EDL boss Tommy Robinson again proves his stupidity
Discussion
Looks like Tommy will be launching (yet another) fundraising campaign soon - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tommy-robins...
rscott said:
Looks like Tommy will be launching (yet another) fundraising campaign soon - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tommy-robins...
He protests that he’s innocent and not broken any laws, but he pleaded guilty back in May. Great consistency No he didn't .
macushla said:
rscott said:
Looks like Tommy will be launching (yet another) fundraising campaign soon - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tommy-robins...
He protests that he’s innocent and not broken any laws, but he pleaded guilty back in May. Great consistency ninjacost said:
No he didn't .
True. He admitted contempt,but didn't plead guilty. One of the reasons for the re-trial.macushla said:
rscott said:
Looks like Tommy will be launching (yet another) fundraising campaign soon - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tommy-robins...
He protests that he’s innocent and not broken any laws, but he pleaded guilty back in May. Great consistency He did plead guilty to contempt of court in the earlier case though.
rscott said:
ninjacost said:
No he didn't .
True. He admitted contempt,but didn't plead guilty. One of the reasons for the re-trial.macushla said:
rscott said:
Looks like Tommy will be launching (yet another) fundraising campaign soon - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/tommy-robins...
He protests that he’s innocent and not broken any laws, but he pleaded guilty back in May. Great consistency He did plead guilty to contempt of court in the earlier case though.
Looking forward to his plea and denials of what he did when faced with the evidence.
Edited by macushla on Friday 8th March 09:48
rscott said:
True. He admitted contempt,but didn't plead guilty. One of the reasons for the re-trial.
He did plead guilty to contempt of court in the earlier case though.
Which is interesting since it is central to the whole case. Regards 'contempt' The summary of Judgement of the Appeal states 'there was a muddle of the nature of the contempt..' He did plead guilty to contempt of court in the earlier case though.
summary here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
" No particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the
appellant. There was a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered. In
both the short explanation given by the judge of the general nature of the alleged
contempt and the sentencing remarks, there was reference to matters that could not
been a breach of the section 4(2) order. [64]. The failure to follow Part 48 Crim PR
was more than technical [66]. There was no clarity about what the appellant was
admitting or on what basis he was being sentenced. Finally, further difficulties arose
from the limited opportunity that counsel had to investigate mitigation [68]. There
was little else which counsel could have done within the constraints under which he
was working. The level of detail which could be provided to the court was very
limited and there was no opportunity to obtain character references [69]. A sense of
proportion must be retained. Where a custodial term of considerable length is being
imposed, it should not usually occur so quickly after the conduct which is complained
of [69]; a sentence of committal to immediate custody had been pronounced within
five hours of the conduct taking place [8]."
Numbers relate to points in the full judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
southendpier said:
Which is interesting since it is central to the whole case. Regards 'contempt' The summary of Judgement of the Appeal states 'there was a muddle of the nature of the contempt..'
summary here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
" No particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the
appellant. There was a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered. In
both the short explanation given by the judge of the general nature of the alleged
contempt and the sentencing remarks, there was reference to matters that could not
been a breach of the section 4(2) order. [64]. The failure to follow Part 48 Crim PR
was more than technical [66]. There was no clarity about what the appellant was
admitting or on what basis he was being sentenced. Finally, further difficulties arose
from the limited opportunity that counsel had to investigate mitigation [68]. There
was little else which counsel could have done within the constraints under which he
was working. The level of detail which could be provided to the court was very
limited and there was no opportunity to obtain character references [69]. A sense of
proportion must be retained. Where a custodial term of considerable length is being
imposed, it should not usually occur so quickly after the conduct which is complained
of [69]; a sentence of committal to immediate custody had been pronounced within
five hours of the conduct taking place [8]."
Numbers relate to points in the full judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
I guess your not a TR supporter, but jump to his defence at every opportunity? I’ve got quite a few of those sadly who appear on my Facebook feed. summary here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
" No particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the
appellant. There was a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered. In
both the short explanation given by the judge of the general nature of the alleged
contempt and the sentencing remarks, there was reference to matters that could not
been a breach of the section 4(2) order. [64]. The failure to follow Part 48 Crim PR
was more than technical [66]. There was no clarity about what the appellant was
admitting or on what basis he was being sentenced. Finally, further difficulties arose
from the limited opportunity that counsel had to investigate mitigation [68]. There
was little else which counsel could have done within the constraints under which he
was working. The level of detail which could be provided to the court was very
limited and there was no opportunity to obtain character references [69]. A sense of
proportion must be retained. Where a custodial term of considerable length is being
imposed, it should not usually occur so quickly after the conduct which is complained
of [69]; a sentence of committal to immediate custody had been pronounced within
five hours of the conduct taking place [8]."
Numbers relate to points in the full judgement
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/0...
Whatever gets posted around the initial trial doesn’t really matter now. He’s getting a new one to do his stuff in. The appeal details that you’ve posted though are simply saying that he should have been given a bit more time to formulate a defence, as the outcome was likely to be quite a while in prison. It wasn’t saying that he was innocent. That outcome will be seen at some point in the next 500 years, as this case will just get deferred and deferred and deferred endlessly.
macushla said:
I guess you're not a TR supporter,
good guessmacushla said:
but jump to his defence at every opportunity?
no, but I do think facts are quite important. macushla said:
I’ve got quite a few of those sadly who appear on my Facebook feed.
OKmacushla said:
Whatever gets posted around the initial trial doesn’t really matter now.
Out of interest and for the benefit of those reading this thread I think it does, since he is going back to court.macushla said:
He’s getting a new one to do his stuff in. The appeal details that you’ve posted though are simply saying that he should have been given a bit more time to formulate a defence, as the outcome was likely to be quite a while in prison.
No, the summary and full appeal that I linked to states far, far more than that. You should read it.macushla said:
It wasn’t saying that he was innocent.
But you would agree with the Appeal Judges that the process was wrong?
macushla said:
That outcome will be seen at some point in the next 500 years, as this case will just get deferred and deferred and deferred endlessly.
...and this is just an odd thing to say. If he is found to be have broken a court order under Civil or Criminal offence (or broken any other Laws) then of course he should be punished - after a fair trial.Can’t be bothered with all the formatting, especially on a phone
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
https://youtu.be/TdWahm2z_R0 Worth a listen ,If you can get over your prejudice :-)
macushla said:
Can’t be bothered with all the formatting, especially on a phone
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
ninjacost said:
https://youtu.be/TdWahm2z_R0 Worth a listen ,If you can get over your prejudice :-)
My prejudice? Think that word may be slightly misplaced here. There’s really only one person, along with his followers, displaying prejudice. macushla said:
Can’t be bothered with all the formatting, especially on a phone
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
However, just for clarity, there is nothing at all that I want to listen to, or believe that he can say that would in any way change my mind about him being a racist grifter.
No , not misplaced at all , you don't want to listen , carry on with your racist grifter line if it makes you happy ;-)
macushla said:
ninjacost said:
https://youtu.be/TdWahm2z_R0 Worth a listen ,If you can get over your prejudice :-)
My prejudice? Think that word may be slightly misplaced here. There’s really only one person, along with his followers, displaying prejudice. macushla said:
Can’t be bothered with all the formatting, especially on a phone
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
Facts may be important, but so are people’s leanings to whichever side. Yours are quite clear. I do find it strange how many defend TR so strongly, whilst denying they are supporters, or even sympathetic to his cause.
Whatever the reason for the success of his appeal, it wasn’t that he was innocent of the charge, it was down to procedural issues. I think I was clear on that, so not sure why you’re emphasising it again.
I’m looking forward to him explaining how an hour long live video detailing the names and charges (some erroneously) of the defendants whilst reporting restrictions were in place isn’t contempt of court. He might not spend as long in prison and will probably get away with time served, but if he is found not guilty then it does make a mockery of the system IMO. I am biased against him though, as I think he’s a racist grifter.
Unforgivable mistake with your / you’re, in my defence, fat fingers can cause serious mistakes as some of my other posts have shown. See how that’s a technicality, but doesn’t alter the fact that I still did it.
However, just for clarity, there is nothing at all that I want to listen to, or believe that he can say that would in any way change my mind about him being a racist grifter.
So you are already assuming what he is saying will be nonsense ?
I’ll do you a deal. You go and listen to over an hour of Owen Jones spouting a bunch of nonsense and I’ll listen to your suggestion.
Dindoit said:
ninjacost said:
https://youtu.be/TdWahm2z_R0 Worth a listen ,If you can get over your prejudice :-)
72 minutes of James Delingpole, Breitbart employee and former Daily Mail/Express columnist?I’ll do you a deal. You go and listen to over an hour of Owen Jones spouting a bunch of nonsense and I’ll listen to your suggestion.
Did somebody just say "facts maybe important but..." with reference to a case of law??!
Christ alive, its bad enough we get Trump and the American fake-fact culture shoved down our throats all the time, but lets not voluntarily jump off the same bloody cliff eh?!
Let the courts do what the courts do and the cards will fall where they may.
Christ alive, its bad enough we get Trump and the American fake-fact culture shoved down our throats all the time, but lets not voluntarily jump off the same bloody cliff eh?!
Let the courts do what the courts do and the cards will fall where they may.
I agree with some of his views ,you have a problem with that ?
His stance on calling out peadophiles raping children on an industrial scale is pretty high on the list ,surely you must agree on that one ?
Do you support TR?
Which of his opinions do you like the most?
His stance on calling out peadophiles raping children on an industrial scale is pretty high on the list ,surely you must agree on that one ?
macushla said:
ninjacost said:
No , not misplaced at all , you don't want to listen , carry on with your racist grifter line if it makes you happy ;-)
Very happy, the truth always does. How about a few more truths too. Do you support TR?
Which of his opinions do you like the most?
ninjacost said:
I agree with some of his views ,you have a problem with that ?
His stance on calling out peadophiles raping children on an industrial scale is pretty high on the list ,surely you must agree on that one ?
As a point of order he doesn't call out all peados, just brown ones.His stance on calling out peadophiles raping children on an industrial scale is pretty high on the list ,surely you must agree on that one ?
But yes we a agree with that.
Anything else?
Is it really “in the public interest” to prosecute this loon? He was almost about to become irrelevant given Facebook had pulled his account and YouTube will probably do so soon.
All this is going to do is push the false narrative that the establishment are out to get him etc etc and it will lead to an increase in donations to him.
All this is going to do is push the false narrative that the establishment are out to get him etc etc and it will lead to an increase in donations to him.
No thats enough for now thanks ;-)
But yes we a agree with that.
Anything else?
desolate said:
ninjacost said:
I agree with some of his views ,you have a problem with that ?
His stance on calling out peadophiles raping children on an industrial scale is pretty high on the list ,surely you must agree on that one ?
As a point of order he doesn't call out all peados, just brown ones.His stance on calling out peadophiles raping children on an industrial scale is pretty high on the list ,surely you must agree on that one ?
But yes we a agree with that.
Anything else?
BlackLabel said:
Is it really “in the public interest” to prosecute this loon? He was almost about to become irrelevant given Facebook had pulled his account and YouTube will probably do so soon.
All this is going to do is push the false narrative that the establishment are out to get him etc etc and it will lead to an increase in donations to him.
If they don't what example does it set to the next muppet "follower" of his who decides to rock up at a court as a "journalist"?All this is going to do is push the false narrative that the establishment are out to get him etc etc and it will lead to an increase in donations to him.
Actions have consequences.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff