By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Tommy Robinson freed on 16:28 - Aug 4 by LeonWasGod
Apparently Stephen Yaxley-Lennon released them himself on his Facebook account. He’s just weaving his paranoid alternative view of reality. And he’s got a whole gagggle of gullable followers ready to lap it all up.
Fair enough. Thought the tweet was an exclusive scoop of something. I have no interest in Facebook or twitter so they often leave me confused.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Surely if this conviction has been quashed pending a rehearing then legally he hasn’t been found guilty yet which is why he’s been allowed to go on holiday to Tenerife.
Yes and no.
I’m plagerising from the blog but the appeal was on the following points : -
The appeal focussed on three principal arguments:
The findings of contempt at both Canterbury and Leeds did not comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules; Neither the matter at Canterbury nor Leeds should have proceeded summarily; they should have been adjourned and referred to the Attorney General rather than dealt with swiftly by the trial judge; The judge in Leeds punished the appellant for matters falling outside the scope of contempt and failed to properly identify the conduct he was treating as contempt of court.
He did appeal against the conviction but purely on procedural grounds, in that the Judge had not done as required. It was accepted that his behaviour amounted to contempt.
What the court have now done is to have a re hearing of the matter. If he denies it, the fact that he admitted the contempt and was not disputed in the appeal will weight heavily against him.
As far as the sentence is concerned. He may get a similar sentence. It, on the face of it, appears to be a flagrant breach of his suspended sentence in the most (potentially) damaging way.
In answer to your question. He’s been released on bail, and allowed to go on holiday and he may not been deemed a flight risk.
[Post edited 4 Aug 2018 16:56]
0
Tommy Robinson freed on 20:09 - Aug 4 with 2877 views
Tommy Robinson freed on 16:54 - Aug 4 by Sirjohnalot
Yes and no.
I’m plagerising from the blog but the appeal was on the following points : -
The appeal focussed on three principal arguments:
The findings of contempt at both Canterbury and Leeds did not comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules; Neither the matter at Canterbury nor Leeds should have proceeded summarily; they should have been adjourned and referred to the Attorney General rather than dealt with swiftly by the trial judge; The judge in Leeds punished the appellant for matters falling outside the scope of contempt and failed to properly identify the conduct he was treating as contempt of court.
He did appeal against the conviction but purely on procedural grounds, in that the Judge had not done as required. It was accepted that his behaviour amounted to contempt.
What the court have now done is to have a re hearing of the matter. If he denies it, the fact that he admitted the contempt and was not disputed in the appeal will weight heavily against him.
As far as the sentence is concerned. He may get a similar sentence. It, on the face of it, appears to be a flagrant breach of his suspended sentence in the most (potentially) damaging way.
In answer to your question. He’s been released on bail, and allowed to go on holiday and he may not been deemed a flight risk.
[Post edited 4 Aug 2018 16:56]
'Neither the matter at Canterbury nor Leeds should have proceeded summarily; they should have been adjourned and referred to the Attorney General rather than dealt with swiftly by the trial judge; ' Why? There was no concern over the Canterbury case and he pleaded guilty in Leeds. The fascists in government are determined to have him out and stirring discontent.
'Neither the matter at Canterbury nor Leeds should have proceeded summarily; they should have been adjourned and referred to the Attorney General rather than dealt with swiftly by the trial judge; ' Why? There was no concern over the Canterbury case and he pleaded guilty in Leeds. The fascists in government are determined to have him out and stirring discontent.
Ok, Sir. We’ll agree to disagree.
Enjoy the three points and have a lovely weekend
1
Tommy Robinson freed on 21:28 - Aug 4 with 2839 views
Tommy Robinson freed on 20:34 - Aug 4 by Sirjohnalot
Ok, Sir. We’ll agree to disagree.
Enjoy the three points and have a lovely weekend
I’m sat here rocking with laughter, John. You’re clearly a gentleman and appeared content to indulge the chap right up until his final ‘fascist’ sentence whereupon you sought to disengage as politely and as quickly as decorum would allow without appearing unseemly.
Stick around, kiddo.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
0
Tommy Robinson freed on 21:41 - Aug 4 with 2828 views
Tommy Robinson freed on 21:28 - Aug 4 by Lohengrin
I’m sat here rocking with laughter, John. You’re clearly a gentleman and appeared content to indulge the chap right up until his final ‘fascist’ sentence whereupon you sought to disengage as politely and as quickly as decorum would allow without appearing unseemly.
Stick around, kiddo.
Oh believe me, I can be an arse with the best of them, try nicking my salt and pepper chips.
0
Tommy Robinson freed on 22:10 - Aug 4 with 2805 views
Incidentally, I was just watching a video from the Alt-media calling out the BBC. Here's independent (and secretly bald) journalist Tim Pool talking about the sneaky 'stealth edits' done by the BBC and other msm outlets...
That;s right cos "alternate facts" are healthier, fat and sugar free and are better for the planet...or a bunch of in your face lies...hmmm
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
Tommy Robinson freed on 22:13 - Aug 4 by Sirjohnalot
I may get ‘taken out’ but I won’t be hungry
The likely contender being Brandon Lewis? As Minister without Portfolio his is the only unpaid position at the top table. That has to rankle, he has to be the chippiest of the bunch.
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
0
Tommy Robinson freed on 14:22 - Aug 5 with 2713 views
Tommy Robinson freed on 20:34 - Aug 4 by Sirjohnalot
Ok, Sir. We’ll agree to disagree.
Enjoy the three points and have a lovely weekend
No. I'm not agreeing to disagree. Why would anyone agree with something that is blatantly untrue ... unless you are part of the "I love a racist so much I wan to be bummed by him brigade', are deliberatley subverting truth or are an idiot?
Unionist papers and others criticised me for calling the Union Jack a 'Butcher's Apron'. Here I defend my statement. If you agree please #RT If not don't. Cheers. It’s Not My Flag Mate. Never Has Been and Never Will Be: https://t.co/2Zu69j5kOB via @SputnikInt
Swathes of Deptford and Essex will be in mourning for their beloved hero. The flags of St.George will be flying at half mast. He’ll become a legend in their tiny brains.
Can somebody explain to me why BBC, ITV, Sky etc.. are filming outside of the Old Bailey as a man walks in to have a case brought against him for filming outside of a court as defendants walk into court?
An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.
0
Tommy Robinson freed on 00:17 - Jul 6 with 1573 views
Tommy Robinson freed on 00:01 - Jul 6 by Lohengrin
Can somebody explain to me why BBC, ITV, Sky etc.. are filming outside of the Old Bailey as a man walks in to have a case brought against him for filming outside of a court as defendants walk into court?
I think it’s called reporting restrictions. lol
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Tommy Robinson freed on 00:01 - Jul 6 by Lohengrin
Can somebody explain to me why BBC, ITV, Sky etc.. are filming outside of the Old Bailey as a man walks in to have a case brought against him for filming outside of a court as defendants walk into court?
I don't know but I'm guessing it's because it was decided by high court judges and not decided by a jury.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
