I'ts Breitbart so you might want to take it with a pinch of salt but it may help explain why the police go so hard at Robinson for talking about grooming gangs:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/02 ... -groomers/
Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed
Moderator: bbmods
Well, maybe - we know from all the white people in positions of influence who were engaged in such activity that institutional cover-up enables these horrendous crimes - but it isn't the police, it's the Courts and it is beyond obvious to me that all they are doing, in Robinson's cases, is trying to protect the integrity of the criminal trial process. It's one of those situations where the courts' power to control their own process trumps allowing people to indulge in unfettered comment. Even though we can't (still) read Judge Marson's ruling on Robinson, the Judge's comments - as reported in the article I quoted in my previous post - make that clear.
If the jurors found out what Robinson had done, there would be an application to discharge the jury, the Judge may well have to discharge the jury, the prosecution gets sent back to square one - and possibly worse, because witnesses change their minds, don't want to go through the ordeal of giving evidence a second time, get run over in the street etc etc, in which case the prosecution case falls apart and the alleged offenders walk away free because there is insufficient evidence for a re-trial. There is no way that could be a useful outcome - these are awful allegations and the trials must proceed, Our (and the UK's) system's emphasis on fairness to the accused makes such action to suppress external comment essential. The suppression applies until the judgment is given in the criminal trials - after that, it becomes open slather, anyone can say what they like and there will, no doubt, be many, many books about these awful events.
There is a High Court case here from the late 80s or 90s arising from the various trials of Glennon (a defrocked former priest) that involved an application to stay proceedings against him on the basis of prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The High Court avoided going down the US path (which, with all due respect to the US reporting of the Robinson case, would likely result in these alleged criminals having proceedings against them permanently stayed) and basically said, if I may be permitted to paraphrase (and IIRC, having not read it since 1993) that "fair enough" rather than "absolute fairness" is the standard. I'll find the case and post you a link to it. In short, what I don't think the pro-Robinson brigade appreciate is the completely paralyzing effect this sort of contempt has on the ordinary operation of our standard criminal trial processes. Robinson got closed down (twice) because no self-respecting judge wants a ratbag like him to cause a mistrial that will ultimately prevent bad people from being convicted.
If the jurors found out what Robinson had done, there would be an application to discharge the jury, the Judge may well have to discharge the jury, the prosecution gets sent back to square one - and possibly worse, because witnesses change their minds, don't want to go through the ordeal of giving evidence a second time, get run over in the street etc etc, in which case the prosecution case falls apart and the alleged offenders walk away free because there is insufficient evidence for a re-trial. There is no way that could be a useful outcome - these are awful allegations and the trials must proceed, Our (and the UK's) system's emphasis on fairness to the accused makes such action to suppress external comment essential. The suppression applies until the judgment is given in the criminal trials - after that, it becomes open slather, anyone can say what they like and there will, no doubt, be many, many books about these awful events.
There is a High Court case here from the late 80s or 90s arising from the various trials of Glennon (a defrocked former priest) that involved an application to stay proceedings against him on the basis of prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The High Court avoided going down the US path (which, with all due respect to the US reporting of the Robinson case, would likely result in these alleged criminals having proceedings against them permanently stayed) and basically said, if I may be permitted to paraphrase (and IIRC, having not read it since 1993) that "fair enough" rather than "absolute fairness" is the standard. I'll find the case and post you a link to it. In short, what I don't think the pro-Robinson brigade appreciate is the completely paralyzing effect this sort of contempt has on the ordinary operation of our standard criminal trial processes. Robinson got closed down (twice) because no self-respecting judge wants a ratbag like him to cause a mistrial that will ultimately prevent bad people from being convicted.
-
thesoretoothsayer
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:15 am
- Been liked: 23 times
Good point about police corruption and collusion not being limited to muslim grooming gangs. I think we saw plenty of it here in relation to the Catholic Church.
As more information has come to light about the case I don't question the integrity of the court's decisions. However, the gag-order on reporting on Robinson's arrest was not a good look. Perhaps it was necessary, perhaps not but it did allow a "political prisoner" narrative to form and disseminate.
As more information has come to light about the case I don't question the integrity of the court's decisions. However, the gag-order on reporting on Robinson's arrest was not a good look. Perhaps it was necessary, perhaps not but it did allow a "political prisoner" narrative to form and disseminate.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
Gees, for you to say this this guy must be a real piece of work,Pies4shaw wrote:Well, maybe - we know from all the white people in positions of influence who were engaged in such activity that institutional cover-up enables these horrendous crimes - but it isn't the police, it's the Courts and it is beyond obvious to me that all they are doing, in Robinson's cases, is trying to protect the integrity of the criminal trial process. It's one of those situations where the courts' power to control their own process trumps allowing people to indulge in unfettered comment. Even though we can't (still) read Judge Marson's ruling on Robinson, the Judge's comments - as reported in the article I quoted in my previous post - make that clear.
If the jurors found out what Robinson had done, there would be an application to discharge the jury, the Judge may well have to discharge the jury, the prosecution gets sent back to square one - and possibly worse, because witnesses change their minds, don't want to go through the ordeal of giving evidence a second time, get run over in the street etc etc, in which case the prosecution case falls apart and the alleged offenders walk away free because there is insufficient evidence for a re-trial. There is no way that could be a useful outcome - these are awful allegations and the trials must proceed, Our (and the UK's) system's emphasis on fairness to the accused makes such action to suppress external comment essential. The suppression applies until the judgment is given in the criminal trials - after that, it becomes open slather, anyone can say what they like and there will, no doubt, be many, many books about these awful events.
There is a High Court case here from the late 80s or 90s arising from the various trials of Glennon (a defrocked former priest) that involved an application to stay proceedings against him on the basis of prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The High Court avoided going down the US path (which, with all due respect to the US reporting of the Robinson case, would likely result in these alleged criminals having proceedings against them permanently stayed) and basically said, if I may be permitted to paraphrase (and IIRC, having not read it since 1993) that "fair enough" rather than "absolute fairness" is the standard. I'll find the case and post you a link to it. In short, what I don't think the pro-Robinson brigade appreciate is the completely paralyzing effect this sort of contempt has on the ordinary operation of our standard criminal trial processes. Robinson got closed down (twice) because no self-respecting judge wants a ratbag like him to cause a mistrial that will ultimately prevent bad people from being convicted.
thanks for the insight.
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
The alt-right sources I relied on to state that this appeal was fixed for 10 July 2018 have proved to be completely spurious and baseless. It seems that their ability to play fast and loose with the truth exceeded my expectations.
Anyway, if he has lodged an appeal and when it does come before the Court, here's a useful commentary on what may actually happen and what's involved: https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/app ... t-sentence
Anyway, if he has lodged an appeal and when it does come before the Court, here's a useful commentary on what may actually happen and what's involved: https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/app ... t-sentence
A hearing (whether a directions hearing or the hearing of the substantive application for leave to appeal against his sentence, who knows?) may be listed for 24 July, it appears: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... aling.html
Other more reliable news sources (such as the BBC) report that he is to appeal but don't specify a hearing date. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44727888
So that we are all quite clear about this, though, this is an appeal against the severity of the sentence, not the conviction. He pleaded guilty, as charged, to contempt of court.
In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the organizers of the misguided, ratbag, protest organized for this weekend have decided not to proceed, ostensibly so that both Tommy's toothless supporters can watch England lose to Sweden in the World Cup quarter-final.
The main interest, now, will be to see whether Young Yaxley receives especially lenient treatment on appeal. It is plain enough, reviewing the contempt of court sentences handed down on recent times (of which there are many - I posted the link earlier in this thread), that immediate custodial sentences of considerable severity are routinely handed out in the UK for contempt to first-time offenders. So, first, I don't know why his May 2017 sentence was suspended and only three months and, secondly - on a fair hearing, at least - his most recent sentence is unlikely to be reduced at all, given that he is now an habitual criminal with a poor record, generally, and prior convictions for this kind of criminal misconduct, in particular.
There are, no doubt, all sorts of appalling injustices occurring routinely in the English criminal justice system. It is not easy to see why - frothing mouths and anger-management issues aside - anyone would now think this was one of them. I understand that some people with limited reasoning capacity want to hold fast to their prejudices, of course, even though the defendant has admitted his guilt - so it will be interesting to watch how the mad-Right's misinformation machine will deal with this, going forward.
Other more reliable news sources (such as the BBC) report that he is to appeal but don't specify a hearing date. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-44727888
So that we are all quite clear about this, though, this is an appeal against the severity of the sentence, not the conviction. He pleaded guilty, as charged, to contempt of court.
In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the organizers of the misguided, ratbag, protest organized for this weekend have decided not to proceed, ostensibly so that both Tommy's toothless supporters can watch England lose to Sweden in the World Cup quarter-final.
The main interest, now, will be to see whether Young Yaxley receives especially lenient treatment on appeal. It is plain enough, reviewing the contempt of court sentences handed down on recent times (of which there are many - I posted the link earlier in this thread), that immediate custodial sentences of considerable severity are routinely handed out in the UK for contempt to first-time offenders. So, first, I don't know why his May 2017 sentence was suspended and only three months and, secondly - on a fair hearing, at least - his most recent sentence is unlikely to be reduced at all, given that he is now an habitual criminal with a poor record, generally, and prior convictions for this kind of criminal misconduct, in particular.
There are, no doubt, all sorts of appalling injustices occurring routinely in the English criminal justice system. It is not easy to see why - frothing mouths and anger-management issues aside - anyone would now think this was one of them. I understand that some people with limited reasoning capacity want to hold fast to their prejudices, of course, even though the defendant has admitted his guilt - so it will be interesting to watch how the mad-Right's misinformation machine will deal with this, going forward.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
