The Tommy Robinson thread.

There are two ways to silence someone: you can leave him with nothing to say, or you can throw him in jail. Guess which one the pedophile enablers of formerly great Britain did.

Well, here’s how it’s turning out:

Don’t expect the SPLC to come clean what this is all about, so…

the idiot judge didn’t know what can of worms he opened up with his arbitrary ruling.

1 Like

It’s not quite Airstrip One just yet.

All that, and they overturn the conviction. At least he’s alive.

Tommy Robinson, at least the case as I understand doesn’t easily equate to USA law.

He was live streaming outside a magistrates. In cases which involve minors, in the UK, you are not allowed to show images of the victims or publish the names of the minors.

There is a good reason for such a law to exist and Tommy knew he was breaking a law, which he had previously been given probation for.

From what I read, he will be tried again, and I suspect will be found guilty again.

1 Like

I find this case to be flawed from the start . The initial sentence , a few years before, was based upon the legal premace that the defendants identity being made public , would be “ a risk to National Security “ . I don’t think it qualifies . Exposing the crimes would certainly have been a risk , in angering the public but Politics would seem to have been , at least , in part involved . I also find it strange that the second arrest , was in spite of the information already being in the press at the time he was arrested … but those reporters were never prosecuted . Worse , the actual trial was over and the jury were already locked away determining the verdict . Seems at this moment there is still a possibility of Robinson being returned to jail . There does seem to be a question of political bias at the very least , whether one agrees with the politics or not .

Maybe political bias but wouldn’t you say children and minors should have some sort of protection?

Live streaming outside the courtroom, not only for the victims, but the accused, in the UK we have a law that prohibits distributing images of accused and defendants.

The law is decided on each case . Personally , I think Robinson should have waited until the verdict . The underlying problem is the distrust with law enforcement in the UK after they sat on these “ rumours” for so many years . The backlash was inevitable

Don’t follow, he was following a rape case involving minors, and was live streaming the people coming in and out of the court house.

You cant transmit images of minors in a rape case in the UK. Not the accused or the defendant. It’s not allowed. It’s why he was thrown into jail in two seconds flat.

The law is different in the USA, but then you get to discuss the difference.

Your inference is that he was arrested for filming minors ? I thought he was trying to film the accused ? . I thought he was in violation of ANY reporting at all . You should remember , without so much pressure and exposure , some of these cases would still have been buried , so which is the lesser evil ?. These people were just a few of the cases . As I said , I feel he should have stayed within the law but his motives were surely to expose the perpetrators and not the victims ?

I actually read the British law on this, and ANYONE in such a trail being photographed, named and so on, going in and out of the court needs consideration.’

It is really not so simple.

The British legal system leans heavily to protecting minors rights. You can have that debate elsewhere. But in these kind of trials involving minors, in the UK, the press needs to be careful.

ahh, herein lies the root of the problem. The Police and “British Legal System”, were seen to NOT protect the Rights of Minors. Time and time again. Otherwise Robinson would have received very little support. The "Debate " about this is the very core of the argument.
Many think the Children’s Rights “TRUMP” the Police wish not to cause unrest in the Community. It is about the most relevant point of the thread , surely ?/

Not sure I entirely get your point, but surely you understand minors should be protected?

That was my whole point.

I guess it may be “less” of a Crime to inadvertently photograph a child on a courtroom step, than to fail to recognise the Rapes etc, for years, and risk the perpetrators offending again and again. but yes, it is a Crime, and i do not condone it as I have said.

But they can be raped with impunity. Ah, priorities.

1 Like

The background . As a Parent, it is quite horrific to see the extent and , worse, the ignoring of the accusers for decades. There are thousands being abused , past and present.
So if you are concerned about the safety of Children, surely making people aware of the scale is not a bad thing.

Ffs, Tommy Robinson broke the law, was warned about it and given a suspended sentence, then proceeded to break the same law again. He wasn’t helping the case in the slightest, and could actually have led to it being thrown out of court, so he was actually helping the rapist scum. He a fucking idiot/calculating shitbag, take your pick of the two.

1 Like

The case doesn’t matter. Those kids aren’t likely to get justice by that route anyway - unless the judges cave in to pressure. And who will bring the pressure to bear? Exactly.

What matters is shaming the enablers in high places. Tommy Robinson is doing a damn good job there. Make the whole rotten system politically untenable. Then the law might actually mean something again.

It’s a big picture thing.

Nonsense. You’re talking nonsense. He was unjustly treated because of his reputation and growing amount of followers in England and abroad. Change is coming and people like Tommy Robinson are the ones to bring it.

The case was over and formalized. He was within his right to cover the story outside the court at that time. Heck, other newspapers were broadcasting the details sooner than him. It’s an attempt to silence him but they failed.

You need to learn up about the case and the blatant breaking of the rules by the people who sentenced and charged him.

Why did Judge Marson get it wrong?

The appeal judges said the judge in Leeds got one thing right – he persuaded Robinson to take his film down from Facebook. But after that things went wrong. Judge Marson acted too hastily, they said. Robinson was given no chance to admit or deny contempt. His punishment was handed down within five hours of the contempt of which he was accused. The judge showed ‘some muddle’. Read the below article to get some much needed perspective.


What about Judge Norton?

Judge Norton made a mistake in referring to contempt as a criminal offence – as did Judge Marson.

Was his punishment too harsh?

Judge Marson’s erroneous ruling – saying that contempt was a criminal offence – had serious consequences for Robinson in prison. Wrongly classed as a convicted criminal, he lost a series of jail privileges including the right to doctors’ visits, to wear his own clothes and to have unrestricted visits.

What happens now?

The appeal judges said the finding of contempt in Leeds must be quashed, and the jail orders dropped. Robinson’s lawyers said contempt charges against him should be abandoned, but the appeal judges said Robinson might have been given a longer jail term than he received, and it was in the public interest for the charges to be properly heard

Basically, all involved, with the exception of Tommy fucked up big time. He’s out now thank goodness and he’ll move on to better things. Look how much weight he lost? They should be sued. And they say England is a democracy? Don’t make me laugh