About Tommy Robinson

From the comments:

Tim–why don’t you put your article about Tommy Robinson up on here?

It is not to your credit that you are with the likes of Seaman Staines, Ole Holebone and others buying the state’s COCrot.

OK, so here’s how I read it right now.

Tommy Robinson has been an idiot and broken a law he had been warned about, indeed convicted of breaching before.

Contempt of court is a serious crime. As it should be. As is potentially prejudicing a trial that’s underway.

Why is it a serious crime? Because everyone does deserve a fair trail. And the worse the crime, the more the possible criminal is someone we don’t, or might not, like then the more essential is the fairness of that trial.

Tommy’s in jail because he was being an idiot tosspot. Nowt else.

78 comments on “About Tommy Robinson

  1. TR’s conduct reminds me of that of Robert Kilroy-Silk’s in the European Parliament – making an arse of himself in the hope of being acclaimed as some sort of martyr hero.

    I have always loathed the EDL and vastly prefer Douglas Murray for Islamoscepticism, but my residual sympathy for TR himself has now evaporated.

  2. Part of the problem here is that there are perfectly legitimate complaints about our Masters suppressing the all-too-frequent realities of the diversitopian blessings, threatening those who draw attention to them, lying about them as well as actively colluding in them.

    But threatening to derail a trial in a manner against which you’ve already been warned is not a good or useful advertisement for those opposing the Masters in these matters.

  3. The principle is fine. Everyone should have a fair trial.

    The problem is that the State uses these laws to cover up things that they think should be covered up. Because we cannot be trusted. Robinson was arrested for a breach of the peace. And then was jailed for reporting on this trial. This is despite the fact that since Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd reporters have some qualified privilege in British law.

    Well so what? Why shouldn’t we know about this trial? Because our Lords and Masters think we are idiotic knuckle dragging troglodytes who need to be managed. We can’t handle the truth apparently.

    Robinson is not the problem here. The judge is. We should know. Justice needs to be done and we need to see it be done.

  4. The issue is much larger than Tommy Robinson, it is about secret trials. The debate at samizdata delineated the big difference between UK and USA trial by jury: in the USA the jury is sequestered not the public who have a right to know what is going on. The various outrages of the family courts uncovered by Camilla Cavendish and Christopher Booker some years back illustrate that secrecy leads to abuse and injustice and serves to protect inept and agenda driven social workers from scrutiny.

    Methinks this principle extended to criminal cases protects negligent agents of the state such as police and social workers from the justified wrath of the people who pay for them.

    The social contract has broken down. The ordinary citizen can no longer rely on the political classes to protect them, whether from hostile colonists and their culturally entrenched practices or from the abuses of the political classes themselves.

    Quis custodiet custodies ipsos?

  5. As I put on a post to Raedwald’s blog, he’s wandering a narrow line of legality and he’s stepped over it and ended up in prison.

    I don’t know if that was intentional (act of martyrdom) or he thought he hadn’t stepped over the line. Still, there is a good chance of something bad happening to him in prison over the term of his sentence even with the Grimsby boys watching out for him.

    However, it’s seems quite clear that he’s been a target of the establishment for a while now due to the issues he’s been highlighting.

    They don’t want the majority white population getting agitated while they import a lot of people from different countries to lower wages and destroy the British way of life.

    I think the Poles are unfairly targeted as we had close relationships with them during WW2 plus they are caucasian and christian.
    The Romanian’s and Albanian’s on the other hand we can do without despite being nominally like the Poles.

    What we don’t need is incompatible cultures taking hold here. Anyone from around the Indian sub-continent (without skills – and no, curry chef doesn’t count) are not needed and we have a lot of them in the country these days.

    Has anyone been to places like Bradford or Dewsbury recently? It’s like part of Lahore.
    Even in Huddersfield (which isn’t quite as bad) you don’t feel like it’s your country in parts.

    Went for some chappati’s at a new Pakistani bakery and was left to wait until people behind me in the queue had been served (handy to be able to ask their order in Urdu so the white boy won’t know what’s going on).

    Now you can say that this gives me an insight into the experience of immigrants – you might be right.
    You can also say that you should exercise consumer choice and not go there again – and you would be right. I haven’t been since.

    However, I’d say the issue is not on my side. It’s a lack of integration that causes the problems.
    People get annoyed about the council spending money on translating documents because these people don’t let their wives speak english.

    They don’t want to integrate – they want to carry on the life of a Pakistani goat herder while living in a first world country.

    Tommy has given people a voice to say this despite the best effort of the elite to stifle it with thought crime laws.

    Over 500,000 people have now signed the petition to release him. It won’t get that done but it will allow them to see there are many others with the same view.

    Perhaps it’ll die down after a few months of him being incarcerated but I suspect it’s the beginning of a shift in the country.

    The MC/CM chattering classes can tut-tut over their Prosecco in metropolitan cities about how it was correct he was sent down but it won’t matter to the people without voices in shite Northern town’s who want change. They haven’t a lot to lose – watch out, they bite.

    # FreeTommy

  6. Didn’t the sainted Booker manage his reportage without being thrown in the Big House, Ljh?

  7. Trofim – “TR has done the struggle for free speech a disservice due to his narcissism”

    Yes. If only Rosa Parks hadn’t the cheek to sit down on that bus. The Civil Rights movement would be much better off.

    TR is pushing the envelop. Who else is doing a damn thing?

    Free Tommy.

  8. @ Trofim

    The Secret Barrister is another of those identified by Mr Ecks:

    Seaman Staines, Ole Holebone and others buying the state’s COCrot

    Is there some reason they needed to describe his followers as “knuckle-dragging cheerleaders”?

    Fat boy Staines (twice convicted of drunk driving – far worse than Tommy’s crime) described people who supported him using the same term and went on to describe them as “hard of understanding” on Twitter.

    Even Tim described them as “far right” types on Continental Telegraph.

    Can’t allow the thought to enter people’s heads that the plebs might have valid concerns.

  9. Thanks Tim for responding.

    Here is the link to Tim Newman’s latest blog again–again he says it better than I could.

    http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/7515/comment-page-1/#comment-415749

    Down to cases.

    The COC is bullshit.

    1–I read in a Samizdata comment but haven’t yet been able to verify that this was a sentencing hearing. That might be wrong but if it is correct then that in itself makes a nonsense of undue influence. Does anyone know if that is correct?

    2–Why hold a trial in batches? If too big for one go then use multiple courts and judges all at once. If there are three lots of trials and the first two return guilty verdicts which the media report— then in what way is that not going to have an influence on the final trials?

    3-The old white slebs had a field day of massive allegation-repeating pulled on them by the media before their trials. And said trials were ALSO conducted in an atmosphere of media–and state– manufactured Savile inspired paedo-mania., I believe the even the FFC as Home Sec made a number of –general–comments about paedo wickedness. So fair trials?

    COC means what the boss class wants it to mean. In a country where molesting an 11 year old girl gets you an 11 month suspended sentence because your missus can’t speak English–plus 4 grand of our money to help her learn. But the truth gets you jailed.

    It was a set up to silence one of the few voices speaking against vile goings on that the scum of CM want hidden.

    And –as Tim N above points out–it seem large elements of so-called “conservatives”–large C and small–are happy to support the suppression of truth-tellers.

  10. There’s two sections of society that demand people ‘respect’ them, criminals, and the legal profession.

    I’ll leave you to draw the conclusion.

  11. Edward Lud: Christopher Booker had the advantage of being middle class and a member of the heritage media with legal resources to help him navigate the swamp. The optics of charging him would have been terrible for the ruling class.

  12. I have to say I agree with Mr Ecks on comparing with the celebrity sexual assault/rape trials – the State had zero care then about the rights of the accused to fair trials, it allowed a mass hysteria to permeate the media that could never have been missed by potential jurors, and had to create an atmosphere that ‘all these old celebrities are paedos/rapists’, and seriously reduce the chance of a fair trial. Yet in these cases they’re bending over backwards to make sure the accused get as little publicity for their crimes (if found guilty) as possible.

    Have we heard one report about any of these trials that have occurred over the last few years that has detailed what these animals were up to? The actual crimes described? I haven’t. The cases have been heard in private, no details allowed out, and even if reporting restrictions are lifted afterwards by then the press have moved on, they’re not going to fill their pages with reports from old trials, so none of it ever gets into the public’s consciousness. Which is exactly what the State wants of course.

  13. Edward Lud–“Didn’t the sainted Booker manage his reportage without being thrown in the Big House, Ljh?”

    Booker was only reporting on routine Marxist-feminist mischief against men.

    Tommy is drawing attention to the consequences of the boss classes CM plans for us all. They don’t wan’t anybody paying attention to or thinking about that.

    Indeed the middle class fools who are doing the Establishments work for them are not going to continue being exempt from the fucking over Western society is presently getting from CM. As numbers of imports rise the cosy lifestyles of the womiccumilobus will be increasingly damaged. The Secret Barrack-room Lawdog* may well prosper from all the crime and be able to easily afford some gated paradise but his situation hardly applies to all of the womi’s ranks.

    * He might even get a partnership with Dodson & Fogg.

  14. “Politicians also demand respect, Jim, or are they lumped under the former category?”

    These days I’d say about a 50/50 split between the two categories. It is noticeable that the self importance of politicians has risen as more and more of them are lawyers……..

  15. As other commenters have suggested, maybe one could go along with TimW’s view if there had been some sort of level playing field operating. But there isn’t. If you want to search for it, there’s all sorts of You-Tubery could be regarded as prejudicial to fair trials been put on-line without attracting consequences. But the Establishment seems to have it in for Tommy Robinson.
    And I find it informative how much at pains people commenting on this event have been to distance themselves from him. Even those criticising what’s occurred seem compelled to preface their remarks by disparaging TR & the EDL. Well no, I don’t suppose he does appeal to the intellectual libertarian clowns over at Samizdata who’ll be still arguing how many John Stuart Mills can dance with Ayn Rand on the head of a pin whilst the country descends into a police state. Didn’t attend the right schools & universities & has the impudence to come from Luton.

  16. @Mr Yan
    The Albanians and Romanians that I’ve known and worked with are some of the best, hardest working, and most integrated people I’ve known in the UK. Don’t fall into the trap of associating a person’s character with the nation on their passport.

  17. @ MattyJ

    And they are also some of the worst for slavery, prostitution, drug dealing and gun running.

    You don’t want to fall into the trap of assuming because you know a couple of nice people that it applies to all of them. Unless they do you a good deal on a wrap, I don’t suppose they are drug dealers?

    I’ve the advantage of having an inside unfiltered view of investigations into the crime they commit and we’d be well off without them. Even if that means we lose a few of the nice one’s.

  18. @Mr Yan,

    Got some references for that? Cause otherwise you’re just talking shit. Either way this is a libertarian blog, the idea is that we judge people on their actions, not who their parents happen to be.

    “Even if that means we lose a few of the nice one’s.” The only people who’ve ever threatened me are Brits. Should we lose all of them because of that?

  19. http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/05/war-tommy-robinson/

    Another good link..

    BTW Rob W’s above link is to a “Slog” piece that also says this was a SENTENCING hearing ie the defendants had already been found guilty so how would TR’s broadcast have affected anything?. Unless Judgeboys are watching Tommy live-links now.

    And as for the next batch he was reporting only what would be in the public domain long before the next court case.

    The COC narrative is falling apart.

  20. @ MattyJ

    Is it a libertarian blog? Even if it is, so what – doesn’t mean the comments have to reflect that.

    Hard to get rid of people who are citizens of this country. Hard also to get rid of Foreign National Offenders but at least we can do something about them.

    We should have an effective border policy to stop people getting back in. If you know a Romainian nurse we might let her in (based on some points system), but why some violent thug from the same country with nothing to bring other than his criminality?

    As for references – why is it that people always ask for them when they see something they don’t like?
    Do they assume the person stating something is talking crap (as you implied)?
    Did you do any research yourself or are you hoping I’m just talking shit?

    Take a look at Page 9 here:
    http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/publications/807-national-strategic-assessment-of-serious-and-organised-crime-2017/file

    I assume you’ll trust something from the NCA?

    After the British (who we can’t get rid of), the largest criminal nations are Romanian, Pakistani, Polish, Albanian and Nigerian. The rest of the world make up a fewer percent than the last 2-3.

    I happen to think the Poles deserve more leeway than the rest for the reasons I outlined above.

  21. I for one support Tommys arrest.

    Just as when halve the BBC et al was banged up furing Rolf Harris’s trail it was necassary for the administration of justice.

    Oh the BBC weren’t detained for leading a mob at Rolfs. Funny that maybe he should convert.

  22. “Contempt of court is a serious crime. As it should be”
    What tosh! If the court acts in a contemptuous way then the court is contemptible and should be treated as such.
    That the court alone gets to define contemptibility is manifestly unjust.

  23. In his piece at CT, Tim W tells us that there’s a good reason (as yet unknown to most of us) for the main trial secrecy. I’d like to think that our host isn’t part the ghastly establishment trying to downplay immigrant child-rape gangs, so I’m trusting him on this. We should find out soon.

    As for aka Tommy Robinson, I’d have a lot more sympathy for his situation if it didn’t look so much like his situation is what he designed.

  24. Half a mo’…

    Contempt of Court covers a number of transgressions. Robinson specifically fell foul of the Sub Judice rule and this gave rise to Contempt of Court.

    Had he done what he did outside a Court in the USA he would not have been in Contempt of Court because there is no Sub Judice rule there, it being considered contrary to the First Amendment Right of freedom of speech… anyone in the UK remember freedom of speech?

    ‘Because everyone does deserve a fair trial.’

    It would be useful to know specifically how he jepordised the fairness of the trial.

    And, in the USA despite Robinson’s activities the trial would have been fair, but in the UK not.

    Explain please.

  25. Joe N,

    The establishment subscribed to the Humpty Dumpty theory of language.

    Go ask Alice, I think she’ll know.

  26. Joe N–He didn’t threaten the fairness of the trial. They had already been found guilty.

    PLJ-Oh there’s a secret reason why Tommy is guilty–of something/anything– is there?. But no one to know what it is ( an appropriately 18th Century turn of phrase). How does Tim W know what it is then? If it was some secret known only on the Continent the Net would have revealed it by now. Perhaps they are going to say his fly was open or summat.

    But you don’t care anyway–the scum that be have told you what to think and you are doing your best for ’em.

  27. @Ecks I am basically on your side, but you need to get some of the facts straight: There was a series of linked trials, so while one or more trials had reached a verdict, other *linked* trials had not.
    So it’s perfectly possible to comment on the verdict of one of the trials and prejudice another.
    My own concern is regarding the Judges reasoning (1):
    “The judge said: “Not only was it a very long video but I regard it as a serious aggravating feature that he was encouraging others to share it and it had been shared widely. That is the nature of the contempt.””
    ie the basis seems to be the fact that:
    1. The video exists
    2. It is long (over 1 hour)
    3. It was widely viewed and shared.

    What is missing from this reasoning is of course the content of the video. Did he say something prejudicial? What precisely? Deafening silence…

    (1) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/far-right-provocateur-tommy-robinson-jailed-over-court-rant-9kgwggssz

  28. Gary Taylor–“@Ecks I am basically on your side, but you need to get some of the facts straight: There was a series of linked trials, so while one or more trials had reached a verdict, other *linked* trials had not.”

    Ok–In what way does having linked trials in sequence prevent guilty verdicts in the early trials –then announced in the public domain–affecting the result of subsequent cases?

    Sure the Judge can order the Jury to disregard what they heard. But if that is all it took the whole case is about nothing. Every Jury should be told the same and problem over.

    All I understand Tommy to haved said was their names and that they were accused rapists which had already appeared on the BBC because that is where he got that info from. How by any credible standard is that jury fiddling/influencing by any means whatever? If there was more why don’t they simply publish it. Perhaps they wait for enough people to commit themselves to Tommy’s cause and TPTB will produce their COCrot bombshell–“There: aren’t you all ashamed!!! We were right all along” About everything maybe except what matters.

    People are committing–unfortunately for the scummy state– to doing something about their country being destroyed and their women and girls violated. That is the cause Tommy Robinson has a fairly difficult life trying to advance and that is the cause for which people are beginning to stand up. Legal bullshit won’t cut it for the wannabe masters.

  29. Mr Ecks, I have no idea if there actually is a good reason, I only know that Tim W said there was; that he would be in contempt of court if he revealed it; and that we should trust him on this.

    It’s all in the CT piece.

  30. APL–In fairness Bill Quango MP almost certainly isn’t an MP anymore than the Vicar christened me “X X Ecks”.

    No MP would dare blog at some of the places Bill turns up–that would be the end of him should he ever be found out.

  31. Even if I don’t agree with what he did, that doesn’t mean how it was dealt with is any better.
    The cry of look he was prejudicing a trial (and we can all agree that’s not good in general terms, right to fair trial etc.) so that justifies what we are doing is just another call to the end justifying the means, and that doesn’t lead to anywhere good
    I wonder when all the police and CPS that ‘mislaid’ evidence or made various mistakes in rape cases are going to be punished?

  32. @ecks they were not in sequence – they were basically in parallel, but for fairly obvious logistical reasons, they may not all end at exactly the same time (e.g. different witnesses take the same length of time, the Defendants may not be divided between the trials exactly equally, etc). So you end up with different trails at different stages. It’s inevitable.

    They are linked for the fairly obvious reason that they were all in the same grooming gang, so there may well be ‘shared’ victims. So the link is clear.

    But while the cases are linked, each man must get his own fair trial based on his individual circumstances, so we do not want a world where ‘all the juries hear the same thing’. So when one part of the gang is pronounced guilty, it is reasonable (in my view) to hold that back until all the parallel and linked trials are completed, to minimise ‘contamination’.

    To be clear, I think the whole thing is fckn outrageous, but saying Tomy did nothing wrong is just barking up the wrong tree, and actually plays to the MSM agenda. The more you talk about him, the less you talk about his campaign. And that’s what they really want.

  33. Gary Taylor “So when one part of the gang is pronounced guilty, it is reasonable (in my view) to hold that back until all the parallel and linked trials are completed, to minimise ‘contamination’. ”

    In general I would agree with you. But the info I have is that he read the names/guilty info off screen of his iPhone via the BBC website. So–public domain.

    Also if the trials were simultaneous the Juries can hardly have been sitting in their box looking at TR’s live feed while lawyers droned. So again how could this supposedly damaging info have reached them.

    Far more lurid tales of supposed wrongdoing bursting with the tabloids usual emotionally loaded words appeared for literally weeks ahead of the trials of the old white slebs.

    Which trials were conducted against a media and state created paedo panic, with defendants who were often old men. Nobody gave much of a shite about jury-biased trials then.

    Max Clifford avoided death in jail because they sent him to the civvie hospital in the nick of time to die there instead. Most likely out a wish to avoid bad publicity than any sort of compassion. Almost ironic.

    To what extent was his trial biased by constant and unchecked media bullshit?

    That will remain objectively unknown. But I think certainly to a far greater extent than anything Tommy Robinson could have managed as far as the gang-rape trial is concerned.

  34. @ecks I pretty much agree with all that, and I think you are closer to the real issue now. But he did still (potentially) prejudice a trial. So he’s bang to rights.
    Both points can be true.

  35. “But he did still (potentially) prejudice a trial. So he’s bang to rights.
    Both points can be true.”

    No-they still have only a briefcase full of bullshit.

    Repeating something that is already on the BBC on a live-feed with no connection to any working Jury to tell them what is already in the public domain should not stand as any sort of case on any planet in the Galaxy let alone this one.

    And are we supposed to believe that Juries are held in such contempt by Senior Lawdogs. Who believe that if their Jury heard that defendants in a linked trial had been found guilty, this would cause them to discard the evidence they have sworn to judge the case in front of them on? Where that true juries would be of zero value. I understand that lots of arrogant lawdogs/polipigs DO want to be rid of Juries but we are not there yet and there is no credible case for jury biasing to be found here.

  36. @ecks he approached people. He had no real idea whether they were defendents or jury, from this trial or that. That’s not the way it works.
    Accept that he was ill advised to do that and you can move on to the heart of the matter.

  37. 1. Reporting restrictions and secrecy of various degrees append to any number of trials. Loads of ’em. There are good reasons to argue against this. But, it happens, and has done for many years. Its application is widespread: it does not merely adhere to Muslim alleged rapists. Personally, I am contra – in principle. Yet it is a commonplace. In short, by all means argue against it. But don’t be so daft as to think that the best or even the only way of doing so is to breach the reporting restrictions in a given case.

    2. Yes, the Masters are almost certainly out to get Tommy Robinson, and would probably feel a repellent sense of smugness were he murdered in Jug. They’re almost without exception deserving only of the mob’s fury. However, this time round, TR helped them get him. He was foolhardy and dopey. His behaviour, even in its own terms, was ill-judged. He tripped himself up. Maybe it’ll teach him a valuable lesson. But if a crusading leader is to be sought, he needs better nous than this.

    2A. Yes, there’s a double-standard when it comes to Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis. My view is, by all means campaign against that double-standard. But don’t derail the given trial – whether of DLT or alleged Muslim rapists. The point is a wider one, which can be illustrated once the reporting restrictions are lifted. Plus, I think this judge had nothing to do with those earlier trials. Honestly, judges are less borg-like than you might imagine. Granted, many have drunk the Progressive Kool-Ade (sp?), but the idea that they’re all downloading and mainstreaming Metropolitan pieties is wrong. I know nothing of this judge. But you must realise the vast power of a circuit judge in his own court. It is not to be trifled with. And you should not assume it automatically channels every other political psychopathology that many of us abhor.

    3. As an alternative to 2. – the Masters don’t need to worry about ‘getting’ TR, because they can be confident he’ll do it himself.

    4. I agree that the Secret Barrister’s casual slurs not only were meretricious and lazy, but risked diminishing the force of his analysis (H/T, Tommy Robinson, btw).

    5. Tommy Robinson, and many others, advance epoch-makingly important arguments about the world and the worldview with which our throats are being fisted.

    6. Tommy was arrested on one charge, then charged with another. Sure. How could the rozzers be justified in arresting him for a breach of the peace where apparently there was no breach of the peace? Well. People are arrested all the time for one thing, then charged for another. So: protest that. It does not make him a martyr, any more than it does the thousands of others to whom it happens every year.

    7. Did the rozzers arrest him on a trumped-up charge? Quite possibly. But since he pleaded guilty to another charge, arising out of identical facts, it’s hard to make the case that the rozzers didn’t get their man.

    6. Hold on, Lud. Rewind a bit. Six rozzers showed up and arrested him, as it must then have been, groundlessly. Six uniformed thugs, throwing their weight about. Ok. But bear in mind who these people are. Idiots, mostly. Not all, I hasten to add. I’ve met some fearsomely bright DCs and PCs. But here’s what happens: there’s some disturbance outside court, the staff – knowing there’s a sensitive and difficult trial going on – think, ooh, what do we do now? The in-house security guards will try to intervene, but without effect because they don’t want to have to justify their citizen’s power of arrest. Meanwhile, the judge, and the jury are sitting. The defendants and advocates are getting on with stuff. So at some point, powerless, a member of court staff calls the Old Bill: “Why, occifer, there’s a man outside with a camera. Defendants’ family members are fleeing inside. The place is in uproar. We don’t know what to do”.

    7. Meanwhile, Tommy, bless ‘im, is just swinging his cameraphone around making like it’s karoake night in Chatteris or Rhyll. Oblivious (maybe, maybe not… perhaps does not matter).

    8. So what do the bluebottles do, having heard of mayhem and upset at the Assizes? Why, they turn up and arrest the fine fellow with da camera. Then, on closer inspection, as so often happens, they realise they mis-arrested him for one thing, but at the same time they de-arrest him for that, they can newly-arrest him for something else. Trebles all round.

    9. Btw, I love the idea that whichever pygmy is currently Home Secretary is sufficiently able and well-informed to command onto Mr R a descent of coppers at minutes’ notice.

    10. This is a Rosa Parks moment. Hm. I’d have more sympathy for that argument, if Tommy had derailed his own trial for whatever allegation or other by naming whoever could not at that moment be named, thereby risking adverse costs consequences. In short, if he had skin in the particular game, then go for it.

    11. Riffing off 10., increasingly I incline to the view that he was knowingly posturing.

    12. It’s outrageous that it took four minutes to deal with him. Erm. I don’t believe he was in court for four minutes. You would not believe the rigmarole that goes into bringing up an accused from the cells. Then there’s the identification. Followed by the formalities – “Your Honour knows I appear to prosecute, My Learned F Boggs appears for the D” – then, the court clerk may or may not address the defendant, and so on and so forth. Now. It may early on have been indicated that Tommy intended to plead guilty, which would undoubtedly have truncated the proceedings (there was no trial, because there was no need for one). So it is possible that the judge’s sentencing remarks lasted four minutes. But – how long would you like them to last? And if they lasted only four minutes, it was because Tommy had spent (I’d guess) 45 minutes in the cells beforehand, thrashing it out with his Brief.

    13. Why hold trials in batches, separated in time from each other? Because there’s no space in the courts to do otherwise, plus a trial of 90 (for example), even were it physically possible, risks overwhelming the jury with prejudice by association. We can discuss why this is the case. My own view is that the criminal court system, in particular, is swamped with immigrant misconduct. So: campaign against mass immigration.

  38. Just for me, Mr Ecks? If you think our host is lying to us, why not say so?
    Is it because you are too chickenshit?

  39. PLJ–You have the Chickenshit concession on here chum.

    Lets ask Tim shall we?

    Tim –do you actually have some sort of inside or only-available-on-the-continent knowledge the regarding this series of trials?. PLJ says you do and in fairness rereading the Contins piece you drop cryptic phrases. I’m not asking what that knowledge is but is the surmise correct?

  40. Gary Taylor–

    “@ecks he approached people. He had no real idea whether they were defendents or jury, from this trial or that. That’s not the way it works.

    Accept that he was ill advised to do that and you can move on to the heart of the matter”

    Did you not read the previous post? What does it matter who he told about what was already in the public domain? The defendants won’t profit for good or ill being told content from the BBC. I already made the point about the Jury. “Someone told me that someone in a related trial has been found guilty so I am such a moron that fuck the evidence/witnesses I’ve seen –they’re guilty” . That is just nonsense.

    If by ill-advised you mean that his tactic would have been of little use in the overall battle had none of the subsequent events happened –you are probably right. Most people are not yet fully aware so the outside-the-court livecast would likely have had little overall effect. Had not the boss class overplayed their nasty little hand.

    Now of course the effect has been colossal (despite the legion of snob sellouts trying to help the left). By accident certainly but the shit is airborne heading fan wise.

    ” Accept that he was ill advised to do that and you can move on to the heart of the matter.”

    Errr…no.

  41. @Edward Lud: unfortunately ‘campaigning’ against things like trials held in secret and the ability/propensity for the State to enforce laws when it wants to and not when it doesn’t is hardly the sort of thing to set the pulse of the average man on the street racing. You can campaign on those issues all you like, you’ll get nowhere. The State is afraid of the mob, not middle class campaigns for legal reform, it can head off the latter in its sleep.

    What we have learnt does get you somewhere is what the Left do all the time – lying, misrepresenting, and making shit up. So if TR has to become an amalgam of Robin Hood, Wat Tyler and Alfred the Great, regardless of the facts, so be it.

  42. .Edward Lud: ” Reporting restrictions and secrecy of various degrees append to any number of trials. Loads of ’em. There are good reasons to argue against this. But, it happens, and has done for many years. Its application is widespread: it does not merely adhere to Muslim alleged rapists. Personally, I am contra – in principle. Yet it is a commonplace. In short, by all means argue against it. But don’t be so daft as to think that the best or even the only way of doing so is to breach the reporting restrictions in a given case.”

    There should be no reporting restrictions aside from names/addresses etc that might leave someone open to attack.

    They exist but it is far from clear that TR violated any of them. Reading or re-reporting stuff from the BBC should not qualify.

    “2. Yes, the Masters are almost certainly out to get Tommy Robinson, and would probably feel a repellent sense of smugness were he murdered in Jug. They’re almost without exception deserving only of the mob’s fury. However, this time round, TR helped them get him. He was foolhardy and dopey. His behaviour, even in its own terms, was ill-judged. He tripped himself up. Maybe it’ll teach him a valuable lesson. But if a crusading leader is to be sought, he needs better nous than this.”

    I don’t see him as any sort of leader. He is ill-educated in shitty state schools. But he is not stupid. Slog points out his getting an aircraft tech apprenticeship as one of 3 youths selected out of nearly 600. The Duty Solicitor clown they gave him told him that the BOTP charge would be dropped and he could go if he pled guilty to the COC charge. He should know by now if they give you lined paper write the other way. His personal lawyer was lied to that he had been released.

    “2A. Yes, there’s a double-standard when it comes to Cliff Richard and Dave Lee Travis. My view is, by all means campaign against that double-standard. But don’t derail the given trial – whether of DLT or alleged Muslim rapists.”

    He didn’t. And there is a much stronger case against the media biasing the slebs trials and absolute state indifference to said bias. And indeed possibly approval. The now disgraced Saunders of the CPS was lurking in the background orchestrating the sleb trials.

    “The point is a wider one, which can be illustrated once the reporting restrictions are lifted. Plus, I think this judge had nothing to do with those earlier trials. Honestly, judges are less borg-like than you might imagine. Granted, many have drunk the Progressive Kool-Ade (sp?), but the idea that they’re all downloading and mainstreaming Metropolitan pieties is wrong. I know nothing of this judge.”

    They don’t all have to be CM fanatics. But they know very well what happens to those who don’t kiss Home Office arse. And they are callous enough to put themselves first. Not all but enough. Not all German Judges were Nazi stooges –but there weren’t many resisters amongst them. Indeed –you don’t get to be a Judge by being a maverick–unless that means being nastier than average.

    “But you must realise the vast power of a circuit judge in his own court. It is not to be trifled with.”

    I’m sorry but that is weak. Who the fuck do these arseholes think they are. Snap their fucking fingers and off you go?

    ” And you should not assume it automatically channels every other political psychopathology that many of us abhor.”

    Judgeboy arrogance and egotism is no more acceptable than abusive state power.

    “3. As an alternative to 2. – the Masters don’t need to worry about ‘getting’ TR, because they can be confident he’ll do it himself.”

    Get himself? He is in danger of murder not suicide. He didn’t get himself this week either. He was trying to spread the message of resistance to takeover and tyranny and imported child abuse. The scratch-the-surface trial proves he is right. Without him and a few others no such trial would ever have happened. His message has already cost him dear in terms of personal suffering and risk. Far more so than any of us. He is no saint but he has done more than any here writing about him and has paid a steep price already for his actions.

    “4. I agree that the Secret Barrister’s casual slurs not only were meretricious and lazy, but risked diminishing the force of his analysis (H/T, Tommy Robinson, btw). ”

    No argument there.

    “5. Tommy Robinson, and many others, advance epoch-makingly important arguments about the world and the worldview with which our throats are being fisted.”

    Likewise agreed.

    “6. Tommy was arrested on one charge, then charged with another. Sure. How could the rozzers be justified in arresting him for a breach of the peace where apparently there was no breach of the peace? Well. People are arrested all the time for one thing, then charged for another. So: protest that. It does not make him a martyr, any more than it does the thousands of others to whom it happens every year.”

    It is only one part of the scam and they played one charge to scam him into accepting the other. Because he trusted their tame brief. He should have known better there.

    “7. Did the rozzers arrest him on a trumped-up charge? Quite possibly. But since he pleaded guilty to another charge, arising out of identical facts, it’s hard to make the case that the rozzers didn’t get their man.”

    See answer above. They got the man they have been following every day for years looking for some pretext to fuck him up. So yes–they got what they wanted. The scum at the Home Office need to be crucified for allowing the persecution that has been engaged in for years against the man.

    “6. Hold on, Lud. Rewind a bit. Six rozzers showed up and arrested him, as it must then have been, groundlessly. Six uniformed thugs, throwing their weight about. Ok. But bear in mind who these people are. Idiots, mostly. Not all, I hasten to add. I’ve met some fearsomely bright DCs and PCs. But here’s what happens: there’s some disturbance outside court, the staff – knowing there’s a sensitive and difficult trial going on – think, ooh, what do we do now? The in-house security guards will try to intervene, but without effect because they don’t want to have to justify their citizen’s power of arrest. ”

    They had 7 costumed thugs and a Maria just handy and a warmed up beak. It was not spontaneous

    “. Meanwhile, the judge, and the jury are sitting. The defendants and advocates are getting on with stuff. So at some point, powerless, a member of court staff calls the Old Bill: “Why, occifer, there’s a man outside with a camera. Defendants’ family members are fleeing inside. The place is in uproar. We don’t know what to do”.

    None of which need be communicated to or have the slightest influence upon a jury. Esp when it was a sentencing hearing with no jury anyway.

    “7. Meanwhile, Tommy, bless ‘im, is just swinging his cameraphone around making like it’s karoake night in Chatteris or Rhyll. Oblivious (maybe, maybe not… perhaps does not matter). ”

    I don’t mean to be personal –which is rare for me–but that just sounds like snobbery. Yeah he is working class with a yobby background. So are lots of folk who then straightened up and flew right. He has showed courage trying to do what the rest of us don’t seem to have the courage to do. and by God something that needs doing.

    “8. So what do the bluebottles do, having heard of mayhem and upset at the Assizes? Why, they turn up and arrest the fine fellow with da camera. Then, on closer inspection, as so often happens, they realise they mis-arrested him for one thing, but at the same time they de-arrest him for that, they can newly-arrest him for something else. Trebles all round.”

    Not very sympathetic to their “plight”. This was a worked out plan. Scum from the national “extremist” plod crew follow him daily –despite his non-involvement with violence since dropping football yobbery. They are in this like maggots in cheese. Please remember that now “extremist” is anyone who doesn’t spew cultural Marxist bullshit.

    “9. Btw, I love the idea that whichever pygmy is currently Home Secretary is sufficiently able and well-informed to command onto Mr R a descent of coppers at minutes’ notice.”

    As above it is an ongoing mobile feast of pre-ordained conspiracy. No need to call Javi–tho’ it would be no surprise were he in it. We have had 3 useless Home Sec females in a row. Time a useless male had a go.

    “10. This is a Rosa Parks moment. Hm. I’d have more sympathy for that argument, if Tommy had derailed his own trial for whatever allegation or other by naming whoever could not at that moment be named, thereby risking adverse costs consequences. In short, if he had skin in the particular game, then go for it.”

    The Rosa Parks line was SMFS’s. Not sure what you mean by the rest. The whole point is that Tommy named no one not already in the public domain.

    “11. Riffing off 10., increasingly I incline to the view that he was knowingly posturing. ”

    He was trying to draw attention to the vile shite that is going on in this country. Given all the personal travail he has had posturing does not apply.

    “12. It’s outrageous that it took four minutes to deal with him. Erm. I don’t believe he was in court for four minutes. You would not believe the rigmarole that goes into bringing up an accused from the cells. Then there’s the identification. Followed by the formalities – “Your Honour knows I appear to prosecute, My Learned F Boggs appears for the D” – then, the court clerk may or may not address the defendant, and so on and so forth. Now. It may early on have been indicated that Tommy intended to plead guilty, which would undoubtedly have truncated the proceedings (there was no trial, because there was no need for one). So it is possible that the judge’s sentencing remarks lasted four minutes. But – how long would you like them to last? And if they lasted only four minutes, it was because Tommy had spent (I’d guess) 45 minutes in the cells beforehand, thrashing it out with his Brief.”

    His brief feed him the shit they wanted him to swallow. 4 minutes or 4 hours it was still a fucking travesty.

    “13. Why hold trials in batches, separated in time from each other? Because there’s no space in the courts to do otherwise, plus a trial of 90 (for example), even were it physically possible, risks overwhelming the jury with prejudice by association. We can discuss why this is the case. My own view is that the criminal court system, in particular, is swamped with immigrant misconduct. So: campaign against mass immigration.”

    The last sentence I agree with.

    90 defendants can be tried in several courts at once. The action of one lots guilt gone into the public domain must have an effect on subsequent trials. So again it does not fly.

  43. My bad. A 13-point comment was always going to end in tears.

    Mr E, I may reply over the next 12-24 hours, if I can squeeze you into my busy schedule of lawdogging, claret-drinking and sturdy yeoman-bashing.

    Btw, on the lawdogging front, an exciting new Progressive development of which I’ve recently been made aware: research into genetic tendencies to criminality: Sir Subtlety, let rip ….

  44. @ecks you are really sticking to this line that all he did was simply reading out names a la BBC. You should watch the offending video on YouTube – its 75 mins long. I think it’s very interesting, but you just cant say it’s comparable to BBC. Watch it.

  45. Tommy’s crime is that he embarrassed the government. The justification for jailing him is beside the point.

  46. “…and in fairness rereading the Contins piece you drop cryptic phrases.”

    Cryptic phrases? Tim said quite clearly:
    “There is actually a damn good reason not to publish all of that right now. No, I ain’t gonna commit contempt by saying why either.”
    and:
    “A trial is going on. For good reason (sorry, need to trust me on that) there are reporting restrictions in place over what can be said about it.”

    There’s nothing cryptic there. It is as I said it is above.

  47. Those are not good reasons, those are laws put in place to allow the government to selectively conceal damaging information from the public. Tim is wrong and is simply parroting the establishment view that wrong thinkers need to be banged up lest they incite the public to think wrong thoughts about race and religion.

  48. PJF–Tim W dropped cryptic hints but gave no answer so far to a direct request for confirmation–not of the content but confirmation that your hypothesis is correct.

  49. I haven’t presented a “hypothesis”.
    At 4.04pm above I described what Tim said on Continental Telegraph. Just over an hour ago I quoted what he said. There was nothing cryptic in what he said. He wasn’t hinting, he was directly saying that there was a good reason for the press blackout, and that he wouldn’t commit contempt of court by stating the reason.

  50. GT”@ecks you are really sticking to this line that all he did was simply reading out names a la BBC. You should watch the offending video on YouTube – its 75 mins long. I think it’s very interesting, but you just cant say it’s comparable to BBC. Watch it.”

    Watched it already. He speaks to the hostile crew at the beginning–“Son of a pig” I think I heard said in response to his question about how they felt. Likely the defendants then and he would hardly be able to bias them against themselves. He then mostly talks to camera about what is going on in the country. Some folk he says are “friends” of the accused show up but nothing much is said.

    Only one point needs clarifying to me.:

    Was this sentencing hearing or not? TR seems to think the jury has yet to pronounce but I have seen two sources that say that it was sentencing that the crew at the beginning. were going in for. Is there any official confirmation of this?Googling just gets leftist bullshit.

    It does not matter really either way. Unless the Jury were watching the live feed in court then they could not have been influenced at so late a stage. If it was for sentence to be passed TR’s remarks are absolutely irrelevant unless the Judge was watching too. But he would have all the crimes in front of him anyway.

    Now as for subsequent trials–same as I’ve said all along–far worse bias was shown to old slebs and nobody gave a damn.

  51. “He wasn’t hinting, he was directly saying that there was a good reason for the press blackout, and that he wouldn’t commit contempt of court by stating the reason.”

    Blackout broken. But he hasn’t confirmed what he said–or if what he said was what he actually meant.

    But fuck all that. As Stephan Molyneux put it–if it is all so open and above board let the British State have a full on no questions barred press conference for all media –alternate and sell-out–and let all matters be explored and cleared up. We will soon see then.

    As the saying goes–if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

  52. For the record, Mr Ecks has (so far) made 16 comments under this posting by Tim Worstall.

    Trofim has made 2; Mr Yan 4; Ljh 3; So Much For Subtlety 2; Edward Lud 4; Gary Taylor 5; PJF 5. Others have made 18 between them.

    This is a clear win for Mr Ecks: but (IMHO) not on a metric that would make most people pleased with their contribution.

    As for the arguments on the two main sides: they seem a little lost in the enthusiasm.

    It makes one wonder what would happen if we sent people to prison or not on the basis of the length rather than strength of argument.

    Best regards

  53. A court system, which allows a man to plead guilty to a serious charge, without proper advice, immediately after an arrest in difficult, contentious and emotional circumstances, is an asshole court system and the presiding judge was, and is, an emotional, out of control asshole, an intemperate fool.

    I kept seeing the comment here: “‘Because everyone does deserve a fair trial.” Sure, right, except for that fucking Luton prick, eh, that prick, him, he’s obviously guilty, give him 13 months, then he’ll get his fair trial, har, har, har.

    Out here in these here colonial parts of Western Canada I have seen an enraged judge, coolly tell the person apparently, even obviously, in contempt, to speak to his lawyers and that the matter would be dealt with again in a month, perhaps longer.

    Let the mother country sink under the waves, you’re done.

  54. My worry about this was been assuaged, as others are talking about it. I’ll thus assume that it’s OK to do so.

    There’s some vast number of people being tried. From roughly the same grouping, roughly the same place, roughly the same charges etc. Far too many to cram into one courtroom. So, many trials. Because it’s roughly the same damn thing each person is being tried for we have reporting restrictions until the last trial is done. These are *delays* in reporting, not bans. Once the last jury verdict has been handed in then it’s back to normal reporting rules.

  55. Fred Z, I’ve seen judges here do that, too.

    Mr Ecks:

    a. how do you know TR’s lawyer was lied to?

    b. are you saying he did not derail he trial because likewise you say it had concluded, or are you saying he did not derail the trial but neglecting that the reason he did not do so is because he was committed to prison?

    c. “Snap their fucking fingers, and off you go …?” Erm, yup. An individual courtroom is a fiefdom and a judge’s powers to make all sorts of people dance to his tune are more or less unparalleled. Sometimes this even works in favour of the goodies. Judges may like anyone else be arrogant and egotistical, but they also have to balance competing interests according to legal formulae or tests. A failure properly to do so is likely to lead to things such as applications to discharge juries, or successful appeals of convictions.

    d. You suggest he was arrested for a breach of the peace as a “scam” prelude to re-arresting him for contempt. I do not understand this argument. If the rozzers had thought they could arrest him from the outset for contempt, why not do so?

    f. You suggest the speedy response of the police indicates a pre-ordered set-up. Well, perhaps. But it seems clear he knew what he was doing – the dangers he courted. You also tend to find cop shops are located very near to courts.

    g. Yes, I am a snob, but was not being so this time. I was being sarcastic, implying that it was foolhardy to suppose he had no idea of the dangers he courted.

    h. What is your evidence for a conspiracy?

    i. “His brief fed him the shit they wanted him to swallow”. How do you know that?

    j. “90 defendants can be tried in several courts at once”. As I think someone else pointed out, it’s practically impossible to achieve the coordination of witnesses and lawyers in multiple identical cases in multiple court centres. The only ways of doing it that I can think of would be vastly to increase the number of courts and/or to clear the decks within those courts of all other cases so there are no overruns from other trials whilst simultaneously paying the instructed lawdogs so much they could afford to block out their diaries for that once case.

  56. Tim W–None of that had the slightest play in the old slebs capers. Obviously they were not a gang but they were tried for the same type of supposed offences in the middle of a super-stoked hysteria egged on by both media and state. As I said the FFC and various assorted polits made public statements –not about the guilt or innocence of individual defendants–but about the general super wickedness of any and all such offenses. Hardly non-prejudicial.

    TR could have no influence on an already completed trial.

    The next trial has–and no such allegation has been made to my knowledge–defendants none of whom were named by Tommy. Naming men already found guilty –or to be so within an hour our so ( and no way of his words reaching the jurors) can affect nothing. Again if knowing that one lot are guilty is to affect the next trial then names should not have been in the public domain. But then you have secret trials so fuck that.

    The state loves wasting fucking money–let them build a court of a size equal to the crimes being imported into our country. Trial all at once–end of problem.

    As for Judges–they should not have such power and esp when it is exercised on a whim. Why should old white slebs be pre-tried by the press because alleged white paedos were CM flavour of the month and client groups be awarded protection.

    Again without Robinson and a few other like him–none of these trials would be happening anyway and 3 decades of cover up would be extended to four.

    Take TR out of jail and put everybody who sent him there in for the 13 months. That is the kind of lesson that needs serving up.

  57. DocBud, that would be unlikely. But it could happen.

    Mr Ecks, assuming the jury was in retirement at the time of filming, there was no way of knowing how long it would take for a verdict to be reached. If no verdict by home time, then off they go till tomorrow … exposed to who knows what overnight.

  58. If there are different judges and jurors for what are essentially the same offences, isn’t there a risk of different outcomes, verdicts and sentences? Wouldn’t that lead to numerous appeals on the grounds that “I raped less girls but got a longer sentence than someone else”?

  59. There are different judges and jurors for ostensibly identical cases all the time. Yes it can lead to appeals, but there’s quite a lot of homogeneity now need into judicial directions and guidelines so the risk is smallish.

  60. Edward Lud:

    “!a. how do you know TR’s lawyer was lied to?”

    His personal lawyer has said so I believe. She phoned the bluebottles who told her Tommy was to be released when they well knew he wasn’t. It might be a mistake. And my name might be Hertz Van Rentals.

    “b. are you saying he did not derail he trial because likewise you say it had concluded, or are you saying he did not derail the trial but neglecting that the reason he did not do so is because he was committed to prison?”

    Your formulation is unclear but he did not “derail” the trial at all.

    I have yet to see any official source state whether this was a sentencing hearing or a Jury delivering their verdict. Two sources–a Samizdata commenter and the Slog’s blogpost said it was a sentencing hearing. If so it was literally too late to influence the Jury. I have googled to try and clarify but all I can find is leftist/sell-out BS.

    If the verdict was to be delivered it still doesn’t matter because somebody wandering outside with a livefeed might as well have been on Mars for all the chance he had of communicating his views to the actual Jury.

    “c. “Snap their fucking fingers, and off you go …?” Erm, yup. An individual courtroom is a fiefdom and a judge’s powers to make all sorts of people dance to his tune are more or less unparalleled. Sometimes this even works in favour of the goodies. Judges may like anyone else be arrogant and egotistical, but they also have to balance competing interests according to legal formulae or tests. A failure properly to do so is likely to lead to things such as applications to discharge juries, or successful appeals of convictions.”

    All very well but an open invitation to arrogance and egotism which are the abuse of state power just as surely as any other form of the same. The arseholes need to be on a tighter lead. And that should start at the top with the political scum. Remember but for TR and others these beaks would have no need to be exercising themselves or boosting their egos because the cover up would have gone on forever.

    “d. You suggest he was arrested for a breach of the peace as a “scam” prelude to re-arresting him for contempt. I do not understand this argument. If the rozzers had thought they could arrest him from the outset for contempt, why not do so?”

    Because the law should not be an episode of some game show for costumed thugs . “What can we arrest this one for–well we don’t need a reason these days –but it has to sound official –etc, etc”. Go look on lots of youtube sites to see in what high esteem our lovely “protectors” hold the ordinary folk of this nation. “Crimebodge” is a good start. And the law now appears to have developed a morphed malleability that would put Plastic Man to shame.

    “f. You suggest the speedy response of the police indicates a pre-ordered set-up. Well, perhaps. But it seems clear he knew what he was doing – the dangers he courted. You also tend to find cop shops are located very near to courts.”

    It can’t be said absolutely. But since the so-called “extremist” plod group follow him around daily it remains my bet.

    “g. Yes, I am a snob, but was not being so this time. I was being sarcastic, implying that it was foolhardy to suppose he had no idea of the dangers he courted.”

    I have always found you a reasonable commenter on here and thus muted the usual rage that emerges when dealing with the “enemy”. I was dismayed that so many folk appear to buying the state’s bullshit.

    “h. What is your evidence for a conspiracy?2

    Circumstantial at present but it seems highly likely in view of what has gone before.

    It can be said that TR could have avoided all this and lived a “normal” life by keeping his gob shut. But so could Detrich Bonhoffer. No Tommy is not a Saint. But he refuses to keep quiet about an evil that socialist scum want quiet kept about. So to Hell with the Judges and bluebottles –none of whom appear to have moral courage sufficient to weigh in the balance against a gnat. If they had any such they would be busy jailing the Home Office and SCS trash behind the unofficial official vendetta that has carried on against Robinson for years now.

    “i. “His brief fed him the shit they wanted him to swallow”. How do you know that?”

    Can’t know it but given police practice worldwide ( mostly the Western World given that cops elsewhere don’t bother with much pretense) it seems highly likely. They could have told his lawyer of their intent to charge him and waited for her arrival but they want a fait acompli at flank speed. It is conjecture but by no means unreasonable. TR should not have listened to any brief they had secured and pleaded NG on gen principle.

    “j. “90 defendants can be tried in several courts at once”. As I think someone else pointed out, it’s practically impossible to achieve the coordination of witnesses and lawyers in multiple identical cases in multiple court centres. The only ways of doing it that I can think of would be vastly to increase the number of courts and/or to clear the decks within those courts of all other cases so there are no overruns from other trials whilst simultaneously paying the instructed lawdogs so much they could afford to block out their diaries for that once case.”

    A new giant building–send for Albert Speer–as I suggested above. Or–since they have shut down the last circus– there must be a Big Top for hire. Quite appropriate as well.

  61. “Mr Ecks, assuming the jury was in retirement at the time of filming, there was no way of knowing how long it would take for a verdict to be reached. If no verdict by home time, then off they go till tomorrow … exposed to who knows what overnight.”

    Even if they did–what would Tommy have told them that they hadn’t heard from the prosecution in court, complete with very graphic details of deeds allegedly done.

    The idea seems to be that Juries are composed of fragile orchids that can be swayed by any passing breeze. Indeed it almost seems like some state scam to undermine the Jury system. To claim they can’t be trusted. After all they do deliver verdicts the state doesn’t like.

    Yes had TR been phoning them at home saying “Look come on–these blokes they’re guilty–you know it “etc,etc then yes that would be an open and shut case of Jury fiddling. But wandering around outside with an iPhone too late in either case albeit verdict or sentence —-no.

  62. But what was to stop him making any film he liked once the trials were over? Why did he have to do it at that particular point?

  63. Because he is trying to raise attention to the plight of those still being abused.

    Otherwise he might as well wait until he is 90 and write about it as a historian.

  64. I don’t agree that I’m “buying the State’s bullshit”, Mr Ecks. I’ve blogged for over a decade on the scale of our wilfully imported criminality. And I have no difficulty with Tommy Robinson or anyone else drawing attention to the problem. But he could have broadcast a programme dealing with the issue based on massive evidence already in the public domain.

  65. Just ad of anybodclarification needed on the multiple trial thing. Can I assume that a defendant in trial A, say Mr. M, could be found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment and nobody would know? He just doesn’t go home? He effectively disappears? We the public are entitled to know who is convicted and what their sentence is without delay, aren’t we? I never heard of anybody being banged up in secret. But then, I wouldn’t have heard, would I? Are people being locked up for long sentences (or freed, for that matter) in secret? The third trail which is supposed to be prejudiced in in September. Won’t we hear about Mr M til then?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.