Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

The judgment is still not available - but here's a little report, of sorts, that purports to set out and characterise fragments of the Court's remarks: https://www.rt.com/uk/428258-tommy-robinson-threat-judge-jail/

Robinson was arrested and subsequently imprisoned for contempt after he put a sexual assault case - which includes 29 charges of child sex and neglect - at risk of a mistrial by live streaming facts of the case within earshot of jurors as they entered the court. The self-styled ‘independent journalist’ was already on a suspended sentence for a previous contempt of court charge.

On Friday, while Robinson was before Leeds Crown Court, Marson 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.

“If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video I will do doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury. If I have to do that it will mean a re-trial, costing hundreds and hundreds and thousands of pounds,” he added.

In court, Marson explained that a re-trial would also mean witnesses in the sexual abuse case would again have to face the ordeal of giving evidence again before a jury. However despite his concerns, the decision to introduce reporting restrictions was successfully challenged and were lifted on Tuesday after the Independent newspaper and Leeds Live challenged the ban.

Robinson remains in jail after Marson told him in court: “People have to understand that if they breach court orders there will be very real consequences.”


The balance of the article suggests, perhaps, that the supporters of this serial offender are only interested in "freedom of speech" for them and all their mates who share their uninformed, regressive, dumb opinions.

They are, of course, the tin-foil hat brigade for the modern era.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:23 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'ts Breitbart so you might want to take it with a pinch of salt but it may help explain why the police go so hard at Robinson for talking about grooming gangs:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02/25/rotherham-police-had-sex-with-abused-girls-and-covered-for-relative-sex-groomers/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:37 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, maybe - we know from all the white people in positions of influence who were engaged in such activity that institutional cover-up enables these horrendous crimes - but it isn't the police, it's the Courts and it is beyond obvious to me that all they are doing, in Robinson's cases, is trying to protect the integrity of the criminal trial process. It's one of those situations where the courts' power to control their own process trumps allowing people to indulge in unfettered comment. Even though we can't (still) read Judge Marson's ruling on Robinson, the Judge's comments - as reported in the article I quoted in my previous post - make that clear.

If the jurors found out what Robinson had done, there would be an application to discharge the jury, the Judge may well have to discharge the jury, the prosecution gets sent back to square one - and possibly worse, because witnesses change their minds, don't want to go through the ordeal of giving evidence a second time, get run over in the street etc etc, in which case the prosecution case falls apart and the alleged offenders walk away free because there is insufficient evidence for a re-trial. There is no way that could be a useful outcome - these are awful allegations and the trials must proceed, Our (and the UK's) system's emphasis on fairness to the accused makes such action to suppress external comment essential. The suppression applies until the judgment is given in the criminal trials - after that, it becomes open slather, anyone can say what they like and there will, no doubt, be many, many books about these awful events.

There is a High Court case here from the late 80s or 90s arising from the various trials of Glennon (a defrocked former priest) that involved an application to stay proceedings against him on the basis of prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The High Court avoided going down the US path (which, with all due respect to the US reporting of the Robinson case, would likely result in these alleged criminals having proceedings against them permanently stayed) and basically said, if I may be permitted to paraphrase (and IIRC, having not read it since 1993) that "fair enough" rather than "absolute fairness" is the standard. I'll find the case and post you a link to it. In short, what I don't think the pro-Robinson brigade appreciate is the completely paralyzing effect this sort of contempt has on the ordinary operation of our standard criminal trial processes. Robinson got closed down (twice) because no self-respecting judge wants a ratbag like him to cause a mistrial that will ultimately prevent bad people from being convicted.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
thesoretoothsayer 



Joined: 26 Apr 2017


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:56 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Good point about police corruption and collusion not being limited to muslim grooming gangs. I think we saw plenty of it here in relation to the Catholic Church.

As more information has come to light about the case I don't question the integrity of the court's decisions. However, the gag-order on reporting on Robinson's arrest was not a good look. Perhaps it was necessary, perhaps not but it did allow a "political prisoner" narrative to form and disseminate.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:02 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
Well, maybe - we know from all the white people in positions of influence who were engaged in such activity that institutional cover-up enables these horrendous crimes - but it isn't the police, it's the Courts and it is beyond obvious to me that all they are doing, in Robinson's cases, is trying to protect the integrity of the criminal trial process. It's one of those situations where the courts' power to control their own process trumps allowing people to indulge in unfettered comment. Even though we can't (still) read Judge Marson's ruling on Robinson, the Judge's comments - as reported in the article I quoted in my previous post - make that clear.

If the jurors found out what Robinson had done, there would be an application to discharge the jury, the Judge may well have to discharge the jury, the prosecution gets sent back to square one - and possibly worse, because witnesses change their minds, don't want to go through the ordeal of giving evidence a second time, get run over in the street etc etc, in which case the prosecution case falls apart and the alleged offenders walk away free because there is insufficient evidence for a re-trial. There is no way that could be a useful outcome - these are awful allegations and the trials must proceed, Our (and the UK's) system's emphasis on fairness to the accused makes such action to suppress external comment essential. The suppression applies until the judgment is given in the criminal trials - after that, it becomes open slather, anyone can say what they like and there will, no doubt, be many, many books about these awful events.

There is a High Court case here from the late 80s or 90s arising from the various trials of Glennon (a defrocked former priest) that involved an application to stay proceedings against him on the basis of prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The High Court avoided going down the US path (which, with all due respect to the US reporting of the Robinson case, would likely result in these alleged criminals having proceedings against them permanently stayed) and basically said, if I may be permitted to paraphrase (and IIRC, having not read it since 1993) that "fair enough" rather than "absolute fairness" is the standard. I'll find the case and post you a link to it. In short, what I don't think the pro-Robinson brigade appreciate is the completely paralyzing effect this sort of contempt has on the ordinary operation of our standard criminal trial processes. Robinson got closed down (twice) because no self-respecting judge wants a ratbag like him to cause a mistrial that will ultimately prevent bad people from being convicted.


Gees, for you to say this this guy must be a real piece of work,
thanks for the insight.

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:16 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

thesoretoothsayer wrote:
Good point about police corruption and collusion not being limited to muslim grooming gangs. I think we saw plenty of it here in relation to the Catholic Church.

As more information has come to light about the case I don't question the integrity of the court's decisions. However, the gag-order on reporting on Robinson's arrest was not a good look. Perhaps it was necessary, perhaps not but it did allow a "political prisoner" narrative to form and disseminate.

The gag order was not a good look because people otherwise capable of rational thought wanted to pretend that there was a conspiracy. If you look back through the thread you will see that I stated succinctly why this event must have occurred (not because I was having a bit of a guess but because - to put it gently - I have a reasonable grasp of how the common law trial process operates in a British-derived legal system) and - lo and behold - I was right. You’d kind of hope I would be - because me getting that wrong would be the professional equivalent of dropping a chest mark in the goal square in the dying seconds of a Grand Final with your team 2 points behind. Yet, even after I stated the (professionally) obvious, some posters wanted to have another go (no, I don’t mean you).

It actually creates a dilemma for me on Nick’s - sometimes on these sorts of issues, I’m guilty of making the dreadful error of thinking that if I tell people how things actually work they can have a more informed discussion. I don’t know whether I should participate, really, in future - I’ve been whacked from the Left and the Right on here over the years for saying “well, no, given how this particular legal process operates empirically, actually it’s ...”.

It’s strange, really. There was a fellow posting in GD a couple of years ago about some medical issue (maybe Elliott’s back) - I didn’t know whether he was right or wrong but after a few of his posts, I realised he was either a surgeon or an extremely experienced physician, so I just proceeded on the basis that he knew what he was talking about. Here, it seems that some people think everything is contestable. In truth, the normative content of the law is - but me stating how it actually works (as distinct from how it should work) just isn’t (and if I am doubtful about that in a particular instance, I always say so).
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:35 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

His appeal is set for 10 July, before Lord Justice Leveson (who is the President of the Queen’s Bench Division of the English High Court).

Those who can do the arithmetic will appreciate that the appeal will be heard before this particular 4-times convicted criminal has started to serve the sentence handed down to him at the end of May (he is presently doing his three months of porridge for the formerly suspended sentence he got the previous year). Since he pleaded guilty, I assume his appeal is against sentence only.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:27 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

The alt-right sources I relied on to state that this appeal was fixed for 10 July 2018 have proved to be completely spurious and baseless. It seems that their ability to play fast and loose with the truth exceeded my expectations.

Anyway, if he has lodged an appeal and when it does come before the Court, here's a useful commentary on what may actually happen and what's involved: https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/appealing-against-a-crown-court-sentence
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 7:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

The appeal was cancelled/delayed apparently.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jul 05, 2018 9:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, was it? The impartial commentators apparently can find no record it was ever listed for 10 July (or that there is an appeal against sentence on foot).
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:55 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

A hearing (whether a directions hearing or the hearing of the substantive application for leave to appeal against his sentence, who knows?) may be listed for 24 July, it appears: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5922199/Ex-English-Defence-League-leader-Tommy-Robinson-appeal-13-month-jaling.html

Other more reliable news sources (such as the BBC) report that he is to appeal but don't specify a hearing date. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44727888

So that we are all quite clear about this, though, this is an appeal against the severity of the sentence, not the conviction. He pleaded guilty, as charged, to contempt of court.

In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the organizers of the misguided, ratbag, protest organized for this weekend have decided not to proceed, ostensibly so that both Tommy's toothless supporters can watch England lose to Sweden in the World Cup quarter-final.

The main interest, now, will be to see whether Young Yaxley receives especially lenient treatment on appeal. It is plain enough, reviewing the contempt of court sentences handed down on recent times (of which there are many - I posted the link earlier in this thread), that immediate custodial sentences of considerable severity are routinely handed out in the UK for contempt to first-time offenders. So, first, I don't know why his May 2017 sentence was suspended and only three months and, secondly - on a fair hearing, at least - his most recent sentence is unlikely to be reduced at all, given that he is now an habitual criminal with a poor record, generally, and prior convictions for this kind of criminal misconduct, in particular.

There are, no doubt, all sorts of appalling injustices occurring routinely in the English criminal justice system. It is not easy to see why - frothing mouths and anger-management issues aside - anyone would now think this was one of them. I understand that some people with limited reasoning capacity want to hold fast to their prejudices, of course, even though the defendant has admitted his guilt - so it will be interesting to watch how the mad-Right's misinformation machine will deal with this, going forward.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:11 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2018/07/08/mixed-feelings-for-tommy-robinson-supporters-after-bloke-called-ali-puts-england-into-world-cup-semi-finals/
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:55 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Yahoooooo

No way I’ll watch, too boring but yahooooooo, Go Pommies!

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:04 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Until Wednesday, at least, we are all singing one of the greatest football anthems ever over here :

https://youtu.be/RJqimlFcJsM

Collingwood supporters at least will recognize the basic sentiment of this song.

It’ll almost certainly go to custard somehow, as the England football side makes Collingwood sides of the 70s look like a safe pair of hands when it comes to the big stage, but that is part of the charm.....

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Jul 16, 2018 5:56 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tommy-robinson-supporter-mocked-over-12921837
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10 ... 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 9 of 20   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group