|
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 17, 2019 23:47:58 GMT
He didnt break any court reporting restrictions thats the point. He was thrown in prison within 5 hrs of being arrested in Leeds and spent 12 weeks?.. in jail which is unheard of! The case about reporting restrictions were dropped by the highest judge in our land as it was wrong.But they wanted to nail Tommy on some charge (or had to after his panodrama was released after he came out of prison) so they jailed him for "intimidating" convicted muslim pedo grooming gang members when they were walking by him outside the court, which is a complete joke as he just asked them how they were feeling about the case as the media can do. (Look at Tommy walking to Court last week it happened there) If you follow Tommy Robinson or any of his work you would know that in no way does his think of himself as above the law. All of us are subject to the law of the land. That law includes the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which makes clear that nothing about an “active” criminal case can be published, if it “creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”. This is the general rule and it applies to all stages of a criminal case from the moment a suspect is even arrested. Generally, the law does not prevent reporting events from inside the courtroom, provided that it amounts to a “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.” However, there are many cases where publication, even of the proceedings in court, may create a risk of prejudice, either to the case being tried or to a future trial. In such cases, the trial judge has the power to make an order under s.4(2) of the Act, postponing the reporting of any part of the trial, for a long as necessary, to eliminate that risk as far as possible. The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison. In the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”), there was a s.4(2) order in place preventing the publication of details of “Trial 1” (a public grooming trial) whilst further linked trials remained in the pipeline and, crucially, before the jury had returned its verdicts.
Ignoring that order completely, Yaxley-Lennon streamed full details of the defendants in the trial via Facebook Live, published a video “encouraging his followers to harass the defendants”, and “photographed and intimidated” them as they entered court.There are further protections of those attending court buildings, preventing behaviour which might otherwise interfere with justice or disrupt proceedings. Everyone attending a criminal court has the fundamental right to do safely and peacefully. The judge’s power to postpone reporting is used most often when the court is dealing with a series of trials, whether of the same defendant(s), or arising out of the same police investigation. The purpose of the order is to ensure that the jury, either in the ongoing trial or some future trial, does not hear evidence, via the traditional media or online, which may be inadmissible or otherwise prejudicial to the trial process. In my 26 years of practice in the criminal courts, I cannot recall a more blatant, serious or disruptive contempt of court, by publication, than that carried out by Yaxley-Lennon in this case. It is clear from the sentence handed out to him of nine months (although he will be committed in prison for 19 weeks and will serve up to one half of that period) that the court felt the same way. It is fundamental to the fairness of every criminal trial that the jury’s verdict is based on what jurors hear in the courtroom, under the watchful eye and legal control of the judge, and not on anything they have heard elsewhere. Every jury is now directed in strong terms, under threat of imprisonment, not to search for information about the case online and to disregard anything they may inadvertently see in the press, or on television. Professional journalists are well aware of the restrictions to prevent contempt of court, and are generally assiduous in ensuring that they abide by orders of the court. They are wise to do so, if they want to remain in long-term employment, as the offence is one of strict liability, meaning that a journalist (and their employer) is criminally liable for publishing seriously prejudicial material, even if there was no intent to do so. There have been many cases, in recent years, of contempt by social media users, but none so provocative, deliberate and widely publicised as that of Yaxley-Lennon in the Leeds Crown Court case. What seems to have failed to strike home with Yaxley-Lennon’s vocal band of supporters, in particular on social media, is that the whole point of reporting restrictions is to protect the integrity of the trial process for everyone. Yes, it is about ensuring a fair trial for the defendants but, equally, the sort of prejudicial conduct, engaged in by Yaxley-Lennon, can lead to the collapse of some very serious cases. The consequences of such a development always fall most heavily on the victims, who may have to endure the experience of giving evidence all over again, at a retrial, or, worst of all, may see the charges dropped altogether, allowing their abusers to go free. And all because an attention-seeking agitator, with a webcam and a big mouth, decides that the law does not apply to him. Yaxley-Lennon was convicted by Mr Justice Warby, a senior High Court Judge, and the newly appointed President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, one of the most senior judges of the Court of Appeal. They found that his behaviour “amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice”, including his “aggressive confronting and filming of the defendants”. Chris Daw QC is a barrister who specialises in serious and complex criminal cases Sorry to be disrespectful as you copy and pasted that, but the source of that piece is dogshit. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Jul 18, 2019 11:08:18 GMT
Why is this in General Chat and not General sports?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jul 18, 2019 11:12:52 GMT
www.independent.co.uk/voices/tommy-robinson-sentencing-prison-jail-hearing-years-grooming-contempt-court-a8999366.htmlAll of us are subject to the law of the land. That law includes the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which makes clear that nothing about an “active” criminal case can be published, if it “creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”. This is the general rule and it applies to all stages of a criminal case from the moment a suspect is even arrested. Generally, the law does not prevent reporting events from inside the courtroom, provided that it amounts to a “fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.” However, there are many cases where publication, even of the proceedings in court, may create a risk of prejudice, either to the case being tried or to a future trial. In such cases, the trial judge has the power to make an order under s.4(2) of the Act, postponing the reporting of any part of the trial, for a long as necessary, to eliminate that risk as far as possible. The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison. In the case of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka “Tommy Robinson”), there was a s.4(2) order in place preventing the publication of details of “Trial 1” (a public grooming trial) whilst further linked trials remained in the pipeline and, crucially, before the jury had returned its verdicts.
Ignoring that order completely, Yaxley-Lennon streamed full details of the defendants in the trial via Facebook Live, published a video “encouraging his followers to harass the defendants”, and “photographed and intimidated” them as they entered court.There are further protections of those attending court buildings, preventing behaviour which might otherwise interfere with justice or disrupt proceedings. Everyone attending a criminal court has the fundamental right to do safely and peacefully. The judge’s power to postpone reporting is used most often when the court is dealing with a series of trials, whether of the same defendant(s), or arising out of the same police investigation. The purpose of the order is to ensure that the jury, either in the ongoing trial or some future trial, does not hear evidence, via the traditional media or online, which may be inadmissible or otherwise prejudicial to the trial process. In my 26 years of practice in the criminal courts, I cannot recall a more blatant, serious or disruptive contempt of court, by publication, than that carried out by Yaxley-Lennon in this case. It is clear from the sentence handed out to him of nine months (although he will be committed in prison for 19 weeks and will serve up to one half of that period) that the court felt the same way. It is fundamental to the fairness of every criminal trial that the jury’s verdict is based on what jurors hear in the courtroom, under the watchful eye and legal control of the judge, and not on anything they have heard elsewhere. Every jury is now directed in strong terms, under threat of imprisonment, not to search for information about the case online and to disregard anything they may inadvertently see in the press, or on television. Professional journalists are well aware of the restrictions to prevent contempt of court, and are generally assiduous in ensuring that they abide by orders of the court. They are wise to do so, if they want to remain in long-term employment, as the offence is one of strict liability, meaning that a journalist (and their employer) is criminally liable for publishing seriously prejudicial material, even if there was no intent to do so. There have been many cases, in recent years, of contempt by social media users, but none so provocative, deliberate and widely publicised as that of Yaxley-Lennon in the Leeds Crown Court case. What seems to have failed to strike home with Yaxley-Lennon’s vocal band of supporters, in particular on social media, is that the whole point of reporting restrictions is to protect the integrity of the trial process for everyone. Yes, it is about ensuring a fair trial for the defendants but, equally, the sort of prejudicial conduct, engaged in by Yaxley-Lennon, can lead to the collapse of some very serious cases. The consequences of such a development always fall most heavily on the victims, who may have to endure the experience of giving evidence all over again, at a retrial, or, worst of all, may see the charges dropped altogether, allowing their abusers to go free. And all because an attention-seeking agitator, with a webcam and a big mouth, decides that the law does not apply to him. Yaxley-Lennon was convicted by Mr Justice Warby, a senior High Court Judge, and the newly appointed President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, one of the most senior judges of the Court of Appeal. They found that his behaviour “amounted to a serious interference with the administration of justice”, including his “aggressive confronting and filming of the defendants”. Chris Daw QC is a barrister who specialises in serious and complex criminal cases Sorry to be disrespectful as you copy and pasted that, but the source of that piece is dogshit. care to explain how Chris Daw QC is wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 18, 2019 21:19:41 GMT
It's turned out just the way he planned it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 18, 2019 22:39:52 GMT
It's turned out just the way he planned it. Yep! Anyone who thinks TR is the wronged one here has fallen hook, line and sinker. |
|
|
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 18, 2019 23:37:22 GMT
Sorry to be disrespectful as you copy and pasted that, but the source of that piece is dogshit. care to explain how Chris Daw QC is wrong? Tommy went and asked the opinion of these pedo rapists within the rights of the media laws in this country after the judge had akready made judgement on the case, and everything Tommy then said after was printed on the BBC news website,which is where he was reading from when arrested.Info open to the public.He broke now law in doing so. Do some research from other sources than just the main stream media outlets Mr Spout. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 19, 2019 0:34:40 GMT
care to explain how Chris Daw QC is wrong? Tommy went and asked the opinion of these pedo rapists within the rights of the media laws in this country after the judge had akready made judgement on the case, and everything Tommy then said after was printed on the BBC news website,which is where he was reading from when arrested.Info open to the public.He broke now law in doing so. Do some research from other sources than just the main stream media outlets Mr Spout. Were there reporting restrictions in place and did he live stream before the restrictions were lifted? Was there a linked trial where the jury was still to reach a verdict and did two of the defendant's lawyers try and get it classed as an unfair trial on the back of the livestream? That is my understanding of it, happy to be corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by popuppirate on Jul 19, 2019 6:23:50 GMT
Tommy went and asked the opinion of these pedo rapists within the rights of the media laws in this country after the judge had akready made judgement on the case, and everything Tommy then said after was printed on the BBC news website,which is where he was reading from when arrested.Info open to the public.He broke now law in doing so. Do some research from other sources than just the main stream media outlets Mr Spout. Were there reporting restrictions in place and did he live stream before the restrictions were lifted? Was there a linked trial where the jury was still to reach a verdict and did two of the defendant's lawyers try and get it classed as an unfair trial on the back of the livestream? That is my understanding of it, happy to be corrected. Yaxley-Lennon filmed and confronted defendants during a case which had reporting restrictions. He was aware of the restrictions and was aware he was in contempt of court, and pleaded guilty. Not sure what the crying is about. |
|
|
|
Post by Icegas on Jul 19, 2019 12:42:17 GMT
Were there reporting restrictions in place and did he live stream before the restrictions were lifted? Was there a linked trial where the jury was still to reach a verdict and did two of the defendant's lawyers try and get it classed as an unfair trial on the back of the livestream? That is my understanding of it, happy to be corrected. Yaxley-Lennon filmed and confronted defendants during a case which had reporting restrictions. He was aware of the restrictions and was aware he was in contempt of court, and pleaded guilty. Not sure what the crying is about. No, incorrect. He was aware of the reporting restrictions and NEVER BROKE THEM.There was video of him asking a police officer outside Leeds court this.He never "confronted" the guilty.He asked them how they were feeling about the case.He is free to do so as a part of the free press.Look how Robinson has done to him at each court case he has ever been to himself including the other week. Tommy is not an Alt/far right racist as the mainstream media tells everyone he is.He a good,honest,working man with the biggest pair of bolloxs in the UK trying and expose some of the pure evil that is happening to our girls at the hands of islam. There are hundreds of videos of Tommys backing this and the medias corruption against him that have been taken down as he has been deplatformed off socal media. My only problem with Tommy is he knew that by going to that Leeds court case he was going to give the law a bullet to fire at him.And they sadly that day they hit the bulls eye. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 13:07:59 GMT
Ice gas says
"Tommy is not an Alt/far right racist as the mainstream media tells everyone he is.He a good,honest,working man with the biggest pair of bolloxs in the UK trying and expose some of the pure evil that is happening to our girls at the hands of islam."
If you say so.
But there are plenty of people working hard to seek out and bring to justice ANYONE who is involved child abuse, regardless of their choice of faith.
They do not feel the need to parade up and down the street like this bloke.
As far as "good and honest", really? Or just a two bit thug?
|
|
|
|
Post by popuppirate on Jul 19, 2019 16:32:12 GMT
Yaxley-Lennon filmed and confronted defendants during a case which had reporting restrictions. He was aware of the restrictions and was aware he was in contempt of court, and pleaded guilty. Not sure what the crying is about. No, incorrect. He was aware of the reporting restrictions and NEVER BROKE THEM.There was video of him asking a police officer outside Leeds court this.He never "confronted" the guilty.He asked them how they were feeling about the case.He is free to do so as a part of the free press.Look how Robinson has done to him at each court case he has ever been to himself including the other week. Tommy is not an Alt/far right racist as the mainstream media tells everyone he is.He a good,honest,working man with the biggest pair of bolloxs in the UK trying and expose some of the pure evil that is happening to our girls at the hands of islam. There are hundreds of videos of Tommys backing this and the medias corruption against him that have been taken down as he has been deplatformed off socal media. My only problem with Tommy is he knew that by going to that Leeds court case he was going to give the law a bullet to fire at him.And they sadly that day they hit the bulls eye. I'd argue that he broke the law but it doesn't seem worth going there with you about that. However, when it comes to 'pedo Muslim rape gangs' I would ask why Yaxley-Lennon didn't feel the need to 'interview' Leigh McMillan ( Senior EDL ) or Richard Price ( Senior EDL ) during their trials for child sex offences. It appears to me, that it's 'Muslim' rather than 'pedo rape gangs' that he's targeting for attention. |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 19, 2019 18:10:36 GMT
Mcmillan and Price were found to be perverts and rightly were taken to court straight away with the press giving publicity and locked up.
Muslim rape gangs were operating in the 1990's , nothing done about it, the Police said nothing the local Councils said nothing, Gordon Brown said the girls made a lifestyle choice or words to that effect, five, ten, twenty years later and finally something is done but the press are still not happy to show it.
I think this should give you a better idea of why he mentions the rape gangs now ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 18:20:10 GMT
Mcmillan and Price were found to be perverts and rightly were taken to court straight away with the press giving publicity and locked up. Muslim rape gangs were operating in the 1990's , nothing done about it, the Police said nothing the local Councils said nothing, Gordon Brown said the girls made a lifestyle choice or words to that effect, five, ten, twenty years later and finally something is done but the press are still not happy to show it. I think this should give you a better idea of why he mentions the rape gangs now ? Love to see the source from which you quote Brown as saying these girls made a lifestyle choice, or words to that effect. Can you give a link please? |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 19, 2019 18:38:57 GMT
BBC radio 4 interview 19th October 2018 with former chief prosecution officer Nazir Afzal, back in 2008, the home office sent a circular to all Police forces in the Country saying " As far as these girls being exploited in towns and city's, we believe that they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you Police officers to get involved in". This was backed by Home secretary Jacqui Smith.
Just google it.
|
|
|
|
Post by popuppirate on Jul 19, 2019 19:41:12 GMT
Mcmillan and Price were found to be perverts and rightly were taken to court straight away with the press giving publicity and locked up. Muslim rape gangs were operating in the 1990's , nothing done about it, the Police said nothing the local Councils said nothing, Gordon Brown said the girls made a lifestyle choice or words to that effect, five, ten, twenty years later and finally something is done but the press are still not happy to show it. I think this should give you a better idea of why he mentions the rape gangs now ? I've worked in mental health for 25 years, and in my experience multiple child sexual abuse cases have predominantly arisen from within organised religious groups such as the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church. Other large corporations have also appeared to turn a blind eye. If we're talking about the 70's , let's not forget Saville, Harris, Glitter etc etc whose behaviour was legitimised for years. It's not a 'Muslim' problem. It is and has been an epidemic which does not discriminate between race, colour or class. |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 19, 2019 20:02:43 GMT
You mention some large groups and some individuals, have you in your work seen child rape on such an industrial scale before ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 20:07:39 GMT
You mention some large groups and some individuals, have you in your work seen child rape on such an industrial scale before ? He has made his point, from a position of knowledge |
|
|
|
Post by popuppirate on Jul 19, 2019 20:10:41 GMT
You mention some large groups and some individuals, have you in your work seen child rape on such an industrial scale before ? I mentioned the individuals because they were backed by large establishments and corporations who turned a blind eye. Like I said, child sexual abuse has been prolific in organised religions, on an industrial scale if you like, for decades in this country. Fear, guilt and shame prevents victims disclosing events but more often mental illness and suicide are what results. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 20:39:22 GMT
You mention some large groups and some individuals, have you in your work seen child rape on such an industrial scale before ? I mentioned the individuals because they were backed by large establishments and corporations who turned a blind eye. Like I said, child sexual abuse has been prolific in organised religions, on an industrial scale if you like, for decades in this country. Fear, guilt and shame prevents victims disclosing events but more often mental illness and suicide are what results. Well said sir. |
|
|
|
Post by newmarketgas on Jul 20, 2019 5:43:27 GMT
Individual Mormons, Individual Catholics and a good few Celebs have been and are sex pests but have you ever seen a religion encourage it's followers to become sex pests before ? fear, gilt and shame stop victims disclosing events but never before have the Police, Councillors and governments stood in the way before for the sake of diversity, the second crime here is those getting in the way of catching these perverts and that includes the BBC again ! The question I guess that should be asked is, Are the Police, all the layers of Government and some charities that are happy to hide all this just waiting for the 'hand me downs' and the votes ?
|
|
