Yaxley going back to jail

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Trial not completed. The last trial , covered by the order hadnt even started.

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?
Why are there two sets of rules in play here?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Trial not completed. The last trial , covered by the order hadnt even started.

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?
Why are there two sets of rules in play here?

You are all over the place now. Have you actually read the judgement ?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You are all over the place now. Have you actually read the judgement ?

You forgot to answer the BBC question. Why is that?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You are all over the place now. Have you actually read the judgement ?

You forgot to answer the BBC question. Why is that?

It isnt germane. You posted lies that you could not backup and you are now chucking shit in the hope that it will stick. Do you acknowledge that the trial was not over or are you still clinging to Ezra as your proof ?
Have you checked out the dates that i schooled you with that destroys your shite ?
Maybe you should go down on your hands and knees and apologise ?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It isnt germane. You posted lies that you could not backup and you are now chucking shit in the hope that it will stick. Do you acknowledge that the trial was not over or are you still clinging to Ezra as your proof ?
Have you checked out the dates that i schooled you with that destroys your shite ?
Maybe you should go down on your hands and knees and apologise ?

First of all you need to document what you claim as you are stupid and dishonest AF. I don't trust a thing you say
and you are of course an amoral quisling.


Secondly, if the BBC was making public names of the defendants in Leeds Courthouse that very same morning as Tommy Robinson was reading those names off the BBC's own site, why is he committing a crime but the BBC was not?

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.

The issue of Robinson being arrested for divulging publicly known information is absolutely germane. You are just too ******* cowardly to admit it. Color me not surprised.

I'll tell you what's not germane...the date of any other trial because Robinson wasn't
jeopardizing a thing by reading the names of defendants already identified by the BBC.
So suck on that, sheep shagger.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It isnt germane. You posted lies that you could not backup and you are now chucking shit in the hope that it will stick. Do you acknowledge that the trial was not over or are you still clinging to Ezra as your proof ?
Have you checked out the dates that i schooled you with that destroys your shite ?
Maybe you should go down on your hands and knees and apologise ?

First of all you need to document what you claim as you are stupid and dishonest AF. I don't trust a thing you say
and you are of course an amoral quisling.


Secondly if the BBC was publishing names of the defendants in Leeds Courthouse that very same morning as Tommy Robinson was reading those names off the BBC's own site, why is he committing a crime but the BBC was not?

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.

The issue of Robinson being arrested for divulging publicly known information is absolutely germane. You are just too ******* cowardly to admit it. Color me not surprised.

You thick ******. You quote rebel media as a source and expect educated adults to take you seriously. Some of us have read the judgement and base our views on that. You have watched a video from the looney fringes as befits a member of the underclass.
What issues do you have with the actual judgement rather than the "video" that you are wanking over ?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You thick ******. You quote rebel media as a source and expect educated adults to take you seriously. Some of us have read the judgement and base our views on that. You have watched a video from the looney fringes as befits a member of the underclass.
What issues do you have with the actual judgement rather than the "video" that you are wanking over ?

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?

If it isn't, why is he in prison? If it is, why isn't someone from the BBC in prison?

Your opinion of Rebel Media is absolutely inconsequential. Stop dithering and answer the question, you thick ******.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You thick ******. You quote rebel media as a source and expect educated adults to take you seriously. Some of us have read the judgement and base our views on that. You have watched a video from the looney fringes as befits a member of the underclass.
What issues do you have with the actual judgement rather than the "video" that you are wanking over ?

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?

If it isn't, why is he in prison? If it is, why isn't someone from the BBC in prison?

Your opinion of Rebel Media is absolutely inconsequential. Stop dithering and answer the question, you thick ******.

Admit that you lied ya fuckin nonce.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Admit that you lied ya fuckin nonce.

Let me just stop your game of chicken right here as it's obvious you have no intention of answering the BBC question and that in itself is an admission on your part. So please go about your business and continue ******* your livestock now.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Admit that you lied ya fuckin nonce.

Let me just stop your game of chicken right here as it's obvious you have no intention of answering the BBC question and that in itself is an admission on your part. So please go about your business and continue ******* your livestock now.

Suck on that you ignorant ****.

51. An RRO imposed under s 4(2) operates to prohibit reporting of the proceedings to which it refers, from the time it is made until the end point identified in the order. The fact that there has already been reporting, or that matters that are later given in evidence have previously been made public in some other context does not debar the Court from making an order under s 4(2). Nor is there any implied public domain proviso to orders of this kind, permitting reporting of aspects of the proceedings so long as the facts in question have been publicised before. Indeed, previous reporting may be a reason for making an order. One of the cases cited by Mr Furlong illustrates the point. Montgomery v HM Advocate [2003] 1 AC 641 concerned a notorious murder. A great deal of prejudicial publicity had appeared between the passing of some sentencing remarks in a case brought against one person accused of the murder and 26 August 1999, when a s 4(2) order was made to prevent prejudice to the trial of three others who had been separately indicted. The Privy Council upheld the decisions of the courts below, that the defendants could still have a fair trial. Nobody suggested that s 4(2) order was wrongly made, or that it was of limited or no effect from the date it was made because of previous publicity. 5

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Suck on that you ignorant ****.

51. An RRO imposed under s 4(2) operates to prohibit reporting of the proceedings to which it refers, from the time it is made until the end point identified in the order. The fact that there has already been reporting, or that matters that are later given in evidence have previously been made public in some other context does not debar the Court from making an order under s 4(2). Nor is there any implied public domain proviso to orders of this kind, permitting reporting of aspects of the proceedings so long as the facts in question have been publicised before. Indeed, previous reporting may be a reason for making an order. One of the cases cited by Mr Furlong illustrates the point. Montgomery v HM Advocate [2003] 1 AC 641 concerned a notorious murder. A great deal of prejudicial publicity had appeared between the passing of some sentencing remarks in a case brought against one person accused of the murder and 26 August 1999, when a s 4(2) order was made to prevent prejudice to the trial of three others who had been separately indicted. The Privy Council upheld the decisions of the courts below, that the defendants could still have a fair trial. Nobody suggested that s 4(2) order was wrongly made, or that it was of limited or no effect from the date it was made because of previous publicity. 5

Ooohhh...so many words.
Tell me now specifically how this pertains to Tommy Robinson and his arrest for broadcasting the news of the day.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Suck on that you ignorant ****.

51. An RRO imposed under s 4(2) operates to prohibit reporting of the proceedings to which it refers, from the time it is made until the end point identified in the order. The fact that there has already been reporting, or that matters that are later given in evidence have previously been made public in some other context does not debar the Court from making an order under s 4(2). Nor is there any implied public domain proviso to orders of this kind, permitting reporting of aspects of the proceedings so long as the facts in question have been publicised before. Indeed, previous reporting may be a reason for making an order. One of the cases cited by Mr Furlong illustrates the point. Montgomery v HM Advocate [2003] 1 AC 641 concerned a notorious murder. A great deal of prejudicial publicity had appeared between the passing of some sentencing remarks in a case brought against one person accused of the murder and 26 August 1999, when a s 4(2) order was made to prevent prejudice to the trial of three others who had been separately indicted. The Privy Council upheld the decisions of the courts below, that the defendants could still have a fair trial. Nobody suggested that s 4(2) order was wrongly made, or that it was of limited or no effect from the date it was made because of previous publicity. 5

Ooohhh...so many words.
Tell me now specifically how this pertains to Tommy Robinson and his arrest for broadcasting the news of the day.

I will explain it to you once you have admitted that you lied about the trial being over. I dont mind doing a bit of educating.

 

[Darkwind]

What a great start to the weekend.

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

Who is Yaxley?

The last real journalist in England.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I will explain it to you once you have admitted that you lied about the trial being over. I dont mind doing a bit of educating.

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

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.

Let's just say you will never ever answer that question you've been ducking now for post after post. And it's not like your
idiotic opinions are worth shit anyway.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go **** yourselves!
It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
Ezra Levant has the whole story and I will be posting that link soon.

You anti free speech cretins are all just as low and vile as I suspected. Now I have proof of it.

They would rather protect those who rape children than run the risk of being called the sorts of names they call any who do not support the rapes.

It doesn't get much more vile than that . The more children raped, the more opportunities for them to signal their virtue for supporting the rape, which elicits positive feedback from their fellow social justice warriors. Hearing of British children being raped actually stimulates the pleasure centers of their brain as they anticipate all that approval they will receive for being so supportive of rape jihad .

Dude. That is frothing at the mouth nuts. No one here supports the rape of children.

 

[Coyote]

What a great start to the weekend.

Perhaps the thick ****** 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?

 

[Coyote]

What attention did Yaxley bring that wasnt already there?

That's idiotic, like asking to prove a negative but for one thing, the awareness in North America and Australia of this British cover up increased considerably and no doubt has contributed to the English hustling Robinson off to prison after a trail that lasted about as long as a lunch break (a ten minute trial, actually).

Now he's in prison for "jeopardizing" a trial that had already been held and could not be jeopardized at all.

**** UK 'justice" and **** the simple minded quislings who have covered for the real cowardly criminals behind this all.

It isn’t asking you to show us that he actually in journalism. You lot seem to think he has been busy breaking stories when all he does is get it from the media that already broke it. That and making false accusations I guess.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go **** yourselves!
It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
Ezra Levant has the whole story and I will be posting that link soon.

You anti free speech cretins are all just as low and vile as I suspected. Now I have proof of it.

They would rather protect those who rape children than run the risk of being called the sorts of names they call any who do not support the rapes.

It doesn't get much more vile than that . The more children raped, the more opportunities for them to signal their virtue for supporting the rape, which elicits positive feedback from their fellow social justice warriors. Hearing of British children being raped actually stimulates the pleasure centers of their brain as they anticipate all that approval they will receive for being so supportive of rape jihad .

Dude. That is frothing at the mouth nuts. No one here supports the rape of children.

You support, enable and facilitate the rape of children and you do so quite intentionally.

It's because the perps are Islamic and the child victims British, and instead of acknowledging it is the MUSLIMS who are the racists here, you try to posit that any who reject them are the racists so as to try to shame people into silence thus removing any impediment to their continued rape of British children.

You deliver children right into their clutches when you indulge in this calculated ruse of yours trying to silence and shame any who do not share your enthusiastic support for the agenda involved.

 

[Coyote]

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.

So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go **** yourselves!
It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
Ezra Levant has the whole story and I will be posting that link soon.

You anti free speech cretins are all just as low and vile as I suspected. Now I have proof of it.

They would rather protect those who rape children than run the risk of being called the sorts of names they call any who do not support the rapes.

It doesn't get much more vile than that . The more children raped, the more opportunities for them to signal their virtue for supporting the rape, which elicits positive feedback from their fellow social justice warriors. Hearing of British children being raped actually stimulates the pleasure centers of their brain as they anticipate all that approval they will receive for being so supportive of rape jihad .

Dude. That is frothing at the mouth nuts. No one here supports the rape of children.

You support, enable and facilitate the rape of children and you do so quite intentionally.

It's because the perps are Islamic and the child victims British, and instead of acknowledging it is the MUSLIMS who are the racists here, you try to posit that any who reject them are the racists so as to try to shame people into silence thus removing any impediment to their continued rape of British children.

You deliver children right into their clutches when you indulge in this calculated ruse of yours trying to silence and shame any who do not share your enthusiastic support for the agenda involved.

My goodness I had no idea I was so busy.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

So for all the liars who claimed Robinson jeopardized the effort to put these "Asian" rapists away go **** yourselves!
It's a lie and and I assume not the only lie in this propaganda campaign to railroad Tommy Robinson-Yaxley.
Ezra Levant has the whole story and I will be posting that link soon.

You anti free speech cretins are all just as low and vile as I suspected. Now I have proof of it.

They would rather protect those who rape children than run the risk of being called the sorts of names they call any who do not support the rapes.

It doesn't get much more vile than that . The more children raped, the more opportunities for them to signal their virtue for supporting the rape, which elicits positive feedback from their fellow social justice warriors. Hearing of British children being raped actually stimulates the pleasure centers of their brain as they anticipate all that approval they will receive for being so supportive of rape jihad .

Dude. That is frothing at the mouth nuts. No one here supports the rape of children.

You support, enable and facilitate the rape of children and you do so quite intentionally.

It's because the perps are Islamic and the child victims British, and instead of acknowledging it is the MUSLIMS who are the racists here, you try to posit that any who reject them are the racists so as to try to shame people into silence thus removing any impediment to their continued rape of British children.

You deliver children right into their clutches when you indulge in this calculated ruse of yours trying to silence and shame any who do not share your enthusiastic support for the agenda involved.

My goodness I had no idea I was so busy.

Meh

Your heroes rape 11 and 12 year olds.

I can remember the time you said terrorists are often heroic, so I am not surprised. It always boils down to your love for Islamists.