July 13, 20197 yr 7 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: 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' on Friday, utter horseshit and they know it but it doesn't stop them from printing lies Are both of your hats made of aluminium, or just one of them?
July 13, 20197 yr Just now, Widnes Two Hats said: Facts cheese, it's irrelevant of my own opinion it's what happened You seem to be saying he's innocent though? Even though he's been sent down....
July 13, 20197 yr Not at all, he shouldn't have been there and was a complete knob to have been there but lets not make things up
July 13, 20197 yr 13 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: Not at all, he shouldn't have been there and was a complete knob to have been there but lets not make things up So you agree that justice has been done. Good.
July 13, 20197 yr 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
July 13, 20197 yr 20 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: 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 I don't know what you're getting at. As long as the law is seen to be upheld, that's all that matters.
July 13, 20197 yr 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?
July 13, 20197 yr Not necessarily a deterrent to SYL but perhaps to discourage others from doing the same.
July 13, 20197 yr 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.
July 13, 20197 yr 9 minutes ago, frank_spencer said: Not necessarily a deterrent to SYL but perhaps to discourage others from doing the same. The more likely outcome is to bring TR back into the public eye at a time when he was slipping out of view. ( not to mention raising thousands of pounds that will largely go into TR's back pocket)
July 13, 20197 yr 8 minutes ago, bolton va va said: The more likely outcome is to bring TR back into the public eye at a time when he was slipping out of view. ( not to mention raising thousands of pounds that will largely go into TR's back pocket) I'd rather they gave him a massive fine and community service than jail the prick. Having got that far they had to do something
July 13, 20197 yr 3 minutes ago, frank_spencer said: I'd rather they gave him a massive fine and community service than jail the prick. Having got that far they had to do something Someone else would have paid his fine and he'd have made a media circus of the community service, so not sure they would have acted as any kind of deterrent. Also, neither of them would have resulted in him patheticallay begging for asylum, which was at least mildly entertaining. Frautratingly, it's the public purse that loses out. I guess your suggestion of a fine could have helped out with that.
July 13, 20197 yr Does anybody on here actually know what SYL was charged with or is everybody taking their information from The Independant?
July 13, 20197 yr 1 hour ago, Widnes Two Hats said: 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? As I said, all that matters is that the law is upheld. You seem to think there's a secret agenda coming from somewhere? There isn't. He broke the law. It's as simple as that.
July 13, 20197 yr 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
July 13, 20197 yr Author 40 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: Does anybody on here actually know what SYL was charged with or is everybody taking their information from The Independant? Just contempt of court I think
July 13, 20197 yr 23 minutes ago, Cheese said: As I said, all that matters is that the law is upheld. You seem to think there's a secret agenda coming from somewhere? There isn't. He broke the law. It's as simple as that. To follow your argument, it would have been alright if TR had been given a 10 year sentence for a contempt of court conviction........the law had been upheld. TR was a tit to breach his suspended sentence & there would have been very little sympathy for him if that sentence had been activated. The problem is that he seems to have been treated unfairly , not least by raising the sentence, which has been counterproductive in almost turning him into a martyr & as Widnes says, raising his profile again.
July 13, 20197 yr 8 minutes ago, royal white said: Just contempt of court I think Nah, there were 3 charges, I'll go through them when I can be arsed but they were shocking Edited July 13, 20197 yr by Widnes Two Hats
July 13, 20197 yr 18 minutes ago, bolton va va said: To follow your argument, it would have been alright if TR had been given a 10 year sentence for a contempt of court conviction........the law had been upheld. No, because the maximum sentence he could've been given was 2 years, so the ridiculous hypothetical Sentence you're suggesting would have been unlawful.. Edited July 13, 20197 yr by Cheese
July 13, 20197 yr Were the three charges; hurty feelies of a muzzie rapey, 'truthful journalism' and possession of a Class A substance with intent to make a bizarre asylum appeal on a lunatic's fringe website? That's what I read in Socialist Chardonnay Swillers' Digest. Edited July 13, 20197 yr by Youri McAnespie
July 13, 20197 yr 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’ Edited July 13, 20197 yr by Widnes Two Hats
July 13, 20197 yr Author 28 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: 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’ So no reporting restrictions were posted in the court on the day of the trial, the website was down, the desk clerk had no idea what was in place and a copper said he could film from where he was stood. Can understand him being a bit pissed off then.
July 13, 20197 yr 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
July 13, 20197 yr Author 4 minutes ago, Widnes Two Hats said: 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 My bad, I misread that. fkinell, not right that is it.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.