Tommy Robinson

[JDog]

29 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Media gag order

And the use of that single instrument is why there has been so little mainstream reporting. However the cat is well and truly out of the bag due to social media.

[martyn2233]

like This https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5777821/amp/Tommy-Robinson-far-right-supporters-protest-Downing-Street-arrest.html

 

really don’t think there all far right don’t believe that for one minute 

[keg]

I don't disagree with his actions. This needs maximum publicity but the reason he went straight to prison is because he had already been warned that his actions previously had nearly lost a case and  could have allowed quite a few of a grooming gang go free, so whilst his ideal is to be admired in outing these gangs, he lack of knowledge can have the opposite effect.

 

 

[silver pigeon69]

8 minutes ago, keg said:

I don't disagree with his actions. This needs maximum publicity but the reason he went straight to prison is because he had already been warned that his actions previously had nearly lost a case and  could have allowed quite a few of a grooming gang go free, so whilst his ideal is to be admired in outing these gangs, he lack of knowledge can have the opposite effect.

 

 

I don't think anyones disputing the reason, the problem is he was not allowed legal representation, the authorities did not follow the correct legal process and then tried to cover this up with a "D" order.

Also if reporting outside a court on a pending case can affect the outcome of the case, then why are the press allowed to report on some cases but not others?? 

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by silver pigeon69

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, keg said:

I don't disagree with his actions. This needs maximum publicity but the reason he went straight to prison is because he had already been warned that his actions previously had nearly lost a case and  could have allowed quite a few of a grooming gang go free, so whilst his ideal is to be admired in outing these gangs, he lack of knowledge can have the opposite effect.

 

 

Id like to see how he jeopardised the case ?
If he is doing the 'private journo' thing outside the court in a public space, is he just doing what others are doing ,including journos with cameras ,and a world wide reach, he was on facebook live ! Outside a court, is that illegal now ??
Maybe if there wasnt gag order, the public could be told exactly what he did.
But they had him locked up faster than a fast thing !

[Vince Green]

A D notice is issued by the MOD (more or less, its a bit more complicated than that) to prevent discussions affecting national security. Not only in the press, it could theoretically cover this forum, its terms are loosely worded.

Although there have been many instances when D notices appear to have been mis-used to cover up cock ups and hide embarrassing mistakes. That's another story

What probably happened was the judge imposed a reporting restriction which Robinson was trying to breach using social media. That could/would be contempt of court and the judge has the power to send you straight to jail (do not pass go, do not collect £200) for contempt of his court.

This the Judge would be right to do if he felt Robinson was trying to undermine defendants rights to a fair trial. Given the nature of the case Robinson was at, that's not beyond the realms of possibility.

[AVB]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Yes, just found that out, but why ?

Any evidence of that? Often people quote that a D notice had been issued when they have no idea what one is or whether one has actually been issued or not. And they are advisory not compulsory. 

[Rewulf]

Just now, Vince Green said:

A D notice is issued by the MOD (more or less, its a bit more complicated than that) to prevent discussions affecting national security. Not only in the press, it could theoretically cover this forum, its terms are loosely worded.

Although there have been many instances when D notices appear to have been mis-used to cover up cock ups and hide embarrassing mistakes. That's another story

What probably happened was the judge imposed a reporting restriction which Robinson was trying to breach using social media. That could/would be contempt of court and the judge has the power to send you straight to jail (do not pass go, do not collect £200) for contempt of his court.

This the Judge would be right to do if he felt Robinson was trying to undermine defendants rights to a fair trial. Given the nature of the case Robinson was at, that's not beyond the realms of possibility.

In what possible way ?
Influencing the jury ?
Giving the names of the defendants ? a quick google https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/13/29-people-in-court-over-170-charges-of-sexual-exploitation-of-18-children-6571793/

If there was an explanation of what he had done, then there wouldnt be a half million names on a petition today, with people incensed about it.
Whatever he is , I dont think hes stupid enough to knowingly wreck a trial.

Talk about feeding the far right !

Just now, AVB said:

Any evidence of that? Often people quote that a D notice had been issued when they have no idea what one is or whether one has actually been issued or not. And they are advisory not compulsory. 

There isnt any evidence of it ! 
Breitbart published the redacted D order, but then took it down, or were told to.
Try googling why hes been locked up, or what hes been convicted of, good luck with that !

In the interest of national security? Really ?

[Scully]

So it’s nothing to do with the state fearing civil unrest if he’s allowed to have his say? 

[AVB]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

In what possible way ?
Influencing the jury ?
Giving the names of the defendants ? a quick google https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/13/29-people-in-court-over-170-charges-of-sexual-exploitation-of-18-children-6571793/

If there was an explanation of what he had done, then there wouldnt be a half million names on a petition today, with people incensed about it.
Whatever he is , I dont think hes stupid enough to knowingly wreck a trial.

Talk about feeding the far right !

There isnt any evidence of it ! 
Breitbart published the redacted D order, but then took it down, or were told to.
Try googling why hes been locked up, or what hes been convicted of, good luck with that !

In the interest of national security? Really ?

D noticed are issued by the MOD. I suspect no D notice exists for this. 

I suspect that the judge has placed reporting restrictions on the case. Which isn’t that unusual. 

[Nial]

I have read that because of the number of people who are accused in the grooming trials they have had to split that into 

several different trials. These are obviously very closely linked, and reporting on any of them has been banned until they 

are all finished so the defendents can't claim they didn't get a fair trial

Robinson pitched up and started 'reporting' on one of the trials, while it was on-going, and so was lifted.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it sounds plausible, and if they report his arrest it'll draw attention to the grooming trials, which 

was the whole problem in the first place. ?

 

[motty]

From what I know about Tommy Robinson, he appears to have been persecuted at every turn, and arrested and harrassed at every opportunity. This appears to follow that trend. None of the cases he investigates/follows get into mainstream media. Strange, that.

[AVB]

7 minutes ago, Nial said:

I have read that because of the number of people who are accused in the grooming trials they have had to split that into 

several different trials. These are obviously very closely linked, and reporting on any of them has been banned until they 

are all finished so the defendents can't claim they didn't get a fair trial

Robinson pitched up and started 'reporting' on one of the trials, while it was on-going, and so was lifted.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it sounds plausible, and if they report his arrest it'll draw attention to the grooming trials, which 

was the whole problem in the first place. ?

 

Which sounds most plausible. 

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Nial said:

I have read that because of the number of people who are accused in the grooming trials they have had to split that into 

several different trials. These are obviously very closely linked, and reporting on any of them has been banned until they 

are all finished so the defendents can't claim they didn't get a fair trial

Robinson pitched up and started 'reporting' on one of the trials, while it was on-going, and so was lifted.

I'm not sure how accurate this is but it sounds plausible, and if they report his arrest it'll draw attention to the grooming trials, which 

was the whole problem in the first place. ?

 

I think you are missing the point. if there was a reporting restriction on the trial(s), then anyone found to be contravening the restriction could have been warned against doing so.
However my link above gives the names of the defendants and charges, also there seems to be no issue in reporting TR s arrest, the gag order seems to concern his charges, trial (if there was one) and conviction/ sentencing, why would it not be in the public interest to know this?
Im sure there are plenty of people around the UK partying about it.

Can members of the public still witness the trial ?
Can people use their phones, cameras or internet on the street outside the court ?
Has anyone else ever heard of this happening before ?
If the general public are not allowed to speak of this trial ,which is in the public domain, should we not be informed, or given a reason why ?
Or is it just TR who is not allowed to report on it ?

17 minutes ago, AVB said:

Which sounds most plausible. 

Ive just thought, all of the accused are free on bail, so are free to discuss the case amongst themselves and immediate friends and family, so Im not sure how that works, as far as intermingling of trials.

[Rewulf]

36 minutes ago, Scully said:

So it’s nothing to do with the state fearing civil unrest if he’s allowed to have his say? 

Theres a higher probability of civil unrest if this is left as it is, and a virtual certainty if anything happens to him inside.

[Gordon R]

I am no supporter of Tommy Robinson. His focus seems to be aimed fairly and squarely at the Asian community, which is where his views and my own part company. That said, I have difficulty disputing much of what he says.

Whilst there might be a perfectly valid reason for all that has transpired, it seems that the wheels of justice have moved at jet speed, whilst those who preach about killing soldiers remain untouched. I find the whole way it has be dealt with just a bit sinister.

[timps]

59 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I think you are missing the point. if there was a reporting restriction on the trial(s), then anyone found to be contravening the restriction could have been warned against doing so.
However my link above gives the names of the defendants and charges, also there seems to be no issue in reporting TR s arrest, the gag order seems to concern his charges, trial (if there was one) and conviction/ sentencing, why would it not be in the public interest to know this?
Im sure there are plenty of people around the UK partying about it.

Can members of the public still witness the trial ?
Can people use their phones, cameras or internet on the street outside the court ?
Has anyone else ever heard of this happening before ?
If the general public are not allowed to speak of this trial ,which is in the public domain, should we not be informed, or given a reason why ?
Or is it just TR who is not allowed to report on it ?

Ive just thought, all of the accused are free on bail, so are free to discuss the case amongst themselves and immediate friends and family, so Im not sure how that works, as far as intermingling of trials.

Its ok to take a picture or film of a person away from the court however it is an offence under the criminal Justice act 1925 to take a photo of someone in court. According to section 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, in court.

“(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.”

So filming anyone leaving court whilst a case is in progress is a big no no and will land anyone in hot water. Take a picture of them walking the streets when they haven't just left court the case is being held at and say this is them and you don’t fall foul of this law hence why your link is not in breach of the law he was arrested for.   

Edited May 29, 2018 by timps

[Rewulf]

39 minutes ago, timps said:

Its ok to take a picture or film of a person away from the court however it is an offence under the criminal Justice act 1925 to take a photo of someone in court. According to section 41 Prohibition on taking photographs, in court.

“(c)a photograph, portrait or sketch shall be deemed to be a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made in court if it is taken or made in the court–room or in the building or in the precincts of the building in which the court is held, or if it is a photograph, portrait or sketch taken or made of the person while he is entering or leaving the court–room or any such building or precincts as aforesaid.”

So filming anyone leaving court whilst a case is in progress is a big no no and will land anyone in hot water. Take a picture of them walking the streets when they haven't just left court the case is being held at and say this is them and you don’t fall foul of this law hence why your link is not in breach of the law he was arrested for.   

Understood, however , journalists do this all the time and seem quite happy to do so, albeit they are breaking the law, harrassing ect.
I have heard that he shouted to one of the defendants as he was going into the building, perhaps asking a question, maybe abuse, or both.
It is said that this was the breach of the peace.

However we dont know for certain what the actual charges were, some others say contempt of court ?
But even if so ,surely the proper procedure is to interview ,gather evidence, allow the man council, before charging?
In the mean time bail should surely be granted and the CPS notified for such an offence.

It appears his feet have barely touched the floor before he hit his new home!

The media gag appears to have only had a temporary effect, as now hes been elevated to hero status amongst the disaffected right wing, and the petition will reach 500,000 sigs by the end of the day.
The trial of the grooming gang has been thrust into the spotlight by these actions, so what was achieved ?
We feel safer in our beds at night knowing that the law will crack down on such serious 'transgressions' like TRs?
Rather the opposite.

Edit, gag order may be lifted now http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5782667/EDL-founder-Tommy-Robinson-jailed-13-months.html

Edited May 29, 2018 by Rewulf

[Vince Green]

If you mess with the authority of the court then yes, exactly, your feet are not going to touch the ground. That's how it should be, even a scumbag has the right to a fair trial. I think Robinson was there to blow his own trumpet, for his own purposes, mostly based on ego.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

If you mess with the authority of the court then yes, exactly, your feet are not going to touch the ground. That's how it should be, even a scumbag has the right to a fair trial. I think Robinson was there to blow his own trumpet, for his own purposes, mostly based on ego.

That rather depends on who you are though doesnt it ?

Having read the information now disclosed, there were definitely grounds to arrest him.
But to have him charged ,trialed and jailed in the space of 5 hours ?

Also the judge made much of how he could have influenced the jury during deliberations, are not juries told to ignore outside heresay, were the jurors incommunicado? To single him out for 'possibly' influencing the outcome, seems grossly unfair.

As I said from the beginning, its not who or what he is , its about the process of the law, and if he can be dealt with like this, then we all can.
Unless its more because of who or what he is ?

[timps]

26 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Understood, however , journalists do this all the time and seem quite happy to do so, albeit they are breaking the law, harrassing ect.
I have heard that he shouted to one of the defendants as he was going into the building, perhaps asking a question, maybe abuse, or both.
It is said that this was the breach of the peace.

However we dont know for certain what the actual charges were, some others say contempt of court ?
But even if so ,surely the proper procedure is to interview ,gather evidence, allow the man council, before charging?
In the mean time bail should surely be granted and the CPS notified for such an offence.

It appears his feet have barely touched the floor before he hit his new home!

The media gag appears to have only had a temporary effect, as now hes been elevated to hero status amongst the disaffected right wing, and the petition will reach 500,000 sigs by the end of the day.
The trial of the grooming gang has been thrust into the spotlight by these actions, so what was achieved ?
We feel safer in our beds at night knowing that the law will crack down on such serious 'transgressions' like TRs?
Rather the opposite.

According to this link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-arrest-muslims-filming-court-a7733156.html it was for contempt of court for filming. How true it is I don’t know but it is the same offence .

The offence is still section 41 Criminal Justice Act  1925 however it can be charged as a criminal offence or can be dealt with by the court as a contempt in accordance with the summary procedure at Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure.

Rule 48.5 of the Criminal Procedure says 

‘(iii) (where relevant) that the court has power to order the respondent’s immediate temporary detention, if in the court’s opinion that is required,’

The above means straight to jail no representation until the trial is over if the judge feels it is required, basically it is a power to stop anyone interfering with a trial.

My guess this is what has happened, and jail is usually reserved for those that don’t eat humble pie and say sorry I wont do it again your honour.   

[Vince Green]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

As I said from the beginning, its not who or what he is , its about the process of the law, and if he can be dealt with like this, then we all can.

Unless its more because of who or what he is ?

That's not correct, a judge's powers, where contempt of HIS court is concerned, can by-pass the normal processes. don't think you have to have a trial, his powers in this situation are absolute. However, its not something they do without reason 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Vince Green

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, timps said:

 

The above means straight to jail no representation until the trial is over if the judge feels it is required, basically it is a power to stop anyone interfering with a trial.

My guess this is what has happened, and jail is usually reserved for those that don’t eat humble pie and say sorry I wont do it again your honour.   

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5782667/EDL-founder-Tommy-Robinson-jailed-13-months.html

Partly correct.

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

That's not correct, a judge's powers, where contempt of HIS court is concerned, can by-pass the normal process. don't think you have to have a trial, his powers in this situation are absolute. However, its not something they do without reason 

I wasnt aware of that.
See how this pans out, it seems the 'full weight of the law' style justice is very selective these days.
And Im pretty certain Im not alone in thinking this.

[Gordon R]

Reading the latest news, with more detail, it seems that he has been the architect of his own disaster. Having been previously warned, he seemed unable to resist the spotlight and has suffered the consequences.

The letter of the law appears to have been applied, whereas in many other cases, the law has appeared to be blind.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what he has done, I still feel uneasy about the speed of the whole process.

[stumfelter]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Theres a higher probability of civil unrest if this is left as it is, and a virtual certainty if anything happens to him inside.

Whatever happens to him there will be no civil unrest. We're too far down the road for that to happen unfortunately.....