Tommy Robinson

[Diasi]

The thing I'm reading is that of the original case.

The official version of the original case?

[dextrous63]

The official version of the original case?

Yep.  The judge's summation.

IIRC, TR made claims that the judge rejected some things as evidence. I was curious to read which bits.

[klondike]

Doesn't matter whether the original ruling was correct or not. There is an existing court order which he ignored and that's why he was convicted of contempt of court.

[dextrous63]

Doesn't matter whether the original ruling was correct or not. There is an existing court order which he ignored and that's why he was convicted of contempt of court.

I know that.  As said, I was curious about the troof of his claims.

[Diasi]

Doesn't matter whether the original ruling was correct or not. There is an existing court order which he ignored and that's why he was convicted of contempt of court.

Of course you are correct.

In law it matters not if the original libel ruling was correct, it shut down any debate & people are forced, by law, to accept it & those who don't will be convicted of contempt of court & contempt for the court is probably what Tommy Robinson feels.

Yesterday at 09:35:55 AM

Before it gets removed again

https://x.com/i/status/1817184820151070917

Thanks for the link. 

[dextrous63]

What this has done, of course, is to make a lot more people want to watch the film to see what all the fuss is about.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might climb up a small hillock on this flat earth of ours, and start singing the sound of cynic.

[klondike]

What this has done, of course, is to make a lot more people want to watch the film to see what all the fuss is about.

    

[JBR]

I'm assuming...

Here is a translation (maybe)

Here's a breakdown of the main points:

• Background: Yaxley-Lennon was previously found to have defamed Hijazi, and an injunction was placed to prevent further dissemination of defamatory statements. Despite this, Yaxley-Lennon continued to breach the injunction by publicly repeating the allegations through various media, including social media and public gatherings.
• Contempt Applications: The Solicitor General filed two contempt applications against Yaxley-Lennon, alleging that he breached the injunction on 10 separate occasions. Yaxley-Lennon admitted to these breaches, though his admission came only during the hearing.
• Breach Severity and Harm: Justice Johnson found that Yaxley-Lennon's breaches were intentional, persistent, and aimed at maximizing exposure, which showed a high degree of culpability. The breaches were not only damaging to Hijazi's reputation but also undermined the administration of justice by promoting the idea that court orders could be disregarded.
• Aggravating Factors: Yaxley-Lennon's history of contempt findings in other cases, including previous breaches of court orders, worsened the severity of his actions. Some of his breaches occurred even after the first contempt application had been filed, indicating continued disregard for the law.
• Mitigating Factors: The court considered Yaxley-Lennon's mental health, the potential for adverse prison conditions due to his public notoriety, and his compliance with the injunction for about 18 months prior to the breaches. However, he showed no remorse, and the court noted his apparent belief that he was justified in ignoring the injunction.
• Sanction: Justice Johnson ruled that a custodial sentence was appropriate, imposing an 18-month prison term, reduced slightly to account for time already served and his admission. The sentence was divided into a punitive element (14 months) and a coercive element (4 months) to encourage compliance with the injunction.
• Costs and Right to Appeal: Yaxley-Lennon was ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the Solicitor General, subject to further assessment if not agreed upon. He retains the right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

This judgment emphasizes that court orders must be respected regardless of personal convictions, aiming to uphold the rule of law and discourage future breaches by both Yaxley-Lennon and others.

I have read through all of this and my conclusion is that he has been condemned, basically, for two things:
- stating his own personal opinions;
- ignoring an earlier court finding.

I wonder whether there still is some doubt of the validity of the original court findings.  I can't be sure as I am not party to the details, but I have heard suggestions that it may not have been a fair decision.

Yes, he is outspoken, and is likely to upset some people who disagree with his opinions.  It's a shame that we can't send certain other people in authority (naming no names of course) for making statements and decisions which oppose the opinions of the majority of British citizens.

[dextrous63]

My initial (and probably wrong😢😢🙄) understanding is that the judge or the defamation trial was unwilling to accept evidence that was garnered without the permission ( or indeed knowledge that the info was going to be used this way, yet alone presented in court) of those who gave it and would thus be unwilling to give evidence in court.  He was also unwilling to accept hearsay.

Seems reasonable to me.  Although, for TR it must have been highly frustrating since he knows exactly what was said and disclosed to him, which is what he believes/knows to be the truth.

Hardly the judge's fault.🤷🏻�♂️

[JBR]

There is, of course, also the probability of Tommy being sent to jail (for a longer term than many real criminals!) resulting in a greater number of people following his ideals!

[Ashy]

[dextrous63]

There is, of course, also the probability of Tommy being sent to jail (for a longer term than many real criminals!) resulting in a greater number of people following his ideals!

I'm back on that hillock, singing the second verse😉

[klondike]

I have read through all of this and my conclusion is that he has been condemned, basically, for two things:
- stating his own personal opinions;
- ignoring an earlier court finding.

It wasn't any finding. It was a court order. Disobey one of those regardless of what it is or why it was issued and you are in contempt of court for which you can be imprisoned. I have no doubt at all that TR was fully aware of that. As was said earlier all this is probably helping his cause. It is certainly bringing it to a wider audience.

[Vlad]

He is a thug, started life of has a football hooligan, a criminal with a string of offences including mortgage fraud, a failed businessman and bankrupt who the HMRC are delving  into his business accounts, and rabble rouser, whose books were written by someone else.
18 months nick? He will be out in 4, and no doubt reoffend.
Yet he is worshipped as the Messiah who will solve Englands problems 

[dextrous63]

Yeah, but apart from all that, he's a good lad really😬