News2 mins ago
Tommy Robinson Found Guilty.
91 Answers
Answers
The double standard (fed largely by malice and ignorance, I suggest) which applauds this prosecution is extraordinar
00:53 Sun 07th Jul 2019
A few comments on the verdict already yesterday.
https:/
https:/
Initially TR was late for court and had to be forced inside and even the bus it seems outstays its welcome.
Not been good times of late for him having being trounced in the European elections earlier.
No matter for him, he will be back on stage soon playing to his band of followers.
Can you imagine his autobiography when it eventually comes out?
Not been good times of late for him having being trounced in the European elections earlier.
No matter for him, he will be back on stage soon playing to his band of followers.
Can you imagine his autobiography when it eventually comes out?
Spicerack,
It has now been revealed exactly how close to causing the second trial to collapse, Robinson’s actions came. Barristers representing the men eventually found guilty had made a legal submission to the trial judge to dismiss the jury on the probability that they MUST have seen the Robinson film. Fortunately after lengthy deliberations, the Trial Judge denied the request. But it could form the basis of an appeal.
// Four days after Robinson was originally jailed for contempt of court, defence lawyers launched an application to discharge the jury – a move that would have forced a lengthy retrial or ended the grooming case completely.
Lawyers defending members of the gang then argued it was “inconceivable” that jurors had not seen Robinson’s live stream, which would prejudice them against their clients.
Bunty Batra, a barrister representing rapist Faisal Nadeem, said the video had been viewed 3.5 million times, amid an international furore over Robinson’s imprisonment and protests in London.
“In my respectful submission these circumstances are so unprecedented, it is inconceivable when you have 3.5 million hits on the internet that this information has not come to the attention of this jury,” Mr Batra told the court.
“It is inconceivable that the jury have not been spoken to by others, whether they themselves were looking for the information matters or not.”
He argued that the jury could be biased against the defendants by watching the stream, where Robinson talked of “hundreds of young girls being gang-raped in our country, in every town and city” by “Muslim grooming gangs”.
He pointed out that several defendants were called Mohammed and urged viewers to look for a “common denominator”.
Defence lawyers representing four other members of the grooming gang backed the application. One said Robinson had listed allegations that were dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Following lengthy legal arguments, Judge Marson dismissed the application and refused to question members of the jury on whether they had watched Robinson’s video. //
It has now been revealed exactly how close to causing the second trial to collapse, Robinson’s actions came. Barristers representing the men eventually found guilty had made a legal submission to the trial judge to dismiss the jury on the probability that they MUST have seen the Robinson film. Fortunately after lengthy deliberations, the Trial Judge denied the request. But it could form the basis of an appeal.
// Four days after Robinson was originally jailed for contempt of court, defence lawyers launched an application to discharge the jury – a move that would have forced a lengthy retrial or ended the grooming case completely.
Lawyers defending members of the gang then argued it was “inconceivable” that jurors had not seen Robinson’s live stream, which would prejudice them against their clients.
Bunty Batra, a barrister representing rapist Faisal Nadeem, said the video had been viewed 3.5 million times, amid an international furore over Robinson’s imprisonment and protests in London.
“In my respectful submission these circumstances are so unprecedented, it is inconceivable when you have 3.5 million hits on the internet that this information has not come to the attention of this jury,” Mr Batra told the court.
“It is inconceivable that the jury have not been spoken to by others, whether they themselves were looking for the information matters or not.”
He argued that the jury could be biased against the defendants by watching the stream, where Robinson talked of “hundreds of young girls being gang-raped in our country, in every town and city” by “Muslim grooming gangs”.
He pointed out that several defendants were called Mohammed and urged viewers to look for a “common denominator”.
Defence lawyers representing four other members of the grooming gang backed the application. One said Robinson had listed allegations that were dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Following lengthy legal arguments, Judge Marson dismissed the application and refused to question members of the jury on whether they had watched Robinson’s video. //
The defence appears to rest on the notion that 'Tommy Robinson' acted only in the way that the media act on a daily basis.
However, this overlooks one vital difference - the media respected the court ruling of a press embargo at the court, 'Tommy Robinson' elected not to do so, and this is the result.
However, this overlooks one vital difference - the media respected the court ruling of a press embargo at the court, 'Tommy Robinson' elected not to do so, and this is the result.
// he hasn't done anything that her and her BBC colleagues have done loads of times. //
If Adie ever came close to collapsing a trial (which I doubt) then of course she should have also been prosecuted. I am doubtful that when Adie was reporting, that journalists had the ability to “Live Stream” to millions of followers.
If Adie ever came close to collapsing a trial (which I doubt) then of course she should have also been prosecuted. I am doubtful that when Adie was reporting, that journalists had the ability to “Live Stream” to millions of followers.
The Contempt of Court Act only became law in 1981, and presumably its introduction was because the medias reporting were leading to unfair trials and influencing the judgements. The BBC and other organisations may once have reported freely on cases such as the Huddersfield 2nd Trial, but that would have been before the Act to safeguard fairness.
fender - // the government like to think inclusivity, don't rock the boat, less we upset a certain minority … //
Inclusivity in this case is about fair representation under the law, and that cannot be a bad thing.
People are innocent until proven guilty, so let's be sure we are applying that concept - you'd want it if it was you wouldn't you?
Inclusivity in this case is about fair representation under the law, and that cannot be a bad thing.
People are innocent until proven guilty, so let's be sure we are applying that concept - you'd want it if it was you wouldn't you?
The double standard (fed largely by malice and ignorance, I suggest) which applauds this prosecution is extraordinary.
Of course, Robinson as a marked man under a provisional sentence for contempt of court was quite needlessly and, you might think, provocatively standing outside a court a year later live-streaming stuff.
Despite that you might ask why Robinson in a near empty street has attracted the attention of a paddy wagon with seven police officers, gets himself arrested for "breach of the peace" and is sent off to solitary for two months after a ten minute hearing. And why, after his release following the discovery of "procedural" errors in that hearing, the Attorney General has decided to recharge him with the same offence.
The prejudice to a fair trial (which is the basis of non-reporting restrictions) which hypocrites of all hues on the media and on this thread use to justify the malicious prosecution hardly apply in the actual case, as the guys Robinson was filming were returning to court in order to hear the verdict of the jury already decided on. (Admittedly, this was only one of three separate trials going on at the same time. So, at a stretch, TR may have been prejudicing the chances of the other rapists - as they were eventually determined to be - receiving a fair hearing).
On the general issue of contempt of court when reprting restrictions are ignored, does anyone know of other cases? And prosecutions? And the sentences dished out?
Of course, Robinson as a marked man under a provisional sentence for contempt of court was quite needlessly and, you might think, provocatively standing outside a court a year later live-streaming stuff.
Despite that you might ask why Robinson in a near empty street has attracted the attention of a paddy wagon with seven police officers, gets himself arrested for "breach of the peace" and is sent off to solitary for two months after a ten minute hearing. And why, after his release following the discovery of "procedural" errors in that hearing, the Attorney General has decided to recharge him with the same offence.
The prejudice to a fair trial (which is the basis of non-reporting restrictions) which hypocrites of all hues on the media and on this thread use to justify the malicious prosecution hardly apply in the actual case, as the guys Robinson was filming were returning to court in order to hear the verdict of the jury already decided on. (Admittedly, this was only one of three separate trials going on at the same time. So, at a stretch, TR may have been prejudicing the chances of the other rapists - as they were eventually determined to be - receiving a fair hearing).
On the general issue of contempt of court when reprting restrictions are ignored, does anyone know of other cases? And prosecutions? And the sentences dished out?
vetuste - // On the general issue of contempt of court when reprting restrictions are ignored, does anyone know of other cases? And prosecutions? And the sentences dished out? //
Probably few - if any - mainly because journalists who report court proceedings as a profession tend to be aware of, and obey the law.
Gobby attention-seeking chancers who have the gall to call themselves 'citizen journalists' (read - idiot with a webcam) don't - and this is the result.
Probably few - if any - mainly because journalists who report court proceedings as a profession tend to be aware of, and obey the law.
Gobby attention-seeking chancers who have the gall to call themselves 'citizen journalists' (read - idiot with a webcam) don't - and this is the result.
//It's amazing that some ABers would rather condemn Tommy Robinson, rather than these pieces of scum//
There is nothing amazing about that at all. Depends on whether you think a twelve year old girl having vodka stuck down her throat and then being raped by ten Pakistanis is a price worth paying for the Muslim block vote.
There is nothing amazing about that at all. Depends on whether you think a twelve year old girl having vodka stuck down her throat and then being raped by ten Pakistanis is a price worth paying for the Muslim block vote.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.