Tommy Robinson News - contempt of court
- Thread starter HawkEye244
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,625
- Reaction score
- 666
- Country
Que?
What do you mean, "phoney charges?"
What examples do you have in mind?
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,625
- Reaction score
- 666
- Country
Of press?
'Here'
or 'here too'
Did either of those go to the high court though. No, I thought not.
I guess because it's Yax who has a criminal record, you can justify the charges?
'Here'
or 'here too'
Did either of those go to the high court though. No, I thought not.
I guess because it's Yax who has a criminal record, you can justify the charges?
Yes, I know about those old cases, and £35k each was not enough. £80k was useful but not enough.
But your point is what? That when newspapers commit contempt of court they are prosecuted, and when Yax commits contempt of court (for first and for the second time) he is prosecuted?
So are you complaining that people and newspapers get prosecuted for contempt of court?
You surely aren't complaining that Yax appealed for his case to go to the High Court?
But your point is what? That when newspapers commit contempt of court they are prosecuted, and when Yax commits contempt of court (for first and for the second time) he is prosecuted?
So are you complaining that people and newspapers get prosecuted for contempt of court?
You surely aren't complaining that Yax appealed for his case to go to the High Court?
V
vinty
From what i have read Tommy was warned by officials to stop what he was doing or he would get arrested.
If that was the case then he may have wanted to get arrested in order to generate more publicity.
If that was the case then he may have wanted to get arrested in order to generate more publicity.
Which "officials"? Were they correct?
V
vinty
I believe it was court officials who interruped him filming on the steps of the court, they told him he had to stop filming under section 41 of the 1925 act or summit, Tommy replied he had been informed by some other court that he had the right to film so he continued filming.
Next thing he was arrested, what is interesting is the fact that the "Muslim Rapists" story has fallen by the wayside, the story now is all about Tommy.
This seems to be Tommy's modus operandi, find a high profile case, go there and cause a fuss ,get arrested ,the spotlight is then redirected towards Tommy ,the original reason for Tommy being there is forgotten and then it becomes Tommy being persecuted by the Establishment.
Tommy, Corbyn, and Trump as unlikely as it seems have something in common ,they have made there names by jumping on the populist bandwagon.
They claim to be anti Establishment but if you look a bit closer you see who is funding them.
Next thing he was arrested, what is interesting is the fact that the "Muslim Rapists" story has fallen by the wayside, the story now is all about Tommy.
This seems to be Tommy's modus operandi, find a high profile case, go there and cause a fuss ,get arrested ,the spotlight is then redirected towards Tommy ,the original reason for Tommy being there is forgotten and then it becomes Tommy being persecuted by the Establishment.
Tommy, Corbyn, and Trump as unlikely as it seems have something in common ,they have made there names by jumping on the populist bandwagon.
They claim to be anti Establishment but if you look a bit closer you see who is funding them.
Do we know which is correct?
Mmmm. I wonder why.
Unless, of course, we would have heard nothing at all without his presence.
I don't think you can accuse Corbyn of that.
The other two are a result of how politics has become where people feel helpless because the politicians take no notice.
?
Last edited:
What was the outcome of the trial? Have we heard?
Sponsored Links
