Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed
Moderator: bbmods
-
thesoretoothsayer
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:15 am
- Been liked: 23 times
Read my post again. Then keep digging.thesoretoothsayer wrote:Perhaps sarcasm is too abstruse for you. No worries, I'll be literal then.
I don't believe that posting two links to offensive behaviour by Robinson supporters demonstrates that the position of "anti-terrorism, not anti-Muslim" is some kind of pretense. Similarly, someone posting links to articles about grooming gangs in no way demonstrates that muslims practice or condone child abuse. Defining a group, race or religion by the actions of their worst members is simplistic and dishonest. Unfortunately, it's something that many of us (including me) do all too often.
As for your confected outrage. Yawn.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54836
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 130 times
- Been liked: 164 times
-
Mugwump
- Posts: 8787
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
- Location: Between London and Melbourne
Appeal heard yesterday. Court of Appeal has reserved its decision, likely to be handed down before the end of July. Detail here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/07/ ... -happened/
Pies4shaw wrote:Appeal heard yesterday. Court of Appeal has reserved its decision, likely to be handed down before the end of July. Detail here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/07/ ... -happened/
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54836
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 130 times
- Been liked: 164 times
Interesting read. ta for that.Pies4shaw wrote:Pies4shaw wrote:Appeal heard yesterday. Court of Appeal has reserved its decision, likely to be handed down before the end of July. Detail here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/07/ ... -happened/
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
I'm really looking forward to you posting a video of two people from, say, Lesotho, commenting on Robinson's next court appearance, because that'd be as relevant. That video is about as useful as getting Americans to tell us all how to drive properly on the left side of the road.
It's just appalling misinformation and you should be embarrassed linking it.
It's just appalling misinformation and you should be embarrassed linking it.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... dgment.pdf
It appears that his most recent conviction has been set aside but a new trial ordered. He's on bail pending the rehearing.
For those with short attention spans, the nub of the decision is in paragraph 10. The relevant part reads:
"For the reasons which follow, we have concluded that the appellant has no legitimate complaint about what occurred in Canterbury Crown Court. However, we are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand. We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge."
As to Canterbury - at para 54: "It lies ill in the mouth of an appellant to complain of the failure of the court below to follow the appropriate procedural steps when that failure was fully appreciated at the time and remained deliberately uncorrected for tactical reasons and collateral advantage."
As to Leeds - at para 78: "The finding of contempt must be quashed and all the consequential orders will fall away. We canvassed with counsel what should happen were we minded to allow the appeal against the finding of contempt made in Leeds Crown Court. Mr Dein QC submitted that since the appellant has served the equivalent of four months' imprisonment the matter should not be remitted. We are unable to agree. First, the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served if a finding is again made against the appellant, particularly having regard to the suspended committal order made at Canterbury. Secondly, and in any event, a determination of the underlying contempt allegations in the circumstances of this case is in the public interest."
It appears that his most recent conviction has been set aside but a new trial ordered. He's on bail pending the rehearing.
For those with short attention spans, the nub of the decision is in paragraph 10. The relevant part reads:
"For the reasons which follow, we have concluded that the appellant has no legitimate complaint about what occurred in Canterbury Crown Court. However, we are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand. We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge."
As to Canterbury - at para 54: "It lies ill in the mouth of an appellant to complain of the failure of the court below to follow the appropriate procedural steps when that failure was fully appreciated at the time and remained deliberately uncorrected for tactical reasons and collateral advantage."
As to Leeds - at para 78: "The finding of contempt must be quashed and all the consequential orders will fall away. We canvassed with counsel what should happen were we minded to allow the appeal against the finding of contempt made in Leeds Crown Court. Mr Dein QC submitted that since the appellant has served the equivalent of four months' imprisonment the matter should not be remitted. We are unable to agree. First, the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than that already served if a finding is again made against the appellant, particularly having regard to the suspended committal order made at Canterbury. Secondly, and in any event, a determination of the underlying contempt allegations in the circumstances of this case is in the public interest."
-
Pi
- Posts: 999
- Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:30 pm
- Location: SA
^,
lol, I think someone here suggested that the original judge made an error in procedure by presiding in a case he was also a plaintiff and a witness in. In other words Marsden was basically in contempt of his own court by not calling for an adjournment and having the case heard by a different judge.
Funniest legal fu#$ck up I've seen in years, unfortunately it may undermine the more serous and on going rape cases.
lol, I think someone here suggested that the original judge made an error in procedure by presiding in a case he was also a plaintiff and a witness in. In other words Marsden was basically in contempt of his own court by not calling for an adjournment and having the case heard by a different judge.
Funniest legal fu#$ck up I've seen in years, unfortunately it may undermine the more serous and on going rape cases.
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica
Floreat Pica