The non subscribers haven't the intelligence to subscribe because they are mindless group think drones of Tommy Robbing You Son. If their shepherd and saviour told them to subscribe they would.
No, it’s always been this way. The reality is just being exposed. You were told wrong. Your beliefs are something we should strive for. We wouldn’t have known about cases like this before social media.
The original judge ruled that everybody who had stated this lied as they knew they were being covertly filmed. The mental gymnastics to get to this are incredible.
@@testpilotian3188 Yes that's true. When in reality, all they had to do was shut the door. Why would they lie knowing they were being filmed and risking having the money taken back? None of the statements from the court make any sense. It was a huge cover up and they know it and the court participated in it.
Knew they were being recorded? Isn't that top level hearsay on the judge's part? He wasn't there, didn't speak to any of these people and made an assumption out of what appears to be thin air. It's disgusting and the judge knows it. Pathetic.
@@testpilotian3188That’s not true. In his judgement, the judge states “…it was clearly apparent from the recordings that most of the interviews had been carried out without the subject of the interview being aware that s/he was being recorded.” It’s linked in the video description.
@@EnglishmanB3 You clearly know as much about law as you do about mirrors. Mirrors do no show reality - but its' opposite. Ergo - our courts no longer reflect reality but reflect a mirror to a world of laws that are often the opposite of reality.
Of course he is, & the threats & hell the English boy & his family were put through, nearly caused him to commit suicide. Piers Morgan still calling TR a liar, he should put into practice what he gets paid for & do his job as a journalist instead of shooting his big mouth off about false information.
stop watching lies that have been disproved in court; this is exactly why the defendant was given damages, because the repeating of yaxley lennon's libels have encouraged people to believe those libels.
This court case is a distraction from the problem raised. The question is how did two young boys have their lives ruined at a national level for a playground scrap. Why did a school get shut down. Why are pressure groups allowed to get involved in this and what are all the relationships in and around the council that people cannot talk about it.
The guilty person did not have his life ruined, he got his victims terrorised by mobs, he got a load of money donated to him, and the victims and witnesses got their lives ruined.
Its why the clown admitted to contempt of court and voluntarily went to prison for continuing to spread lies just like this partisan hack "barrister" who i know will be another lolcow like nick rekeita. When Yaxley lennon loses all appeals and the court case for lying aka his MO, he deserves to rot In prison.
Fortunately people do not need to rely on the judgement of the judge. The documentary "Silenced" has been watched by over 50 million people. (And counting). KEY QUESTION : if the judge was confident of his analysis, why did he place an injunction on people watching the film - which clearly challenges his conclusions ? (And it challenges, using multiple sources of credible evidence). The days of people adopting the default position of trusting the judgement of a judge, are well and truly over. All confidence in the judiciary is long gone.
Yes, the phrase, "contempt of court", also has a more general meaning aside from its legal one. Many will consider this judgment to have been a series of logical somersaults performed, in all probability, to give a superficial justification for the desired verdict. In the final analysis, a single individual, arguably as fallible as all of us, has decided upon the merits of this case and, on the subject of quality of evidence, an important feature of the case, many will also consider that there is little evidence to suggest that justice has been served here.
He gave his address as no fixed abode at court, the court has to remand him in custody when this happens, why is that ? Tommy 12names is not a journalist, just a racist.
The "witnesses" were caught on camera in Tommy's documentary, admitting they had been offered money. That was a big part of what he was putting across on the documentary.
@@user-xq1eo6wi9rYou watched it and saw an innocent English Boy Bailey Mclaren suffer abhorrently at the hands of lies and cover ups. There was no Water Boarding No Racism from Bailey Only lies and deciept from Jamal's representatives including his father.
@@MakeSense713 years for Tweets... but only if your "Far Right" or challenge the "Far Left" If you're a Muslim & attack a waitress in Nando's it all goes quiet If you're a Muslim and attack a Jewish supermarket with a machette you're spared jail. If you're an apparent Palestinian Asylum Seeker and glorify the Hamas Hand Gliders you walk free, even though your found guilty. No Jail. No deportation. If you're Far Left or Pro Hamas, Hezbollah, Touthi say and do whatever you wish. The Far Left and Islamist Alliance have infested much of the Civil Cervical & Judiciary They act accordingly
On what basis have you decided he ws telling the truth? And was he lying when he confessed to the crime? And you do realise he has been convicted for mortgage fraud and many other crimes, right? Is this the man you trust so much?
@@fabioq6916. ‘Mortgage fraud’ (not his, but his brother-in-laws first mortgage) ) the conviction took place *three* years after the event. No one was harmed , no one lost any money, and the mortgage was paid up in full at the time of the prosecution. He basically inflated his brother in laws earning, ( who was in his employ) and signed the mortgage application to that effect. *That* is it in a nutshell. Though in reality it was far more sinister, an orchestrated attempt to remove TR from circulation. Do some research.
They could have been compelled to appear. All Robinson had to do was apply for a witness summons. The judge refers to this when he mentions that the girl involved in the ‘group attack’ did not give evidence herself. NDAs do not prevent a person from reporting a crime or giving evidence of a crime. They also do not prevent a person from discussing something that is in the public domain. If any of the teachers had witnessed any of the alleged assaults they were free to come to court and testify.
@@user-ye7bf8sv6m evidence? There's evidence that he's a crook but doing mortgage fraud or being a racist thug isn't standing up to the law, it's being a criminal.
@@Andy-oc3ew but covering up crime isn't? Come on it's obvious they are treating him differently which isn't allowed. The law is supposed to be fair and evenly applied. Clearly it hasn't been for years.
@ his punishment was for contempt of court, ie breaching the conditions of the judge’s original judgement. This is not a special law applied for Tommy. I watched the documentary, I believe that the original judgement is most likely wrong, but there are legal ways of challenging the judgement. Purposely breaching the conditions guaranteed him a prison sentence, he knew it would happen, and this most likely gave the judge the excuse he needed to dismiss the filmed testimony. The only chance to overturn the original verdict would have been to challenge the case in court bringing these witnesses under oath and presenting the evidence he had obtained.
@ I would be a standard condition for a case like this, not to be able to talk publicly about something that has supposedly been proven to be untrue in court. The only way for Tommy to overturn this judgement would have been to go to court and provide his evidence. The documentary was guaranteed to get him a prison sentence, and he seemed to accept that when he made the documentary.
when you say "the court" .... I presume you mean "the judge", an individual. What happens if the judge is prejudiced, negligent, incompetent or corrupt .... or some combination of these ? I suggest if this is true, then you'll have a miscarriage of justice. Supplementary questions : #1 : Why did Robinson not have a jury ? #2: Why has he never had a jury trial in any of his court cases ?
Good questions. Re the case, many will consider this judgment to have been a series of logical somersaults performed, in all probability, to give a superficial justification for the desired verdict. In the final analysis, a single individual, arguably as fallible as all of us, has decided upon the merits of this case and, on the subject of quality of evidence, an important feature of the case, many will also consider that there is little evidence to suggest that justice has been served here.
School records? Didn't it show he had over 100 disciplinary incidents in less than 6 months?? After everything shown in that documentary?? I have zero faith in the justice system whatsoever! The truth used to mean something in the courts!!
no the school records did not show that..robinson made that claim up.and its not a claim he prsented in court for obvious reasons..this is a claim he made after the case was over
Given that the school managed to get the parents *and* staff involved to sign NDAs, I wouldn't put it past them to have quietly disposed of any incriminating evidence.
@@djhsoul No, he DID have numerous school "citations" (dont know the correct word). What was in question was in his solitary detention (again not the exact word). The school records show "no". But the headmaster and the officer in charge of detention said he WAS there. You'd know that if you watched the documentary
No. He specifically said about a million times they did not reach the legal standard of evidence required in a court of law. That doesnt automatically mean they are lying (although some lies were exposed) but it does mean their evidence was between non existent and shit.
@@MakeSense71They lie was Bailey Racially motivated Water Boarding Jamal. Bailey's family never had the financial clout to legally challenge those involved in libellous accusations The Far Left Islamist Alliance were only interested in facilitating the crowd funding corruption Ofcourse the Far Left & Islamism have a long record of protecting there Pro-Muslim Votes agenda while sacrificing Young English Children
And yet theres camera evidence. Foi evidence of council paymentts whereby the teachers and headmaster says they were silenced. Would suggest school records altered also.
@@testpilotian3188 No "camera evidence for evidence of council payments whereby the teachers and headmaster says they were silenced" was provided to the court by the defendant. Therefore it is false to say "the judge stated this evidence was hearsay".
They didn't corroborate what he claimed though. Sure, they may have inferred he was a little shit, and he probably was - but that isn't what Tommy Robinson claimed in his original videos. He made specific allegations such as being part of a gang who attacked a girl - which the onus is on Tommy Robinson to prove. Being found to have helped write the answers the kids being interviewed on camera probably didn't help his cause.
In the film they literally say that he threatened his sister, and was an all round bully. Attack has a broad meaning, to which it would seem to me that many of these action would fall into.
@@JPEight but attack does describe what the teachers and fellow pupils confirmed. It also describes the threat that the lad made. Several witnesses confirmed this, despite the word salad argument you are trying to make. Actually watch the documentary, everything he says is corroborated by witnesses.
Here's a question - how sensible is it for a 17 year old to be concerned with defamation ? Another question - how many cases have there been of minors (children under 18) taking legal action for defamation ?
Having taught in London schools since the 1990s I was informed by a 15 year old with a huge pair of scissors that 'EVERYONE is carrying...' ALL students were banned from workshop because all the tools went missing.....2006...
A few questions for you: 1. Have you read the 2021 High Court judgment? 2. What evidence, specifically, does it seem to you that the government buried? 3, Which witnesses, specifically, does it seem to you were silenced with bribes? Also, what specific facts did these "silenced" people actually witness? 4. You say it seems to you that the government "called other witnesses liars with no evidence to substantiate the charge". Are you sure you mean the government did this? If not, who/what called them liars? Irrespective of who called them liars, who (specifically) was called a liar; and where and when were they called a liar?
A man has lost his freedom and been locked up and the judge says that the documents may not be the full truth!?!... Is that justice? I wish you would watch and comment on (if only hypothetically) the documentary 'Silenced' and what is shows the headmaster and the teacher who allegedly dealt with the subject of this action saying about the situation...
Well how come they didn't testify in court ? The word you put "allegedly" is the keyword here. Especially as those student's statements were inconsistent. Not hating on Tommy, but getting more jail time because of those brats is annoying.
It looks like it didn't matter that the council had gagged the school employees with NDAs nor that it's not terribly difficult to confuse children giving evidence under hostile cross-examination, or a steely judge wearing a huge wig which might just intimidate them further still
Not sure if they were in court ? The judge just read their statements and if you read them are inconsistent. Not saying that Syrian boy was a little angel. But Bailey sounds no better. And the girl couldn't even get her story straight.
It's lawfare, the process is the punishment, judges can decide what they like as long as they package and present it as fully considered. Let's face it, the whole system is an old boys club.
Yes. What BBB is ignorant of/oblivious to is that the courts seemingly have leeway to arbitrarily apply the book of law firmly or softly. Where at all possible, friends of the establishment are often treated to a soft application of the book of law. Foes often get the book thrown at them. That's not always the case, but them net outcome is greater inequality under the law for certain people and not others.
Weaponised - judiciary, police, teachers, mainstream media, social workers, civil “servants” and, of course, politicians. We have been utterly betrayed - and screwed!!
What about the payoffs and NDA’s teachers signed. Why would you pay someone and get them to sign a NDA so they don’t repeat false information? This can’t be standard practice of every fight in a school.
Not just all the NDA's the school was even shut down after as well and all teachers had to sign the NDA's and some took money to keep quite all that was a tactic so non of the teachers could go to court after to give there side of what happened after they sign the NDA or took the money. Even if the teachers did not sign the NDA's and said what happened in court can bet the judge would say they were all lying as well.
@@giggity4670 I'm pretty sure that those who signed NDAs could have gone to court as an NDA should not been enforced before a Court. it may be different in a Civil matter though. The fact that no one was willing to go to Court either was because they were not confident of their story OR additional pressure was put on them. I don't know why TR does not edit the film removing the names nd accusation so that it is left to others to determine why there was so much concern about what is a playground rumpus. I'd appreciate the BBB views on the NDA matter and the post trail 'winding up the school'
When you have all the people involved who was in authority over the kids and the scool in question, paid off by the council to shut up and be quiet. Tells you all you need to know.
@pete1942 they did. They said the white boy attacked him for no reason. That was the whole point of him being hunted down by Asian gangs and having to flee his home with his family. That's the very beginning of the public knowing.
@@pete1942 the whole kick off was the yt boy attak a brown kid for no reason. check the news from the day. they said he was waterboard for no reason. big bad yt boy bully. you on net. check.
Did you watch THIS video or read the judgement? If you had, you would know that the video you believe has been discredited as being untrue. So why have you decided that you disagree and still think what Robinson said is true?
Love your clarity and transparency. Your videos simply reinforces that our legal system is shambolic and prejudicial when it sees fit, especially when politicians are in a position to lean heavily on judges to hand down more harsh sentences, which is clearly obstructing justice. I would also like to say, that some of the secret recordings (that are backed up by film) do not show Tommy forcing anyone to say anything, but it does clearly show that some witnesses from the school were paid hush money, and this was proven when a Freedom of Information Request was submitted (the first 2 requests were ignored, but the 3rd request was submitted by a solicitor with success) to the council for payments to these teachers. Even retrospectively you would expect the judicial system to investigate misuse of tax payers money to silence people, but unsurprisingly nothing is being done.
Read the judgement, you might come to a different conclusion. Read it. I’ll summarise - pretty much everything Robinson said in the video was either 1) an outright lie or 2) contradicted by other evidence
@@neilavery1580There’s no evidence that ‘they all signed NDAs’, but even if they did, you don’t know what the NDA says. In many cases, people who are made redundant sign an NDA which prevents them from discussing the terms of their severance and the value of their severance package. NDAs do not prevent a person from reporting a crime, or from discussing information in the public domain. Any one of the teachers could have come to court and testified that they had witnessed the ‘hockey stick incident’ or the ‘group attack’ or the alleged threat to Bailey McLaren, if that was in fact true. If they had evidence that school records had been altered or falsified, they could have testified to that also. But they didn’t.
@ most everybody who leaves public sector employment signs an NDA 🤷♀️. I think you probably believe after watching the video what you already believed before you watched the video, going by your last comment 🤦♀️
This never happened... Government: "First and foremost, guilty. Now go make it look like that" Judiciary: "how? everybody knows what happened" Government: "Work hard on discrediting good honest people and call it all hearsay" Judiciary: "but..." Government: "are you still here?"
Having viewed the whole film "Silenced" I would be more inclined to believe TR than this Judge. It seems that the Judge has ignored the intimidation that many potential witnesses may have felt. It also seems that the judge ignored the impact of non disclosure agreements and payments on potential witnesses. It seems that the Judge has given more credibility to the witnesses against TR than the witnesses for TR, this seems to indicate some bias on his part. Most importantly it seems that a gagging order against TR is a deliberate attempt to prevent the public from having enough information to scrutinize his judgement in this case. Given the impact that this case has had on public confidence in the Justice system I would have thought it to be in the public interest for the information in the film "Silenced" to be publicly available. If the Judge was confident that he had made a sound judgement there would be no reason to hide the film from the public. If the judgment was sound then the film would have had no credibility. As things stand TR and the film appear to have more credibility that the Judge and his judgement.
I was told by someone wiser than me on the UK modern law system, in a civil case there doesn’t have to be a jury. What’s sad is that the US judicial standard of using juries except in instances like vaccine court is the model to which the UK was based on but little by little by the 18th century the standard was chipped away at and made far worse after WW2. I originally thought it was our involvement EU that this Roman (European law) style Court to give all the power to judge instead of him protecting your rights and making sure the court is set up to give you a fair trial by a jury of your peers, the latter being the backbone of the English judicial system unlike Roman law where the judge is the judge, jury and executioner!
Libel trials no longer automatically qualify for a jury since the 2013 defamation act. You can request a jury trial, but as I understand it that is rarely successful.
Very interesting to know the why’s and wherefore of this case ,but could you explain why politicians in the election campaign can tell you important things which they say has all been accounted and costed for, to persuade you to vote for them , and then if they win the election to make some excuses to not do what they have said, which may have altered your vote. Is this not illegal
it bloody well should be but they get away with it . they all get away with it & are all above the law & people are sick of it & powerless to even do anytihhg other than vote the next lot of liars in
right. Nowhere else in society are such falsehoods just tolerated with no consequences whatsoever. Thing is, if they had to tell us the god's honest truth, they'd reveal themselves (and big government) as the most inadequate, treacherous and vain of all, and even their hardcore base wouldn't vote for them. Democracy is a front, is a mere obstacle for tyrants to negotiate around while pretend to be bound-in by. And democratic socialism is a ponzi scheme which is near collapse. That's why replacement and illiberalism is going on.
I really admire the way that you take the time and trouble to give people the tools to know how to think, rather than telling them what to think. It used to be the task of universities to teach student the skill of ‘thinking’, but they are now failing to do that. You are filling a very important gap in higher education with your videos. You are giving people skills which can be used and applied to many different situations.
I think judging by the peoples comments on most media sites regarding this whole affair, in the court of "public opinion", on the balance of probabilities justice was not served. I would like to thank BBB for this video.
When BBB states the people in the video who gave evidence that the story was different to otherwise stated from the school or police and that them people should have went to court to give their evidence instead. They were bullied into signing a none disclosure agreement in which means they have to keep their mouths shut and accept what the police and school want them to say is true 😡
My brother in Christ, please consider revisiting the basics of the english language and its syntax. You do not have a voice if you cannot be understood. Bless you.
What cant be denied is the white boys family received serious threats and had to go into hiding due to a video showing a schoolground scuffle. That alone should be enough to be an extreme concern.
It seems not, same as where have the school records been kept, when the school closed??? I watched the film and I know who I believe.. It is a first basically for a man to go into those prisons for what he has been accused of......
If the NDA`s had not been in place the judge would have not been able to make his conclusions . The hearsay witnesses would have been allowed to submit their evidence and therefore make all defence evidence definitive
This is why I don't think NDA should exist. There should be be no such thing as gag orders. The truth should be out in public even if a case is settled out of court, the full details should all be shared.
No can bet if the teachers did not sign the NDA's and they did take the stand the judge would say they are all lying it was a losing battle and decided guilty before TR even got the letter to go to court he was guilty no matter how much evidence supports him telling the truth
@@kelly4187indeed,we need more people to understand that nda’s are blocking so much truth from being heard.. I understand why people sign in to them,it must be really hard to turn away from a big brown paper bag of money that can pay for your kid’s university or take a good chunk off the mortgage..hence as you said they shouldn’t exist.
For the Judge to have banned the showing of Mr Robinson documentary, he must have seen it and must have understood why the witnesses failed to come forward.. Has the Judge no power make those people who clearly told what this young man was like, to attend his court?
I've said this before!, the tax paying public should be entitled to a full public inquiry into the "alleged" payments made to those involved in this case!
How did a schoolboy and his family manage to raise the money to pay for barrister, and a legal team, to bring the defamation case to court? It costs a huge amount of money, so was his dad doing a lot of overtime to pay for it? The prosecution was politically motivated, it was designed to stop any dissent against immigrants, particularly the illegals.
Ok I have heard enough. The film should shown to a jury. Those in the film should be summoned to court and their testimony on the film questioned and the jury should then decide the verdict. That is all I have to say. I'm not interested in the intellectual answers of who said what and where. I want the truth. Is that plain enough.
I was under the impression that any sentence that involved depriving an individual of their liberty in the form of imprisonment, would have to meet the criminal burden of proof, beyond any reasonable doubt. So why is it that the judge has used a civil ruling as evidence when holding someone in comtempt and sentencing them to prison when that evidence does not meet the required standard and is based on prbability. Surely that can only been seen as a miscarriage of justice and the proper course would be to re evaluate the evidence to the required sandard. ??
Since he pleaded guilty to breaking the injunction the case does not have to be proved to any standard. And whether the injunction was fair is irrelevant. If he thought the injunction wrong he could have appealed against it.
because there is absolutely no doubt that he committed contempt of court. We saw it. It was live streamed. You are referring to uncertainty about the defamation case. Two separate things.
@@reedy8585 That is an argument against the injunction being made (if the argument has any value). It is no excuse whatever for breaching an injunction.
I guess the correct course of action by Tommy Would have been to appeal the initial case had those involved not signed NDAs. Sadly signing those NDAs would have meant that no one would "want" to testify in any appeal and so Tommy saw the only way forward to reveal the truth was to break the injunction. Is that a fair assessment as an outside viewer?
And it’s looking like people are scared to tell them the truth, and there’s a lot of people being threatened and or payed. . What about all of the staff including the teachers who have been payed to not say anything, surely that’s bang to rights
The fact that TR ended up representing himself in this case because it had bankrupted him should also be of massive concern. It shows that the civil justice system is only really there for those who are either rich or have sufficient funding from whatever sources to win. TR's mouth is very often his own worst enemy.
It is called 'law fare' as in 'war fair' they can fight you until you run out of money, as for Tommy's mouth getting him into trouble, of course it does, but if he doesn't speak up about things they don't want you to hear, then we have no voice, because who else has the courage to step out of the trenches?
I heard that there was crowd funding for TR to have legal representation in court, but the money was not released by the banks in time so he couldn’t use it. Any truth to that? (As mentioned in the video, this is low quality hearsay that has little weight in court, unless you can get someone more closely involved in the matter to confirm or deny…)
its all theoretical though, in rteal life the judge can, and sometimes does, ignore the law, ignore the evidence, ignore basiaclly everything and make a judgement based on his own pesonal politics, bias, hate, predjudice or make a wild guess.
Hence why nonces get to walk the streets because "being in prison would expose them to danger and harm" when that is arguably more true for Tommy. Hell, the guy who supplied Huw Edwards child abuse images, including class 1 images of children actively being sexually abused and raped, only got a 12 month SUSPENDED sentence. Meanwhile someone who just shouted at a police dog got 2 years in the slammer. Fucking ridiculous
yes, this is why those who cite the book of law and disregard everything else as irrelevant get right on my nerves. I had a heated debate with a relative the other day. It was about the treatment of 'silent prayer' people outside abor-shun clinics. Relative just wanted to argue the book of law and legal technicalities for how all of us who regard the case(s) as example of thought crime were mistaken. I said I don't care about the legislation and technicalities (bafflement by B.S), I care about the principle: at the end of the day, aside from technicalities in legislation or whatever, people were penalized by the state for thinking the wrong things in the wrong place, as I understand it.
Seriously respect everything you are willing to do Dan , the way you inform and explain , providing reasoning and understanding is highly appreciated.....
Instructive to read about the so-called Hockey Stick Incident. Some useful lessons. 1. If your witness claims she was seriously physically attacked while on a field with 20-30 other pupils and she claims there were witness to the attack, try to find some of those pupils to corroborate her claim. 2. You need to think of a *credible* explanation as to why a school has no records of a serious physical assault on school premises, no teacher recalls it and two dozen pupils don't recall it. 3. It will seem odd if it emerges 'someone' wrote parts of her witness statement, including a claim that there were witnesses to her attack if she can't back that up. 4.. If your witness claims she went to her GP who put her on serious pain medication, it will seem odd if a letter from the GP says she's not suffering any medical problems. 5. If your witness claims she had X-rays and MRI scans then it's going to seem odd if she can't provide any evidence they happened. 6. It will seem odd if there are no records of her telling her regular mental health support about the incident given her claim it caused her mental trauma. 7. If you do have another witness to the incident, make sure his story is consistent with the story from the first witness. Was the PE teacher on the field or inside a building? Can't be both. 8. Was the whole class or only part of the class playing hockey? Can't be both. 9. If the first witness says the game had been played for ten minutes, it's going to seem odd when your second witness says he watched it for 40 minutes. 10. Make sure your witness's testimony in court doesn't contradict his own witness statement. 11. Make sure your witness's testimony in court doesn't contradict itself. 12. Make sure your witness's witness statement doesn't have a paragraph, beginning with "CHECK THIS", which he'll admit in court was something 'someone' suggested he include.
@@arfurascii2232 But apart from all these "trivial" things you list, it should be good to go to make an allegation of serious assault against someone! 😂😂
@@BillRodger-dp7ku You mean like the Syrian Thug who lied abour being racially attackwmed and crowd funded the lie to the deflamation of the young English lad You mean like the Anti-English corrupt Islamist Communist agenda. All lies All fabrication All exposed
The judgment helpfully points out where the defendant needs to strengthen his case in any possible appeal made against the 2021 judgment. I.e To overturn it. Not being in compliance with the 2021 ruling is causing the contempt of court. So you either overturn the 2021 judgement or comply with it.
But that would set a standard, that everyone can ignore the judges ruling, can keep causing defamation even after pleading guilty, saying " Yes I was in comptempt , but I can do what'ever I want." He continues the defamation and contempt, pleads guilty, then just keeps doing it again, and again" Let's tell the story using that same standard ... a young girl accuses your father....she acts like Tommy, and thus walks free to continue for ever and ever....Couldn't happen, but it has already, a year ago a girl was telling lies about innocent men, and several ended up in jail... with your new rule of tell stories and go free, she would still be making innocent men's life miserable.
OMG this is as wheedled and impactful as Page 67, Paragraph 29,Word 7, 9, 14 19-31 of the Internet Service Agreement of a free connection in a Quttari Shopping Center in Ulaanbaatar.
The solicitor he used were the ones who opened a go fund me account a day before the video was released. They used that money to pay for the legal help.
Given what we know about the government,and Starmer in particular,and the obvious lack of separation of powers,apparent over the last couple of years,TR was going to prison, regardless of any and all evidence.
Those of us who studied law decades ago may remember being told that the courts were (back then) called Courts of Law and not Courts of Justice. An appropriate modesty.
It seems to me that the terms of NDA’s (nondisclosure agreements) should be limited. In case of trials, they should be deemed non existent, allowing witnesses to speak freely, so that greater information about the crime is made available.
@@davidkeebles7827 If they "breached" the NDA (if there was one) by giving truthful evidence in court, then no they couldn't ask for the money back because it would not be a breach of the NDA. It would be their legal duty.
@nomennudum4592 Sure you are protected when you are addressing the court, but how did the defence know to call you as a witness? Would that fly in a contract court case or would it be covered under your "duty"? Obviously assuming it is truthful
Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here nordvpn.com/bbb
It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
The non subscribers haven't the intelligence to subscribe because they are mindless group think drones of Tommy Robbing You Son. If their shepherd and saviour told them to subscribe they would.
@colinstevens6837 convenient
So basically, in a civil case, your pretty much guilty until you prove yourself innocent ?
Would be very interested to know your opinion on the silenced video? Would you give it or do you fear two tier Keir?
@Will-re8bt wasn't your lot shouting two tier when the tories were in? 🤔
I was brought up to beleive the truth mattered.... ..and that the truth would set you free.. I no longer recognise this country....
No, it’s always been this way. The reality is just being exposed. You were told wrong. Your beliefs are something we should strive for. We wouldn’t have known about cases like this before social media.
Truth and facts are sooo last century!
( you can prove) that the isue here for sure, lawyers for Tommy dropped the ball very clear
You only have to look at the liars running the country to see that
It's been the same since the war criminal Blair was in power, absolute corruption !
If what he said wasn't true then all those involved wouldn't have to have signed NDAs. He told the truth and was punished for it.
The original judge ruled that everybody who had stated this lied as they knew they were being covertly filmed.
The mental gymnastics to get to this are incredible.
@@testpilotian3188 Yes that's true.
When in reality, all they had to do was shut the door. Why would they lie knowing they were being filmed and risking having the money taken back?
None of the statements from the court make any sense.
It was a huge cover up and they know it and the court participated in it.
Knew they were being recorded? Isn't that top level hearsay on the judge's part?
He wasn't there, didn't speak to any of these people and made an assumption out of what appears to be thin air.
It's disgusting and the judge knows it. Pathetic.
@@testpilotian3188That’s not true. In his judgement, the judge states “…it was clearly apparent from the recordings that most of the interviews had been carried out without the subject of the interview being aware that s/he was being recorded.” It’s linked in the video description.
NDAs?, they were bribed and had to keep their mouths shut or risk losing the money. If the public did this we would be locked up.
At this stage - I've lost all faith in our courts.
Try studying the law then realise your fault lies within the mirror.
@@EnglishmanB3 Okay, Abdul
@@EnglishmanB3 You clearly know as much about law as you do about mirrors. Mirrors do no show reality - but its' opposite. Ergo - our courts no longer reflect reality but reflect a mirror to a world of laws that are often the opposite of reality.
@@PaxAlotin I know more about the law compared to everyone you know combined.
I am surprised you actually had any to begin with.
I watched silenced. I saw what them teachers and staff and other pupils said.. Jamal is guilty in my eyes.
🎯
Of course he is, & the threats & hell the English boy & his family were put through, nearly caused him to commit suicide. Piers Morgan still calling TR a liar, he should put into practice what he gets paid for & do his job as a journalist instead of shooting his big mouth off about false information.
The teachers didn't say that and Charlie lied as proven with her medical records
@Hærryß obviously, it's standard when you work with children you moron
That doesn't apply in court though
stop watching lies that have been disproved in court; this is exactly why the defendant was given damages, because the repeating of yaxley lennon's libels have encouraged people to believe those libels.
This court case is a distraction from the problem raised. The question is how did two young boys have their lives ruined at a national level for a playground scrap. Why did a school get shut down. Why are pressure groups allowed to get involved in this and what are all the relationships in and around the council that people cannot talk about it.
Excellent comment.
Sniper accurate!
All the witnesses gagged again,raises the temperature doesn't it.
I agree with everything
EXCEPT
Lives ruined
I think it was Tommy Robinson who had his life ruined
Not the lad who got
100 000 pounds
The guilty person did not have his life ruined, he got his victims terrorised by mobs, he got a load of money donated to him, and the victims and witnesses got their lives ruined.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Its why the clown admitted to contempt of court and voluntarily went to prison for continuing to spread lies just like this partisan hack "barrister" who i know will be another lolcow like nick rekeita. When Yaxley lennon loses all appeals and the court case for lying aka his MO, he deserves to rot In prison.
When telling the truth becomes a criminal act, Justice and the country is lost.
Fortunately people do not need to rely on the judgement of the judge.
The documentary "Silenced" has been watched by over 50 million people. (And counting).
KEY QUESTION : if the judge was confident of his analysis, why did he place an injunction on
people watching the film - which clearly challenges his conclusions ? (And it challenges, using
multiple sources of credible evidence). The days of people adopting the default position of trusting
the judgement of a judge, are well and truly over. All confidence in the judiciary is long gone.
Yes, the phrase, "contempt of court", also has a more general meaning aside from its legal one. Many will consider this judgment to have been a series of logical somersaults performed, in all probability, to give a superficial justification for the desired verdict. In the final analysis, a single individual, arguably as fallible as all of us, has decided upon the merits of this case and, on the subject of quality of evidence, an important feature of the case, many will also consider that there is little evidence to suggest that justice has been served here.
I watched the film! Its simplicity its self! The lad in question is a nasty piece of work!!! End off! 💯👍
He gave his address as no fixed abode at court, the court has to remand him in custody when this happens, why is that ? Tommy 12names is not a journalist, just a racist.
I can't understand how this happened in the next town and it took silenced for us to hear about it.
That is a ray of hope in all this. It just sickens me Tommy had to give up freedom and live in fear of his life just to get the truth out.
It's called CORRUPTION !
were is the corruption
Yes and as clear as day right in front of our faces.
No it isn’t. There’s no suggestion somebody was paid.
@@greg5639 @hugolindum7728.
dishonest behavior by those in positions of power,
@@hugolindum7728 dishonest behaviour by those in position of power
The "witnesses" were caught on camera in Tommy's documentary, admitting they had been offered money. That was a big part of what he was putting across on the documentary.
Not to forget the syrin kids family had a gofund me set up to pay his defence which was huw edwards defence!! How convenient
Why has Tony Blair been mentioned in the outcome of this trial. This reeks of backhanders, rolled up trouser legs and dodgy handshakes.
Yup..so mote it be..👹
Watch: _Blair to Blame For Tommy Robinson Jailing Andre Walker_
Rolled up trouser legs? Sounds like the Monty Pythons...
He hasn't.
Tommy is a stooge for the state so...
Who trusts courts these days?
Since 2020 they’ve been under ‘new management’.
@@jamessones4044 full cast off sesame street
I know what a Rigged Court looks like.
/
I trust courts far more than anonymous online self appointed experts.
The left and the woke.
Oh and illegals.
Everybody needs to watch the documentary "Silenced"!
IF you can find it. The establishment has blocked it wherever they can.
Just read 1984. That will tell you where we are at all the moment!
@@tomkent4656It’s on UA-cam and rumble.
Watched it twice
It was pure fiction
@@user-xq1eo6wi9r
Asif
Glad 53 million people have watched the documentary and seen the truth. Well done TR.🏴🇬🇧
The truth and Tommy and not bed fellows.
@@terryjones1000 I watched it twice and only saw bullshit
where are these 53 million views? where did you watch the documentary?
@ you watched it twice.😂😂
@@user-xq1eo6wi9rYou watched it and saw an innocent English Boy Bailey Mclaren suffer abhorrently at the hands of lies and cover ups.
There was no Water Boarding
No Racism from Bailey
Only lies and deciept from Jamal's representatives including his father.
I have no faith in British justice I’m beginning to think these judges are corrupt.
lol Beginning?!?
Absolutely judiciary so corrupt its disgraceful
based on what?
@@MakeSense713 years for Tweets... but only if your "Far Right" or challenge the "Far Left"
If you're a Muslim & attack a waitress in Nando's it all goes quiet
If you're a Muslim and attack a Jewish supermarket with a machette you're spared jail.
If you're an apparent Palestinian Asylum Seeker and glorify the Hamas Hand Gliders you walk free, even though your found guilty.
No Jail.
No deportation.
If you're Far Left or Pro Hamas, Hezbollah, Touthi say and do whatever you wish.
The Far Left and Islamist Alliance have infested much of the Civil Cervical & Judiciary
They act accordingly
Tr is a brave man he really cares about those poor little girls and this is what it is really about no one protects them❤
TR did his Oxford Union address and there was so much TRUTH in it about his home town, it SCARED the left.....the rest is ongoing
Thank you I am so glad someone else sees this.
And not just the girls but they’re family as well
He's a scammer
@@suzann2531and he saved a Pakistani who was falsely accused.
The truth is that the legal system imprisoned someone for telling the truth.
On what basis have you decided he ws telling the truth? And was he lying when he confessed to the crime? And you do realise he has been convicted for mortgage fraud and many other crimes, right? Is this the man you trust so much?
Proves people with money meaning councils with money can buy justice so in reality there is no justice in this lieing world
@@fabioq6916he didn't admit to lying.
@@fabioq6916he has not pleaded guilty to a crime but a civil offence not a criminal one
Its a civil offence. The judge did not even watch the film
@@fabioq6916. ‘Mortgage fraud’ (not his, but his brother-in-laws first mortgage) ) the conviction took place *three* years after the event. No one was harmed , no one lost any money, and the mortgage was paid up in full at the time of the prosecution. He basically inflated his brother in laws earning, ( who was in his employ) and signed the mortgage application to that effect. *That* is it in a nutshell. Though in reality it was far more sinister, an orchestrated attempt to remove TR from circulation. Do some research.
Those paid to keep quiet and those making the payment must be compelled to give evidence. This case has a very bad smell.
But the doc with all evidence was banned so nobody would know about this it TR did not take the risk to release it
@@annemariegutteridge4696 That makes no sense, try again.
the judge wouldnt allow it to come into the court case
They could have been compelled to appear. All Robinson had to do was apply for a witness summons. The judge refers to this when he mentions that the girl involved in the ‘group attack’ did not give evidence herself. NDAs do not prevent a person from reporting a crime or giving evidence of a crime. They also do not prevent a person from discussing something that is in the public domain. If any of the teachers had witnessed any of the alleged assaults they were free to come to court and testify.
@@pete1942 Assuming that they hadnt been threatened.
Malicious Prosecution
no, he's broken the law - again.
@@stewartellinson8846 No he stood up to the law and the establishment cover up...a massive difference.
@@user-ye7bf8sv6m evidence? There's evidence that he's a crook but doing mortgage fraud or being a racist thug isn't standing up to the law, it's being a criminal.
Thing is why didn't they want it showing, we know the answer, nda and all
why he get prison for a civil matter? its all bs!
Contempt of court, ie going against the conditions of Judges original ruling, is punishable by up to 2 years in prison.
@@Andy-oc3ew but covering up crime isn't? Come on it's obvious they are treating him differently which isn't allowed. The law is supposed to be fair and evenly applied. Clearly it hasn't been for years.
@ his punishment was for contempt of court, ie breaching the conditions of the judge’s original judgement. This is not a special law applied for Tommy. I watched the documentary, I believe that the original judgement is most likely wrong, but there are legal ways of challenging the judgement. Purposely breaching the conditions guaranteed him a prison sentence, he knew it would happen, and this most likely gave the judge the excuse he needed to dismiss the filmed testimony. The only chance to overturn the original verdict would have been to challenge the case in court bringing these witnesses under oath and presenting the evidence he had obtained.
@@Andy-oc3ew judge made up the conditions to shut him up. If anybody should be held for contempt of court should be the judge.
@ I would be a standard condition for a case like this, not to be able to talk publicly about something that has supposedly been proven to be untrue in court. The only way for Tommy to overturn this judgement would have been to go to court and provide his evidence. The documentary was guaranteed to get him a prison sentence, and he seemed to accept that when he made the documentary.
when you say "the court" .... I presume you mean "the judge", an individual.
What happens if the judge is prejudiced, negligent, incompetent or corrupt .... or some combination
of these ? I suggest if this is true, then you'll have a miscarriage of justice.
Supplementary questions : #1 : Why did Robinson not have a jury ?
#2: Why has he never had a jury trial in any of his court cases ?
Look into the original judges family and inappropriate links
Yes it is abominable
Judge Nicklin now in charge of Media & Communications List
Good questions. Re the case, many will consider this judgment to have been a series of logical somersaults performed, in all probability, to give a superficial justification for the desired verdict. In the final analysis, a single individual, arguably as fallible as all of us, has decided upon the merits of this case and, on the subject of quality of evidence, an important feature of the case, many will also consider that there is little evidence to suggest that justice has been served here.
@@jacquiaba9132did he not have an aemrguement with his father over the handling of theTR case
School records? Didn't it show he had over 100 disciplinary incidents in less than 6 months?? After everything shown in that documentary?? I have zero faith in the justice system whatsoever! The truth used to mean something in the courts!!
no the school records did not show that..robinson made that claim up.and its not a claim he prsented in court for obvious reasons..this is a claim he made after the case was over
Given that the school managed to get the parents *and* staff involved to sign NDAs, I wouldn't put it past them to have quietly disposed of any incriminating evidence.
@@djhsoul do you have proof he made it up then show it
@@PhilLisa I don't need to prove a negative.you need to prove Robinson claim.the school records produced in court do not corroborate Robinson claim
@@djhsoul No, he DID have numerous school "citations" (dont know the correct word). What was in question was in his solitary detention (again not the exact word). The school records show "no". But the headmaster and the officer in charge of detention said he WAS there. You'd know that if you watched the documentary
So, to summarize the 27 mins ... everyone making accusations 'lied'.
Oh dear. 'They' wonder why the People have lost faith in the judiciary !
Thanks for saving me 27 minutes!
No. He specifically said about a million times they did not reach the legal standard of evidence required in a court of law. That doesnt automatically mean they are lying (although some lies were exposed) but it does mean their evidence was between non existent and shit.
@@MakeSense71They lie was Bailey Racially motivated Water Boarding Jamal.
Bailey's family never had the financial clout to legally challenge those involved in libellous accusations
The Far Left Islamist Alliance were only interested in facilitating the crowd funding corruption
Ofcourse the Far Left & Islamism have a long record of protecting there Pro-Muslim Votes agenda while sacrificing Young English Children
Two tier judiciary
People are most honest when they don’t think anyone else is listening
And yet theres camera evidence. Foi evidence of council paymentts whereby the teachers and headmaster says they were silenced. Would suggest school records altered also.
The judge stated this evidence was heresay and the people who did testify lied under oath, but didn’t punish them for it.
What's the bet that all of it was burnt and permanently deleted so there is no evidence.
@@testpilotian3188how convenient!
@@testpilotian3188 No "camera evidence for evidence of council payments whereby the teachers and headmaster says they were silenced" was provided to the court by the defendant. Therefore it is false to say "the judge stated this evidence was hearsay".
@@arfurascii2232There was covert camera evidence.
If it wasnt true then why did so many people (including the teachers) support what tommy reported in his documentary?
is it true by the court's B.S standards? A: no. Is it true by the standard of true/false? A: yes.
@davidadiwego4608 i know mate its rediculous. Feels like were living in the USSR.
They didn't corroborate what he claimed though.
Sure, they may have inferred he was a little shit, and he probably was - but that isn't what Tommy Robinson claimed in his original videos.
He made specific allegations such as being part of a gang who attacked a girl - which the onus is on Tommy Robinson to prove.
Being found to have helped write the answers the kids being interviewed on camera probably didn't help his cause.
In the film they literally say that he threatened his sister, and was an all round bully. Attack has a broad meaning, to which it would seem to me that many of these action would fall into.
@@JPEight but attack does describe what the teachers and fellow pupils confirmed. It also describes the threat that the lad made. Several witnesses confirmed this, despite the word salad argument you are trying to make. Actually watch the documentary, everything he says is corroborated by witnesses.
Here's a question - how sensible is it for a 17 year old to be concerned with defamation ?
Another question - how many cases have there been of minors (children under 18) taking legal action
for defamation ?
He didnt, not him. Tommy said the boy didnt want to take him to court.
Q1, very sensible (he won)
Q2, foia denied.
Greedy Pakistani Lawyers. FACT!
@@nadimovitch9237”he”didn’t win, the weaponised disingenuous slippery law firm did, *using* the minor and his story to further their own ends. . . .
@@nadimovitch9237 the lad threated to rape the so called offenders sister. This should of been looked into but we know it won`t.
Nothing changes my opinion that the Judge carefully selected the evidence that fitted his "preferred" decision.
Her doctor gave evidence and said he never had cause to treat her for injuries she claimed to have had .
Having taught in London schools since the 1990s I was informed by a 15 year old with a huge pair of scissors that 'EVERYONE is carrying...' ALL students were banned from workshop because all the tools went missing.....2006...
I feel so bad for our youngsters. So many have quite serious anxiety problems.
Feel for the staff too obviously.
I will never trust any trial that has no jury and just has a judge deciding which witness is credible and which isn't.
The documents with the statements are there to see. Unfortunately Tommy got sucked into those kids lies.
The legal system exists to protect the status quo of the state, not to protect the rights and freedoms of working class men.
A few questions for you:
1. Have you read the 2021 High Court judgment?
2. What evidence, specifically, does it seem to you that the government buried?
3, Which witnesses, specifically, does it seem to you were silenced with bribes? Also, what specific facts did these "silenced" people actually witness?
4. You say it seems to you that the government "called other witnesses liars with no evidence to substantiate the charge". Are you sure you mean the government did this? If not, who/what called them liars? Irrespective of who called them liars, who (specifically) was called a liar; and where and when were they called a liar?
You sound like a Commie.
A man has lost his freedom and been locked up and the judge says that the documents may not be the full truth!?!... Is that justice? I wish you would watch and comment on (if only hypothetically) the documentary 'Silenced' and what is shows the headmaster and the teacher who allegedly dealt with the subject of this action saying about the situation...
Well how come they didn't testify in court ? The word you put "allegedly" is the keyword here. Especially as those student's statements were inconsistent. Not hating on Tommy, but getting more jail time because of those brats is annoying.
@@nutcracker2916 Watch the documentary dude its free online
It looks like it didn't matter that the council had gagged the school employees with NDAs nor that it's not terribly difficult to confuse children giving evidence under hostile cross-examination, or a steely judge wearing a huge wig which might just intimidate them further still
Not sure if they were in court ? The judge just read their statements and if you read them are inconsistent. Not saying that Syrian boy was a little angel. But Bailey sounds no better. And the girl couldn't even get her story straight.
It's lawfare, the process is the punishment, judges can decide what they like as long as they package and present it as fully considered. Let's face it, the whole system is an old boys club.
The courts are political
Yes. What BBB is ignorant of/oblivious to is that the courts seemingly have leeway to arbitrarily apply the book of law firmly or softly. Where at all possible, friends of the establishment are often treated to a soft application of the book of law. Foes often get the book thrown at them. That's not always the case, but them net outcome is greater inequality under the law for certain people and not others.
Weaponised - judiciary, police, teachers, mainstream media, social workers, civil “servants” and, of course, politicians. We have been utterly betrayed - and screwed!!
What about the payoffs and NDA’s teachers signed. Why would you pay someone and get them to sign a NDA so they don’t repeat false information? This can’t be standard practice of every fight in a school.
Not just all the NDA's the school was even shut down after as well and all teachers had to sign the NDA's and some took money to keep quite all that was a tactic so non of the teachers could go to court after to give there side of what happened after they sign the NDA or took the money. Even if the teachers did not sign the NDA's and said what happened in court can bet the judge would say they were all lying as well.
@@giggity4670 I'm pretty sure that those who signed NDAs could have gone to court as an NDA should not been enforced before a Court. it may be different in a Civil matter though. The fact that no one was willing to go to Court either was because they were not confident of their story OR additional pressure was put on them.
I don't know why TR does not edit the film removing the names nd accusation so that it is left to others to determine why there was so much concern about what is a playground rumpus.
I'd appreciate the BBB views on the NDA matter and the post trail 'winding up the school'
When you have all the people involved who was in authority over the kids and the scool in question, paid off by the council to shut up and be quiet. Tells you all you need to know.
All the witnesses were made to sign non disclosure agreements.
NDAs should be banned.
And paid off.. and all evidence ignored.
Evidence of this?
Was it raised in court that some of the potential witnesses were unable or unwilling to give evidence?
@@graemethelaw In 'Silenced' The documentary, plain as day.
the first video of the two boys you can clearly here the white lad saying twice " say it now " so something had definitely happened before.
Nobody disputes that. There are conflicting accounts of what it was but nobody has denied that there was a preceding argument.
@pete1942 they did. They said the white boy attacked him for no reason. That was the whole point of him being hunted down by Asian gangs and having to flee his home with his family. That's the very beginning of the public knowing.
@@pete1942 the whole kick off was the yt boy attak a brown kid for no reason. check the news from the day. they said he was waterboard for no reason. big bad yt boy bully. you on net. check.
It seems truth can be very elusive in the Court Room. Who knew!
So you haven't read the court judgements that include those children's statements ?
That kid was no saint seen the Doc discustin they got silenced even worse some got paid
Agree 100%. Do you think a white Christian boy would have won that case?
@@Mavcj01No chance!
@@lethenmanie and they try and deny 2 tier justice system
Did you watch THIS video or read the judgement? If you had, you would know that the video you believe has been discredited as being untrue. So why have you decided that you disagree and still think what Robinson said is true?
@@JoFloss Anyone defending it hasn't read the judgement - and why claims were discounted.
Love your clarity and transparency. Your videos simply reinforces that our legal system is shambolic and prejudicial when it sees fit, especially when politicians are in a position to lean heavily on judges to hand down more harsh sentences, which is clearly obstructing justice.
I would also like to say, that some of the secret recordings (that are backed up by film) do not show Tommy forcing anyone to say anything, but it does clearly show that some witnesses from the school were paid hush money, and this was proven when a Freedom of Information Request was submitted (the first 2 requests were ignored, but the 3rd request was submitted by a solicitor with success) to the council for payments to these teachers. Even retrospectively you would expect the judicial system to investigate misuse of tax payers money to silence people, but unsurprisingly nothing is being done.
So why silence all the teachers and the headmaster? Paying them off? Then closing the school? If it barks like a dog, looks like a dog…it is a dog.
If you watch the documentary silenced, you may come to a different conclusion.... Watch it..
Read the judgement, you might come to a different conclusion. Read it.
I’ll summarise - pretty much everything Robinson said in the video was either 1) an outright lie or 2) contradicted by other evidence
@JoFloss Then why did they all sign NDA,s and accept the money....
Read it , my conclusion, islamic loving judge....
@@neilavery1580There’s no evidence that ‘they all signed NDAs’, but even if they did, you don’t know what the NDA says. In many cases, people who are made redundant sign an NDA which prevents them from discussing the terms of their severance and the value of their severance package. NDAs do not prevent a person from reporting a crime, or from discussing information in the public domain. Any one of the teachers could have come to court and testified that they had witnessed the ‘hockey stick incident’ or the ‘group attack’ or the alleged threat to Bailey McLaren, if that was in fact true. If they had evidence that school records had been altered or falsified, they could have testified to that also. But they didn’t.
@ most everybody who leaves public sector employment signs an NDA 🤷♀️. I think you probably believe after watching the video what you already believed before you watched the video, going by your last comment 🤦♀️
Iimprisoning for the truth, it is obvious that a decision had already been made for a custodial, this can apply to quite a few people of late
This never happened...
Government: "First and foremost, guilty. Now go make it look like that"
Judiciary: "how? everybody knows what happened"
Government: "Work hard on discrediting good honest people and call it all hearsay"
Judiciary: "but..."
Government: "are you still here?"
Having viewed the whole film "Silenced" I would be more inclined to believe TR than this Judge.
It seems that the Judge has ignored the intimidation that many potential witnesses may have felt.
It also seems that the judge ignored the impact of non disclosure agreements and payments on potential witnesses.
It seems that the Judge has given more credibility to the witnesses against TR than the witnesses for TR, this seems to indicate some bias on his part.
Most importantly it seems that a gagging order against TR is a deliberate attempt to prevent the public from having enough information to scrutinize his judgement in this case.
Given the impact that this case has had on public confidence in the Justice system I would have thought it to be in the public interest for the information in the film "Silenced" to be publicly available.
If the Judge was confident that he had made a sound judgement there would be no reason to hide the film from the public.
If the judgment was sound then the film would have had no credibility.
As things stand TR and the film appear to have more credibility that the Judge and his judgement.
Perfect analysis
Why wasn’t he given a jury trial?
I was told by someone wiser than me on the UK modern law system, in a civil case there doesn’t have to be a jury. What’s sad is that the US judicial standard of using juries except in instances like vaccine court is the model to which the UK was based on but little by little by the 18th century the standard was chipped away at and made far worse after WW2. I originally thought it was our involvement EU that this Roman (European law) style Court to give all the power to judge instead of him protecting your rights and making sure the court is set up to give you a fair trial by a jury of your peers, the latter being the backbone of the English judicial system unlike Roman law where the judge is the judge, jury and executioner!
Libel trials no longer automatically qualify for a jury since the 2013 defamation act. You can request a jury trial, but as I understand it that is rarely successful.
Very interesting to know the why’s and wherefore of this case ,but could you explain why politicians in the election campaign can tell you important things which they say has all been accounted and costed for, to persuade you to vote for them , and then if they win the election to make some excuses to not do what they have said, which may have altered your vote. Is this not illegal
it bloody well should be but they get away with it . they all get away with it & are all above the law & people are sick of it & powerless to even do anytihhg other than vote the next lot of liars in
right. Nowhere else in society are such falsehoods just tolerated with no consequences whatsoever. Thing is, if they had to tell us the god's honest truth, they'd reveal themselves (and big government) as the most inadequate, treacherous and vain of all, and even their hardcore base wouldn't vote for them.
Democracy is a front, is a mere obstacle for tyrants to negotiate around while pretend to be bound-in by. And democratic socialism is a ponzi scheme which is near collapse. That's why replacement and illiberalism is going on.
The question should be - Why has Tommy never had a jury at any off his court appearances
Because they already made there minds up!! Some people don't get that mp's are all a part of the judiciary!!
Because we are in the uk
I really admire the way that you take the time and trouble to give people the tools to know how to think, rather than telling them what to think. It used to be the task of universities to teach student the skill of ‘thinking’, but they are now failing to do that. You are filling a very important gap in higher education with your videos. You are giving people skills which can be used and applied to many different situations.
Politics first. Law second.
The two tier system existed before starmer
Tories and Labour are exactly the same, just different colour ties.
Just remember who was in charge of the CPS before being the leader of Labour.
As someone once said "The law is an Ass"!
it's worse than that
But the judge surely accepted hearsay by the alleged attacked boy in the first hearing?
I think judging by the peoples comments on most media sites regarding this whole affair, in the court of "public opinion", on the balance of probabilities justice was not served. I would like to thank BBB for this video.
When BBB states the people in the video who gave evidence that the story was different to otherwise stated from the school or police and that them people should have went to court to give their evidence instead. They were bullied into signing a none disclosure agreement in which means they have to keep their mouths shut and accept what the police and school want them to say is true 😡
My brother in Christ, please consider revisiting the basics of the english language and its syntax. You do not have a voice if you cannot be understood. Bless you.
You can still give evidence in court, NDA or no NDA
Also they still have to live there.....
@@pup6728 Unless you fear being shanked for it in your neighbourhood.
@@pup6728How many examples can you give.
Very rare NDA recipients are ever compelled to court.
What cant be denied is the white boys family received serious threats and had to go into hiding due to a video showing a schoolground scuffle.
That alone should be enough to be an extreme concern.
And they stuck bailey and his family in a certain area!! No comment on where
Lawyers specialize in twisting facts.
Judges specialize in twisting law.
If there is evidence that witnesses had been given money to sign NDA's, can they be compelled by the courts to give evidence.
It seems not, same as where have the school records been kept, when the school closed??? I watched the film and I know who I believe.. It is a first basically for a man to go into those prisons for what he has been accused of......
That's a good question
If the NDA`s had not been in place the judge would have not been able to make his conclusions . The hearsay witnesses would have been allowed to submit their evidence and therefore make all defence evidence definitive
This is why I don't think NDA should exist. There should be be no such thing as gag orders. The truth should be out in public even if a case is settled out of court, the full details should all be shared.
Instead they all chose money
No can bet if the teachers did not sign the NDA's and they did take the stand the judge would say they are all lying it was a losing battle and decided guilty before TR even got the letter to go to court he was guilty no matter how much evidence supports him telling the truth
@@_Melian_Dialogue_ take your money, make your choice.
@@kelly4187indeed,we need more people to understand that nda’s are blocking so much truth from being heard.. I understand why people sign in to them,it must be really hard to turn away from a big brown paper bag of money that can pay for your kid’s university or take a good chunk off the mortgage..hence as you said they shouldn’t exist.
For the Judge to have banned the showing of Mr Robinson documentary, he must have seen it and must have understood why the witnesses failed to come forward.. Has the Judge no power make those people who clearly told what this young man was like, to attend his court?
Clear as mud, thanks.
I've said this before!, the tax paying public should be entitled to a full public inquiry into the "alleged" payments made to those involved in this case!
How did a schoolboy and his family manage to raise the money to pay for barrister, and a legal team, to bring the defamation case to court? It costs a huge amount of money, so was his dad doing a lot of overtime to pay for it? The prosecution was politically motivated, it was designed to stop any dissent against immigrants, particularly the illegals.
Thanks for the news it's refreshing to hear fact and not opinion.
Ok I have heard enough. The film should shown to a jury. Those in the film should be summoned to court and their testimony on the film questioned and the jury should then decide the verdict. That is all I have to say. I'm not interested in the intellectual answers of who said what and where. I want the truth. Is that plain enough.
The best answer in these comments
I was under the impression that any sentence that involved depriving an individual of their liberty in the form of imprisonment, would have to meet the criminal burden of proof, beyond any reasonable doubt. So why is it that the judge has used a civil ruling as evidence when holding someone in comtempt and sentencing them to prison when that evidence does not meet the required standard and is based on prbability. Surely that can only been seen as a miscarriage of justice and the proper course would be to re evaluate the evidence to the required sandard. ??
Absolutely
Since he pleaded guilty to breaking the injunction the case does not have to be proved to any standard. And whether the injunction was fair is irrelevant. If he thought the injunction wrong he could have appealed against it.
because there is absolutely no doubt that he committed contempt of court. We saw it. It was live streamed. You are referring to uncertainty about the defamation case. Two separate things.
@JoFloss obviously but not when it is a matter of public interest and he is a whistle blower, a different standard and protection must be applied.
@@reedy8585 That is an argument against the injunction being made (if the argument has any value). It is no excuse whatever for breaching an injunction.
I guess the correct course of action by Tommy Would have been to appeal the initial case had those involved not signed NDAs. Sadly signing those NDAs would have meant that no one would "want" to testify in any appeal and so Tommy saw the only way forward to reveal the truth was to break the injunction. Is that a fair assessment as an outside viewer?
Thank you for clarifying this court decision.
And it’s looking like people are scared to tell them the truth, and there’s a lot of people being threatened and or payed. . What about all of the staff including the teachers who have been payed to not say anything, surely that’s bang to rights
The reality is that he was going to jail regardless of anything said or not said. A classic example of distorting the law to achieve a result.
The fact that TR ended up representing himself in this case because it had bankrupted him should also be of massive concern. It shows that the civil justice system is only really there for those who are either rich or have sufficient funding from whatever sources to win. TR's mouth is very often his own worst enemy.
It is called 'law fare' as in 'war fair' they can fight you until you run out of money, as for Tommy's mouth getting him into trouble, of course it does, but if he doesn't speak up about things they don't want you to hear, then we have no voice, because who else has the courage to step out of the trenches?
TRs only enemy are the corrupt globalists. A man has a right to speak freely and honestly.
I heard that there was crowd funding for TR to have legal representation in court, but the money was not released by the banks in time so he couldn’t use it. Any truth to that?
(As mentioned in the video, this is low quality hearsay that has little weight in court, unless you can get someone more closely involved in the matter to confirm or deny…)
Itd be nice if courts held the same standards for evidence and punishment for everyone.
Truth?...we've been lied to for centuries and I could say a lot more but YT don't likey.
Also do note jamils team presented no evidence or witnesses.... yet TR gave heaps of both and everything was dismissed by the judge 😢
Yet jamal had h.pedos defence lawyer
its all theoretical though, in rteal life the judge can, and sometimes does, ignore the law, ignore the evidence, ignore basiaclly everything and make a judgement based on his own pesonal politics, bias, hate, predjudice or make a wild guess.
Hence why nonces get to walk the streets because "being in prison would expose them to danger and harm" when that is arguably more true for Tommy.
Hell, the guy who supplied Huw Edwards child abuse images, including class 1 images of children actively being sexually abused and raped, only got a 12 month SUSPENDED sentence. Meanwhile someone who just shouted at a police dog got 2 years in the slammer. Fucking ridiculous
yes, this is why those who cite the book of law and disregard everything else as irrelevant get right on my nerves.
I had a heated debate with a relative the other day. It was about the treatment of 'silent prayer' people outside abor-shun clinics. Relative just wanted to argue the book of law and legal technicalities for how all of us who regard the case(s) as example of thought crime were mistaken. I said I don't care about the legislation and technicalities (bafflement by B.S), I care about the principle: at the end of the day, aside from technicalities in legislation or whatever, people were penalized by the state for thinking the wrong things in the wrong place, as I understand it.
The Ban of the film in the first place was the crime, they just did not want to know, the whole system is currupt.
Everything get the feeling that they are working against our best interests?! Ffs
Seriously respect everything you are willing to do Dan , the way you inform and explain , providing reasoning and understanding is highly appreciated.....
Instructive to read about the so-called Hockey Stick Incident. Some useful lessons.
1. If your witness claims she was seriously physically attacked while on a field with 20-30 other pupils and she claims there were witness to the attack, try to find some of those pupils to corroborate her claim.
2. You need to think of a *credible* explanation as to why a school has no records of a serious physical assault on school premises, no teacher recalls it and two dozen pupils don't recall it.
3. It will seem odd if it emerges 'someone' wrote parts of her witness statement, including a claim that there were witnesses to her attack if she can't back that up.
4.. If your witness claims she went to her GP who put her on serious pain medication, it will seem odd if a letter from the GP says she's not suffering any medical problems.
5. If your witness claims she had X-rays and MRI scans then it's going to seem odd if she can't provide any evidence they happened.
6. It will seem odd if there are no records of her telling her regular mental health support about the incident given her claim it caused her mental trauma.
7. If you do have another witness to the incident, make sure his story is consistent with the story from the first witness. Was the PE teacher on the field or inside a building? Can't be both.
8. Was the whole class or only part of the class playing hockey? Can't be both.
9. If the first witness says the game had been played for ten minutes, it's going to seem odd when your second witness says he watched it for 40 minutes.
10. Make sure your witness's testimony in court doesn't contradict his own witness statement.
11. Make sure your witness's testimony in court doesn't contradict itself.
12. Make sure your witness's witness statement doesn't have a paragraph, beginning with "CHECK THIS", which he'll admit in court was something 'someone' suggested he include.
@@arfurascii2232 But apart from all these "trivial" things you list, it should be good to go to make an allegation of serious assault against someone! 😂😂
@@BillRodger-dp7ku You mean like the Syrian Thug who lied abour being racially attackwmed and crowd funded the lie to the deflamation of the young English lad
You mean like the Anti-English corrupt Islamist Communist agenda.
All lies
All fabrication
All exposed
The judgment helpfully points out where the defendant needs to strengthen his case in any possible appeal made against the 2021 judgment. I.e To overturn it.
Not being in compliance with the 2021 ruling is causing the contempt of court.
So you either overturn the 2021 judgement or comply with it.
And after all of this . . . . it still stinks .
Thank you for the clarification. It’s useful that someone takes the time to clarify why the judge made his decision.
I have lost all trust in government, the justice system, the police and the NHS.
All are bias and need huge change.
He should have taken it to a crown court and judged by his peers not a corrupt magistrates.😮
It's upto the judiciary if it goes to crown or not..
FREE TOMMY ❤
Tommy is where he belongs.
Justice has been served.
But that would set a standard, that everyone can ignore the judges ruling, can keep causing defamation even after pleading guilty, saying " Yes I was in comptempt , but I can do what'ever I want." He continues the defamation and contempt, pleads guilty, then just keeps doing it again, and again"
Let's tell the story using that same standard ... a young girl accuses your father....she acts like Tommy, and thus walks free to continue for ever and ever....Couldn't happen, but it has already, a year ago a girl was telling lies about innocent men, and several ended up in jail... with your new rule of tell stories and go free, she would still be making innocent men's life miserable.
Come on, put your hands up. Who's asked how to stay safe online 😅
Yeah, I think that bit was "hearsay".
@CitizenOfEverywhere kudos
Was Tommy charged with a Civil or Criminal Contempt of Court? I need to know as a reply from my MP said he had committed a criminal offence. Thanks.
OMG this is as wheedled and impactful as Page 67, Paragraph 29,Word 7, 9, 14 19-31 of the Internet Service Agreement of a free connection in a Quttari Shopping Center in Ulaanbaatar.
The evidence that was submitted around the hockey stick incident was pretty enlightening on the validity of the whole thing.
Lucky the kid had enough money to hire top barristers and sue.
The solicitor he used were the ones who opened a go fund me account a day before the video was released. They used that money to pay for the legal help.
Where did the funding come from?
He must have a good paper round.
@@SarahJSwift Hope not Hate, part funded by the Government had a hand in it.Say no more .
Wasn't it hate not hope who took him to court under jamels name hense why the lad hasn't took him to court again
Dear Mr. Independent,
🌈..I❤️MY🐾HOME..🍀
Basically the case needs re errecting and tested again. The truth is everything. 😊
It has been said the 1st duty of a Barrister is to protect the court.
Given what we know about the government,and Starmer in particular,and the obvious lack of separation of powers,apparent over the last couple of years,TR was going to prison, regardless of any and all evidence.
Those of us who studied law decades ago may remember being told that the courts were (back then) called Courts of Law and not Courts of Justice. An appropriate modesty.
Watch and wait what happens with this kid….
Did he not thank people for all the donations?
It seems to me that the terms of NDA’s (nondisclosure agreements)
should be limited. In case of trials, they should be deemed non existent, allowing witnesses to speak freely, so that greater information about the crime is made available.
That is already true. An NDA does not entitle a witness to lie or refuse to answer under oath.
@@nomennudum4592 thank you for this information.
@nomennudum4592 what about the money? Could the council force them to pay it back because they breached the NDA?
@@davidkeebles7827 If they "breached" the NDA (if there was one) by giving truthful evidence in court, then no they couldn't ask for the money back because it would not be a breach of the NDA. It would be their legal duty.
@nomennudum4592 Sure you are protected when you are addressing the court, but how did the defence know to call you as a witness? Would that fly in a contract court case or would it be covered under your "duty"? Obviously assuming it is truthful