At Supertroll's request I have set up a Tommy Robinson discussion page.

Enjoy!

Thank you EM

So, is that 'serves him right, he doesn't deserve due process'? And all so others in a trial CAN get due process. Ironic. The requirement for equal treatment under the law was not met. It doesn't matter how wicked ot foolish TR might be, nor how guilty.

Shifted from unthreaded.

... would all involved [in the TR argument] please note this paragraph from the Court of Appeal judgment:

"The judge informed the appellant that he was going to pursue proceedings for contempt of court and would try to find him a lawyer to represent him later that day. He adjourned at 11.45. Proceedings resumed at 12.18. Over the next four minutes the judge identified for the benefit of counsel, the appellant having been formally identified, his concerns about the appellant's conduct. He explained that he was conducting the second of three trials involving a total of 28 Asian men, with the third expected to start in September. He had made an order "prohibiting the publication of anything relating to these trials". During his livestreaming the appellant had referred to the supposed religion of the defendants, the ethnicity of the alleged victims, the costs of the prosecutions and questioned why publication was prohibited. The judge said he considered it a seriously aggravating factor that the appellant was encouraging others to share the video. "So that
is the nature of the contempt", he said."

golf charlie is right that the most important thing is that the trials of possible/alleged child groomers/abusers are not jeopardised by the behaviour of others outside the trial. In Leeds Crown Court there were three linked trials of such people. In the second trial, the jury was out. If they went home that evening before reaching a verdict, there was a risk (however small) that they might hear about Tommy Robinson's video and be influenced by it. More likely, there is the point that any prospective jurors in the third (linked, September) trial might see or hear about Robinson's video and activities, and be influenced by them. That could cause the third trial to collapse, which was the Judge's concern.

My conclusion, FWIW, is that Robinson was seeking publicity and got it. Having been found guilty of contempt in Canterbury (I use "guilty" in a loose sense, since as we have established contempt is not a criminal matter) he knew his actions risked the wrath of the Courts, but he persevered anyway. He was at best unwise to do what he did, and at worst he may yet be found on re-hearing to have been in contempt of court. BUT, having obtained the full facts for the first time from the Court of Appeal judgment, I conclude that he was badly treated by the [Leeds] Court, which seems to have held the equivalent of a drum-head trial, and which wrongly sent him to prison to be subjected to a harsher regime than is permissible for contempt, under the Prison Rules.

As I said on an earlier post, nobody seems to come out of it very well (except the Court of Appeal, which seems to have got it spot on).

Aug 4, 2018 at 8:49 AM Mark Hodgson

It might be advisable to follow Mark's suggestion in his first paragraph.

SG. I believe the main complaint was not that the "discussion" was irrational but that it was clogging up Unthreaded. Sadly golfCharlie's mirth output was adversely affected.
I'm sure the near absence of your input would have been noted by others. I wondered about it.

PCAR says:

"When sentencing TR to 13 months, Judge Marson stated: “No one could possibly conclude that that was likely to be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the present trial.” (p.23), note the highly prejudicial part as this implies that Strict Liability was used in the contempt case which would mean that TR would need to be guilty of ‘Substantially’ impeding or prejudicing the ongoing trial for him to be guilty of the contempt charge and yet in the Lord Burnett judgement it clearly states that the jury had retired.

When jurors retire to deliberate they are forbidden to access/be-influenced-by the internet [aka news] and so it would have been impossible for them to have seen what TR was doing outside the court, had they watched the Livestream they too would have been guilty of contempt.

Which means that what he was doing outside the court should not have influenced that jury in any way at all, most certainly not substantially impeded or prejudiced that ongoing case, which is the criteria for strict liability contempt.

Those frothing about "fair trial for Moslem rape victims" should understand it's Jury members, not TR, who would be in the wrong if his or any other non-trial evidence, news etc influences their decision. This applies to all Jury trials.

I have recused myself from cases where I had prior knowledge, connections or bias."

But look at the Court of Appeal judgment. They quote the trial judge as saying:

"This morning, well knowing that the jury in this trial were in retirement and well knowing that there was a prohibition on
publication because you referred to it in your video, you stood outside this building where jurors pass in order to get into it and defendants arrive. Over a prolonged period, because this is a long video, you are referring to this case, the previous case and to the subsequent case and, whilst I accept that there are on a number of occasions times when you refer to the defendants being not guilty until the jury say so, the vast majority of what you were saying, particularly at the beginning at the part I saw, was reference to cases like this, to Asian men, to the grooming of 11-year-old girls and the number of cases like this. No one could possibly conclude that that was likely to be anything other than highly prejudicial to the defendants in the present trial. …
If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video, I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury."

About which, the Court of Appeal had this to say:

The judge continued by explaining the consequences of that for the alleged victims and the public purse. He explained that publication was being postponed, not prevented, to ensure that all the trials were fair. He repeated that he regarded the encouragement of others to share the video as an aggravating factor and that there had been hundreds of thousands of hits. "It is entirely prejudicial." He regarded custody as inevitable, despite the mitigation, and identified 15 months' as the appropriate starting point for the Leeds contempt which he reduced to 10 months on account of the immediate acceptance of guilt before activating the three months which had been suspended in Canterbury.

25. In our judgment, it is clear from the breadth of these remarks that the judge had regard to matters beyond the breach of the section 4(2) postponement of reporting order. The passage we have quoted from his sentencing remarks shows a wider concern that the appellant's broadcast was prejudicial to the interests of justice in the trial just coming to an end. His reference to a possible application to discharge the jury could not have stemmed from the appellant repeating anything the jury had heard in the course of the trial, but rather from other prejudicial matter. The more generally prejudicial remarks included generically derogative remarks on the ethnic and religious backgrounds of the defendants."

Those words were rather opaque, and seem on first reading to support my interpretation that the jury in the second case (the case where the jury had just retired) could be influenced by Robinson's actions. Later, however, the Court of Appeal said this:

"We recognise that the judge was placed in an invidious position because he was concerned about the integrity of the trial which was almost at its end. The three trials, of which this was the second, were exceptionally difficult and sensitive. Having decided to suspend the deliberations of the jury, it is understandable that he may have felt under some pressure to resolve the issue of the appellant’s contempt expeditiously. However, once it had become apparent that the appellant was co-operating in removing the material from the internet, there was no reason why the jury could not have been
permitted to resume their deliberations. If there was any doubt about the intentions of the appellant, the judge could have sought an undertaking from or ordered, the appellant not to comment further on the trial or approach the court until the trial (or trials) had concluded."

Those words do seem rather to support your interpretation. Perhaps we'll have to await the re-hearing of the alleged contempt by TR to obtain a definitive answer to all this.

Aug 4, 2018 at 3:01 PM | Supertroll
Most discussions on Unthreaded last a week maybe two, TR looked like running on and on and on. In the days when the site was monitored a directive to move discussion here would have been issued earlier.

One positive for Mr Robinson himself is that he lost 3 stone in prison and now has real life experience of conditions in prison, if reports in the MSM have any credence in this affair.

UaT. Interestingly creation of this discussion blog corresponded with an immediate decline in posts (none from golfCharlie). If and when the TR saga resumes I hope this discussion page takes the slack rather than Unthreaded (which will then be free to discuss bonobo sex and red kites).

".... which will then be free to discuss bonobo sex and red kites"

Aug 5, 2018 at 5:28 PM | Supertroll

The bonobos have always denied involving any Red Kites. No Red Kite was available for comment, but some had been seen discussing movie rights with a sleasebag American Film Director.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-mosque-sermon-calls-on-allah-to-slay-non-muslims-one-by-one

Another "Discussion" about to go Trumpishly pear-shaped?

Pcar
To honest I have no real interest nor the time. He seems to have enough people looking after his human rights without my involvement. I assume that he'll be suing for compensation and assuming that his story is corroborated by third parties he should win.

There's none so blind that cannot see
Rather a stone thrower
Than an "virtuous" excuser
I be

I think it's a sign of the times, stewgreen. The disconnect between publicly espousing the principals of classic liberalism and altruism towards the bottom rungs of society, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that they were just uttering empty words and platitudes, was something I always associated with Soviet Russia and the Socialist Workers Party when I was first a student. To me it seemed in those days that the worst thing in 'mainstream' British politics was the Conservatives preaching about moral virtues whilst actually having the largest numbers of MPs who were likely to be caught visiting houses of ill repute, or some such. They were not bigly supportive of homosexuality but had the greatest number of MPs who were clearly gay. In some ways that actually seems relatively virtuous now in that the Conservative Party was actually more tolerant than their words indicated. It would have finished your career in the Labour Party.Today the Left preaches their general tolerance and diversity ever more loudly while often demonstrating the exact opposite, especially when it comes to diversity of opinion. (And both Obama and Hillary have previously come out against gay marriage before deciding that it would be better for their careers if they changed their minds).

On reflection though, historians can often supply evidence that politicians were usually were just as bad in the past as they are today. What I don't get is the MSM. It always used to besaid that they were generally more supportive of right-wing parties but it now seems to have shifted. When did this occur/begin?

stewgreen, your link doesn't work, instead generating the message "Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later."

Is this because there's genuinely a problem with the link, or is it because it's being censored?

I notice the BBC website report isn't exactly objective:

"Some supporters were carrying far-right banners - including two banners from organisations which are considered to be highly Islamophobic."

The BBC doesn't name the organisations, nor does it explain who considers them to be highly Islamophobic or why.

Also:

"After the case, his supporters were jubilant, hailing him as some kind of martyr for free speech."

I believe an objective news organisation simply reporting the facts, would there have said:

"After the case, his supporters were jubilant, hailing him as a martyr for free speech." The use of the words "some kind of martyr" comes across as pejorative. Can you imagine the BBC reporting in those terms about e.g. an arrested anti-fracking activist?

"Can you imagine the BBC reporting in those terms about e.g. an arrested anti-fracking activist?"
A 'QTWTAIN' if ever I saw one!

Because I'm feeling provocative. My bold.
Man arrested for Magna Carta theft attempt at Salisbury Cathedral (BBC)

"What is Magna Carta?

Magna Carta outlined basic rights with the principle that no one was above the law, including the king

It charted the right to a fair trial, and limits on taxation without representation

It inspired a number of other documents, including the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Only three clauses are still valid - the one guaranteeing the liberties of the English Church; the clause confirming the privileges of the city of London and other towns; and the clause that states that no free man shall be imprisoned without the lawful judgement of his equals