Tommy Robinson to go on trial for contempt of court AGAIN

TheWexfordInn

Donator
PI Member
Premium Account
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
3,664
Likes
4,506
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
Even in that superficial rendering, the AG had two choices:
  • allow the Court process to continue;
  • intervene and overturn the course of justice.
Incorrect.
At the hearing in the Old Bailey last October Robinson was formally acquitted of the charges that had been presented against him. At that stage all legal proceedings against him from the Justice System/Police/CPS ended, he had been cleared by the highest courts in the land and the end of the legal road had been reached.

Several months later the Attorney General announced that proceedings would re-commence. The Attorney General is a political appointee whose job is to represent the Government of the day in Legal matters. One of his powers is to launch private prosecutions on behalf of the Government of the day, that is what is happening here. At the Old Bailey on Tuesday the Attorney General was given leave to proceed against Robinson, We dont know yet what the charges against him are (other than they arent the same charges he was acquitted of) or what the thinking of the Old Bailey Judge was in allowing matters to proceed, both will emerge in time.

Believe it or not, Yaxley-Lennon is not that significant a player.
No I dont believe that. The disproportionate effort that has state has focused on him as compared to anyone else in the country would suggest otherwise.
And the fact that he is without doubt the anti-Establishment figure with the greatest level of public support in the country fully explains the states paranoia.

Dominic Casciani's report for the BBC)
FFS He is one of the Fake News Galacticos.
You would get more credibility quoting Alex Jones
 

Wolf

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
850
Likes
838
Incorrect.
At the hearing in the Old Bailey last October Robinson was formally acquitted of the charges that had been presented against him. At that stage all legal proceedings against him from the Justice System/Police/CPS ended, he had been cleared by the highest courts in the land and the end of the legal road had been reached.

Several months later the Attorney General announced that proceedings would re-commence. The Attorney General is a political appointee whose job is to represent the Government of the day in Legal matters. One of his powers is to launch private prosecutions on behalf of the Government of the day, that is what is happening here. At the Old Bailey on Tuesday the Attorney General was given leave to proceed against Robinson, We dont know yet what the charges against him are (other than they arent the same charges he was acquitted of) or what the thinking of the Old Bailey Judge was in allowing matters to proceed, both will emerge in time.


No I dont believe that. The disproportionate effort that has state has focused on him as compared to anyone else in the country would suggest otherwise.
And the fact that he is without doubt the anti-Establishment figure with the greatest level of public support in the country fully explains the states paranoia.



FFS He is one of the Fake News Galacticos.
You would get more credibility quoting Alex Jones
Stephen will be suing the shite out of the corrupt brit state in a couple of years....
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
81
Incorrect.
At the hearing in the Old Bailey last October Robinson was formally acquitted of the charges that had been presented against him. At that stage all legal proceedings against him from the Justice System/Police/CPS ended, he had been cleared by the highest courts in the land and the end of the legal road had been reached.
And that is a load of cobblers. Yaxley-Lennon was most certainly not acquitted of the charges of contempt of court.

On 23 October 2018, the Recorder of London,Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, decided that the case required a full trial, all the evidence must be rigorously tested, and witnesses cross-examined. Yaxley-Lennon was released from bail. It must be a fair guess that Yaxley-Lennon is on the 'watch' list, so not going very far: Australia refused his attempt to enter; he is banned from the USA.

The Recorder referred the case to the AG, in effect looking for permission to proceed or not (with the considerable costs, not only court costs but policing the venue, involved).

In March this year the AG decided it was in the public interest that a retrial should proceed:
After carefully considering the details of this case, I have concluded there are strong grounds to bring fresh contempt of court proceedings against Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. As proceedings are now under way, it would not be appropriate to comment further and I remind everyone that it is an offence to comment on live court cases.
Without being prejudicial, we can take that to mean the CPS reckons there is a better than even chance of a conviction, so the expenditure of court time and money is worthwhile.

The original date of this re-trial, at the High Court, was 22 March. Yaxley-Lennon remonstrated that didn't allow him time to prepare a defence, so a deferral was made until after 3 May. On Tuesday of this week, 14 May, that came about.
 

Wolf

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
850
Likes
838
And that is a load of cobblers. Yaxley-Lennon was most certainly not acquitted of the charges of contempt of court.

On 23 October 2018, the Recorder of London,Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC, decided that the case required a full trial, all the evidence must be rigorously tested, and witnesses cross-examined. Yaxley-Lennon was released from bail. It must be a fair guess that Yaxley-Lennon is on the 'watch' list, so not going very far: Australia refused his attempt to enter; he is banned from the USA.

The Recorder referred the case to the AG, in effect looking for permission to proceed or not (with the considerable costs, not only court costs but policing the venue, involved).

In March this year the AG decided it was in the public interest that a retrial should proceed:
After carefully considering the details of this case, I have concluded there are strong grounds to bring fresh contempt of court proceedings against Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. As proceedings are now under way, it would not be appropriate to comment further and I remind everyone that it is an offence to comment on live court cases.
Without being prejudicial, we can take that to mean the CPS reckons there is a better than even chance of a conviction, so the expenditure of court time and money is worthwhile.

The original date of this re-trial, at the High Court, was 22 March. Yaxley-Lennon remonstrated that didn't allow him time to prepare a defence, so a deferral was made until after 3 May. On Tuesday of this week, 14 May, that came about.
Any sign of the two other journalists who were in contempt of court outside the same trial Lennon was reporting on being up before the beak?
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
81
Any sign of the two other journalists who were in contempt of court outside the same trial Lennon was reporting on being up before the beak?
Where did the notion of 'reporting on' come from? Yaxley-Lennon is no journalist, any more than equipping myself with a scalpel makes me a brain-surgeon.

Several proper journalists were at Leeds Court: in particular (as I recall) Rob Parsons of the Yorkshire Post. There were no limits on merely observing, even taking notes for future reference. There were strong prohibitions on reporting a case which had ramifications for other trials: real journalists know those rules, and obey them.

Interfering with witnesses and any accused is, for very obvious reasons, the ultimate no-no. Yaxley-Lennon came along, mob-handed, with camera in tow, and breached every reasonable limit of court behaviour. That was why he was found in contempt.
 

James Dawson

PI Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
814
Likes
456
Where did the notion of 'reporting on' come from? Yaxley-Lennon is no journalist, any more than equipping myself with a scalpel makes me a brain-surgeon.

Several proper journalists were at Leeds Court: in particular (as I recall) Rob Parsons of the Yorkshire Post. There were no limits on merely observing, even taking notes for future reference. There were strong prohibitions on reporting a case which had ramifications for other trials: real journalists know those rules, and obey them.

Interfering with witnesses and any accused is, for very obvious reasons, the ultimate no-no. Yaxley-Lennon came along, mob-handed, with camera in tow, and breached every reasonable limit of court behaviour. That was why he was found in contempt.
You're rather naive if you think that's why he was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to 13 months in prison (there is a restriction on becoming a British MP for prison sentences of a year or more).
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
81
You're rather naive if you think that's why he was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to 13 months in prison (there is a restriction on becoming a British MP for prison sentences of a year or more).
When did Yaxley-Lennon ever offer himself for election to the Westminster Parliament? On the contrary, he used to maintain he had no interest in such politics, and indeed had never voted. Suggesting the 13 months sentence was some far-sighted political ploy is time-travelling fantasy, akin to despatching Dr Who to Herr und Frau Hitler with a packet of condoms.

There are indeed 'restrictions' on convicted felons. A twelve-month sentence and you're out (ROPA, 1981 — the Thatcher strike-back at Bobby Sands). Then there's the 'Recall' Act of 2015:
  • banged up for any length (bye-bye, Fiona Onasanya);
  • suspended for ten sitting days or 14 calendar dates (Baby Doc says 'phew!');
  • conviction for expenses (is Chris Davies still pending?)
 

James Dawson

PI Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2019
Messages
814
Likes
456
When did Yaxley-Lennon ever offer himself for election to the Westminster Parliament? On the contrary, he used to maintain he had no interest in such politics, and indeed had never voted. Suggesting the 13 months sentence was some far-sighted political ploy is time-travelling fantasy, akin to despatching Dr Who to Herr und Frau Hitler with a packet of condoms.

There are indeed 'restrictions' on convicted felons. A twelve-month sentence and you're out (ROPA, 1981 — the Thatcher strike-back at Bobby Sands). Then there's the 'Recall' Act of 2015:
  • banged up for any length (bye-bye, Fiona Onasanya);
  • suspended for ten sitting days or 14 calendar dates (Baby Doc says 'phew!');
  • conviction for expenses (is Chris Davies still pending?)
He hasn't been elected an MP, other than that I don't follow your logic.

His thirteen month prison sentence may be moot and I had a look and I think his 'mortgage fraud' conviction resulted in a sentence of over a year.

Anyway, it's naive to think that his (kangaroo court) contempt of court conviction (subsequently thrown out) and sentence was because of what he did and not who he is.

 

Wolf

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
850
Likes
838
When did Yaxley-Lennon ever offer himself for election to the Westminster Parliament? On the contrary, he used to maintain he had no interest in such politics, and indeed had never voted. Suggesting the 13 months sentence was some far-sighted political ploy is time-travelling fantasy, akin to despatching Dr Who to Herr und Frau Hitler with a packet of condoms.

There are indeed 'restrictions' on convicted felons. A twelve-month sentence and you're out (ROPA, 1981 — the Thatcher strike-back at Bobby Sands). Then there's the 'Recall' Act of 2015:
  • banged up for any length (bye-bye, Fiona Onasanya);
  • suspended for ten sitting days or 14 calendar dates (Baby Doc says 'phew!');
  • conviction for expenses (is Chris Davies still pending?)
Tell me, do you condone the attacks on Lennon by 'ANTIFA' fascists?
These unwashed clowns may claim to be 'anti-fascist' but their actions have all the hallmarks of fascism.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Wolf

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
850
Likes
838
Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson has never been arrested, tried or convicted of a single 'hate crime' or of any 'hate speech' crime.....

For a man the ANTIFA fascists claim is a leader of hate, this is quite unusual......

The only hate I see with regards to this guy is the 'hate not hope' gang of rabid lefty fascist scum and a gang of travelling middle class crusties who seem to have the time to follow and harass the guy all day every day....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim
Top Bottom