Widnes Two Hats

Youri I agree so back to my original point, how was it in the public interest to retry him when he'd disolved into nothing And MEF paid me so I'm happy

Do you know there are 270 bones in the human body, how would you like one more

Also TR's convictions were civil not criminal offences meaning he goes to a Cat D open air prison but instead he's been sent to the Cat A prison of Belmarsh, is that right?

So we agree that the court did not post any reporting restrictions in Leeds Crown Court as was given in evidence by the Operations Manager, whether Yax knew or didn't know if there were reporting restrictions in place, he only discussed things that were in the public domain i.e. the BBC website which the Judiciary website said he could, the fact that the information on the judiciary website was wrong is down to them so I find Yaxley Lennon not guilty of charge number 1 Charge number 2 - Publishing a video encouraging his followers to harass the defendants, creating a substantial risk that their rights would be seriously impeded So, during the video, TR says (this is not verbatim) 'So I'm going to upload a video later today, I interviewed the leader of Generation Identity, a young 23 year old lad, he had a good job as an investment banker with a top London bank, the media have harrassed him, they've been to his mum's address and contacted his employers, as a result he's now lost his job so rather than belive the lies I read in the press I thought I'd speak to him direct. I know what he's going through as the media have done it to me, why don't you harrass these men who've just gone into court, why don't you turn up at their mum's houses or contact their employers, it's a joke' so he's clearly talking to the media however, the AG omits the first part and provides the following transcript from the video why don't you harrass these men who've just gone into court, why don't you turn up at their mum's houses or contact their employers Which they claimed was TR inciting his followers to harrass the defendants, an absolute twist on what he actually said

Stop it Zico

It's a document of what he was convicted of not what happened, what's you're point?

You've not been the same since you let that border collie bum you, I know you like confrontation but you are a simpleton who knows no facts

I'm providing balance to what actually happened rather than you making things up, I do admit he amuses me but fan is way off the mark

Did he? where have you got that from, the video I watched he said 'There maybe reporting restrictions so I have to be super careful' which is why he referred to the defendants as 'Alleged' and only quoted information from the BBC website which he believed to be ok as it said it was ok to quote information on the public domain on the Judiciary website I put it to you cheese that you haven't a fucking clue what you are talking about, allegedly of course

No the website was up, it stated there were no reporting restictions in place, also the AG admitted that the reporting restictions on things in the public domain was incorrect, on their own website

Charge no1. Posting material online that breaches reporting restrictions or risks prejudicing legal proceedings According to TR, he was unsure if reporting restrictions where still in place when he filmed as the case had concluded, both the prosecutor and defence QC's had given their statements and evidence, the day he filmed the jury were deliberating their verdicts so TR reckons he thought that restrictions had been lifted. Caolan Roberts one of TR's camera men went into the Crown Court and asked if restrictions had been lifted, the clerk said he didn't know, there was a TV in the Crown Court that said 'No reporting restictions in place' which he took a photo of. The Judiciary website also stated there were no reporting restrictions in place. Also on the Judicairy website it states under 2.4 of contempt of court rulings ‘No court has the power to restrict reporting restrictions on anything that is in the public domain’ So TR by the admission of the prosecution ‘erred on the side of caution” He read the names and charges out of the alleged groomers from a BBC website Witness 1 in the trial, the clerk on the desk ‘Where you asked if there were reporting restictions on the case’ Clerk ‘yes I was but I don’t know who asked me’ What was your reply, Clerk ‘I told him I didn’t know’ Witness 2 in the trial – Operations Manager at Leeds Crown Court ‘Did you post reporting restrictions on the day of the trial ‘Unfortunately there was an error that day and we didn’t report reporting restrictions were in place, on the door, TV’s or judiciary website’ AG – Unfortunately the info on our website is wrong, we will revise the information going forward TR to policeman on door of court ‘Am I on court property and am I ok to film here – Copper ‘No your not and your ok to film here’

Nah, there were 3 charges, I'll go through them when I can be arsed but they were shocking

I'm not a conspirisist but I don't agree it was in the public interest nor do I agree it was in the public interest to raise TR's profile, I think I've been clear about that. The law had already been upheld when he was imprisioned and the second trial doesn't upheld anything, it only costs the tax payers, why you can't see that is beyond me

Does anybody on here actually know what SYL was charged with or is everybody taking their information from The Independant?

It wont stop anybody from doing it, there where loads of people streaming the day Yaxley-Lennon was arrested, the Sikh Awareness Society streamed it live to their TV Channel the same day TR was arrested but they weren't arrested. And they've live streamed every Grooming Gang trial since.

I'm getting at there was no public interest to bring 2 new charges, he'd been imprisioned, appealed got it overturned, the old bailey ruled the original charge was flawed so threw it back to the attorney general so it should have been left at that and not pursued, if you want to get rid of TR you don't raise his profile even more Was my explanation above not clear enough?

I think it was harsh given the circumstances but if the 2 judges ruled he'd broken the law then yes, justice has been done but was it really in the public interests for the Attorney General to have pursued the case? The original charge was dropped and 2 new charges where brought, very flimsey charges at that. He spent 10 weeks in prision when first charged. The estimated cost of the Old Bailey is £1M, a further £1m policing costs to police the demonstrations outside the Old Bailey. TR is appealing the decision so there will be further costs to the public, there's a demo planned for today outside Belmarsh so more policing costs plus theres further 'Free Tommy' marches planned throughout the country so more policing costs Since TR lost his facebook and Twitter accounts he's become irrelevant, the Free Speech event probably gathered about 7 or 8K followers now he only generates a couple of hundres so he was becoming insignificant, now he's been imprisioned his profile has been raised again so he will attract much more interest. Is that really in the public interest? Remember TR's legal fees are paid for by Billonaires who run the MEF think tank so it's no cost to him, the Freetommy funds that he receives through Rebel and his own website go into his back pocket meaning he can ride through towns on his new bus displaying his 'new' documentaries

Not at all, he shouldn't have been there and was a complete knob to have been there but lets not make things up

Facts cheese, it's irrelevant of my own opinion it's what happened

If TR ran in court swinging a pool ball round his head in a sock shouting 'You filthy muslim rapists you know you did it' then he cound have collapsed the trial However, 4 of the defendants solicitors asked for a retrial, Judge Marson reviewed the full footage of TR's video outside Leeds Crown Court with the CPS and both decided that nothing TR said or did could have predudiced the trial. Faisal Nadeemed nicknamed 'The Chiller' appealed to the high court claiming his trial had been prejudiced by Robinson’s Facebook live video outside Leeds Crown Court and the protests that followed his imprisonment. He was jailed for 12 years for rape and supplying class A drugs. The high court ruled there was no prejudice from TR's video and threw the appeal out So lets stop this cudda/wudda/shudda made up stories, two judges have already ruled the TR's actions coundn't have caused the trial to collapse. I think it was the Social Worker's headlines on Friday that said 'Far Right Fascist Tommy Robinson Jailed for Nearly Causing Grooming Gang Trail to Collapse' utter horseshit and they know it but it doesn't stop them from printing lies

Belmarsh. There's a lot of misinfornation on here as to what offences TR was charged

6 months, good God

Sat at home watching the cricket with Racing from Newmarket thrown in, I feel like having a beer but I'd be pissed before tea time so I'm saving myself for the final

There's no such thing as racism, its made up, as is homophodia and Islamaphodia

It doesn't, you've made it up