Tommy Robinson

[Dazzler]

would it stop all the barbaric murders though ?

We've got plenty of those here already

Yes,but they generally get locked up because it's against the law here.

[Svenster]

I've read through this entire thread, which is unusual for me, because as soon as IT shows up, I'm usually OUT. But a few facts that have been missed/deliberately ignored need to be aired.

Robinson attended a SENTENCING hearing. There was no jury present. They were already convicted. Presumably the sentences had already been determined.There was no possibility of undermining the trial.

He had already been verbally abused and received death threats, but did not react to them.

Other groups including Hindus were also in attendance, who were reporting in a similar fashion. The live stream demonstrates that there was no behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, which Robinson was subsequently arrested for.

The police and the courts then colluded to mislead his lawyer, stating that Robinson would soon be released, knowing that he was to be taken straight to court, and then subsequently to jail. Then a D-notice was slapped on the whole affair, and pressure put on those who had reported on the case to withdraw their reports.

This is in my view, a deliberate attempt to stifle free speech and bring down any criticism of the status quo. We should all be worried about the ramifications of this action by the authorities. The accusations of this country descending into a police state are getting harder to counter.

Total stitch-up.

[Flat Stanley]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/thesecre ... inson/amp/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Useful article to explain the facts of the situation if not already posted. Got exactly what he deserved, nasty facist thug.

[Falcon]

This is a long read. But is totally worth it if you still think this is a free speech issue or politically motivated.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/ ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It can now be reported that Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan and self-reinvented free speech advocate, was on Friday 25 May 2018 imprisoned for 13 months for contempt of court after livestreaming footage of participants in a criminal trial outside Leeds Crown Court.

Some people will have seen reference to this on social media; others may have had the plight of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name – drawn to their attention by the hordes of protestors storming London over the May bank holiday weekend. But there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case due to a reporting restriction – what is known as a “postponement order” – that forbade publication of these facts until after the conclusion of the trial (and subsequent related trial) upon which he was purporting to “report”.

While, as we’ll see below, the reasons for the postponement order appear sound, the consequence of preventing fair and accurate reporting by responsible journalists was that there was no factual counterpoint to the selective and inaccurate details of Yaxley-Lennon’s situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond. Thus sprung a (largely unchallenged and unchallengeable) narrative of Tommy The Brave being arrested outside court for no reason and imprisoned in secret by the deep state, culminating in petitions for his release and a Nazi-themed march on Downing Street.

On the day itself, I attempted a post aimed at shining a little light on what might have happened (having no knowledge of the proceedings myself), but having been alerted by a reporter to the terms of the reporting restrictions, took the post down out of an abundance of caution. Now, however, with the restrictions lifted we can try to restore a little order.

The full judgment is still awaited (expected imminently). For now let’s take this story in pieces based on what we know.

images

1. Why was Tommy Robinson arrested?

Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court having video recorded a number of men – including defendants involved in a live trial – entering the court building, and livestreaming the footage on Facebook in what he claimed was an attempt at legitimate court reporting. West Yorkshire police, having been alerted to his activities, arrested Lennon at the scene. The initial reports suggested that he was arrested for a suspected breach of the peace, but what is now clear from the facts published today is that his actions in broadcasting details about the trial were in breach of reporting restrictions.

2. What are reporting restrictions?

The starting point of our criminal justice system is that justice must be seen to be done. However the law provides for exceptions to open justice, known generally as “reporting restrictions”. Reporting restrictions apply in a wide range of situations – from automatic restrictions preventing the identification of a complainant in a sexual allegation, to restrictions preventing reporting of Youth Court proceedings, to discretionary restrictions protecting the identity of child witnesses in the adult courts. Further details, if you are interested, can be found here.

One breed of restriction order is something called a “postponement order”, under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Postponement orders are not unusual, particularly where there are a series of linked trials – for example, where allegations of drug networks involving 30 defendants are concerned, there will be several trials (it not being physically possible to accommodate 30 defendants in a single courtroom). To avoid jurors having their deliberations contaminated by what they might read or hear about the earlier linked trials, reporting of all of them is often postponed until the end. Where there is a separate-but-related issue, such as a contempt of court involving a third party, this can also be the subject of a section 4(2) order. The test is:

Would a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of the proceedings (or part thereof) published in good faith create a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those or other proceedings?
Is an order postponing the publication of such reports necessary and are its terms proportionate? Would such an order eliminate the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice? Could less restrictive measures achieve the objective?
On the specific facts of this case, does the public interest in protecting the administration of justice outweigh the strong public interest in open justice?


This is what we had here. The judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded.

Breaching a reporting restriction amounts to a contempt of court. Which is what Yaxley-Lennon admitted doing.

3. But I heard Tommy Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace. What is a breach of the peace? How is a breach of the peace caused by someone simply filming?

Police officers have common law powers (i.e. powers not set out in statute) to arrest somebody where a breach of the peace is committed or where the officer reasonably believes it will be committed in the immediate future. As to what constitutes a breach of the peace, it is defined in case law as follows: “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” (R v Howell [1982] Q.B. 416) As we can see, it’s a fairly broad definition.

The courts have confirmed that it covers situations where, for example, there are reasonable grounds to fear that a demonstrator or protestor is likely to incite violence, even violence against themselves. This appears to be applicable to the present case. Robinson provocatively filming defendants and streaming on Facebook for the edification of his cult, is the kind of thing which could, it might be argued, lead to a breach of the peace.

Once a person has been arrested for breaching the peace, the police have the power to detain that person where there is a real apprehension that if released they will renew the breach of the peace within a short time, and where the police believe that further detention is necessary to prevent this. Given Robinson’s history of interfering with criminal trials and his defiance towards court orders, one can see why the police may have genuinely feared that he would have simply returned to court if not detained. The power of detention is time-limited – the detainee must be released within 24 hours (if not charged), or for serious (indictable) offences, detention may be authorised up to 96 hours.

4. How can it be legal for somebody to be arrested for breach of the peace and then imprisoned for contempt?
It is perfectly common for a person to be arrested on suspicion of one offence, and then ultimately charged or dealt with for another. In this case, it appears that Yaxley-Lennon was arrested and detained for causing or threatening a breach of the peace, and that the court, upon being made aware of his activities, directed that he be brought to court to be dealt with for contempt of court. Even if his original arrest and detention had been unlawful (and there is nothing at all to suggest that it was), this would have absolutely no bearing on the contempt proceedings. The “breach of the peace” angle is a red herring.

5. So back up a step – what exactly is contempt of court?

Contempt of court is a broad, catch-all term for various offences against the administration of justice. The law(s) of contempt are designed to safeguard the fairness of legal proceedings and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court. Some contempts are set out in statute, including the aptly-named Contempt of Court Act 1981. This sets out what is referred to as “strict liability contempt” – the rule that it is a contempt to publish any matter which creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to the course of justice in legal proceedings, irrespective of the intention behind the publication. There is a defence available to publishers (which includes newspapers, TV and social media users) who can show they were providing “a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith”, thus giving some latitude to the press and ensuring that the media do not shy away from accurate, factual reporting of criminal proceedings.

Other contempts are more eclectic, such as the prohibition on taking photographs or moving images inside a court building (or even drawing a picture – court sketch artists have to draw outside the court from memory – section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925).

There is also a common law offence of “criminal contempt”, which is defined by the courts as “conduct that denotes wilful defiance of, or disrespect towards the court, or that wilfully challenges or affronts the authority of the court or the supremacy of the law itself.” This might include refusing to answer questions in court, physically disrupting court proceedings, interfering with witnesses or jurors (where not charged as a distinct offence of witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice) or defying a judge’s order.

Which brings us back to Mr Yaxley-Lennon, and a sunny day in May last year at Canterbury Crown Court.

6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four (Asian) defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing Muslim child rapists”. He was thwarted by the judge making arrangements for the defendants and jurors to leave court through alternative routes, and so settled for filming himself on camera, both on the court steps and inside the court building, preaching to his online followers about “Muslim paedophiles”. He was interrupted and told by court staff that recording was prohibited (section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, as we’ve discussed above), but continued to record, insisting that he had been told by a different court that he was entitled to film the defendants (notwithstanding that court buildings are plastered with signs reminding people not to do this). His video diatribe – in which he said that “the paedophiles are hiding”, that the police had asked him not to “expose” them as paedophiles (presumably on the basis that they were, at that time, defendants in a live trial) but that “we will”, and that he would be “going round to their house” to catch the defendants on camera – thus continued. The judge hearing the rape trial was made aware, and he was brought before court to be dealt with for contempt of court.

The judge, HHJ Norton, dealt with Yaxley-Lennon on 22 May 2017. She found that he was in contempt by having filmed inside the court building, contrary to section 41, but was also in common law contempt by having continued to film having been told to stop by the court staff. The judge considered the content of his broadcast, and the real risk of his actions derailing the trial, and committed him to prison for 3 months, suspended for a period of 18 months. In practical terms, a suspended sentence means that the prison sentence (3 months) hangs over you for the operational period (18 months). If you remain offence-free and comply with any requirements the court makes, you will never have to serve your sentence. If you reoffend, the presumption in law is that you will serve that prison sentence, additional to whatever sentence you receive for the new offence.

7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

No, ye of little brain. He was found to be in contempt of court and given a suspended sentence because his actions put a serious criminal trial in jeopardy. Running around a court building shouting “paedophile” at defendants during a live trial, or live-streaming defendants and members of the public – potentially including jurors – entering and exiting a court building against a tub thumping narration of “Muslim paedophile gangs”, is hardly conducive to ensuring a fair trial. And if there can’t be a fair trial, nobody gets justice. Not the accused, not the complainants, not the public. This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon.

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”



8. How is all that relevant to what took place on 25 May 2018?

It is relevant because, when passing the suspended sentence, HHJ Norton gave some fairly clear warnings to Yaxley-Lennon:

“[Y]ou should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.

In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?“

And what did Yaxley-Lennon go and do?

9. What did he go and do?

As we know now, he went and committed a contempt of court by reporting on court proceedings. He did so in a way that expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants, creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings by jurors seeing or becoming aware of his ill-informed ramblings. This could have led to an application by the defence advocates to discharge the jury and start afresh, potentially meaning vulnerable complainants having to go through the trauma of a trial all over again, or even an application to “stay” (bring to an end) the proceedings altogether.

Importantly, Yaxley-Lennon admitted that he was in contempt of court.

And he was committed to prison for 10 months, with the suspended sentence of 3 months activated and directed to run consecutively. Exactly as he’d been warned.

10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

Contempt proceedings do not attract a jury trial. The procedure for a court dealing with a criminal contempt is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. These allow for a “summary procedure”, where the court, having made its own enquiries and offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away. The Crown Court can commit a contemnor to prison for up to two years. There is nothing unusual in him being dealt with on the day of the contempt. Courts are required to deal with contempts as swiftly as possible. There is no suggestion of any prejudice; Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by an experienced barrister and would have received full legal advice.

He also wasn’t tried in secret; his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions (under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 again), postponing reporting of the details of Lennon’s contempt until the trial, and the subsequent related trial, had concluded. This, you may think, is for obvious reasons. A media circus and orchestrated attempt at martyrdom by Lennon and his deranged followers – as was indeed attempted when the restrictions were defied by far-right blogs and foreign news outlets – would present exactly the sort of distraction that threatened to disrupt the very serious criminal proceedings that the judge was desperately seeking to keep on the rails.

In the event, the repeated breaches of the order by foreign news outlets and social media users meant that the judge’s intentions were thwarted. An application to discharge the reporting restriction was made on 29 May 2018 and the judge agreed that, in light of what had happened over the Bank Holiday weekend, restrictions should be lifted to allow publication of the facts.

It is also worth noting that there is a Practice Direction dealing with situations where defendants are imprisoned for contempt of court. This requires that full judgments be published online and handed to the media where a person is committed to prison for contempt. As we can expect imminently.

As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial.



*************************

UPDATE:

In light of the (frankly ingenious) conspiracy theories that are now doing the rounds after the rather mundane truth above was revealed, some bonus Q&As are required:



11. I heard that Tommy Robinson was denied his own lawyer, and had to have a duty lawyer who was in fact a PROSECUTION lawyer and who didn’t properly defend him.

This is quite something. But, sadly, Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available, but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences. As an independent barrister, he prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.

[KRBFC]

it didn't. there were reporting restrictions on the case which is why nobody else was reporting on it.

he broke those restrictions.

they'd have been lifted once all the outcomes were known (there's a lot of defendants so its been split and as such takes a long time to conclude everything). all he had to do was wait until it was all over, just like everyone else.

Why were there reporting restrictions? sweeping it under the carpet, hiding identities yet white paedo's are quite rightly named and shamed before a trial has even begun. Ched Evans was strung up before he'd even reached the court room infact most had him guilty before he'd even been (wrongly) convicted (Yes I realise rape is different to paedophilia).

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Are people on here really, seriously defending Tommy Robinson and his fascist viewpoints?

If you are you should take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.

Pretty much all of civilised society accepts that these viewpoints are UTTERLY WRONG and beneath contempt.

[KRBFC]

Are people on here really, seriously defending Tommy Robinson and his fascist viewpoints?

If you are you should take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.

Pretty much all of civilised society accepts that these viewpoints are UTTERLY WRONG and beneath contempt.

Who is defending Robinson's viewpoint? you are making up horses**t to spout horses**t. Your opinion on his opinion shouldn't cloud judgement when discussing whether or not he should be sent to jail in this instance.

[joey13]

Who is defending Robinson's viewpoint? you are making up horses**t to spout horses**t.

Quite a few defending him , or have you not read the thread?

[Falcon]

Why were there reporting restrictions? sweeping it under the carpet, hiding identities yet white paedo's are quite rightly named and shamed before a trial has even begun. Ched Evans was strung up before he'd even reached the court room infact most had him guilty before he'd even been (wrongly) convicted (Yes I realise rape is different to paedophilia).

The restrictions were in place because there were many defendants whose trials were being held over several days in several courtrooms. The idea is that the trial of each defendant is not affected by what happened in the previous defendant trials. It's not an uncommon occurrence I'm led to believe.

The link I provided above (the secret barrister blog) is well worth a read. Apologies for it being so long.

[Dazzler]

Are people on here really, seriously defending Tommy Robinson and his fascist viewpoints?

Not defending the reason why he has been sent down but could you elaborate on his 'facist' viewpionts ?

[Dy1geo]

There is absolutely nothing wrong criticising a religion. Christianity and Islam date back from a period that is totally different from today and people view the preachings of a goat herder from centuries ago as the way they should live their lives in the present day hence the way they treat women, homosexuals and non believers of that said religion.
However in my opinion Tommy Robinson did his Facebook live video to provoke controversy and in a way it has worked with the publicity but it has backfired on him personally. There wouldn’t have been an issue if he had just commented that their are trials involving grooming that are subject to media restrictions and give his reasons as to why the media can’t report on them.

[Dazzler]

There is absolutely nothing wrong criticising a religion.

Criticising Islam is slanderous & Islamophobic.

'Punishable by death'

[KRBFC]

The restrictions were in place because there were many defendants whose trials were being held over several days in several courtrooms. The idea is that the trial of each defendant is not affected by what happened in the previous defendant trials. It's not an uncommon occurrence I'm led to believe.

The link I provided above (the secret barrister blog) is well worth a read. Apologies for it being so long.

Svenster said.....


''Robinson attended a SENTENCING hearing. There was no jury present. They were already convicted. Presumably the sentences had already been determined.There was no possibility of undermining the trial. ''

[Dazzler]

It does seem to be a stitch up

https://youtu.be/TTdJaHWvLbk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[1fatclaret]

Svenster said.....


''Robinson attended a SENTENCING hearing. There was no jury present. They were already convicted. Presumably the sentences had already been determined.There was no possibility of undermining the trial. ''

You seem to have missed the point. Yes, this particular court may have been a sentencing hearing, but there were 29 individual and independent trials going on, all linked. The verdict or sentencing of one can’t be seen to influence others.

He knew what he was doing and is quite rightly being locked up as a result. No cover up, no conspiracy, just justice being done all round

[1fatclaret]

Just watched his video again and he quite clearly states that “10 men are facing verdicts”. Now, either he is too thick (very possible) to know the difference between verdict and sentencing, or, the verdicts hadn’t been given and therefore the entire trial was at risk.

[Dazzler]

Just watched his video again and he quite clearly states that “10 men are facing verdicts”. Now, either he is too thick (very possible) to know the difference between verdict and sentencing, or, the verdicts hadn’t been given and therefore the entire trial was at risk.

What can he influence when the verdicts have already been decided ?

[Dazzler]

Just watched his video again and he quite clearly states that “10 men are facing verdicts”. Now, either he is too thick (very possible) to know the difference between verdict and sentencing, or, the verdicts hadn’t been given and therefore the entire trial was at risk.

What can he influence when the verdicts have already been decided ?

[Dazzler]

Just watched his video again and he quite clearly states that “10 men are facing verdicts”. Now, either he is too thick (very possible) to know the difference between verdict and sentencing, or, the verdicts hadn’t been given and therefore the entire trial was at risk.

What influence could he have had if they were going in court for sentencing ?

[1fatclaret]

What influence could he have had if they were going in court for sentencing ?

There were 29 people on trial as a grooming gang. Only ten according to Our Tommy, were in court that day. He says in his video they were there for verdicts. He could be wrong. It could be for sentencing. Either way, only 1/3 of the cases were completing. Linked cases can’t be reported on freely for obvious reasons.

Also, even if all cases were at sentencing stage, you do realise that any appeal can be against both the verdict AND the sentence. So any whiff that one sentence influenced others and the appeals would most likely succeed.

[Dazzler]

only 1/3 of the cases were completing

2/3

[Dazzler]

any whiff that one sentence influenced others and the appeals would most likely succeed.

What effect could he have had on influencing sentencing on the september one ?

[1fatclaret]

2/3

10 people in court out of 29 just under 1/3rd.

By creating a hysteria (which he has done) which influences reporting, public opinion etc which the defence or appeal lawyer would argue influenced a more severe penalty than would otherwise have been handed down. Its really not that difficult. Even wife beater Tommy understands it, that's why he pleaded guilty.

[Dazzler]

10 people in court out of 29 just under 1/3rd.

By your 1/3 I assumed you meant the 1st of the 3 separate trials.

[Dazzler]

By creating a hysteria (which he has done)

Hysteria was created with his arrest

[HatfieldClaret]

Hysteria was created with his arrest

I'm struggling with the fact that some people on here are trying to justify and excuse Yaxley-Lennon.

He is what he is and he knows what he is. Trash.

[Flat Stanley]

Of course It could not be that he broke the law and the authorities did their job. Oh no, there is a big liberal conspiracy to silence a brave proponent of freedom of speech! Give me a break! The guy is a racist thug who pedals hate a lies and was in court to keep furthering his lies and bullshit not to make sure justice got done. Total **** as is anyone who supports the cretin.

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

Who is defending Robinson's viewpoint? you are making up horses**t to spout horses**t. Your opinion on his opinion shouldn't cloud judgement when discussing whether or not he should be sent to jail in this instance.

Of course he should be sent to jail, he admitted to contempt of court. The only people who think he doesn't deserve his sentence are other racist, fascist idiots like his crowd of supporters who gathered outside number 10. Personally, I think he should have got ten years but I'm hoping that's next time if he hasn't learned his lesson.

[Dazzler]

News of Muslim grooming gang trials doesn't cause hysteria anymore...we are very much aware that 90% of grooming gangs are muslim.
That's 90%...now what is the muslim population of the uk,about 5% is it ?

That is what this totalitarian orwellian state is trying to hide.

[Burnley Ace]

He pleaded guilty so he knew he had committed the offence - bizarre that people who don't know the law or the facts of the case are claiming he's innocent, it's like they have been influenced by a one sided account they have seen on Facebook Live!

[Burnley Ace]

News of Muslim grooming gang trials doesn't cause hysteria anymore...we are very much aware that 90% of grooming gangs are muslim.
That's 90%...now what is the muslim population of the uk,about 5% is it ?

That is what this totalitarian orwellian state is trying to hide.

What's your point? Are you drawing a comparison between Gangs of Muslim men (is it the colour or religion?) who deliberately target teenage girls asapose to the high percentage of (white/Christian) men who target little prepubescent children of both sexes?

You obviously have an internal system that can differentiate between the two, which is worse?

[Falcon]

Of course he should be sent to jail, he admitted to contempt of court. The only people who think he doesn't deserve his sentence are other racist, fascist idiots like his crowd of supporters who gathered outside number 10. Personally, I think he should have got ten years but I'm hoping that's next time if he hasn't learned his lesson.

Max sentence is 2 years

[Dazzler]

Reporting restrictions on criminal trials are usually issued because the prosecution don't want to lose a prosecution via interference with the jury,but reporting restrictions are in force for all these muslim grooming gang trials so as to keep the public in the dark as to the extent of the gang rapes.

[Dazzler]

What's your point?

News of Muslim grooming gang trials doesn't cause hysteria anymore...we are very much aware that 90% of grooming gangs are muslim.
That's 90%...now what is the muslim population of the uk,about 5% is it ?

That is what this totalitarian orwellian state is trying to hide.

[Imploding Turtle]

News of Muslim grooming gang trials doesn't cause hysteria anymore...we are very much aware that 90% of grooming gangs are muslim.
That's 90%...now what is the muslim population of the uk,about 5% is it ?

That is what this totalitarian orwellian state is trying to hide.

You're not suggesting that 90% of grooming gangs being Muslim means we should start banning Muslims or something, or that they are representative of ordinary Muslims. Are you?

[Imploding Turtle]

Reporting restrictions on criminal trials are usually issued because the prosecution don't want to lose a prosecution via interference with the jury,but reporting restrictions are in force for all these muslim grooming gang trials so as to keep the public in the dark as to the extent of the gang rapes.

Utter bullshit

[Dazzler]

You're not suggesting that 90% of grooming gangs being Muslim means we should start banning Muslims or something, or that they are representative of ordinary Muslims. Are you?

Are the members of convicted grooming gangs not ordinary muslims then ?

[CoolClaret]

I can never fathom why the (some on the left) defend Islam.
Especially when they show utter contempt for Christianity & western conservatism (which is fair enough) yet defend the most archaic one of them all, which the followers tend to be a lot more fundamental-especially in the UK!... Total double standards!

It literally stands for everything a 'liberal' is meant to oppose.

There is nothing wrong with opposing Islam, it's not a phobia, it's perfectly reasonable.
No one here would want to live in an Islamic caliphate with restrictions on ones liberty, not one.

So imo, when one witnesses a rise in Islam or even the promotion of it - there are reasons for concern.

If someone wants to tell me why my stance is wrong then please be my guest.

[Imploding Turtle]

Are the members of convicted grooming gangs not ordinary muslims then ?

Wow. You were saying that.

[Imploding Turtle]

I can never fathom why the (some on the left) defend Islam.
Especially when they show utter contempt for Christianity & western conservatism (which is fair enough) yet defend the most archaic one of them all, which the followers tend to be a lot more fundamental-especially in the UK!... Total double standards!

It literally stands for everything a 'liberal' is meant to oppose.

There is nothing wrong with opposing Islam, it's not a phobia, it's perfectly reasonable.
No one here would want to live in an Islamic caliphate with restrictions on ones liberty, not one.

So imo, when one witnesses a rise in Islam or even the promotion of it - there are reasons for concern.

If someone wants to tell me why my stance is wrong then please be my guest.

Only a moron could possibly think people like me are defending Islam.

[Dazzler]

Wow. You were saying that.

What you on about..I quoted a stat

[Imploding Turtle]

What you on about..I quoted a stat

So you accept that ordinary muslims aren't being represented by these grooming gangs?

I'm trying to understand what point you're trying to make by quoting the start. Would you like to explain why that start is important to you?

[Dazzler]

There is nothing wrong with opposing Islam, it's not a phobia, it's perfectly reasonable

I would say perfectly rational as well as reasonable

[randomclaret2]

"Idiots"..." morons " ....the usual childish name calling from the usual suspect ( s ). Defend and excuse the indefensible then resort to name calling. A sadly familiar and depressing routine.

[Dazzler]

So you accept that ordinary muslims aren't being represented by these grooming gangs?

I'm trying to understand what point you're trying to make by quoting the start. Would you like to explain why that start is important to you?

Not saying it's important to me but It is a startling stat don't you think ?

[Dazzler]

So you accept that ordinary muslims aren't being represented by these grooming gangs?

As you may well know,I have stated that the vast majority of people I work amongst are muslim...I'm a taxi driver & just come off night shift.........
Before I go any further...I need some sleep

[Lancasterclaret]

Dazzler is a taxi driver?

You'd never guess

[Rick_Muller]

What you on about..I quoted a stat

You quoted a stat that is wrong, the actual statistics are already on this thread - but for some reason you have ignored that and inflated the numbers - can you explain why you did that?

[Imploding Turtle]

Not saying it's important to me but It is a startling stat don't you think ?

Why is it startling? What do you want me to take from it?

Why do you have so much trouble describing your thinking?

[Imploding Turtle]

As you may well know,I have stated that the vast majority of people I work amongst are muslim...I'm a taxi driver & just come off night shift.........
Before I go any further...I need some sleep

"Some of my best friends are muslim"