Ot,tommy robinson wins appeal

A crashing bore indeed Jock.

Tommy Robinson needs to set up a new media organisation. The Real BBC perhaps? The present incumbents are imposters.

This is why tommy has a case
nicked off facebook the person who wrote this is a qc

A judge can not look out of a window and say that is a crime

Under common law
Cause
No harm
No loss
No injury

Only a living human can bring a criminal case
the Police or Crown can not
thats why they state in court the people against

Meaning only the prosecutor party ad hoc vitui de facto...

Meaning

The government presented unlawful evidence

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.

*WelshBluebird! Patriot wouldn’t post fact, only conspiracy from his fellow nut jobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL2Q57b48w

Decent analysis of the situation from Sargon of Akkad here for those that are interested - also references The Secret Barrister referenced earlier in the thread

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.

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

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.

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

what the f**k was he there for then! i thought the point of tommy was he is providing us with news that the mainstream media were trying to suppress, or ignoring, but now apparently he's just reading out news that is readily available on the bbc! what exactly is he trying to achieve if he's just reciting a bbc news article?

also as i understand it, this set of trials is very broad, with interconnected trials and defendants, it's not as if this trial that TR was reporting from (the one which was in deliberation) was going to put everyone involved behind bars. which is why influencing the trial (or more accurately, giving the other defendants' lawyers a reason to push for a mistrial by saying that the trial had been influenced) is still an issue. Whether anyone agrees with it or not, the way in which TR was reporting the trial cant really be described as unbiased. (the bbc article is still out there and if you read it you'll see its very matter of fact, written by the courts style statement). TR was likely suggesting guilt, as i'm sure many other newspapers would have done, which is one of the many reasons for the media blackout on these trials. (its not a f*cking leftist conspiracy its common sense by people who want to see these people behind bars as much as the rest of us!).

so he's basically just reading out information that everyone already had access to, and in doing so putting cases which have taken prosecutors countless hours to compile, at risk. based on that, i hope you can understand why people would like to see him in out of the way for a while! (not that i want to see him inside i just want to see him shut the f**k up to be honest).

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

these posts are looking more and more like the incoherent rants of a deluded inmate scribbling frantically with a coloured crayon on their cell wall.

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

these posts are looking more and more like the incoherent rants of a deluded inmate scribbling frantically with a coloured crayon on their cell wall.

Did you watch the tommy Robinson interview last night ? No plea,his solicitor enailed not to come coz hes being released then taken straight to court to be sentanced without his legal team ,it stinks and still you defend the judge

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

these posts are looking more and more like the incoherent rants of a deluded inmate scribbling frantically with a coloured crayon on their cell wall.

what a come back eh...
when the facts are against you argue the law
when the law is against you argue the facts
when the facts and the law are against you sound like a spoilt little child and throw insults.

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

these posts are looking more and more like the incoherent rants of a deluded inmate scribbling frantically with a coloured crayon on their cell wall.

Did you watch the tommy Robinson interview last night ? No plea,his solicitor enailed not to come coz hes being released then taken straight to court to be sentanced without his legal team ,it stinks and still you defend the judge

he isnt much interested in the rights and wrongs of this mate, he just doesnt like TR ..and thinks being locked up without due process is fine for those he doesnt like.

Came back to this forum to find you’re all a bunch of English Defence League supporters.

Sheesh. I’m out of here.

Came back to this forum to find you’re all a bunch of English Defence League supporters.

Sheesh. I’m out of here.

wanting the legal system to work as intended doesnt make someone English Defence League any more than it makes them a Giraffe...
dont for one second understand anyone that thinks arrested and jailed in no time at all is ok tbh.
it really is what youd expect to find in a fascist dictatorship yet there are plenty who actually think that they are anti fascists but at the same time want basic human rights and laws side stepped and people they dont like dragged off the street an thrown in jail..
whats really really strange is that they want those accused of the most horrible crimes given all the rights they would deny others.
sheesh indeed.

wanting the legal system to work as intended

You don't see the irony in claiming you want the legal system to work as intended but support someone who is a serial criminal who was breaking the law and putting trails at risk?

he isnt much interested in the rights and wrongs of this mate, he just doesnt like TR ..and thinks being locked up without due process is fine for those he doesnt like.

The rights and wrongs - like TR breaking the law and thus needing to face the consequences you mean?

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

Let me guess - you didn't bother reading the link?
I don't want him locked up because he has different opinions to me. I want him locked up because he is a serial criminal who continues to break the law of this country.

wanting the legal system to work as intended

You don't see the irony in claiming you want the legal system to work as intended but support someone who is a serial criminal who was breaking the law and putting trails at risk?

he isnt much interested in the rights and wrongs of this mate, he just doesnt like TR ..and thinks being locked up without due process is fine for those he doesnt like.

The rights and wrongs - like TR breaking the law and thus needing to face the consequences you mean?

Feck me scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Reporting restrictions ? Tommy was reading WHAT WAS ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN,. He was reading from the BBC website so please tell me again what freaking reporting restrictions ? That was just made up Bull shit. How could he also effect the trial. The jury had been sent to a very quiet room to consider the evidence.
You lefties are so desperate 5o get him locked up and why ? Because he has different opinions to you. Look you have different opinions to me and despite you being a patronising Liberal I wouldn’t want to see you locked up.
Now one thing do you think the way he was treated once inside fair ?

Let me guess - you didn't bother reading the link?
I don't want him locked up because he has different opinions to me. I want him locked up because he is a serial criminal who continues to break the law of this country.

i do see the irony .its that you want a group of peados and rapists to be treated fairly and by the letter of the law but deperately dont want to extend it to TR because you dont like him..

the rights and wrongs...a court of law will decide as it did yesterday ..not you and your lynch mob.

as for being a TR supporter..i dont watch his videos, give him money, go to demos..but do think he is not being trewated fairly
people like you frighten me far more than people like him....you dont accept the law is for everyone

serial criminal...grow up and take a long hard look at the case he was outside the court for ffs.

i do see the irony .its that you want a group of peados and rapists to be treated fairly and by the letter of the law but deperately dont want to extend it to TR because you dont like him.

Nothing of what I said is because I don't like him. It is because he has broken the law and been convicted of that multiple times.

the rights and wrongs...a court of law will decide as it did yesterday ..not you and your lynch mob.

Indeed a court will. As a court has multiple times when it comes to him because he is a common serial criminal.

as for being a TR supporter..i dont watch his videos, give him money, go to demos..but do think he is not being trewated fairly
people like you frighten me far more than people like him....you dont accept the law is for everyone

How is he not being treated fairly?
He broke the law. He got a suspended sentence for that with the warning that if he broke the same law again he'd end up inside.
He then goes and breaks the same law again. What did he expect what would happen?
Hell, the fact his appeal has been successful suggests the system does work and he is being treated as anyone else would be.

serial criminal...grow up and take a long hard look at the case he was outside the court for ffs.

Yes. Maybe have a look at his history. Hell even his pseudonym is a nod to his past. He is a criminal, and has been for a long time.

i do see the irony .its that you want a group of peados and rapists to be treated fairly and by the letter of the law but deperately dont want to extend it to TR because you dont like him.

Nothing of what I said is because I don't like him. It is because he has broken the law and been convicted of that multiple times.

the rights and wrongs...a court of law will decide as it did yesterday ..not you and your lynch mob.

Indeed a court will. As a court has multiple times when it comes to him because he is a common serial criminal.

as for being a TR supporter..i dont watch his videos, give him money, go to demos..but do think he is not being trewated fairly
people like you frighten me far more than people like him....you dont accept the law is for everyone

How is he not being treated fairly?
He broke the law. He got a suspended sentence for that with the warning that if he broke the same law again he'd end up inside.
He then goes and breaks the same law again. What did he expect what would happen?
Hell, the fact his appeal has been successful suggests the system does work and he is being treated as anyone else would be.

serial criminal...grow up and take a long hard look at the case he was outside the court for ffs.

Yes. Maybe have a look at his history. Hell even his pseudonym is a nod to his past. He is a criminal, and has been for a long time.

All this is flawed you keep saying he broke the law but the conviction was quashed hence why he was released ,so as on now hes innocent untill proven guilty whuch by the looks of it hes inocent

i do see the irony .its that you want a group of peados and rapists to be treated fairly and by the letter of the law but deperately dont want to extend it to TR because you dont like him.

Nothing of what I said is because I don't like him. It is because he has broken the law and been convicted of that multiple times.

the rights and wrongs...a court of law will decide as it did yesterday ..not you and your lynch mob.

Indeed a court will. As a court has multiple times when it comes to him because he is a common serial criminal.

as for being a TR supporter..i dont watch his videos, give him money, go to demos..but do think he is not being trewated fairly
people like you frighten me far more than people like him....you dont accept the law is for everyone

How is he not being treated fairly?
He broke the law. He got a suspended sentence for that with the warning that if he broke the same law again he'd end up inside.
He then goes and breaks the same law again. What did he expect what would happen?
Hell, the fact his appeal has been successful suggests the system does work and he is being treated as anyone else would be.

serial criminal...grow up and take a long hard look at the case he was outside the court for ffs.

Yes. Maybe have a look at his history. Hell even his pseudonym is a nod to his past. He is a criminal, and has been for a long time.

All this is flawed you keep saying he broke the law but the conviction was quashed hence why he was released ,so as on now hes innocent untill proven guilty whuch by the looks of it hes inocent

He has not been acquitted but been offered another hearing. This is due to the fact the court process for the Leeds contempt was not followed very well. It should have been adjourned for the General Adjourny and not the local judge. Adding to that there is a question over why it was judged a crime.

Basically the rehearing will put this all back on track and expect Robinson ot be resent back to jail.

All this is flawed you keep saying he broke the law but the conviction was quashed hence why he was released ,so as on now hes innocent untill proven guilty whuch by the looks of it hes inocent

Ok so are you denying he wasn't convicted of assaulted a police officer? Or of being involved with football hooliganism? Or of breaching bail conditions? Or of assault against another EDL member? Or entering the US illegally? Or mortgage fraud? Or of contempt of court last year?

Pretty long list there if you ask me.

As for this case and this appeal, he has not been acquitted (so has not been found "not guilty"). It will go for a retrial. I am not sure how you can say "by the looks of it hes innocent" when the main reason the appeal was successful was because the initial trial was rushed. If the court of appeal actually thought he was innocent they would have acquitted him. But they didn't because the appeal was successful on the process of law, not on the question of if he was innocent or not.

All this is flawed you keep saying he broke the law but the conviction was quashed hence why he was released ,so as on now hes innocent untill proven guilty whuch by the looks of it hes inocent

Ok so are you denying he wasn't convicted of assaulted a police officer? Or of being involved with football hooliganism? Or of breaching bail conditions? Or of assault against another EDL member? Or entering the US illegally? Or mortgage fraud? Or of contempt of court last year?

Pretty long list there if you ask me.

As for this case and this appeal, he has not been acquitted (so has not been found "not guilty"). It will go for a retrial. I am not sure how you can say "by the looks of it hes innocent" when the main reason the appeal was successful was because the initial trial was rushed. If the court of appeal actually thought he was innocent they would have acquitted him. But they didn't because the appeal was successful on the process of law, not on the question of if he was innocent or not.

Adding to that his legal team are claiming protocol was not followed NOT that he is innocent of contempt. They know if he claimed that he will have the book thrown at him.

Regardless of whether the retrial finds him guilty what is clear after him being granted bail is that the original hearing was at best bungled due to incompetence and at worst a kangaroo court and TR wasn't given the full rights to a fair trial that should have been afforded to him as a British citizen.

It is also not to big a leap to infer that this was largely to do with who he was rather than what he did - and that should terrify you regardless of your political leaning...

We should heed the warnings of history...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller

Regardless of whether the retrial finds him guilty what is clear after him being granted bail is that the original hearing was at best bungled due to incompetence and at worst a kangaroo court and TR wasn't given the full rights to a fair trial that should have been afforded to him as a British citizen.

It is also not to big a leap to infer that this was largely to do with who he was rather than what he did - and that should terrify you regardless of your political leaning...

We should heed the warnings of history...

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller

i wish they'd hurry up and come for the socialists!

Regardless of whether the retrial finds him guilty what is clear after him being granted bail is that the original hearing was at best bungled due to incompetence and at worst a kangaroo court and TR wasn't given the full rights to a fair trial that should have been afforded to him as a British citizen.

It is also not to big a leap to infer that this was largely to do with who he was rather than what he did - and that should terrify you regardless of your political leaning...

Well except that isn't what happened at all. Read the damn appeal judgement. I'll make it easy:

We recognise that the judge was placed in an invidious position because he was concerned about the integrity of the trial which was almost at its end. The three trials, of which this was the second, were exceptionally difficult and sensitive. Having decided to suspend the deliberations of the jury, it is understandable that he may have felt under some pressure to resolve the issue of the appellant’s contempt expeditiously

Basically what it sounds like appeal court thought is that the judge felt under pressure to rush the case because of that fact it was a contempt of court case relating to a case that was still ongoing. Nothing at all to do with who is is, his political leanings etc etc. Now yes, because of that the appeal court believes the trial wasn't fair hence the retrial. If the court of appeal actually did think he was only convicted because of who he was and that, as you say, it was a "kangaroo court", then they could have acquitted him.

i do see the irony .its that you want a group of peados and rapists to be treated fairly and by the letter of the law but deperately dont want to extend it to TR because you dont like him.

Nothing of what I said is because I don't like him. It is because he has broken the law and been convicted of that multiple times.

the rights and wrongs...a court of law will decide as it did yesterday ..not you and your lynch mob.

Indeed a court will. As a court has multiple times when it comes to him because he is a common serial criminal.

as for being a TR supporter..i dont watch his videos, give him money, go to demos..but do think he is not being trewated fairly
people like you frighten me far more than people like him....you dont accept the law is for everyone

How is he not being treated fairly?
He broke the law. He got a suspended sentence for that with the warning that if he broke the same law again he'd end up inside.
He then goes and breaks the same law again. What did he expect what would happen?
Hell, the fact his appeal has been successful suggests the system does work and he is being treated as anyone else would be.

serial criminal...grow up and take a long hard look at the case he was outside the court for ffs.

Yes. Maybe have a look at his history. Hell even his pseudonym is a nod to his past. He is a criminal, and has been for a long time.

the fact that you keep on going on about previous convictions and especially his pseudonym suggests your not really interested in what is or is not just.its just self justification to be able to go against your own beliefs
fairly.?.id imagine fair to most people is being treated equally and by the book ,this wasnt the case.and was why the appeal judges released him...
what did he expect....at worse..arrested taken to police station..charged..released on bail or remanded awaiting trial..and then his day in court with representation..its what anyone and everyone should expect..not a kangaroo court and a bunch of total beauts defending infringments on ALL our rights..
blows my mind that there is anyone let alone a group of people that think rapists and peados deserve fair trials and have rights yet dont afford those rights across the board to people they dont agree with.....it really is very close to fascist behaviour

the fact that you keep on going on about previous convictions and especially his pseudonym suggests your not really interested in what is or is not just.its just self justification to be able to go against your own beliefs
fairly.?.id imagine fair to most people is being treated equally and by the book ,this wasnt the case.and was why the appeal judges released him...
what did he expect....at worse..arrested taken to police station..charged..released on bail or remanded awaiting trial..and then his day in court with representation..its what anyone and everyone should expect..not a kangaroo court and a bunch of total beauts defending infringments on ALL our rights..
blows my mind that there is anyone let alone a group of people that think rapists and peados deserve fair trials and have rights yet dont afford those rights across the board to people they dont agree with.....it really is very close to fascist behaviour

You may want to read what I've actually said. That if the court of appeal feel there are issues with the original trial, then it is perfectly right that the appeal was successful and a retrial organised.

The issues with the original trial in no way make TR's behaviour any better though. The fact remains that he knowingly committed a criminal act (as I said earlier, what he did does fall under the definition of contempt of court - the appeal succeeded not because they didn't think it did, but because there were issues with how the initial case was carried out) whilst on a suspended sentence for the same criminal act a year prior.

The reason I mention previous convictions is not because of the legal implications there (it is important trials are conducted on the offence in question), but when discussing issues like this I think it is important to take note of someones character. Especially when he does interviews claiming he is being singled out and treated worse than anyone else would have been. Do you really trust the word of someone who is a serial convicted criminal with both violent crime and fraud on his list?

Also - I can't ignore the irony of fascist being banded about by people who are supported someone who set up a far right group that attracted neo nazis and fascists (I accept he left the group partly because of that, or at least he claims that was part of the reason, but the irony is still there).

the fact that you keep on going on about previous convictions and especially his pseudonym suggests your not really interested in what is or is not just.its just self justification to be able to go against your own beliefs
fairly.?.id imagine fair to most people is being treated equally and by the book ,this wasnt the case.and was why the appeal judges released him...
what did he expect....at worse..arrested taken to police station..charged..released on bail or remanded awaiting trial..and then his day in court with representation..its what anyone and everyone should expect..not a kangaroo court and a bunch of total beauts defending infringments on ALL our rights..
blows my mind that there is anyone let alone a group of people that think rapists and peados deserve fair trials and have rights yet dont afford those rights across the board to people they dont agree with.....it really is very close to fascist behaviour

You may want to read what I've actually said. That if the court of appeal feel there are issues with the original trial, then it is perfectly right that the appeal was successful and a retrial organised.

The issues with the original trial in no way make TR's behaviour any better though. The fact remains that he knowingly committed a criminal act (as I said earlier, what he did does fall under the definition of contempt of court - the appeal succeeded not because they didn't think it did, but because there were issues with how the initial case was carried out) whilst on a suspended sentence for the same criminal act a year prior.

The reason I mention previous convictions is not because of the legal implications there (it is important trials are conducted on the offence in question), but when discussing issues like this I think it is important to take note of someones character. Especially when he does interviews claiming he is being singled out and treated worse than anyone else would have been. Do you really trust the word of someone who is a serial convicted criminal with both violent crime and fraud on his list?

Also - I can't ignore the irony of fascist being banded about by people who are supported someone who set up a far right group that attracted neo nazis and fascists (I accept he left the group partly because of that, or at least he claims that was part of the reason, but the irony is still there).

not sure you know what a fascist is....its certainly not wanting fair play and fair treatment for all...or in fact the word irony...its those on your side of the arguement that condon different treatment for different people..
previous convictions shouldnt come into it..what on earth has a football banning order have to do with a grooming trial..?
the list looks pathetic tbh mostly unrelated things...and as for the name change which gets 10 mentions a day..i doubt very much your real name is welshbluebird as mine is not dogfound are we doing anything wrong..nope..so why keep listing it.?

Regardless of whether the retrial finds him guilty what is clear after him being granted bail is that the original hearing was at best bungled due to incompetence and at worst a kangaroo court and TR wasn't given the full rights to a fair trial that should have been afforded to him as a British citizen.

It is also not to big a leap to infer that this was largely to do with who he was rather than what he did - and that should terrify you regardless of your political leaning...

Well except that isn't what happened at all. Read the damn appeal judgement. I'll make it easy:

We recognise that the judge was placed in an invidious position because he was concerned about the integrity of the trial which was almost at its end. The three trials, of which this was the second, were exceptionally difficult and sensitive. Having decided to suspend the deliberations of the jury, it is understandable that he may have felt under some pressure to resolve the issue of the appellant’s contempt expeditiously

Basically what it sounds like appeal court thought is that the judge felt under pressure to rush the case because of that fact it was a contempt of court case relating to a case that was still ongoing. Nothing at all to do with who is is, his political leanings etc etc. Now yes, because of that the appeal court believes the trial wasn't fair hence the retrial. If the court of appeal actually did think he was only convicted because of who he was and that, as you say, it was a "kangaroo court", then they could have acquitted him.

I was very deliberate in the way my post was phrased to not only suggest a range of potential reasons (at best to worst) of why this hearing required retrial but also to seperate the actions of that hearing away from possible (yet feasible) inference of the drivers behind those actions happening.

It is empirical fact that their were flaws in the trial (or to put it another way it was bungled due to incompetence) his subsequent bail and retrial are indicative of this.

At the other end of the spectrum the rapid prosecution and sentencing and the defendant's lack of opportunity to put together a suitable defence based on all available evidence, certainly tick the boxes of a kangaroo court. The only thing in question in that regard is whether the judge was acting with appropriate authority (something light handidly questioned in the appeal judgement)

So somewhere within this spectrum the actual reality of what happened lies. That is irrefutable.

However,the underlying reason why that happened, can currently not be know and it seems you are conflating these two points within my post.

Given TRs sentencing for previous 'crimes' which have seen disproprtionate sentencing and that only ever occurred after he became a prominent and popular outspoken critic of the establishment, a case could certainly be built that infers, or if you prefer to use a different synonym interpretes, that his imprisonment in this instance was potentially political motivated .

That is not fact but simply a hypothesis and supposition based on previous historical events. There is a clear distinction between these two points.



Somewhere between your black and white world view will live the truth which is invariably always a subtle a shade of grey.

Please don't let your prejudices blind you from that fact.

Have we signed Grujic yet?

Have we signed Grujic yet?

Bloody hope so think he'll play a big role if we do

Tommy Robinson. Peter Mandelson.

TR mortgage fraud...Jailed
PM mortgage fraud resigned but then gets Sec of State for Northern Ireland gig
TR. dodgy passport ...jailed
PM provides dodgy passport for businessman...Given a Peerage and a job for life in the House of Lords.

Funny old World.

Clearly, the Law has 'grey areas' and every Lawyer has an opinion. Furthermore the Bench reflects the establishment and the make up of the establishment is pretty clear these days.

Unlike others who I suspect are in a similar position I make no comment on the legal issues as I am not qualified in this area.
Nevertheless Mr Robinson has a tale to tell and here is his interview with Tucker Carlson following his release:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZZD89ucoI