36 thoughts on “Let’s See How Long This Stays Up”

  1. I’m praying that Tommy Robinson is released but because it’s a Bank Holiday weekend here in the UK I think it will be Tuesday before his lawyer can intervene and a decision by the forces of evil will be made on his fate. In the meantime I pray that God keeps him safe in prison.

  3. The most truthful headline from yesterday …

    (redacted) arrested for (redacted) outside (redacted) – Leeds Crown Court issues media ban

    The sheep protecting the wolves which will ultimately devour them and their children.

    BIZARRE in the extreme!

  4. I’m inclined to think that this whole abomination is a modern re-run of Henry II’s rhetorical question “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” which led to the death of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170. While it was not expressed as an order, it caused four knights to travel from Normandy to Canterbury, where they killed Becket.

    The phrase is now used to express the idea that a ruler’s wish can be interpreted as a command by his or her subordinates. I wonder who is responsible for doing likewise in 2018, and it most certainly won’t be Her Majesty?

    Find them, and the answer to this assassination attempt on a free man of England will be yours to pass judgement upon.

    • I don’t think the present British government has the grace of Henry II to maintain deniability. Say what you will about government by king, it put a human face on the government, however one-sided the power distribution was.

      Today’s government is a set of unaccountable, tax-funded bureaucracies where you would never be able to track any line of responsibility to an individual. No bureaucrat has that character or integrity to actually attach his name to a policy that might be subject now or later to criticism.

    • Actually the answer to Seneca III’s question is pretty easy to figure out.

      In the UK, the Home Secretary is responsible for the internal affairs of England and Wales, and for immigration and citizenship for the United Kingdom. The Home Office also oversees policing in England and Wales and matters of domestic national security.

      After Amber Rudd ‘resigned’ Theresa May chose as her successor none other than Sajid Javid, a Pakistani Muslim.

      Two plus two make four, yeah?

      • I read a long time ago that a for a country to be considered Islamic it need not have majority population of ‘believers’. It only needs Muslims in the positions of power. It would seem the UK is on the way:
        The Camel’s Nose In The Tent !

        One cold night, as an Arab sat in his tent, a camel gently thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. “Master,” he said, “let me put my nose in your tent. It’s cold and stormy out here.” “By all means,” said the Arab, “and welcome” as he turned over and went to sleep.

        A little later the Arab awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, “I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here.” “Yes, you may put your forelegs within,” said the Arab, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

        Finally, the camel said, “May I not stand wholly inside? I keep the tent open by standing as I do.” “Yes, yes,” said the Arab. “Come wholly inside. Perhaps it will be better for both of us.” So the camel crowded in. The Arab with difficulty in the crowded quarters again went to sleep. When he woke up the next time, he was outside in the cold and the camel had the tent to himself.

        Author unknown

  5. It would seem to me that the very last thing the powers-that-be would want to do is make a martyr of Tommy. However, short of his being released, this appears to be the course.

    • No. It’s now a matter of power, characteristic of a not-yet-decayed totalitarian government. It doesn’t matter if Tommy is a martyr if his friends within government jurisdiction are intimidated into silence.

  11. The reporting restrictions on the trials at Leeds Crown Court are in place for a reason. Because of the large number of defendants there are 3 trials taking place over several months but they are linked so what is reported about the first or second trial could have a bearing on whether the defendants in the third trial get a fair trial.Tommy Robinson was specifically warned by the judge when given the 3 month suspended sentence for his livestreaming from outside Canterbury court (where a grooming trial was going on) that if he did the same outside any other court he would find himself inside. He ignored that. He broke the terms of his suspension and his suspended sentence became operative. That is the law in the UK and he knew it. He has only himself to blame and he has behaved stupiidly. The only justification for what he is doing would be if at the end of all three trials reporting restrictions were not lifted.

    • “…what is reported about the first or second trial could have a bearing on whether the defendants in the third trial get a fair trial”

      So could what is not reported on the trial, you are saying the trial has no societal implications and exists in a void, which is patently false as law is a societal construct from the start … not to mention the raising of public awareness outside of this theatre as to dangers that exist to thepublic and their families, so that they might protect them and therefore reduce the number of trials of this nature.

      If the authorities are that concerned that accused walking in public on bail to court might disturb people or the trial, then there are options:

      Banning the public is not one of them.

      • Or even simpler, and much more direct :

        Q. Did Tommy get a fair trial?

        A. We don’t know because there is a ban on reporting the details.

        And you are saying a reporting ban guarantees a fair trial ?

        Really ?

        How do YOU know, if reporting and therefore scrutiny are banned ?

        Be serious:

        You are talking of people’s lives.

    • Tommy Robinson is not stupid. If he did break the terms of his (questionable) suspended sentence it must have been due to confusion or misunderstanding. A top solicitor could have made a good case for that, but his own solicitor was not present when he was sentenced (see further in my comment for more on that).

      How could Tommy have conveyed any information about the trial when he was outside the building and off of court property? How would his commentary influence the verdicts in a series of trials which he believed were are the sentencing stage? Some reports now state that the sentencing stage has not yet been reached. An open system of justice would ensure clarity not confusion. Reporting restrictions might have their uses but some of the negative consequences are now being demonstrated in London by angry and outraged crowds.

      Tommy is no fool and wouldn’t deliberately defy a court order. He obviously knows that the powers-that-be are watching and waiting with excessive zeal for the slightest slip-up on his part. He was careful to ensure that he was not broadcasting from court property. Why would he follow one requirement and not another?

      By imposing reporting restrictions the judge has denied the public access to the facts of Tommy’s situation thereby fueling anger and confusion. The speed of his arrest, conviction, and jailing (all without access to his own solicitor, who has said that she was misled by police into believing that his case wouldn’t be heard until Tuesday since Monday is a holiday there) are astounding.

      And how did a 3-month suspended sentence get transformed into a 13-month sentence?

      • He was specifically warned by the judge not to continue with his livestreaming reports from outside courts where grooming trials were taking place and not to make any remarks about paedophile Muslims or Muslim rapists before defendants were convicted as such. As there has been no reporting about these trials and he was certainly not allowed within the courtroom how could he make any informed judgement as to what stage the trials were at? He is not so stupid as to not understand what the judge was saying – there is no ambiguity in being told he would go to prison if he continued. But he continued. He has been reckless especially as he must know the authorities want to shut him up. The Rochdale trial was compromised by a tweet from Nick Griffin leading to a suspicion that the BNP had a mole in the jury. It nearly collapsed and if it had done so justice would not have been done. Do you really think that Robinson standing outside the court ranting about people called Mohammad will not encourage the defendant’s lawyers to claim their clients cannot get a fair trial?

        • I’ll chip in, and without meaning to interrupt the author’s reply:

          “He has been reckless especially as he must know the authorities want to shut him up”

          Well I think reckless would be a compliment to UK authorities. That he knows UK authorities want him shut up makes Tommy bold or brave, not reckless, and in fact you destroy the whole basis of your own argument by admitting this. Law is not about “what the authorities want”, what that is is dictatorship and it does not lead to mistrial but no trial, or a mockery of the concept.

          A mistrial in this case is more likely to be declared due to the ineptitude shown by the judge in targeting Tommy – he has shown that he is biased, that assuming the arrest of Tommy was partly at his discretion.

          That is not Tommy’s fault though, unless you agree the trial was taking place on the street outside the court.

          Was it?

          And justice?

          I don’t think you know what justice looks like when it is not accepted to occur in court. So you might agree to a mistrial because someone expressed their maybe biased view outside of the court (and there are simple laws for insults or defamation , for example, to deter that anywhere, or in extremis a transparent restraining orders), but I would then call you negligent and responsible for inviting and recognising that justice be instead served outside of court, and possibly to the court from there, as you would be openly ceding authority over the proceedings to public discourse and will occuring elsewhere.

          You really don’t want that.

          Jury bias or pressure? Intimidation of participants ? Sure thing, whichever way, as it is not reality tv but people willing to kill each other, lives having been destroyed – they all know that already.

          But you want to paint civilised procedural response as an understood by the rest of society – well it isn’t and won’t be by all, and for good reason, the rejection of purposeful immigration being an example or related political corruption another.

          And there you have your error. It is your error because you are not addressing the wider reality of the nation that has led to a case like this. A court should not expand beyond the immediate case to do so either, but it has chosen to by encompassing it via imposing reporting restrictions ON IT, and by not handling contentious circumstances in a fitting way.

          What is worse of this though, is that it actually gives off an air, not of incompetence, but of purposeful corruption and manipulation FROM THE COURT and authorities.

          And you want people to just fit in to it, to tolerate it OR ELSE have mistrial declared?

          That is not an acceptable or realistic reply.

          • A mistrial could easily be declared by “reporting” that implies before verdicts have been given that the defendants are guilty before they have been declared as such by the jury. The system of law in the UK is of presumed innocence for ALL defendants . There is no exception to this for Muslims accused of rape / grooming / trafficking. And quite frankly Robinson’s emotional rants and asking the defendants if they feel no remorse implies that they are guilty.
            Robinson was reckless because he deliberately went to do what he had been told by judge Heather Norton not to do . He was reckless not only with regards to his own freedom but also took the chance of interfering with the functioning of the law. There have been umpteen of these grooming trials now. They are reported on at the sentencing stage ( if they are big enough) and there is the usual handwringing over what can be done to stop this and how complicit were the police ,social services etc. But convictions and heavy sentences ( by UK standards of sentencing if not US ones) ARE happening. Having watched Robinson’s livestreamjng I cannot see that it has any purpose in facilitating the judicial process.

          • Well if a jury doesn’t know that it is their verdict that is going to determine guilt or innocence, not what anyone of the 6bn other inhabitants of the earth happen to think, then I don’t know.

            Or looked at differently, and as by yourself, an accused should be presumed innocent.

            But why presume anything?

            Instead the trial is an investigation into whether the plaintiffs’ accusations make sense, with a verdict decided at end.

            How far do you have to go to make sure the accused are presumed innocent?

          • Though I don’t expect this to be much read as the thread is old, I will just jot down further reflection. This goes on a slight tangent but is relevant, more for consideration :

            Tommy cannot report in the street outside a trial – but the 100 000 viewers are allowed to turn up there and observe for themselves if not ?

            What is private vs. public broadcasting/reporting? Someone who says he was present and people may therefore go and ask his account/opinion vs. someone writing their account where people can go and ask for it? Is there any wonder that people who rely on using OWNED media to BROADCAST their authority look on any REPORTING as an attempt to challenge their dominant position. You see where there is the possibility of mission creep by silencing public communication, right through to private communication – these restrictive rules do exist IN COURT but NOT in public.

            This goes on to the presumption of innocence. A jury is not supposed to be prejudiced – to presume. As a justice is a taught bow in that it is designed to punish, it must initially presume that the general public are innocent, it must not even aim itself at the public, and as the accused are until found guilty the public, it must presume them innocent. The calling of suspects to trial is based on credible accusation only, and does not imply guilt, only suspicion of.

            However, court justice and method cannot be transferred onto public thought. It is imposed as a compromise method by both guaranteeing certain procedure and repressing expression of private judgement by punishment.

            So it is made that portraying someone on trial as guilty is an offence. The first method of that is by punishing acts of defamation, where the criteria used to judge that is court verdict on guilt or innocence of the accused.

            But you cannot tell a member of the public who KNOWS someone is guilty that they must act as if an accused is innocent. That is a travesty, but by imposing a blanket view that is what is asked as a compromise to allow justice to be done – in the name of allowing the jury to decide unencumbered.

            So you are transferring the state of the jury onto the public domain, that is to say court position and authority, before any verdict is reached, onto the social reality of a nation.

            I hope you see the possibility in all of that for using the courts to manipulate public perception in a corrupt way, because everyday life is not people sitting in court for months to reach a decision, but is instead a steady banter of information that is up to date and active, as it must be for a society to be able to decide correctly for itself.

            Therefore I personally see it as necessary to clearly delineate between court and public, where court proceedings are kept private if need be, but public communication of information is not restricted. I think that means isolating the court and jury, not isolating the public and its communication of information, simply because the cost of the first is small compared to that of restricting public freedom.

            Interestingly studies have shown that jury often privately research outside of court, or to be blunt, there is no thing such as a perfect unbiased jury – you are not going to cultivate the whole of society along certain lines just to try to produce one.

        • Tommy could have made an informed decision as to what stage the trials were at the same way that Esmerelda of New English Review did—by going to the freely accessible, public domain court information as she describes here:

          “Some of us have been following progress through public access websites of listing and thus we knew when the defence cases ended, and that the jury retired to consider their verdict yesterday afternoon. By my reckoning this is the second trial of the mass arrests made last year. It followed immediately on from the earlier trial in the same court in April.”

          http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=67428&cat_id=15&Tommy-Robinson-arrested-and-in-Court-this-afternoon-after-trying-to-observe-the-progress-of-a-current-grooming-trial-at-Crown-Court-Leeds-

          According to her, the jury retired on Thursday, May 24.

          So, Tommy could also have come to the same conclusion about the progress of this trial. And being on public property is not the same as being on court property.

          • This is the second of 3 trials which are linked. The reporting restrictions are in place till the end of the final trial. In reporting from outside the court Tommy Robinson committed contempt and activated his previous contempt conviction. The manner of his arrest and instant conviction for the new offence stinks as it seems he was not allowed due process ie being able to choose his legal representation and hopefully his legal team will be able to appeal the new conviction but the activation of the 3 month suspended sentence will probably remain. If the reporting restrictions apply till the end of the 3rd trial it is not relevant that thd second trial was at the verdict stage. In any case it is unlikely sentences will be imposed until all the trials are concluded.

    • Then tell me, why was this not explained by the judge and the STAPO and the media permitted to report accordingly?

        • I agree that this was probably premeditated by the authorities ,that they were looking for any excuse to bang him up. But he must have known this. It stinks that there appears to be a media blackout on his arrest – though some MSM reports were still up. But it has been a failure as the demo showed. I have in the past been an admirer of Tommy Robinson but I disagree with what he has been doing in this instance as I think there is a possibility of his actions resulting in the groomers getting away with their crimes.

          • That’s what the totalitarian British govt wants: the info on the sentencing of these groups of men and the final outcome keeps disappearing. Rather like Tommy did after his lawyer was lied to by the police, who assured her he wasn’t going to be remanded.

    • What exactly happened is not clear at this point. What is clear is that trials in the UK are routinely compromised by the media when the defendant is white and on the wrong side politically. The trial of Thomas Mair was a farce. The British media did all they could to smear him before the proceedings. I no longer care about the legal niceties here. The leftleaning British “justice system” releases rapists because they own cats or “didn’t know the culture” or other such garbage, while jailing people for tweets and sandwich attacks on mosques. The anger is about the broader principles.

    • One blogger, Laura Sourthern, made the point that the information Tommy conveyed in his streaming was already published by mainstream news.

      I can’t say if Tommy knew he was putting himself at risk. I would say Tommy knows the evil of the British totalitarian police state as well as anyone else alive, so a pretty compelling conclusion is that Tommy knew the risks, and went out of his way to avoid any incriminating action that would be illegal if legal niceties were observed. But, not being a soy-boy, he put himself at risk rather than join the mass of lemming journalists-entertainers who obediently stopped reporting on the trials.

      By the way, my feeling is, without evidence, that much of the police cover-up and the present vicious judicial suppression of discussion, is motivated by the possibility that the police not only ignored, but colluded actively with, the Muslim rape gangs.

  13. The reporting restrictions on the trials at Leeds Crown Court are in place for a reason. Because of the large number of defendants there are 3 trials taking place over several months but they are linked so what is reported about the first or second trial could have a bearing on whether the defendants in the third trial get a fair trial.Tommy Robinson was specifically warned by the judge when given the 3 month suspended sentence for his livestreaming from outside Canterbury court (where a grooming trial was going on) that if he did the same outside any other court he would find himself inside. He ignored that. He broke the terms of his suspension and his suspended sentence became operative. That is the law in the UK and he knew it. He has only himself to blame and he has behaved stupiidly. The only justification for what he is doing would be if at the end of all three trials reporting restrictions were not lifted.

  14. This secret trial and banning on reporting it is the hallmark of a totalitarian regime and in the best traditions of a police state.

    The fundamental democratic principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is clearly smashed in the
    Tommy Robinson case.

    It brings the judiciary ,the government and the police into disrepute and demolishes the fundamental trust built up over centuries, that has previously existed in the public mind.

    It abolishes the social contract between the legal system and the police and the government on the one hand the public on the other.

    Thus it leads to anarchy, kangaroo courts ,hostility and suspicion towards all functionaries of the court and law and order systems and indeed of the government.

    It is a vast and inexplicable misstep- a stark revelation of the pulverizing iron fist of tyranny within the rotting velvet glove of decayed institutions, that used to guarantee democratic freedoms.

Comments are closed.