Why is it you're getting your facts wrong and clutching at straws, and have gotten way way off point to justify your agenda. Regarding your links, we're in the "here and now" not in 2015 or 2016. You claim your last link was about a Muslim woman, after reading it, I couldn't find any reference to the woman being Muslim, maybe I missed it. Regarding your comment, TR's actions could not have derailed the case irrespective of what the Judge said, you're obviously getting your info from the fake news lefties somewhere. The rape gang members were in court that day to receive their sentencing, some had prison bags with them.......Funny how they previously got bail for the atrocities they did to little girls, and TR got a kangaroo court, all within the space of 3 to 5 hours........maybe you forgot to mention that side of it. Did you also forget to mention TR's Solicitor had rung the police inquiring about TR, but the police told her she didn't have to travel to Leeds as TR was being released.......did you also miss that part....or purposely failed to mention it? The gang members had already been previously tried and found guilty so, how is it even remotely possible that TR reporting on the case, on sentencing day, could've derailed the case........truth is, it couldn't, and obviously didn't...........The corrupt Judge, who obviously doesn't know the law, or does, mentioned it to make the case against TR sound more serious than it was During the trial, reporters were allowed to report on the case, and they did, even Mohan Singh, a Sikh journalist was there reporting on behalf of the Sikh community who also have little girls raped and abused by these Muslim filth.........Did you forget to mention that part too? TR was seen in the video asking police if he could stand on the steps of the court house, they said no, it's court house property; TR acknowledged that and didn't go onto the steps......why didn't the police, who replied to Tommy's question arrest him then? TR was reading out the names of the gang members, on sentencing day mind, from a list the BBC had already published and revealed to the public. The Judge who sentenced TR, was previously looking out of a 2nd or 3rd floor window at TR and his cameraman just before TR was arrested. Along side him was the female officer who was part of the 7 officers, yes 7 officers, to arrest TR afterwards............So, firstly, the corrupt Judge would've known he wasn't allowed to sit on the case of TR cos he was a witness, he broke the law.........Secondly, TR was not allowed his civil rights, they broke the law.........Thirdly, the Judge admitted afterwards to not dealing with the case properly, in that he did not watch all the evidence......he broke the law........Previously the officers broke the law by telling TR's Solicitor he was being released, then they bundled him straight into court. The Judge told TR, during the case, the previous contempt of court charge had nothing to do with TR's case and was irrelevant, the Judge gave TR 13 months. As far as I'm aware, nothing has transpired which suggests the corrupt Judge gave TR 10 months, and 3 months for a previous contempt of court suspended sentence. One important question I have, who was the person / officer who reported TR to the Judge to cause the Judge, another person, and 2 police officers to look out the window.......who was the person who had such a deep hatred for TR to bring TR to their attention, and why was the Judge out of his chambers on such an important case as the Muslim rape gangs? It would seem you didn't know all the details of TR's case, but was clutching at straws and bandwagon jumping. You put up links from 1 and 2 years back, and some were entirely different cases, to try and justify your agenda.........you didn't. As for the woman who called the police cos her husband wouldn't roll her a ***, well, she deserved it, but I can see the funny side. From memory, I have written the above details before on here, seems you didn't pay attention, but were driven by your obsessive blind hatred to try and attack me. .
The 'here and now' rather than 2016 is irrelevant unless you can point to changes of legislation or sentencing guidelines that would affect cases of these types. The article doesn't mention she is a Muslim because it's irrelevant to this case but previous articles have mentioned she is a Muslim where it was more relevant to that case. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26873650 And I have mentioned on numerous occasions that Contempt of Court is often dealt with immediately and done on the authority of the Judge. It does not involve trial by jury. This judge can not be a witness in contempt of court is a nonsense. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/p...al/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-48.pdf They may have been in court to receive sentencing but as I have previously pointed out the judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded. So reporting on this trial may have prejudiced future linked trials which is why the restrictions were still in place. Please show me a link to reporters reporting on the case? They did reporting on the initial pre-trial hearing when there was no restrictions. I found that both in press and from Mr Singh on youtube but nothing after the restrictions were in place. You have posted some of the nonsense before I think it was in with Tommy being moved to Category A prison because of a Muslim Home Secretary claim. Don't flatter yourself that there is blind hatred. When you post what I think is bullshit then I will try and post counter claims and evidence to support why I think what you've posted is bullshit. I also do it without any hatred with lifecheshirewhite and others and they do it in return to me.
stop talking sense and posting fact. It's an alien concept to the whites templar or whatever ****e he reads
They may have been in court to receive sentencing but as I have previously pointed out the judge had imposed a postponement order preventing the media from reporting on the ongoing trial until all linked trials had concluded. So reporting on this trial may have prejudiced future linked trials which is why the restrictions were still in place. The morning of the Gang rape sentencing, after being found guilty, the MSM, such as the BBC reported, revealed and published the details of the case, including all the names of the guilty filthy party. The gagging order was obviously not put on the trial before hand as the MSM and even Mohan Singh were reporting on the case prior to the sentencing day..........The gagging order was obviously put on after TR was arrested, because the Judge was not in his chambers or the court room; he was busy looking out of the window at Tommy Robinson and Co prior to TR's arrest. Once the MSM had received notice of the gagging order, the MSM pulled their articles, but not before already releasing the details, details which TR was only echoing from the BBC released details. You have posted some of the nonsense before I think it was in with Tommy being moved to Category A prison because of a Muslim Home Secretary claim. Don't flatter yourself that there is blind hatred. When you post what I think is bullshit then I will try and post counter claims and evidence to support why I think what you've posted is bullshit. I also do it without any hatred with lifecheshirewhite and others and they do it in return to me.[/QUOTE] .................................................................................................................................................................................... The claim that the order came from the Home Office has been made by several sources, Caolan Robertson, Raheem Kassam, and this lad, to name a few. The MP Lord Pearson wrote a letter to Muslim Home Secretary Sajid Javid informing him, "if anything happens to TR, myself, and other MP's will personally hold you responsible and charges brought against you". Came from top apparently. Caolan reporting to Infowars. Later in the video you'll see info on Sajid Javid the Muslim Home Secretary, and his plans. Caolan Robertson on Infowars part 2 Politico brings up some very good points, again, no gagging orders on the cases. Copper confirms it. Mohan Singh reporting on the pre trial hearing, no gagging order. First trial begins, with same Judge, no gagging order. And I have mentioned on numerous occasions that Contempt of Court is often dealt with immediately and done on the authority of the Judge. It does not involve trial by jury. This judge can not be a witness in contempt of court is a nonsense. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/p...al/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-48.pdf You mention that contempt of court is often dealt with immediately and on the Authority of a Judge.............Firstly, a Judge cannot give his authority untill he is assigned that case, this takes time due to due process. Judge Marsons wasn't assigned, he assigned himself, which he's not allowed to do, and one of the reasons is, he was a witness to what TR was doing prior to his arrest. A Judge or a Magistrate cannot be a witness and the presiding Judge / Magistrate on a case at the same time. A judge / Magistrate has to be impartial in all cases of legal matters, irrespective of the level of the alleged offence. One of the other reasons is to prevent bias, and to exercise complete impartiality to ensure fair justice to both parties, or the accused as the case may be. .......go look it up..........This law / rule has been around for literally decades, at least since I was in Army, which is where I learnt about it. Read the paragraph below, taken from your own link, and it starts off "The court must determine at a hearing" then read sections 2, a and b. The Judge has admitted to not looking at all the evidence and, admitted Tommy Robinson was not given due process. Tommy was originally arrested for suspicion of breach of the peace (suspicion), the video shows no people around him. The charge, after the police lied to Tommys solicitor, was changed to contempt of court, there was no contempt of court, if there was, the officers would've been instructed to charge Tommy with contempt of court, but they didn't, neither did the officers on the court house steps. The Judge also told Tommy that his previous contempt of court charge had nothing to do with this case, and was irrelevant, the Judge went on to say he was dealing with this case only. Exercise of court’s power to deal with contempt of court 48.2.—(1) The court must determine at a hearing— (a) an enquiry under rule 48.8; (b) an allegation under rule 48.9. (2) The court must not proceed in the respondent’s absence unless— (a) the respondent’s behaviour makes it impracticable to proceed otherwise; or (b) the respondent has had at least 14 days’ notice of the hearing, or was present when it was. I can't find any evidence of a gagging order put in place prior to Tommy's arrest; if you have it, please feel free to post it.
He can't mean the knights Templar cos they were originated in france and went to extraordinary lengths not to follow Christian doctrine with their trials and rituals. ^^^^ true dat!
.................................................................................................................................................................................... [/QUOTE] Sigh, we'll try again The morning of the Gang rape sentencing, after being found guilty, the MSM, such as the BBC reported, revealed and published the details of the case, including all the names of the guilty filthy party. The gagging order was obviously not put on the trial before hand as the MSM and even Mohan Singh were reporting on the case prior to the sentencing day. Last year at the pre-trial hearing there was no reporting restrictions. Which is when it was covered in the papers and all the defendants were named this is from from when Mr Singh's video dates. But then the judge did impose restrictions for the actual trials which is why you will find no further reporting on the trials. Post some links to reporting of the actual trials rather than the pre-trial hearing? Nope you can't because there isn't any. Why? As per the article Judge Collier ruled that the cases will be heard in three separate trials starting in January. The first trial, expected to last 10 weeks, has a provisional start date of January 8, 2018. The second trial, expected to last six weeks, is planned to start on April 16, 2018. The third trial, which is expected to last four weeks, has the provisional start date of September 3, 2018. https://metro.co.uk/2017/05/12/prot...exploitation-of-children-6632078/?ito=cbshare See these are linked trials which is why despite the fact this case was finishing there is still another linked case to come which is why there is still reporting restriction in place and why Stephen Twatty-Lennon is putting the next trial at risk and why he was in contempt of court. The claim that the order came from the Home Office has been made by several sources, Caolan Robertson, Raheem Kassam, and this lad, to name a few. The MP Lord Pearson wrote a letter to Muslim Home Secretary Sajid Javid informing him, "if anything happens to TR, myself, and other MP's will personally hold you responsible and charges brought against you". Came from top apparently. The top is not Sajid Javid. But don't take my word for it here's someone who actually prosecutes and in his own words has put more of the Muslims in jail than Raheem's had hot dinners Personally I'll take his word more than a friend of Tommys, a friend of Farage and a UKIP Lord (who incidentally is not an MP as he's a Lord...) Again with the contempt of court nonsense.... Crown Court power to deal with criminal contempt The Crown Court is a superior court of record (s 45(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981) but its inherent power to make an order of committal of its own motion is restricted. It can deal with contempt "in the face of the court", which has been interpreted broadly and is not confined to contempt seen by the judge; disobedience of a court order, or breach of an undertaking to the court (DPP v Channel Four Television Co. Ltd. [1993] 2 All E.R 517). A Crown Court judge's power to commit summarily for contempt should be exercised only where the contempt is clear and it is urgent and imperative to act immediately. In the absence of urgency, the matter should be referred to the Attorney General to consider bringing proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division (Balogh v St. Albans Crown Court[1975] 1 QB 73). The summary procedure at Rule 48.5 applies in the Crown Court where the court observes, or someone reports to the court, a contravention of s3 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (disobeying a witness summons), s20 of the Juries Act 1974 (disobeying a jury summons), s8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (obtaining details of a jury’s deliberations, etc.), s9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (without the court’s permission, recording the proceedings, etc.) or any other conduct with which the court can deal as, or as if it were, a criminal contempt of court. Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 provides for a maximum period of committal of 2 years in the Crown Court. In R v Callum Iain McLeod [2001] Crim. L.R. 589, the Court of Appeal held there was no reason why a trial judge could not be considered to be an independent and impartial tribunal for proceedings for contempt of court. Sometimes the contempt may be sufficiently serious to justify proceedings for a criminal offence (for example perverting the course of justice or witness interference); however the court may prefer to deal with the conduct as part of its inherent jurisdiction to administer justice in a speedy and orderly manner, thus avoiding the public cost of separate proceedings and investigation, provided that its sentencing powers are sufficient to reflect the severity of the conduct. When a Crown Court judge indicates that he/she wishes to deal with someone for contempt, prosecutors must ensure that prosecuting counsel is in a position to assist the court with as much information as possible, including relevant authorities. When contempt is not admitted, the enquiry should take place at the earliest opportunity. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidan...tions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
With regards to gagging the press and contempt of court three years ago there was a football violence related incident in which 8 people were arrested and charged with an array of charges such as Causing an affray, ABH,GBH,criminal damage and threatening behaviour, one of the eight(my mate) pleaded guilty from the start and was sentenced to 18 months and a six year banning order, the others fought their case of which two were found guilty almost a year later and received a similar sentence and the whole case was reported on, naming my mate who by this time had been released on licence. Due to having two different hearings for the same case some 'evidence' namely cctv footage had been leaked online a few times which the accused argued could prejudice the case against them and should be thrown out, the judge was having known of it though. In view of this, in this day and age i understand to trail 28 nonces at once is a impossible task and spliting it into three hearings makes sence, however the trails could all be heard at the same time in three different crown courts, so for example Leeds,Bradford and Manchester in this case, so there is no contempt of court.
The above does not mention any gagging orders. See these are linked trials which is why despite the fact this case was finishing there is still another linked case to come which is why there is still reporting restriction in place and why Stephen Twatty-Lennon is putting the next trial at risk and why he was in contempt of court. You keep mentioning the above. Tommy Robinson was in no position, nor did anything to put the next trial at risk. I mentioned previously, Tommy was arrested for suspicion of Breach of the Peace, he wasn't arrested for contempt of court. The fact he was arrested for suspicion of breach of the peace, and not contempt of court tells a story in that A) There was no gagging order in place and B) the Judge knew the suspicion of breach of the peace charge would not stick. I'm presuming, yes, presuming the Judge changed the charge, or ordered the police to change the charge to Contempt of Court (somebody did) either way, Tommy was railroaded. There was no gagging order in place, no one can find any evidence of a gagging order being in place. The videos I showed of the Muslim filth going into court for trial also says there was no gagging order in place. The video showing the Muslim filth going to court for sentencing (after previously being found guilty by a Jury) also shows no gagging order was in place. When Tommy was near the Court House steps, the police officers he was talking to did not inform Tommy of a gagging order in place, nor did they arrest him, so, in the minds of those officers, Tommy was doing nothing wrong. The link you provided shows all the names and charges of the then accused. When Tommy was reading those names out, he was not in contempt of court as all the details were already public knowledge. Let me paint a picture for you.......Tommy was arrested on May 25th, the next court case is on September 3rd, that's just over 3 months away, where can Tommy influence a Jury that wouldn't have been aware of Tommy being at the sentencing of the previous court case, you're not making any sense. How can Tommy influence a Jury that probably hadn't even been picked yet. There was no contempt of court, the Judge, imo, changed the charge and made the reasons up to try and make TR's case sound more serious than it was. I think the Judge, and the arresting police officers wanted their 15 minutes of fame, and thought they would be commended for it, but it backfired on all of them. The Judge would've been privately reprimanded for going outside his oath and turning the case into a Kangaroo court. I suspect the Judge was also told to lift the gagging order on TR's case. The gagging order on TR's case had no benefits whatsoever to the Judge or the police officers, as you are now aware. Personally I'll take his word more than a friend of Tommys, a friend of Farage and a UKIP Lord (who incidentally is not an MP as he's a Lord...) Took this of Wikipedia......"Office: Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom since 1990"...........Fill ya boots pal. All the links, and people on you tube show that Sajid Javid was responsible for TR being moved.........I'm trying to work out why the MOJ David Gauk would move TR from a safe prison to a higher risk prison, and have TR's status changed to high risk.......where's the high risk? If anything had happened to TR, then David Gauk would probably lose his job. As you previously mentioned, the MOJ has the responsibility of ensuring the safety of TR, so why would he move him to a prison with a higher Muslim population. On entry to Onley, the guard told Tommy he was not liked there......again, why would David Gauk put Tommy's life at risk? A Crown Court judge's power to commit summarily for contempt should be exercised only where the contempt is clear and it is urgent and imperative to act immediately. In the absence of urgency, the matter should be referred to the Attorney General to consider bringing proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division (Balogh v St. Albans Crown Court[1975] 1 QB 73). Reference the above, It's clear that there was no sense of urgency, or contempt of court, other than the officers being told to arrest TR for suspicion of breach of the peace, therefore, according to your comments above, the matter should've been referred to the Attorney General for consideration, it was not. The Judge, in his eagerness to jail TR performed a kangaroo court outside his authorative boundaries. Now, the bit you're having a big problem understanding. I'll repeat, rinse, and repeat again A Judge / Magistrate cannot be a witness to a crime / offence and preside as the sitting Judge / on that case, it's against the law, here's why. A) Bias, a Judge / Magistrate must be impartial in all cases of the law regarding the cases put in front of the Judge / Magistrate. The Judge / Magistrate must rely wholey and solely on the evidence provided by the defense and prosecution before making a decision to commit or acquit. B) Impartiality means the defendant / accused is assured of a fair trial according to the law/s, including Due Process set down for England and Wales. C) If a Judge / Magistrate is witness to a crime / offence, the defense, or prosecution, as the case may be can call the Judge / Magistrate as a witness to give evidence, which is why a Judge / Magistrate who witnesses a crime / offence cannot be the presiding Judge / Magistrate on that case. In addition, but still related, Judge Geoffrey Marson QC admitted he did not review all the evidence....................cause for an appeal / retrial. Judge Geoffrey Marsons QC admitted he tried Tommy Robinson without Due Process...........cause for an appeal / retrial / have the case quashed. Judge Geoffrey Marsons QC witnessed Tommy Robinson outside the court house, prior to Tommy's arrest, when he looked out of the 2nd / 3rd floor window with a big smirk on his face. Due Process means, Tommy was entitled to his legal rights, in that, he should've been allowed to see his own solicitor in order to prepare his defence. Tommy was denied these rights by Judge Geoffrey Marsons QC. The Judge stepped outside his boundaries of authority and Oath. These rights were also denied to Tommy when the police lied to his solicitor, telling her Tommy is being released. The police were in breach of their Oath. Judges Oath in UK Judicial oath "I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. " All the info you provided is nothing over and above what we had previously debated. I'm just wondering which path you are going to take next.
There was no gagging order in place, no one can find any evidence of a gagging order being in place. The Telegraph here are saying that there are reporting restrictions. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-contempt-court-broadcasting-tirade-facebook/ The judge said the footage he streamed was seen by more than 250,000 people and had the potential to cause a long running trial to be derailed at the cost of “hundreds of thousands of pounds” of taxpayers’ money. Details of the case he was broadcasting about cannot be reported until later this year. and also Martin Harding, defending Yaxley-Lennon, said his client knew of the reporting restrictions imposed on the case and felt “deep regret” But if you don't believe the MSM then just go to 58 minutes into Stephen's broadcast where he says there are reporting restrictions on this case. So now that we have accepted that there are reporting restrictions then by reporting live he is breaching those restrictions. He could film there for later broadcast but he could not broadcast now so straight up contempt of court. Which covers the A Crown Court judge's power to commit summarily for contempt should be exercised only where the contempt is clear and it is urgent and imperative to act immediately. As he was broadcasting then the contempt is clear and as the trial is ongoing it meets the criteria to be urgent to act immediately. As for the others Took this of Wikipedia......"Office: Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom since 1990"...........Fill ya boots pal. As Parliament consists of House of Commons and House of Lords then technically everyone is a Member of Parliment but we refer to MP's for Members of the House of Commons and Lords for members of House of Lords. https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/ All the links, and people on you tube show that Sajid Javid was responsible for TR being moved......... No all the links show that there are some ignorant and some Islamophobic people on youtube Tommy was arrested for suspicion of Breach of the Peace, he wasn't arrested for contempt of court. Is irrelevant - they had grounds to arrest him for breach of peace “there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance.” And then they charged him with contempt of court (I'm presuming now) when after discussion probably with staff at the courthouse it became clear he was in contempt of court. Peter Sutcliffe was arrested for having false number plates and then after 2 days interrogation admitted he was The Yorkshire Ripper. Strangely the police then charged him for the murders rather than the stolen number plates....
I imagine it would prove difficult logistically as I imagine a lot of the witness such as the police giving evidence would be linked to all of the trials and even if you staggered the trials by a short time in three different cities you would run the risk of courtrooms being delayed waiting for witnesses to be available from the trials in other cities. Also I think some of the defendants are involved in more than 1 of the trials but on different counts so would also make it impossible to hold in different cities.
