Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?He broke no law. He was jailed for journalism. The entire process is exactly what's wrong. We call it railroading and it's always an open & shut case because the charges are bogus and the verdict predetermined.What the court found is public record. That the court found he was encouraging a lynch mob doesn't mean he got a fair trial. He didn't encourage a lynch mob. He reported on a child-rape gang. hat people want to lynch child-rapists after learning of them doesn't make reporting on them encouraging a lynch mob.The court found that he was encouraging a lynch mob. That is illegal in the UK and possibly is in the US.Obviously, you didn't watch the video...
There's no question that he did NOT get a fair trial.
There were, in fact, people outside trying to intimidate him (though what their intentions were is subjective).
The intimidation you ascribe to Robinson consisted only of his asking defendants how they were feeling.
Please watch the video before replying.
The verdict.What did the court get wrong ?
The contempt conviction for Robinson was overturned.Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.
Tommy Robinson was jailed for reporting about rapists.Nobody has been jailed for opposing the rapes.
The 2nd and the 5th.Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?
Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?
Why was the verdict wrong ?
He knew that he was breaking the law and he carried on offending.
Open and shut case.
BTW - his initial conviction was overturned because the process was wrong not the verdict. There is a difference.
And today he starts another spell at HM pleasure. Lets hope he learns to respect our laws.
Don't think I don't know what's going on with this there. One of my closest friends is living outside London and she sends me all kinds of information, including video and documents.
Let's hope one day the British government will again respect it's laws and the laws of human decency.
The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?He broke no law. He was jailed for journalism. The entire process is exactly what's wrong. We call it railroading and it's always an open & shut case because the charges are bogus and the verdict predetermined.What the court found is public record. That the court found he was encouraging a lynch mob doesn't mean he got a fair trial. He didn't encourage a lynch mob. He reported on a child-rape gang. hat people want to lynch child-rapists after learning of them doesn't make reporting on them encouraging a lynch mob.The court found that he was encouraging a lynch mob. That is illegal in the UK and possibly is in the US.
The verdict.What did the court get wrong ?
The contempt conviction for Robinson was overturned.Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.
Tommy Robinson was jailed for reporting about rapists.Nobody has been jailed for opposing the rapes.
The 2nd and the 5th.Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?
Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?
Why was the verdict wrong ?
He knew that he was breaking the law and he carried on offending.
Open and shut case.
BTW - his initial conviction was overturned because the process was wrong not the verdict. There is a difference.
And today he starts another spell at HM pleasure. Lets hope he learns to respect our laws.
Don't think I don't know what's going on with this there. One of my closest friends is living outside London and she sends me all kinds of information, including video and documents.
Let's hope one day the British government will again respect it's laws and the laws of human decency.
"He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?He broke no law. He was jailed for journalism. The entire process is exactly what's wrong. We call it railroading and it's always an open & shut case because the charges are bogus and the verdict predetermined.What the court found is public record. That the court found he was encouraging a lynch mob doesn't mean he got a fair trial. He didn't encourage a lynch mob. He reported on a child-rape gang. hat people want to lynch child-rapists after learning of them doesn't make reporting on them encouraging a lynch mob.
The verdict.
The contempt conviction for Robinson was overturned.
Tommy Robinson was jailed for reporting about rapists.
The 2nd and the 5th.
Why was the verdict wrong ?
He knew that he was breaking the law and he carried on offending.
Open and shut case.
BTW - his initial conviction was overturned because the process was wrong not the verdict. There is a difference.
And today he starts another spell at HM pleasure. Lets hope he learns to respect our laws.
Don't think I don't know what's going on with this there. One of my closest friends is living outside London and she sends me all kinds of information, including video and documents.
Let's hope one day the British government will again respect it's laws and the laws of human decency.
"He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
So THAT'S why you work so relentlessly to facilitate and enable Muslims raping British children.The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?He broke no law. He was jailed for journalism. The entire process is exactly what's wrong. We call it railroading and it's always an open & shut case because the charges are bogus and the verdict predetermined.What the court found is public record. That the court found he was encouraging a lynch mob doesn't mean he got a fair trial. He didn't encourage a lynch mob. He reported on a child-rape gang. hat people want to lynch child-rapists after learning of them doesn't make reporting on them encouraging a lynch mob.
The verdict.
The contempt conviction for Robinson was overturned.
Tommy Robinson was jailed for reporting about rapists.
The 2nd and the 5th.
Why was the verdict wrong ?
He knew that he was breaking the law and he carried on offending.
Open and shut case.
BTW - his initial conviction was overturned because the process was wrong not the verdict. There is a difference.
And today he starts another spell at HM pleasure. Lets hope he learns to respect our laws.
Don't think I don't know what's going on with this there. One of my closest friends is living outside London and she sends me all kinds of information, including video and documents.
Let's hope one day the British government will again respect it's laws and the laws of human decency.
"He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?He broke no law. He was jailed for journalism. The entire process is exactly what's wrong. We call it railroading and it's always an open & shut case because the charges are bogus and the verdict predetermined.Why was the verdict wrong ?
He knew that he was breaking the law and he carried on offending.
Open and shut case.
BTW - his initial conviction was overturned because the process was wrong not the verdict. There is a difference.
And today he starts another spell at HM pleasure. Lets hope he learns to respect our laws.
Don't think I don't know what's going on with this there. One of my closest friends is living outside London and she sends me all kinds of information, including video and documents.
Let's hope one day the British government will again respect it's laws and the laws of human decency.
"He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
Actually, freedom is the cornerstone.
And the single best indicator of that is freedom of speech.
The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?He broke no law. He was jailed for journalism. The entire process is exactly what's wrong. We call it railroading and it's always an open & shut case because the charges are bogus and the verdict predetermined.
Don't think I don't know what's going on with this there. One of my closest friends is living outside London and she sends me all kinds of information, including video and documents.
Let's hope one day the British government will again respect it's laws and the laws of human decency.
"He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
Actually, freedom is the cornerstone.
And the single best indicator of that is freedom of speech.
There is no freedom of speech issue here.There was a right to a fair trial issue.
Your ignorance and your hatred of Muslims renders you incapable of forming any type of argument.The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.He broke the law pertaining to contempt of court. He understood that he was breaking the law. Then he lied to the court and pleaded guilty. If he has admitted his guilt how can he be innocent ?
"He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
Actually, freedom is the cornerstone.
And the single best indicator of that is freedom of speech.
There is no freedom of speech issue here.There was a right to a fair trial issue.
Once I reduce you dolts to lies, clear fabrications, my work is done.
Your ignorance and your hatred of Muslims renders you incapable of forming any type of argument.The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that."He broke the law ..."
Nazis had laws, too.
You'd have a problem with breaking those, too?
"He broke the law ..."
Your major problem is that the totalist views,.....communism, Nazism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism and Fascism, demand lock-step obedience.
Thinking and judgment are out of the question.
It appears you fit right in.
Actually, freedom is the cornerstone.
And the single best indicator of that is freedom of speech.
There is no freedom of speech issue here.There was a right to a fair trial issue.
Once I reduce you dolts to lies, clear fabrications, my work is done.
You do know that outside of Alaska, wolves in the USA are all but extinct? Oh, and "freedom" and "liberty" both basically mean the same thing?Your ignorance and your hatred of Muslims renders you incapable of forming any type of argument.The right to a fair trial is the cornerstone of civilisation. It applies to murderers, rapists and even the innocent. Yaxley knew that and still broke the law. Only low info trash like yourself have a problem with that.
Actually, freedom is the cornerstone.
And the single best indicator of that is freedom of speech.
There is no freedom of speech issue here.There was a right to a fair trial issue.
Once I reduce you dolts to lies, clear fabrications, my work is done.
What does hatred have to do with favoring survival????
And ignorance.....now I see the problem.....you're a dunce.
But I can explain the problem to you on your level:
The Dog and the Wolf
A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"
"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."
"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."
So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.
"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."
"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."
It's all about freedom and liberty.
Get it now?
There are two threads and you are defending Muslims raping children in both of them, true.As there's effectively two Yaxley-Lennon "threads" going on at the moment, here's a link to the facts as opposed to the RWNJ fantasies out there. FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
No-one else was reporting on these trials, nor do they report on any of them out side charges for one day and then sentences for one day -- no details of the trial at all.Look through all of the court's diaries and you will find hundreds ( on average 500) of Muslims on trial for the gang rape and torture of minors every single week. This is only because of Tommy's vigilance in keeping it in the public awareness, Otherwise it would, as it has been for nigh on 50 yrs, still be being swept under the carpet.
The one Tommy reported on had 29 defendants. There was supposedly a reporting restriction on publishing the verdicts but there were no notices up anywhere in the court; there should, by law, have been notices of any reporting restriction. The Court Officer of Leeds Crown Court told the Old Bailey court that 'through a failure' of her office no notice of a reporting restriction was posted anywhere nor given to the media. Tommy asked the Court Officers and the Police if there was a reporting restriction in place and where he could stand. They answered him 'No there is no reporting restriction and you are ok standing there.' Even so, Tommy did not break any law pertaining to contempt; he did not report on the trial but did read ( from the BBC website) that which was already in the public domain and he did ask defendants going into court 'hey, lads what do you feel about your verdict,' etc.
He later addressed, on camera, the media, explicitly the media. At the same time, a young English gay man was being hounded by the press and Antifa and had had serious death threats from radical Muslims for speaking out against Sharia law pertaining to homosexuality. He had lost his job and was in hiding, his family were in hiding, but still the media would not lay off him. Tommy explicitly asked the media why they were hounding men like that boy, and others, and not the alleged pedo-rapists. He was not saying they should hound them but calling out the hypocrisy of the media in their choices about whose life they shall destroy this week. The AG's prosecutor spliced one sentence out of that section of the live feed and alleged that Tommy was talking to and inciting his followers to hound the alleged pedos, causing the said defendants anxiety, fear of molestation (oh, the irony), and thus fear of coming to court and therefore blaa blaa blaa justice because the defendants through fear might need police protections to make them feels safe in order to participate fully in their trial. The trial was over!. Even though the whole hour long live feed was shown in court, so that anyone could see that Tommy was not inciting anyone, the man-hating judge, Victoria Sharp, didn't query the splicing and found Tommy guilty of Substantive Recklessness.
Which neatly takes us into another irony: substantive law and how it can possibly be in the public interest not to know about these predators, for often they're given bail between verdict and sentence. Secret trials are going on every single day.
But but but Snopes is a leftwing conspiracy apologist.As there's effectively two Yaxley-Lennon "threads" going on at the moment, here's a link to the facts as opposed to the RWNJ fantasies out there. FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
Thank you for a post that tries to distinguish facts from hearsay.As there's effectively two Yaxley-Lennon "threads" going on at the moment, here's a link to the facts as opposed to the RWNJ fantasies out there. FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
No-one else was reporting on these trials, nor do they report on any of them out side charges for one day and then sentences for one day -- no details of the trial at all.Look through all of the court's diaries and you will find hundreds ( on average 500) of Muslims on trial for the gang rape and torture of minors every single week. This is only because of Tommy's vigilance in keeping it in the public awareness, Otherwise it would, as it has been for nigh on 50 yrs, still be being swept under the carpet.
The one Tommy reported on had 29 defendants. There was supposedly a reporting restriction on publishing the verdicts but there were no notices up anywhere in the court; there should, by law, have been notices of any reporting restriction. The Court Officer of Leeds Crown Court told the Old Bailey court that 'through a failure' of her office no notice of a reporting restriction was posted anywhere nor given to the media. Tommy asked the Court Officers and the Police if there was a reporting restriction in place and where he could stand. They answered him 'No there is no reporting restriction and you are ok standing there.' Even so, Tommy did not break any law pertaining to contempt; he did not report on the trial but did read ( from the BBC website) that which was already in the public domain and he did ask defendants going into court 'hey, lads what do you feel about your verdict,' etc.
He later addressed, on camera, the media, explicitly the media. At the same time, a young English gay man was being hounded by the press and Antifa and had had serious death threats from radical Muslims for speaking out against Sharia law pertaining to homosexuality. He had lost his job and was in hiding, his family were in hiding, but still the media would not lay off him. Tommy explicitly asked the media why they were hounding men like that boy, and others, and not the alleged pedo-rapists. He was not saying they should hound them but calling out the hypocrisy of the media in their choices about whose life they shall destroy this week. The AG's prosecutor spliced one sentence out of that section of the live feed and alleged that Tommy was talking to and inciting his followers to hound the alleged pedos, causing the said defendants anxiety, fear of molestation (oh, the irony), and thus fear of coming to court and therefore blaa blaa blaa justice because the defendants through fear might need police protections to make them feels safe in order to participate fully in their trial. The trial was over!. Even though the whole hour long live feed was shown in court, so that anyone could see that Tommy was not inciting anyone, the man-hating judge, Victoria Sharp, didn't query the splicing and found Tommy guilty of Substantive Recklessness.
Which neatly takes us into another irony: substantive law and how it can possibly be in the public interest not to know about these predators, for often they're given bail between verdict and sentence. Secret trials are going on every single day.
I stopped reading after the first sentence which is a blatant lie.
Thank you for a post that tries to distinguish facts from hearsay.As there's effectively two Yaxley-Lennon "threads" going on at the moment, here's a link to the facts as opposed to the RWNJ fantasies out there. FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
However, while the link is technically correct, it skirts the main issue and fails to include relevant information. Some of that information is in my post #250 above. As noted by someone else, the bias of the linked site is clear from the use of terms such as "far-right" and "conspiracy-mongering" -- these are opinions, not facts.
Yaxley-Lennon is hardly a completely innocent victim here. He stirred the pot intentionally and must have known there could be consequences. Regardless, information about child rapes and other crimes, often organized, being committed by certain among the recent mass influx of "migrants" to England is being suppressed by government decree. Yaxley-Lennon tried to spread the information. His treatment subsequent to arrest defied normal procedure in a number of ways. Taking this as an effort to silence independent reporting re: "migrants" and to make an example of Tommy is not unreasonable. Calling it government tyranny is also not unreasonable.
No-one else was reporting on these trials, nor do they report on any of them out side charges for one day and then sentences for one day -- no details of the trial at all.Look through all of the court's diaries and you will find hundreds ( on average 500) of Muslims on trial for the gang rape and torture of minors every single week. This is only because of Tommy's vigilance in keeping it in the public awareness, Otherwise it would, as it has been for nigh on 50 yrs, still be being swept under the carpet.
The one Tommy reported on had 29 defendants. There was supposedly a reporting restriction on publishing the verdicts but there were no notices up anywhere in the court; there should, by law, have been notices of any reporting restriction. The Court Officer of Leeds Crown Court told the Old Bailey court that 'through a failure' of her office no notice of a reporting restriction was posted anywhere nor given to the media. Tommy asked the Court Officers and the Police if there was a reporting restriction in place and where he could stand. They answered him 'No there is no reporting restriction and you are ok standing there.' Even so, Tommy did not break any law pertaining to contempt; he did not report on the trial but did read ( from the BBC website) that which was already in the public domain and he did ask defendants going into court 'hey, lads what do you feel about your verdict,' etc.
He later addressed, on camera, the media, explicitly the media. At the same time, a young English gay man was being hounded by the press and Antifa and had had serious death threats from radical Muslims for speaking out against Sharia law pertaining to homosexuality. He had lost his job and was in hiding, his family were in hiding, but still the media would not lay off him. Tommy explicitly asked the media why they were hounding men like that boy, and others, and not the alleged pedo-rapists. He was not saying they should hound them but calling out the hypocrisy of the media in their choices about whose life they shall destroy this week. The AG's prosecutor spliced one sentence out of that section of the live feed and alleged that Tommy was talking to and inciting his followers to hound the alleged pedos, causing the said defendants anxiety, fear of molestation (oh, the irony), and thus fear of coming to court and therefore blaa blaa blaa justice because the defendants through fear might need police protections to make them feels safe in order to participate fully in their trial. The trial was over!. Even though the whole hour long live feed was shown in court, so that anyone could see that Tommy was not inciting anyone, the man-hating judge, Victoria Sharp, didn't query the splicing and found Tommy guilty of Substantive Recklessness.
Which neatly takes us into another irony: substantive law and how it can possibly be in the public interest not to know about these predators, for often they're given bail between verdict and sentence. Secret trials are going on every single day.
I stopped reading after the first sentence which is a blatant lie.
No surprise. Your mind is obviously closed on this issue and you've no interest in information -- directly from my friend in England -- that might be contrary your preconceived notions. Fortunately, others are reading this thread.
...oh no it isn't...But but but Snopes is a leftwing conspiracy apologist.As there's effectively two Yaxley-Lennon "threads" going on at the moment, here's a link to the facts as opposed to the RWNJ fantasies out there. FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
Thank you for a post that tries to distinguish facts from hearsay.As there's effectively two Yaxley-Lennon "threads" going on at the moment, here's a link to the facts as opposed to the RWNJ fantasies out there. FACT CHECK: Was a Far-Right Activist Jailed for Breaching a Court Order Designed to 'Protect Muslim Pedophiles'?
However, while the link is technically correct, it skirts the main issue and fails to include relevant information. Some of that information is in my post #250 above. As noted by someone else, the bias of the linked site is clear from the use of terms such as "far-right" and "conspiracy-mongering" -- these are opinions, not facts.
Yaxley-Lennon is hardly a completely innocent victim here. He stirred the pot intentionally and must have known there could be consequences. Regardless, information about child rapes and other crimes, often organized, being committed by certain among the recent mass influx of "migrants" to England is being suppressed by government decree. Yaxley-Lennon tried to spread the information. His treatment subsequent to arrest defied normal procedure in a number of ways. Taking this as an effort to silence independent reporting re: "migrants" and to make an example of Tommy is not unreasonable. Calling it government tyranny is also not unreasonable.
No-one else was reporting on these trials, nor do they report on any of them out side charges for one day and then sentences for one day -- no details of the trial at all.Look through all of the court's diaries and you will find hundreds ( on average 500) of Muslims on trial for the gang rape and torture of minors every single week. This is only because of Tommy's vigilance in keeping it in the public awareness, Otherwise it would, as it has been for nigh on 50 yrs, still be being swept under the carpet.
The one Tommy reported on had 29 defendants. There was supposedly a reporting restriction on publishing the verdicts but there were no notices up anywhere in the court; there should, by law, have been notices of any reporting restriction. The Court Officer of Leeds Crown Court told the Old Bailey court that 'through a failure' of her office no notice of a reporting restriction was posted anywhere nor given to the media. Tommy asked the Court Officers and the Police if there was a reporting restriction in place and where he could stand. They answered him 'No there is no reporting restriction and you are ok standing there.' Even so, Tommy did not break any law pertaining to contempt; he did not report on the trial but did read ( from the BBC website) that which was already in the public domain and he did ask defendants going into court 'hey, lads what do you feel about your verdict,' etc.
He later addressed, on camera, the media, explicitly the media. At the same time, a young English gay man was being hounded by the press and Antifa and had had serious death threats from radical Muslims for speaking out against Sharia law pertaining to homosexuality. He had lost his job and was in hiding, his family were in hiding, but still the media would not lay off him. Tommy explicitly asked the media why they were hounding men like that boy, and others, and not the alleged pedo-rapists. He was not saying they should hound them but calling out the hypocrisy of the media in their choices about whose life they shall destroy this week. The AG's prosecutor spliced one sentence out of that section of the live feed and alleged that Tommy was talking to and inciting his followers to hound the alleged pedos, causing the said defendants anxiety, fear of molestation (oh, the irony), and thus fear of coming to court and therefore blaa blaa blaa justice because the defendants through fear might need police protections to make them feels safe in order to participate fully in their trial. The trial was over!. Even though the whole hour long live feed was shown in court, so that anyone could see that Tommy was not inciting anyone, the man-hating judge, Victoria Sharp, didn't query the splicing and found Tommy guilty of Substantive Recklessness.
Which neatly takes us into another irony: substantive law and how it can possibly be in the public interest not to know about these predators, for often they're given bail between verdict and sentence. Secret trials are going on every single day.
I stopped reading after the first sentence which is a blatant lie.
No surprise. Your mind is obviously closed on this issue and you've no interest in information -- directly from my friend in England -- that might be contrary your preconceived notions. Fortunately, others are reading this thread.
You are the one living in ignorance. All of these cases has been widely reported and commented on by local and national media.A google search on the trial that Yaxley nearly derailed returns 20000 results.
Here is a page from his own vile website listing the various trials.
Muslim grooming gangs and other rape jihad convictions – English Defence League
As you can see each instance is accompanied by a report from the main stream media that are apparently following a secret government decree to cover up these stories. The facts do not support your conspiracy theory.
In light of this can you now admit that you have been misinformed ?
