About the MSM’s deflection from the real scandal
It’s a week and a day since the arrest of Tommy Robinson (TR), and a handful of days since the reporting ban was lifted. This happened because of an appeal from lawyers of ‘Leeds Live’ and ‘The Independent’.
The representatives of the Metro-Elite went into overdrive immediately – not to question why the ban was given in the first place but to denigrate TR, to smear him and to smear all who protested his treatment at the hand of Judge Geoffrey Marson QC: the same judge whose photo standing at a window of the Court building watching TR filming with his smartphone, the same judge who was conducting the sentencing of the groomers and gang rapers of underage girls.
It bears repeating: these people – the second group in a three-part trial – had already been found guilty, they were being sentenced, their trail was over, they had already been found guilty. One might assume that a judge would not be influenced in his sentencing by a livestream from the street outside – not inside! – his courtroom. But no – he was concerned about the trial of the third group of this gang. His reasoning was quoted in this report in the Daily Mail – scroll down to read it.
One might of course ask why others who reported on this sentencing were not also hauled before this judge. Ezra Levant in his latest video makes that point (see here). One might also ask if the extraordinary silence in the establishment MSM about the grooming gangs up and down our country who have been plying their ‘trade’ unhindered for decades is simply because they do not want to influence prospective jurors should it come to a trial. Never mind that it may take decades, even a new generation, before there even are such trials …
But that, for the Metro-elites’ commentariat, is beside the point. One doesn’t need to be an old-fashioned ‘class warrior’ to notice that their comments, their opinion pieces, the photos they select of the demos, show the same contempt for the ordinary people and by extension for TR as they have been showing for the victims, the underage girls. No surprise there: this is the same contempt we’re used to ever since we dared vote for Brexit.
Just as the very first one out of the starting block after the reporting restriction was lifted, that “Secret Barrister” in her blog, so all the others honed in on two points. One was that the judge was perfectly within his right to sentence TR, the other that TR bought it on himself because he was stupid, thick, an egomaniac who only wanted the publicity.
The attributes were then applied to all who went on the protest last Saturday (‘Neonazis’, ‘knuckle-draggers’) and on the demo in Leeds yesterday.
Oh – you hadn’t heard about that? It was reported in Leeds Live, The Sun and the Daily Mail – but of course that was ‘local’, irrelevant for the likes of the BBC and The Times, so it didn’t happen …
It is interesting that this latest protest is now described as being an EDL march and that they now describe TR as ‘leader of the EDL’ even though he left them five years ago – no matter: mud sticks. And this bit of mud is now being used to smear by extension all who stand up for Tommy. This piece in the Daily Mail is exemplary for the opinion of the Metro-elite, as is this opinion piece in The Guardian where the author elevates TR to a personality of the global ‘Far Right’, insinuating that The Left’s bugbear of the ‘alt-right’ were orchestrating all of these events.
Obviously it is inconceivable for The Left to understand that people can share outrage and opinions and even go on demos without someone ‘masterminding’ them, such as the ‘intelligentsia’ who marshal the forces of HnH etc, telling them to do so. In their opinion, “The People”, just like TR, are too stupid to form opinions on their own. They must, apparently, be told that the grooming of girls of 11 years old, and handing them around for gang rape, is ‘a bad thing’ …
This sordid tale however is an exemplary lesson in deflection – and we’re falling for it. Our righteous anger about what TPTB did with and to Tommy has been deflected successfully. While we debate if this was Tommy’s own fault or not, and if therefore The Law was right or not, we are no longer talking about child grooming gangs, we are no longer asking what took the authorities so long – decades! – to arrest them. We are no longer asking why only one distinctive group are the perps nor, especially, why it is that the authorities, the MSM and our ‘professional feminists’ are still not screaming about the fate of those girls, underage girls.
Why is there still no outcry, no hashtag, that these perps get away with stuff like ‘they asked for it’? Why is there no outcry that the victims were and still are underage? Is it because it’s ‘racist’ to point out that they are, in the majority, white? That the Sikhs have set up protection groups and have been vocal about this – not even worthy of mentioning!
That is the outrage – and we’ve been successfully deflected from talking about it – except when the one or other commentators tries to deflect it on TR by shedding the odd crocodile tear that his action could’ve meant a re-trial, and oh-the-poor-victims …
The outstanding journalist Douglas Murray has been pointing out this technique before, and he does so again in this brilliant article which was published in the US journal “National Review Online” on June 1st. While the first half or so of that article gives the necessary background for readers in the US, he finishes in his customary, trenchant best:
“They [people happy with the status quo] have a vague hope, of course, which is that at some point soon in the coming generations this will all simmer down and the incoming communities will develop similar views about the status of women as the rest of society. And perhaps we will get there someday. But it is telling that the apparently tolerable roadkill en route includes one young man from Luton — and thousands of raped girls.”
Whilst I applaud your admirable support for the great Tommy Robinson I remain confused by what I can only describe as mixed messages. Looking to join UKIP the other day when I noticed that the membership form requires a declaration that the person applying to join is not nor has ever been a member of EDL, Britain First and a number of other groups. What gives?
Well, at least he’s survived for eleven days.
It just needs one person working in the prison service there to give his potential killers the chance they seek.
“Lessons will be learned”…. (etc.)
People aren’t seeing this in the bigger context. Everyone says ‘oh, the police ignore grooming because they don’t want to be called racist’, and this is true, but it isn’t getting to the specific root. The reason the police were so reluctant to intervene was the policy introduced by Labour following the Oldham, Burnley and Bradford riots in 2001. Basically, rioting works. This article gives a sense of what was going on
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/dec/28/communities.freedomofinformation
The idea was that the disaffected (muslim) youth in these towns should be put on a long leash and the police back off.
No different to London riots of 2011, which were the reason Theresa May started to constrain stop and search (contrary to popular belief she was the main driver of this, not Sadiq Khan who merely opportunistically followed). We now live (and die) with the consequences of that.
Basically, the British state has yielded every time it has faced violence on the streets, and the result is the mob have become emboldened. Tommy Robinson is a reaction to this. He is not the cause. Turning on him is shameful cowardice in not confronting the real issues.
You make a good point. Not too far down the road it may be the ignored majority that riots with the stored up consequences that will be bring. So far the authorities have been able to rely on the law-abiding nature of the majority, but what happens when that majority knows the laws are being applied against them – as is now ever more evident? Strange times.
Breitbart comment
I’m sorry, but i’m a practising lawyer too, and a very experienced one. Tommy Robinson so far as I am aware filmed defendants on bail (obviously) entering a courthouse, without saying anything at all. He filmed, in public, an event everyone is free to see for themselves at any time. If this is right, no reporting restriction wide enough to enjoin him from doing so was to the slightest degree reasonable or in keeping with the fundamental liberties to be expected by free peoples. Do not accept the legitimacy of a reporting restriction because a foolish judge issued it. Judges can be, and often are, as foolish and wrong as everyone else. In both cases involving Mr Robinson, there is good reason to suspect a butterfly was again being broken on a wheel.
An experienced barrister friend of mine, who saw the footage, things Tommy was in the wrong…
Does your ‘experienced’ barrister ‘friend’ also think that successive governments and government agencies starting with Labour’s national executive were in the right to hide and cover up these crimes for political expediency in that these crimes did not sit well with the politics of the new vibrant high net immigration irreversible society transforming UK.
Barristers and lawyers who are disproportionately represented in Westminster are destroying this country.
Strange how all the calls for diversity etc never gets plumbers and car mechanics elected in Westminster these days. Why not forcing through short listings of white van man Emily Thornberry.
Where is Rob McWhirter what is a Spon ?
A “Spon” plague sufferer is a Rob McWhirter who has been cured of the Lurgi!
I agree covering up is wrong, but I also believe, having been a juror myself, that defendents are entitled to a fair trial…
I remember defending Ched Evan’s rights to fair treatment and impartial justice on social media when he was being tried in the court of public opinion, especially by the ‘ists. Cannot remember any reporting restrictions for him. Even after he was sentenced the rage against him continued by the hashtag brigade. That process was unfair and his treatment in the media during the trial was dreadful. I guess there is a dual justice system in play now.
Glad you are better.
Sponplague – Rob
I though a reference may help,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-17757499
Please read through the reporting on this trial,
please note underneath the “More on this story”
Footballers rape trial: Woman ‘in control of her actions’
Footballers rape trial: Woman ‘drunk in Rhyl takeaway’
Woman’s evidence in Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald rape trial
Footballers Ched Evans and Clayton McDonald raped woman, court hears
11 April 2012
Thanks. So I assume no restrictions are in place on that trial. The other one, I presume, is different.
Both comments are the same trial,
So… some alleged rapists perhaps deserve more judicial protection than others?
Whatever next. Animal Farm is required reading for the judiciary, but one does wonder if they “get it”.
Remember that dreadful Bliar harridan’s spell on the bench… Beggars belief what she wrought.
Stupid, and too stupid to realise how her idiotic burblings from upon high revealed herself:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/good-philosophy-anthony-grayling-on-cherie-blair/
I believe in that decision she committed a hate crime against me, and against the millions in Britain alone whose religious beliefs are similar to mine – and if not for the protection afforded to these blighters, I’d report her.
That which Blair Mrs said, is standard from many of a religious persuasion, who historically and continue to claim a higher moral attainment over non believers. Surprise is, that she stated it, in the summing up of her skewed sentencing rationale.
They, as you put it, get it; they just don’t give a flying fig.
I cited the Ched Evans case to highlight the polarity in reporting conventions and his appalling case just came to mind. Am sorry that Sponplague is not moved an inch by the point. Perhaps the example of Ched Evan’s trial’s reporting is a weak one.
I rather support Viv’s line on all of this. I do not buy into the prevailing view of well he was asking for trouble, he endangered the trial, he had a SS hanging over him, what does he expect. I agree that technically the police and judge acted within their powers, probably. However that does not make it right. They could have simply given him a discreet warning in the first instance (not easy as he is always on camera).
Far better they keep the dozen jury cloistered in a hotel cut off from the media and bring them in the back door. They manage that for judges.
But they prefer to keep the nation in the dark instead.
There has been a distinct lack of reporting on all of this over the past 50 years.
He may be right but we are supposed to then be diverted from the big issues as we mutter well OK he dun it (maybe unintentionally but it’s a strict liability offence) and resume our slumbers.
The big issues are:
1. The government’s decision to ignore mass rape for political reasons.
2. The long history of systematic persecution against TR for political reasons including trying to get him killed.
3. The increasing and terrifying moves towards a stasi state.
What TR dun is insignificant and technical in comparison.
Absolutely.
As several wise heads has opined, governments (and our misgovernment is particularly guilty here) are excellent at ignoring the prime causes of trouble, while ruthlessly smashing down on secondary causes (which are often reactions).
Riddle me this – does an intelligent decent policeman even exist any more?
If he’s intelligent, he must realise he is often destroying his own country and a vibrant, dynamic, enterprising way of life. So he can’t be decent. Q.E.D.
Redundantly – were he decent, he would have to be stupid indeed not to understand what he’s up to.
I used to be a staunch defender of the busies, online and offline. Now, I know better. They are at best a necessary evil, only because there are others (even) worse than them.
The way the police see it.
We are not primarily there to fight crime directly any more but will be far more effective fighting it indirectly via social engineering. Mass rape for example is a temporary problem as we traverse to a new and tolerant society.
This is exactly the old communist plan to re-engineer human nature. When it does not succeed they increase the oppression to speed up wiping out pockets of reactionary resistance to the new utopia. Without those pesky social media dissidents we would be getting there much faster.
So you see now Freddy that it’s all in a good cause and that the police are simply blessed with greater wisdom than you. They’ll be happy to explain things further down at the station. You Freddy at the moment are an ENEMY OF UTOPIA.
Mike, I am simply bemused by someone claiming to be a practising Lawyer “and a very experienced one” who appears ignorant of the ACHR Article 6 stipulating the right of the Defendants to a Fair Trial – irrespective of the blanket Reporting Restrictions imposed on the series of interlinked Trials by whom you call a “Foolish Judge” (no doubt given the sensitivities to ensure a Fair Trial and protect the identities of the Victims, seemingly an irrelevance to you) Stephen read out Charges and names which he Claimed to be accurate and relevant during Proceedings which were neither, therefore potentially prejudicing the Jury in the Second and Third Trials had a Juror seen the feed. At one point during the live feed he also states (paraphrasing) “this is who they are, these are the charges, this is what they have done.” He presumes and alleged guilt. Let’s forget about the fact he approached and addressed Defendants with questions during a live ongoing Trial, you appear to be as much of a practising Lawyer as I am a Premier League Footballer.
IANAL.
FTAOD, the potential prejudice was if a juror encountered Robinson (while they were entering or leaving the court building, or while surfing the internet) in full flow. A defence lawyer could well have applied for a mistrial. A retrial would involve enormous cost to the taxpayer and additional distress to the (alleged) victims and witnesses.
What is in question is the severity of the sentence. BTW, the appeal (scheduled for July 10 but postponed at the request of the CPS) at the Royal Courts of Justice has been postponed.
Oops, typo – the phone rang again (re the July 14 demonstrations). Let’s try again:
What is in question is the severity of the sentence. BTW, the appeal (scheduled for July 10 at the Royal Courts of Justice but postponed at the request of the CPS) was only against sentence.
The TR affair is a case where at first one is outraged, then persuaded by the impeccable logic and points of Law presented, and then doubt sets in and then a bit of apathy and so it goes on.
For all the reasoning Douglas Murray gives, for all the analysis from the Gatestone Institute and all the numerable other sources of shocked response, this event is outrageous.
It is also quite clear, to me, that nothing will change unless it is made to change. The bigger picture has been missed and justice is being distorted.
The only people at risk here are the victims that have come forward. They can be protected, of that there is no doubt at all. Just in case that point is missed, those victims can be protected, if there is a will to do so! How does this encourage other victims to come forward if there isn’t the provision of anonymity and protection from publicity appears to hang on such a thread?
Or is it the money!! Please don’t anyone say it is for justice; that really would be a sick joke. This whole affair oozes hypocrisy and corruption, and should demand an explanation from the Government and the Legal profession who in this country both work for the people.
TR has sacrificed himself to encourage the publicity and action that this horrendous ongoing crime has not attracted. He is already a martyr.
So I would say, don’t doubt yourselves, don’t give in to the statements of your ‘betters’, but stand by your convictions and your conscience. Any sane rational person would call time on this nonsense and call time on the processes that have allowed this nonsense to happen.
These crimes must represent a living death to many, many children in this country, do we need an explosion, or gunfire, or a vehicle ram, to call a concerted repeated action by members of a particular unnamed religious group, urban terrorism.
How can we not expose this religion as the cause of these crimes? Why is this not being opened up and analysed in public? There should be a lot more questions, such as, vested interests, political involvement and bail. We shouldn’t waste TRs sacrifice.
Vivian in reading your excellent article and the comments below, I learned a lot but it left me a question.
In his comments Rhys Burriss said:
“Robinson would not now be in jail if he had not once again accosted defendants in an ongoing trial outside the courthouse.”
However, am I wrong in thinking that it could instead have been said:
“Robinson would not now be in gaol if the defendants had been held in custody on remand”.
I do understand from reading Freddy Vachha’s comments that split trials were necessary due to the numbers involved and that there was still ongoing jury deliberations as a result of this.
However, arranging matters in a way that allowed for contact between the accused and concerned citizens like the Sikhs, or for that matter vengeful fathers, on public property where anyone should be free to go sounds to me, at the very least, imprudent.
I do hope, once all is done and dusted, we’ll be given full candour on precisely who did what to whom and whether or not this involves a criminal enterprise profiting from meeting the perverted needs of others.
I’m also aware that not everything we’re told is true, so it would also be nice to have confirmation as to whether TR was selectively targeted for prosecution (while the Sikhs were ignored) or not and if he was, why.
If he was selectively targeted, Michael, those who targeted him are not going to admit it openly, are they? They’ll have private meetings and briefings so that everyone knows what they need to do, but it’ll never be made public.
https://independencedaily.co.uk/an-open-letter-to-judge-geoffrey-marson-qc-at-leeds-crown-court/
No surprise – I’ve yet to receive a substantive answer. I will chase up the Judicial Press Office.
(But of course Debbie is correct)
Freddy I have responded to Mike Newlands’ comment above and hopefully the guts of that answer will serve to be substantive – Stephen conducted himself very foolishly, the nature of the Contempt was that he encouraged up to 10,000 people to share the inaccuracies he claimed!
It truly IS outrageous. I also now understand why Tommy and his family haven’t accepted Ezra Levant’s offer of legal assistance after have just now seen this video (if posting the link is allowed) https://youtu.be/Vs_uQhLvHFY If not, then use the YouTube search for ‘Why I left Rebel Media (Ezra Levant Hush Money)’.
It’s beyond appalling to know that at least one independent source of news that we thought was honest, is as corrupt as the very people and situations being reported on.
But most worrying of all is this tweet by Gerard Batten on 31st May: https://twitter.com/GerardBattenMEP/status/1002262454267793409
Is there no way this can be investigated? Is there no way leaders of other countries who are appalled at what’s been done to Tommy, could help with public awareness of this barbaric state of affairs and help secure his release?
It seems clear that Theresa May and her Government have become blatant, smug and overly confident in getting away with their illegal treatment of Tommy Robinson.
Blatant lies in the Daily Mail:
“Hundreds of protesters march to demand EDL leader Tommy Robinson is released from jail after he was sentenced to 13 months for contempt of court”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5796013/Hundreds-protesters-march-support-EDL-leader-Tommy-Robinson.html
He left the EDL years ago.
An astonishingly good article
… yes, but it doesn’t note that it would be exceptional for the judge in the case to not be the one handling contempt proceedings in that same case.
For his own sake, I hope TR is swiftly moved to a jail less filled with those who think that it was good that Kevin Crehan (a crass individual who decided to attack a mosque with a bacon sarnie) perished for his sins – a death sentence for littering, some sayy.
Youtube had one of TR’s detractors laughing that TR would soon need to walk around with a baguette (to prevent leakage).
A great article, Viv. Many thanks for an informative read. TPTB are getting back the cpntempt they have meted out to us. Ditto from Bruce Bawer – Gatestone
The Mail today regales us with a typical MSM rubbish piece about TR saying that he had become an obscure figure recently. This is how they work. If you are not in the MSM you barely exist. Then when they cover you it’s as a demon. This well-trodden path is called ‘journalism’ when dealing with anyone not in the statebots’ interests. I wonder whether people who go to journalism school realise quite what the job involves if you want to make a living.
I thought Viv Evans comments were informative and helpful.
However, the emphasis needs to be on “Tommy Robinson” putting in an appeal.
The full facts need to come out.
Only then should people start prioritisiing “Tommy Robinson over other more important issues.
Otherwise there is a danger of a lot of egg being on a number of faces, including UKIP’s, simply because of not being analytical with all the facts.
Outstanding article by Bruce Bawer/Gatestone Insitute, just in:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12428/british-justice-poppycock
“The perpetrators were not arrested – partly because police and others in authority were apparently terrified of being called racists.” (above article)
I think the closer truth is that the people in power inside the government at the time did not want a light shone on this, as it would have countered their propaganda mask of the “vibrant benefits of multiculturalism and diversity” which hid their program of mass net migration, not just to “rub noses in diversity”, not just to boost Labour votes, but also to complete the removal of any vestiges of control and power from sections of the populace, whilst transforming UK society irreversibly. A tradition carried on by successive governments.
They were in effect warring against the families of voters who had always voted for them, also safe in the knowledge, that like a ship being slow to turn, many of their traditional electorate would continue voting for them, as they do until this day.
It is a helpful article by Bruce Bawer.
These were very serious crimes being committed on an industrial scale with the victims being the most vulnerable and in need of protection. That the cover-up of this has to have been orchestrated from the very top is an absolute no-brainer; how else can this have been going on for decades in so many different locales with apparent impunity, otherwise? Keeping the lid on this has enabled the continuous importation of further millions of unassimilable aliens and the forced muticulturalisation of England without the English being asked or been informed of the consequences until it was far too late.
What a splendid little site set up by the Sikhs! I wonder why no-one in government has yet demanded that it be taken down? Why on earth are WE unable to do the same, for these young girls?
Viv, your article here undoubtedly hits the mark, it’s bang on and thanks for putting it into words.
It must be a good ten years ago or longer when everyone and Labour and Labour was calling UKIP types racists.
I used to point out that the top parts of the government was aware of what was going on, but for political reasons buried the problem. I found that worse than the people who were doing it. They were always going to do what they do and have done. They don’t hide it. They are open about it. It is the British politicians and British media I hate far more than those that have done these things, because they have betrayed whole sections of society, lied and re-engineered the UK too.
I will say not all politicians. Ann Cryer and others tried. Surprisingly the Guardian published Ann Cryer’s views. She spoke out and I guess she also knew what was going on in the executive of the Labour Government.
Even here two days ago on UKIP Daily, four or five people swung in with the saloon bar doors flapping slagging off TR, slagging off Gerard Batten and selling the whole line of the secret barrister and more. It was a put up job because even Dave Allan or whatever his name is came and sprayed a copied comment reference on the secret barrister as well as smearing you Viv.
Whether TR was technically right or wrong is besides the point and the point is the two or three decades of lies by media and politicians covering up these crimes (although it’s not crimes – it’s a war) and TR was just speaking to the truth of it and representing parts of UK society who have minimal voice, or coverage.
Overpaid presenters banged on and on about not getting equal pay on the BBC, though there was no cutesy ‘hashtag me too’ for all the evil visited up on the less fortunate females who have been abandoned on the front line of this war. Those same media presenters just deride and smear TR at every opportunity.
Viv keep on with this and thanks.
[<390] its possessive it’s contracted ?
Excellent article Viv.
The Ezra Levant video is well worth watching. And he makes the point that it is not just white girls who are raped but Sikh girls are targeted too. This shows that good people speaking out against the atrocities are all on the same side irrespective of race. Some newspaper articles describing the protest outside Downing St said it was mostly white men. Predominantly yes, but there were plenty of women there too, and also a number of ethnic minorities protesting. MSM is deceiving their readers.
I am well used to lefties deflecting the discussions away from the point in hand. They cannot fix upon one topic of discussion to the point of conclusion. Have they all been on the same training course?
One thing that still puzzles me about the TR trial: How can it be that one person can be the complainant, the witness, and the judge? Surely if he wanted to be complainant and witness, it should have been heard by a judge from a different court? There must surely be safeguards? If he has broken the rules then he must surely be suspended pending investigation?
It is indeed puzzling and I note that there are no legal minds so far addressing this at all. It’s only about how the judge was right to send Tommy to prison.
Moreover – I cannot find any legal explanation for why that reporting restriction on Tommy’s arrest was needed so as not to prejudice the jurors in that 3rd group trial.
That they are being tried in groups is also puzzling – if they are part of the same gang then surely they should be tried together? If the dock is not big enough then get a carpenter to make a bigger one. Or requisition a larger venue to act as a court room.
If they are separate gangs then the trial of one gang should have no bearing on the trial of another gang.
I am a bit sick of the whole thing!
> so as not to prejudice the jurors in that 3rd group trial
The jury for trial 2 were still (and are still) deliberating in progress. Jurors were potentially entering the court too and would have seen what was going on. The defence lawyers would have seized on this already.
Hugo, you jump to conclusions too quickly.
The trials were/are related.
It isn’t the size of the dock that’s in question, as you must have known.
Speaking metaphorically, it’s the size of the brain of the average juror that is the constraint.
29/3 = about 10 and experience has taught the justice administration system is that 10 is about the maximum number who can be tried at the same time for serious offences. The jury otherwise starts to lose the plot.
I was exempted from ever being called for jury service when, about 30 years ago I received a jury summons, but pointed out I was running 3 separate businesses. Most of those whom I know have received summons also applied for exemption.
The only exception of whom I’m aware was someone, a Con, I used to regularly play Bridge with. He was a dummy at Bridge (but an exemplary dummy, when he was dummy) and I considered him fairly thick. Mensa=Densa member, says it all.
He served for over a month on jury service and came back with hair-raising tales from the jury room. Every jury he served on, I recall him saying, had at least one loony, one illiterate and several who couldn’t be bothered to pay any attention in court but then would argue like crazy in the jury room on the basis of what they claimed had happened in court. When Never was there anyone with any background in science or logic. Most revealed strong prejudices one way or other, and “knew” the defendant was innocent or guilty as soon as they set eyes on him.
So, that’s why overtaxing juries is unwise. Hence the need to split trials.
That juries allegedly hand out justice more often than judges is scarifying… that’s how bad judges are!
I enjoyed my time on Jury service; if we ever meet in person we can chat about it over a drink…
Viv, the judge was entirely within law and court procedure to act this way. (am not saying it is the right or wrong thing to do). Questioning judicial powers is possibly a red herring.
Suspended Sentences are a custodial sentence just not activated. Contempt of court can be dealt with by the judge. The judge can put reporting restrictions and that can be contested.
It is just best never to argue with a judge.
As Freddy V says though, IANAL
VIV
You rightly praise Douglas Murray-s article.
In one of his paragraphs D.M. states
//
The facts are both more prosaic and depressing. Robinson would not now be in jail if he had not once again accosted defendants in an ongoing trial outside the courthouse. He had been told by a judge last May not to do this and yet he did this again. It isn’t the worst thing in the world (it isn’t child rape, for instance), but it is an offense to which Robinson understandably pleaded guilty. More important, the trial that was coming to a close last Friday is just one part of a trial involving multiple other defendants. It is certainly possible that Robinson’s breaking of reporting restrictions at the Leeds trial could have prejudiced those trials. To have caused the collapse of such a trial would have been more than a blunder; it would have been an additional blow to victims who deserve justice.
//
Please note in particular the last two sentences in the paragraph above…………The points made are identical to the points I made in my letter to UKIPDAILY two days ago, which received mostly criticism from readers.
You may further note that nowhere in Mr Murray-s piece is there direct criticism of the Judge at Leeds, whereas I at least opined that i thought the additional ten months sentence , on top of activating the existing three months suspended, might be thought unnecessarily harsh.
Rhys Burriss
Thank you, Rhys – but even the brilliant Douglas Murray is overlooking this point: if reporting of sentencing – not even from inside the court – is now deemed to be prejudicial to forthcoming trials, then nobody, not even the BBC who did report on the verdict for that particular group – the 2nd of that lot – can ever report on any verdicts or sentencing because there will hopefully be further trials on this and other groups and thus these earlier reports would all be ‘in contempt of court’ because the could presumably influence any jury.
Please also note that other groups (Sikhs) outside that court were not equally hauled before the judge and given contempt=of-court sentences.
And that doesn’t even address the question why the reporting ban on TR’s sentence was needed …
Hang on… I thought the judge said: “If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury. If I have to do that it will mean a re-trial, costing hundreds and hundreds and thousands of pounds. A re-trial would also mean witnesses in the case would have to face the ordeal of giving evidence again before a jury.”
If a verdict had already been reached, how could there be a successful application to dismiss the jury?
No verdict. The jury is still out now. The trial resumes on June 4th.
Thanks. I hope we can all agree that whilst an ONGOING, NOT COMPLETED jury process was in progress, then what Tommy did was wrong?
Yes. Whether it merited this severity is to be established.
If you poodle along to bailii or thelawpages, you’ll see there’s movement today (June 5) on:
T20187130 / T20177360
Regina v.
faisal nadeem
mansoor akhtar
manzoor hassan
mohammed asaf akram
mohammed azeem
mohammed azeem (#2)
mohammed irfraz
nasarat hussain
sajid hussain
wiqas mahmud
from which narrative I extract:
“Trial (Part Heard)
Verdict to be taken – 12:16
Hearing finished for FAISAL NADEEM – 12:45
Case to be listed for Sentence on 22-Jun-2018 – 12:54”
I don’t know whether that cryptic bit means the hearing is over the first-named defendant or for all ten.
It is noteworthy that in the very same courtroom at Leeds CC appears, on the same day:
T20177269
abdul rehman
irfan ahmed
mohammed rizwan aslam
mohammed kammer
nahman mohammed
zahid hassan
amere singh dhaliwal
raj singh barsran
which is in its third day and marked “For Sentence”, leading me to believe that those 8 have been convicted. But, IANAL, and the court pages contain obscure/opaque statements.
NOTES re trial T20177269
1. I believe that case was the first part of a three-way split of 29 defendants into 10, 10 and 9, because the prospect of 29 at one time would be far too much for most juries.
2. That trial (cf. “sentencing”) had started off with ten, i.e., with two more accused – hamzha ali saleem & zubair ahmed. I deduce these two have either been acquitted / had case dropped, or have been or are being dealt with elsewhere. Again, IANAL.
3. The last-listed two of those facing sentencing are, I believe, Sikh. I anticipate an enormous outcry against them from the law-abiding, decent Sikh community, one of whose representatives is a regular attendee at the trials (until one or more defendant complained he appeared intimidating).
4. The near total absence of MSM coverage of those convicted but awaiting sentencing may be the result of Judge Marson’s draconian measures earlier. Fear.
Rhys, just to say that my above comment about 4 or 5 people barging in does not refer to your letter or you. I was glad you wrote the letter and had the debate. It was helpful.
Am pleased you have moved your position a bit from when you strongly countered my ” it pales into insignificance ” point.
At least now you are saying “It isn’t the worst thing in the world”
3 mths original (Canterbury) + 10 mths added (Leeds).
Actus – IMO, the Leeds conduct was less egregious than Canterbury
but … this was after being warned, and while “serving” a suspended sentence.
Perhaps 3+3=6 mths plus a day (see next para), would thus have been more appropriate?
Sentenced to over 6 months, but no more than 30 months, per ROA 1974 as amended by LASPO 2012 ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 ), the offence is expunged 4 years after the sentence expires (no adjustment for early release). So on 25/5/2018 + 13 months + 4 years = 25th June 2023, the conviction disappears (for most purposes).