What has happened to the UK

He was arrested for breach of the peace and incitement. I suppose we'll have to wait for more information before reaching a conclusion. But saying that, Tommy Robinson is a violent scumbag who belongs behind bars
 
He was also breaking the conditions of his suspended sentence from the last time he did it.
That is contempt of court.

Police and Judges take it very seriously when you ignore the conditions of your sentence.
He was taken back before the judge and put in to custody.

When he comes out he will be on license and if he does it again before the license expires he will be whisked back inside again.

He is doing it to get arrested, he makes sure his cronies are there to video it all and make a fuss. 'Help I'm being repressed' He is a Nazi **** stirrer.
 
For anyone not in the UK who doesn't know who Tommy Robinson is-:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982[3]), known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson and previously Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris,[4] is a far right activist[5][6][7][8][9] who co-founded and served as spokesman and leader of the English Defence League (EDL),[10] from which he resigned in 2013.

He also founded the European Defence League, and for a short time in 2012 was joint party vice-chairman of the British Freedom Party. He led the EDL from 2009 until 8 October 2013, when he was persuaded to leave the organisation and discuss alternative ways of tackling extremism with the think tank Quilliam. He continued as an activist, and in 2015 became involved with the development of Pegida UK, a British chapter of the German-based Pegida organisation.
Click to expand...

Apparently he's back in prison for breaching the terms of a suspended sentence. Given that he's previously served time for offenses ranging from common assault, to mortgage fraud, to entering the US illegally I'm sure he'll survive this one too.
 
logger said:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/0...ing-outside-child-grooming-trial.html[/QUOTE]
U.K. right-wing activist and journalist Tommy Robinson was arrested and reportedly jailed Friday after he filmed members of an alleged child grooming gang entering a court for trial -- but the details of his purported sentence remain murky after the judge ordered the press not to report on the case.
Click to expand...


(My italics.) That's known as a super-injunction. As much as I loathe the press, well... what has happened to Australia? "So, if the next Media Watch is broadcast from jail, you’ll know why."
Click to expand...
 
dellarte said:
[/url]



(My italics.) That's known as a super-injunction. As much as I loathe the press, well... what has happened to Australia? "So, if the next Media Watch is broadcast from jail, you’ll know why."
Click to expand...

No, it's not an injunction, it is a direction from the judge. There is a difference.
 
Bogative said:
I find it disturbing that a judge can dictate what news the press can and cannot report in Great Britain.:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

A Judge can order that certain aspects of a case or certain proceedings are not reported.

Restrictions are usually lifted after a case is complete.
 
logger said:
I’m fascinated that taking pictures is breaching the peace.
Click to expand...

Not in and of itself but then, you haven't bothered to find out what the original conviction was for or what restrictions were placed on him as conditions of his licence.
After breaching them he was arrested and the judge invoked the custodial option of his sentence and sent him to jail.

They got him two ways. One for breaching his sentence and the other for contempt of court.

His supporters are saying he should have had a trial and it's a stitch up. They forget that he already had the trial and was sentenced.
 
Bogative said:
I find it disturbing that a judge can dictate what news the press can and cannot report in Great Britain.:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Do you not have laws in your country that protect the identities of, for example, rape victims, or underage victims of crime?
 
Strawberry said:
Do you not have laws in your country that protect the identities of, for example, rape victims, or underage victims of crime?
Click to expand...

I don't think it extends beyond the government. The court can't disclose it, bit a reporter who figures it out can disclose.
 
Strawberry said:
Do you not have laws in your country that protect the identities of, for example, rape victims, or underage victims of crime?
Click to expand...
BobTheCoward said:
I don't think it extends beyond the government. The court can't disclose it, bit a reporter who figures it out can disclose.
Click to expand...


That's my understanding, at least in America. Courts and police may have very strict policies on protecting the identities of certain victims/defendants. All journalists have are their particular ethics. Most reputable agencies won't report on the identity of an underage defendant unless, like in a school shooting, it's already widely known.

But it is really not that hard to figure out based on what is publicly available. My favorite was the widely reported divorce case Anonymous v. Anonymous where the main issue was valuation of the celebrity status of the Mayor of New York City and a soap opera actress.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
A Judge can order that certain aspects of a case or certain proceedings are not reported.

Restrictions are usually lifted after a case is complete.
Click to expand...

It is common in the US for judges to issue gag orders during trials. The only difference here is extending it out to the courthouse entrance.

Strawberry said:
Do you not have laws in your country that protect the identities of, for example, rape victims, or underage victims of crime?
Click to expand...

That too, though I believe Loss Leader is right, it's a press norm, not a law. But judges can order identities protected: witnesses, minors, victims.
 
Last edited:
In the UK, the press cannot breach the anonymity of rape victims or child victims of sexual abuse, though adult victims can choose to waive their own anonymity. Nor can they disclose details which could lead to identification, such as filming and naming defendants and witnesses outside a court where the defendants are related to victims, or the witnesses are victims.

That's what Robinson/Yaxley/Lennon/Harris was doing, and by doing so was breaching the terms of his suspended sentence for doing much the same thing. He was also commenting and speculating on matters which are sub judice. It's contempt of court, which is always seen as a serious matter.

In both cases there was a real risk that Robinson's actions could have caused the trials to collapse and the guilty/allegedly guilty defendants to go free. For a man who is certainly in agreement that the Muslim grooming gang in the first trial should be jailed, his actions which could have led to them being freed to commit more offences strike me as bizarre.
 
Agatha said:
In the UK, the press cannot breach the anonymity of rape victims or child victims of sexual abuse, though adult victims can choose to waive their own anonymity. Nor can they disclose details which could lead to identification, such as filming and naming defendants and witnesses outside a court where the defendants are related to victims, or the witnesses are victims.

That's what Robinson/Yaxley/Lennon/Harris was doing, and by doing so was breaching the terms of his suspended sentence for doing much the same thing. He was also commenting and speculating on matters which are sub judice. It's contempt of court, which is always seen as a serious matter.

In both cases there was a real risk that Robinson's actions could have caused the trials to collapse and the guilty/allegedly guilty defendants to go free. For a man who is certainly in agreement that the Muslim grooming gang in the first trial should be jailed, his actions which could have led to them being freed to commit more offences strike me as bizarre.
Click to expand...

Wow, the UK is an awful country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom