BY THE WAY, KING OF THE RETARDS TOMMY ROBINSON HILARIOUSLY GOT HIMSELF SENT TO PRISON.

[Royal24s]

Nah, thats a twisted way of looking at it. Heres the real timeline of events.

He did something that is illegal.
He got arrested for it.
Because he had a suspended sentence, that means he can go to jail immediately and not pass go or collect £200
Takes out gagging order to make his window licking fans think hes a martyr.

Well if that's what happened. No one seems to know for certain what has happened in what is supposed to be a public process .

It's generally a bad thing when people are arrested and sent off to prison and the only thing the public hear is a vague version of events from some unattributable source within the state

I don't think there's any means by which he could take out a "gagging order" so that's probably wrong. What do you base that on ?

Ralph is quite right that he might apparently have been compromising someone else's fair trial and if that's so it's a serious matter, but of course that underlines that cases must be dealt with within the rules and that he must also receive a trial under proper public scrutiny.

I don't like the fact that we seem to be guessing and speculating on the matter, and I like even less the fact that some people seem quite happy to assume guilt because they hold some unrelated dislike of the accused.

No surprise to me really, but it's a big intersection on the road to a banana republic .

[Eaststand]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

No mate, its a conspiracy. DONT YOU GET IT???

[Royal24s]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

There are a few somewhat technical problems with that on the face of it Warm. I'm sure the process was correct and that there are reasons for the apparent oddities, but my point is that it should all be a matter of public record at the stage when he has apparently already been sentenced.
" reporting restrictions" don't apply after a trial has finished.

More than anything else, I dislike the implication that we can trust the courts or anyone else to operate secretly in such matters.

[Eaststand]

the trials hadnt finished. he was filming them as they moved courthouses.

[warmleatherette]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

There are a few somewhat technical problems with that on the face of it Warm. I'm sure the process was correct and that there are reasons for the apparent oddities, but my point is that it should all be a matter of public record at the stage when he has apparently already been sentenced.
" reporting restrictions" don't apply after a trial has finished.

More than anything else, I dislike the implication that we can trust the courts or anyone else to operate secretly in such matters.

The trial hasn’t “finished” until after sentencing as far as I’m aware?

EDIT: sorry I misunderstood what you meant, he was already on a suspended sentence for the same thing so straight to jail isn’t it?

[Royal24s]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

No mate, its a conspiracy. DONT YOU GET IT???

I don't think anyone has said its a conspiracy , at least not here. The demand is "produce the evidence" and do so in the usual manner of public justice.
This is a very old and reasonable requirement going back to the Magna Carter

[Eaststand]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

No mate, its a conspiracy. DONT YOU GET IT???

I don't think anyone has said its a conspiracy , at least not here. The demand is "produce the evidence" and do so in the usual manner of public justice.
This is a very old and reasonable requirement going back to the Magna Carter

You dont half talk some nonsense, mate. I know its just to play the devils advocate constantly, but jesus. Hes been sent down for exactly what leatherette said, he needed no trial, because he had a suspended sentence.

Surely a copper understands that?

And also, unless youve missed it, theres been thousands of brain dead morons protesting exactly that in front of downing street.

[Royal24s]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

There are a few somewhat technical problems with that on the face of it Warm. I'm sure the process was correct and that there are reasons for the apparent oddities, but my point is that it should all be a matter of public record at the stage when he has apparently already been sentenced.
" reporting restrictions" don't apply after a trial has finished.

More than anything else, I dislike the implication that we can trust the courts or anyone else to operate secretly in such matters.

The trial hasn’t “finished” until after sentencing as far as I’m aware?

No, not the trial he was allegedly interfering with. If he was doing that , which I tend to suspect he probably was actually, then it's important that he was stopped.
What I'm on about is the fact that he himself seems to have been whipped off , processed and sentenced almost in secret, and that there seems to be some blockage in reporting the matter.
I'm also pointing out that it's very wrong for anyone to assume guilt because they don't like the man for other completely unrelated reasons.

[Eaststand]

he hasnt been sentenced. he had no need to be sentenced. he already had a suspended sentence.

[warmleatherette]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

There are a few somewhat technical problems with that on the face of it Warm. I'm sure the process was correct and that there are reasons for the apparent oddities, but my point is that it should all be a matter of public record at the stage when he has apparently already been sentenced.
" reporting restrictions" don't apply after a trial has finished.

More than anything else, I dislike the implication that we can trust the courts or anyone else to operate secretly in such matters.

The trial hasn’t “finished” until after sentencing as far as I’m aware?

No, not the trial he was allegedly interfering with. If he was doing that , which I tend to suspect he probably was actually, then it's important that he was stopped.
What I'm on about is the fact that he himself seems to have been whipped off , processed and sentenced almost in secret, and that there seems to be some blockage in reporting the matter.
I'm also pointing out that it's very wrong for anyone to assume guilt because they don't like the man for other completely unrelated reasons.

I’ve seen the live stream, he was there “reporting”, seems pretty cut and dried to me and the judge agrees.

[Royal24s]

He got arrested for contempt of court as well, by the way.

He was arrested for breach of the peace but then charged with contempt of court... again.. whilst on a suspended for the same with conditions specifically stating if he did it again he’d go straight to prison.. again

No mate, its a conspiracy. DONT YOU GET IT???

I don't think anyone has said its a conspiracy , at least not here. The demand is "produce the evidence" and do so in the usual manner of public justice.
This is a very old and reasonable requirement going back to the Magna Carter

You dont half talk some nonsense, mate. I know its just to play the devils advocate constantly, but jesus. Hes been sent down for exactly what leatherette said, he needed no trial, because he had a suspended sentence.

Surely a copper understands that?

And also, unless youve missed it, theres been thousands of brain dead morons protesting exactly that in front of downing street.

Ignore the protests. That's an entirely separate matter .
IF he was sentenced for an existing suspender ( which if you recall was my suggestion about what MIGHT have happened), that's okay, but he needs to be convicted of a LIKE offence first

We don't know the details and that's the problem. I very much doubt that there's anything wrong with the process , but it's very very very important that justice is public and that every single person, irrespective of anyone's opinion about them is given ample opportunity and a reasonable time to provide a defence, whether they are guilty or not.

On the face of it this seems to have been flouted. It probably hasn't , but the public should be fully informed of exactly what happened .

[Royal24s]

he hasnt been sentenced. he had no need to be sentenced. he already had a suspended sentence.

Bit complicated to go into here, but it's not quite that straightforward for several reasons. I can think of several potential defences , which might or might not be accepted by the Court, and in fact you might well see him released on appeal if he puts one of them forward.
Point is that it APPEARS to be a rush to justice behind closed doors, and that needs to be clarified.

[m4rkb]

Yes. Thats why he did it, I suppose.

But his cause is being a racist piece of shit, so hes just going to get laughed at more than he normally does.

Have you any evidence he's racist towards anyone other than Islamists? More thre point why should anyone hold any respect towards Islamists anyway? They do not subscribe to the values we are told we are all supposed to have, the very idea of Islamism is that it only cares for Islam and definitely not non believers. It beleives in a united world only for muslims and has a special tax and treatment for everyone else.

Note, I am specifying Islamists here NOT ordinary Muslims, many of whom take a less hardline view of the world than where infidels are routinely slaughtered in the name of Allah because their texts apparently comands them too.

Frankly, if taking a dislike to that is racist then it shows the definition is at fault, which we all know it now is.
There are NO examples of Tommry Robinson ,THAT'S NONE WHATSOEVER , where he makes derogatory comments about anyone else. UNless you can prove any. He's never done so against the black community or the sikh or Hindu community, or anyone else, so at worse he's only Islamophobic - the same as many others who don't like radical Islam one jot, including me.

Meanwhile, here's another typical example of the Police trying to crush dissent. A woman questioning why the Police allow prayer in Hyde Park for one group only while the law states it is illegal to pray. TBH I'm not overly bothered about it myself unless it starts to resemble mob rule like it currently does in Paris and other places but the Police seem to think that asking why they are allowing one group to openly break the law requires that person to be arrested and taught a lesson.

The Police are close to losing all respect for upholding the law impartially as they are now not just taking political sides, but chosing one political side, the left, to champion.

We are seeing more and more of these abuses and political arrests for moderate right leaning views yet starngely human rights lawyers are only interested in defending potential terrorists and other scum. For some other strange reason, offence only seems to be deemed offence when it's taken by some lefty. Placards screaming behead those who insult Islam, burning poppies and everything else seems not to count.

[Eaststand]

Probably is a bit of a rush, this cunt is trying to start riots and a race war. Hes a very dangerous individual, mainly because the people who back him are incredibly stupid.

[Eaststand]

Yes. Thats why he did it, I suppose.

But his cause is being a racist piece of shit, so hes just going to get laughed at more than he normally does.

Have you any evidence he's racist towards anyone other than Islamists? More thre point why should anyone hold any respect towards Islamists anyway? They do not subscribe to the values we are told we are all supposed to have, the very idea of Islamism is that it only cares for Islam and definitely not non believers. It beleives in a united world only for muslims and has a special tax and treatment for everyone else.

Note, I am specifying Islamists here NOT ordinary Muslims, many of whom take a less hardline view of the world than where infidels are routinely slaughtered in the name of Allah because their texts apparently comands them too.

Frankly, if taking a dislike to that is racist then it shows the definition is at fault, which we all know it now is.
There are NO examples of Tommry Robinson ,THAT'S NONE WHATSOEVER , where he makes derogatory comments about anyone else. UNless you can prove any. He's never done so against the black community or the sikh or Hindu community, or anyone else, so at worse he's only Islamophobic - the same as many others who don't like radical Islam one jot, including me.

Meanwhile, here's another typical example of the Police trying to crush dissent. A woman questioning why the Police allow prayer in Hyde Park for one group only while the law states it is illegal to pray. TBH I'm not overly bothered about it myself unless it starts to resemble mob rule like it currently does in Paris and other places but the Police seem to think that asking why they are allowing one group to openly break the law requires that person to be arrested and taught a lesson.

The Police are close to losing all respect for upholding the law impartially as they are now not just taking political sides, but chosing one political side, the left, to champion.

We are seeing more and more of these abuses and political arrests for moderate right leaning views yet starngely human rights lawyers are only interested in defending potential terrorists and other scum. For some other strange reason, offence only seems to be deemed offence when it's taken by some lefty. Placards screaming behead those who insult Islam, burning poppies and everything else seems not to count.

plenty of evidence, but none youd accept. Being the ex leader of the EDL means he loves all colours and creeds of course.

But because people word things in a way they think is smart, it means they are not racist, despite the racist sentiment. But obviously people know they are racist sentiments.