Tommy LOSES court case. __Thread Moved to GD__

[noseall]

My mate I work with has jury service end of this month. .

Go with him. You could learn summat

 

[Bodd]

Go with him. You could learn summat

Do you think they would let me?

 

[noseall]

Do you think they would let me?

There is a public gallery. It's a fascinating endeavour whereby learned people embark on finding the truth. It's not something for the faint hearted or the RWR.

Take a book with you in case you get bored with the truth.

 

[Bodd]

There is a public gallery. It's a fascinating endeavour whereby learned people embark on finding the truth. It's not something for the faint hearted or the RWR.

Take a book with you in case you get bored with the truth.

I'm all for truth and not being able to hide behind excuses. We have one more job Inbetween both our week breaks then he's off on jury service I'll just take the rest of the summer off I think.... I won't be going near a court..

 

[SirGalahad]

If Tommy Robinson appeals and gets himself a decent Barrister there is a good chance the verdict could be overturned.

The idea that a laymen can take on the professionals and get a fair result is ludicrous.
I had a mate who ended up in court due to a marital dispute with his wife, he pleaded not guilty and just before the trial started he sacked his legal advisors and decided to defend himself.
He took to coming court with legal books which he had looked through trying to find loopholes.
He highlighted legal cases in the books which he believed contained legal precedents which were relevent in the case against him.
The judge and the jury got fed up with his antics and jailed him for 12 months.
He appealed, and this time he made sure he had proper legal representation.
On appeal the case against him was thrown out, he finally realised too late that if he had listened to his legal advisors at his original trial he would never have ended up in jail.

More chance you don't post rubbish. Have you read the judgement - TTT witnesses are unreliable which is truth defence rests on. No barrister worst his salt would represent this idiot as the case will be another slam dunk loss for Tommy.

 

[SirGalahad]

Take a book with you in case you get bored with the truth

Truth is kryptonite to RWR that's why they avoid it at all costs.

After posting the judges summary the RWR have scarpered and I don't expect Filly to make an appearance.

 

[Vinty]

PMSL at that analysis...

He's a racist right wing thug, end of!

What are you?

He might be all of the above but he is still entitled to a fair trial.

 

[SirGalahad]

He might be all of the above but he is still entitled to a fair trial.

What was unfair about the trial?

 

[Vinty]

More chance you don't post rubbish. Have you read the judgement - TTT witnesses are unreliable which is truth defence rests on. No barrister worst his salt would represent this idiot as the case will be another slam dunk loss for Tommy.

You obviously don't understand how the law works.
Why do you think rich people pay huge sums of money to lawyers to represent them in court.
You appear to have a lynch mob mentality when it comes to people like Tommy Robinson, in that regard you and Tommy aren't that different.
In my opinion Robinson didn't get a fair trial but that wasn't the fault of the court.

 

[Vinty]

If it did, I'm all for trying him in a English court of law, so that all the facts can be laid bare and forensically examined in front of an experienced judge. Only then will we seek out the lies and the truth.

You are having a laugh, aren't you.

 

[Vinty]

79. In summary, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Claimant had any propensity to behave in an aggressive or abusive manner towards girls and women. For the reasons I have given, I am unable to accept the evidence of AYQ and BWI, but even if I had accepted it, it would not have demonstrated a propensity on the part of the Claimant to act in this way. The more reliable contemporaneous evidence in the school records provides powerful support for the conclusion that the Claimant did not behave in the way alleged

84. On balance, I accept the evidence of the Claimant in respect of these incidents. Even if MVY’s hearsay evidence is admissible, as to which I have real doubts, I can attach no real weight to his untested evidence, particularly in the circumstances in which it was obtained (see [53] above). The claim that the teacher “proper gave [the Claimant] a telling off” would suggest that, if it happened, the incident would have been recorded on the Claimant’s disciplinary record. But without any idea of when this is alleged to have happened, it is impossible even to begin to investigate it. The Defendant has failed to prove MVY’s allegations. The use of a toothpick (or even a pin) as part of a joke with friends is a school-boy prank, done in mischief not with malice, as the teacher appears to have accepted at the time. More importantly, the evidence of these incidents relied upon by the Defendant (even had I accepted MVY’s evidence as truthful), is not remotely capable of demonstrating that the Claimant had a propensity towards using, or making threats of, violence towards other pupils.

88. I accept the evidence of the Claimant and his father. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that the Claimant ever had a knife in his possession at school. The minutes appear to have inaccurately recorded Mr Hijazi’s expressed concerns. In any event, the discovery of the screwdriver was immediately reported by the Claimant to his head of house. It is likely that the matter was resolved as reported by the Claimant. Certainly, if any member of staff had considered that the screwdriver had been the Claimant’s, potentially to be used by him offensively, then that would have been a very serious disciplinary matter, perhaps even requiring the involvement of the police. At the very least, I am confident that the discovery of the Claimant in possession of one or more (potentially) offensive weapons would have been recorded in the Claimant’s school records.

89. Moreover, the likelihood of the Claimant reporting discovery of the screwdriver to his head of house if, in fact, the item was his, is so remote, it can be discounted. Equally, reporting the incident to his parents is not a step the Claimant would have taken if the screwdriver was his. Stepping back, the Defendant is seeking to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the Claimant had gone to school equipped with a screwdriver and a knife, based solely on minutes of a meeting. I do not know who completed these minutes, when and based on what records. Against that, I have the sworn evidence of two individuals with direct knowledge of the events. I accept their evidence

106. Charly Matthews’ evidence is simply incredible. On her account, in the middle of a school PE lesson, she had been the victim of a serious unprovoked assault in which a hockey stick had been used effectively as a weapon. The incident, as described by Charly, was a serious criminal assault that could easily have led to the Claimant’s prosecution. As a result of the assault, she claimed that she lived in fear of the Claimant, that the incident had been a significant contributor to her anxiety and ultimately to her being unable to continue at the School, and four years later she was still in pain for which she was taking prescription medication.

109. . Further, no record was made even of the injury or the circumstances in which it had been caused. Why would the teacher act in such gross dereliction of his duty? No remotely credible explanation has been provided by the Defendant (or Charly). The reason, I am satisfied, is that no such incident was reported by Charly (or OTP) to any member of staff (as apparently confirmed in the April 2019 entries in Charly’s records – see [ 100(iii)] above). That is because no such incident happened.

110. The report was based on information provided by Charly. There is no mention of the Hockey Stick Incident which, had it happened, Charly could have been expected to mention this as a major contributor to her anxiety, as she claimed in her evidence.

112. According to Charly she had undergone both X-rays and MRI scans. There are no records.

113.Fourth, Charly claimed, even now, four years later, to be in significant pain as a result of the incident and still to be taking prescription painkillers. Yet, no medical records have been produced to confirm this. On the contrary, the only information I have from Charly’s GP is a letter, from 18 January 2018, stating that she has no medical problems.

114. I have already rejected OTP’s evidence in relation to the incident involving BWI (see [67] above). I am also satisfied that OTP’s evidence about the Hockey Stick Incident was dishonest fabrication that fell apart when he was cross-examined on the details.

116. I am quite satisfied that the evidence of both Charly Matthews and OTP about the Hockey Stick Incident is false.

122. I have watched again the recording from which the transcript has been produced. The Defendant made two visits, on separate unidentified occasions, to attempt to speak to EYW. Both appear to have been covertly filmed by the Defendant wearing a concealed camera and microphone.

126. The Defendant has failed to prove the Group Attack Incident. The case depends entirely upon hearsay. There is no direct evidence from EYW herself, even by hearsay.

127. Against that, the Claimant has given sworn evidence at the trial – and been cross-examined. I have no basis on which to reject his evidence; indeed, I find the Claimant to have been a credible and truthful witness throughout his evidence.

140. hat answer clearly demonstrated that, at the very least, someone had discussed the incident report with him, and in sufficient detail for him to appreciate the point about the different handwriting. That was unfortunate. The effect was to undermine Bailey’s credibility by giving the impression that his evidence had been influenced by some other person(s). I am not suggesting that there has been any effort deliberately to influence his evidence, but if it appears that a witness has discussed aspects of his/her evidence with someone else, it risks damaging the credibility of the witness because it calls into question the extent to which the Court can rely upon the evidence as being the witness’s own evidence rather than something that s/he has picked up from discussions with other people

144.Bailey’s credibility was also damaged by his answers to questions he gave in response to a document completed by the School, on 28 November 2018, making a referral under the “Prevent” programme because of references he had made to the EDL.

147. In balance, I consider that the claim to have been told that the Claimant had threatened to stab him – by “Ahmed” or anyone else – was manufactured by Bailey.

A half decent Barrister would have torn that verdict to shreds.

 

[fillyboy]

After posting the judges summary the RWR have scarpered and I don't expect Filly to make an appearance.

I'm still here. Unlike Almondbury School (or at least the secondary section). Many teachers opted to leave the profession rather than be redeployed, or the facebook pages where parents shared how their child had been bitten by the 'Syrian kid'.

That's some clean up operation.

 

[Brigade77]

or the facebook pages where parents shared how their child had been bitten by the 'Syrian kid'.

This never happened. We live in a Marxist utopia where even if such things happen they don't actually happen & all them parents are RWR fascists.

 

[Brigade77]

79. In summary, the Defendant has failed to demonstrate

His right honourableness is subtly hinting here me thinks . . . .

Say what you like about Tommy, but if you want to throw terms like "racist" around then it'd be nice if you can provide some evidence.

 

[SirGalahad]

I'm still here. Unlike Almondbury School (or at least the secondary section). Many teachers opted to leave the profession rather than be redeployed, or the facebook pages where parents shared how their child had been bitten by the 'Syrian kid'.

That's some clean up operation.

Filly baiting and switching again you old coot. Lol another FB page as evidence.

Almondbury High school was failing for a long time - it only had about 300 kids - it wasn't viable and was in a poor area. Look at the ofsted reports and Almondbury is a deprived area. It's too late for you to start thinking now - get off to bed!

https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/28/107758

https://www.uklocalarea.com/index.php?lsoa=E01011010&q=Almondbury&wc=00CZFA

I'm worried for you, 65 and still getting conned by random FB pages. I may have to take your internet access away.