Off Topic OLOF's political thread

The BBC and Huddersfield Examiner released the names before the reporting restrictions. Then during the trials they attended and prepared reports which they then published and broadcast at the end of the linked trials once the restrictions were lifted.

 

Stop being such a pompous snowflake, she did worse than him, end of.

 

Wait, stop waffling on. Are you saying that there is concrete proof that Yaxley-Lennon was told that there were no reporting restrictions, or are you waffling on because it was only heresay on the video - i.e. he said it happened, so it must be true? You're really basing his innocence on his word? Wouldn't be many convictions in this country if that level of evidence was acceptable.

Remember - ignorance of the law is no excuse. A basic tenet of UK law.

 

Hahahaha! Shall I translate that for you? "I, Chesh, was talking pish and I can't prove I wasn't".

 

I'll ask you the same question as I asked 'the other side'. Have you got any links to substantiate that? I ask, both in fairness to the others, and to satisfy my own curiosity.

Does anyone know when the restrictions were actually put in place? And am I right in thinking it was simply to avoid influencing the unheard linked cases (i.e. trials 2 & 3), so names were not relevant anyway, just the evidence provided & outcomes?

 

Agreed

 

Mr Caldecott referred to the possibility that negligence as to the existence of a RRO might be enough. This point does not arise of the facts, as we are entirely satisfied that the respondent had actual knowledge that there was an order in force restricting reporting of the trial. He said as much, repeatedly, on the Video itself. He admitted it to HHJ Marson, through his Counsel, on 25 May 2018. The same admission was reflected in the Advice and Grounds of Appeal advanced on his behalf to the Court of Appeal. He has admitted in his written evidence to us that he was aware there was a reporting restriction of some kind, and in his oral evidence he confirmed that someone had told him this. That of course is why he approached Mr Walton. We accept Mr Walton’s evidence as to what the respondent said to him. That indicates clearly that the respondent knew that the restriction was a “ban”. We also accept that the respondent asked if the “ban” had been “lifted”. However, he had no information to suggest that it had been. Nor was he told that it had. His own account of the enquiries he made does not suggest that he concluded that the “ban” which he knew about had been lifted. The highest he puts it is that the fact that those enquiries drew a blank “gave me the impression that the restriction was no longer in place as the trial had finished and the jury were out” (our emphasis). Even on that account, by filming and live streaming outside court in ignorance of the terms of the order or its status he was taking an unreasonable risk that his conduct would contravene a reporting restriction. He offers Draft 9 July 2019 10:45 Page 18 High Court Unapproved Judgment: AG v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (Admin) No permission is granted to copy or use in court no explanation of why a restriction should be thought to come to an end when the jury were out considering their verdicts, the most sensitive stage of the trial.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ag-v-yaxley-lennon-jmt-190709.pdf

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/05/tommy-robinson-failed-to-check-on-reporting-ban

And again mentioned in the judges reasonings...

Leeds

9. In the meantime, on 11 May 2017, there was a directions hearing before HHJ Marson QC in the Crown Court at Leeds, when the Judge made orders in respect of the Huddersfield charges. He directed that those charges should be tried in a series of three trials in Leeds, commencing in January, April and September 2018. The first case was called Dhaliwal and others. The Akhtar case was the second of the three. These proceedings were reported in the Huddersfield Examiner and other media, including the BBC.

10. On 19 March 2018, in the Crown Court at Leeds, the RRO was made by HHJ Marson QC. It was headed, in capitals, “Notice to the Press – Reporting Restriction” and “Postponement Order”. It was made in the Akhtar proceedings, and provided that “The publication of any report of these proceedings shall be postponed until after the conclusion of this trial and all related trials.” The statutory provision under which the order was made was identified. The purpose of the order was specified: “Since it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in these proceedings”. That is one of the statutory bases for making such an order, and although the grounds were imperfectly stated, no challenge was made to the RRO or the Judge’s decision to make it until the skeleton argument for the present hearing.

11. On 16 April 2018, the Akhtar trial began, before HHJ Marson QC and a jury. There were originally 10 defendants. On Thursday 24 May 2018, the jury were sent out to consider their verdicts. By this time there were 9 remaining defendants. On the morning of Friday 25 May 2018, the respondent attended the Court. He spoke to Court staff. He was filmed speaking about the case, and speaking to some of the defendants. The video was live-streamed. Later that same day, the respondent came before HHJ Marson accused of contempt of Court. The Judge adopted a summary procedure. The respondent took advice from Counsel, and admitted contempt. Counsel mitigated on his behalf. It was accepted that “he was aware there was a reporting restriction”, but Counsel submitted that there was mitigation that would “allow [the Judge] to draw back from the imposition of an immediate custodial sentence.” The Judge was not persuaded, and committed him to prison for 10 months, simultaneously activating the suspended order imposed at Canterbury, which was made consecutive. The respondent was therefore committed to prison for a period of 13 months. An RRO was imposed in respect of those events, pursuant to s 4(2). This was later lifted.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ag-v-yaxley-lennon-jmt-190709.pdf

 

66 days, Tommy the lionheart will do it on his head

 

WJ used to be a Samaritan apparently, I think i'd have ****ing topped myself had I phoned them and got him on the other end talking a load of bollocks

 

What you conveniently forgot to mention is,

The Court Clerk, while giving evidence admitted there was a failure to display the reporting restrictions for the public, and Journalists to read.

The BBC had already published names and details of the case that morning, it was already in the public domain. The Judges themselves broke the law by claiming the law Tommy referred too was wrong regarding details already in the public domain.

The Journalists at Tommy's trial also broke the laws that Tommy himself was being charged with..........as Chesh said, one rule for Tommy and one for everybody else.

Along the way, Judge Marston broke the law, the coppers broke the law, the AG broke the law, the media broke the law..................basically, it means Tommy's trial/s were a stitched up political Kangaroo Court case.

Maybe you could explain what the Attorney General meant by saying "it's in the public interest" to bring fresh charges against Tommy.

 

Still not recovered from that bump on the head, I see.

 

And being a Samaritan, I'd never have been able to discuss it with anyone!

So you're safe - I can't ever tell anyone about your calls from that tranny club toilet after your .... erm .... fun. Best not to go into the details, eh? Anyway, no-one's really interested in how many days you were farting spunk.

Too soon?


EDIT: Bags packed & at the airport. Honest Injun, Glory made me do it, didn't you Eric? Oops, sorry Eric, meant Eire. Or did I? These multiple accounts muddle me up.

Can't be too soon for that one, can it?

 

Never! Bring it on, baby. Tell us more we promise not to tell.

 

To be fair to OLOF, It wasn’t the ‘act’ that traumatised him. It was the fact that the perpetrator was Mohammed, a Transgender communist, wearing a Diane abbot mask, who made him scream ‘i’m a remainer, i’m remainer’ during the act.

 

Youve more ****in air miles than Alan Whicker and judith Chalmerd combined, enjoy

 

I can only continue to post the links to the full 31 pages of the judges reasonings. If you fail to read them and then fail to quote which sections you contest and why (as they do address some of the points you raise, well apart from the ones that aren’t made up like the bbc publishing that morning etc)

 

Was only joking that I was at the airport, pretending I was on the run after revealing your secret. Nothing booked now until my Russia trip with the TA. Surprisingly cheap, btw. £192 return from Leeds with KLM. Paid a lot more for closer destinations in the past.

 

Is that what his name is? Couldn't make it out in the video.

 

Well, he had his mouth full at the time