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

[warmleatherette]

What relevance has this got to the discussion?

[m4rkb]

They probably werent burying it, they were probably waiting for the trial to finish so they could report it, and save leeds crown court turning into a riot zone because people had got wind of it. It seems sensible to me.

But now Robinsons made it all about him instead of the crime.

Trouble is, there were no ongoing trials to prejudice any case when diversity units in local councils and the Police decided it should not come out lest it appear racist that there was a serious problem with grooming and raping underage girls.

I can half accept the argument that these girls were 'loose' and some were initially 'up for it' so to speak , but that opens yet another can of worms why all child abuse wasn't rigorously investigated. There did (and still does) seem to be an enormous push to intervene in all minor cases of even possible child abuse but seemingly not for some.

They also seem to be getting preferential treatment coming back from Syria after fighting for ISIS. Not many other groups appear to have such sway and as I say, most of this would peter out if there werren't obvious imbalances in who gets prosecuted for what or rather who doesn't and why.

The worrying part for me is one of the least reported voices in all this is the Muslim voice denouncing it as much as I do. It even seems you can be guilty of Islamophobia now by being a practicing muslim against violent Jihad. In fact the bloke I posted up earlier has had his voice supressed more than most for denouncing violence in the name of Allah. It'll be mainly white liberals doing this ,who are to my mind the biggest problem plus a few jihadis who the white liberals now seem to support.

I'd gladly replace every one of these white marxists ideological idiots with sensible voices from the Muslim commnity because I have dealt with them many times and actually prefer dealing with them hands down.

The constant identity politics of the left has a lot to answer for bringing us here in the first place.

[m4rkb]

What relevance has this got to the discussion?

I missed the link out from the long post above.
I said I didn't like the way Robinson takes every opportunity to insult most muslims even moderate ones based on every percieved line of their text.
In the clip he's told how Aisha wasn't six but 21. The Imam stated that it was more important in the Islamic world that she should appear a virgin so the age of 6 was kind of agreed between scholars, to which TR started laughing about her having been around the block.
Totally disrespectful given that it was also an insult to the moderate bloke sat in front of him who ticks all the right boxes for a moderate peaceful religious man.

[warmleatherette]

What relevance has this got to the discussion?

I missed the link out from the long post above.
I said I didn't like the way Robinson takes every opportunity to insult most muslims even moderate ones based on every percieved line of their text.
In the clip he's told how Aisha wasn't six but 21. The Imam stated that it was more important in the Islamic world that she should appear a virgin so the age of 6 was kind of agreed between scholars, to which TR started laughing about her having been around the block.
Totally disrespectful given that it was also an insult to the moderate bloke sat in front of him who ticks all the right boxes for a moderate peaceful religious man.

Gotcha

[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?

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?

Well no you see. I didn't want to start getting too technical in a general discussion, but since you ask , if it's a question of a suspended sentence then he has to be CONVICTED: of the second offence AND the prosecution has to convince the court that it's a "like offence " ie. He can't be sent to prison if he's got a suspended sentence for say, shoplifting but this one is for something not related to similar behaviour, say a public order or driving offence.

There's probably no time for all that to have happened.

If he's on licence from prison for an offence then he merely needs to be CHARGED with ANY offence.

Problem with this is that there are different sorts of breach of the Peace. In the most common people are not usually CHARGED but merely "brought before the court to show good cause why they should not be bound over ", which is a common law matter not a charge of a conviction, you see ?

Similarly, contempt of court is not a charge as such either. Again it's just being brought before a Judge who has powers to commit to prison for the contempt, but it's not technically a conviction or a statute crime .

There are other obscure possibilities, such as there being in existence some Order of the court or undertaking on his part regarding his conduct in or near the building, and this might conceivably be punished by commital to prison, but again it can't be joined to an existing suspended sentence or the basis for such a suspended sentence to be enforced.

Now, this is all general stuff and it is possible to argue for and against the correctness of particular orders in particular ( often disputed ) circumstances. This is what litigation is .

I fully expect that the Judge acted perfectly correctly in accordance with whatever evidence and argument was placed before him, but we should know what it was. It is normal that the Judge would give the reasons for his decisions on such matters during his Judgement, and I expect he did on this occasion, but it's not being reported for some reason.

Well, that's alright because it will all be sorted out in the end, no doubt, but I really don't like this hue and cry mob mentality which seems to want to ignore the facts of the particular case because they happen to disagree politically with the accused.

In exactly the same way as those accused in the trial during which we gather he might have disturbed due process are entitled to be tried on the FACTS and evidence rather than the uninformed opinions and prejudices of the general public, so is he, and so is everyone.


I can sum this up with a nice old cliche, that justice needs not only to be done, but to be SEEN to be done.

[Ralph]

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?

Well no you see. I didn't want to start getting too technical in a general discussion, but since you ask , if it's a question of a suspended sentence then he has to be CONVICTED: of the second offence AND the prosecution has to convince the court that it's a "like offence " ie. He can't be sent to prison if he's got a suspended sentence for say, shoplifting but this one is for something not related to similar behaviour, say a public order or driving offence.

There's probably no time for all that to have happened.

If he's on licence from prison for an offence then he merely needs to be CHARGED with ANY offence.

Problem with this is that there are different sorts of breach of the Peace. In the most common people are not usually CHARGED but merely "brought before the court to show good cause why they should not be bound over ", which is a common law matter not a charge of a conviction, you see ?

Similarly, contempt of court is not a charge as such either. Again it's just being brought before a Judge who has powers to commit to prison for the contempt, but it's not technically a conviction or a statute crime .

There are other obscure possibilities, such as there being in existence some Order of the court or undertaking on his part regarding his conduct in or near the building, and this might conceivably be punished by commital to prison, but again it can't be joined to an existing suspended sentence or the basis for such a suspended sentence to be enforced.

Now, this is all general stuff and it is possible to argue for and against the correctness of particular orders in particular ( often disputed ) circumstances. This is what litigation is .

I fully expect that the Judge acted perfectly correctly in accordance with whatever evidence and argument was placed before him, but we should know what it was. It is normal that the Judge would give the reasons for his decisions on such matters during his Judgement, and I expect he did on this occasion, but it's not being reported for some reason.

Well, that's alright because it will all be sorted out in the end, no doubt, but I really don't like this hue and cry mob mentality which seems to want to ignore the facts of the particular case because they happen to disagree politically with the accused.

In exactly the same way as those accused in the trial during which we gather he might have disturbed due process are entitled to be tried on the FACTS and evidence rather than the uninformed opinions and prejudices of the general public, so is he, and so is everyone.


I can sum this up with a nice old cliche, that justice needs not only to be done, but to be SEEN to be done.

Where have you got all that from? It’s at odds with what the Setencing Council say. To put it simply - If you don’t comply with the conditions set out by the court or get another conviction you’re likely to serve the sentence that was suspended.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ab ... sentences/

[m4rkb]

He wrote a book called Enemy of the State. I haven't read it but by all accounts it documents the state's absolute determination to silence his criticisms of Islam. Most charges against him were completely trumped up and in some cases trumped up while being videod. Nevertheless they were still upheld. Orders from the Home Office apparently.

You may dislike him or even welcome the state's attempt to gag him as anyone is entitled to do, but as was seen in the video about the woman arrrested by Police for querying why they weren't enforcing a specific law being openly flouted by one group , these politically motivated arrests are starting to encroach into all areas and opinions the ruling left elite deem to be unaceptable. They've made it almost impossible to prevent as these laws are now based on percieved offence which is all encompassing. Meanhile, no arrests are ever made for definite offence caused by banners warning America, the West and especially Jews that the armies of Mohammed are coming to get them.

So the law is not being seen to be done, it is being seen to be ignored and favour certain groups over others. I'd say that's one recipe for a breakdown of law and order if ever there were one.

[Eaststand]

No ones attempting to gag him. Thats what he is pretending, so as to martyr himself. Hes a fucking thick cunt who is trying very hard to spark a race war.

[Hillman avenger]

However much he is a twat he should have the same process in law as anyone else.

He can't have not known that what he was doing was illegal . It throws up the possibility this was what he wanted, as it will make him a martyr for some people.

[m4rkb]

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?

Well no you see. I didn't want to start getting too technical in a general discussion, but since you ask , if it's a question of a suspended sentence then he has to be CONVICTED: of the second offence AND the prosecution has to convince the court that it's a "like offence " ie. He can't be sent to prison if he's got a suspended sentence for say, shoplifting but this one is for something not related to similar behaviour, say a public order or driving offence.

There's probably no time for all that to have happened.

If he's on licence from prison for an offence then he merely needs to be CHARGED with ANY offence.

Problem with this is that there are different sorts of breach of the Peace. In the most common people are not usually CHARGED but merely "brought before the court to show good cause why they should not be bound over ", which is a common law matter not a charge of a conviction, you see ?

Similarly, contempt of court is not a charge as such either. Again it's just being brought before a Judge who has powers to commit to prison for the contempt, but it's not technically a conviction or a statute crime .

There are other obscure possibilities, such as there being in existence some Order of the court or undertaking on his part regarding his conduct in or near the building, and this might conceivably be punished by commital to prison, but again it can't be joined to an existing suspended sentence or the basis for such a suspended sentence to be enforced.

Now, this is all general stuff and it is possible to argue for and against the correctness of particular orders in particular ( often disputed ) circumstances. This is what litigation is .

I fully expect that the Judge acted perfectly correctly in accordance with whatever evidence and argument was placed before him, but we should know what it was. It is normal that the Judge would give the reasons for his decisions on such matters during his Judgement, and I expect he did on this occasion, but it's not being reported for some reason.

Well, that's alright because it will all be sorted out in the end, no doubt, but I really don't like this hue and cry mob mentality which seems to want to ignore the facts of the particular case because they happen to disagree politically with the accused.

In exactly the same way as those accused in the trial during which we gather he might have disturbed due process are entitled to be tried on the FACTS and evidence rather than the uninformed opinions and prejudices of the general public, so is he, and so is everyone.


I can sum this up with a nice old cliche, that justice needs not only to be done, but to be SEEN to be done.

Where have you got that all from? It’s at odds with what the Setencing Council say. To put it simply - If you don’t comply with the conditions set out by the court or get another conviction you’re likely to serve the sentence that was suspended.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/ab ... sentences/

Well frankly that's complete bullshit as well. Not that you're to blame for believing what is stated on the tin and meant to reassure members of the public of the same falsehood but I can think of at least half a dozen people right now who are in and out of prison for a couple of weeks or months here and there for persistent reoffending and they are not made to serve the terms they were given.
These are mainly theft and property based incidents I admit and they are at least a little tougher on violence, or they appear to be at least among any circles I get this informations from, and despite one of the candidates in my list having aggravated burglary on his charge sheet. His social workers have found a medical excuse so it seems and ALL mitigating circumstances should apparently be taken into consideration.

It seems our Courts are just waitig for the majority of offenders to just gro out of it while they usher in a bigger bunch where they expect the same.

I haven't got a grain of sympathy for some of these people or any time at all for their excusers. I've even less time for their appeasers who are supposed to be on the side of the law than the crooks themselves, so that alone would permanently rule me out of of becoming a magistrate.

It's all gone to pot, the lot of it.

[m4rkb]

However much he is a twat he should have the same process in law as anyone else.

He can't have not known that what he was doing was illegal . It throws up the possibility this was what he wanted, as it will make him a martyr for some people.

Sensible comment for once there Hillman.

[Zambo]

I think we are getting away from the point. Robinson, racist, bigot, Islamophobe etc. Most of his supporters are extreme right wing scum in the EDL. Let's get that out there, so there is no misunderstandings like before, when accusations were flying about supporting racists.

The support is for his right to free speech, and to be highlighting Muslim racist shit. If he winds up a few whilst going into court so what, there was hardly anyone else about. This country goes with not guilty until found guilty in a court of law. If he is found guilty of breaching the peace and on a suspended sentence, then he should feel the full force of the law, but until that happens there should be no sentence given.

If members of the EDL were in court facing charges of beating Muslims up, and Russell Brand stood outside the court with his phone filming them as they went in and calling them cunts, all the lefties would have been out singing his praises. In fact Facebook would have been taken down due to traffic overload.

There is nothing wrong with showing these people up for what they are.

[Eaststand]

He does. He got a suspended sentence that will be enacted if he gets arrested for the same thing.

Lo and behold, he got arrested for the same thing.

He has been given fair treatment. They said "look, we'll suspend your sentence, but if you're a big enough tit to get arrested for the same thing, you're going straight to jail, that OK?"

[Eaststand]

I think we are getting away from the point. Robinson, racist, bigot, Islamophobe etc. Most of his supporters are extreme right wing scum in the EDL. Let's get that out there, so there is no misunderstandings like before, when accusations were flying about supporting racists.

The support is for his right to free speech, and to be highlighting Muslim racist shit. If he winds up a few whilst going into court so what, there was hardly anyone else about. This country goes with not guilty until found guilty in a court of law. If he is found guilty of breaching the peace and on a suspended sentence, then he should feel the full force of the law, but until that happens there should be no sentence given.

If members of the EDL were in court facing charges of beating Muslims up, and Russell Brand stood outside the court with his phone filming them as they went in and calling them cunts, all the lefties would have been out singing his praises. In fact Facebook would have been taken down due to traffic overload.

There is nothing wrong with showing these people up for what they are.

No mate, we'd see on facebook russell brand being arrested. Because its illegal. You're forgetting Robinson broadcast this BEFORE anyone had been found guilty. Now, in this country, you are innocent til proven guilty.

He has NOT been treated unfairly. Hes behaved a fucking moron and seems surprised (hes not, he knew this would martyr him) that the law doesnt make exceptions for him.

[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?

Well no you see. I didn't want to start getting too technical in a general discussion, but since you ask , if it's a question of a suspended sentence then he has to be CONVICTED: of the second offence AND the prosecution has to convince the court that it's a "like offence " ie. He can't be sent to prison if he's got a suspended sentence for say, shoplifting but this one is for something not related to similar behaviour, say a public order or driving offence.

There's probably no time for all that to have happened.

If he's on licence from prison for an offence then he merely needs to be CHARGED with ANY offence.

Problem with this is that there are different sorts of breach of the Peace. In the most common people are not usually CHARGED but merely "brought before the court to show good cause why they should not be bound over ", which is a common law matter not a charge of a conviction, you see ?

Similarly, contempt of court is not a charge as such either. Again it's just being brought before a Judge who has powers to commit to prison for the contempt, but it's not technically a conviction or a statute crime .

There are other obscure possibilities, such as there being in existence some Order of the court or undertaking on his part regarding his conduct in or near the building, and this might conceivably be punished by commital to prison, but again it can't be joined to an existing suspended sentence or the basis for such a suspended sentence to be enforced.

Now, this is all general stuff and it is possible to argue for and against the correctness of particular orders in particular ( often disputed ) circumstances. This is what litigation is .

I fully expect that the Judge acted perfectly correctly in accordance with whatever evidence and argument was placed before him, but we should know what it was. It is normal that the Judge would give the reasons for his decisions on such matters during his Judgement, and I expect he did on this occasion, but it's not being reported for some reason.

Well, that's alright because it will all be sorted out in the end, no doubt, but I really don't like this hue and cry mob mentality which seems to want to ignore the facts of the particular case because they happen to disagree politically with the accused.

In exactly the same way as those accused in the trial during which we gather he might have disturbed due process are entitled to be tried on the FACTS and evidence rather than the uninformed opinions and prejudices of the general public, so is he, and so is everyone.


I can sum this up with a nice old cliche, that justice needs not only to be done, but to be SEEN to be done.

There’s no need to get technical, here’s details of his last appearance in court and what the judge said he mustn’t do, read what she said then watch the video, it’s a clear breach of his conditions and would take a few minutes in court to sort out which is what happened.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/ ... il-126340/