Tommy Robinson



  • This post is deleted!


  • Apparently quite balanced and independent view of Yaxley's potential prison experiences here. Clears away a lot of the hyperbole and describes the actual (high) risks and mitigations available.

    https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/43jy7w/stephen-yaxley-lennon-tommy-robinson-muslim-prison-guard-gang-claims



  • I'm sorry, I haven't explained my position or reasoning properly

    I've seen hours (but one of his docos will do) of TR talking into a microphone explaining his life in great detail. Detail that would be easily refuted with a few google searches, phone calls and an Uber.

    As a liar, he's got easily disputable narratives. He names people, he cites laws, explains every criminal charge against him.

    You could rip apart anyone of his homemade docos and promote the fuck out of it as Sunday night vilification. It'd rate through the roof! Tommy Robinson's Lies, premiering 8pm BBC1

    I've also seen a prominent BBC reporter performing and admitting to frabrication and entrapment tactics. It's the Panodrama doco. That's a flag. The guy is being filmed. The BBC owns the show.

    I've seen, the house of commons speakers talk of the hate he propagates, yet there are no racist quotes. Given his status as a person not fit to have social media, banking services or liberty, surely we all could rattle off a few of his "Trumpisms"? 3 letters of a youtube search would surely show him, fog horn in hand spouting minutes of "hate"speech to a packed carpark of Nazis?

    Yet no. The truth is the best we've got, aside from government generated charges, is vitriol, incessant screeches of racist, (and he's in the company of a muslim - yes it does! If you're going to call racist then it's kroptonite is simply a friend of the oppressed race), and EDL refernces.

    No one constantly refers to Majid Nawaz's past

    The best I've seen on the fern is "Islam has blood on it's hands" - cartoonist blood? And I asked

    He's famous because Britain stood by while too many of it's little girls got fucked over on a scale unprecedented, (and unfathomable) in a functioning peacetime democracy.

    These british girls got fucked over, by sociopaths, and then they got fucked over by the very people we were all told, taught and thought would protect us. "Find a policeman"

    Cassie Pike, raped by more than 100 men, gets arrested 5 times and 8 years later she helps police identify them again and they're down the hole.
    5 arrests (of an under 15 year old naked girl in a room with 7 men with their cocks out) and 8 years later we have justice - contemporary British justice.

    How many thousand kids got this horror from the world founder of order and accountability?

    "Wasn't that many girls.Exagerrated", some may proffer.

    Well what's the threshold then? 10 Cassie Pikes?

    100 girls raped 100 times is just, "well that's modern life..." or "kids grow fast these days"?

    It's fucken thousands of the most precious wee creatures on earth (sure, flowery talk but girls, kids, are one of life's delights), and what is Britain doing about this decades old infection?

    Who gave orders that these girls were willing participants? What progress determining their accountability?

    What is Britain doing to address the 3rd party in this ridiculous rampaging rape epidemic? I loves me some alliteration.

    Well they're going to unprecedented lengths to de-person and smear a guy that continues to speak about it.

    They're locking him up in a weekend, in a Muslim dominated criminal prison (for a civil offence?) and putting him in solitary for a widely acknowledged torturous length of days, all for his own safety.

    No other options for his safety?

    None?

    For contempt of court?

    Sentence passed by a judge with no jury? Ain't that illegal for a custodial sentence exceeding 9 months, English common law and Magna Carta - one of Tommy's pieces of info, might be bullshit, easy to know.

    All that over a weekend, found to be wrong, TR released, tried again, back in the hole? Apparently with no defense counsel - easily refutable

    For contempt of court?

    Tommy tells me (in one video) that no individual in the last 60 years has been sentenced to prison for contempt of court for a publication breach of a reporting order. The court clerk admitted the court did not follow it's own guidelines for the media in terms of notifying the public of standard information.

    Every other entity in the last 60 years has been given a fine for this charge, including Rod Liddle prejudiced the Steven Lawrence murder trial, 5 grand fine for his paper, the Spectator.

    Daily Mail, Daily Mirror reporters in the , Levi Bellfield trial where an 11 year old was murdered. The trial was sqauashed because of this breach. Justice not served. 10 grand fines.

    So why the big hullabaloo about this loud mouth whose given no quotes?

    Prison and national condemnation for TR. What has he done so heinous? Nothing of any substance.

    Hate speech? with no quotes

    You couldn't pin anything else on this man you despise?

    Nah, I'm sorry, again. None of this adds up. Least of all motives.

    Motive for Tommy? He's the most hated man in Britain

    Motive for the government?

    Motive for the media?

    dunno

    Finally, and thanks for the chest relieving exercise, this TR thing is full of persecution from what used to be easily the greatest country and system on Earth. A place where great modern civilisation and public morals were created.

    The best justice system anyone has ever seen

    An example of how to run things

    Not anymore Britain. You're not so special anymore. You get nothing done anymore and look mock worthy and inept.

    Still a fine country for many many reasons I know but do we judge anything on the best attributes or the worst?

    Is Britain the Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby of nations?

    Seems about right - great if you ignore the rapings



  • @Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

    Apparently quite balanced and independent view of Yaxley's potential prison experiences here. Clears away a lot of the hyperbole and describes the actual (high) risks and mitigations available.

    https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/43jy7w/stephen-yaxley-lennon-tommy-robinson-muslim-prison-guard-gang-claims

    First 2 paragraphs of the apparently quite balanced and independent view:

    First of all, I’d like to point out that I’m a fair and unbiased person,

    and then

    I’ve never personally come across a single Islamic extremist in prison, let alone entire gangs of them.

    That's the calibre of report from one female guard that Nick Chester: I got in touch with Dana, who works as a guard at a prison with one of the highest proportions of Muslim inmates in the country. Here’s what she had to say about her experience of so-called prison gangs.

    Highest muslim prison population and not one extremist? Come on. There are government reports of extremism in every Muslim prison population

    That's the best you can do to further your TR is racist scum (sic)?

    Give us some proper dirt on this scumbag man! Mortgage fraud, assault, contempt of court, something like that that screams "beware this man will ruin England if he's not put away permanently"

    Just joking. You've got your ideas and I've shown you some of mine 🙂



  • @Siam said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

    Apparently quite balanced and independent view of Yaxley's potential prison experiences here. Clears away a lot of the hyperbole and describes the actual (high) risks and mitigations available.

    https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/43jy7w/stephen-yaxley-lennon-tommy-robinson-muslim-prison-guard-gang-claims

    First 2 paragraphs of the apparently quite balanced and independent view:

    First of all, I’d like to point out that I’m a fair and unbiased person,

    and then

    I’ve never personally come across a single Islamic extremist in prison, let alone entire gangs of them.

    That's the calibre of report from one female guard that Nick Chester: I got in touch with Dana, who works as a guard at a prison with one of the highest proportions of Muslim inmates in the country. Here’s what she had to say about her experience of so-called prison gangs.

    That's the best you can do to further your TR is racist scum (sic)?

    Give us some proper dirt on this scumbag man! Mortgage fraud, assault, contempt of court, something like that that screams "beware this man will ruin England if he's not put away permanently

    Just joking. You've got your ideas and I've shown you some of mine 🙂

    Did you read the rest of the article or stop at the bit you quoted?
    I also halted at that point but the writer went on to explain that they were talking solely from experience in the level of prison that he would end up. They clearly explained that the Islamic extremism was an issue (alongside other extremism) in high security prisons.
    At present you are ranting like a fanatic so I'm not sure of the value of trying to debate.
    'Most hated man in Britain'? I could probably go out into the street know and get a very low response from the public to a question asking what they even know of him, let alone hatred. He may be a poster boy for alt-right examples of what is wrong in the world but 'most hated man in Britain' is hyperbole.

    Furthermore the post linking the 'prison' article had zero attempt to call Yaxley 'racist scum'. The article doesn't say it and I have never said it.
    The point of the link was to provide what looked like a knowledgeable view of what he may experience as the posts on here were describing something far far worse based on...…….what?



  • @Crucial based on his last, erroneous, prison visit.

    How about critiquing his version of events?

    Should be easy to dispute, thanks to Dana's knowledgeable insights

    Here it is



  • I can't watch that at the moment but surely any valuable assessment of a story is to take evidence/views from more than just the self promoting victim?

    If you want to take what Yaxley says without question that is your prerogative but I will be casting a critical eye, just as I did with that prison officers view.



  • @Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

    I can't watch that at the moment but surely any valuable assessment of a story is to take evidence/views from more than just the self promoting victim?

    If you want to take what Yaxley says without question that is your prerogative but I will be casting a critical eye, just as I did with that prison officers view.

    Now now, no building strawmen here fella.

    Yep, for sure there are 3 sides to every story. His truth, her truth and the actual truth.

    My stance has always been that the government is discriminating against a man shining a spotlight on a nasty stain. I find his record of events and obvious public depersonification as more compelling and realistic than the government and media's justifications for such harsh treatment.

    Put simply, the bigger kid is fair wailing on the little kid in this playground scrap. He's smashing the shit out of him and it's all getting a bit macabre



  • Tommy Robinson is exactly where he deserves to be.

    I don’t hate him. I don’t like him either. But I look at him objectively.

    This thread is pointless, nobody ever moves, people just shout louder with their own blinkered opinions.

    Time to set to ignore, something I should have done years ago.


  • Banned

    Is his sentence standard for that type of offence? @Siam mentioned some examples where only fines were issued. Does the punishment fit the crime so to speak?

    Is it also standard to put people convicted of a crime like this into a maximum security facility? I'm not sure where he is, but iirc he was in one last time.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Tommy Robinson:

    Is his sentence standard for that type of offence? @Siam mentioned some examples where only fines were issued. Does the punishment fit the crime so to speak?

    Is it also standard to put people convicted of a crime like this into a maximum security facility? I'm not sure where he is, but iirc he was in one last time.

    If you read the judgement you will see that it isn't as simple as that. He was on a suspended sentence for the same thing. That was his 'light' sentence given as a warning not to do it again. In the judge's eyes he failed to hold his end of that bargain then deliberately tried to skirt his way around the next court order and put a number of prosecutions in jeopardy. Time for a smack.
    I do agree that Judges tend to hold themselves and the court in ridiculously high esteem at times so anything that comes across as disrespecting themis dealt with harshly. But that applies to everyone.
    As for the prison. The suspicion is that he is at Belmarsh which is Max security. It is also where anyone convicted at the Old Bailey is taken to while the prison service allocates them a new home. If their conviction (or likely time spent) is short then it is easier to keep them there.
    There is also the possibility that if he has future court appearances to attend he will be kept in the most convenient place to transfer him back and forth. I guess he has the civil suit of libel from the 16 year old that he falsely accused of attacking schoolgirls on facebook in the wings.


  • Banned

    @Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Tommy Robinson:

    Is his sentence standard for that type of offence? @Siam mentioned some examples where only fines were issued. Does the punishment fit the crime so to speak?

    Is it also standard to put people convicted of a crime like this into a maximum security facility? I'm not sure where he is, but iirc he was in one last time.

    If you read the judgement you will see that it isn't as simple as that. He was on a suspended sentence for the same thing. That was his 'light' sentence given as a warning not to do it again. In the judge's eyes he failed to hold his end of that bargain then deliberately tried to skirt his way around the next court order and put a number of prosecutions in jeopardy. Time for a smack.
    I do agree that Judges tend to hold themselves and the court in ridiculously high esteem at times so anything that comes across as disrespecting themis dealt with harshly. But that applies to everyone.
    As for the prison. The suspicion is that he is at Belmarsh which is Max security. It is also where anyone convicted at the Old Bailey is taken to while the prison service allocates them a new home. If their conviction (or likely time spent) is short then it is easier to keep them there.
    There is also the possibility that if he has future court appearances to attend he will be kept in the most convenient place to transfer him back and forth. I guess he has the civil suit of libel from the 16 year old that he falsely accused of attacking schoolgirls on facebook in the wings.

    Well it is pretty simple because there must be previous case law concerning this. So it doesn't answer my question.

    Same with the prison. Is it normal for people guilty of what Robinson did to be placed with the general population in a maximum security prison? Same applies to "convenience" as well.



  • @Siam said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Crucial based on his last, erroneous, prison visit.

    How about critiquing his version of events?

    Should be easy to dispute, thanks to Dana's knowledgeable insights

    Here it is

    Ok. I gave up after 4 minutes simply because I couldn't deal with the sycophantic 'interviewer'.
    I'll totally concede that I was watching that with a different approaching mindset than you. I would be silly to pretend otherwise. What stood out for me though was that most of what I heard was whinging. If you are stupid enough to keep getting convicted of crimes to the point where custodial sentences become the outcome then accept the fact that no one has a nice time in prison. They aren't designed to be a holiday camp. Secondly there are also going to be a the worst of the very people you verbally attack daily in that environment so it stands to reason they are going to have a crack at you in there.
    He/they also conveniently skipped the part where the solitary confinement was on temporary and implied that the 'animal cage' was his prison environment. If I have that wrong because it is clarified later in the video then I'll concede that point but he does imply that and implant it into viewer's heads early on.

    Here is a quote from the prison service in refute.

    A Prison Service spokesperson, in turn, rejected Robinson's claims, saying "Mr Yaxley-Lennon was treated with the same fairness we aim to show all prisoners – he had access to visits, television and showers – and it is totally false to say he was held in 'solitary confinement'."
    "He was initially placed into the Care & Separation Unit for less than 48 hours while an assessment of the risk to his safety was undertaken by prison staff. He then joined the main prison population," the spokesperson added.



  • @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Tommy Robinson:

    Is his sentence standard for that type of offence? @Siam mentioned some examples where only fines were issued. Does the punishment fit the crime so to speak?

    Is it also standard to put people convicted of a crime like this into a maximum security facility? I'm not sure where he is, but iirc he was in one last time.

    If you read the judgement you will see that it isn't as simple as that. He was on a suspended sentence for the same thing. That was his 'light' sentence given as a warning not to do it again. In the judge's eyes he failed to hold his end of that bargain then deliberately tried to skirt his way around the next court order and put a number of prosecutions in jeopardy. Time for a smack.
    I do agree that Judges tend to hold themselves and the court in ridiculously high esteem at times so anything that comes across as disrespecting themis dealt with harshly. But that applies to everyone.
    As for the prison. The suspicion is that he is at Belmarsh which is Max security. It is also where anyone convicted at the Old Bailey is taken to while the prison service allocates them a new home. If their conviction (or likely time spent) is short then it is easier to keep them there.
    There is also the possibility that if he has future court appearances to attend he will be kept in the most convenient place to transfer him back and forth. I guess he has the civil suit of libel from the 16 year old that he falsely accused of attacking schoolgirls on facebook in the wings.

    Well it is pretty simple because there must be previous case law concerning this. So it doesn't answer my question.

    Case law doesn’t apply to how a judge deals with contempt. Each case is decided on its merits and is at the sole discretion of the judge, who in charge of their own courtroom. In this case the appeal was only heard as the court itself and the prison service made errors of procedure which was due to the judge’s inexperience with contempt proceedings, because they are rare.

    Same with the prison. Is it normal for people guilty of what Robinson did to be placed with the general population in a maximum security prison? Same applies to "convenience" as well.

    The rules, are:

    Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides: “Classification of prisoners
    7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be done or left undone:
    Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
    Yaxley-Lennon v R
    (a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this rule;
    (b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to do so; and
    (c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

    He didn’t get those privileges in his first committal, (because the court mistakenly recorded a conviction rather than a contempt order) and he was legally entitled to them. The verdict around that said:

    “Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits and the sending and receipt of letters.
    We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

    Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for contempt.”

    That was why he was allowed to appeal.


  • Banned

    @JC said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Crucial said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Rancid-Schnitzel said in Tommy Robinson:

    Is his sentence standard for that type of offence? @Siam mentioned some examples where only fines were issued. Does the punishment fit the crime so to speak?

    Is it also standard to put people convicted of a crime like this into a maximum security facility? I'm not sure where he is, but iirc he was in one last time.

    If you read the judgement you will see that it isn't as simple as that. He was on a suspended sentence for the same thing. That was his 'light' sentence given as a warning not to do it again. In the judge's eyes he failed to hold his end of that bargain then deliberately tried to skirt his way around the next court order and put a number of prosecutions in jeopardy. Time for a smack.
    I do agree that Judges tend to hold themselves and the court in ridiculously high esteem at times so anything that comes across as disrespecting themis dealt with harshly. But that applies to everyone.
    As for the prison. The suspicion is that he is at Belmarsh which is Max security. It is also where anyone convicted at the Old Bailey is taken to while the prison service allocates them a new home. If their conviction (or likely time spent) is short then it is easier to keep them there.
    There is also the possibility that if he has future court appearances to attend he will be kept in the most convenient place to transfer him back and forth. I guess he has the civil suit of libel from the 16 year old that he falsely accused of attacking schoolgirls on facebook in the wings.

    Well it is pretty simple because there must be previous case law concerning this. So it doesn't answer my question.

    Case law doesn’t apply to how a judge deals with contempt. Each case is decided on its merits and is at the sole discretion of the judge, who in charge of their own courtroom. In this case the appeal was only heard as the court itself and the prison service made errors of procedure which was due to the judge’s inexperience with contempt proceedings, because they are rare.

    Same with the prison. Is it normal for people guilty of what Robinson did to be placed with the general population in a maximum security prison? Same applies to "convenience" as well.

    The rules, are:

    Rule 7 (3) of the Prison Rules 1999 provides: “Classification of prisoners
    7.(3) Prisoners committed or attached for contempt of court, or for failing to do or abstain from doing anything required to be done or left undone:
    Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
    Yaxley-Lennon v R
    (a) shall be treated as a separate class for the purposes of this rule;
    (b) notwithstanding anything in this rule, may be permitted to associate with any other class of prisoners if they are willing to do so; and
    (c) shall have the same privileges as an unconvicted prisoner under rules 20(5), 23(1) and 35(1).”

    He didn’t get those privileges in his first committal, (because the court mistakenly recorded a conviction rather than a contempt order) and he was legally entitled to them. The verdict around that said:

    “Accordingly, the classification of the appellant as a convicted prisoner has had the effect of depriving him of privileges relating to: visits by his doctor or dentist, the freedom to choose what clothes to wear and the absence of restrictions on prison visits and the sending and receipt of letters.
    We have noted already that under section 258 Criminal Justice Act 2003 a person committed to prison for contempt is entitled to be released unconditionally after serving one half of the term for which he was committed. A convicted prisoner, in contrast, will be subject to release on licence with the attendant risk of recall.

    Finally, in this regard, the judge imposed a victim surcharge which, pursuant to The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (Amendment) Order 2016, is payable only in the event of the passing of a “sentence of imprisonment” and not upon a committal for contempt.”

    That was why he was allowed to appeal.

    Sure, but there is precedent for these types of things and any decision should be based on that. But again the question is whether this is standard for similar offences or whether TR had been harshly treated in this instance.

    Could be the mistake the first time was a genuine mistake. How common are fuckups like this? Inexperience is a ridiculously piss poor excuse.



  • @MajorRage said in Tommy Robinson:

    Tommy Robinson is exactly where he deserves to be.

    I don’t hate him. I don’t like him either. But I look at him objectively.

    This thread is pointless, nobody ever moves, people just shout louder with their own blinkered opinions.

    Time to set to ignore, something I should have done years ago.

    @MajorRage
    wow... just wow.

    Your posts show you are anything but objective about Robinson, the fact you see yourself as somehow objective is quite laughable and actually makes is illustrative of why you are one of the the best examples of those you describe as having a blinkered opinion.
    I am not neutral about Robinson and I have no doubt I am not that objective either, but the difference is I can see that, and you somehow see yourself as objective. Quite amazing lack of self awareness.
    This is one of the rare times I am genuinely stunned by someones post on TSF.

    The reason I dont comment much in this thread anymore as frankly I am just not sure of my facts any longer. Seems like a complex case, and I havent got the time to sift the wheat from the chaf.... unlike you who has boldly declared he is where he deserves to be... just before stating that you are objective and that everyone else is blinkered.



  • @Baron-Silas-Greenback

    Usual load of garbage from you BSG.

    The most blinkered poster on the forum.



  • @MajorRage said in Tommy Robinson:

    @Baron-Silas-Greenback

    Usual load of garbage from you BSG.

    The most blinkered poster on the forum.

    I am willing to admit I am blinkered, it is part of having an opinion, you bring in bias.
    However admitting you have a blinkered view can help combat it.
    You on the the hand remarkably dont think you are blinkered, just everyone who disagrees with you.



  • @JC thank you. I fucken love your gentle injections of reason and sense here on the fern, you good old bugger!

    You got an opinion on old mate's stoushes with the authorities?

    If not, please feel free to suffice with a "dunno"



  • @Crucial thanks mate. My view on this has certainly changed in the last 24 hours. A shift for sure. That's good.

    But

    I'm stuck with thinking the punishments don't fit the crimes and vitriol. It doesn't seem balanced. Proportional. But I can't wade through all the minutiae to know more than this low res view.

    Wouldn't the trick be to let him speak? Hoist by his petard?

    Give him the floor, and counter all of his claims as necessary. The man has been objectively denied many civil services by contemporary standards and all with misdemeanor charges.

    I think he's been unduly done by.

    Don't let him die in prison though, that might be pivotal if he did


Log in to reply