13 Months prison for filming outside courthouse
UK activist, Journalist and English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson was arrested on Friday 25th of May outside of Leeds Crown Court for reporting on a paedophile grooming trial. Within four hours of his arrest, Tommy Robinson was given a 13-month prison term for contempt of court, while an hour after Robinsons less than 5-minute sentencing media outlets were banned from covering the incident by a court Gag order - with dozens of outlets removing reports which had already been published.
Before their article archived was removed from their site Tommy's producer told RT. “They said it was incitement and a breach of the peace."
“No peace has been breached – there were two other people there and he’s been perfectly quiet talking into his phone. [The police] said nothing about the court proceedings. It’s very strange.”
Disturbingly, judge Geoffrey Marson QC (who sentenced Robinson), ordered an Orwellian like blackout on the UK media - which resulted in even more publications deleting their articles from the web covering Robinson's arrest, was also filmed looking down at Tommy and his crew minutes before a squad of officers came down on him, moreover one of Tommy's crew stated that the accused Child rapists were making threatening gestures out the very same window by running their index finger across the neck.
the media restriction is set to end when the grooming trial ends - meaning the Judge, according to the statement set the gag order specifically with Tommy's proceedings in mind to perhaps ensure Tommy's case doesn't interfere with the gang rape trial but made no remark of that nature in the sentencing at all. in fact if that was the case the judge would've tailored the gag order to specifically stop the press from mentioning the gang rape trial but allowed the media to still report on Tommy's sentencing. Instead, the restriction conveniently covered Tommy's unprecedented jail sentence.
this type of reporting restrictions is supposed to protect the criminal defendant from jury bias contaminating the case and inhibiting fair trial and justice - the major flaw with this is that by having this law it essentially creates a situation whereby just reporting on a court case you can be held under criminal contempt i.e arbitrally criminalizing something that isn't usually an offense.
the major issue in this particular instance of having a gag order on Tommy's case is that; the proceedings have, well... already happened thereby no need for secrecy and Tommy's sentencing had no jury so no contamination was risking the case, so what was the gag order for then?
download.jpg
The UK
For the past 40 years or so has been systematically covering up crimes like these gang rape and child trafficking cases that involved Muslim men of Pakistani origin
I Have a little theory, in the UK for the past 40 years or so has been systematically covering up crimes like these gang rape and child trafficking cases that involved Muslim men of Pakistani origin out of fear of being slandered "racist" according to an internal investigation on the Police themselves.
When the police do investigate and charge these offenders, the cases, hearings and sentencing's are all covered up with media Gag orders and Tommy like others try to expose these men.
Tommy and Lauren southern have been working together over the last few months on a major media company, According to Lauren, capable of producing and competing with the UK's large "leftist" publications. Lauren and Tommy both believe they've been deliberately targeted in a politically motivated attack, Lauren being arbitrarily banned from the UK(along with several others) and Tommy Robinson being imprisoned, the speed at which Tommy's sentencing took was unheard of in British history.
Along with Tommy's known history with the police constantly harassing him and his family and also -
how the police and court acted more like the Gestapo, took Tommy away and quickly added him to the court proceedings, his friends and family couldn't locate him when he was taken to the station and later on the police said he had been released but this wasn't true, he had been arrested for breaching the peace, charged with contempt of court so that no jury was needed, Tommy's sentencing was happening while his friends and family were worried, thinking he has been released but instead he was snuck in for a quick sentencing with court appointed lawyer.
SAS (Sikh Awareness Society) reporting outside Leeds Crown Court
See the News crew in the background?
Robinson was lectured last year by Judge Heather Norton for filming outside a gang rape case in Canterbury, who gave him with a three month suspended sentence on the condition that essentially he must cease his coverage of the trials. As you can probably deduce this 3 month sentence turned into 13 months somehow, some media companies have said that the prison sentence goven out was for violating is previous suspended sentence this however is untrue, infact the judge himself remarked on this stating that Tommy was not in violation of his suspended sentence and regardless of the previous sentence he (the judge) would hand out the same sentence.
“The maximum sentence for criminal contempt is two years.”
— Contempt of Court Act 1981.
This previous case also involved Tommy filming accused gang rapists and pedophiles where the judge had to enact a law that hasn't been used since 1925, moreover section 41 of the criminal justice act, the law itself is about protecting the jury and judge specifically rather the defendants, which everyone knows you can acting as journalist (which the judge admitted, Tommy was acting as a journalist) film defendants outside a courthouse. - These court proceedings seem as fishy as Tommy's latest one that subsequently landed him with 13 months prison.
these gag laws no longer work in the 21st century - were far too connected now, for these media restrictions to work, the UK government would have to be able to prosecute not only the regular citizen filming from their phone or tweeting like Mohan Singh and Mark Vernon but Foreigner's from talking about what they "shouldn't" and if they could have such judicial power would that be ok? and if it isn't then why have these laws in the first place if they don't even work? essentially making the law itself unjust.
These unjust laws have been undeservedly been allowed to permeate throughout the legal system and "regular life" for quite some time now, by judging the general indifference that has been at the core of the mainstream publications covering Tommy's arrest.
These victims haven't gotten justice, they've been swept under the rug along with some of the animals that destroyed their lives, what is justice when you have judges giving out lenient sentences for convicted child rapists and even one case of complete dismissal by one judge because putting the Muslim perpetrator imprison would only further radicalize him, therefore he doesn't serve any time for his rape but Tommy Robinson is sentenced to 13 months in prison in under 5 minutes with no jury, no lawyer of his choice and no one around to tell anyone about it. for what? filming rapists going into court for sentencing, showing us that the rights of the rape gang defendants are prioritized more than Tommy's freedom. because of one clear motivation, They (members of the numerous branches of Government) see Tommy and people like Tommy as the Enemy when the real enemy is themselves.
Here is the full list of defendants via The Sun.
“ First Trial
Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 34, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., is accused of 54 charges, including 21 charges of rape and 14 charges of trafficking with a view of sexual exploitation. Dhaliwal is accused of charges against eleven different girls from 2004 to 2011.
Irfan Ahmed, 32, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with nine offences including making an indecent image of a child.
Zahid Hassan, 28, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with 20 offences including six charges of raping a girl aged 13 or under.
Mohammed Kammer, 32, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with two offences including rape of a girl under 15.
Mohammed Aslam, 29, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with two offences including rape of a girl under 15.
Abdul Rehman, 30, from Sheffield, South Yorks., was charged with seven offences including raping a girl under 15.
Raj Singh Barsran, 32, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with three offences including sexual touching of a girl over 13.
Nahman Mohammed, 31 from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with three counts including trafficking a person for sexual exploitation.
Zubair Ahmed, 30, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with two offences including raping a girl under the age 15.
Hamzha Saleem, 37, from Old traddford, Gtr Mancs., was charged with three counts including human trafficking.
Second Trial (Robinson’s arrest)
Mansoor Akhtar, 25, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with three offences including attempted rape of a girl under the age of 13.
Mohammed Asaf Akram, 31, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with 14 offences including four charges of raping a girl of thirteen or under and one charge of threatening to kill.
Wiqas Mahmud, 36 from Huddersfield, West Yorks.., was charged with three offences of rape of a girl under 15.
Nasarat Hussain, 28, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with five offences including rape of a girl under 15.
Sajid Hussain, 32, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with five offences including rape of a girl under 15.
Mohammed Irfraz, 28, from Huddersfield, West Yorks.., was charged with eight offences including false imprisonment.
Faisal Nadeem, 30 from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with three counts including raping a woman 16 or over.
Mohammed Azeem, 31, from Bradford, West Yorks., was charged with three offences including rape of a girl under 15.
Zulquarnian Dogar, 29, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with two offences including sexual touching of a female aged 13 or over.
Manzoor Hassan, 37, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with four offences including inciting the sexual exploitation of a child aged between 13-17.
Third trial set to last for six weeks.
Niaz Ahmed, 53, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with three offences including sexual assault on a female.
Mohammed Imran Ibrar, 32, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with four offences including arranging the commission of a child sex offence.
Asif Bashir, 32, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with five offences, including three counts of raping a woman 16 or over.
Everton la Bastide, 50, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with two offences including sexual touching a girl of 13 or over.
Saqib Raheel, 30, from Dudley was charged with two offences including trafficking for sexual exploitation.
Usman Khalid, 29, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with three offences including assaulting a girl under 13.
Aleem Javaid, 27, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with two offences including supply of a class B drug.
Mrs Naveeda Habib, 38, from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged on one count of neglect of a child.
Mrs Shahnaz Malik, 55 from Huddersfield, West Yorks., was charged with one count of neglecting a child.”
— The Sun