Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,233 comments
- 585,109 views
- 2,908
- United Kingdom
In other news, protestors don't understand why Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 13 months despite him being on a suspended sentence for doing something similar in the past.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...nson-arrested-for-breaching-the-a3849046.html
Maybe they should be directed to someone who knows a thing or too about the law:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...nson-arrested-for-breaching-the-a3849046.html
Maybe they should be directed to someone who knows a thing or too about the law:
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Back to Train news, Welsh railway Services will not be run by a private firm that is actually a French-state owned business working with a Spanish
How ironic if he was converted to an extreme "Islamic" ideology whilst in prison.
How ironic if he was converted to an extreme "Islamic" ideology whilst in prison.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Sounds like a stupid law no matter how it's worded.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
It's not clear from either of those sources what law was broken. What was he doing that got him arrested?
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
Can somebody tell about the tommy robinson thing?
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,398
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The Tommy Robinson thing is remarkably simple.
The UK has strict laws on how on going criminal cases can be reported, to protect the integrity and fairness of the on going case.
Tommy Robinson (not his real name, but he likes to hide his own criminal record) is serving a suspended sentence for breaking these laws. He then did the same thing again and got arrested for it. That's also why it got to court so quickly, as it's for breach of his suspended sentence, not the new arrest.
Oh and anyone looking to rush to his defence would do well to look at his fash-for-cash background first.
The UK has strict laws on how on going criminal cases can be reported, to protect the integrity and fairness of the on going case.
Tommy Robinson (not his real name, but he likes to hide his own criminal record) is serving a suspended sentence for breaking these laws. He then did the same thing again and got arrested for it. That's also why it got to court so quickly, as it's for breach of his suspended sentence, not the new arrest.
Oh and anyone looking to rush to his defence would do well to look at his fash-for-cash background first.
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,398
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
You just answered your own question. Oh and don't forget he makes money off it as well.
Groups such as the EDL, BF, etc. In the UK have very active money making channels as well. Some have even in the past hijacked real military charities.
Money and far right ideology is the short answer.
- 2,908
- United Kingdom
So he was arrested for "breaching the peace" with the video of it being here:
As for what led up to the arrest, he was livestreaming outside an ongoing trial on child grooming claiming that he was "reporting". This involved filming the suspects entering the courtroom. He asks the officers outside the court if he can stay outside and they don't object as long as he doesn't come onto court property. Here's the livestream (LANGUAGE WARNING):
The thing is there is a reporting restriction on these cases, with the media not allowed to even reveal the verdict until a set date. His suspended sentence was for similar "reporting" but he was filming inside the court premises - this led to a conviction for being in contempt of court. You can hear Robinson in the arrest video ask if he's being arrested for this charge as he probably believed that by sticking outside the court room he was free to film as he saw fit. Chances are the judge saw that his behaviour could prejudice the court and bring the case (and possible subsequent cases) into disrepute. This is probably why there is now also a reporting ban on his arrest, to avoid a sort of domino affect on all the linked trials (despite what the protesters are shouting about something something 1984).
Because in certain cases it is a religion/race problem. With respect to the Rotherham grooming scandal - currently the biggest child grooming case in British history, one victim told the Independent that:
As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white c***” as they beat me.
They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html
Quilliam has researched grooming gangs and found that since 2005, 84% of grooming gang members are Asian:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...white-girls-religious-extremism-a8261831.html
That's not to say Asians are the largest paedophile group in the UK - that would be white British.
Nor is it limited to Islam - the Church is being investigated for covering up sexual abuse over decades:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ce-report-archbishop-canterbury-a7802451.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...x-abuse-endemic-in-Catholic-institutions.html
Part of the reason he feels strongly about it may be because his cousins-cousin was a victim of an Asian grooming gang. But I agree, it's not like we are going to be seeing him "reporting" outside celebrity paedophile cases or Catholic/CoE abusers.
ExigeEvan
Premium
- 17,192
Yeah because we're all really close with out cousin's-cousin... It's a convenient truth for his narrative.
- 2,908
- United Kingdom
Hmmmm there's a video of a group doing what Robinson did but at another grooming trial from last year:
As far as I'm aware the cases would have had the same reporting ban so it's a mystery why the crowd or "reporters" were treated differently
As far as I'm aware the cases would have had the same reporting ban so it's a mystery why the crowd or "reporters" were treated differently
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
But you don't know that? Here's the BBC coverage at the time. Why not choose their article to show reporting?
A short segment from outside the court repeating information from the public domain is somewhat different from Yaxley-Lennon live-streaming for an hour outside the court while asking clearly prejudicial questions and making pre-judgements about the process of law. The funniest bit is when he asks for a solicitor... suddenly legal rights are very important
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I still don't get it. I don't see anything Tommy did in his video that I haven't seen a hundred times before.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Nowhere in the whole 1+ hour?
- 2,908
- United Kingdom
Hmmm the BBC reported on the Magistrates court hearing - the other video, that I showed is from outside the Crown Court (BBC is April, the video is May)But you don't know that? Here's the BBC coverage at the time. Why not choose their article to show reporting?
A short segment from outside the court repeating information from the public domain is somewhat different from Yaxley-Lennon live-streaming for an hour outside the court while asking clearly prejudicial questions and making pre-judgements about the process of law. The funniest bit is when he asks for a solicitor... suddenly legal rights are very important
Although reading this it seems they were covering the same people (compare the names in the article with those Robinson reads out), just not the actual trials which is where Robinson ran afoul:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/12/prot...or-rape-and-exploitation-of-children-6632078/
So I like your post for getting me to research further.
It's the actual trials he was "reporting" on, and those had restrictions. This wasn't allowed as there were 3 trials being heard so prejudice could jeopardize the outcome in the one he was filming and/or the other ones.
Here's a better explanation:
“We nearly lost the so called Rochdale grooming case (#ThreeGirls) cos of a far right communication … Their lawyers applied at their trial that the jury had been prejudiced by Far Right We had to fight to persuade Court to allow trial to continue Those criminals came close to being freed & victims close to getting NO justice Jury must decide on EVIDENCE, not on your OPINION”
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/tommy-robinson-and-reporting.html
I'm not sure the US/Canada has similar laws....?
Last edited:
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
How do you report on the "actual trial" unless you are in the courtroom and know what's happening in the "actual trial". He looks like someone standing outside on public property, talking into his phone, and information contained is already known to the public otherwise how would he know? We can and have had publication bans here as well but as far as I know, it doesn't stop one from talking about a particular case or giving opinions, just about revealing certain information. Did he reveal something he wasn't supposed to?Hmmm the BBC reported on the Magistrates court hearing - the other video, that I showed is from outside the Crown Court (BBC is April, the video is May)
Although reading this it seems they were covering the same people (compare the names in the article with those Robinson reads out), just not the actual trials which is where Robinson ran afoul:
https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/12/prot...or-rape-and-exploitation-of-children-6632078/
So I like your post for getting me to research further.
It's the actual trials he was "reporting" on, and those had restrictions. This wasn't allowed as there were 3 trials being heard so prejudice could jeopardize the outcome in the one he was filming and/or the other ones.
Here's a better explanation:
“We nearly lost the so called Rochdale grooming case (#ThreeGirls) cos of a far right communication … Their lawyers applied at their trial that the jury had been prejudiced by Far Right We had to fight to persuade Court to allow trial to continue Those criminals came close to being freed & victims close to getting NO justice Jury must decide on EVIDENCE, not on your OPINION”
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/tommy-robinson-and-reporting.html
I'm not sure the US/Canada has similar laws....?
- 2,908
- United Kingdom
Everything that he said was available in the papers (you can even tell which case he is outside based on the Metro link I provided) and he was on public land as he did ask the officers where it was safe for him to film.
The only things I can think of are that:
a) filming the suspects/others entering trials was a no-no
b) they knew who he was and were scared he could incite people, either directly outside or via his "reporting"
Personally I think a warning and explanation for why he should stop filming would have been justified but the judiciary thinks differently I guess. He better hope Maajid Nawaz and others back him if he gets into another sticky situation:
While in Woodhill Prison, Robinson was attacked by several fellow prisoners. An unidentified source told the International Business Times that the assault was carried out by three Muslim inmates, although the publication was unable to confirm this. The source added that Robinson felt that "it was done deliberately and the warders [were] not exercising the duty of care to him".[56][57]
Following news of the attack, Maajid Nawaz wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, Chris Grayling asking for Robinson's situation to be urgently addressed.[57][58]
Shortly after this incident, Robinson was moved to HM Prison Winchester. Robinson told Jamie Bartlett, a director of the think tank Demos: "In Woodhill, I experienced Islam the gang. ... In Winchester, I have experienced Islam the religion." Robinson made friends with several Muslim prisoners. "Great lads ... I cannot speak highly enough of the Muslim inmates I'm now living with", he added at the time.[59]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It seems that the issue stems from him calling the accused "paedophiles" and "rapists" directly outside the court was the beginning of the problem. Note however that he wasn't imprisoned for that - it was thought by the police guard that his actions risked breaching the peace (something of a speciality for Yaxley-Lennon).
That breached the conditions of his release and so he's back in chokey. Hull, as I understand it.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
SestoScudo
(Banned)
- 3,000
- Australia
- Decepticon 47
Far right extremists and Islamic extremists are two sides of the same coin.
They would literally be nothing without each other.
They would literally be nothing without each other.
He's just a violent racist.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,049
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
If every Islamic extremist were to disappear from the face of the earth tomorrow the far right would probably find some other section of society to demonise. They were around before the rise of jihadism and will still be around long after.
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
I’m convinced most violent extremists just use their politics as an excuse to be violent so as @UKMikey says you take one reason away they’ll just find another. Whether it’s violent thugs on the far right like the EDL violent thugs on the far left like antifa they’ll find a reason.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
@Spurgy 777 did you ever get a chance to read that sauce I provided and/or come up with laws that prevent us from kicking out unwanted EU migrants?
- 5,619
- Hampshire
- Spurgy777
I did, I'm wondering whether you did though as to me it proves my point that we have very little control over immigration from the EU. Any EU citizen can stay in the UK for 3 months, beyond 3 months they have the right to stay as long as they are looking for work/in work and after at most 5 years they have the right to stay permanently (some cases less than that). Short of them being a serious threat to the country there is nothing we can do to stop EU citizens who want to come to the UK as long as they look for work, hardly what I would call immigration control. I didn't bother responding in the end because if that is your idea of immigration control I doubt there's much point continuing to discuss it.
