-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
That’s not the full picture though, where is the justification for moving prisons and his treatment while in there?
He’s clearly being harassed by the police, prison system and the government.
Until he’s PM you’ll never be satisfied.
What are you on about? I’m not a fan of this guy, I find the way he’s been treated pretty horrifying, and the fact the left leaning people bend over backwards to justify his treatment even more alarming.
Freedom of speech includes defending people’s rights you may not agree with. If he’s so clearly wrong it should be fairly simple.
If he’s not, we should address that too.
-
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
That’s not the full picture though, where is the justification for moving prisons and his treatment while in there?
He’s clearly being harassed by the police, prison system and the government.
Until he’s PM you’ll never be satisfied.
What are you on about? I’m not a fan of this guy, I find the way he’s been treated pretty horrifying, and the fact the left leaning people bend over backwards to justify his treatment even more alarming.
Freedom of speech includes defending people’s rights you may not agree with. If he’s so clearly wrong it should be fairly simple.
If he’s not, we should address that too.
Correct. The rule of law depends on equal treatment for all. It’s all well and good having a robust court process with checks like the Court of Appeal to ensure fairness, but the decisions as to who gets arrested and or prosecuted, and the treatment of those found guilty are equally as important, and yet far more open to political motivations.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback You made an assertion but won't back it up, not just with reportable facts but even with your opinion why. You seem to feel that just because yours is a negative it is beyond question. Filming on court property was not made up nonsense, that actually related to a previous contempt of court conviction, filming in Canterbury Court actually, i got two of his convictions mixed up. Not difficult, he's had three in less than two years. But you jump on that slight error in an attempt to discredit everything else rather than actually debate what's in front of you.
Yeah except only one of us is declaring he is guilty whilst at the same time time making fundermental mistakes.
My assertion that he is currently legally innocent is correct. Your assertion that he is technically guilty is bullshit.
And he has not been in convicted 3 times. At least try and get your facts right. Do you know it means when a conviction is quashed?Well, what I actually said was "it seems TR was technically guilty" rather than (sound the trumpets( declaring he is guilty. And do try and get things right he has been convicted three times, 2 in relation to Canterbury Court and one in relation to Leeds court. The latter has been remitted to be heard again.
The question that you seem intent on avoiding, after calling me out on it, was whether or not TR broke the second contempt of court order. The order was not to report on those particular trials while they were ongoing and he clearly did so. That is fundamental.
He was not technically guilty, you haven't explained the technical part, I am starting to think that is just your mealy mouthed way of saying he is guilty.
No I don't think he broke the contempt of court order. You do, that's fine, a trial will sort it out, not you trumpeting about him being 'technically guilty'.
You seem to think that the quashing of that conviction means that he is still guilty, he isnt at this stage, pretty fundamental stuff. Pretty weird that you seem to have been brainwashed so thoroughly that the concept of innocent until proven guilty has become irrelevant.You want to take a bet on how many criminal convictions Robinson currently has on his record for the last 2 years? You do realize that his conviction doesn't stand dont you? Apparently not. All your posts have a theme of Robinson being a guilty man before his court case is even settled.
So. Still nothing. Instead of one question which you cannot answer, let me then ask you two questions which might be easier.
- Did the previous contempt of court order ban him from reporting on those trials whilst proceedings were still ongoing?
- Did he then report on said trial when proceedings were still ongoing?
If you're still struggling, let me give you a clue. The answer to both is not "no".
Actually Cato, it looks like the answers are No and Yes. The Canterbury contempt finding did not include any injunction specific to these proceedings. He was found to be in contempt and committed for 3 months, suspended. That would be triggered by any future contempt or conviction, regardless of whether it was related to these proceedings.
By the way, it also appears that contempt is not something you get convicted of. You are found to be in contempt, then you are a contemnor. It is not the same as a convict, and the conditions applied are very specific. There are, for example, no licence requirements on release, which is usually after 50% of the sentence.
The CoA specifically pointed to a clerical error at Canterbury Crown Court that classified TR’s contempt as a conviction when it wasn’t. The CoA did not quash that contempt finding because they ruled the appeal was filed late. TR’s council in Canterbury were given a shoeing in the judgement for encouraging the judge to be vague in defining the contempt (so that a suspended sentence was more likely) then trying to leverage the vagueness as grounds for overturning the contempt order. The junior counsel’s notes to that effect are in the judgement.
-
@jc Thanks, i wasn't aware of the difference between conviction and contemnor. British law is arcane sometimes. As to the other issue, my understanding was that he had been ordered not to report on the trials whilst they were ongoing. Are you saying that is not the case?
-
@catogrande yes that’s my reading of the judgement. His contempt was breaking a postponement order on the Leeds trial that applied to everybody, not just him. The postponement was to the end of Leeds trial 2, which I think is on now. Not sure why it didn’t cover trial 3 as well. TR apparently named the defendants in trial 2 but took it down while he was in court.
-
@jc said in British Politics:
@catogrande yes that’s my reading of the judgement. His contempt was breaking a postponement order on the Leeds trial that applied to everybody, not just him. The postponement was to the end of Leeds trial 2, which I think is on now. Not sure why it didn’t cover trial 3 as well. TR apparently named the defendants in trial 2 but took it down while he was in court.
Also the BBC and many other outlets had already named the defendants. And everything else he said.
-
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
This thread worth a read
Heavy left leaning bias in his assessment there. I note that he doesn't even address the prison transfer when talking about corruption/conspiracy.
Nothing to see here, he was treated fine! Laughable.
He doesn’t even come close to saying he was treated fine. Quite the opposite.
-
@kirwan said in British Politics:
That’s not the full picture though, where is the justification for moving prisons and his treatment while in there?
He’s clearly being harassed by the police, prison system and the government
No, he’s not clearly.
Can you honestly tell me you know and understand every single aspect involving prison transfers? And why they are done?
This thread is becoming farcical
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@jc said in British Politics:
@catogrande yes that’s my reading of the judgement. His contempt was breaking a postponement order on the Leeds trial that applied to everybody, not just him. The postponement was to the end of Leeds trial 2, which I think is on now. Not sure why it didn’t cover trial 3 as well. TR apparently named the defendants in trial 2 but took it down while he was in court.
Also the BBC and many other outlets had already named the defendants. And everything else he said.
So why was there zero attendance from every single other media outlet on the planet there?
You have 10 plus dedicated news channels, at least 50 papers in this country and all have dedicated court reporters.
And none of them sent anybody along to this let alone filmed them real-time and asked them direct leading questions.
That for me is telling.
-
@majorrage I don't know much about prison transfer policies or procedures.
I'm confident in surmising that a computer program didn't solely determine his transfer to the highest Muslim population prison, so some prison risk experts met and signed off on his transfer.
No other options than a tiny cell, no social contact, can't trust the food? Nowhere else in Britain?
What harm incarcerating the wee gobshite for 13 months in a manner where he wouldn't have any grounds to whinge I.e. a prison experience the same as anyone on such a "conviction".
There's just a sniff of petty vengeance around this case which is disturbing and would be if a muslim was purposely moved to solitary confinement in a white supremacist prison, for instance
It's all still suppressing the intelligent discussions we inevitably must have about freedom of speech.
We're wasting so much time
-
@majorrage not so sure that it's as simple as untruthful inmate hard done by.
But maybe I know more ex convicts and my opinion is influenced by their recollections of prison. Incidentally the vast majority regaled of pretty "easy time"
Funny how nuance is the valued commodity in these bipartisan political times
-
@majorrage Even if you were to leave aside the prison transfer issues, his treatment was incorrect.
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, and he was legally entitled to them. The verdict 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.
I know you don’t think this stuff matters but it does. TR’s politics are irrelevant here, he is entitled to the protection of the law or the law is worthless.
-
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@jc thanks - educational.
Out of interest, do you think these things were done on purpose as part of a govt conspiracy or just a good old fashioned cock up?
Cock up. But let’s be clear, nobody in authority were in any hurry to correct the cock up even when it became clear that something had gone very wrong. How come nobody in the police or prison service ever asked why someone jailed for contempt had effectively ended up in solitary confinement?
My guess is it’s because his cause was unsympathetic and very few people were prepared to stick their head above the parapet because they knew there would be a political price to pay for supporting a “racist” “islamophobe”. They know that, just like in Auckland this week, it cuts no ice among the hard leftists and the media that, forgetting TR for a moment, it’s important to stand up for the rule of law. They’ll get branded a racist and an islamophobe themselves. So better to say “nothing to see here”, at best, or “who cares, screw him” at worst.
Sorry, but I’m still a part time UK resident and this is not the country I know.
As an aside, the judiciary in the UK took some fearful stick after the recent Brexit court case for applying the law, and it would have been simple for the CoA to duck this one, because the Canterbury and Leeds appeal applications were late. I tip my hat to the Lord Chief Justice himself for taking this one on when there’s really no upside for him other than seeing justice done. And his judgement is beautifully written.
-
Remember the 'Secret Barrister' many were referring to as proof of Tommy's guilt? Well he has admitted he was wrong.
This is another good summary of the situation including some earlier clips showing the extreme persecution of Tommy by the British state.
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
Remember the 'Secret Barrister' many were referring to as proof of Tommy's guilt? Well he has admitted he was wrong.
This is another good summary of the situation including some earlier clips showing the extreme persecution of Tommy by the British state.
As much as I hope this was all just a cock up and down to incompetence, TR's past treatment (provided he is indeed telling the truth) would suggest otherwise. Ultimately the authorities have deemed TR to be the easier of the naughty children to deal with and will punish him while indulging and placating the other.
-
British Politics