The Child Abuse Trial.
20 October 2018, 07:07 PM
#1
The Child Abuse Trial.
The verdict could have been different if the **** Tommy Robinson had his way.
https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/201...n7W3hIxTDQ&m=1
https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/201...n7W3hIxTDQ&m=1
20 October 2018, 08:59 PM
#3
Thing is, it’s very common for the press to loiter around the courts to heckle individuals going to and from hearings. Yet in this individual case it was banned. In Tommy’s eyes he couldn’t see why it should have been any different, put two and two together and got six.
This would have all been avoided had our goverment passed a law that excludes any press, groups or individuals from loitering around ANY court reagardless of the case being heard. That way a precedence is set to ban this kind of ‘doorstepping’ activity, which in itself is the reserves of gutter journalism.
This would have all been avoided had our goverment passed a law that excludes any press, groups or individuals from loitering around ANY court reagardless of the case being heard. That way a precedence is set to ban this kind of ‘doorstepping’ activity, which in itself is the reserves of gutter journalism.
Last edited by ALi-B; 20 October 2018 at 09:00 PM.
20 October 2018, 10:00 PM
#4
Scooby Senior
Thing is, it’s very common for the press to loiter around the courts to heckle individuals going to and from hearings. Yet in this individual case it was banned. In Tommy’s eyes he couldn’t see why it should have been any different, put two and two together and got six.
This would have all been avoided had our goverment passed a law that excludes any press, groups or individuals from loitering around ANY court reagardless of the case being heard. That way a precedence is set to ban this kind of ‘doorstepping’ activity, which in itself is the reserves of gutter journalism.
This would have all been avoided had our goverment passed a law that excludes any press, groups or individuals from loitering around ANY court reagardless of the case being heard. That way a precedence is set to ban this kind of ‘doorstepping’ activity, which in itself is the reserves of gutter journalism.
20 October 2018, 11:47 PM
#5
I’m not defending that ****.
Live streaming is part and parcel of the ‘heckling’ antics that gutter journalists employ whilst loitering outside courts, be it via published press, Facebook feeds, twitter, or whatever.
The restrictions should be across the board, no person should loiter outside courts. There is simply no need. That way there can never any accusation of alleged cover ups. The allowance of loitering set a precident that this is accepting practice and gives motivation for fools to do the same.
Live streaming is part and parcel of the ‘heckling’ antics that gutter journalists employ whilst loitering outside courts, be it via published press, Facebook feeds, twitter, or whatever.
The restrictions should be across the board, no person should loiter outside courts. There is simply no need. That way there can never any accusation of alleged cover ups. The allowance of loitering set a precident that this is accepting practice and gives motivation for fools to do the same.
21 October 2018, 06:53 PM
#6
If you follow Tommy Robinson you will know a few things.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
21 October 2018, 08:58 PM
#7
If you follow Tommy Robinson you will know a few things.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
He could have cost us all hundreds of thousands of pounds in retrials if he'd been left to spout off any longer. The guy is a pl0nker of the highest order, plain and simple.
Trending Topics
21 October 2018, 11:14 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you follow Tommy Robinson you will know a few things.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
Thank God for the internet, we can now save a fortune on paying all these judges to make decisions.
22 October 2018, 03:07 PM
#9
If you follow Tommy Robinson you will know a few things.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
1: him being there couldn't effect the outcome as they were going for the already agreed verdict.
secondly he wasn't on court property and their names and faces were already out in the public domain
he did nothing different then has been done before.
There was also something else about this court case that I car remember the in and outs. Something like he went into the court to see what was on the list of what couldn't be mentioned and it was blank.
if you watched the love stream as I did he did nothing wrong.
The list was blank to to prevent the victims further stress and humiliation. The names of the assailants were not on public display other wise we would have already know but by trying to make them public he jeopardised the court verdicts and tens of thousands of pounds of tax payers money. And this week could see him go down for longer as judges ordered a rehearing, saying the “alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served”. Robinson is also accused of breaching the conditions of a three-month suspended sentence he was handed for a separate contempt offence in Canterbury in 2017.
Contempt of court laws aim to ensure fair trials in Britain by preventing juries from being swayed by information from outside the hearing, and apply to all forms of online and offline publications.
Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, and previously as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris is a **** and nearly cost victims of rape, abuse and assault justice.
Why does he have so many names anyway?
24 October 2018, 02:44 PM
#11
Scooby Senior
“A few weeks after the Rochdale case, we dealt with a case of 10 white men in North Yorkshire who had been abusing young girls, and they were all convicted and they got long sentences. It didn’t get the level of coverage,” he says.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bigsinky
Non Scooby Related
9
07 October 2011 09:08 PM
Dedrater
Non Scooby Related
8
15 September 2011 01:39 PM
unclebuck
Non Scooby Related
41
16 January 2003 05:32 PM