Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-27 11:18 PM Those crowing for his release from police custody are unable to grasp why we have laws. It's quite apparent none have the intelligence to see that Yaxley-Lennon was actually putting due process of the court at risk making it easier for defence lawyers, jeopardising the trial, with the possibility of the judge throwing it out altogether. Yaxley-Lennon put himself in police custody through his own foolhardy irresponsibility.......nobody elses. Remind me Bullet when was the last trial stopped because the defendants were filmed entering court? *-) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:02 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:41 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 9:29 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:24 AM The Fox news report in your previous link appears to indicate that the Judge did add a reporting restriction in relation to his arrest. You would have to know the terms of the reporting restriction in order to know whether the report on the demonstration breaches the Judge's order. But the purpose of the reporting restriction was to suppress the story? ;-) ......... Like that worked (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Wrong again Dave. A reporting restriction can only be made in the interests of justice i.e. to ensure that there is a fair trial. If it doesn't do that then anyone, including a representative of the press, can apply for it to be lifted on that basis. It is in the interests of the potential victims that there is a fair trial as well as the accused for quite obvious reasons. BG has already pointed this out. Are you being deliberately obtuse? So Tommy Robinson filming the defendants as they enter court could prejudice the trial???? *-) ........ Are "you" being deliberately obtuse? ;-) ......... We all know why he and the press are being stopped from reporting on the these Asian grooming trials.........and its got sod all to do with justice for the victims >:-( ......... Right wing/conservative accounts on Facebook and Twitter much more like to be take down than those of the left ... Zuckerberg admitted such when questioned ... For years the Police and Government played down Muslim rape gangs sexually assaulting thousands of underage white girls ... If you spoke of it you were branded the usual names and insults ... Now they target the reporters who dare to speak ... Shocking stuff ... Whatever those in power thought they were doing by sending the reporter and best selling author Tommy Robinson down its kinda backfired me thinks ... Another 20000 have signed the petition since 6.30 this morning 331.000 now ... Could it make half a million ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:02 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:41 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 9:29 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:24 AM The Fox news report in your previous link appears to indicate that the Judge did add a reporting restriction in relation to his arrest. You would have to know the terms of the reporting restriction in order to know whether the report on the demonstration breaches the Judge's order. But the purpose of the reporting restriction was to suppress the story? ;-) ......... Like that worked (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Wrong again Dave. A reporting restriction can only be made in the interests of justice i.e. to ensure that there is a fair trial. If it doesn't do that then anyone, including a representative of the press, can apply for it to be lifted on that basis. It is in the interests of the potential victims that there is a fair trial as well as the accused for quite obvious reasons. BG has already pointed this out. Are you being deliberately obtuse? So Tommy Robinson filming the defendants as they enter court could prejudice the trial???? *-) ........ Are "you" being deliberately obtuse? ;-) ......... We all know why he and the press are being stopped from reporting on the these Asian grooming trials.........and its got sod all to do with justice for the victims >:-( ......... We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. In any event media lawyers may be crawling all over it in an attempt to get the ban lifted for their clients. Judges aren't infallible who knows whether it will stay in place. It is said that Tommy Robinson breached an injunction. He can go to law himself if the injunction was unlawful/or committal for breaching it was unlawful. Maybe he qualifies for legal aid and on this occasion you have reason to be happy about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-27 11:18 PM candapack - 2018-05-27 10:05 PM Well, having never heard of this Tommy Robinson character, thought I should do a bit of research. Right wing, Left wing, Centrist; MSM, Internet, everything I could access. The man appears to be a complete Nazi arsehole of the type I thought the '39-'45 conflict had triumphed against, at least in these Sceptred Isles. But No, it seems that his type is gaining traction again, quite disgusting. Anyone who supports the views of this throwback needs to seriously consider changing their medication. You've done your research well. He's a small time crook and football hooligan whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon but flies under three pseudonyms, the 'Tommy Robinson' name being what he took from a known member of the "Men In Gear" (MIG) football hooligan crew, which follows Luton Town Football Club. His highest 'achievement' in the world of criminality was mortgage fraud for which he served just 6 months of an 18 month prison sentence, released but then got sent back to prison again for breaching terms of his licence....same as he's just done now in this current case. Given the number of skirmishes with the law he gets himself into you'd think he had a better understanding of what happens to people who break the law, but he doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the box on that. So mortgage fraud is a more heinous crime than the rape of a child? :-| ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. Long??? 8-) ........and the Great British justice system deports them to *-) ...........Doesn't Veronica? :D ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. I think the point of the restrictions is to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial in these highly emotionally charged trials. If the defendants lawyers can find ANYTHING that in anyway may prejudice the trial the judge is quite likely to stop the trial. There may then be a re-trial of course - but the same thing could happen again. Best to get it right first time. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:32 AM Bulletguy - 2018-05-27 11:18 PM candapack - 2018-05-27 10:05 PM Well, having never heard of this Tommy Robinson character, thought I should do a bit of research. Right wing, Left wing, Centrist; MSM, Internet, everything I could access. The man appears to be a complete Nazi arsehole of the type I thought the '39-'45 conflict had triumphed against, at least in these Sceptred Isles. But No, it seems that his type is gaining traction again, quite disgusting. Anyone who supports the views of this throwback needs to seriously consider changing their medication. You've done your research well. He's a small time crook and football hooligan whose real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon but flies under three pseudonyms, the 'Tommy Robinson' name being what he took from a known member of the "Men In Gear" (MIG) football hooligan crew, which follows Luton Town Football Club. His highest 'achievement' in the world of criminality was mortgage fraud for which he served just 6 months of an 18 month prison sentence, released but then got sent back to prison again for breaching terms of his licence....same as he's just done now in this current case. Given the number of skirmishes with the law he gets himself into you'd think he had a better understanding of what happens to people who break the law, but he doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the box on that. So mortgage fraud is a more heinous crime than the rape of a child? :-| ......... Fraud ??? Bullets a Labour man and look how many of them got done for fraud/dodgy expenses claims ... Doesnt seem to bother him so many of his own team have been very dodgy ... Heres a list of those lovely Huddersfield locals facing trial ... https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/trial-dates-set-29-people-13022848 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 malc d - 2018-05-28 10:39 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. I think the point of the restrictions is to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial in these highly emotionally charged trials. If the defendants lawyers can find ANYTHING that in anyway may prejudice the trial the judge is quite likely to stop the trial. There may then be a re-trial of course - but the same thing could happen again. Best to get it right first time. :-| So in our wonderful British Justice system, having your picture taken entering court is a legitimate reason to stop a trial????? 8-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:47 AM malc d - 2018-05-28 10:39 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. I think the point of the restrictions is to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial in these highly emotionally charged trials. If the defendants lawyers can find ANYTHING that in anyway may prejudice the trial the judge is quite likely to stop the trial. There may then be a re-trial of course - but the same thing could happen again. Best to get it right first time. :-| So in our wonderful British Justice system, having your picture taken entering court is a legitimate reason to stop a trial????? 8-) .......... The answer to that is “possibly”. You are indulging in much speculation Dave. You cannot possibly know from the contents of reports so far that your premise that restrictions on reporting in child grooming cases are made so as to afford some kind of unwarranted special treatment to the perpetrators. I’ll give you an example and it may ring a bell with you as you may have read reports regarding someone’s conviction which indicate that there was a previous restriction on reporting their earlier conviction which no longer applies. Sometimes a person goes on trial and they have separate charges that are facing that are due to be tried at a later date. If they are convicted in the first trial there are often reporting restrictions on publishing that outcome in order for the jury in the second trial not to hear about it. Only in restricted circumstances will the previous conviction be mentioned in the second set of proceedings. That won’t come up for a decision on whether the evidence of the previous conviction is relevant and admissible until the second set of proceedings is heard. So yes, a photograph of an accused attending the first trial may prejudice a second trial to the extent that any alleged victim in the second set of proceedings will not get justice if that trial has to be abandoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 11:13 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:47 AM malc d - 2018-05-28 10:39 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. I think the point of the restrictions is to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial in these highly emotionally charged trials. If the defendants lawyers can find ANYTHING that in anyway may prejudice the trial the judge is quite likely to stop the trial. There may then be a re-trial of course - but the same thing could happen again. Best to get it right first time. :-| So in our wonderful British Justice system, having your picture taken entering court is a legitimate reason to stop a trial????? 8-) .......... The answer to that is “possibly”. You are indulging in much speculation Dave. You cannot possibly know from the contents of reports so far that your premise that restrictions on reporting in child grooming cases are made so as to afford some kind of unwarranted special treatment to the perpetrators. I’ll give you an example and it may ring a bell with you as you may have read reports regarding someone’s conviction which indicate that there was a previous restriction on reporting their earlier conviction which no longer applies. Sometimes a person goes on trial and they have separate charges that are facing that are due to be tried at a later date. If they are convicted in the first trial there are often reporting restrictions on publishing that outcome in order for the jury in the second trial not to hear about it. Only in restricted circumstances will the previous conviction be mentioned in the second set of proceedings. That won’t come up for a decision on whether the evidence of the previous conviction is relevant and admissible until the second set of proceedings is heard. So yes, a photograph of an accused attending the first trial may prejudice a second trial to the extent that any alleged victim in the second set of proceedings will not get justice if that trial has to be abandoned. You obviously haven't watched the utube video that got Mr Robinson arrested? ;-) ......... Coz the only thing one of the defendents displayed was a complete lack of remorse, by telling Mr Robinson to indulge in sexual intercourse with his mother :-| .........Or words to that effect >:-) ..... BTW as I understand it Mr Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace.......Not prejudicing the trial? :-| ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:02 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:41 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 9:29 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:24 AM The Fox news report in your previous link appears to indicate that the Judge did add a reporting restriction in relation to his arrest. You would have to know the terms of the reporting restriction in order to know whether the report on the demonstration breaches the Judge's order. But the purpose of the reporting restriction was to suppress the story? ;-) ......... Like that worked (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Wrong again Dave. A reporting restriction can only be made in the interests of justice i.e. to ensure that there is a fair trial. If it doesn't do that then anyone, including a representative of the press, can apply for it to be lifted on that basis. It is in the interests of the potential victims that there is a fair trial as well as the accused for quite obvious reasons. BG has already pointed this out. Are you being deliberately obtuse? So Tommy Robinson filming the defendants as they enter court could prejudice the trial???? *-) ........ Yes of course it can. And like all the other Yaxley Lennon wacko's you're completely ignoring an important fact which i've already explained before. He was currently under bail conditions at the time and he broke those conditions by committing an offence so in doing so broke the law and got arrested. What part of that are you not 'getting'? Laws are in place for a reason. Break 'em and you get punished. Obey them and you don't. ...and its got sod all to do with justice for the victims >:-( ......... Actually it's got everything to do with justice for the victims. Reporting restrictions on trials are not unusual and in place to ensure due process is followed so defendants get a fair safe trial and the complainant gets justice served. Any good defence lawyer will look for anything to favour his client....that's their job and you don't have to like or agree with that, but it is. Yaxley Lennons activities were in danger of jeopordising due process of an ongoing trial in accordance with the law. Now.......answer me this; If the defence called for a mistrial due to the interference and the Judge threw the trial out......who are you going to blame then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:02 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:41 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 9:29 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:24 AM The Fox news report in your previous link appears to indicate that the Judge did add a reporting restriction in relation to his arrest. You would have to know the terms of the reporting restriction in order to know whether the report on the demonstration breaches the Judge's order. But the purpose of the reporting restriction was to suppress the story? ;-) ......... Like that worked (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Wrong again Dave. A reporting restriction can only be made in the interests of justice i.e. to ensure that there is a fair trial. If it doesn't do that then anyone, including a representative of the press, can apply for it to be lifted on that basis. It is in the interests of the potential victims that there is a fair trial as well as the accused for quite obvious reasons. BG has already pointed this out. Are you being deliberately obtuse? So Tommy Robinson filming the defendants as they enter court could prejudice the trial???? *-) ........ Are "you" being deliberately obtuse? ;-) ......... We all know why he and the press are being stopped from reporting on the these Asian grooming trials.........and its got sod all to do with justice for the victims >:-( ......... We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. Because they are of the hang 'em high mob justice mentality who don't give a flying fig if any innocent person gets caught up in their madness (as has happened). Due process means nothing to them.......until they themselves may one day find themselves in the dock and then they'd be the first to wail about wanting a fair trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 12:57 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 10:02 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:41 AM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 9:29 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 9:24 AM The Fox news report in your previous link appears to indicate that the Judge did add a reporting restriction in relation to his arrest. You would have to know the terms of the reporting restriction in order to know whether the report on the demonstration breaches the Judge's order. But the purpose of the reporting restriction was to suppress the story? ;-) ......... Like that worked (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Wrong again Dave. A reporting restriction can only be made in the interests of justice i.e. to ensure that there is a fair trial. If it doesn't do that then anyone, including a representative of the press, can apply for it to be lifted on that basis. It is in the interests of the potential victims that there is a fair trial as well as the accused for quite obvious reasons. BG has already pointed this out. Are you being deliberately obtuse? So Tommy Robinson filming the defendants as they enter court could prejudice the trial???? *-) ........ Yes of course it can. And like all the other Yaxley Lennon wacko's you're completely ignoring an important fact which i've already explained before. He was currently under bail conditions at the time and he broke those conditions by committing an offence so in doing so broke the law and got arrested. What part of that are you not 'getting'? Laws are in place for a reason. Break 'em and you get punished. Obey them and you don't. ...and its got sod all to do with justice for the victims >:-( ......... Actually it's got everything to do with justice for the victims. Reporting restrictions on trials are not unusual and in place to ensure due process is followed so defendants get a fair safe trial and the complainant gets justice served. Any good defence lawyer will look for anything to favour his client....that's their job and you don't have to like or agree with that, but it is. Yaxley Lennons activities were in danger of jeopordising due process of an ongoing trial in accordance with the law. Now.......answer me this; If the defence called for a mistrial due to the interference and the Judge threw the trial out......who are you going to blame then? Mr Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace......."NOT" for jeopardising the trial *-) ........ Which is how the establishment silences trouble makers now days >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 malc d - 2018-05-28 10:39 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. I think the point of the restrictions is to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial in these highly emotionally charged trials. If the defendants lawyers can find ANYTHING that in anyway may prejudice the trial the judge is quite likely to stop the trial. There may then be a re-trial of course - but the same thing could happen again. Best to get it right first time. :-| This is 100% bang on......at least somebody 'gets it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 1:05 PM Mr Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace......."NOT" for jeopardising the trial *-) ........ Which is how the establishment silences trouble makers now days >:-) .......... Don't you EVER READ posts properly? 1) He was on bail. 2) He BROKE the terms of his bail conditions. 3) That's an arrestable offence. 4) So he got arrested for BREAKING THE LAW. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 1:06 PM malc d - 2018-05-28 10:39 AM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 10:30 AM We don't yet know the full story because of the ban on reporting. There is no restriction on reporting grooming trials after they have concluded so why are you so bothered? The guilty are named and shamed and serve long prison sentences. I think the point of the restrictions is to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial in these highly emotionally charged trials. If the defendants lawyers can find ANYTHING that in anyway may prejudice the trial the judge is quite likely to stop the trial. There may then be a re-trial of course - but the same thing could happen again. Best to get it right first time. :-| This is 100% bang on......at least somebody 'gets it'. So why is filming defendants entering court for any criminal trial not banned? >:-) .......... Lets face it most folk who end up in court for a criminal offence will usually have a rap sheet as long as your arm........So why are those trials not being prejudiced by the media filming them when they enter court ?????? *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 1:10 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 1:05 PM Mr Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace......."NOT" for jeopardising the trial *-) ........ Which is how the establishment silences trouble makers now days >:-) .......... Don't you EVER READ posts properly? 1) He was on bail. 2) He BROKE the terms of his bail conditions. 3) That's an arrestable offence. 4) So he got arrested for BREAKING THE LAW. *-) He got arrested for BREACH OF THE PEACE.......NOT PREJUDICING A TRIAL *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 1:14 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 1:10 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 1:05 PM Mr Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace......."NOT" for jeopardising the trial *-) ........ Which is how the establishment silences trouble makers now days >:-) .......... Don't you EVER READ posts properly? 1) He was on bail. 2) He BROKE the terms of his bail conditions. 3) That's an arrestable offence. 4) So he got arrested for BREAKING THE LAW. *-) He got arrested for BREACH OF THE PEACE.......NOT PREJUDICING A TRIAL *-) .......... He won't get it ... You can say it a thousand times ... If it doesn't suit his agenda he'll alter history , what you've said , facts etc etc ... He's awake early ... Must be filling his night time bag a big quicker these days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 pelmetman - 2018-05-28 1:14 PM Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 1:10 PM pelmetman - 2018-05-28 1:05 PM Mr Robinson was arrested for breach of the peace......."NOT" for jeopardising the trial *-) ........ Which is how the establishment silences trouble makers now days >:-) .......... Don't you EVER READ posts properly? 1) He was on bail. 2) He BROKE the terms of his bail conditions. 3) That's an arrestable offence. 4) So he got arrested for BREAKING THE LAW. *-) He got arrested for BREACH OF THE PEACE.......NOT PREJUDICING A TRIAL *-) .......... Jeez.........take your Mad Hatter cap off for once and just try thinking. *-) I've already explained God knows how many times he was ON BAIL. He broke the terms of his bail conditions so duly got arrested. When you are out of prison under bail terms you do not go seeking to get in any trouble with the law......unless you want to go back to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 I have watched the video Dave. However, you’ve gone from the general back to the specific. The question you asked and which I answered was whether it was possible that having your picture taken entering court was a legitimate reason to stop a trial? To which the short answer is that it could be. As for Robinson’s arrest; a police officer may arrest someone if they have reasonable cause to believe that a breach of the peace is about to take place and doesn’t have to wait until it has taken place. In any event from the limited information available Robinson was subject to an injunction/ban of some kind and was sent down for breaching it. We have been discussing what has possibly happened here because none of us knows for certain what if any restrictions there are on reporting on this trial and whether the filming/taking photographs of the accused entering the court is also prohibited under those restrictions. We don’t even know what stage of the proceedings has been reached, apart from the fact that there has been no guilty verdict, yet you refer to one of the defendant’s "lack of remorse". Is it just people alleged to be part of grooming gangs that you in your wisdom believe are not worthy of the same presumption of innocence that apply to all accused persons until proved otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 1:30 PM I have watched the video Dave. However, you’ve gone from the general back to the specific. The question you asked and which I answered was whether it was possible that having your picture taken entering court was a legitimate reason to stop a trial? To which the short answer is that it could be. As for Robinson’s arrest; a police officer may arrest someone if they have reasonable cause to believe that a breach of the peace is about to take place and doesn’t have to wait until it has taken place. In any event from the limited information available Robinson was subject to an injunction/ban of some kind and was sent down for breaching it. We have been discussing what has possibly happened here because none of us knows for certain what if any restrictions there are on reporting on this trial and whether the filming/taking photographs of the accused entering the court is also prohibited under those restrictions. We don’t even know what stage of the proceedings has been reached, apart from the fact that there has been no guilty verdict, yet you refer to one of the defendant’s "lack of remorse". Is it just people alleged to be part of grooming gangs that you in your wisdom believe are not worthy of the same presumption of innocence that apply to all accused persons until proved otherwise? http://www.continentaltelegraph.com/civil-liberty/the-reason-tommy-robinson-got-arrested-perhaps-not-a-good-reason/ ;-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 1:30 PM I have watched the video Dave. However, you’ve gone from the general back to the specific. The question you asked and which I answered was whether it was possible that having your picture taken entering court was a legitimate reason to stop a trial? To which the short answer is that it could be. As for Robinson’s arrest; a police officer may arrest someone if they have reasonable cause to believe that a breach of the peace is about to take place and doesn’t have to wait until it has taken place. In any event from the limited information available Robinson was subject to an injunction/ban of some kind and was sent down for breaching it. We have been discussing what has possibly happened here because none of us knows for certain what if any restrictions there are on reporting on this trial and whether the filming/taking photographs of the accused entering the court is also prohibited under those restrictions. We don’t even know what stage of the proceedings has been reached, apart from the fact that there has been no guilty verdict, yet you refer to one of the defendant’s "lack of remorse". Is it just people alleged to be part of grooming gangs that you in your wisdom believe are not worthy of the same presumption of innocence that apply to all accused persons until proved otherwise? The Beano boys want to dispense with due process and just move straight to 'guilty' because they think they look guilty so must be!! Yet due process was accorded to Richard Price and Leigh McMillan, both senior EDL members. Price was convicted of downloading child porn and possession of crack cocaine. EDL organised a campaign to free him. *-) EDL member Leigh McMillan got 17 years for raping and abusing a 10 year old girl over a five year period. :-( Strange neither mentioned those cases......i can't think why. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Yes indeed Dave, as the article on The Continental Telegraph website indicates we have to wait and see whether Robinson's arrest and incarceration was unlawful and/or whether the Judge's order restricting press reporting failed to accord the appropriate weight to the principle of open justice. It is an order that can be challenged in the courts right now . Those that don't challenge it in such a way are not in the best position to make their own judgement on it because they don't have the full facts and just like you and I can only speculate. I see you've ignored my question about who you choose to single out as unworthy of the presumption of innocence. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Bulletguy - 2018-05-28 2:00 PM Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 1:30 PM I have watched the video Dave. However, you’ve gone from the general back to the specific. The question you asked and which I answered was whether it was possible that having your picture taken entering court was a legitimate reason to stop a trial? To which the short answer is that it could be. As for Robinson’s arrest; a police officer may arrest someone if they have reasonable cause to believe that a breach of the peace is about to take place and doesn’t have to wait until it has taken place. In any event from the limited information available Robinson was subject to an injunction/ban of some kind and was sent down for breaching it. We have been discussing what has possibly happened here because none of us knows for certain what if any restrictions there are on reporting on this trial and whether the filming/taking photographs of the accused entering the court is also prohibited under those restrictions. We don’t even know what stage of the proceedings has been reached, apart from the fact that there has been no guilty verdict, yet you refer to one of the defendant’s "lack of remorse". Is it just people alleged to be part of grooming gangs that you in your wisdom believe are not worthy of the same presumption of innocence that apply to all accused persons until proved otherwise? The Beano boys want to dispense with due process and just move straight to 'guilty' because they think they look guilty so must be!! Yet due process was accorded to Richard Price and Leigh McMillan, both senior EDL members. Price was convicted of downloading child porn and possession of crack cocaine. EDL organised a campaign to free him. *-) EDL member Leigh McMillan got 17 years for raping and abusing a 10 year old girl over a five year period. :-( Strange neither mentioned those cases......i can't think why. ;-) Can't speak for Dave but how does someone "look guilty" ??? Don't know why your mentioning the EDL ... I don't support em and I don't think Dave does and neither does respected reporter and best selling author Tommy Robinson ... As for the crimes those 2 committed I'd say something you can't when we talk about Muslim sex offenders I'd condemn them and say they are both dirty filthy gits and worse ... Kind of blows any point you were attempting to prove ... Did Tommy get 13 months by the way??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 Violet1956 - 2018-05-28 2:15 PM Yes indeed Dave, as the article on The Continental Telegraph website indicates we have to wait and see whether Robinson's arrest and incarceration was unlawful and/or whether the Judge's order restricting press reporting failed to accord the appropriate weight to the principle of open justice. It is an order that can be challenged in the courts right now . Those that don't challenge it in such a way are not in the best position to make their own judgement on it because they don't have the full facts and just like you and I can only speculate. It's a politically right wing website so not particularly impartial. Here is a CPS link explaining reporting restrictions. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/reporting-restrictions-children-and-young-people-victims-witnesses-and-defendants https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf I see you've ignored my question about who you choose to single out as unworthy of the presumption of innocence. ;-) Well Pelmet?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.