorance of English Law is not an argument for your position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He would if he was already under a suspended sentence;.

...the legal version of 'Don't let me catch you doing this again.'
They even told him exactly what they'd do if he done it again.
And he done it again.

So really, he wasn't charged and jailed in the same day. The charging, and sentencing, was done the last time he was in court. That's when the judge said, "Do you want me to turn this court around?"
He just waited a while before he said, 'Yeah, I guess I do.'
All that happened on THIS day was the court saying, "okay, if that's the way you want it."

 

[angelo]

I'm still asking whether the judge, court would have jailed him so quickly, or at all had the monsters been anything else but muzzies!

 

[bilby]

He would if he was already under a suspended sentence;.

...the legal version of 'Don't let me catch you doing this again.'
They even told him exactly what they'd do if he done it again.
And he done it again.

So really, he wasn't charged and jailed in the same day. The charging, and sentencing, was done the last time he was in court. That's when the judge said, "Do you want me to turn this court around?"
He just waited a while before he said, 'Yeah, I guess I do.'
All that happened on THIS day was the court saying, "okay, if that's the way you want it."

Yup, pretty much.

Time is of the essence in reporting postponement orders too - the courts act fast because it's clearly pointless to act slowly in such cases. And because by their nature such crimes occur while court is in session.

 

[angelo]

The sordid muzzle on free speech is obvious to anyone with half a brain!
https://youtu.be/TTdJaHWvLbk

 

[Keith&Co.]

I have seen absolutely nothing that so much as hints that either Judge has any love for Sharia.

My impression of Sharia law is that it generally does not include 'I'll give you ONE MORE CHANCE before I punish you' judgments. None of this 'break this particular law in this particular manner ONE MORE TIME. I dare you. THEN you'll be sorry!'

But I could be wrong. Maybe Mohammed left a legacy with instructions for bail, release on personal recognizance, and suspended punishments?