The Tommy Robinson thread.

These are the laws in the UK as they pertain to children in court cases.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

Children

The BBC’s editorial guidelines advise that Programme Legal Advice should be consulted whenever there are queries about the law as it affects children.

There are some important provisions of the law you need to be aware of.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, people accused of committing offences while under 18 are usually dealt with in youth courts. There is an automatic ban on identifying minors who appear in youth courts.

If you’re reporting proceedings at a youth court, you must not publish:

Their name
Their address
Their school
A photograph or other pictures
Or any particulars likely to lead to the identification of ANYONE under 18 who is involved in the proceedings.

Tommy was live streaming the event outside the court. A court case involving minors. How are the minors going to enter the court without their pictures and images being broadcast over the internet?

Read it again. Slowly.

If you are implying it only applies to youth court, you would be wrong, children attending any court case and especially if the judge has already imposed restrictions as this judge had done, a reporter is not allowed to publish anything that identifies the children.

How do you live stream people going into a court house attending a hearing involving minors where restrictions have already been imposed on reporters with regards the children and not break the law?

edit more reading for you. Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

section 39.

Power to prohibit publication of certain matter in newspapers.
(1)In relation to any proceedings in any court . . . F155, the court may direct that—
(a)no newspaper report of the proceedings shall reveal the name, address or school, or include any particulars calculated to lead to the identification, of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person [F156by or against] or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken, or as being a witness therein:
(b)no picture shall be published in any newspaper as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in the proceedings as aforesaid;except in so far (if at all) as may be permitted by the direction of the court.
(2)Any person who publishes any matter in contravention of any such direction shall on summary conviction be liable in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding [F157level 5 on the standard scale].

You may also read sections 45 and 49 of that Act as well as Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

Bottom line, in the UK when reporting on cases involving minors, the reporter needs to be very careful. i understand the law is different in the US, and one may get into a back and forth over the merits of the law. But that is the law in the UK.

You’re citing the daily heil at me to give me “much needed perspective”? Give me a fucking break…

Great counter argument. Read it because you’re not as well informed as you think you are

You clearly don’t know anything about these kind of cases. In cases of sexual abuse or the like, children and those considered vulnerable are nearly always escorted in through a side passage which is usually covered by security. Aka members of the public and journalists cannot get in that way.

So rest assured there was no “danger” or Tommy Robinson filming the victims. Even if he did he’d be tactful enough to know not to make that footage public. But as I said, perpetrators make the walk of shame into the courthouse entrance. Victims do not use the same entrance. You need to learn a thing or two

The law applies to the alleged perpetrators as well as victims if they are a minor. If he is live steaming to 250,000 people as your article suggests. He has no control over the images.

But the law over images of people entering and leaving a court house are not even limited to just children. I’m not sure why you think you have some special insight, are you a lawyer in the UK and familiar with the laws?

edit/ you can look this up if you like. section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925.

Ill help you even as it addresses the issue in wikipedia’s “other country” section of Perp walk, specifically with regards Tommy Robinson.

In the United Kingdom photographing or filming defendants on court premises is illegal under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925.[92][93] and the Contempt of Court Act 1981.[94] Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson was arrested for violating these statutes on May 10, 2017 when he tried to film suspected ‘Muslim pedophiles’ two days earlier.[95]

1 Like

He was freed on bail today and will get a retrial.

When jailing people is a crime:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270920/how-british-jailers-abused-tommy-robinson-matthew-vadum

Jailing Tommy was not a crime, how he was handled after seems harsh, but I know this happens in the UK.

He was tried back in May of last year for taking photographs outside a crown court where restrictions against the press were in force. The judge at the time gave him a 3 month suspended sentence and told him (since his defense was he didnt know) that now he should now know and no excuse for it in the future.

Seems he didnt know, because he started live streaming outside another court case where the judge had imposed reporting restrictions. Seriously, this is either the dumbest motherfucker to ever walk the planet, or he is willing to go to jail in order to push his political narrative.

Even after 4 months of solidarity confinement he claims not to get it. Everyone else in the press gets it.

The thing about all of this that pisses me off, is Tommy is a terrible person to lead this battle, there are many more sensible and knowledgeable people who are trying to persuade the more radical elements of Islam to be more moderate, and they are all Muslim them self.

Iman of peace is a good example.

https://twitter.com/imamofpeace

1 Like

Few days ago Tawhidi’s facebook account was blocked. Making isis propaganda is ok, critizing islam is haram, even when an actual imam does so.

1 Like

I had friends like Tawhidi back in London, I wish i could say they were the norm, but when they vouch for you and are considered well versed and respected it carries a lot of weight.

A British barrister’s musings. I’d contend it’s an ever so slightly more reliable source than the daily heil/some North American far-right ideologue who lives in Taiwan.

The Tommy Robinson judgment – what does it all mean?

1 Like
  1. This shows that you know NOTHING, fake barrister. You were wrong, weren’t you?

Yes. My initial impression, based on the limited information available, was that the summary procedure was appropriate in the Leeds case. As the Court of Appeal explained, it was not. There were alternatives open to the judge which should have been explored. There were also obvious failings to abide by the procedural rules, although I would plead in mitigation that none of that information was available at the time that the story was first reported. As a result, the hearing was not fair. Whether the sentence was appropriate was not decided by the Court of Appeal and may perhaps be best assessed by what the freshly-constituted Crown Court decides to do, (although my position on that was neutral – I observed simply that the sentence was not out of the ordinary for serious contempts of court.)

So I hold my hands up – imperfect information makes for imperfect predictions. But is there a wider issue here, among me and other legal commentators? Were we too quick to dismiss the case with a “nothing to see here” wave of the hand, blinded by the unappealing nature of Robinson’s supporters and the organised maelstrom of fake news stirred up here and abroad? Maybe we were. Maybe we could have – should have – cleared our ears and browsers of the white (pride) noise and paid greater heed to the arguments of due process. Maybe a little more humility is required in these difficult cases. I am normally conscious in all legal blogging to couch in terms of conditionals – if this report is accurate, then the explanation might be X. Was I too quick to assume, wrongly, that the judge had acted correctly?

I think I may have been. But looking back over the litany of plainly false statements circulated between May and now – that Robinson’s “reporting” was nothing more than the BBC had done; that he was targeted by the deep state; that Robinson’s original barrister was an “unqualified duty solicitor”; that TR was never in contempt of court as the trial was over; that the courts were “covering up” serious crimes by certain racial groups; the dishonest framing of the debate as one of “free speech” rather than interfering with justice; and the other hundreds of fantastical theories clogging my Twitter notifications today – I’d suggest, self-servingly, that an inaccurate but well-meaning prediction – such as we all make in the courts every day – is lesser a social evil than the deliberate, racially-tinged misinformation campaign that we do our best to counter.


Thanks for the link. I read the whole article and at the bottom (pasted above) it looks like the blogger admitted what few are admitting, no?
That everyone was too quick to assume, wrongly, that the judge had acted correctly.

Free Tony Robinson !

Justice for Robinson !
A patriot through and through.

1 Like

The information he put out on the internet was taken directly from the BBC website. So any argument he put the trial at risk, which senior police and politicians tried to assert was a lie. He didn’t film or photograph any of the minors. The trial was also over, and it was time for sentencing. He may get found guilty at the next trial, but I don’t think he is guilty. All he is guilty of here is embarrassing police and politicians who stood idly by while children were groomed and raped.

1 Like

It was obvious that the police set up the scenario at the first big march to have some of his supporters attack them (the footage showed the police charge in - for no reason, then retreat) which got the reaction that gave the police powers to control the next or future marches.

TR will return to filming court cases again and again, interviewing leftist middle class muppets, fighting ANTIFA goons, and so on, or will he actually do something that will have a real effect?
He needs to get involved in politics (not him standing obviously) - locally as that is the only way things will change.

Stick to the day job mate, comedy isn’t for you.

That’s the truth alright. But many saps believe what they read in the papers. Robinson supporters are far more well informed than the average citizen.

gotta love the mods here. obvious (political) trolling is completely fine while the use of indecent(yet funny) jokes , phrases (or an exposed nipple) gets tempt immediately. welcome to the zuckerberg era…:banana::banana::banana: