The judge in 20
17 then war
ned Mr Robinson that any repeat of the offence would be treated with the utmost severity
“[Y]ou should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.
In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?"
I think this laughable 'Truth' person genuinely likes being wrong for the sake of an argument, and expounding on subject he has absolutely no idea about. I was right; you, Bluebirds, are right, and 'Truth', rather lamentably, is so wrong, but tried so hard to make a point while being wrong, that all you can do is laugh at their ignominy.
He simply stood outside on the sidewalk with his phone.LOL Why bother even letting him out LOLLL
Seems the judge is focused on it being Muslims, had it been another type of rapist/pedo, there would
have been no problem.
Slightly fascistic in intent., Imam.
What does that even mean??? He tried so hard to make a point while being wrong....WTF??
TRUTH WRONG WRONG WRONG
BLUEBIRD THE PROPHET AND ME RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT
where is the Chezzer? I figure hed be reading us a bit of Koran by now.
Can you f***ing read?
For your info someone who I work with was found guilty of rape recently. Guess what - his trial had reporting restrictions.
And guess what - he is white
From the original contempt of court hearing. While the left wing maybe sometimes correctly accused of shutting down debate Robinson broke the law.
He even pleaded guilty to it on Friday.
“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”
I don't know who you're quoting there and I'm not trying to defend Robinson as a person but if it were true, that journalists are not allowed to use prejudicial language during the course of a court case, wouldn't you have to lock up the entire staff of the Daily Mail?
This was from the judge in TR's original contempt case court.
Accredited journalists are very careful with the language they use during ongoing trials so as not prejudice proceedings. They even have training for it.
Everybody has been banging on about Rolf Harris or Stuart Hall or a football coach at the moment down South but the reports detail the proceedings that day and rarely proffer personal opinion or prejudice. Ie Rolf was only accused of being a child sex offender before and found to be after the trial - not during it.
The Mail has been found in contempt previously (or Mail Online anyway) as have other media organisations. It is however very rare as court reporters know how to report court cases in a manner which will not cause contempt.
Also jurors are directed not to discuss the proceedings unless in the jury room (though this is often impractical imo)
Who Put the M in Manchester was very good but then it wasn't dragged down by the new material which was good.