Tommy Robinson 'begs' Trump to grant him asylum as he faces UK 'death sentence'

[El Kabong]

From a story in the Telegraph from the 4th of July....

'if reporting restrictions were imposed by asking staff, looking for a notice outside the courtroom as well as scouring the court website.

He said that he “erred on the side of caution” in his broadcast by only referring to elements already in the public domain, adding how he did not mention the linked trials.

Michelle Dunderdale, who works at the Leeds court, admitted that there had been an “administration process failure” that day and details of orders imposed on the case had not been posted outside courtrooms or logged on the computer system. Confirming that an internal inquiry had been launched to establish why orders had not been posted, she explained that all staff knew to tell anyone who asked that strict reporting restrictions had been imposed on the trial.

Yaxley-Lennon has already served two months in jail for contempt before being freed after the conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in August last year, in part because the defendant was not given adequate time to prepare a defence.'

[Master]

If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

[Beanz]

People can 'Opine' until the cows come home. You can read the judgement from last Friday here in full, despite all the bullshit and bluster from others claiming there is some kind of conspiracy. It is irrefutable and incredibly clear. If you want to believe the words of a con with multiple convictions then go ahead fill your boots, but you are only kidding yourself in order to justify your own desire to hide your own embarrassment in letting someone like him pull the wool over your eyes

Its here in PDF form - https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/...jmt-190709.pdf

[Gandalf]

What is irrefutable and clear? And what do prior trumped up political convictions have to do with this? What does one's personal habits have to do with this? If I am on ignore then I guess Lucy cannot answer the questions, but she never answers questions anyway. So I guess no big loss.

All I and anyone else sees is a nan going to prison for doing something many other journalists have done which is ask a question on the day of a trial decision. They did it in many other cases and as has been pointed out the authorities themselves failed to follow procedure and even then Robinson only revealed what was in the public domain. So, what we have is essentially a 'face' situation' and what many view to be a political vendetta.

He was released from prison because the case was deemed faulty so now that they have invented new charges and interestingly coordinated everything else in order to reduce his voice and make it easier to dispose of him. It will have the opposite effect. All it does is make people question the companies that ban based on lies, those who seek to make a political prisoner for speaking up against forced societal change, and in turn create more resentment.

[Gandalf]

I miss my laptop, man not nan. Who invented these 'smart' phones? They are not smart if they cannot see that your clumsy fingers intended the m rather than the n. Who has a thumb that small?

[Gandalf]

Not so irrefutable or clear unless you are only listening to one narrative. This man breaks down the accusations very articulately. Not cut and dry at all, but seemingly manipulated.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/PxLAhAWFoHk/

[Fenster]

I'm a little confused by all this, there's no grey area, people who support him (including proper journos from around the world) call his sentence a "disgrace," a "stitchup," whilst everyone who despises him (British mainstream) say it's cut and dry, any "journo" doing the same would have been done.

With the fans on either side predictably repeating the same.

Is there any similar examples in recent times? One report said he's the first for 60 years to be done for this?