Making the news today....

[Vespasian]

1 minute ago, eggsarascal said:

What was the Judges legal means to punish him?

He had none..  so dicided he would look at Tommy's other conviction for contempt and use that to jail him on no legal grounds..

 

as Tommy hadn't breached the condition of the previous injunction..  still, why should that bother this judge, jail Tommy now let an appeal take its due course.. meanwhile the judge gets his pound of flesh..  Tommy gets jail.

 

its not the first time someones been jailed or had his sentence extended because the judge had a bad day is it..

[Mark J]

25 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

He had none..  so dicided he would look at Tommy's other conviction for contempt and use that to jail him on no legal grounds..

 

as Tommy hadn't breached the condition of the previous injunction..  still, why should that bother this judge, jail Tommy now let an appeal take its due course.. meanwhile the judge gets his pound of flesh..  Tommy gets jail.

 

its not the first time someones been jailed or had his sentence extended because the judge had a bad day is it..

Mr Lennon broke the law.

There's no denying that he things he's helped to bring into the public domain need addressing.  No-one's suggesting anything other than that. 

 

The fact is, that he has potentially created a situation that will allow the very people, he rightly despises, to call for a mistrial.

 

[Vespasian]

1 minute ago, Mark J said:

Mr Lennon broke the law.

There's no denying that he things he's helped to bring into the public domain need addressing.  No-one's suggesting anything other than that. 

 

The fact is, that he has potentially created a situation that will allow the very people, he rightly despises, to call for a mistrial.

 

Thats what the judge said, it must be true eh?..  after all he's a judge...

 

why did the judge send the police to arrest him on the grounds of breaching the peace?..  he made the shit up about prejudicing a case when he knew he couldn't jail him for breach of the peace... the bent judge..  making it up as he went along.

[Mark J]

19 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

Thats what the judge said, it must be true eh?..  after all he's a judge...

 

why did the judge send the police to arrest him on the grounds of breaching the peace?..  he made the shit up about prejudicing a case when he knew he couldn't jail him for breach of the peace... the bent judge..  making it up as he went along.

"after all he's a judge.."

 

Yup.

[Vespasian]

7 hours ago, Mark J said:

"after all he's a judge.."

 

Yup.

When I watched the live feed there was one incident were I winced, that was when the two lads were asked if they had any guilt, implying they were guilty..   I knew he was on thin ice doin that during a trial.

 

But I've been doin some thinking since...

 

The police think they're guilty do they not or they wouldn't be in court..  the CPS believe the police have grounds for a case or they wouldn't of let the case go to court..  so all Tommy did was repeat the suspicions of both the CPS and police..

 

I don't see how repeating those claims outside court can have any bearing on an ongoing trial..  

 

If your asking me the laws of contempt of court need looking into. In this day and age, in the age of social media and the internet the law needs looking into and revising..  

 

and you haven't explained why the judge sent the police to arrest Tommy on breach of peace and not contempt of court..

 

I'll tell you why he was arrested on breach of the peace, because that was his real crime if you can call it a crime..  I suspect the judge believed Tommy was attempting to whip up a mob outside court..   

 

Now not having any real evidence of said offence the judge changed his mind about the charge and changed it to contempt of court knowing he could punish Tommy on that charge, less evidence needed for that, plus he could jail him on the spot..

 

Why the D'notice?..   I still haven't fully figured that out yet, perhaps the judge might explain his real reasons for that..  because from what I can see it had fk all to do with a mistrial..

[felixthelogchopper]

This explains it pretty well. Granted, it does come from a clear anti Robinson aka Yaxley Lennon slant but the legal argument is still correct. If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip to section 8 which explains the previous case and explicitly clear instruction from the trial judge.        https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Rough Hewn]

On a lighter note.
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji12][emoji106]

[Inoff the Red]

2 hours ago, felixthelogchopper said:

This explains it pretty well. Granted, it does come from a clear anti Robinson aka Yaxley Lennon slant but the legal argument is still correct. If you don't want to read the whole thing, skip to section 8 which explains the previous case and explicitly clear instruction from the trial judge.        https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

As you say, this has been written from a definite anti TR stance. Of course the perceived "threat" to a fair trial is all in the mind of the judge. If you have ever served on jury you will know that you are ordered not to do any research on the case and to avoid anything on the internet or social media that makes reference to the case so in reality the prospect of TRs broadcast being seen by jurors is remote. 

 

I would be interested to read thesecretbarrister's legal justification for the apparent two tier legal/policing system that has developed whereby TR can be assaulted by his opponents with impunity, where he is ejected from Speakers Corner because of the threat of public disorder while doing nothing about the people that were actually threatening to breach the peace. 

 

Stepping back from the detail of the TR case and looking at things generally, it is difficult to escape from the view that justice and power is abused by those that wield it. The "Establishment" has a clear bias that is used to promote their preferred agenda and protect the chosen few. 

 

[scotspine1]

15 minutes ago, Inoff the Red said:

Stepping back from the detail of the TR case and looking at things generally, it is difficult to escape from the view that justice and power is abused by those that wield it. The "Establishment" has a clear bias that is used to promote their preferred agenda and protect the chosen few. 

 

Douglas Murray has made this point a few times over the years.

 

 

 

[Rough Hewn]

Erm I think Plato first wrote about this about 2500 years ago in "the republic" Can't remember his exacts words but it's a bit like this.

"Whether you live in a tyranny, dictatorship or liberal democracy, all society's are run by the ruling classes for the ruling classes."

Sums it up really.
[emoji51]