Ot,tommy robinson wins appeal

Good for him. Anyone that actively speaks out against those commiting sex offences regardless of politics is speaking on behalf of most normal people in the UK. " Well he broke the law" I hear people cry. He did, but so have most people on this forum at one time, myself included. I applaud Mr Robinson for making a stand

As long as he speaks out as actively against everyone committing such horrible crimes , regardless of skin colour , race or religion.
I am not holding my breath waiting for him to organise a rally protesting against the Roman Catholic church and some of its priests and the cover ups that occurred there.

Why should he speak out against everyone ? Its his freedom to speak out against anyone he wishes,its called freedon of speech and people like you are not given people like tommy his right to that ,i sometimes wonder who are the real nazi!

Your either a racist or thick as shit.

I’m leaning towards the thick as shit side more.

Everything the guy with the fake name does is to suit his agenda he don’t give two shits for anything else.

rediculous statement to start with.......Wez is correct, people can campaign on a raft of things they might see as wrong without having to cover anything and everything others might see as wrong.
dont get the fake name jibe either...there is a reason behind it..but besides that your free and its legal { at least until you facists get in } to change your name.

The scary thing is that these liberal facists dont even realize they are facists they are more dangerous than the far right

What the hell is a "facist"?

youre doing it again

Not just on this thread either despite claiming to the contrary yesterday.

Really is quite sad.

I think what will happen is there will be a retrial where he will be found guilty and get a suspended sentence in lieu of time already served.Remember he wasn't jailed for speaking out but for contempt of court.

You can only have a retrail if the evidence used in the original trail is now in question.

Robinson is being released on bail as the "contempt of court" is being investigated. The actual standing of the original trail is not is question.

well the judge didnt see it like that..he said it was a fundamentally flawed process and the finding can not stand.

The judge is referring to the "Contempt of Court" process that sent Robinson to jail. There is no mention of the original trail.

There wss no trial for the contempt of court thats why he ordered another hearing

I think what will happen is there will be a retrial where he will be found guilty and get a suspended sentence in lieu of time already served.Remember he wasn't jailed for speaking out but for contempt of court.

You can only have a retrail if the evidence used in the original trail is now in question.

Robinson is being released on bail as the "contempt of court" is being investigated. The actual standing of the original trail is not is question.

well the judge didnt see it like that..he said it was a fundamentally flawed process and the finding can not stand.

The judge is referring to the "Contempt of Court" process that sent Robinson to jail. There is no mention of the original trail.

There wss no trial for the contempt of court thats why he ordered another hearing

You do know the difference between a trail and hearing?

There was a hearing that sent Robinson to court. Comtempt of Court only requires a hearing. The judge has question the hearing. This has nothing to do with a trail.

I think what will happen is there will be a retrial where he will be found guilty and get a suspended sentence in lieu of time already served.Remember he wasn't jailed for speaking out but for contempt of court.

You can only have a retrail if the evidence used in the original trail is now in question.

Robinson is being released on bail as the "contempt of court" is being investigated. The actual standing of the original trail is not is question.

well the judge didnt see it like that..he said it was a fundamentally flawed process and the finding can not stand.

The judge is referring to the "Contempt of Court" process that sent Robinson to jail. There is no mention of the original trail.

There wss no trial for the contempt of court thats why he ordered another hearing

You do know the difference between a trail and hearing?

There was a hearing that sent Robinson to court. Comtempt of Court only requires a hearing. The judge has question the hearing. This has nothing to do with a trail.

Yourve said this " There is no mention of the original trail" ive responded to you ,the judges today were daming of the judge in the original hearing ,

Justice has been served and sanity has made a brief return at least for the moment. Great news

I think what will happen is there will be a retrial where he will be found guilty and get a suspended sentence in lieu of time already served.Remember he wasn't jailed for speaking out but for contempt of court.

You can only have a retrail if the evidence used in the original trail is now in question.

Robinson is being released on bail as the "contempt of court" is being investigated. The actual standing of the original trail is not is question.

well the judge didnt see it like that..he said it was a fundamentally flawed process and the finding can not stand.

The judge is referring to the "Contempt of Court" process that sent Robinson to jail. There is no mention of the original trail.

There wss no trial for the contempt of court thats why he ordered another hearing

You do know the difference between a trail and hearing?

There was a hearing that sent Robinson to court. Comtempt of Court only requires a hearing. The judge has question the hearing. This has nothing to do with a trail.

Yourve said this " There is no mention of the original trail" ive responded to you ,the judges today were daming of the judge in the original hearing ,

No you didn't.

You were implying that there is a hearing because there was no trail for the contempt which is bollocks. Now you have changed your stance by using the word hearing which is what I have been trying to explain to you.

A few pointers Tommy never EVER pleaded guilty he wasn’t even given a chance to give a plea. He wasn’t even told it was contempt of court. All above is illegal in the court of law. They then put reporting restrictions on that case which was also against British law.
What was his crime. ? Reporting and giving the names of the defendants that was already in the public domain on the BBC website.
And they also said it put put trial at risk, but the jury had already retired to discuss there verdict.
They couldn’t jail him legally so they did it this way.
Now the frightening thing is he was jailed and thrown into solitary as political prisoner, and was sent there illegally. Now that begs the question how many more languish in prison dealt with the same way by the establishment ?
Tommy was to famous and they made a grave error which now has made him ten times bigger than he was before.
On what they got on him I can’t see any way that they can LEGALLY convict him. My gut feeling is they will drop the case when it all dies down.
Also the left worry me as they all think it’s ok to be sent to prison if anyone has different views to themselves but at the moment the Elitists are using the left for there own gain but sooner or later they will also become targets of the establishment.
HOPE TOMMY SUES THEM !!
#TOMMYISFREE

I think what will happen is there will be a retrial where he will be found guilty and get a suspended sentence in lieu of time already served.Remember he wasn't jailed for speaking out but for contempt of court.

You can only have a retrail if the evidence used in the original trail is now in question.

Robinson is being released on bail as the "contempt of court" is being investigated. The actual standing of the original trail is not is question.

well the judge didnt see it like that..he said it was a fundamentally flawed process and the finding can not stand.

The judge is referring to the "Contempt of Court" process that sent Robinson to jail. There is no mention of the original trail.

There wss no trial for the contempt of court thats why he ordered another hearing

You do know the difference between a trail and hearing?

There was a hearing that sent Robinson to court. Comtempt of Court only requires a hearing. The judge has question the hearing. This has nothing to do with a trail.

Yourve said this " There is no mention of the original trail" ive responded to you ,the judges today were daming of the judge in the original hearing ,

No you didn't.

You were implying that there is a hearing because there was no trail for the contempt which is bollocks. Now you have changed your stance by using the word hearing which is what I have been trying to explain to you.

Ian they are your own words written so how can it be bollocks from me ? There was no trial, there was a hearing where no plea was given hence why Tommy has been released

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Opinion

He will be found guilty again in September and go back to prison.

Question:
Has anyone on here had their views on TR changed after reading up on him? Either way.
I understand it's a hard thing to admit and we are all guilty of believing what we have read. (Why wouldn't we?)
I know that some controversy was caused at the mere mention of his name on a previous thread and i was even put down for asking a question even though my own views were not expressed.

I've seen less important non related topics discussed here. You could argue that Cardiff City with a proud history of multi multiculturalism that has been harmonious has more right than anyone to discuss the issues that face us. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is going away.

Simply name calling and put downs is one reason that the debate never gets anywhere so you could say that this is also complicit in adding to the problems we have.

There are many outlets on offer to us these days besides the mainstream and trust me they are worth looking at.
Simply banding the words far right and far left are not arguments without proof of a political bias. Proof is not something that the newspaper has fed us either by the way.

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Opinion

He will be found guilty again in September and go back to prison.

Bollocks he never entrered a plea ,read the appeal yesturday please

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Opinion

He will be found guilty again in September and go back to prison.

Sorry what a load of bollocks. Your Facts is let’s say is bullshit

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Opinion

He will be found guilty again in September and go back to prison.

Sorry what a load of bollocks. Your Facts is let’s say is bullshit

I know dave and co love peddling fake news ,no plea,no due process,the appeal judges werent even sure any offence was even committed

Fantastic news like a new signing

Most people see him as a right winger but I’d play him right of centre.

Bollocks he never entrered a plea ,read the appeal yesturday please

19. Counsel indicted that he had seen part of the video and said "I anticipate that the
instructions I have … will form mitigation … as opposed to a defence to the contempt."
There was then a reference to the suspended committal order in force.

20. ...Through
counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused. In mitigation it was emphasised that the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.....

Bollocks he never entrered a plea ,read the appeal yesturday please

19. Counsel indicted that he had seen part of the video and said "I anticipate that the
instructions I have … will form mitigation … as opposed to a defence to the contempt."
There was then a reference to the suspended committal order in force.

20. ...Through
counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused. In mitigation it was emphasised that the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.....

So where is the plea guilty or not guilty then ?

Bollocks he never entrered a plea ,read the appeal yesturday please

19. Counsel indicted that he had seen part of the video and said "I anticipate that the
instructions I have … will form mitigation … as opposed to a defence to the contempt."
There was then a reference to the suspended committal order in force.

20. ...Through
counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused. In mitigation it was emphasised that the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.....

So where is the plea guilty or not guilty then ?

what part of the above is confusing you?

19. He is not defending the contempt
20. He is very sorry for committing contempt of court , but, he did not think he was doing anything wrong.

Bollocks he never entrered a plea ,read the appeal yesturday please

19. Counsel indicted that he had seen part of the video and said "I anticipate that the
instructions I have … will form mitigation … as opposed to a defence to the contempt."
There was then a reference to the suspended committal order in force.

20. ...Through
counsel, the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused. In mitigation it was emphasised that the
appellant had known there was a reporting restriction but had believed that he was not
falling foul of the order by what he had done.....

So where is the plea guilty or not guilty then ?

what part of the above is confusing you?

19. He is not defending the contempt
20. He is very sorry for committing contempt of court , but, he did not think he was doing anything wrong.

He was saying he didnt think he was committing an offence and tge appeal jugdes yeatyesturday backed him other wise they would of not granted the appeal so were did he make a guilty plea ? There was no plea entered so you have been lying in your poats !

He was saying he didnt think he was committing an offence

the appellant expressed deep regret for the “breach of integrity of the court
system” which his actions had caused

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/ ... 80/photo/1

Even The Sun is taking a stand against Steven.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1024925435673620480/photo/1

Even The Sun is taking a stand against Steven.

the sun

Lets look at what he did.
He knowingly made a video and encouraged people to share it where he reported on a trial that at that time had an order barring its reporting until the conclusion of a linked trial. That enough is the literal definition of contempt of court. The fact he was already on a suspended sentence for contempt of court meant he was always going to get himself into some kind of trouble for doing it again.

If anyone actually wants to read what is going on rather than just believing your lovely conspiracy theories, have a look at https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Regardless of what anyone else has said, the above are the facts here.

the appeal judges werent even sure any offence was even committed

If that was the case he would have been acquitted.

Lets look at what he did.
He knowingly made a video and encouraged people to share it where he reported on a trial that at that time had an order barring its reporting until the conclusion of a linked trial. That enough is the literal definition of contempt of court. The fact he was already on a suspended sentence for contempt of court meant he was always going to get himself into some kind of trouble for doing it again.

If anyone actually wants to read what is going on rather than just believing your lovely conspiracy theories, have a look at https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Regardless of what anyone else has said, the above are the facts here.

the appeal judges werent even sure any offence was even committed

If that was the case he would have been acquitted.

Maybe get your facts right before shutting down others TR never pleaded guilty, in contempt of Court cases you don't plead guilty or not guilty.

Given you got that wrong I'd pretty much ignore the rest of your points.

Maybe get your facts right before shutting down others TR never pleaded guilty, in contempt of Court cases you don't plead guilty or not guilty.

Given you got that wrong I'd pretty much ignore the rest of your points.

Through his barrister he admitted he was in breach of the reporting restrictions in place. That means he admitted being in contempt of court. Why can't certain people understand that?

Question:
Has anyone on here had their views on TR changed after reading up on him? Either way.
I understand it's a hard thing to admit and we are all guilty of believing what we have read. (Why wouldn't we?)
I know that some controversy was caused at the mere mention of his name on a previous thread and i was even put down for asking a question even though my own views were not expressed.

I've seen less important non related topics discussed here. You could argue that Cardiff City with a proud history of multi multiculturalism that has been harmonious has more right than anyone to discuss the issues that face us. Don't be fooled into thinking that this is going away.

Simply name calling and put downs is one reason that the debate never gets anywhere so you could say that this is also complicit in adding to the problems we have.

There are many outlets on offer to us these days besides the mainstream and trust me they are worth looking at.
Simply banding the words far right and far left are not arguments without proof of a political bias. Proof is not something that the newspaper has fed us either by the way.

I'll take that as a resounding NO then.

Lets look at what he did.
He knowingly made a video and encouraged people to share it where he reported on a trial that at that time had an order barring its reporting until the conclusion of a linked trial. That enough is the literal definition of contempt of court. The fact he was already on a suspended sentence for contempt of court meant he was always going to get himself into some kind of trouble for doing it again.

If anyone actually wants to read what is going on rather than just believing your lovely conspiracy theories, have a look at https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/

Facts

He was under a suspended 3 month sentence for contempt of court when he was arrested

He pleaded guilty to a further offence of contempt of court gaining him a 13 month sentence.

He appealed on the procedural basis that he did not have sufficient time to prepare a case.

The appeal was upheld.

A re-trail will be held in September, heard by a different judge, allowing him sufficient time to prepare a case.

Regardless of what anyone else has said, the above are the facts here.

the appeal judges werent even sure any offence was even committed

If that was the case he would have been acquitted.

Maybe get your facts right before shutting down others TR never pleaded guilty, in contempt of Court cases you don't plead guilty or not guilty.

Given you got that wrong I'd pretty much ignore the rest of your points.

just read through the comprehensive blog post about this on the secret barrister that WelshPatriot posted.

Highlighly recommended.

Maybe get your facts right before shutting down others TR never pleaded guilty, in contempt of Court cases you don't plead guilty or not guilty.

Given you got that wrong I'd pretty much ignore the rest of your points.

Through his barrister he admitted he was in breach of the reporting restrictions in place. That means he admitted being in contempt of court. Why can't certain people understand that?

Your the one claiming to be holding a the facts.

you claimed he pleaded guilty when the fact is in a contempt of court trial you don't enter a plea so factually you are incorrect.

You say about his admission maybe read the appeal judges papers his admission was based on incorrect/lack of information given to him a legal right. So again your spouting nonsense.

Like I said stop shutting people down when you yourself are posting incorrect information.

Your the one claiming to be holding a the facts.

you claimed he pleaded guilty when the fact is in a contempt of court trial you don't enter a plea so factually you are incorrect.

You say about his admission maybe read the appeal judges papers his admission was based on incorrect/lack of information given to him a legal right. So again your spouting nonsense.

Like I said stop shutting people down when you yourself are posting incorrect information.

Ok lets do this step by step.

Tommy Robinson "reports" from an ongoing court case and includes details of the defendants (I am going to ignore the way he acted towards them as they came into the court).

That court case had reporting restrictions around it due to other linked trials going on (basically there were multiple trials instead of just one because of the number of defendants).

Reporting details of a trial while there are reporting restrictions around it is classed as being in contempt of court.

Tommy Robinson admitted he reporting from that case whilst knowing there were reporting restriction in place, and so by very definition he admitted, in court, to being in contempt of court.

The appeal was based on 3 points. One that the case was rushed. This is the main reason why the appeal was successful. The other two points are related to technicalities in procedure (which is quite ironic because what he was doing outside that court case could have easily led to people being found not guilty / let off on technicalities). The first one was at the initial case in Canterbury where he got the suspended sentence, but the appeal court decided this wasn't relevant because his own legal team was aware of this and was complicit in it (basically ignoring the issue until it became useful instead of actually bring it up when they knew about it). The second one was about the judge being slighly fuzzy and bringing in other details about the video that were not really relevant to the contempt of court charge, and is the second, more minor, reason why the appeal was successful.

Neither of that means he is now not guilty or that the appeal court thought there isn't a case to answer though.
Indeed the appeal court specifically said that "“the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served". The fact is reporting a case when there are restrictions around that case is contempt of court. And that is what Robinson did.

Your the one claiming to be holding a the facts.

you claimed he pleaded guilty when the fact is in a contempt of court trial you don't enter a plea so factually you are incorrect.

You say about his admission maybe read the appeal judges papers his admission was based on incorrect/lack of information given to him a legal right. So again your spouting nonsense.

Like I said stop shutting people down when you yourself are posting incorrect information.

Ok lets do this step by step.

Tommy Robinson "reports" from an ongoing court case and includes details of the defendants (I am going to ignore the way he acted towards them as they came into the court).

That court case had reporting restrictions around it due to other linked trials going on (basically there were multiple trials instead of just one because of the number of defendants).

Reporting details of a trial while there are reporting restrictions around it is classed as being in contempt of court.

Tommy Robinson admitted he reporting from that case whilst knowing there were reporting restriction in place, and so by very definition he admitted, in court, to being in contempt of court.

The appeal was based on 3 points. One that the case was rushed. This is the main reason why the appeal was successful. The other two points are related to technicalities in procedure (which is quite ironic because what he was doing outside that court case could have easily led to people being found not guilty / let off on technicalities). The first one was at the initial case in Canterbury where he got the suspended sentence, but the appeal court decided this wasn't relevant because his own legal team was aware of this and was complicit in it (basically ignoring the issue until it became useful instead of actually bring it up when they knew about it). The second one was about the judge being slighly fuzzy and bringing in other details about the video that were not really relevant to the contempt of court charge, and is the second, more minor, reason why the appeal was successful.

Neither of that means he is now not guilty or that the appeal court thought there isn't a case to answer though.
Indeed the appeal court specifically said that "“the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served". The fact is reporting a case when there are restrictions around that case is contempt of court. And that is what Robinson did.

Your not a lawyer, your just a very tedious man.

Your not a lawyer, your just a very tedious man.

How about you read the link I provided then, which I have just paraphrased, which was written by a lawyer?
Or maybe you want to actually reply to the specific points in my post you disagree with?