Yaxley going back to jail

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If this happened in the US there would be a torrent of class action law suits on behalf of the victims and the scum who
thought it was better to ruin the lives of young girls and let them become victims of hellish rape gangs than possibly offend Muslim communities and be seen as racists would be rooted out and tossed in prison themselves.

But Brits don't have the balls to do the right thing. It's easier to demonize someone like Tommy Robinson and
hope he gets a knife in the back while in prison so the guilty can wash their hands of the whole mess. It's pathetic.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ive gathered together all of your bullshit on this thread and responded with appropriate parts of the judgement. You will very quickly see that you have been lied to by rebel media and yaxley.

Eric says - It turns out that Robinson was arrested for podcasting outside of the courtroom where a sentencing hearing was scheduled. A sentencing hearing. Not a trial itself. The trial had already been held. Robinson was putting nothing in jeopardy because the trial of pedophile gang members had already been held.

Tommy says - In the UK a verdict is considered an important part of the trial. And sentencing comes after the verdict. How could it be a sentencing hearing when the verdict did not come in for another 2 weeks ?



The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said. On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent’s arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded. His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected. On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.



Eric says - The day Tommy Robinson was arrested by the English injustice machine for interfering with a trial the trial itself was already decided and all over.

Tommy says - See previous point. The trial was still going on.



Eric says - Robinson read the names on his broadcast that day from a list of defendants published by the BBC that very same day. So tell me quisling, why is Robinson guilty but not the BBC?


Tommy says - The BBC published their info in May 2107 when there was no gagging order in place. Yaxleys list was a cutting from the Huddersfield Examiner not the BBC. The BBC have no case to answer.


In the meantime, on 11 May 2017, there was a directions hearing before HHJ Marson QC in the Crown Court at Leeds, when the Judge made orders in respect of the Huddersfield charges. He directed that those charges should be tried in a series of three trials in Leeds, commencing in January, April, and September 2018. The first case was called R v Dhaliwal and others. The Akhtar case was the second of the three. These proceedings were reported in the Huddersfield Examiner and other media, including the BBC.


Eric says - What is he guilty of? Divulging publicly known information? Either it's legal to divulge those names or it is not. Either the BBC was guilty of jeopardizing a trial or they were not. Either Robinson has the right to read information from the BBC or he does not! Wrap your tiny mind around that and let me know what you come up with.


Tommy says - This is what he is guilty of. The ruling is quite clear.

On 19 March 2018, in the Crown Court at Leeds, the RRO was made by HHJ Marson QC. It was headed, in capitals, “Notice to the Press – Reporting Restriction” and “Postponement Order”. It was made in the Akhtar proceedings, and provided that “The publication of any report of these proceedings shall be postponed until after the conclusion of this trial and all related trials.”


Eric says - You only have to answer one question, stooge. Is it illegal for Tommy Robinson to broadcast the information recently put into the public record by the BBC? Is it, or is it not illegal?


Tommy says - It is illegal.Refer you to a previous answer. It was illegal and the BBC info was published in 2017 when there were no restrictions.


Eric says - I said that the verdict was in on the trial Robinson was concerned with in Leeds. No lies at all.


Tommy says - Nope. Yaxley was arrested on May 25th. The verdict came in on June 5th.

The jury deliberated for the rest of 25 May 2018, and were then sent away until the following Tuesday, 29 May. On that day, Counsel for two of the defendants applied unsuccessfully for the discharge of the jury, relying among other things on the way in which the respondent had confronted the defendants and the allegedly prejudicial nature of what had been said. On Friday 1 June 2018 there was a large demonstration by the English Defence League outside the Crown Court at Leeds, protesting at the respondent’s arrest and imprisonment. One of the defendants in the Akhtar trial, Sajid Hussain, absconded. His Counsel had expressed concern on his behalf about the demonstration, which had been advertised in advance. On Monday 4 June 2018, a fresh application to discharge was made, based on the effects of the demonstrations. This was rejected. On Tuesday 5 June 2018, the jury returned their verdicts, finding each of the remaining defendants guilty on all counts that had been left to the jury for decision.


Eric says - And you don't have to pretend you can explain to me how Robinson disseminating public information is illegal. It's a little embarrassing to watch you make believe and we both know you are in over your head.

Tommy says -The court made an order forbidding it. To break that order is contempt of court.It doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with the order. The order has been made and that is the end of it.


47. Mr Caldecott argues that the actus reus of this offence is committed by the reporting in and of itself. The fact, if it be so, that some information is in the public domain has no bearing on the question of whether an act of contempt has been committed. As to mens rea, he submits that negligence may be sufficient, but in any event subjective recklessness as to the existence and terms of the RRO is enough as a matter of law.


48. Mr Furlong accepts that breach of a s 4(2) order is capable of amounting to contempt. In his skeleton argument, he made four main submissions as to the law. First, he argued that contempt of this variety can only be made out on proof of “disobedience to an order of the court properly made”. Secondly, he invited us to conclude that on a proper analysis this RRO was not “properly made”. Next, he argued that contempt cannot be made out unless it is proved that the respondent had knowledge that an order was in force, postponing publication; it is not enough to establish reckless in that respect. He further argued that it would be wrong to import recklessness into this branch of the law at all.

49. We cannot accept either of Mr Furlong’s first two propositions. It is a fundamental principle of long standing that orders of the court must be obeyed whilst they remain in force; disobedience to an order will therefore amount to a breach, capable of amounting to contempt, even if on later examination it proves to have been wrongly made: see Woodward v Earl Lincoln (1674) 3 Swan App 626, 36 ER 1000, and other authorities cited in Arlidge, Eady & Smith at 7-173 and 9-230 to 9-235. More than this, Mr Furlong’s submission is contrary to authority. In the Horsham Justices case, the DAME VICTORIA SHARP, P & MR JUSTICE WARBY Approved Judgment AG v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) Page 16 majority of the Court of Appeal (Ackner and Shaw LJJ) rejected a submission advanced by Mr Beloff QC on behalf of the appellant journalists that the Court confronted with a committal application could and should reconsider the decision to make a s 4(2) order: see [1982] 1 QB 798B-C (Shaw LJ), 805B-E, 806E-F (Ackner LJ). See also the obiter remarks of Brooke LJ in Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 3) [1992] 1 WLR 874, 884H-885A, which are to the same effect. We agree with the conclusion of the editors of Arlidge, Eady & Smith (at 7-319) that “the validity of a s 4(2) order cannot be made the subject of challenge in contempt proceedings based upon a breach.” In his oral submissions, Mr Furlong made clear that he did not seek to argue otherwise.

Basically the Judge told him to study his law books.



Eric says - So why were grooming gang defendants in the Leed's courthouse? Just visiting with the judge? And why was the BBC publicizing the names of defendants if their trial was ongoing? Because the law only applies to Tommy Yaxley-Robinson?

Tommy says - See previous answers.The BBC were not publicising the names during the trial. They did so a year earlier when there were no restrictions.




Eric says- Yaxley-Robinson made no reference to any other trial. Please state specifically how Robinson's broadcast put ANY trial in jeopardy? Please let everyone know what he said that jeopardized a trial already over and another that hadn't even started. Go ahead and inform us all. Please.


I have underlined the pertinent part. It isnt in dispute.


(1) The respondent told viewers that the Akhtar trial was going on, and that it was the second of three trials. He recited the defendants’ names and the charges they were facing, gave further information about the alleged offending, and stated that the jury were presently considering their verdicts.


He wasnt just found guilty of broadcasting. There were 3 separate strands in the Crowns case. I paste them here in case you missed them.


In summary, the Attorney General alleges that the respondent’s conduct amounted to contempt of court in three different respects.

First, the online publication involved a breach of a reporting restriction order (“the RRO”) that had been imposed under s 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, and which prohibited any reporting of the Akhtar trial until after the conclusion of that trial and all related trials.


Secondly, the Attorney General alleges that the content of what was published gave rise to a substantial risk that the course of justice in the Akhtar case would be seriously impeded, thereby amounting to a breach of the rule of contempt law known as “the strict liability rule”.


Thirdly, it is alleged that by confronting some of the defendants as they arrived at court, doing so aggressively, and openly filming the process, the respondent interfered with the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature, so the onus is on the Attorney General to prove his case so that we are sure.

Open and shut He had no defence and he lied to the court. Not a victim, just a naughty boy.

 

[Mindful]

You're a zealot, TT.

There must be something driving your insatiable agenda.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You're a zealot, TT.

There must be something driving your insatiable agenda.

He does seem to have an endless amount of time to devote to his little hobby.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

With regard to the arrest of Tommy Robinson:

Gerard Batten MEP‏Verified account @GerardBattenMEP 20h20 hours ago

I am trying to recall a legal case where someone was convicted of a ‘crime’ which cannot be reported on. Where he can be cast into prison without it being possible to report his name, offence, or place of imprisonment for fear of contempt of court. Can anyone remember such a case

Ezra Levant speaks about Tommy Robinson's unprecedented sentence — Steemit


"In this case Tommy Robinson was reporting on a group of child rapists, and despite clear failings of processes relating to reporting restrictions not being published correctly, he was convicted in the highest court in the land (one reserved normally for the most heinous of crimes, not contempt hearings, which are actually civil proceedings) and sent to one of the most dangerous prisons in the UK, where he will more than likely spend his time again in solitary confinement because the risk to his life by Jihadi gangs who are well known to 'run the prison'.

This trial as a whole, and especially the sentence, is unprecedented, and his supporters have no doubt that this was a political trial, simply because this was Tommy Robinson, the enemy of the state."

Look at the zeal with which the British government has gone to unprecedented extents to
throw Robinson in prison for a civil matter. Is there any doubt he is a political prisoner?

It is the continuation of a vast cover up in which English officials of all sorts helped "Asian" grooming gangs commit years of crimes in which raping young English girls with impunity
was carried on mostly in the North of England.
And it only stopped when Tommy Robinson most publicly brought attention to the crimes.

Robinson sits in prison while the bureaucrats and officials who worked on behalf of the rapists
to continue their hellish assault on the young working class girls of the North are still anonymous and they may likely never pay for their roles as facilitators of rape and other crimes.
This is an incredibly shameful chapter in English history and the people who assist this cover up, in and outside of the government, all deserve to rot in hell for their role in helping ruin the lives of so many innocent girls.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

With regard to the arrest of Tommy Robinson:

Gerard Batten MEP‏Verified account @GerardBattenMEP 20h20 hours ago

I am trying to recall a legal case where someone was convicted of a ‘crime’ which cannot be reported on. Where he can be cast into prison without it being possible to report his name, offence, or place of imprisonment for fear of contempt of court. Can anyone remember such a case

Ezra Levant speaks about Tommy Robinson's unprecedented sentence — Steemit


"In this case Tommy Robinson was reporting on a group of child rapists, and despite clear failings of processes relating to reporting restrictions not being published correctly, he was convicted in the highest court in the land (one reserved normally for the most heinous of crimes, not contempt hearings, which are actually civil proceedings) and sent to one of the most dangerous prisons in the UK, where he will more than likely spend his time again in solitary confinement because the risk to his life by Jihadi gangs who are well known to 'run the prison'.

This trial as a whole, and especially the sentence, is unprecedented, and his supporters have no doubt that this was a political trial, simply because this was Tommy Robinson, the enemy of the state."

Look at the zeal with which the British government has gone to unprecedented extents to
throw Robinson in prison for a civil matter. Is there any doubt he is a political prisoner?

Mate, I just destroyed you and your bullshit and you comeback with nothing. You are so beneath me.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

By the way, the very same corrupt shameful "justice" system who jailed Robinson for reporting on these rapists on trial
and sent him to prison for it, after a ten minute trial, banned any reporting on the issue and put a total news embargo on even discussing the matter in sick old England through the media (who are mostly asleep anyway).

Does this sound like Communist China or Cuba more than a formerly respected Western nation? Yes it does.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

By the way, the very same corrupt shameful "justice" system who jailed Robinson for reporting on these rapists on trial
and sent him to prison for it, after a ten minute trial, banned any reporting on the issue and put a total news embargo on even discussing the matter in sick old England through the media (who are mostly asleep anyway).

Does this sound like Communist China or Cuba more than a formerly respected Western nation? Yes it does.

Ezra lies and so so do you. You have nothing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Tommy says - The BBC published their info in May 2107 when there was no gagging order in place. Yaxleys list was a cutting from the Huddersfield Examiner not the BBC. The BBC have no case to answer.

This is not clear at all. You have no evidence what you claim is so.

Tommy says - It is illegal.Refer you to a previous answer. It was illegal and the BBC info was published in 2017 when there were no restrictions.

Again, this is you contention. That is all.

Tommy says -The court made an order forbidding it. To break that order is contempt of court.It doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with the order. The order has been made and that is the end of it.

So if Tommy Robinson is merely repeating what the BBC has reported it would seem they are guilty also of violating the court order. Yet we see no one from the BBC sitting in prison. Why not?

Tommy says - See previous answers.The BBC were not publicising the names during the trial. They did so a year earlier when there were no restrictions.

More of the same. You claim something for which you have provided no evidence at all corroborating your claim.
Aren't you forgetting something...like proof?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ezra lies and so so do you. You have nothing.

Ironic coming from a talking pile of pig shit. Your credibility level is so low it is subterranean.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Ezra lies and so so do you. You have nothing.

Who is Tommy Robinson and why is he in prison?
An encore. Be sure to spot the lies.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Tommy says - The BBC published their info in May 2107 when there was no gagging order in place. Yaxleys list was a cutting from the Huddersfield Examiner not the BBC. The BBC have no case to answer.

This is not clear at all. You have no evidence what you claim is so.

Tommy says - It is illegal.Refer you to a previous answer. It was illegal and the BBC info was published in 2017 when there were no restrictions.

Again, this is you contention. That is all.

Tommy says -The court made an order forbidding it. To break that order is contempt of court.It doesnt matter if you agree or disagree with the order. The order has been made and that is the end of it.

So if Tommy Robinson is merely repeating what the BBC has reported it would seem they are guilty also of violating the court order. Yet we see no one from the BBC sitting in prison. Why not?

Tommy says - See previous answers.The BBC were not publicising the names during the trial. They did so a year earlier when there were no restrictions.

More of the same. You claim something for which you have provided no evidence at all corroborating your claim.
Aren't you forgetting something...like proof?

I have backed up my opinions with facts. You fail to mention these. It looks like you are out of your depth. You have been lied to but lack the grace to admit it. Adults are laughing at you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I have backed up my opinions with facts. You fail to mention these. It looks like you are out of your depth. You have been lied to but lack the grace to admit it. Adults are laughing at you.

I already pointed out some of the places that isn't true. And beside you haven't responded to any of my points, like for instance the extraordinary unprecedented lengths to which the English government is going after Robinson, invoking laws for the first time in a century and treating a civil matter like a serious criminal prosecution.

So fuck off, sheep shagger. Don't worry about my responses until you've made some of your own and I don't mean
"no he didn't" or "you are wrong". I mean substantive responses. Adults are giving you the finger.

 

[Darkwind]

What a great start to the weekend.

Perhaps the thick fucker could take a journalism course while he is there.

Who is Yaxley?

The last real journalist in England.

Oh? In what way?

Everything he “reported” had already been reported by the media.

What stories did he break?

What?

You don't have to break a news story to be a real journalist. The only requirement is telling the truth, even in the face of government oppression.

What if it isnt the truth?

What if it is.

 

[Coyote]

Who is Yaxley?

The last real journalist in England.

Oh? In what way?

Everything he “reported” had already been reported by the media.

What stories did he break?

What?

You don't have to break a news story to be a real journalist. The only requirement is telling the truth, even in the face of government oppression.

What if it isnt the truth?

What if it is.

Presumably, by your definition it is journalism. But what if it Isn’t? Yaxley has been caught in fabrications, which in one case resulted in a child he falsely identified being brutally beaten.

Is that journalism?

 

[Darkwind]

The last real journalist in England.

Oh? In what way?

Everything he “reported” had already been reported by the media.

What stories did he break?

What?

You don't have to break a news story to be a real journalist. The only requirement is telling the truth, even in the face of government oppression.

What if it isnt the truth?

What if it is.

Presumably, by your definition it is journalism. But what if it Isn’t? Yaxley has been caught in fabrications, which in one case resulted in a child he falsely identified being brutally beaten.

Is that journalism?

So has about a thousand others. All English no doubt.

This guy is telling a story, a true story and the English government is oppressing him for it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I have backed up my opinions with facts. You fail to mention these. It looks like you are out of your depth. You have been lied to but lack the grace to admit it. Adults are laughing at you.

I already pointed out some of the places that isn't true. And beside you haven't responded to any of my points, like for instance the extraordinary unprecedented lengths to which the English government is going after Robinson, invoking laws for the first time in a century and treating a civil matter like a serious criminal prosecution.

So fuck off, sheep shagger. Don't worry about my responses until you've made some of your own and I don't mean
"no he didn't" or "you are wrong". I mean substantive responses. Adults are giving you the finger.

I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.

I can easily believe you pee all over yourself but I don't buy your story for all the reasons I've already gone over and over again. Launching into personal attacks with all sorts of absurd insults won't make things better. You only look more idiotic.

Your desperation is obvious and it clearly demonstrates you realize you are defending the acts of a banana republic government that provides cover for gangs of
Pakistani rapists and then comes down hard when someone alerts fellow citizens as to what is going on.
Evil is protected (or at least it was until Tommy Robinson made an issue of things) and the whistle blower is punished. How fucked up is that?

Not hard to believe England protects sex criminals. The queen knighted a well known pedophile not that long ago.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.

I can easily believe you pee all over yourself but I don't buy your story for all the reasons I've already gone over and over again. Launching into personal attacks with all sorts of absurd insults won't make things better. You only look more idiotic.

Your desperation is obvious and it clearly demonstrates you realize you are defending the acts of a banana republic government that provides cover for gangs of
Pakistani rapists and then comes down hard when someone alerts fellow citizens as to what is going on.
Evil is protected (or at least it was until Tommy Robinson made an issue of things) and the whistle blower is punished. How fucked up is that?

Not hard to believe England protects sex criminals. The queen knighted a well known pedophile not that long ago.

ZZzzzzzzzz. You have the facts, why dont you read them.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I am pissing myself laughing at your idiocy. You have the facts and the original source material yet you persist in your nonsense. Can't expect more from racist uneducated White trash like you.

I can easily believe you pee all over yourself but I don't buy your story for all the reasons I've already gone over and over again. Launching into personal attacks with all sorts of absurd insults won't make things better. You only look more idiotic.

Your desperation is obvious and it clearly demonstrates you realize you are defending the acts of a banana republic government that provides cover for gangs of
Pakistani rapists and then comes down hard when someone alerts fellow citizens as to what is going on.
Evil is protected (or at least it was until Tommy Robinson made an issue of things) and the whistle blower is punished. How fucked up is that?

Not hard to believe England protects sex criminals. The queen knighted a well known pedophile not that long ago.

He rolls on his back and pees on his belly every time one of his Islamic masters walks by,

It makes him happy when he hears about British children getting raped, because this gives him an opportunity to perform for them.