What "Robinson"claims and what is true are not necessarily the same. Court officials? Who exactly and why? Court officials are not lawyers, let alone Judges, so not competant to even offer an opinion.

I already have!

By breaking the reporting restrictions, which apply to everyone and not just to journalists, he opened up the possibility of defence lawyers claiming that their client's defence had been compromised and the Judge agreeing and ordering a mistrial. The accused could then be set free pending a decision on whether a retrial would happen.

Alongside that were the ongoing investigations all of which were linked. The authorities obviously wanted things to be kept quiet as possible whilst those investigations were carried out, presumably to avoid those being investigated being made aware they were under scrutiny.

Blatant disregard for lawfully imposed restrictions has resulted in his conviction. No excuses possible.

Two judges had already decided that what he live-streamed was not prejudicial to the case. What he said on that stream was already reported information as he previously had done legal training. The court provided no information on reporting restrictions on the day, which they are supposed to.

The attorney general – the legal adviser to the government! – removed the original charges and decided to add two different allegations. One of which was by speaking and photographing the defendants (racially aggravated gang rapists) could have made them feel anxious. Really?

The attorney general believes this trial is in the public's interest and is costing taxpayers millions.

Edited by Penge Eagle (07 Jul 2019 12.37pm)

I know that most wont want to but take a minute or 30 and just listen to his defense,he (Tommy) has independant witnesses that there was NO information about a no media policy,unless it was already in the public domain.......So please put all your bias aside and just take awhile openminded to hear this.
If this is not a stitch up I dont know what would be,they want him off the streets and in critical danger as soon as poss.Buy hey thats my biased opinion.
Hopefully the link will work.
[Link]

Back to thread title for a moment.
He did expose the grooming gangs issue though didn't he? That you must admire; the act not the man minimum.
And he doesnt hate muslims.
He disagrees with the teachings that brainwash muslims.
He has Muslim friends including imams.
Those that agree with him about the very same thing.
Find evidence of that being untrue.

All you are doing is repeating "Robinson's" defence which failed as he was found guilty. As he was in the first trial which was over turned on a technicality. The High Court then gave permission to bring further charges because it was considered in the public interest to do so. Although those defending "Robinson" obviously disagree with that assessment I don't and nor, do I believe, do most objective thinkers.

Those who break the law need to face the law. Ignorance of the law is no defence, no matter how much "Robinson" might claim he understood it and tried to comply with it. He didn't, as the guilty verdict proves.

So it is in the public interest to ensure that when someone who wishes to present themselves as a publically spirited servant of the people by bringing them information he believes has been suppressed by the authorities, assisted by the media, takes matters into their own hands, that they be shown not to be above the law. If we failed to do that a precedent would be set that could open up a very nasty trend. Action had to be taken, no matter what the underlying cases were, or how people think about them.

At the time the defendants were not "racially aggravated gang rapists". They were innocent men facing trial. Innocent until proven guilty. Due process matters.

Whether what "Robinson" said in his video could have compromised the trial, or not (opinion on this clearly being divided) or whether it was already in the public domain is entirely irrelevant. If reporting restrictions exist then they exist, whatever he or anyone else thinks of them.