ivandaman wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:52 pm
Of course he did.. This is what the state lawyer "advised" him to do. He'd probably get a better "deal" out of it.
It happens all the time. People plead "Guilty" to get a lighter sentence even if they are NOT.... Honestly are you people that gullible ... Turn of BBC for God's sake...
Plea bargaining is not a concept in English law as it is in America. Sentencing is decided by the judiciary on the facts of the case. You can't plead guilty in an English court in exchange for a lesser sentence. Calling the barrister who represented him a 'state lawyer' is misleading. Barristers get two types of work. They can be 'instructed', which means hired directly essentially. Tommy Robinson has previously been represented by a barrister who confirmed that they were not in attendance, but will not speak further on the matter unless instructed to by Tommy Robinson. So we don't know for certain, but it seems likely that she could not attend. When this happens another barrister, often from the same chambers, but not always will step in. This is called a Return, and there is absolutely nothing unusual about this.
The barrister in question has previously worked as a prosecutor, but he specialises in criminal defence, so most of his cases are in that.
ivandaman wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:52 pm
I'm not a legal expert but a quick google search shows that "breach of peace" and "contempt of court" are
NOT the same fornicate thing but I guess one can lead to another..
Still it is painfully obvious that the police wasn't even instructed properly to
use the correct terminology... This is why TR asked several times.
"What does it mean?, What does it mean" He realized that that was a bogus charge and wanted to have the explanation on camera.
No they aren't the same thing, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if his arrest wasn't lawful (it was, but it wouldn't matter if it wasn't). You can be arrested for one thing and charged with another, or even released without charge. This is perfectly normal.
ivandaman wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:52 pm
I agree with one thing though.. If Tommy Robinson wanted to stay out of jail he should've kept quiet, and stay off line and the public eye until the sentences are read and the publication ban removed. I get it that he
willingly put himself in this situation, but then again because of this "Play it safe, don't say anything attitude" the west is in such a deep shit.
It's a well documented fact that all those grooming scandals, child rapes and pedophilia went on for decades because authorities were afraid to be accused of being "Racist"..
This is how pathetic the UK has become, so spare me all this legal mambo jumbo "
Oh he disobeyed court orders he deserves to be in jail" bullshit
Again, you are misunderstanding the problem. Reporting restrictions were in place to ensure that, if these men are guilty, they are able to be convicted in a fair trial where the verdict cannot be overturned, or a mistrial declared. He was quite clearly warned about this at the previous contempt of court trial when he was given a suspended sentence, but chose to ignore it. He knew what would happen if he did it and he did it anyway.
ivandaman wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:52 pm
I can guarantee you that if the roles were flipped and a bunch of white British dudes had raped thousands of innocent muslim/migrant girls everyone would be singing a totally different tune.. There would be no publication ban.. There would be crowds of angry muslims on the streets protesting and rioting and neither the police nor the in
justice system would dare to touch them. You know it I know it everyone knows it ..
There are two different sets of rules.
One for native Europeans and one for the so called minorities .. and this is the same all across western Europe..
Quite simply, you're wrong.
This is the guide for reporting restrictions. A key quote from this as it applies to this case:
Section 4(2) is regularly invoked in cases involving sequential trials. The aim in those cases is to postpone
the reporting of specific parts of the evidence in the first trial to prevent prejudice to the defendants in
the second trial.