Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by damodici, Jun 2, 2018.
To feel happy
knowing that things could always be worse?
No, to be happy that theres always someone dumber.
And there’s the proof right there
He will get the same. Protection. Maybe double protection for not using his real name.
Do you think those turds that murdered Lee Rigby would still be in one piece if they weren't being protected?
Indeed. As my happiness is increasing post by post.
My job is nearly done here
Robinson is a hundred times more evil than those evil animals that murdered Lee Rigby.
You only have to read this thread to see how really awful Tommy Robinson is. He's worse than the pedo-child-grooming-rapist scum. Ask anyone that has posted here. They'll tell you.
Time to wipe and dont forget to wash hands
Listen to him, Elise, he's an expert.
Worth a read
He wasn't fine when he was jailed by the judge in Leeds.
Blimey Bradders,I'm surprised you take anything from the BBC at face value.
You do know they have an agenda don't you?
And that agenda is not one that serves the best interests of Joe and Janet Taxpaying-Public.
Did you read it? It actually seems really balanced, points out that 'racism' is less of his thing than often thought, but he's a brand and paid as such. His links to the Canadian lot pays him £10k pm, which is how he ca afford his lifestyle and home.
I'd say its the most balanced pieces I've read on BBC for years
I haven't read the entire or even much of the thread but what I did see were references to how TR was only doing (at Leeds Crown Court) what journalists routinely do, but that he has been singled out for punishment.
The Leeds trial was subject to an "reporting restrictions" order made by a judge. There are a number of reasons why such orders are made - it may be that one or more of the defendants was a youth or that trial may have only been one of a series of linked cases because where there are a large number of defendants all charged with similar offences arising out of the same or connected situations, they need to be split up into manageable "blocks" and so, for example, rather than there being one trial with 70 defendants there will be 7 trials with 10 defendants (quite apart from the fact that a trial involving so many people would be far too unwieldy, you can't fit 70 people in a dock or 70 barristers in a courtroom). Primarily, reporting restrictions are made in order to ensure that the defendants in the trials which happen later on down the line get a fair hearing. However, if, say, the first two trials result in mass not guilty verdicts because the evidence in those cases was weak, then trials further down the queue where the evidence might be stronger could result in underserved acquittals of guilty men by juries who have been influenced by news reports of the previous cases. And, FYI, reporting restrictions are almost always lifted after the series of trials has concluded.
That's the reasoning behind reporting restrictions but tbh, the reasoning is somewhat secondary because if a judge makes an order then it is to be obeyed and if you don't obey it, you are in contempt of court and risk jail. If someone takes issue with the order, then there are routes by which it can be appealed and parties to proceedings and the press can and frequently do challenge such rulings.
What you don't do is say to yourself "I, Tommy Robinson, being a part-qualified aircraft mechanic, plumber and former sunbed shop owner think I am better qualified than the judge to determine what is in the public interest and/or lawful, therefore I am going to ignore that order." That is ignorance, arrogance and narcissism in action.
Btw, this is just an explanation of reporting restrictions and this form of contempt of court (there are others), and not an invitation to debate the rights and wrongs of advancing politics by way of peaceful protest as there are numerous examples throughout history of people and movements which only achieved their aims by disobeying the law - Ghandi and Martin Luther King are just two recent and well known examples.
This explanation is simply to show that TR was not treated any differently to anyone else who is subject to a court order. His sentence was also not especially harsh bearing in mind he had done almost exactly the same thing before and received a suspended sentence and that he very nearly derailed the trial of some truly nasty individuals (who may have walked free as a result) and involving vulnerable complainants (who may have had to go through the dreadful experience of giving evidence all over again in a retrial).
FYI by way of credentials for those who don't know me from other areas of the forum, I am a barrister and my practice is a mix of commercial, general civil, landlord/tenant and crime. Probably because I have that (unusually broad) range of experience, I also have a niche practice dealing with contempt of court matters which are a strange hybrid of criminal and civil law and procedure. In recent months, one of my contempt cases made the front page of a tabloid newspaper, another one was widely reported in the papers and on the BBC's website and another one was a "reported judgement" in the sense that it has been published by the MoJ to give guidance in later cases.
If there were reporting restrictions,why:
Was the BBC allowed to publish the names etc of the guilty on their website?
TR read the names FROM the publicly accessible,(worldwide),BBC website while livestreaming himself from a public place outside the court.
Btw,it was a sentencing hearing.The accused had already been found guilty,and it was very unlikely that the judge was going to be swayed in his sentencing decisions,(already made but not announced), by TRs livestream.
Doesn't matter. There was an order and until the order is lifted it is to be obeyed. Simples.
Edit: I don't know the facts all that intimately as I have my own cases to worry about but there may have been other trials "downstream" which could have been influenced by the outcome of the Leeds trial. However, whether there were other trials or not has no bearing on whether it was a contempt of court, it is just something to take into consideration as an aggravating or mitigating feature when determining what sentence TR should receive. Also what seems to be frequently overlooked when commentators say he was treated too harshly by getting 9 months, is that (from memory) 3 months of that sentence is actually the activation of the suspended sentence to which he was subject when he committed this offence. So he actually only got 6 months for the Leeds offence, which is only 25% of the maximum (2 years).
I'll ask again:
If reporting restrictions were in place,why was the BBC allowed to publish the names that TR read while livestreaming.
An order is an order is an order.
It cannot apply to some and not others.