EDL boss Tommy Robinson again proves his stupidity
Discussion
rscott said:
Robinson was represented in the Leeds contempt case by a barrister ( https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/about/barri... ) with over 16 years experience, not a duty solicitor.
Those errors are why the original conviction was anulled and the new hearing ordered.
He was acting as such, he was not engaged by Robinson, none of his 16 years experience was in contempt of a court (A civil offence and specialist branch of law) as borne out by the liberties the court got away with, No specific charge was put to Robinson, the most basic requirement in any court case, and he did not challenge ?.Those errors are why the original conviction was anulled and the new hearing ordered.
The public outcry and the exposure of serious breaches of the law was the reason the conviction was overturned.
rscott said:
dasigty said:
La Liga said:
ou started your post off talking about details which related to the Canterbury contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Canterbury contempt.
You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The only pub lawyer on this thread is you, nor is there one word copied and pasted from anywhere, twice I have told you to read the summery as you seem to have difficulty separating facts from your wishful thinking.You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The law was manipulated or ignored and only the public outcry ensured the release of Robinson, "Procedural rules weren't followed correctly" is legalese for "You f*cked this up big time" and they most certainly did.
The retrial will be under the glare of public view, Robinson has the days events on tape, lets see how this trial plays out shall we.
If he's convicted, I'd think it's highly likely he'll end up with a custodial sentence - either for the second offence or for breaching the conditions of his first suspended sentence.
I mean he literally live streamed his breach of the order.
I'm sure if there's a successful appeal, based off procedural errors, for an 'Asian groomer', all Robinson's supporters will be equally championing the safe guards in the justice system.
dasigty said:
rscott said:
Robinson was represented in the Leeds contempt case by a barrister ( https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/about/barri... ) with over 16 years experience, not a duty solicitor.
Those errors are why the original conviction was anulled and the new hearing ordered.
He was acting as such, he was not engaged by Robinson, none of his 16 years experience was in contempt of a court (A civil offence and specialist branch of law) as borne out by the liberties the court got away with, No specific charge was put to Robinson, the most basic requirement in any court case, and he did not challenge ?.Those errors are why the original conviction was anulled and the new hearing ordered.
The public outcry and the exposure of serious breaches of the law was the reason the conviction was overturned.
Of course, if he's found guilty in the new trial, many of his supporters will claim it's because the courts are corrupt and he didn't get a fair trial.
dasigty said:
He was acting as such, he was not engaged by Robinson, none of his 16 years experience was in contempt of a court (A civil offence and specialist branch of law) as borne out by the liberties the court got away with, No specific charge was put to Robinson, the most basic requirement in any court case, and he did not challenge?
How can he be charged if it's a 'civil offence'? It's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
rscott said:
No, luckily the judiciary on this system doesn't base it's decisions on "public outcry". The errors made by the original judge are the only reason for this retrial.
Of course, if he's found guilty in the new trial, many of his supporters will claim it's because the courts are corrupt and he didn't get a fair trial.
You keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy, but there comes a point where the number of "Errors" become statistically impossible.Of course, if he's found guilty in the new trial, many of his supporters will claim it's because the courts are corrupt and he didn't get a fair trial.
They well may do that, perhaps because he did not get one the first time around.
La Liga said:
rscott said:
dasigty said:
La Liga said:
ou started your post off talking about details which related to the Canterbury contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Canterbury contempt.
You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The only pub lawyer on this thread is you, nor is there one word copied and pasted from anywhere, twice I have told you to read the summery as you seem to have difficulty separating facts from your wishful thinking.You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The law was manipulated or ignored and only the public outcry ensured the release of Robinson, "Procedural rules weren't followed correctly" is legalese for "You f*cked this up big time" and they most certainly did.
The retrial will be under the glare of public view, Robinson has the days events on tape, lets see how this trial plays out shall we.
If he's convicted, I'd think it's highly likely he'll end up with a custodial sentence - either for the second offence or for breaching the conditions of his first suspended sentence.
I mean he literally live streamed his breach of the order.
I'm sure if there's a successful appeal, based off procedural errors, for a
La Liga said:
ow can he be charged if it's a 'civil offence'?
It's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
Perhaps you need glasses ?, its right here where you said it aintIt's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
The Court of Appeal in R v Yaxley-Lennon [2018] agreed with Robinson's arguments that there was a series of errors present in the judgments of HHJ Norton QC and HHJ Marson QC which, it cautioned, had 'serious consequences' and 'should not be allowed to occur again'.
Specifically, the judges in both cases had used language and made orders that gave the incorrect impression that Robinson had committed a criminal offence, as opposed to being found in contempt of court. For example, Robinson’s term of thirteen months was described as a ‘sentence’ (the criminal term) instead of a ‘committal’ (the contempt term).
As a result, Rule 7(3) of the Prison Rules 1999 – which normally applies to prisoners committed for contempt of court – was neglected in Robinson’s case. This had the result that Robinson was deprived of several privileges, including visits by his doctor or dentist, the freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits and the sending and receipt of letters.
Another couple of those "Errors" that funny enough just happen to have the effect of silencing him, why its almost as if someone did not want what he had to say heard, asking questions about the police /social services/councils role in these cases never gets a mention does it ?.
vxr8mate said:
La Liga said:
rscott said:
dasigty said:
La Liga said:
ou started your post off talking about details which related to the Canterbury contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Canterbury contempt.
You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The only pub lawyer on this thread is you, nor is there one word copied and pasted from anywhere, twice I have told you to read the summery as you seem to have difficulty separating facts from your wishful thinking.You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The law was manipulated or ignored and only the public outcry ensured the release of Robinson, "Procedural rules weren't followed correctly" is legalese for "You f*cked this up big time" and they most certainly did.
The retrial will be under the glare of public view, Robinson has the days events on tape, lets see how this trial plays out shall we.
If he's convicted, I'd think it's highly likely he'll end up with a custodial sentence - either for the second offence or for breaching the conditions of his first suspended sentence.
I mean he literally live streamed his breach of the order.
I'm sure if there's a successful appeal, based off procedural errors, for a
Countdown said:
otolith said:
I just found a "Vote Tommy" leaflet on my doormat.
It's very poorly designed.
Isn't even absorbent.
I assume you're in the North West ?It's very poorly designed.
Isn't even absorbent.
We got one as well. It's very thin/filmy isn't it, reminded me of the toilet paper you only used to get in schools......
La Liga said:
vxr8mate said:
La Liga said:
rscott said:
dasigty said:
La Liga said:
ou started your post off talking about details which related to the Canterbury contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Canterbury contempt.
You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The only pub lawyer on this thread is you, nor is there one word copied and pasted from anywhere, twice I have told you to read the summery as you seem to have difficulty separating facts from your wishful thinking.You then moved the to process / sentencing that was undertaken after the Leeds contempt, which is why I replied to that part talking about the Leeds contempt.
The judgement doesn't mention many of the pub lawyer things you've probably copied and pasted from somewhere, hence me saying the summary separates 'fact from fiction'.
The procedural rules weren't followed correctly and our mechanisms for correcting that have worked. The contempt isn't in dispute. The Leeds restrictions were in place for good reason and he decided he'd risk the trials for his own selfish gain.
The law was manipulated or ignored and only the public outcry ensured the release of Robinson, "Procedural rules weren't followed correctly" is legalese for "You f*cked this up big time" and they most certainly did.
The retrial will be under the glare of public view, Robinson has the days events on tape, lets see how this trial plays out shall we.
If he's convicted, I'd think it's highly likely he'll end up with a custodial sentence - either for the second offence or for breaching the conditions of his first suspended sentence.
I mean he literally live streamed his breach of the order.
I'm sure if there's a successful appeal, based off procedural errors, for a
dasigty said:
La Liga said:
How can he be charged if it's a 'civil offence'?
It's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
Perhaps you need glasses ?, its right here where you said it aintIt's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
What did I said 'aint' there?
And how can you be charged with a 'civil offence'?
What you quoted didn't answer that.
dasigty said:
Another couple of those "Errors" that funny enough just happen to have the effect of silencing him, why its almost as if someone did not want what he had to say heard, asking questions about the police /social services/councils role in these cases never gets a mention does it?
Yeah it's a good way to silence him by using contempt, which unlike other criminal matters automatically has a right to appeal 
vxr8mate said:
I disagree, better when factual i think.
Not when you're writing it as a 'subtle' dig as the supporters, as indicated but the surrounding use of apostrophes. La Liga said:
dasigty said:
La Liga said:
How can he be charged if it's a 'civil offence'?
It's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
Perhaps you need glasses ?, its right here where you said it aintIt's actually a criminal charge 'in all but name' from criminal statute.
You should read the judgement. It's all in there
What did I said 'aint' there?
And how can you be charged with a 'civil offence'?
What you quoted didn't answer that.
,
dasigty said:
Another couple of those "Errors" that funny enough just happen to have the effect of silencing him, why its almost as if someone did not want what he had to say heard, asking questions about the police /social services/councils role in these cases never gets a mention does it?
Yeah it's a good way to silence him by using contempt, which unlike other criminal matters automatically has a right to appeal vxr8mate said:
I disagree, better when factual i think.
Not when you're writing it as a 'subtle' dig as the supporters, as indicated but the surrounding use of apostrophes. How strange that of the multitude of "Errors" made, every single one was to the disadvantage of the accused.
dasigty said:
It is most definitely not a criminal charge.
As per the COP judges, is it 'in all but name'. dasigty said:
thats why the distinction must be made between Criminal & Civil contempt (The correct wording), they are two completely different offences, covered by completely different legislation, with two completely different outcomes for the accused, as has been outlined with regards to him being able to communicate with the outside world.
The relevant distinctions that have been made around how a prisoner is classified and treated is regular criminal offences vs contempt, not 'criminal vs civil contempt'. If you read the judgement that's clear.
dasigty said:
How strange that of the multitude of "Errors" made, every single one was to the disadvantage of the accused.
It's not really that strange. It's merely coincidental. It's was quite the advantage for the appeal. How strange...
I've been following TR's story and this video, one I'd not seen before popped up as a suggested watch in the right hand menu on YT:
https://youtu.be/ez_RfNhG0ps
Real interview starts around 2 minutes in with TR interviewing Lord Pearson. I do not watch the goings on in the Commons or the Lords so this was somewhat of an eye opener and I'd be interested in what the PH massive think of it.
Phil
https://youtu.be/ez_RfNhG0ps
Real interview starts around 2 minutes in with TR interviewing Lord Pearson. I do not watch the goings on in the Commons or the Lords so this was somewhat of an eye opener and I'd be interested in what the PH massive think of it.
Phil
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff