@Ian Murray LOL!! You assume much young Jedi. You know what happens when we A.S.S. U. M.E. don't you? Regardless, male or female, I can't help but think it to be a lively chat...
Big Pun No. He was arrested for endangering the trial of a group of rapists by breaching a judicialy imposed Reporting restriction, making it harder for them to be convicted for the disgusting crimes they committed He was previously given a warning for doing the exact same thing, he broke that warning and pleaded guilty for contempt of court
+Tom Langford He wasn't endangering anything, they had already been sentenced. You don't arrest people for reporting on that unless you really hate basic human rights
Just to correct. The verdict had already been reached, but the defendants or Tommy didn't know that as they were arriving that day to hear the verdict.
@SamS If you look at the judgement that wasn't really the angle they charged Tommy on. It wasn't about releasing restricted information by reporting, as he didn't do that. It was by being there reporting 'in general' - but the main contempt was intimidating the defendants and causing them anxiety. You might hear this linked trial thing in the media a lot, but it didn't play a major factor, as the verdict had been arrived at, and he didn't release any information. The trials went ahead as planned. Many times main stream media has released information that blatantly broke the restrictions and actually collapsed the trial, at huge expense and distress, such as in the Milly Dowler case. Only fines we issued for that which set a precedent. If they wanted Tommy locked up they had to take the intimidation route. I studied the case for a university project, that's why I know the details. I'm neutral, and I'd say that this was extremely rough justice for Tommy. And he has no chance of appeal as it was the first ruling by a new High Court judge. No chance her peers will overrule that decision. They had to find him guilty or Tommy would be able to sue the state for wrongful imprisonment, which the couldn't face... So he was found guilty before this re-trial started. It's not a good moment in our rich legal history.
A breath of intelectual fresh air ....good comment ... what you say is fact what C4 say is wrong as it omits context. Why is it far right to object to organised child rape by a clearly defined group of adherents to a Middle Eastern Faith?
two things wrong with this, firstly you said that they had ruled that journalist weren't allow to report on the trial until after the jury had reached a verdict, This was a sentencing hearing they had already reached a verdict. Secondly you said he gave his opinion on the defendants, which he didn't he read out the charges that they were facing and added allegedly, admittedly he did get some of them wrong and this was the whole reason he was in contempt of court. But a mistake IMO is not worth 13 months in prison and not being given a fair trial, rushed though court in 5 hours not even given a chance to consult with his own attorney. Please, wake up mate!
It isn't one trial. The temporary reporting restriction covers ALL the trials until they are concluded. He harassed people entering a court, that is Breach of the Peace. Livestreaming it is Contempt of Court. He did not receive 13 months, he received 10 months. The 3 months were due to him already being on a suspended sentence for Contempt of Court. Since the maximum is 24 months, then 10 months is reasonable. It was not a trial, it was a hearing and it was not rushed. Contempt of Court hearings take place on the day of arrest. He pleaded guilty and was represented by a senior Barrister of 16 years experience defending serious crimes such as rape and murder. Before telling others to "wake up" you may wish to establish the facts.
I don't see how a reporting restriction covering all trial would make sense as the 3 stages are decoupled, at each stage the defendants of that stage are tried and sentenced/not sentenced. It also wouldn't matter as I am not arguing against the contempt of court. Didn't argue against either breach of the peace or the Contempt. But he was only sentenced based on his previous suspended sentence and the Contempt. Also livesteaming on its own isn't contempt, it's what was said that makes it contempt. yes he did get 10 months for this offence, no one really reports the exact specified why it was considered contempt of court. Ie an actual action or a phase he said. From the best I can make out its from him reading out the charges of the defendants and getting them wrong which if watched by the jury may bias there decision. If you could provide more light on what he actually said that lead to the judgement I would appreciate it. IMO it is rushed, why was it so important to get it done on the day, The police have powers to hold him if they are worried about what he would do on bail. At least he would have time to prepare a proper defence.
The trials are not for the same defendants. If a guilty verdict was announced for the first then counsel would argue that the trial of the later defendants was prejudiced by the guilty verdict of the earlier trial for the other defendants facing the same charge. It was livestreaming, which is Contempt of Court for *THIS* case due to the reporting restriction on publishing before ALL the trials are concluded. He pleaded guilty. It was not rushed. As I have already stated, Contempt of Court hearings take place on the day of arrest, this is normal and he pleaded guilty so there was no need for preparation of a defence.
They have already announced the verdicts of the second trial, does that predicate the third? What are the exact words he said that were considered contempt of court? He pleaded guilty under the attorney appointed by the court, he might not of given the chance to converse with his own attorney.
Does your head in the way they are struggling to tell it as they say it is by law and trying to make it look like the law itself isnt flawed in any way
It was a Contempt of Court hearing where he pleaded guilty. No trial required. He had a barrister of 16 years experience in defending serious crimes such as rape and murder.
At 6:33 the journalist claims that "there was never a media blackout on Robinson's conviction, in fact it took a real journalist to fight for the restrictions on Robinson's case to be lifted" Isn't this statement self-contradictory? If there was no blackout why would anyone need to fight for the restrictions to be lifted?
When adult males of any colour or religion rape a child, it should be on the front page of every newspaper everywhere. Cliff Richard was all over the press and he didn't even go to court. Tommy Robinson is not the issue here for me. The protection of child rapists (of whatever religion or colour) disgusts me. The council and police in Rotherham and Rochdale covered up what was going on for 40 years and yet still nobody is allowed to talk about it. D-notices are served to not prejudice the case? Why? I don't even like Tommy Robinson, but why are we not protecting our children. The press have totally missed the boat on this one. Tommy Robinson isn't the issue here. The silence of our press and total failure to protect our children is. The protests won't end on this one in my opinion and the UK media are as much to blame as TR himself. The left are screaming Nazi and racist, the right are screaming martyr and champion of freedom of speech....Nobody is talking even 1% enough about the fact that children are being repeatedly raped....Keyboard warriors all....conscience nobody.
I only put Rotherham and Rochdale in as examples and I never mentioned race or ethnicity, which doesn't interest me at all. You say you and Tommy as if we are one and the same? Personally, I don't see colour or religion, only good or bad and there are plenty of both in all societies. I only care that the press are avoiding issues that people really care about, leaving more extreme people to be the voice of said issues. I'm not on anyone's side. I only care that children are in danger and not enough is being done to highlight the fact, or to protect them.
The reality is that the majority of grooming gangs are white, but Mr Yaxley-Lennon is only interested in the brown ones. That's the issue here. He has never been interested in the abuse and exploitation of children, except when there's some profit in it for himself. He's making a great deal of money out of this stuff.
Channel 4 have completely missed the point on this one. The anger and support for Tommy isn't about what happened on that day in isolation, this sentiment has been building for years, and this incident is just a trigger. It's building precisely because of the way Channel 4, and ALL other mainstream media organisations have such a "liberal" agenda. You're ideologically driven, to the point where vast swathes of this country feel they are unable to even mention concerns they have about current social issues without being shouted down. How else could no one, and that's literally no one, in the entire establishment and mainstream media, not have seen the Brexit vote going the way it did? Why, because you're totally out of tune with the electorate, because you won't let ordinary people voice their opinions, because you're so certain you're right. Continue to ignore and shut down, it won't end well. You need to be a lot more responsible - you're actually causing the issues here.
The reason why to experts failed to predict the results of the 2015 General Election and the EU referendum is because many people in Britain long ago became very wary about volunteering their true opinions to strangers. That's the kind of country we've become.
This is not me taking position on anything, just asking questions: 1. The media, BBC among them, had already reported on the crimes and named all the defendants, despite the reporting restrictions 2. There are several other recordings of the proceedings outside this court on the very same trial at earlier stages far, far more aggressive where defendants are named, shown pictures of, and where protestors are screaming in anger at them as they walk in. And the police is present. Why is this okay, while Robinson's rather mundane footage is problematic? 3. Is it the media's responsibility to prevent the jury from being prejudiced when the cost is a limit on free speech (yes, restrictions on reporting is a limitation on free speech) - this would never happen in the US. Following this logic, it would be impossible to have *any* trial with prominent figures. It would be impossible to have had OJ's trial. 4. isn't it problematic that someone can be arrested and have the media being prevented by government to report on it? 5. How often are people given a 10 month sentence on contempt (not counting the 3 months from the previous sentence)?
Number 4 is my biggest concern, they jailed him in secret. Why but more importantly how? Who gives these powers to the judges, I think laws need to change.
you do understand Tommy was very biasedly reporting on it? cool, so this is the problem he is publicly reporting on a court trial with an obvious bias that can influence the jury and if it seems that that the jury have been influenced by material outside of the evidence given to them the defendants can claim that they have been given an unfair trial because it is outside information not directly pertaining to evidence provided in the case. Tommy has previously been done for contempt of court he knows how it works. this law has been the case for years and years without much slipery slope it maintains that every case is fair and the jury is impartial while the case is ongoing. he plead guilty
@@del2665 Lol it looks like YOU didn't understand a simple word. They were asking how is he a "habitual criminal"? Meaning: What did he do that makes you call him that???...
@@alexanderchan76 I understand that they'll use it where they can and break it where they can't if you believe otherwise because you're a law student or something only time will wake you up.
@@oldieal7032 OOPS - it shows the criminal justice system is deeply corrupt and the law of rule no longer exists in the UK, especially for independent journalists exposing Muslim child gr00ming and r-p- gangs. It was a political trial driven by the Attorney General, a Cabinet Minister appointed by the pandering and treacherous Theresa May, known for her stupidity. It is an attempt to stamp down on speaking the truth. Sadly, bringing in the third world, Britain is starting to become the third world, with its associated corruption and cronyism.
You wouldn't dare put the head of Sadiq Khan on a pike and put it into a corner of a building as a warning to Muslims, Remainers and Climate activists, would you?
Fais attention ce que tu as écrit, sinon j'appelle la police sur toi. Est-ce c'est clair ? Une chose, L'insurrection contre les États-Unis en Janvier le 6 est ta faute et celle de tes théories de complots. Les menaces de mort contre Klaus Schwab, le FEM doivent être arrêtés immédiatement ou j'appelle la police.
CrusaderZav: They are a media company, bud. They will add the like and dislike bar and see if any advertiser's (how they are funded) are at all interested. They're wide awake, am afraid.
Lies by omissions beyond belief. There were actual threats yelled at Tommy right in front of the police and they did nothing, but then arrest him for breaching the peace. Curiously, all while the judge can be seen watching the arrest together with a bunch of policemen from the courthouse. Also using your arguments about the legality of things, one could also argue that all the convictions done in the soviet union were all perfectly fine, because they followed their own laws... In Tommy's case, there were clearly abusing certain laws in order to get him to shut up. Have you seen the testimony of one of the whistle-blowers about these child-rape/prostitution-rings and their protection by police and politicians?
This is poor reporting. Robinson didn’t state anything on his live stream that hadn’t already been put into the public domain by the BBC. He was very careful to refer to the defendants as “alleged rapists” instead of just “rapists”. At no point did Robinson enter court property, he remained outside. He was informed by police at the scene that he was allowed to film. He was arrested under the false charge of “breach of the peace”, not contempt of court. The judge that sentenced Tommy also bore witness to the alleged crime which is not allowed under U.K. law and should have voided the trail. The length of the sentence handed to Robinson was unprecedented in comparison to the actual “crime”. And most importantly the Jury had already reached a verdict, this was a sentencing hearing to determine sentences only, it’s pretty hard to influence a jury that have already declared their decision. I’ll be the first to say I don’t necessarily agree with everything Robinson says or believes, but regardless of your opinion of the man this was gross misconduct at best. I’d like to think that you have missed out this information entirely by accident and therefore am hoping that you rectify your mistake at your earliest convenience. We wouldn’t want anybody thinking that this was some kind of biased propaganda now would we, channel 4.
TMan.....so according to you he should be being 'hung by the neck' in public......is contempt of court 'worse than' rape, or CONCEALING the harm/rape of girls
Well said. Nothing in the article was actually untrue - except "the Far right" bit, but it is being INCREDIBLY selective with the facts and with the narrative. MSM is dying. RIP and good riddance.
Christian Dowell It was the second time he had done it. Since he was under suspended sentence it was inevitable he would be jailed. As was explained in the film.
ruth bashford He was originally released on appeal on a technicality because it was deemed that the Judge hadn’t followed the correct procedure. Then it went back to court and he was sent back to prison to serve his original sentence as he should. If he’d done this after the time period of the suspension had expired he may not have gone to prison at all. I don’t even know if he’s still in prison if he has been released early it will be because of good behaviour. Not because of some imagined miscarriage of justice. If prisoners behave unless it’s a serious crime it’s rare for them to serve more than half their sentence. As I said in my original comment, if you watch the film it’s all explained. But since you obviously worship at the alter of St Stephen Yaxley-Lennon you won’t believe it.
@@del2665, this is a slander. Yes, he broke the law (nothing really serious) but in these days it is almost a badge of honor since so many criminals (slander is a criminal offence) walk around free and write nonsense on You Tube..
I'm not a fan of Tommy Robinson at all. He is like a bull in a china shop and shouldn't have been where he was. My misgivings are the double standards in reporting cases. We all saw the helicopter footage of police raiding Cliff Richard's house and searching through his belongings on merely allegation? Why should some in court be protected? Why shouldn't this be massive news? Why shouldn't parents of other children in the area where the accused were said to have operated, have full disclosure of this case and be able to take extra precaution to protect their children. Whether you're a supporter of Robinson or not, reporting restrictions on some but not others does not and never will sit right with me and this is why we finish up with people like Robinson and Farage raising issues that people are genuinely worried over. Then the media goes into full attack about racism, xenophobia and right wing nutters. Go to towns like Rochdale and Rotherham and ask people there. Whether you are right or left, somehow something just doesn't seem right about the whole thing.
Because when you film live outside of courts with the families of the victims walking past, you risk exposing those victims identities who, as you know are children.
I'm not talking about whether he's guilty or not. I don't care about him at all. I care about important issues not being reported on properly. ua-cam.com/video/O7P7ih1GuuQ/v-deo.html
Same as my answer below. I care that issues are not being reported on. Evidence can be given on tv screens by victims and families can watch on live news feeds without attending. I care much more about this. ua-cam.com/video/O7P7ih1GuuQ/v-deo.html
Stephen is now back on trial and there is every chance that he will be back in prison in no time. He nearly jeopardized the trial and nearly brought about the release of the paedophiles, which is why I find it ironic that you lot are supporting him. Do you also want to see the paedophiles released?
@@TheTruth-uy4kp Thats just not true. He was filming outside the court case and live-streaming it openly breaking the law which says that judges, defendants and witnesses cannot be filmed within certain parameters of the court. The uproar would have been big, but it would have only been down to Stephen himself. For the defendants would have argued that everything was biased against them and that they didn't get a fair trial. Everything would have been thrown out, the victims wouldn't have seen justice served with orders of a new trial at the expense of taxpayers, the victims and the public in general. As part of fair trials, we don't allow broadcasting of certain cases so as to not bias the jury. Forensics do't matter so long as it looks like the jury is being biased. Stephen didn't "expose" anything. He merely broke the law. The people who exposed it were the victims and the Lawyers who worked tirelessly to see that this was put to a stop. This also includes the judge who imprisoned Stephen. I seriously suggest you watch this video. It's obvious that you far right people just don't know how the law works. Also, you do know that the ring leader in this case was a Sikh right?
He did exactly what all the mainstream reporters have done to him outside his court case with reporting restrictions, mainstream news was daily comentating online when they shoudlnt trying to demonise tommy, tommy had cameras in his face as he left his court case whilst being asked about the case, with reporting restrictions, will itv reporters get solitary confinement?.. No..anyone exposing mass rape gangs is a hero, sort ur fukin head out lol
it does allow free speech(not in the same manner as the US though) however as was outlined, Tommy attended as a reporter - and as such was subject to the same constraints as other reporters who were also there. Had he kept his mouth shut for a little while longer, this whole situation wouldnt exist.
New Thought interesting. Have you ever heard “Miscarriage of Justice”? You live in the La La land. You are too innocent to this real world. Kid. The world is way darker than your unicorn imagination. child rape gang leader 3 years but report it 13 months? do you feel innocent now?
New Thought Since he wasn't allowed to call his own lawyer and made do with a court appointed one who told him to plead guilty so he could get out and get his lawyer to work things out, I would perhaps say it was a set up.
YEh as someone else said there were others videoing it nothing happened to them this CAME from the very TOP PM and Home Secretary they will rue the day they did this POLL TAX 2
Filming people entering a court is not Contempt of Court when done off the court grounds. So nothing would happen to them. Had Tommy Robinson only shot a video of them like the alleged others did, then he wouldn't be in prison. So again, can you point out where the video is factually incorrect?
Fred Bloggs The BBC had already reported on this case before Tommy did it. Tommy just did the same. He never entered the court building. The media ban came after Tommy was arrested. The first time Tommy was arrested for contempt of court, he had been reporting on the case outside of the building, but still on the outdoor staircase towards the entrance of the building. His first conviction already was unfair.
Point me to the BBC report shouting "Got your prison bag ready, you're going to need it." How stupid can you get? He was on a suspended sentence of 3 months which would instantly come into force should he do this again. He did it again. Ape self-harms. You could argue that idiots self-harming should be just thrown in jail earlier for protection from their own stupidity. I think you have to give them a chance to learn and when they don't, as Robinson didn't, then you throw the fools in jail. It's a burden on us all as tax payers and of course we'd rather not produce these idiots but sometimes incarceration is the only solution.
This is a myth: the popular claim is that the prison he has been put in has a 71% muslim population. Official prison reports show that the muslim population in the prison is 13% and the population of white british prisoners is 67.7%. The rest are from black or ethnic minority backgrounds but are not muslim. This can be read and verified at the justice . gov . uk website for the Leicester prison. His life is not at risk.
CONTEMPT..... OF..... COURT.... There was a court order not to report prejudicially on an ongoing court case and he reported prejudicially on an ongoing court case... he confronted the accused (no thanks to Tommy Robinson they have now been found guilty) and called them child rapists on a live facebook feed. This has now been judged to be true by a court of law, but at that time was prejudicial! That is CONTEMPT OF COURT! Tommy's actions could have easily led to a conviction of these paedophiles being overturned.
@@alexc1105 He asked them "how did they feel about the verdict". The Convicted rapists going in to face sentencing answered back that they would rape and kill his mother. The case had ENDED
What a disgraceful propaganda piece! It tries to suggest impartiality but intentionally ignores key aspects: while the jailing of Tommy Robinson *could* be seen as in line with a harsh interpretation of contempt law, the length of the sentence and the summary way in which it was imposed are clearly evidence of bias. It can also be argued that contempt did not *have* to apply and that while Robinson took a risk here, his behavior does not necessarily have to be seen as contempt, which reinforces the idea that his sentencing ws unduly harsh and evidence of bias.
"The Secret Barrister" as a source? This is your idea of news? :D Here's my response to his article: *1. It starts by framing, which is always a good sign of "fair" reporting.* Tommy isn't a fraudster. He got convicted for lending money to his brother-in-law after the government started looking for anything to silence Tommy. The brother in-law used the loan for a self-certification mortgage application to make it appear like he had more money than he actually had. There was no victim in this "crime", nobody lost any money, the mortgage was paid back in full and nobody gets an 18 months prison sentence for just lending people money when there aren't even any damages. Tommy made the guilty plea when they threatened to drag his wife into court and charge her with the "crime". You know there are threats against Tommy's life and he frequently gets assaulted on the streets? He has been very careful to keep his wife's face out of the media (yeah, there's no ban on taking photos when Tommy is in court), so instead of letting her face become public, he took the hit on himself and made a guilty plea without fighting the case in court. This is some top notch victim blaming - using the government's persecution as a permanent mark against someone. *2. "there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case"* Wrong, all of the mainstream news sites covered it. They released the names, charges, street names, photos and videos of the defendants without suffering any legal ramification. Where do you think Tommy got his information in the first place? He wasn't in the courtroom. *Google:* mirror 27 men and two women appear in court charged with string of offences *3. "his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across"* Again, no bias there, obviously. Tommy is not a racist, some of his best friends are black and he has stepped out against Islam in defense of black people. He only opposes Islam, which is not a race (as evidenced by the white and ginger Muslims for example), nor just a religion, but also a totalitarian political ideology. He had his Jewish friends protesting for him in Israel, he had 560+ thousand people signing a petition in his support. Are they all knuckle-dragging racists? Ex-Muslims, Sikhs and black people are speaking out for Tommy. Look at his Oxford University speech if you've bought the mainstream lies. *Google:* Tommy Robinson - Main Speech OxfordUnion *4. "Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court having video recorded a number of men"* Yeah, just like mainstream media had recorded these same men before. In fact there's a video of people shouting abuse and allegations at the same defendants at the same courthouse, in front of the police, and these people did not get arrested. Did they not affect the jury when the trial was just starting? Tommy waited until after the main part of the trial had concluded and he made sure to use the word "alleged" throughout his live stream and he also stayed off the court property, because these things got him into trouble the last time. *Google:* SAS reporting outside Leeds Court - 29 in court over 170 charges *5. "his actions in broadcasting details about the trial were in breach of reporting restrictions."* Are you joking? Reporting restrictions do not apply to information which is already in public domain (do you need more links to mainstream coverage?). The court records talk about Tommy listing the names and charges of the defendants. If anyone actually believes that the jury hadn't heard those details in court then they must be drunk. The narrative that this information could collapse the trial is beyond ridiculous. "Trial judges have *no power* under s.4(2) to postpone publication of any other reports e.g. in relation to *matters not admitted into evidence* or *prejudicial comment* in relation to the proceedings.91 Likewise, courts have no power under s.4(2) to prevent publication of material that is *already in the public domain."* "Section 4(2) is regularly invoked in cases involving *sequential trials.* The aim in those cases is to postpone the *reporting of specific parts of the evidence* in the first trial to prevent prejudice to the defendants in the second trial. It is generally not appropriate to invoke this power in relation to matters that form part of the evidence in both trials because in those cases *prejudice is unlikely to arise."* *Google:* Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015 Tommy only reported basic information, which had been in the public domain since the very begging of the sequential trials. He didn't reveal any evidence from any of the trials, so prejudice is unlikely to arise from his reporting. *6. "prohibition on taking photographs or moving images inside a court building"* This is why Tommy stayed off the court property and out on the public streets. *7. "expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants"* No, Tommy made it very clear that the defendants had not been found guilty and he kept using the word "alleged". *8. "risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings by jurors seeing or becoming aware of his ill-informed ramblings"* What was ill-informed about listing out the names and charges of the defendants, which had been widely published (the names are even available in public court records)? Where's the risk in reading out widely published news? *9. "this could have led to an application by the defence advocates to discharge the jury"* And any court would laugh at such an application. If they didn't request the jury to be discharged over videos (yes, there are multiple such videos out there) of large crowds of people shouting obscenities at the defendants then why would they do so when Tommy only lists out the defendants' names and charges? *Google:* LIVE with Ezra: SHOCK VIDEO shows other journalists filming same trial as Tommy Robinson *10. "Yaxley-Lennon admitted that he was in contempt of court."* Of course he did, because he was not allowed to contact a defender who's an expert in contempt of court law. Instead he was given some random pumpkin who didn't know anything about Tommy's legal background, the prior case against him, nor would he be specialized in this particular law. He would've almost certainly recommended Tommy to plead guilty to avoid the full 24 month sentence. Also, the judge admitted that he hadn't reviewed the full evidence and it doesn't seem that the defender had the time to do so as well. They weren't given the time to prepare a proper legal defense and generally these proceedings would take weeks, like they did last time. Tommy believed that his actions were fully within the bounds of the law and the judge and defense hadn't reviewed the evidence, so nobody in the court would've had an exact understanding of what Tommy was guilty of when he entered the guilty plea. And yet, he had no options, because his accuser was also the one to pass judgment and he didn't have time to prepare a case nor a proper representative to advise and defend him. He was essentially in a kangaroo court where all he could do was to beg mercy. A guilty plea would normally get a lesser sentence, yet the judge slapped on a harsh 10 months sentence for repeating information from mainstream news. *11. "Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar"* Imagine the joy people feel when they're told that they have to settle for a court appointed defender, instead of being allowed to use their own lawyer. They all have years of experience in the courtroom, but would you really want them defending you if you could afford hiring an expert instead? *12. "Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions."* This is absolutely ridiculous. Tommy wasn't sharing any secret inside knowledge of the trials. He was reporting facts that the media had already widely published. The BBC (and other outlets) had in fact released the names, charges and street addresses of the defendants. This propagandist is flat out lying over and over again. Had he looked at the actual news articles, he would know that his statements were wrong and yet he still hasn't fixed the errors. *Google:* BBC Huddersfield inquiry sees 29 in court
And then the next source LeedsLive complains that they ended up doxing the wrong address, because Tommy didn't disclose his real address in the courtroom. Are they for real? Tommy has a wife and children and many dangerous enemies. Don't these "journalists" have any conscience? They even let it slip that they think that their actions could cause problems for people who's address they published. "We have chosen to remove the incorrect address *with the current occupants of that property in mind."*
GalacticWoman One reporter (an independent sihk man who's report is on youtube) actually called them "rapists"... didn't even use the word alleged which Tommy did. They also recorded during the trial and not after summary, again unlike Tommy who filmed on verdict day so could not have influenced that outcome. Fact of the matter is Tommy has a huge audience in comparison to the others so needs shutting up according to the knobs of society. Now that this has been highlighted though, the sihk reporters video has been seen over 30.000 times. Still no arrest. So all the Tommy haters saying he got what he deserves..... I call bullshit!! He's been treated unfairly and victimised otherwise others would have been arrested. FACTS... VERIFIABLE FACTS TOO.
The people arguing they were not being prejudiced I don't think have looked at the evidence or the other streamers, they have made there mind up and just like the media wants will stick to there opinion even if better information arises to prove them wrong, pointless exercise mate even showing the guys name and link to his video won't be enough to change there mind. He was arrested for breach of the peace anyway not contempt of court as the jury had already made there decision so this video is misleading and incorrect, his appointed solicitor wanted him to plead guilty as believed this would likely lead to only a fine.
Noneofurbusiness ! How is it "predjucicial" (prejudicial*) when there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of Muslims in rape grooming gangs? And also, irrefutable evidence that the state and the police were complicit in covering up this fact. That's not prejudice, that's POSTjudice.
Une légende vivante Beaucoup d'entre nous en France aimons sont travail Malheureusement il très compliqué de trouver ces vidéos traduit en français pour que je puisse les partager 😕
Those cases are one trial and one verdict at the end. This is THREE trials dealing with the defendants from the same case. Once all THREE trials are concluded the reporting restriction is lifted.
And don`t forget when Cliff Richards was being arrested as it was happening the good old BBC had a helicopter up filming it all no restrictions there & it was all hearsay at the end of it all scandelous treatment
A friend of mine told me aboutl Rolf Harris 9 months before the British media were even allowed to write a word about it. MY mom refused to believe me until it made trial. :( So, yes, there WAS reporting resrictions, you cockwomble. And how did all the reporters work for Max Clifford? For a PR person, he was a complete tw*twaffle.
1. The trial was over the verdict was given. 2. He wasn't taken to a police station and properly processed (illegal). 3. The judge witnessed the alleged contempt and then took the case. 4. He was denied access to his chosen lawyer and his lawyer was lied to and told he wasn't needed (illegal). The first thing his lawyer would've said would've been to request a recess to prepare a defence.
Further to my 4th point it is likely although can't of course be proved that his court appointed lawyer probably said "because of who u are I'm not going to bother defending u so u may as well plead guilty" or at least that's what I am alleging😀
20 years to bring pedephile gang rapists and 20 minutes to sentence a man who makes a facebook video outside a court about them, you really think that people will be ok with that? Tommy is a real hero, support from France!
Danny Loftus how many Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs are there? It’s only a “huge problem” because they’re not white. And what difference does it make that they’re related. The far-right need to learn to hate the act of grooming more than they do the nationality of the minority that do.
Stop using the sanitised term "grooming gangs", to do so is to play the politically correct language game to avoid the problem. The term is RAPE gangs. Their crime is mass repeated rape, gang rape, and false imprisonment of minors.
There is no spin, they are literally stating the facts of the British judicial system. Please at least try to approach this from an objective point of view.
The right-wingers feel lost without the daily fake news of Britain First which has finally been closed. The majority of Tommy's followers are illiterate (can't even speak their own easy language properly 🙈😂), mentally naive and culturally clueless, yet they think they're the solution to this issue with their selective morals... they probably have a Jimmy Saville poster on their bedroom walls. 😂
This is unbelievable, he’s been jailed for exposing establishment lies, he made a documentary that the regime wouldn’t let him show as it exposes their lies, we are officially a banana republic, let’s hope he doesn’t meet the same fate as Peter Lynch.
Why in the UK when the Rolf Harris trial. There was a circus media before, during and after the trial. Why didn't all those reporters go to jail? This Canadian very perplexed.
Channel 4 should be utterly ashamed and embarrassed by the Cathy Newman Vs Peterson interview. Did that episode not highlight exceedingly clearly how far you've lost your way? Are alarm bells not ringing? You're a disgrace.
Choraldiscourse I'm not sure it is in its death throes? Every day there is more and more equalities bullshit being forced on our every day lives, it feels like it is in an ascendancy. Anyone who feels uncomfortable with it needs to voice their opposition imo...
Steve Thomas those 2 guys speaking look retarted .one with crossed blue eye and the other with a blank clone face .they are Clones...cant yu tell...robots!!
Not trying to govern free speech but arresting and charging people for making comical jokes and skits online. The system has gone absolutely psychotic, they're actually thick. They think they are wise but by proclaiming to be they'e become stupid to the nth degree, that thing with Dankula on their part was pathetic.
Almost nonone even heard of Channel 4 outside of that shithole called Britain before the Peterson interview. That's all they were after anyway... exposure.
What a garbage lobster explanation. Simply calling it contempt of court doesn't make it contempt of court. You didn't go into the specifics of what Tommy said that crossed the line into contempt. Standing outside a court house with a camera is not contempt of court so what EXACTLY was in Tommy's live stream that could have negatively influenced a trial that was all but over? The defendants were there for sentencing at the END of the trial. I think its fair to assume the jury was well aware of the defendants names and what the charges were which is all the information I saw get released. What he reported was already in the public domain from other sources anyway. This is obviously a very heavy handed judicial over reach and abuse of power any way you slice it. You lobsters missed the entire point once again.
If this was a sentencing hearing as claimed, how can what Tommy did be construed as influencing a jury that has already deliberated and come to a verdict? Sure, you can throw someone in jail on a technicality but that doesn't make it right or just. We'll see what happens in his appeal but my guess is the basis for the contempt charge will be shown as hollow.
The only reason he was arrested is the same as why millions of people have been arrested and murdered during fascist and communist regime. For speaking his mind and poor little judge and leftist didn't agree. There are a major number of problems with the reason to arrest and the sentencing. The police arrested him for disrupting the public peace, no idea how or why if he was the only one talking and not asking others or intimidating people. He then got sentenced on very different charges, contempt of court. Which is, so far I can think of, impossible when the case has served and a verdict is already made. Especially when they say contempt of court is about media attention during the court case. Tommy Robinsons sentencing was unfairly in anyway. In this way you could say he was kidnapped by the government. #FreeTommyRobinson
And he's out with the court of appeal noting the judges hasty conviction had "technical flaws" and the charge and sentence was thrown out. So I assume you believe Tommy's release and conviction overturn is wrong and Tommy should be thrown back in jail because of points 1 2 and 3? Or were you just "misconstruing and manipulating the narrative" when you made those points?
Well imagine my surprise. Tommy was rushed to trial, convicted and sent to prison without the court hearing any of the specifics in his live stream that broke the contempt of court threshold so he's free and his conviction is overturned. Good investigative reporting you did there Channel 4 [slow clap]
Wait I get it. 1. Paint the Person in a cetain manner. 2. Lead the viewer to believe that he is a bad guy and has already been doing bad things. 3. Present twisted facts with opinions. 4. Divide things in spectrums. 5. Claim your Victory. Tommy Robinson is innocent.
Abhinav Anand I am not refuting any factual evidence that they present, they are simply twisting the facts to suit their narrative. 1. He was arrested on different grounds but was sentenced for something entirely different. 2. He was outside the court and not inside. 3. People are concerned because he was tried and sentenced immediately whereas factually many courts in London Don't punish Muslim culprits over long periods of time. A court even exonerated a muslim over a rape just because he said that his culture taught him that and he was not aware of British culture. 4. The police apprehended him quickly while they don't act immediately if the culprit is a muslim because of fear of being called Islamophobes. 5. This is entirely about free speech, which the video completely derails and leads somewhere else which was my initial point.
Let’s be honest, that’s not why they jailed him, he challenged the narrative, raised issues which were being suppressed and paid with his liberty, his marriage, his two businesses, 7 houses and his reputation, re manufactured by the state to misrepresent him as a classic far right racist, rather than a non-political simple working class lad and critic of a specific religious ideology and the special treatment it received in his town and across the country, which lead to widespread victims. This case, regardless of your politics, should be taught in Journalism school, to show the clinical assassination which occurs when you challenge the official line. It is frightening how many haven’t even watched Mr Lennon’s Oxford Union address, let alone any of the excellent documentaries like Silenced on UA-cam or the Tankz, Anything Goes podcast. So many podcasts where he utterly destroys the fake strawman persona which the media has projected onto him. You’ll hear, “ EDL fight eachother”, but be never told that Tommy and many others were physically fighting real bonafide fascists, which is where one of his assault convictions comes from, literally, punching a Nazi. You’ll hear, convicted fraudster, but they won’t tell you, that when he refused to work for the intelligence services, they forensically investigated his whole family’s finances and found one had slightly exaggerated their income on a mortgage. They then threatened his pregnant wife with prison, if he didn’t accept jail, to silence him. There are so many dichotomous views like these, such as his family being doxxed by a lawyer, who hired a man to serve papers on him, who threatened to mince his children, on video. The police did nothing. The law society did nothing. But the story was reported as, Tommy harasses historian. You can’t quite imagine the Machiavellian evil which has twisted the public’s view of his beliefs and behaviour.
Who paid you to make this video? May herself? Or did the old boy network all chip in? And how about that guy from the home office they knicked the other day, his name and face is all over the media, will that stop justice being done?
Tommy was not in contempt of court. The rapists had been convicted. They were going to court to be sentenced. So, his actions could not affect a jury. The convictions had been reported by the British Broadcasting Company in the public domain. So, it was legal for Tommy to report the conviction and to question the rapist on their way to court. Journalists of the British Broadcasting Company routinely do exactly the same. The court did not follow the procedure for notifying reporting restrictions, probably because those restrictions were illegal. I am disgusted with the unjust treatment of Tommy Robinson. Obviously, British justice is no justice. Obviously, the British Broadcasting Corporation is the British Government's propaganda arm, pushing its socialist agenda. These are among the worst standards within the world. They bring great dishonor upon the British Government. The people of Britain are rightfully ashamed of their governments and of British justice. I am disgusted that the socialists and their useful idiots ignore the law to persecute those who report the failure of their socialist agenda. Regards, Geoff. Reeks
I think this may have just backfired on Channel 4, they have shown there hand and will now never be able to fight in court there right to report on anything the courts or government tell them they can’t, because every time they do this will be thrown at them it shows and for cowards they are
Fred Bloggs - why don't you use your proper real name you salty get? Don't worry, i know why, were Max Clifford and Rolf Harris not harrassed then 24/7? I can assure you they were, your comments are ridiculous. They were harrassed every single day by masses of reporters.
The public know why, he is a political prisoner. Irrespective of your political views, a Citizen has a right to protest against Rape, call out the perpetrators, and highlight the covering up by the authorities. That is a democratic right in all democratic civilized nations. When that right is removed, then democracy has failed. Using technicalities to put a citizen in prison, with clear political overtones highlights more cover ups.
He is bullshit speaker, never shows any facts, just plane Neo Nazi hate preaching! He has a long list of convictions and is a liar and fascist ... he deserves more
I guess you’re not from England then. That’s obviously not their system. But it’s easy to want to be full of outrage and conspiracies about coverups, that’s just how they do it over there.
I would say yes Tommy Robinson was being persecuted for standing up for these victims which the police and the government already knew about but we’re afraid of the race card so you need to ask the question The rape of young children mainly little white girls or upset in the Muslim community I know which I would’ve picked And all I will say thank God for someone like Tommy Robinson
Pete Mclovins Yaxley is not the victim here, but nothing I or anyone else will convince you otherwise, or am I wrong at assuming you have totaly made your mind up on this? Reporting restrictions were in place to ensure a fair trial, once the trial was over those reporting restrictions were removed. Would you be happy if that EDL pedo who got done a couple of years ago had been exposed to a trial by media or trial by law?
You lot need to study English contempt law, Jesus fucking Christ... Tommy Robinson's been running his gob for years, nae problems, then gets done for jeopardizing criminal trials.The biggest irony is that if we didn''t have laws like this, aforementioned Muslim child molesters' trials could have collapsed, and they wouldn't have faced justice. Tommy Robinson risked keeping Muslim child molesters on the street, and if you're too dumb to understand that, you're a fucking eejit.
AntiSatori Records There were other journalists there too. Why didn’t they suffer the same fate? If you can’t see that Robinson’s imprisonment was purely political, it’s you who’s the ‘eejit.’
Dr Watson I know the channel 4 is super left wing but on this video I think they covered it rather unbiased like. Facts and laws are clear and Tommy already being convicted of this, he seems pretty silly to be honest to even attempt it.
Dr Watson: Did you notice, the direction in which the information was heavily slanted; Example: Tommy Robinson is no stranger to jail. Mortgage Fraud, Passport tampering, ect. Leaving out any suggestion that he was hounded by UK authorities, it is not like anyone was defrauded of money, during the mortgage irregularity, or that for him to go to the US and give a speech, on the effects of Muslim migration, that he had to resort to using a dodgy passport. The political establishment, of the UK, has been subverted by people with a deep understanding of human behaviour, the mind, and the psyche, the people funding their work, getting it into the press, schools and politics are the Islamist's, be it Quatar, Saudi's, United Nations, Muslim Brotherhood ect Neuro - Linguistic - Programing is a way of understanding people's behaviour patterns, and then influencing their behaviour. As a way of gaining power over them or others. You see the press at it all the time; with their constant attacks on Christianity and never publishing anything that is critical of Islam, rather what they do is the opposite; misnaming Islamic Terrorism so as to prevent people from picking up on the meaning of the attack, it is not these acts were carried out by some bad people who happen to be Muslim, no they are the result of people believing in a bad religion, who carry out the instructions given in that religion. It's the same case with the Muslim Gangs of Mass rapists, targeting children, not Muslim girls, no it is the daughters, sisters of the Kafir, that they rape. (Kafir a Muslim term for unbeliever.)
He did not break the law at all and never has only been persecuted. Look up the last 100 contempts of courts in the UK everyone did it 100 times not just 2 like tommy and all got away with it or nothing like 13 months. He is politcal prisoner
If people bothered actually doing some research into the law & legal procedures (instead of just believing half baked rumours they hear on the internet) they would learn that it's actually NOT 'illegal' for a judge to preside over a 'contempt of court case' in which they have been the witness to the contempt of court being committed.
I am so angry at UK.. And this man standing there and tolk about wrong and right for jailing Tommy.... Tommy is a hero, this man sucks..... Can he not see his country going down..... In jail for 13 monts for telling people whats going on in there country, its crazy.... Nobobdy is safe then...... Free Tommy Robinson, he is Our voice.....
Social media is a two way street Channel 4. How about some of your over paid employees actually engage with your audience to address their concerns and provide further journalistic integrity to your report? This is your opportunity to win people to your side of the story, but your silence is indicative of you serving a narrative instead of your viewers. In these forums it is pretty clear you realize your narrative is slowly unraveling and you haven't even provide any further evidence to help us view you in a positive light. Now might be your last chance to join the people before they turn on you for good...
"When you film live outside of courts with the families of the victims walking past, you risk exposing those victims identities who, as you know are children." thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
So are you proposing that the judge was afraid Tommy would film those families/victims on purpose? What about the other people who had their mobile phones on? What about the people who filmed Tommy's arrest? It seems like the law wasn't evenly applied in this situation.
Fair enough. After all if a guy can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet (see Count Dankula case), I can see why it's important to jail someone for videoing/posting the stories that the lamestream media won't cover.
You miss the point. The actions of TR could have prejudiced the next trial on this case. Had that happened there would have been a mistrial. What would the supporters of TR have said if the trial collapsed?
He pleaded guilty thinking he would get a fine like all other journalists for the same offence. That part of his character, belief that justice must prevail, is why so many people love him.
Emilovius He didn’t plead guilty, that’s why he appealed and won the case. You’re confusing this with the first case. Here’s a link that’ll help you understand. ua-cam.com/video/Nui1dITSJYM/v-deo.html
You wouldn't dare put the head of Sadiq Khan on a pike and put it into a corner of a building as a warning to Muslims, Remainers, the Media such as channel 4 and Climate activists, would you?
What a hatchet job. What would you expect from channel 4? This is exactly why people are switching off from mainstream media. Look at the dislike bar. People are sick of your agendas
I hope the 3k plus people who disliked this video will try to get to Whitechapel tomorrow for the #freetommy march. If we all stand together, with respect, dignity and conviction, the powers that be will feel the power they crave slipping away ✌🏻❤️
georg I agree, I don’t think it will change a great deal. Not immediately anyway. But all revolutions and landmarks throughout human history started with a tiny spark, that captivated and grew. I just want to be able to tell my future children/grandchildren that I was on the right side of history, and fought for what I believed in. The same way my great grandfather imparted on me when he fought in the war.
there was other media reporting but police went for him, why? we all know the main media and goverment want him out the way. see you the 9th june. free tommy robinson
Why? Because they gave a damn about the right to a fair trial? Oh, and journalists might have been there, maybe even recording footage to use when the reporting restriction was finally lifted, but they weren't live-streaming it in the middle of the trial. What did Channel 4 get wrong, exactly?
Well, now you've have time to look back at what you presented here, which you framed as being a well research and unbiased look at the case. You know see what you did? a) you failed to look at what paragraphs of law related to what information can reporting be restricted on... The law clearly states that if it's in the public domain then it can't be restricted... Tommy knew this as he had legal advice to avoid contempt, so he only talked about things already in the media. You could have just watched the livestream. b) You didn't investigate the actual case, Tommy didn't plead guilty, he wasn't given a chance to enter any plea, and it's highly unusual to be arrested and sentenced to prison within 5 hours! Everyone knows that! Especially for reporting, which no one has gone to prison for since WW2! Surely you can look back at this now and see what you did? The case was thrown out on appeal and the prosecution described as a 'fundamentally flawed process' by that judge. c) then you turn this into freedom of speech issue, which isn't what I see anyone doing, it's about law. Tommy knew the law, and followed it. He says in the livestream several times that he understands why they couldn't try 29 defendants at once. He got, we get it. Don't act like his supporters are so stupid that we think it's just not being allowed to say what you want... Then we have the matter of the retrial... where the contempt came down to intimidating the defendants, not the actual reporting at all. And they took a line clearly out of context to use. Just watch the livestream, Tommy didn't threaten anyone! We have eyes and ears! If you don't see how bad a piece this was now, well, maybe there's no hope. But this will be looked back on as disinformation, poorly researched, but well prejudiced and biased.
"Here is what we want you to think." - Channel 4 News
Zia Smith you fucking weirdo
@Zia Smith I'm more interested in finding your address. I'm hoping to meet you very soon...
@Ian Murray LOL!! You assume much young Jedi. You know what happens when we A.S.S. U. M.E. don't you? Regardless, male or female, I can't help but think it to be a lively chat...
@Ian Murray Try me.
@Ian Murray Besides. Aren't you a believer in women's equality? Sexist neanderthal...
How about the fact that the sentence that sent tommy to prison, has been ruled illegal.... did you report this channel 4 ?
No it hasn’t.
mikael englund lol the only thing fake is Tommy Robinson’s name.
Tommy Was And IS!! Highlighting a Very serious and Threatening Problem to The UK and The WORLD!!! Allan's SNACK BAR!!!! FREE TOMMY NOW!
@Will Derby No that's a lie.
@Will Derby Just because media parrot the same thing doesn't mean it's the truth. The judges involved in that part of the "case" say otherwise.
Nobody should ever be jailed for standing on a sidewalk in front of a courthouse unless the government is tyrannical.
That is objectively not what he was arrested for
Big Pun No. He was arrested for endangering the trial of a group of rapists by breaching a judicialy imposed Reporting restriction, making it harder for them to be convicted for the disgusting crimes they committed
He was previously given a warning for doing the exact same thing, he broke that warning and pleaded guilty for contempt of court
He was NOT "standing on a sidewalk in front of a courthouse".
He harassed people entering the court and livestreamed it, which is Contempt of Court!
+Tom Langford
He wasn't endangering anything, they had already been sentenced.
You don't arrest people for reporting on that unless you really hate basic human rights
Tetemovies4 They hadn't been sentenced.
The muslims he spoke to respectfully outside court had already been convicted. He couldn't have possibly unhinged any proceedings...
Just to correct. The verdict had already been reached, but the defendants or Tommy didn't know that as they were arriving that day to hear the verdict.
@SamS If you look at the judgement that wasn't really the angle they charged Tommy on. It wasn't about releasing restricted information by reporting, as he didn't do that. It was by being there reporting 'in general' - but the main contempt was intimidating the defendants and causing them anxiety.
You might hear this linked trial thing in the media a lot, but it didn't play a major factor, as the verdict had been arrived at, and he didn't release any information. The trials went ahead as planned. Many times main stream media has released information that blatantly broke the restrictions and actually collapsed the trial, at huge expense and distress, such as in the Milly Dowler case. Only fines we issued for that which set a precedent. If they wanted Tommy locked up they had to take the intimidation route.
I studied the case for a university project, that's why I know the details. I'm neutral, and I'd say that this was extremely rough justice for Tommy. And he has no chance of appeal as it was the first ruling by a new High Court judge. No chance her peers will overrule that decision. They had to find him guilty or Tommy would be able to sue the state for wrongful imprisonment, which the couldn't face... So he was found guilty before this re-trial started. It's not a good moment in our rich legal history.
A breath of intelectual fresh air ....good comment ... what you say is fact what C4 say is wrong as it omits context. Why is it far right to object to organised child rape by a clearly defined group of adherents to a Middle Eastern Faith?
GREAT COMMENT LORRAINE
Makes no difference. The reporting ban ends when the court says, not Alias Tommy Robinson.
Looked a bit uncomfortable reporting that mate. Is it because you missed most of the story out to keep your job?
Stuntman Mike...Words Well Spoken My Friend...Words Well Spoken.
Sounds like propaganda to me!
Well, if you're too thick to understand a careful explanation of the law of our country, there's not much hope for you.
two things wrong with this, firstly you said that they had ruled that journalist weren't allow to report on the trial until after the jury had reached a verdict, This was a sentencing hearing they had already reached a verdict. Secondly you said he gave his opinion on the defendants, which he didn't he read out the charges that they were facing and added allegedly, admittedly he did get some of them wrong and this was the whole reason he was in contempt of court. But a mistake IMO is not worth 13 months in prison and not being given a fair trial, rushed though court in 5 hours not even given a chance to consult with his own attorney. Please, wake up mate!
It isn't one trial. The temporary reporting restriction covers ALL the trials until they are concluded.
He harassed people entering a court, that is Breach of the Peace. Livestreaming it is Contempt of Court.
He did not receive 13 months, he received 10 months. The 3 months were due to him already being on a suspended sentence for Contempt of Court. Since the maximum is 24 months, then 10 months is reasonable.
It was not a trial, it was a hearing and it was not rushed. Contempt of Court hearings take place on the day of arrest. He pleaded guilty and was represented by a senior Barrister of 16 years experience defending serious crimes such as rape and murder.
Before telling others to "wake up" you may wish to establish the facts.
I don't see how a reporting restriction covering all trial would make sense as the 3 stages are decoupled, at each stage the defendants of that stage are tried and sentenced/not sentenced. It also wouldn't matter as I am not arguing against the contempt of court.
Didn't argue against either breach of the peace or the Contempt. But he was only sentenced based on his previous suspended sentence and the Contempt. Also livesteaming on its own isn't contempt, it's what was said that makes it contempt.
yes he did get 10 months for this offence, no one really reports the exact specified why it was considered contempt of court. Ie an actual action or a phase he said. From the best I can make out its from him reading out the charges of the defendants and getting them wrong which if watched by the jury may bias there decision. If you could provide more light on what he actually said that lead to the judgement I would appreciate it.
IMO it is rushed, why was it so important to get it done on the day, The police have powers to hold him if they are worried about what he would do on bail. At least he would have time to prepare a proper defence.
The trials are not for the same defendants. If a guilty verdict was announced for the first then counsel would argue that the trial of the later defendants was prejudiced by the guilty verdict of the earlier trial for the other defendants facing the same charge.
It was livestreaming, which is Contempt of Court for *THIS* case due to the reporting restriction on publishing before ALL the trials are concluded. He pleaded guilty.
It was not rushed. As I have already stated, Contempt of Court hearings take place on the day of arrest, this is normal and he pleaded guilty so there was no need for preparation of a defence.
They have already announced the verdicts of the second trial, does that predicate the third?
What are the exact words he said that were considered contempt of court?
He pleaded guilty under the attorney appointed by the court, he might not of given the chance to converse with his own attorney.
@@fredbloggs8034 Wrong in many ways, he never got the chance to plead at all. That is why he was released.
A court judge said there would have been no way he could have affected the trial seeing as it had concluded at an earlier date.
Name the judge that said that.
A one sided story of course, but what do you expect from Channel 4. No fair debate of course, just Channel 4 and their stooges. The same old same old!
That's why it's called fake news my friend.
It had nothing to do with freedom of speech:
watch?time_continue=366&v=jys7jbVccrU
Does your head in the way they are struggling to tell it as they say it is by law and trying to make it look like the law itself isnt flawed in any way
Same with right wing outlets, no debates same old same old
He was sentenced to 13 months without having access to his own lawyer and without a jury.
It was a Contempt of Court hearing where he pleaded guilty. No trial required.
He had a barrister of 16 years experience in defending serious crimes such as rape and murder.
So someone can be sentenced to 13 months in prison without a trial if the offence relates to Contempt of Court? I highly doubt that is true.
If they pleaded guilty at the hearing, which he did, then yes. There is no need for a trial, pretty obvious really.
Well if someone pleads guilty then a trial is still required.
Nope, not at a Contempt of Court hearing.
At 6:33 the journalist claims that "there was never a media blackout on Robinson's conviction, in fact it took a real journalist to fight for the restrictions on Robinson's case to be lifted"
Isn't this statement self-contradictory? If there was no blackout why would anyone need to fight for the restrictions to be lifted?
Are you gullible? or just one of the dumb down masses?
Instead of presenting the FACTS, they start by attacking him...
Facts here means tommy's propaganda so no
@@ThatGuy-lv7hf Lol, I guess that facts bother you so you just choose to call them propaganda.
@@nrqed no , i dont. im calling out lies that is called facts by some loony. not worth debating a tommy fan though the'yre as dense as commies
When adult males of any colour or religion rape a child, it should be on the front page of every newspaper everywhere. Cliff Richard was all over the press and he didn't even go to court. Tommy Robinson is not the issue here for me. The protection of child rapists (of whatever religion or colour) disgusts me. The council and police in Rotherham and Rochdale covered up what was going on for 40 years and yet still nobody is allowed to talk about it. D-notices are served to not prejudice the case? Why? I don't even like Tommy Robinson, but why are we not protecting our children. The press have totally missed the boat on this one. Tommy Robinson isn't the issue here. The silence of our press and total failure to protect our children is. The protests won't end on this one in my opinion and the UK media are as much to blame as TR himself. The left are screaming Nazi and racist, the right are screaming martyr and champion of freedom of speech....Nobody is talking even 1% enough about the fact that children are being repeatedly raped....Keyboard warriors all....conscience nobody.
yeah it's not like the BBC was heavily criticised for that or anything, nah
I only put Rotherham and Rochdale in as examples and I never mentioned race or ethnicity, which doesn't interest me at all. You say you and Tommy as if we are one and the same? Personally, I don't see colour or religion, only good or bad and there are plenty of both in all societies. I only care that the press are avoiding issues that people really care about, leaving more extreme people to be the voice of said issues. I'm not on anyone's side. I only care that children are in danger and not enough is being done to highlight the fact, or to protect them.
The reality is that the majority of grooming gangs are white, but Mr Yaxley-Lennon is only interested in the brown ones. That's the issue here. He has never been interested in the abuse and exploitation of children, except when there's some profit in it for himself. He's making a great deal of money out of this stuff.
Channel 4 have completely missed the point on this one. The anger and support for Tommy isn't about what happened on that day in isolation, this sentiment has been building for years, and this incident is just a trigger. It's building precisely because of the way Channel 4, and ALL other mainstream media organisations have such a "liberal" agenda. You're ideologically driven, to the point where vast swathes of this country feel they are unable to even mention concerns they have about current social issues without being shouted down. How else could no one, and that's literally no one, in the entire establishment and mainstream media, not have seen the Brexit vote going the way it did? Why, because you're totally out of tune with the electorate, because you won't let ordinary people voice their opinions, because you're so certain you're right. Continue to ignore and shut down, it won't end well. You need to be a lot more responsible - you're actually causing the issues here.
ua-cam.com/users/redirect?q=https%3A%2F%2Fthesecretbarrister.com%2F2018%2F05%2F25%2Fwhat-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson%2F&redir_token=DyXOsJD8O-W_ZcupLZcLQCAbglB8MTUyODUyMTA0MUAxNTI4NDM0NjQx&event=comments
You're obviously quite ignorant of how the judicial system works in our country. Lennon committed two crimes and now faces justice. Long overdue.
TMan786 That's fine. But as I said this isn't just about Tommy's arrest. Did you not get that from what I wrote?
The reason why to experts failed to predict the results of the 2015 General Election and the EU referendum is because many people in Britain long ago became very wary about volunteering their true opinions to strangers. That's the kind of country we've become.
This is not me taking position on anything, just asking questions:
1. The media, BBC among them, had already reported on the crimes and named all the defendants, despite the reporting restrictions
2. There are several other recordings of the proceedings outside this court on the very same trial at earlier stages far, far more aggressive where defendants are named, shown pictures of, and where protestors are screaming in anger at them as they walk in. And the police is present. Why is this okay, while Robinson's rather mundane footage is problematic?
3. Is it the media's responsibility to prevent the jury from being prejudiced when the cost is a limit on free speech (yes, restrictions on reporting is a limitation on free speech) - this would never happen in the US. Following this logic, it would be impossible to have *any* trial with prominent figures. It would be impossible to have had OJ's trial.
4. isn't it problematic that someone can be arrested and have the media being prevented by government to report on it?
5. How often are people given a 10 month sentence on contempt (not counting the 3 months from the previous sentence)?
TrailersFromHell the trail was already concluded. The rapists were already found guilty and were turning up for sentencing.
Stuart Oswald nope, the case was and still is active.
Number 4 is my biggest concern, they jailed him in secret. Why but more importantly how? Who gives these powers to the judges, I think laws need to change.
Danny Brook nope. The video explains this
you do understand Tommy was very biasedly reporting on it? cool, so this is the problem he is publicly reporting on a court trial with an obvious bias that can influence the jury and if it seems that that the jury have been influenced by material outside of the evidence given to them the defendants can claim that they have been given an unfair trial because it is outside information not directly pertaining to evidence provided in the case. Tommy has previously been done for contempt of court he knows how it works. this law has been the case for years and years without much slipery slope it maintains that every case is fair and the jury is impartial while the case is ongoing. he plead guilty
Instead of protecting him because he's telling the truth, they lock him up, twisted world
Del Boy how
@@del2665 Lol it looks like YOU didn't understand a simple word. They were asking how is he a "habitual criminal"? Meaning: What did he do that makes you call him that???...
This hasn't aged well lol, seeing as it turned out Tommy WAS wrongfully imprisoned.
@Bill Murray from The Man Who Knew Too Little
They were trying to slience him!
And now it’s going to happen again
This comment hasn't aged well. The retrial showed that Tommy WAS rightfully imprisoned.
Nope. He got out on appeal under a technicality, pending a retrial. Retrial happened, still guilty. Back to chokey he goes! 👍
@@oldieal7032 that's a lie, sorry.
But didn't Tommy just talk about details that were already out in the public domain due to the national press?
He did nothing more, nothing less.
Yes.
@@iexist6021they wanted to make an example out of him, they don't want a bunch of Tommys filming outside their court house
Sorry, no one's buying this
People who understand the law are.
@@alexanderchan76 I understand that they'll use it where they can and break it where they can't if you believe otherwise because you're a law student or something only time will wake you up.
Leng
@Hugh Mungus
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-guilty-prison-contempt-edl-old-bailey-protests-a8990256.html
fucking OOPS
@@oldieal7032 OOPS - it shows the criminal justice system is deeply corrupt and the law of rule no longer exists in the UK, especially for independent journalists exposing Muslim child gr00ming and r-p- gangs. It was a political trial driven by the Attorney General, a Cabinet Minister appointed by the pandering and treacherous Theresa May, known for her stupidity. It is an attempt to stamp down on speaking the truth. Sadly, bringing in the third world, Britain is starting to become the third world, with its associated corruption and cronyism.
Wow, this is absolutely crazy propaganda...
You can REPORT Channel 4 propaganda with the 3 dots to the right as this is spam/misleading information
Jan A. Kozák 500000 facist’s 🤦♀️
You wouldn't dare put the head of Sadiq Khan on a pike and put it into a corner of a building as a warning to Muslims, Remainers and Climate activists, would you?
Anything you don't like is propaganda. Hurts you sensitive Right-wing snowflakes.
Fais attention ce que tu as écrit, sinon j'appelle la police sur toi. Est-ce c'est clair ?
Une chose, L'insurrection contre les États-Unis en Janvier le 6 est ta faute et celle de tes théories de complots. Les menaces de mort contre Klaus Schwab, le FEM doivent être arrêtés immédiatement ou j'appelle la police.
Look at the dislike bar Channel 4. Time to switch on and stop spouting your ideology, and instead start discussing the truth.
CrusaderZav: They are a media company, bud. They will add the like and dislike bar and see if any advertiser's (how they are funded) are at all interested.
They're wide awake, am afraid.
Lies by omissions beyond belief.
There were actual threats yelled at Tommy right in front of the police and they did nothing, but then arrest him for breaching the peace. Curiously, all while the judge can be seen watching the arrest together with a bunch of policemen from the courthouse.
Also using your arguments about the legality of things, one could also argue that all the convictions done in the soviet union were all perfectly fine, because they followed their own laws...
In Tommy's case, there were clearly abusing certain laws in order to get him to shut up. Have you seen the testimony of one of the whistle-blowers about these child-rape/prostitution-rings and their protection by police and politicians?
This is poor reporting. Robinson didn’t state anything on his live stream that hadn’t already been put into the public domain by the BBC. He was very careful to refer to the defendants as “alleged rapists” instead of just “rapists”. At no point did Robinson enter court property, he remained outside. He was informed by police at the scene that he was allowed to film. He was arrested under the false charge of “breach of the peace”, not contempt of court. The judge that sentenced Tommy also bore witness to the alleged crime which is not allowed under U.K. law and should have voided the trail. The length of the sentence handed to Robinson was unprecedented in comparison to the actual “crime”. And most importantly the Jury had already reached a verdict, this was a sentencing hearing to determine sentences only, it’s pretty hard to influence a jury that have already declared their decision. I’ll be the first to say I don’t necessarily agree with everything Robinson says or believes, but regardless of your opinion of the man this was gross misconduct at best. I’d like to think that you have missed out this information entirely by accident and therefore am hoping that you rectify your mistake at your earliest convenience. We wouldn’t want anybody thinking that this was some kind of biased propaganda now would we, channel 4.
He committed his second contempt of court.
TMan786 if you say so pal
TMan.....so according to you he should be being 'hung by the neck' in public......is contempt of court 'worse than' rape, or CONCEALING the harm/rape of girls
Nicely worded
Well said. Nothing in the article was actually untrue - except "the Far right" bit, but it is being INCREDIBLY selective with the facts and with the narrative. MSM is dying. RIP and good riddance.
Contempt of court is usually settled with a fine , not solitary confinement. End of story.
Christian Dowell It was the second time he had done it. Since he was under suspended sentence it was inevitable he would be jailed. As was explained in the film.
@@iangascoigne8231 so why was he released early!
@@del2665 And you are a liar!
ruth bashford He was originally released on appeal on a technicality because it was deemed that the Judge hadn’t followed the correct procedure. Then it went back to court and he was sent back to prison to serve his original sentence as he should. If he’d done this after the time period of the suspension had expired he may not have gone to prison at all. I don’t even know if he’s still in prison if he has been released early it will be because of good behaviour. Not because of some imagined miscarriage of justice. If prisoners behave unless it’s a serious crime it’s rare for them to serve more than half their sentence. As I said in my original comment, if you watch the film it’s all explained. But since you obviously worship at the alter of St Stephen Yaxley-Lennon you won’t believe it.
@@del2665, this is a slander. Yes, he broke the law (nothing really serious) but in these days it is almost a badge of honor since so many criminals (slander is a criminal offence) walk around free and write nonsense on You Tube..
Can't get more Fake propaganda than this
True true but what is real propergander?
Why is it propaganda?
Far as I can research, it's all perfectly true.
@@AbCdEfGhIjKlMnO1987 in light of the recent information that has come out do you still think this?
What is fake about it? Instead of namecalling provide sensible facts.
I'm not a fan of Tommy Robinson at all. He is like a bull in a china shop and shouldn't have been where he was. My misgivings are the double standards in reporting cases. We all saw the helicopter footage of police raiding Cliff Richard's house and searching through his belongings on merely allegation? Why should some in court be protected? Why shouldn't this be massive news? Why shouldn't parents of other children in the area where the accused were said to have operated, have full disclosure of this case and be able to take extra precaution to protect their children. Whether you're a supporter of Robinson or not, reporting restrictions on some but not others does not and never will sit right with me and this is why we finish up with people like Robinson and Farage raising issues that people are genuinely worried over. Then the media goes into full attack about racism, xenophobia and right wing nutters. Go to towns like Rochdale and Rotherham and ask people there. Whether you are right or left, somehow something just doesn't seem right about the whole thing.
Because when you film live outside of courts with the families of the victims walking past, you risk exposing those victims identities who, as you know are children.
thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
I'm not talking about whether he's guilty or not. I don't care about him at all. I care about important issues not being reported on properly.
ua-cam.com/video/O7P7ih1GuuQ/v-deo.html
Same as my answer below. I care that issues are not being reported on. Evidence can be given on tv screens by victims and families can watch on live news feeds without attending. I care much more about this.
ua-cam.com/video/O7P7ih1GuuQ/v-deo.html
Ofcourse you'll not be a fan of him.. He is exposing true face of your religion to the world...
Now for your next video: Tommy Robinson has been released from prison & this is why.
They never made that video, can't think why!
Stephen is now back on trial and there is every chance that he will be back in prison in no time. He nearly jeopardized the trial and nearly brought about the release of the paedophiles, which is why I find it ironic that you lot are supporting him. Do you also want to see the paedophiles released?
@@TheTruth-uy4kp Thats just not true. He was filming outside the court case and live-streaming it openly breaking the law which says that judges, defendants and witnesses cannot be filmed within certain parameters of the court.
The uproar would have been big, but it would have only been down to Stephen himself. For the defendants would have argued that everything was biased against them and that they didn't get a fair trial. Everything would have been thrown out, the victims wouldn't have seen justice served with orders of a new trial at the expense of taxpayers, the victims and the public in general. As part of fair trials, we don't allow broadcasting of certain cases so as to not bias the jury. Forensics do't matter so long as it looks like the jury is being biased.
Stephen didn't "expose" anything. He merely broke the law. The people who exposed it were the victims and the Lawyers who worked tirelessly to see that this was put to a stop. This also includes the judge who imprisoned Stephen.
I seriously suggest you watch this video. It's obvious that you far right people just don't know how the law works. Also, you do know that the ring leader in this case was a Sikh right?
He did exactly what all the mainstream reporters have done to him outside his court case with reporting restrictions, mainstream news was daily comentating online when they shoudlnt trying to demonise tommy, tommy had cameras in his face as he left his court case whilst being asked about the case, with reporting restrictions, will itv reporters get solitary confinement?.. No..anyone exposing mass rape gangs is a hero, sort ur fukin head out lol
Far right ahahaha. This guy must work for bbc
Keep it up Tommy , there's more people out there supporting you than you realize , proud of you Tommy .
Nah, UK has support umeted when everyone learnt what a scammer he was
@@stoufer2000mi5Agent. Hes not even getting arrested. Like actors. Fools believe anything.
*WHY DID CHANNEL 4 NOT REPORT ON THE TWO JOURNALISTS DETAINED FOR WANTING TO COME INTO THE COUNTRY TO SPEAK TO TOMMY?*
🇬🇧 #FreeTommy 🇬🇧
Shut up
@@connorthebigman6824 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻good argument....🙄
I don't trust any of this.
I don’t trust a guy who harasses people outside of mosques
Louis Young Don't!
Why not? Cus it doesn’t fit with what you want to believe?
Does the UK allow / respect free speach? So what did Tommy actually do that compromised the trial? He didn't report details of the trial.
it does allow free speech(not in the same manner as the US though) however as was outlined, Tommy attended as a reporter - and as such was subject to the same constraints as other reporters who were also there. Had he kept his mouth shut for a little while longer, this whole situation wouldnt exist.
He pleaded guilty. if you or anyone still think he's innocent you are beyong stupid.
New Thought interesting. Have you ever heard “Miscarriage of Justice”? You live in the La La land. You are too innocent to this real world. Kid. The world is way darker than your unicorn imagination. child rape gang leader 3 years but report it 13 months? do you feel innocent now?
Miscarriage of Justice?
He was already on a suspended sentence for Contempt of Court then did it AGAIN!
New Thought Since he wasn't allowed to call his own lawyer and made do with a court appointed one who told him to plead guilty so he could get out and get his lawyer to work things out, I would perhaps say it was a set up.
I thought the grooming gang had already been found guilty and were there that day to be sentenced?
Yes, so did I. Therefore it wasnt contempt of court
Yes they had ,So this guy is fake news
Sentencing is still part of the trial, dipshit.
Exactly disgusting how he’s been treated , shame they don’t treat the scum bag pedos the same way
@@OneThousand98 whether sentencing is part of the trial or not tommy cant jeopardize the verdict when its already been giving, dipshit.
I absolutley disagree YOU ARE WRONG The public SAY YES you are wrong
Can you point out where the video is factually incorrect?
YEh as someone else said there were others videoing it nothing happened to them this CAME from the very TOP PM and Home Secretary they will rue the day they did this POLL TAX 2
Filming people entering a court is not Contempt of Court when done off the court grounds. So nothing would happen to them. Had Tommy Robinson only shot a video of them like the alleged others did, then he wouldn't be in prison.
So again, can you point out where the video is factually incorrect?
Fred Bloggs
The BBC had already reported on this case before Tommy did it. Tommy just did the same. He never entered the court building. The media ban came after Tommy was arrested.
The first time Tommy was arrested for contempt of court, he had been reporting on the case outside of the building, but still on the outdoor staircase towards the entrance of the building. His first conviction already was unfair.
Point me to the BBC report shouting "Got your prison bag ready, you're going to need it." How stupid can you get? He was on a suspended sentence of 3 months which would instantly come into force should he do this again. He did it again. Ape self-harms.
You could argue that idiots self-harming should be just thrown in jail earlier for protection from their own stupidity. I think you have to give them a chance to learn and when they don't, as Robinson didn't, then you throw the fools in jail. It's a burden on us all as tax payers and of course we'd rather not produce these idiots but sometimes incarceration is the only solution.
A courageous man was sentenced to death by immoral thugs and you are covering up for those thugs! Shame on you!
Who was sentenced to death? Wtf?
This is a myth: the popular claim is that the prison he has been put in has a 71% muslim population.
Official prison reports show that the muslim population in the prison is 13% and the population of white british prisoners is 67.7%. The rest are from black or ethnic minority backgrounds but are not muslim.
This can be read and verified at the justice . gov . uk website for the Leicester prison.
His life is not at risk.
Sarcasm ?
Not sure who you mean, but to me a thug is a person who uses bullying tactics to get his way yet when accused claims free speech.
V 0 1 D Muslim individuals and/or muslim prison gangs will kill him. That is certain.
He received a sentence for "commiting journalism".
That's a tshirt, babes. That's not what actually happened.
CONTEMPT..... OF..... COURT....
There was a court order not to report prejudicially on an ongoing court case and he reported prejudicially on an ongoing court case... he confronted the accused (no thanks to Tommy Robinson they have now been found guilty) and called them child rapists on a live facebook feed. This has now been judged to be true by a court of law, but at that time was prejudicial!
That is CONTEMPT OF COURT!
Tommy's actions could have easily led to a conviction of these paedophiles being overturned.
@@alexc1105 He asked them "how did they feel about the verdict". The Convicted rapists going in to face sentencing answered back that they would rape and kill his mother.
The case had ENDED
What a disgraceful propaganda piece! It tries to suggest impartiality but intentionally ignores key aspects: while the jailing of Tommy Robinson *could* be seen as in line with a harsh interpretation of contempt law, the length of the sentence and the summary way in which it was imposed are clearly evidence of bias. It can also be argued that contempt did not *have* to apply and that while Robinson took a risk here, his behavior does not necessarily have to be seen as contempt, which reinforces the idea that his sentencing ws unduly harsh and evidence of bias.
"The Secret Barrister" as a source? This is your idea of news? :D
Here's my response to his article:
*1. It starts by framing, which is always a good sign of "fair" reporting.* Tommy isn't a fraudster. He got convicted for lending money to his brother-in-law after the government started looking for anything to silence Tommy. The brother in-law used the loan for a self-certification mortgage application to make it appear like he had more money than he actually had. There was no victim in this "crime", nobody lost any money, the mortgage was paid back in full and nobody gets an 18 months prison sentence for just lending people money when there aren't even any damages.
Tommy made the guilty plea when they threatened to drag his wife into court and charge her with the "crime". You know there are threats against Tommy's life and he frequently gets assaulted on the streets? He has been very careful to keep his wife's face out of the media (yeah, there's no ban on taking photos when Tommy is in court), so instead of letting her face become public, he took the hit on himself and made a guilty plea without fighting the case in court. This is some top notch victim blaming - using the government's persecution as a permanent mark against someone.
*2. "there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case"*
Wrong, all of the mainstream news sites covered it. They released the names, charges, street names, photos and videos of the defendants without suffering any legal ramification. Where do you think Tommy got his information in the first place? He wasn't in the courtroom.
*Google:* mirror 27 men and two women appear in court charged with string of offences
*3. "his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across"*
Again, no bias there, obviously. Tommy is not a racist, some of his best friends are black and he has stepped out against Islam in defense of black people. He only opposes Islam, which is not a race (as evidenced by the white and ginger Muslims for example), nor just a religion, but also a totalitarian political ideology. He had his Jewish friends protesting for him in Israel, he had 560+ thousand people signing a petition in his support. Are they all knuckle-dragging racists? Ex-Muslims, Sikhs and black people are speaking out for Tommy. Look at his Oxford University speech if you've bought the mainstream lies.
*Google:* Tommy Robinson - Main Speech OxfordUnion
*4. "Robinson was arrested outside Leeds Crown Court having video recorded a number of men"*
Yeah, just like mainstream media had recorded these same men before. In fact there's a video of people shouting abuse and allegations at the same defendants at the same courthouse, in front of the police, and these people did not get arrested. Did they not affect the jury when the trial was just starting? Tommy waited until after the main part of the trial had concluded and he made sure to use the word "alleged" throughout his live stream and he also stayed off the court property, because these things got him into trouble the last time.
*Google:* SAS reporting outside Leeds Court - 29 in court over 170 charges
*5. "his actions in broadcasting details about the trial were in breach of reporting restrictions."*
Are you joking? Reporting restrictions do not apply to information which is already in public domain (do you need more links to mainstream coverage?). The court records talk about Tommy listing the names and charges of the defendants. If anyone actually believes that the jury hadn't heard those details in court then they must be drunk. The narrative that this information could collapse the trial is beyond ridiculous.
"Trial judges have *no power* under s.4(2) to postpone publication of any other reports e.g. in relation to *matters not admitted into evidence* or *prejudicial comment* in relation to the proceedings.91 Likewise, courts have no power under s.4(2) to prevent publication of material that is *already in the public domain."*
"Section 4(2) is regularly invoked in cases involving *sequential trials.* The aim in those cases is to postpone the *reporting of specific parts of the evidence* in the first trial to prevent prejudice to the defendants in the second trial. It is generally not appropriate to invoke this power in relation to matters that form part of the evidence in both trials because in those cases *prejudice is unlikely to arise."*
*Google:* Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts April 2015
Tommy only reported basic information, which had been in the public domain since the very begging of the sequential trials. He didn't reveal any evidence from any of the trials, so prejudice is unlikely to arise from his reporting.
*6. "prohibition on taking photographs or moving images inside a court building"*
This is why Tommy stayed off the court property and out on the public streets.
*7. "expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants"*
No, Tommy made it very clear that the defendants had not been found guilty and he kept using the word "alleged".
*8. "risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings by jurors seeing or becoming aware of his ill-informed ramblings"*
What was ill-informed about listing out the names and charges of the defendants, which had been widely published (the names are even available in public court records)? Where's the risk in reading out widely published news?
*9. "this could have led to an application by the defence advocates to discharge the jury"*
And any court would laugh at such an application. If they didn't request the jury to be discharged over videos (yes, there are multiple such videos out there) of large crowds of people shouting obscenities at the defendants then why would they do so when Tommy only lists out the defendants' names and charges?
*Google:* LIVE with Ezra: SHOCK VIDEO shows other journalists filming same trial as Tommy Robinson
*10. "Yaxley-Lennon admitted that he was in contempt of court."*
Of course he did, because he was not allowed to contact a defender who's an expert in contempt of court law. Instead he was given some random pumpkin who didn't know anything about Tommy's legal background, the prior case against him, nor would he be specialized in this particular law. He would've almost certainly recommended Tommy to plead guilty to avoid the full 24 month sentence. Also, the judge admitted that he hadn't reviewed the full evidence and it doesn't seem that the defender had the time to do so as well. They weren't given the time to prepare a proper legal defense and generally these proceedings would take weeks, like they did last time.
Tommy believed that his actions were fully within the bounds of the law and the judge and defense hadn't reviewed the evidence, so nobody in the court would've had an exact understanding of what Tommy was guilty of when he entered the guilty plea. And yet, he had no options, because his accuser was also the one to pass judgment and he didn't have time to prepare a case nor a proper representative to advise and defend him. He was essentially in a kangaroo court where all he could do was to beg mercy. A guilty plea would normally get a lesser sentence, yet the judge slapped on a harsh 10 months sentence for repeating information from mainstream news.
*11. "Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar"*
Imagine the joy people feel when they're told that they have to settle for a court appointed defender, instead of being allowed to use their own lawyer. They all have years of experience in the courtroom, but would you really want them defending you if you could afford hiring an expert instead?
*12. "Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions."*
This is absolutely ridiculous. Tommy wasn't sharing any secret inside knowledge of the trials. He was reporting facts that the media had already widely published. The BBC (and other outlets) had in fact released the names, charges and street addresses of the defendants. This propagandist is flat out lying over and over again. Had he looked at the actual news articles, he would know that his statements were wrong and yet he still hasn't fixed the errors.
*Google:* BBC Huddersfield inquiry sees 29 in court
Contrarian, everyone who believes in evidence and reason is literally Hitler! :D
And then the next source LeedsLive complains that they ended up doxing the wrong address, because Tommy didn't disclose his real address in the courtroom. Are they for real? Tommy has a wife and children and many dangerous enemies. Don't these "journalists" have any conscience?
They even let it slip that they think that their actions could cause problems for people who's address they published.
"We have chosen to remove the incorrect address *with the current occupants of that property in mind."*
Thank you. That's a perfectly reasonable precis of the case. Ask C4 news if you can turn it into a presentation. A right to reply.
Excellent response
So how come 7 other reporters live streaming outside the court and filming the defendants walking into it were not arrested too ?
They were not prejudicial, and remained impartial!
GalacticWoman One reporter (an independent sihk man who's report is on youtube) actually called them "rapists"... didn't even use the word alleged which Tommy did. They also recorded during the trial and not after summary, again unlike Tommy who filmed on verdict day so could not have influenced that outcome.
Fact of the matter is Tommy has a huge audience in comparison to the others so needs shutting up according to the knobs of society.
Now that this has been highlighted though, the sihk reporters video has been seen over 30.000 times. Still no arrest. So all the Tommy haters saying he got what he deserves..... I call bullshit!! He's been treated unfairly and victimised otherwise others would have been arrested. FACTS... VERIFIABLE FACTS TOO.
GalacticWoman ua-cam.com/video/PsMWABPp7eU/v-deo.html
The people arguing they were not being prejudiced I don't think have looked at the evidence or the other streamers, they have made there mind up and just like the media wants will stick to there opinion even if better information arises to prove them wrong, pointless exercise mate even showing the guys name and link to his video won't be enough to change there mind. He was arrested for breach of the peace anyway not contempt of court as the jury had already made there decision so this video is misleading and incorrect, his appointed solicitor wanted him to plead guilty as believed this would likely lead to only a fine.
Noneofurbusiness ! How is it "predjucicial" (prejudicial*) when there is irrefutable evidence that there is a disproportionate amount of Muslims in rape grooming gangs? And also, irrefutable evidence that the state and the police were complicit in covering up this fact. That's not prejudice, that's POSTjudice.
Tommy is a legend!
Une légende vivante
Beaucoup d'entre nous en France aimons sont travail
Malheureusement il très compliqué de trouver ces vidéos traduit en français pour que je puisse les partager 😕
There is no misunderstanding at all. This was political.
of course no reporting restrictions on the like of Rolf Harris and others who had to endure a scrum of reporters on the way in to court
Those cases are one trial and one verdict at the end.
This is THREE trials dealing with the defendants from the same case. Once all THREE trials are concluded the reporting restriction is lifted.
Fred Bloggs No, they will still only report what the government will allow them to report.
It had nothing to do with freedom of speech:
watch?time_continue=366&v=jys7jbVccrU
And don`t forget when Cliff Richards was being arrested as it was happening the good old BBC had a helicopter up filming it all no restrictions there & it was all hearsay at the end of it all scandelous treatment
A friend of mine told me aboutl Rolf Harris 9 months before the British media were even allowed to write a word about it. MY mom refused to believe me until it made trial. :(
So, yes, there WAS reporting resrictions, you cockwomble.
And how did all the reporters work for Max Clifford? For a PR person, he was a complete tw*twaffle.
Perhaps the word 'News' should be removed from 'Channel 4 News'?
Replace the word News with Brainwashing for weak minded betas
God bless you Tommy Robison He's standing up for his Country the Sovereignty of his country and it's Citizens ! 💜💜💜💜💜💜
😂
Absolutely right.
He also make Christian look bad with his islamophobic act
Yeah.....good man
Lies, propaganda, slander......welcome to channel 4
“Lies, propaganda, slander” welcome to Steven/ Tommy talking about Muslims and the Quran.
1. The trial was over the verdict was given. 2. He wasn't taken to a police station and properly processed (illegal). 3. The judge witnessed the alleged contempt and then took the case. 4. He was denied access to his chosen lawyer and his lawyer was lied to and told he wasn't needed (illegal). The first thing his lawyer would've said would've been to request a recess to prepare a defence.
Further to my 4th point it is likely although can't of course be proved that his court appointed lawyer probably said "because of who u are I'm not going to bother defending u so u may as well plead guilty" or at least that's what I am alleging😀
Due process - the judge can't have bias...
20 years to bring pedephile gang rapists and 20 minutes to sentence a man who makes a facebook video outside a court about them, you really think that people will be ok with that? Tommy is a real hero, support from France!
Tommy was sent to prison for using words
True words
I don't notice you devoting a whole video to the subject of the grooming gangs ... smh :-(
Remember, grooming gangs is a government term to hide what is going on. Gangs that rape small children over and over again, is the term.
Oooh ... sorry ... Mr Pedantic ... smh :-(
Danny Loftus how many Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs are there? It’s only a “huge problem” because they’re not white. And what difference does it make that they’re related. The far-right need to learn to hate the act of grooming more than they do the nationality of the minority that do.
Stop using the sanitised term "grooming gangs", to do so is to play the politically correct language game to avoid the problem. The term is RAPE gangs. Their crime is mass repeated rape, gang rape, and false imprisonment of minors.
Charles Roberts
Bye bye Tommy.
Bye bye.
Bye bye Tommy.
Bye bye.
Judging by the comment section and the likes to dislikes, it appears your propaganda is failing.
Man Of Martin well said
Channel 4 is stating the truth. If you don't like it run along to your safe space.
TMan786 Are you deaf, dumb and blind?
TMan786 this news is old and outdated. They are behind the scoop. This is just spin.
There is no spin, they are literally stating the facts of the British judicial system. Please at least try to approach this from an objective point of view.
Let me summarize: the courts followed a law because there is no freedom of speech or press in the UK. Got it. #FreeTommy
Yes it's very strange how much they hate the guy feels like we live in Russia the way they try to shut him up and lock him away
Once you know who Channel 4 is run by, this kind of propaganda makes sense. (hint, its the UK government)
It's not.
Norton I go on then, who is it run by?
TheCausation tell me more!
"Welcome to so what, our show which spreads disinformation about the important issues that you need to be brainwashed about, for our benefit"
What part of that was disinformation???? Ur just mad that facts aren't on ur side
The right-wingers feel lost without the daily fake news of Britain First which has finally been closed. The majority of Tommy's followers are illiterate (can't even speak their own easy language properly 🙈😂), mentally naive and culturally clueless, yet they think they're the solution to this issue with their selective morals... they probably have a Jimmy Saville poster on their bedroom walls. 😂
Lewis Hagan
Bye bye Tommy.
Bye bye.
Bye bye Tommy.
Bye bye.
Actually it was Johnny Rotten and Glen Matlock.
Nature Wins when are you coming out?
The Cathy Newman interview made channel 4 internet famous, and they continue to show their true colour.
Yeah but lobsters
Yup them and all their lobsters are digging holes they'll never get out of.. look at the results of the munk debate
INFAMOUS!
How? By reporting the truth and exposing far-right conspiracy theorists?
Channel 4 actually broadcasts ISIS propaganda and I am not joking.
This is unbelievable, he’s been jailed for exposing establishment lies, he made a documentary that the regime wouldn’t let him show as it exposes their lies, we are officially a banana republic, let’s hope he doesn’t meet the same fate as Peter Lynch.
Why in the UK when the Rolf Harris trial. There was a circus media before, during and after the trial. Why didn't all those reporters go to jail? This Canadian very perplexed.
And cliff riichard raid. BBC same smear merchants .
Channel 4 should be utterly ashamed and embarrassed by the Cathy Newman Vs Peterson interview. Did that episode not highlight exceedingly clearly how far you've lost your way? Are alarm bells not ringing? You're a disgrace.
Choraldiscourse I'm not sure it is in its death throes? Every day there is more and more equalities bullshit being forced on our every day lives, it feels like it is in an ascendancy. Anyone who feels uncomfortable with it needs to voice their opposition imo...
Steve Thomas those 2 guys speaking look retarted .one with crossed blue eye and the other with a blank clone face .they are Clones...cant yu tell...robots!!
Whataboutery. Stick to the topic.
After the Jordan Peterson interview i think most people consider Channel 4 to just be propaganda.
Not trying to govern free speech but arresting and charging people for making comical jokes and skits online. The system has gone absolutely psychotic, they're actually thick. They think they are wise but by proclaiming to be they'e become stupid to the nth degree, that thing with Dankula on their part was pathetic.
You don't speak for "most people". Do you?
Its ran by the ex editor of the Guardian, what do you expect.
james gaskell Amen! Grossly biased to one side
Almost nonone even heard of Channel 4 outside of that shithole called Britain before the Peterson interview. That's all they were after anyway... exposure.
This is what happens when you show the state for what it is. They will go to any lengths to shut you up.
What a garbage lobster explanation. Simply calling it contempt of court doesn't make it contempt of court. You didn't go into the specifics of what Tommy said that crossed the line into contempt. Standing outside a court house with a camera is not contempt of court so what EXACTLY was in Tommy's live stream that could have negatively influenced a trial that was all but over? The defendants were there for sentencing at the END of the trial. I think its fair to assume the jury was well aware of the defendants names and what the charges were which is all the information I saw get released. What he reported was already in the public domain from other sources anyway. This is obviously a very heavy handed judicial over reach and abuse of power any way you slice it. You lobsters missed the entire point once again.
If this was a sentencing hearing as claimed, how can what Tommy did be construed as influencing a jury that has already deliberated and come to a verdict? Sure, you can throw someone in jail on a technicality but that doesn't make it right or just. We'll see what happens in his appeal but my guess is the basis for the contempt charge will be shown as hollow.
The only reason he was arrested is the same as why millions of people have been arrested and murdered during fascist and communist regime. For speaking his mind and poor little judge and leftist didn't agree.
There are a major number of problems with the reason to arrest and the sentencing.
The police arrested him for disrupting the public peace, no idea how or why if he was the only one talking and not asking others or intimidating people.
He then got sentenced on very different charges, contempt of court. Which is, so far I can think of, impossible when the case has served and a verdict is already made. Especially when they say contempt of court is about media attention during the court case.
Tommy Robinsons sentencing was unfairly in anyway. In this way you could say he was kidnapped by the government.
#FreeTommyRobinson
And he's out with the court of appeal noting the judges hasty conviction had "technical flaws" and the charge and sentence was thrown out. So I assume you believe Tommy's release and conviction overturn is wrong and Tommy should be thrown back in jail because of points 1 2 and 3? Or were you just "misconstruing and manipulating the narrative" when you made those points?
Well imagine my surprise. Tommy was rushed to trial, convicted and sent to prison without the court hearing any of the specifics in his live stream that broke the contempt of court threshold so he's free and his conviction is overturned. Good investigative reporting you did there Channel 4 [slow clap]
Well done. You nailed it with your comment a month ago.
#freetommyrobinson
Wait I get it.
1. Paint the Person in a cetain manner.
2. Lead the viewer to believe that he is a bad guy and has already been doing bad things.
3. Present twisted facts with opinions.
4. Divide things in spectrums.
5. Claim your Victory.
Tommy Robinson is innocent.
Also use the buzz term "Far Right."
Vinay Joshi Not an argument. Refute a detail they mentioned as misleading or misrepresenting.
Abhinav Anand I am not refuting any factual evidence that they present, they are simply twisting the facts to suit their narrative.
1. He was arrested on different grounds but was sentenced for something entirely different.
2. He was outside the court and not inside.
3. People are concerned because he was tried and sentenced immediately whereas factually many courts in London Don't punish Muslim culprits over long periods of time. A court even exonerated a muslim over a rape just because he said that his culture taught him that and he was not aware of British culture.
4. The police apprehended him quickly while they don't act immediately if the culprit is a muslim because of fear of being called Islamophobes.
5. This is entirely about free speech, which the video completely derails and leads somewhere else which was my initial point.
However he isn't innocent tho is he and pleading guilty to it might just state that you know.
Let’s be honest, that’s not why they jailed him, he challenged the narrative, raised issues which were being suppressed and paid with his liberty, his marriage, his two businesses, 7 houses and his reputation, re manufactured by the state to misrepresent him as a classic far right racist, rather than a non-political simple working class lad and critic of a specific religious ideology and the special treatment it received in his town and across the country, which lead to widespread victims. This case, regardless of your politics, should be taught in Journalism school, to show the clinical assassination which occurs when you challenge the official line. It is frightening how many haven’t even watched Mr Lennon’s Oxford Union address, let alone any of the excellent documentaries like Silenced on UA-cam or the Tankz, Anything Goes podcast. So many podcasts where he utterly destroys the fake strawman persona which the media has projected onto him. You’ll hear, “ EDL fight eachother”, but be never told that Tommy and many others were physically fighting real bonafide fascists, which is where one of his assault convictions comes from, literally, punching a Nazi. You’ll hear, convicted fraudster, but they won’t tell you, that when he refused to work for the intelligence services, they forensically investigated his whole family’s finances and found one had slightly exaggerated their income on a mortgage. They then threatened his pregnant wife with prison, if he didn’t accept jail, to silence him. There are so many dichotomous views like these, such as his family being doxxed by a lawyer, who hired a man to serve papers on him, who threatened to mince his children, on video. The police did nothing. The law society did nothing. But the story was reported as, Tommy harasses historian. You can’t quite imagine the Machiavellian evil which has twisted the public’s view of his beliefs and behaviour.
Who paid you to make this video? May herself? Or did the old boy network all chip in? And how about that guy from the home office they knicked the other day, his name and face is all over the media, will that stop justice being done?
Jas Ward: When tens of thousands march in support of overturning his conviction, perhaps it will?
Swift justice for the victims by jailing the man who reports on them? What about swift justice for the people who cover it up.
#CivilWar
Free Tommy Robinson!
Tommy was not in contempt of court. The rapists had been convicted. They were going to court to be sentenced. So, his actions could not affect a jury. The convictions had been reported by the British Broadcasting Company in the public domain. So, it was legal for Tommy to report the conviction and to question the rapist on their way to court. Journalists of the British Broadcasting Company routinely do exactly the same. The court did not follow the procedure for notifying reporting restrictions, probably because those restrictions were illegal. I am disgusted with the unjust treatment of Tommy Robinson. Obviously, British justice is no justice. Obviously, the British Broadcasting Corporation is the British Government's propaganda arm, pushing its socialist agenda.
These are among the worst standards within the world. They bring great dishonor upon the British Government. The people of Britain are rightfully ashamed of their governments and of British justice. I am disgusted that the socialists and their useful idiots ignore the law to persecute those who report the failure of their socialist agenda.
Regards,
Geoff. Reeks
I think this may have just backfired on Channel 4, they have shown there hand and will now never be able to fight in court there right to report on anything the courts or government tell them they can’t, because every time they do this will be thrown at them it shows and for cowards they are
Nothing Tommy said prejudiced the trial
He only discussed what was in the local paper! You're so biased it's embarrassing
He harassed people entering the court which is Contempt of Court. At least watch the fucking video!
What you think is irrelevant. It's Contempt of Court moron.
Fred Bloggs - why don't you use your proper real name you salty get? Don't worry, i know why, were Max Clifford and Rolf Harris not harrassed then 24/7? I can assure you they were, your comments are ridiculous. They were harrassed every single day by masses of reporters.
John, two wrongs do not make a right.
This case is subject to a postponement order. What happens for other cases is irrelevant.
American here! We are with you Tommy ❤️
Oh look, it has been 2 weeks and NOW you are reporting!!!
+First Last
Can you actually cite what you are saying?
Specially rapist being freed?
All's well that ends well. The criminal is in jail.
The like/dislike ratio is sooo satisfying to see though
The public know why, he is a political prisoner.
Irrespective of your political views, a Citizen has a right to protest against Rape, call out the perpetrators, and highlight the covering up by the authorities.
That is a democratic right in all democratic civilized nations. When that right is removed, then democracy has failed.
Using technicalities to put a citizen in prison, with clear political overtones highlights more cover ups.
He is bullshit speaker, never shows any facts, just plane Neo Nazi hate preaching! He has a long list of convictions and is a liar and fascist ... he deserves more
I guess you’re not from England then. That’s obviously not their system. But it’s easy to want to be full of outrage and conspiracies about coverups, that’s just how they do it over there.
#FreeTommyRobinson
I would say yes Tommy Robinson was being persecuted for standing up for these victims which the police and the government already knew about but we’re afraid of the race card so you need to ask the question The rape of young children mainly little white girls or upset in the Muslim community I know which I would’ve picked And all I will say thank God for someone like Tommy Robinson
Free tommy
Ok so he was arrested for breach of peace with what evidence did they have to arrest him in the first place.
nicholas cranfield: him there, breaching the peace, with well documented previous convictions probably helped. Probably.
It's about the principal of the matter more than anything. Disgusting by the police state.
So he is above the law that all the rest of the press worked within?
Heads Tails... that's how police states work, they use the law to crush political dissent which is pretty much what happened to tommy.
Journalists have never committed contempts?
Pete Mclovins
Yaxley is not the victim here, but nothing I or anyone else will convince you otherwise, or am I wrong at assuming you have totaly made your mind up on this?
Reporting restrictions were in place to ensure a fair trial, once the trial was over those reporting restrictions were removed.
Would you be happy if that EDL pedo who got done a couple of years ago had been exposed to a trial by media or trial by law?
Brisbaneman They have and many have been prosecuted for it, any point to that question?
The girls who were raped were children God bless and keep Tommy Robinson safe
Does anyone believe this tripe?
LVHorse sadly yes, the majority of university students for a start
Yes
Yes, because it's true
This is worse than the Cathy Newman interview..
You lot need to study English contempt law, Jesus fucking Christ... Tommy Robinson's been running his gob for years, nae problems, then gets done for jeopardizing criminal trials.The biggest irony is that if we didn''t have laws like this, aforementioned Muslim child molesters' trials could have collapsed, and they wouldn't have faced justice. Tommy Robinson risked keeping Muslim child molesters on the street, and if you're too dumb to understand that, you're a fucking eejit.
AntiSatori Records There were other journalists there too. Why didn’t they suffer the same fate? If you can’t see that Robinson’s imprisonment was purely political, it’s you who’s the ‘eejit.’
Dr Watson I know the channel 4 is super left wing but on this video I think they covered it rather unbiased like. Facts and laws are clear and Tommy already being convicted of this, he seems pretty silly to be honest to even attempt it.
Dr Watson: Did you notice, the direction in which the information was heavily slanted; Example: Tommy Robinson is no stranger to jail. Mortgage Fraud, Passport tampering, ect. Leaving out any suggestion that he was hounded by UK authorities, it is not like anyone was defrauded of money, during the mortgage irregularity, or that for him to go to the US and give a speech, on the effects of Muslim migration, that he had to resort to using a dodgy passport.
The political establishment, of the UK, has been subverted by people with a deep understanding of human behaviour, the mind, and the psyche, the people funding their work, getting it into the press, schools and politics are the Islamist's, be it Quatar, Saudi's, United Nations, Muslim Brotherhood ect
Neuro - Linguistic - Programing is a way of understanding people's behaviour patterns, and then influencing their behaviour. As a way of gaining power over them or others. You see the press at it all the time; with their constant attacks on Christianity and never publishing anything that is critical of Islam, rather what they do is the opposite; misnaming Islamic Terrorism so as to prevent people from picking up on the meaning of the attack, it is not these acts were carried out by some bad people who happen to be Muslim, no they are the result of people believing in a bad religion, who carry out the instructions given in that religion. It's the same case with the Muslim Gangs of Mass rapists, targeting children, not Muslim girls, no it is the daughters, sisters of the Kafir, that they rape. (Kafir a Muslim term for unbeliever.)
Lie.
They quickly put him in jail whilst the real dirt are still walking around freely .. Thats how the justice system works...
corruption at its finest
Hypocrisy101
If you support him you’re talled
Tapped*
@Lkay You just humiliated yourself. You tried to insult him and his supporters but instead you made spelling mistakes and embarassed yourself.
Wow! You all in the UK can get charged with contempt of court when your not even inside of the building???
Fake news
Your brain is fake.
mokkorista if Tommy is Killed in Prison you will be on the Liberal Slaughter List
STONE WARRIOR OF LIBERTY *Back Up* no Islamist would kill an idiot who helps his cause.
Can anyone explain how/why it's fake news?
RisingDawn He disagrees/doesn't believe, therefore fake news, I guess.
Not one mention of the judge that witnessed the whole thing and then took the case on.
So what,he still did break the law. You break the law,you will be punished. Nothing complicated about it.
Blockchain Bot.
He chose to act in that way, then when charged with contempt of court he chose to plead guilty.
Bsonsyrup I didn't know that about UK contempt law - could you point to the source of both the law and that the judge in question notified the police?
He did not break the law at all and never has only been persecuted. Look up the last 100 contempts of courts in the UK everyone did it 100 times not just 2 like tommy and all got away with it or nothing like 13 months. He is politcal prisoner
If people bothered actually doing some research into the law & legal procedures (instead of just believing half baked rumours they hear on the internet) they would learn that it's actually NOT 'illegal' for a judge to preside over a 'contempt of court case' in which they have been the witness to the contempt of court being committed.
I am so angry at UK.. And this man standing there and tolk about wrong and right for jailing Tommy.... Tommy is a hero, this man sucks..... Can he not see his country going down..... In jail for 13 monts for telling people whats going on in there country, its crazy.... Nobobdy is safe then...... Free Tommy Robinson, he is Our voice.....
Do you actually know who he is and what he does or are you just hopping on the bandwagon?
because it was easier to put one man in jail rather than the hundreds he is accusing of all the terrible stuff they have done
"Fringe of the right"....when's the last time you heard any mainstream media outlet (US/European) describe someone part of the "fringe of the left?"
Social media is a two way street Channel 4. How about some of your over paid employees actually engage with your audience to address their concerns and provide further journalistic integrity to your report? This is your opportunity to win people to your side of the story, but your silence is indicative of you serving a narrative instead of your viewers. In these forums it is pretty clear you realize your narrative is slowly unraveling and you haven't even provide any further evidence to help us view you in a positive light. Now might be your last chance to join the people before they turn on you for good...
"When you film live outside of courts with the families of the victims walking past, you risk exposing those victims identities who, as you know are children." thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/
So are you proposing that the judge was afraid Tommy would film those families/victims on purpose? What about the other people who had their mobile phones on? What about the people who filmed Tommy's arrest? It seems like the law wasn't evenly applied in this situation.
TR however PUBLISHED it and that is Contempt of Court for this case.
There is no restriction on merely shooting a video (outside of court grounds).
Fair enough. After all if a guy can be arrested for posting a joke on the internet (see Count Dankula case), I can see why it's important to jail someone for videoing/posting the stories that the lamestream media won't cover.
You miss the point. The actions of TR could have prejudiced the next trial on this case. Had that happened there would have been a mistrial.
What would the supporters of TR have said if the trial collapsed?
The WHOLE WORLD KNOWS that Tommy is a POLITICAL PRISONER.
HE plead guilty
@Isaac He did not. Try again.
@@isaacwood4071 HE DID NOT PLEAD GUILTY get your FACTS RIGHT.
@@isaacwood4071 He did NOT PLEAD GUILTY get your Facts RIGHT.
Channel 4 News BS at its best. Prove that he pleaded guilty... you can’t. Lie No 1.
He pleaded guilty thinking he would get a fine like all other journalists for the same offence. That part of his character, belief that justice must prevail, is why so many people love him.
Emilovius He didn’t plead guilty, that’s why he appealed and won the case. You’re confusing this with the first case. Here’s a link that’ll help you understand. ua-cam.com/video/Nui1dITSJYM/v-deo.html
You wouldn't dare put the head of Sadiq Khan on a pike and put it into a corner of a building as a warning to Muslims, Remainers, the Media such as channel 4 and Climate activists, would you?
What a hatchet job. What would you expect from channel 4? This is exactly why people are switching off from mainstream media. Look at the dislike bar. People are sick of your agendas
Does anyone actually believe anything the MSM says anymore?
I for one do not.
Jeni Louise I am not sure how long it will take you to transition from male to female
There is Poop on my Lollipop what a ridiculous comment 😂😂
I hope the 3k plus people who disliked this video will try to get to Whitechapel tomorrow for the #freetommy march.
If we all stand together, with respect, dignity and conviction, the powers that be will feel the power they crave slipping away ✌🏻❤️
georg I agree, I don’t think it will change a great deal.
Not immediately anyway.
But all revolutions and landmarks throughout human history started with a tiny spark, that captivated and grew.
I just want to be able to tell my future children/grandchildren that I was on the right side of history, and fought for what I believed in.
The same way my great grandfather imparted on me when he fought in the war.
#free tommy
#JailLennonForLife
Looking at the comments, I would say to CH 4 reporters that they deserve the kinds of comments they get. You have lost on the world stage.
channel 4 news shame on you.
Yeah shame on you for doing your job and reporting facts.
there was other media reporting but police went for him, why? we all know the main media and goverment want him out the way. see you the 9th june. free tommy robinson
Why? Because they gave a damn about the right to a fair trial? Oh, and journalists might have been there, maybe even recording footage to use when the reporting restriction was finally lifted, but they weren't live-streaming it in the middle of the trial. What did Channel 4 get wrong, exactly?
brainneedsfood.why didnt the pan up watch the sneering geoffrey marson QC with the police watching tommy.
I'm sure that comment will cut to the bone.
I'm not a fan of the guy but this is disgusting... How can the media be allowed to do exactly what he did ?
There should be a massive protest to free Tommy Robinson when president trump visits Uk on the same date
Well, now you've have time to look back at what you presented here, which you framed as being a well research and unbiased look at the case. You know see what you did? a) you failed to look at what paragraphs of law related to what information can reporting be restricted on... The law clearly states that if it's in the public domain then it can't be restricted... Tommy knew this as he had legal advice to avoid contempt, so he only talked about things already in the media. You could have just watched the livestream. b) You didn't investigate the actual case, Tommy didn't plead guilty, he wasn't given a chance to enter any plea, and it's highly unusual to be arrested and sentenced to prison within 5 hours! Everyone knows that! Especially for reporting, which no one has gone to prison for since WW2! Surely you can look back at this now and see what you did? The case was thrown out on appeal and the prosecution described as a 'fundamentally flawed process' by that judge. c) then you turn this into freedom of speech issue, which isn't what I see anyone doing, it's about law. Tommy knew the law, and followed it. He says in the livestream several times that he understands why they couldn't try 29 defendants at once. He got, we get it. Don't act like his supporters are so stupid that we think it's just not being allowed to say what you want...
Then we have the matter of the retrial... where the contempt came down to intimidating the defendants, not the actual reporting at all. And they took a line clearly out of context to use. Just watch the livestream, Tommy didn't threaten anyone! We have eyes and ears! If you don't see how bad a piece this was now, well, maybe there's no hope. But this will be looked back on as disinformation, poorly researched, but well prejudiced and biased.
Government propaganda