If that’s what she did, then she absolutely should be up for perverting the course of justice... and deserving of a lengthy sentence.
Like I said, stopping advertising your low IQ. Trial was over, they were all found guilty. Tommy was there on sentencing day, they all had their overnight bags. Court Clerk admitted the instructions for no journalist reporting were not put up for public information. The BBC had already quoted the names to the public, it was already out in the public domain....................do your research properly, or get someone to help you. Try watching videos of Tommy helping victims and other people, uncovering muslim rape gang members, tracking down terrorists at certain Mosques........you probably won't cos you looney, lifeless, unintelligent lefties hate the truth.
Our Stephen is back in jail and England 124 before the 1st wicket and Leeds playing tonight - all seems good so far in liberal metropolitan snowflake land today. How's life in Gammonland - guessing very hot, sweaty and red-faced today?
Three counts of contempt in their view Whitejock, they never showed the proof of any reporting restrictions because it wasn't there.If you watch the video you will see that he checked and asked whether there was any reporting restrictions, when he found that there wasn't he started his live stream. In my view every crime should be publicised after a conviction and then there would be no need for people like 'Tommy' to highlight the cover ups.
I’ve just realised the case you were talking about. An ill advised retweet of a tasteless quip from a spoof account on Twitter. Sackable offence in my opinion. Hardly perverting the course of justice. If offensive, ill-advised tasteless comments were actionable, a 5 minute run through of this thread would have half the contributors banged up
When the makers of laws, are putting pressure on children there is nothing worse, and that's a problem, imo she did much worse than Lennon.
I have very limited legal training, but what you suggest is most certainly not contempt, if I understand the circumstances correctly. Guilty of poor advice? Is that a charge? I don't think it's even a public order offence or hate crime or anything. Perhaps you could detail the grounds on which you believe someone should lay this charge.
To use her position as an elected MP to try and bully little girls who have been raped is disgusting,and a disgrace, and anyone who thinks it's OK is sick in the head
Checked with who? Did you or anyone else witness this? Or is it just that Yaxley-Lennon said he did? If so, is that really evidence? It's like me saying I'm thin. I might think so, I might say so, and I might say it often enough for you to believe it, but it doesn't mean it's a fact.
The BBC had already given out the names, perhaps you can tell us which prison the BBC reporters are in.
I do agree with you, she's a silly bitch that should resign. But it is not contempt of court. Fact. Try raising it with your MP, the police, or anyone you choose. Sadly, they cannot help you prove what it is not.
It doesn't matter, if she can claim a technicality or not, how many already raped and scared little girls backed out of giving evidence as a result of her actions. The courts are twisting evidence and what they choose to listen to. As previously said how many BBC staff are in prison.
I wasn't aware that they had released the names. Was this before or after the reporting restrictions were put in place? Perhaps you have a link to clarify? Anyway, that is a completely different argument. If it's the case, then just because they're guilty too doesn't make Yaxley-Lennon innocent, does it? And btw, take note that it was THREE counts of contempt. Note too that he was already on a suspended sentence for exactly the same thing. I doubt the BBC chappies were guilty of 3 counts, or were on suspended sentences.
As I said, I agree she was bang out of order. But you said it was contempt of court. It wasn't. Unless you can prove otherwise. If you can, you're doing a grand job of avoiding it.
Well Lennon has gone prison on the possibility of it effecting a trial, she did exactly the same, possibly stopping raped girls from giving evidence, tell me the difference.
they are either all guilty, or all innocent, same laws are supposed to be for us all, unless you are a Hitler fan, then the Jews are guilty and the rest aren't.
If you watch the video you will know, something on line and asked the clerk at the court, but apart from the judges giving out their scripted versions of contempt of court they never pulled out of the bag the all important statement about reporting restrictions on this case, if they did do we wouldn't be argueing as too who is a liar. At the end of the day the government and those who pull our strings have succeeded in dividing opinion, remain/leave, pro-Tommy/Anti-Tommy it all disguises the threat of Islamists whether its abusing mainly young white girls or terrorist attacks.
Nope, good try. You demonstrate why she should be on a contempt charge. You advocated it, so you prove it.
