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

[Strontium Dog]

We'll find out the full story after the trial of the alleged offenders is concluded. In the meantime, the twat has pleaded guilty, so even he isn't attempting to pretend he didn't break the law.

[Forty Two]

Did anyone have any luck finding the publication order entered by this judge (Marsden, I think) in the grooming gang case? The precise language, I think, would be important in determining what would be appropriate consequences under the circumstnaces.

And, I get it, Rum, when you have such an unsavory character, and wouldn't care if he wound up in the clink. He may well "deserve" to be in chokey. But, his unsavoriness in other areas really has little to do with whether he violated the judge's order in this instance.

I can't figure out why I can't find the actual order.

[Forty Two]

We'll find out the full story after the trial of the alleged offenders is concluded. In the meantime, the twat has pleaded guilty, so even he isn't attempting to pretend he didn't break the law.

But where did you see he pled guilty. I did a quick googles for "Tommy Robinson pled guilty to contempt" and some articles came up but nothing that said he admitted guilt.

[Rum]

Did anyone have any luck finding the publication order entered by this judge (Marsden, I think) in the grooming gang case? The precise language, I think, would be important in determining what would be appropriate consequences under the circumstnaces.

And, I get it, Rum, when you have such an unsavory character, and wouldn't care if he wound up in the clink. He may well "deserve" to be in chokey. But, his unsavoriness in other areas really has little to do with whether he violated the judge's order in this instance.

I can't figure out why I can't find the actual order.

Yeah but I don't give a fuck. This is a guy who, if given any credibility, a thimbleful of power or the 'oxygen of publicity' would set out to destroy this country's way of doing things, its tolerance and ability to adapt and change and absorb new cultures and peoples. In the same way as I would not give a damn about breaking the law in protecting my own in the case of - for example - a home invasion (to be extreme for a moment) I would be happy to break the rules I like to think I live by to see this guy out of circulation. That notion probably deserves a thread of its own.

[Strontium Dog]

We'll find out the full story after the trial of the alleged offenders is concluded. In the meantime, the twat has pleaded guilty, so even he isn't attempting to pretend he didn't break the law.

But where did you see he pled guilty. I did a quick googles for "Tommy Robinson pled guilty to contempt" and some articles came up but nothing that said he admitted guilt.

Oh well, if you did a quick Google...

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds ... e-14718619

The video footage was played to Judge Geoffrey Marson QC as Robinson sat in the dock.

Robinson, whose criminal record dates back to 2005, has a previous conviction for contempt of court.

He was the subject of a suspended prison sentence, imposed at Canterbury Crown Court, after he filmed in court.

He also has convictions for disobeying a court order, possessing identity documents with intent, fraud, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possessing drugs and threatening behaviour.

He pleaded guilty to contempt of court and breach of a suspended sentence.

Matthew Harding, mitigating, said his client felt "deep regret" after realising the potential consequences of his actions.

He said Robinson was aware of the reporting restriction in place in the case but thought what he was saying on camera was already in the public domain.

The barrister added: "He was mindful, having spoken to others and taken advice, not to say things that he thought would actually prejudice these proceedings.

"He did not try to cause difficulties for the court process."

Mr Harding said Robinson had been the victim of assaults while serving time in prison before and there had been "a price on his head" during his last prison term with inmates being offered the reward of drugs and mobile phones to kill him.

But the judge said: “No one could possibly conclude that it would be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the trial.

“I respect everyone’s right to free speech. That’s one of the most important rights that we have.

“With those rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the law.

“I am not sure you appreciate the potential consequence of what you have done."

The judge added: “You have to understand we are not preventing publication. We are postponing publication to ensure that the trial is fair.

“When people are convicted and given long sentences, it is on a proper basis and not a conviction that can be overturned.

“It is a serious feature that you were encouraging others to share what you were streaming live on social media.”

Jailing the married father-of-three, the judge said: “People have to understand that if they breach court orders there will be very real consequences.”

[Forty Two]

We'll find out the full story after the trial of the alleged offenders is concluded. In the meantime, the twat has pleaded guilty, so even he isn't attempting to pretend he didn't break the law.

But where did you see he pled guilty. I did a quick googles for "Tommy Robinson pled guilty to contempt" and some articles came up but nothing that said he admitted guilt.

Oh well, if you did a quick Google...

Well, yes, this is a discussion. Should I make sure to roll eyes next time you don't immediately find something regarding US law? Has there ever been a time when you've not found something, and someone else was able to dredge it up? Why must conversations take that kind of turn, just because one person didn't find what the other found? I don't care which side of this issue you're on -- the side I'm on is the side trying to understand exactly what happened here, and what the limits and terms of UK law is on this.

When I googled, that live leeds link did not come up. As you know, the court has had no publication orders off and on on this, and for a while barely anything came up. I do hope you can forgive me for not finding what you found. I know it's horrible.

By the way, that leeds-live link indicates it was just update around 17:08 today. It's not been up long, and it certainly would not have been up this morning, when I was clicking around. I just did another search for Tommy Robinson pleads guilty to contempt and that link does not come up, and no other link that does come up in a search here reports that he "pled" guilty. Not sure why that would be.

https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds ... e-14718619

The video footage was played to Judge Geoffrey Marson QC as Robinson sat in the dock.

Robinson, whose criminal record dates back to 2005, has a previous conviction for contempt of court.

He was the subject of a suspended prison sentence, imposed at Canterbury Crown Court, after he filmed in court.

He also has convictions for disobeying a court order, possessing identity documents with intent, fraud, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possessing drugs and threatening behaviour.

He pleaded guilty to contempt of court and breach of a suspended sentence.

Matthew Harding, mitigating, said his client felt "deep regret" after realising the potential consequences of his actions.

Well, if that's accurate, it raises some questions, too. I really don't know why he would plead guilty right off the bat. The articles I read said he was hauled into court and sentenced within five hours, but did not have the benefit of an attorney. If this article is accurate, then he has apparently seriously misread the court on this. Would he have gotten longer than 13 months for this, if he didn't plead guilty? What would motivate him to do that?

He said Robinson was aware of the reporting restriction in place in the case but thought what he was saying on camera was already in the public domain.

[/quote]

I wonder if that's accurate, and if it matters. He might be in strict liability territory. But if he thought it was in the public domain, and thought public domain meant he was in compliance, why would he plead guilty?

The barrister added: "He was mindful, having spoken to others and taken advice, not to say things that he thought would actually prejudice these proceedings.

"He did not try to cause difficulties for the court process."

Mr Harding said Robinson had been the victim of assaults while serving time in prison before and there had been "a price on his head" during his last prison term with inmates being offered the reward of drugs and mobile phones to kill him.

But the judge said: “No one could possibly conclude that it would be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the trial.

“I respect everyone’s right to free speech. That’s one of the most important rights that we have.

“With those rights come responsibilities. The responsibility to exercise that freedom of speech within the law.

“I am not sure you appreciate the potential consequence of what you have done."

The judge added: “You have to understand we are not preventing publication. We are postponing publication to ensure that the trial is fair.

“When people are convicted and given long sentences, it is on a proper basis and not a conviction that can be overturned.

“It is a serious feature that you were encouraging others to share what you were streaming live on social media.”

Jailing the married father-of-three, the judge said: “People have to understand that if they breach court orders there will be very real consequences.”

[/quote]

I wonder what his ploy is here. I would think he'd fight tooth and nail, if he thought he was in compliance. By pleading guilty, and sucking up to the court, he really looks like a fool.

Thanks for the great link.

[Forty Two]

Did anyone have any luck finding the publication order entered by this judge (Marsden, I think) in the grooming gang case? The precise language, I think, would be important in determining what would be appropriate consequences under the circumstnaces.

And, I get it, Rum, when you have such an unsavory character, and wouldn't care if he wound up in the clink. He may well "deserve" to be in chokey. But, his unsavoriness in other areas really has little to do with whether he violated the judge's order in this instance.

I can't figure out why I can't find the actual order.

Yeah but I don't give a fuck. This is a guy who, if given any credibility, a thimbleful of power or the 'oxygen of publicity' would set out to destroy this country's way of doing things, its tolerance and ability to adapt and change and absorb new cultures and peoples. In the same way as I would not give a damn about breaking the law in protecting my own in the case of - for example - a home invasion (to be extreme for a moment) I would be happy to break the rules I like to think I live by to see this guy out of circulation. That notion probably deserves a thread of its own.

Fair enough, but not a sentiment I lean towards, not in the case of viewpoints and opinions, anyway. I prefer equal application of the law to scumbags and good people alike.

[Animavore]

Jesus. He's such a prima donna. Price on his head me bollocks. Delusional wanker.

[Seabass]

Tommy Robinson is basically a liberal.

[Animavore]

[JimC]

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."

But he was filming the defendants as they emerged from court, labelling them as muslim pedophiles. Widespread distribution of that footage would be both prejudicial to the proceedings, and a potential provocation for violence. Freedom to protest has limits, and this clearly breached them, quite deliberately.

[pErvinalia]

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.

As a mate of mine on facebook said:

He started the EDL, mixed with seriously odious bigots and racists, gets in trouble with the law a lot, now he's "reformed" and only concerned with Islamic extremism. Some people don't recognise dog whistle politics and think he just wants to make the world a better place.

[Hermit]

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.

Robinson was charged with contempt of court, to which he pled "guilty". Here's a useful report on the whole situation and the events that led up to it. I find the reasoning sound and valid:

Tommy Robinson jailed after breaking contempt of court laws with Facebook Live video

[rainbow]

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?

Yes, if he doesn't like it he can move to Uganda. I'm sure he'd get a warm reception there.

[rainbow]

We'll find out the full story after the trial of the alleged offenders is concluded. In the meantime, the twat has pleaded guilty, so even he isn't attempting to pretend he didn't break the law.

But where did you see he pled guilty. I did a quick googles for "Tommy Robinson pled guilty to contempt" and some articles came up but nothing that said he admitted guilt.

Seriously?

Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court. He was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -13-months