By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
At last someone else looking at it from a neutral down the middle viewpoint and not influenced by who he is rather than the events that happened. The last time I saw someone get arrested have a trial and be sentenced that quick I was watching Judge Dredd
[Post edited 30 May 2018 15:29]
This is the funniest post on the whole thread.
Fantastic stuff.
I want a mate like Flashberryjacks, who wears a Barnsley jersey with "Swans are my second team" on the back.
It was done in open court. There were reporters there.
There was a reporting restriction which was subsequently lifted.
I quote (from the secret barrister):
“his contempt hearing was heard in public, with members of the press present. However, the judge imposed temporary reporting restrictions (under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 again), postponing reporting of the details of Lennon’s contempt until the trial, and the subsequent related trial, had concluded.”
So I ask again. How is the secret barrister wrong? Why do you think it’s a ‘he’ by the way?
Seems the reporting restrictions have now been lifted. People power!
There were no reporting restriction, there was a reporting delay. You don't appear to understand the law. It has crossed my mind that Robinson was deliberatley trying to get the grooming trial abandoned in order to stir up more trouble.
'If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury. If I have to do that it will mean a re-trial, costing hundreds and hundreds and thousands of pounds. A re-trial would also mean witnesses in the case would have to face the ordeal of giving evidence again before a jury.' (Judge Geoffrey Marson of Leeds Crown Court)
Robinson, AKA Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon AKA Andrew McMaster and AKA Paul Harris is not a freedom fighter, is not a champion of free speech, is not a defender of Christian piety or virtue, he is a criminal.
I remember watching QI when Stephen Fry said to Alan Davies, ‘ Alan, virtually everything you say that starts with ‘apparently’ Is complete bollox’.
Again, the Secret Barrister sums this up better than could I:
“Yaxley-Lennon was defended by an experienced member of the independent criminal Bar. He may have been offered the duty solicitor at the police station if his chosen solicitor was not available, but in the Crown Court hearing he was advised and represented by a specialist criminal barrister with over 16 years of experience of cases including murder, people-trafficking, serious violence and serious sexual offences. As an independent barrister, this professional prosecutes as well as defends (most of us do), but his website profile in fact emphasises his experience as a defence advocate. In other words, Yaxley-Lennon had a top-notch defence barrister fighting his corner.”
The most perceptive look at the facts rather than listen to the inane ramblings of nutters on social media.
Nutters on social media. You fall into that category in my book.
A white woman here from Cardiff has recently been jailed for 7 years.
"Diary of sex abuse victim, now 34, telling how she was forced to act out depraved fantasies aged just 15 gets her lesbian babysitter jailed for seven years"
There were no reporting restriction, there was a reporting delay. You don't appear to understand the law. It has crossed my mind that Robinson was deliberatley trying to get the grooming trial abandoned in order to stir up more trouble.
'If the jurors in my present trial get to know of this video I will no doubt be faced with an application to discharge the jury. If I have to do that it will mean a re-trial, costing hundreds and hundreds and thousands of pounds. A re-trial would also mean witnesses in the case would have to face the ordeal of giving evidence again before a jury.' (Judge Geoffrey Marson of Leeds Crown Court)
Robinson, AKA Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon AKA Andrew McMaster and AKA Paul Harris is not a freedom fighter, is not a champion of free speech, is not a defender of Christian piety or virtue, he is a criminal.
There was a "D" notice put on the proceedings, that's why it couldn't be reported in the Uk, but it could anywhere else.If there was a delay it wouldn't have been reported on overseas
There seems to be a revolution building on my Facebook.5 or 6 on my friends list have got together to make a stand.Its the 3rd day now and 1 has just posted ' So what we gonna do then' .Another wrote back ' We'll organize a meeting for next week'.He wrote back ' What we gonna discuss'
That was 2 hours ago and he's still wondering what they're gonna discuss.
There seems to be a revolution building on my Facebook.5 or 6 on my friends list have got together to make a stand.Its the 3rd day now and 1 has just posted ' So what we gonna do then' .Another wrote back ' We'll organize a meeting for next week'.He wrote back ' What we gonna discuss'
That was 2 hours ago and he's still wondering what they're gonna discuss.
[Post edited 30 May 2018 20:03]
Sounds like the Trust.
The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
You're forgetting that Mr Controversial is a freeman of the land type.
Beat me to it.
Fair play to Lisa though, she has the patience of a saint.
And if Lohengrin is looking for a totem to lead the popular uprising he’s predicting from his chats with the lads in the works canteen he need look no further than the nearest mirror. He is that totem. Ferris can be his number two.
The Balkanisation of the UK and indeed Europe is under way, still at embryonic stage, at the moment. We ain’t seen nothing yet.
I suppose the debate is:-
- People are people regardless of race or colour - some good / some bad? Some very good people/some very bad people regardless of race or colour. Or as humans do we all do some good things and some bad things? - does this then lead to Europe/UK becoming brown through inter race marriage - apparently 2 million already in the UK. Would that lead to less conflict, in respect of race, if eventually everyone is mixed race. (There will probably still be issues of income inequality and religion)? - does the UK eventually become a country such as Brazil predominately mixed race - is that an issue? (Mind you Brazil has a super elite and significant numbers of others in mass poverty) - we invited people into the UK from across the British Empire to do the jobs white people didn't want to do. - it is too late to do anything now given large ethnic minorities already live have been born in Europe and UK - hence it is inevitable that we will move to Brazil mixed race culture.
verses
- What's wrong with having predominately just one race in your country such as Japan or South Korea? - should whites have their own homeland somewhere in the world - for example if you are born in the UK from Pakistan origin - you could still go back to Pakistan if race issues became too intolerable. Where would white people go - if whites become the minority (Hungary or Poland until EU forces these countries to take in large number of immigrants?) - the Mongol and Ottoman empires spanned a number of various countries why don't all the immigrants head to Mongolia and Turkey (Noting Turkey does have 3.58 million Syrian refugees)? - Is the white race now in decline and will eventually be wiped out / subsumed into a mixed race. (Is that an issue?) - what happens if whites do become the minority will they then democratically have to accept culture/religion from other parts of the world?
I mean I assume you’re not saying you know the law better than someone who is a barrister and a judge? Unless you are also a barrister?
I seem to remember you thinking you knew better than the entire judicial system when the Ched Evans retrial didn’t go the way you wanted it to. Obviously it was a great judicial system that wasn’t to be questioned when the original trial went your way. You’re not always right Lisa, and not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron, despite what say and think.
I seem to remember you thinking you knew better than the entire judicial system when the Ched Evans retrial didn’t go the way you wanted it to. Obviously it was a great judicial system that wasn’t to be questioned when the original trial went your way. You’re not always right Lisa, and not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron, despite what say and think.
I disagreed with the ‘release Ched Evans’ crowd when he had been found guilty.
I didn’t say that the law was wrong on a technicality when that happened, nor when he was found not guilty on appeal.
Nor do I think everyone that disagrees with me is a moron. I do think that people who are blindly following Robinson and ignoring the law in this instance are morons as they are ignoring basic facts.
Many people disagree with me on all sorts of issues and I don’t think they are remotely moronic. It’s just a difference of opinion. Ignoring facts is what I have a problem with. A difference of opinion is a difference of opinion.
Everyone thinks their opinion is the right one - that’s why it’s their opinion,
I disagreed with the ‘release Ched Evans’ crowd when he had been found guilty.
I didn’t say that the law was wrong on a technicality when that happened, nor when he was found not guilty on appeal.
Nor do I think everyone that disagrees with me is a moron. I do think that people who are blindly following Robinson and ignoring the law in this instance are morons as they are ignoring basic facts.
Many people disagree with me on all sorts of issues and I don’t think they are remotely moronic. It’s just a difference of opinion. Ignoring facts is what I have a problem with. A difference of opinion is a difference of opinion.
Everyone thinks their opinion is the right one - that’s why it’s their opinion,
Lisa I remember you strongly disagreeing with the judge for allowing statements from people who had had previous encounters with the girl. You blindly followed the girl in that case and chose to ignore the facts, the jury, the judge,Barristers etc. some would say you were being moronic.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
