ANTI-IMMIGRATION PROTESTER JAILED IN LONDON JUDGE ORDERS PRESS BLACKOUT ROBINSON SILENCED!

[Animavore]

Good reason doesn't matter. Apeman politics. He'll still be a martyr. Exactly like Hitler.

No doubt he'll get out and claim he hung around with Muslims in the jail.

[NineBerry]

It's the law of the land. If you don't have respect for the law of the land, go somewhere else. Isn't that the common right wing talking point?

[Sean Hayden]

42, is this another time when you're merely pointing out the oddity of a thing? You've got no greater purpose in posting this at all, do you?

Anyway, the US does far worse. We can disappear your ass too, maybe even drop a missile on your head without a trial.

[Forty Two]

42, is this another time when you're merely pointing out the oddity of a thing? You've got no greater purpose in posting this at all, do you?

Anyway, the US does far worse. We can disappear your ass too, maybe even drop a missile on your head without a trial.

Well, yes, the US (and the UK, for that matter, although the reporting is somewhat muted when the Brits do it - probably some ban on truthful and accurate reporting which could prejudice foreign relations or something...lol) does the dropping missiles on heads thing.

What purpose do you think I have here? I've told you I think that the events are concerning to me. I don't care if Robinson is an arch-scumbag of monumental proportions and an avowed racist. It seems to me that arresting someone for livestreaming on a public street, because it's outside of a courthouse ought not be contempt of court. Now, I haven't been able to track down the original contempt order, and so some of my language in approaching this leaves open the possibility that the original contempt order, and the specifics of his conduct the other day, will make me understand the reasonableness of it.

So far, however, the biggest "pro" argument made for the treatment of Robinson here is based on antipathy toward Robinson and his viewpoints, personality and past behavior. That's not all that persuasive to me.

[Forty Two]

It's the law of the land. If you don't have respect for the law of the land, go somewhere else. Isn't that the common right wing talking point?

Indeed, and it's one the dumbest arguments they make.

[Animavore]

It's the law of the land. If you don't have respect for the law of the land, go somewhere else. Isn't that the common right wing talking point?

I get the feeling he'd prefer a country where people meted out people's justice. Like Bangladesh.

[Strontium Dog]

42, you can't livestream footage of defendants in an ongoing criminal case and refer to them as "Muslim paedophiles" and "Muslim rapists" because it prejudices the outcome of the trial. And you can't name alleged victims of sexual crime in public. And you can't do those things after receiving a suspended sentence for doing it once already, and expect to escape a prison term.

None of this is hard to understand.

[Forty Two]

42, you can't livestream footage of defendants in an ongoing criminal case and refer to them as "Muslim paedophiles" and "Muslim rapists" because it prejudices the outcome of the trial. And you can't name alleged victims of sexual crime in public. And you can't do those things after receiving a suspended sentence for doing it once already, and expect to escape a prison term.

None of this is hard to understand.

Well, the "muslim pedophile" and "Muslim rapist" thing was related to his first contempt hearing. The previous judge had mentioned that he had said that. In this instance, where he was hauled away to jail, he wasn't accused of saying those things.

The law, section 4(2), by my reading, says he can't record or film or photograph "the proceedings." He was outside on the street.

He did not repeat his conduct from the first hearing. The first hearing, he was punished for taking photos/video inside the courthouse. This time he was on the street. And, this time he was silent.

I think it's a step to far for a court to say that you can't take out your phone and video something on a public street.

[Strontium Dog]

It's immaterial what you think, as you're not in possession of the facts. The judge felt that what Yaxley Lennon was broadcasting to almost a million people on Facebook unquestionably had the potential to prejudice a fair trial. The judge has seen it. You have not. The end.

[Forty Two]

Well, I'm in possession of the facts as reported. So, indeed, if there are "facts" considered by the judge which supported the finding of contempt of which I am presently unaware, that could very well change my analysis. However, I can't seem to find the court's decision or order in the latest arrest, which ought to, I would think, spell out the conduct which constituted the violation.

The law, as I read it in 4(2) does not provide a judge with unlimited power to hold people in contempt because the judge says after the fact that some film or another would have the potential to prejudice a fair trial.

Section 4(1) states: Subject to this section, a person is not guilty of con
tempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair
and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published
contemporaneously and in good faith.

Seciont 4(2) states In any such proceedings the court may, where it appears
to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the
administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other
proceedings pending or imminent, order that the publication of
any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings,
be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for
that purpose.

The court may order that publication of a report or proceeding be postponed.

The order in the Muslim rapist/pedophile case, as I understand it, bars publication regarding "the proceedings." However, it's not clear to me that being out on the street and filming defendants in public is violative of that order. Maybe it is. I haven't seen the order, but I'd like to.

I read the 16 page transcript of the hearing before the judge who previously slapped Robinson's wrist for calling them Muslim pedophiles and filming inside the courthouse. The media seems to be suggesting that Robinson was jailed because he violated the prior contempt order. But, it doesn't seem to me that filming in public is a violation of the prior order because the 16 page transcript doesn't explicitly say he can't film the defendants if they're out on the street.

So, I recognize there are bits and pieces I'm not yet privy to, but that doesn't bar all discussion. I find the law in question itself to be rather draconian, allowing a court to enter an order barring all publication about a trial. Trials are supposed to be public under English common law, and secrecy is supposed to be the rare exception, if at all.

I have no allegiance to Tommy Robinson. I hardly knew who the guy was until he was just jailed. I suspect the arrest does more for Tommy Robinson than it protects any of the defendants.

[Rum]

There's little doubt that he was being deliberately provocative and seeking the maximum publicity he could. He is a first class cunt and he couldn't give a fuck about the girls in the case.

[Forty Two]

All of that is perhaps true. However, when we're talking about gag orders prohibiting comment on a case, and sending someone to jail for 13 months for contempt, I think there are relevant considerations in addition to whether someone is being deliberately provocative or seeking publicity. It doesn't seem to me to be anywhere in the law that motive is relevant anyway.

If one wanted to limit his publicity, then arresting him was the wrong way to go. Likewise, if the goal is to limit his provocativeness, then let him sit there on the public street livestreaming. He's not in the court. He's not filming "the proceedings."

[L'Emmerdeur]

'Robinson' has an established track record. There is no basis for an assumption that he was giving an accurate report, much less acting in good faith; rather the contrary. His status as a reporter is dubious in the extreme, given that it appears his only previous 'reporting' resulted in a conviction for contempt of court. He's no longer associated with the online right-wing media site which gave him a flimsy credibility in calling himself a reporter. His previous conviction and suspended sentence came with an unambiguous warning not to engage in similar activity. It seems likely that the judge in this instance had little choice in their ruling.

[Rum]

The judge was following the rule of law - there has been plenty of explanation about that so there's no point in repeating it. I'm a supported of th rule of law myself, but I am also happy to express a bias and a willingness to bend the rules when it comes to scum like this. I don't care how hypocritical that is but it is honest at any rate.

[Animavore]

Unlikely any rules were bent.