Tommy Robinson (2 Viewers)

[CovInEssex]

His appeal was late because he wasn’t allowed meetings with his legal team. His legal team are some of the best in the country, if it’s gonna be late there’s gonna be a hell of a reason why.

 

---

[Nick]

Wasn't he in Onley? It's Category C, isn't it?

He was sharing a cell with Bin Laden and Abu Hamza so they had to move him out on his own where he only had cold concrete and a mattress.

He spend his days digging with his bare hands for coal and had to write his memoirs using a sharpened stone on the walls.

I don't buy the kids stuff and missing his family, if I was on a suspended sentence for anything I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near doing the same thing again that could damage that and get me sent down. He is obviously choosing what he does over his family.

It will be interesting to hear how he was tortured in prison.

 

[Ian1779]

He was sharing a cell with Bin Laden and Abu Hamza so they had to move him out on his own where he only had cold concrete and a mattress.

He spend his days digging with his bare hands for coal and had to write his memoirs using a sharpened stone on the walls.

I don't buy the kids stuff and missing his family, if I was on a suspended sentence for anything I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near doing the same thing again that could damage that and get me sent down. He is obviously choosing what he does over his family.

It will be interesting to hear how he was tortured in prison.

I haven't seen that level of torture since Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta

 

[chiefdave]

It’s only the 10 month sentence handed down for the Leeds offence that’s in question here and that yet could be upheld.

Or increased, from what the judge said yesterday it sounds up in the air if it will be left as time served or the sentence will be increased.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

So on the one hand an extreme right winger like Bannon can persuade the government to release him but on the other hand they are trying to silence him and perhaps assassinate him - fucking hell!!

There were issues with the way his original trial was conducted, because of that he was released and there will be a retrial, it's as simple as that. I'd imagine he'll be found guilty, (he'll more than likely plead guilty), but won't be sent back to prison as he has already served time. I'd say there's a good chance he's due some compo but I'm not entirely sure how that works.

Yes, that's right.

There is no way in hell you can say he hasn't tried to be silenced if you have actually read up on him properly. You would be blatantly lying, or just not actually done any research. In the same way those were shooting some of us down when we doubted the legal proceedings, people that have an axe to grind have been shown up again because they are too blinded by hate to be rational (a bit like TR himself with Islam if you like).

I get that people don't like him, that's fine. As usual though, we are seeing extremely biased debate with zero reasoning.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

this
The Tommy Robinson judgment – what does it all mean?
quite an interesting read.

What he's trying to do: Explain what has happened.
What he actually did: Tried to make excuses for the fact his first article was a TR hit piece which lacked balance or any reasoning. It was also largely wrong and fueled by his bias.

It's concerning people working with our legal system cannot be neutral, but then again it doesn't come as much of a surprise.

 

[clint van damme]

Yes, that's right.

There is no way in hell you can say he hasn't tried to be silenced if you have actually read up on him properly. You would be blatantly lying, or just not actually done any research. In the same way those were shooting some of us down when we doubted the legal proceedings, people that have an axe to grind have been shown up again because they are too blinded by hate to be rational (a bit like TR himself with Islam if you like).

I get that people don't like him, that's fine. As usual though, we are seeing extremely biased debate with zero reasoning.

you're mental.
If the Leeds judge did have an axe to grind, (and it's a big if as to whether he did or whether he just fucked up), the appeal judge has put that right.

There's no conspiracy.

 

[clint van damme]

What he's trying to do: Explain what has happened.
What he actually did: Tried to make excuses for the fact his first article was a TR hit piece which lacked balance or any reasoning. It was also largely wrong and fueled by his bias.

It's concerning people working with our legal system cannot be neutral, but then again it doesn't come as much of a surprise.

that post tells me you haven't read the article and if you have you haven't understood it.

 

[Astute]

There certainly wasn't something right in the Leeds case, which is why he was freed pending a retrial.
Remember he also appealed the Canterbury decision but that was upheld.

Which is what I was saying. The Canterbury one was dealt with correctly.

To me what should have happened at the most extreme for him was taken to court the same day for a hearing where he was held on remand until a proper court case. To be held on remand he would normally have to be seen as a danger to the public. Although it can be done if they expect him to abscond.

People get released all the time that have a suspended sentence hanging over them. And for much worse offences. And they still only get a slap on the wrist for other offences that deserve time inside.

The whole system is broken.

 

[Astute]

Or increased, from what the judge said yesterday it sounds up in the air if it will be left as time served or the sentence will be increased.

As in the reply to you yesterday it didn't say about extending his sentence. They tried to get it thrown out of court as he has already served time inside. But the judge said he might still get more time than he has already served.

As usual the devil is in the detail.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

you're mental.
If the Leeds judge did have an axe to grind, (and it's a big if as to whether he did or whether he just fucked up), the appeal judge has put that right.

There's no conspiracy.

How am I mental? You obviously haven't done any research on TR other than what The Independent says.

that post tells me you haven't read the article and if you have you haven't understood it.

I assume you didn't read the first one? This one is like the toned down 'slip into the bunker' sequel. He obviously knows he got it wrong but instead of admitting it and apologising he is scraping the barrel (like the first time round) for reasons to appear right. His first article was extremely one sided and I couldn't take it seriously. It's not what you want from your country's legal people.

 

[clint van damme]

The whole system is broken.

totally agree. That is the whole point of the Secret Barrister who is getting maligned on here.

It happens to all sorts of people all the time, and on this occasion it's happened to Tommy Robinson. I'm glad he's out if he was only put down due to a judicial screw up because everyone deserves to be treated fairly but I don't buy that there is some sort of conspiracy against him.

 

[skybluetony176]

Wasn't he in Onley? It's Category C, isn't it?

Correct. As far as I’m aware convicted extremist are Cat A so any suggestion that he’s locked up with extremist is categorically wrong.

 

[Astute]

you're mental.
If the Leeds judge did have an axe to grind, (and it's a big if as to whether he did or whether he just fucked up), the appeal judge has put that right.

There's no conspiracy.

I'm not saying that there was a conspiracy. I'm not saying he hasn't done anything wrong. It is obvious that he has.

But to be arrested, charged and put on trial the very same day without having a chance to put some sort of defence together is wrong. Everyone involved would know the law.

So how could it all go so wrong?

 

[clint van damme]

How am I mental? You obviously haven't done any research on TR other than what The Independent says.



I assume you didn't read the first one? This one is like the toned down 'slip into the bunker' sequel. He obviously knows he got it wrong but instead of admitting it and apologising he is scraping the barrel (like the first time round) for reasons to appear right. His first article was extremely one sided and I couldn't take it seriously. It's not what you want from your country's legal people.

I've heard plenty of Tommy Robinson. He's everywhere which makes a mockery of the trying to silence him theory.
I did read the first one, you haven't read the second one because he's admitted he got it wrong and tried to explain why.
All sorts of people suffer because of fuck ups by the establishment, from the Grenfell tower victims to the soldier who they were going to prosecute for fighting with Kurds.
It doesn't mean there's some sinister motive, it just means that the system regularly fucks things up.

 

[Astute]

totally agree. That is the whole point of the Secret Barrister who is getting maligned on here.

It happens to all sorts of people all the time, and on this occasion it's happened to Tommy Robinson. I'm glad he's out if he was only put down due to a judicial screw up because everyone deserves to be treated fairly but I don't buy that there is some sort of conspiracy against him.

It doesn't happen all the time. People are held on remand. He could have been held on remand. But he wasn't. He was sentenced the very same day. That is the difference.

 

[clint van damme]

I'm not saying that there was a conspiracy. I'm not saying he hasn't done anything wrong. It is obvious that he has.

But to be arrested, charged and put on trial the very same day without having a chance to put some sort of defence together is wrong. Everyone involved would know the law.

So how could it all go so wrong?

I know you weren't, I was referring to some of the other posts on this thread.
How does it go so wrong? It would take someone far more knowledgeable than me to explain, (though i'd imagine that like most other things funding will be one of the reasons), but the fact is it does regularly fuck up, from allowing rapists to cross examine victims to wrongful convictions, it's far from perfect.

 

[clint van damme]

It doesn't happen all the time. People are held on remand. He could have been held on remand. But he wasn't. He was sentenced the very same day. That is the difference.

I'm not saying what happens in this case happens all the time, (I wouldn't know whether it does or not), but screw ups happen all the time.

 

[CovInEssex]

No ones said he was locked up with extremists this time. You gents don’t understand, Muslims don’t like him. Convicted Muslims in cell 12 don’t like him but are much more likely and willing to bring harm about him then average joe on the street.

His lack of welfare in the prison system is well documented but everyone will only believe what they want to believe (on both sides of the coin)

 

[Nick]

No ones said he was locked up with extremists this time. You gents don’t understand, Muslims don’t like him. Convicted Muslims in cell 12 don’t like him but are much more likely and willing to bring harm about him then average joe on the street.

His lack of welfare in the prison system is well documented but everyone will only believe what they want to believe (on both sides of the coin)

He requested solitary because he was put in a high risk prison full of Islamic extremists. He should have gone to low risk prison given the nature of the offence and he wouldn't then have had to go into solitary.

The threatening letter was pushed under his prison door by another inmate. It wasn't face to face.

Yes they have.

Of course muslims don't like him, he doesn't like them either. It's the same as one gangmember who goes in doesn't like members from another gang.

What lack of welfare was there?

 

[skybluetony176]

I'm not saying that there was a conspiracy. I'm not saying he hasn't done anything wrong. It is obvious that he has.

But to be arrested, charged and put on trial the very same day without having a chance to put some sort of defence together is wrong. Everyone involved would know the law.

So how could it all go so wrong?

He would have gone down that day regardless because he breached the rules of the Canterbury conviction so that would be three months, out at half way providing he kept his nose clean which being in solitary was always going to be the case. The issue is Leeds case in isolation. This should have been heard while serving his three months for Canterbury, which it wasn’t and for all the reasons covered it was an error that it happened this way. He almost certainly will get a prison sentence in the retrial given he’s already admitted his guilt and from what I’ve read given his prior conviction for the same offence he will serve that sentence as being a repeat offender within the period of the previous suspension he’s lost the chance of a suspended sentence on the second offence. Long story short, if it had have been handled correctly in the first place he would most likely still be inside right now.

How could it go so wrong? It happens and happens regularly. If it didn’t we wouldn’t have an appeal process and an appeal court. This allows justice to be done correctly and to the latter of the law. That being the case Robinson will be treated fairly and within the law. As is right.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

I've heard plenty of Tommy Robinson. He's everywhere which makes a mockery of the trying to silence him theory.
I did read the first one, you haven't read the second one because he's admitted he got it wrong and tried to explain why.
All sorts of people suffer because of fuck ups by the establishment, from the Grenfell tower victims to the soldier who they were going to prosecute for fighting with Kurds.
It doesn't mean there's some sinister motive, it just means that the system regularly fucks things up.

I didn't really see anything in that which admitted he got it wrong to be honest, certainly no apology in there. There should be one after his first hit piece.

The system might fuck things up, but you are a smart guy, there has been one too many system fuck ups with TR.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

totally agree. That is the whole point of the Secret Barrister who is getting maligned on here.

It happens to all sorts of people all the time, and on this occasion it's happened to Tommy Robinson. I'm glad he's out if he was only put down due to a judicial screw up because everyone deserves to be treated fairly but I don't buy that there is some sort of conspiracy against him.

The Secret Barrister is part of the problem!

 

[skybluetony176]

The report of the abuse received is out

 

[chiefdave]

As in the reply to you yesterday it didn't say about extending his sentence. They tried to get it thrown out of court as he has already served time inside. But the judge said he might still get more time than he has already served.

As usual the devil is in the detail.

Can't spot anything in the judgement to say the sentence is limited to that given at Leeds.

The finding of contempt must be quashed and all the consequential orders will fall away. We canvassed with counsel what should happen were we minded to allow the appeal against the finding of contempt made in Leeds Crown Court. Mr Dein QC submitted that since the appellant has served the equivalent of four months' imprisonment the matter should not be remitted. We are unable to agree. First, the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served

The Leeds trial for contempt essentially hasn't taken place as everything from the original trial falls away.

So we're left with his breach of the original suspended sentence which means the 3 months sentence kicked in on 25th May. For the offence at Leeds, for which he has already admitted guilt, he faces up to 2 years.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Yes they have.

Of course muslims don't like him, he doesn't like them either. It's the same as one gangmember who goes in doesn't like members from another gang.

What lack of welfare was there?

If you read up on what's happened to him before, he has actually had efforts to transfer him to other wings or prisons at no notice in the past which was a deliberate attempt to put his life in danger. He has a bounty on his head.

One example was when one prison officer (ex-services) tipped him off and told him to refuse to cooperate when the other guards came as they were about to move him to the 'ISIS wing'. He then kicked off when the guards came and landed in solitary confinement. I think his legal team then got escalated and blocked him from being moved.

 

[chiefdave]

I didn't really see anything in that which admitted he got it wrong to be honest, certainly no apology in there.

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.

 

[Nick]

The report of the abuse received is out

What does it say? No sound.

 

[clint van damme]

I didn't really see anything in that which admitted he got it wrong to be honest, certainly no apology in there. There should be one after his first hit piece.

The system might fuck things up, but you are a smart guy, there has been one too many system fuck ups with TR.

you haven't read it all, he says he got it wrong and explains why. He doesn't apologise.
He also asks the question did the initial judge let Robinsons reputation cloud his judgement?

 

[Nick]

If you read up on what's happened to him before, he has actually had efforts to transfer him to other wings or prisons at no notice in the past which was a deliberate attempt to put his life in danger. He has a bounty on his head.

One example was when one prison officer (ex-services) tipped him off and told him to refuse to cooperate when the other guards came as they were about to move him to the 'ISIS wing'. He then kicked off when the guards came and landed in solitary confinement. I think his legal team then got escalated and blocked him from being moved.

What in this sentence or a previous one? Is it the same as him being moved to a prison full of muslim extremists when it turned out he wasn't?

Just don't think people should believe so much of the hype / propaganda.

 

[clint van damme]

The Secret Barrister is part of the problem!

to people of a certain mindset perhaps.

 

[skybluetony176]

Can't spot anything in the judgement to say the sentence is limited to that given at Leeds.

The Leeds trial for contempt essentially hasn't taken place as everything from the original trial falls away.

So we're left with his breach of the original suspended sentence which means the 3 months sentence kicked in on 25th May. For the offence at Leeds, for which he has already admitted guilt, he faces up to 2 years.

You would think that his Leeds conviction will be at least 3 months in line with the Canterbury conviction which means that when you add the two sentences together, take of time for good behaviour he still owes the system 23 days. Like you say though he could get 2 years, in which case he’ll have to serve best part of 12 months. The time already served past the Canterbury conviction I would think would be taken off. Which is fair enough.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

you haven't read it all, he says he got it wrong and explains why. He doesn't apologise.
He also asks the question did the initial judge let Robinsons reputation cloud his judgement?

There should be an apology. He should be setting an example.

Yes, the judge let his reputation cloud his judgment, in the same way the Secret Barrister did! It's embarrassing and unprofessional.

I said the same thing before, but I doubt the posters that gave me shit back then will be bothering to admit they got it wrong and apologise.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

to people of a certain mindset perhaps.

Tell me, how someone who is a legal professional who exerts the following behaviours is not part of the problem:

- Let's a criminals perceived reputation influence them.
- Writes hit pieces anonymously online.
- Fails to be neutral.
- Brands working class people as scum.

Yes, the legal system is massively fucked. The guy is seriously throwing stones from a glass house though.

 

[CovInEssex]

I said the same thing before, but I doubt the posters that gave me shit back then will be bothering to admit they got it wrong and apologise.

Just like the judge

This is all pointless I think, no one is gonna change their mind and we’re all just gonna argue.

Back to the football forum for me.