#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs
On Friday, 25th May, I happened to tune into Tommy Robinson’s live feed on Facebook not long before he was arrested by seven (yes seven!) West Yorkshire Police under the dishonest claim that he was inciting a “Breach of the Peace”.
From what I saw at the time and from what I have seen since I stand by my assertion that that claim was dishonest. As so far as I can see there was no basis for saying that he was inciting a Breach of the Peace.
In fact the police’s actions afterwards suggest that that was always a lie. At the time all we heard was that within two hours of his arrest he had been sentenced to 13 months imprisonment and taken off to Hull Prison.
All we knew about the reason as to why this has happened was that His Honour Judge Marson QC had made an Order forbidding press coverage on the basis that it might prejudice “THESE proceedings”.
It probably is that this Judge’s Leftist background has led him to be far harder on Tommy Robinson than he would have been on a mainstream Leftist, fellow traveller and journalist. Given the inevitable as time goes on increasing preponderance of Leftists, multi-culturalists in the judiciary would now be no real prospects of running that aspect of the argument in court but the sentence is still a severe one and the courts are supposed to take account of a quick plea of guilty in discounting by a third the sentence that they would otherwise have imposed.
The Judgment in effect is therefore saying that the Judge thought that 15 months would have been appropriate to add consecutively to the 3 months that were triggered by the plea of guilty. That strikes me as a wholly unreasonable sentence which should be possible to reduce quite significantly on appeal if Tommy Robinson is minded to do so. How publicity could be relevant to proceedings against Tommy Robinson or even Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as he is properly described in the heading of the Court Order was one of the mysteries of the situation.
I like many others that saw what happened or heard about it and then watched were amazed, appalled and outraged at what had apparently happened in our country to Tommy who is after all an heroic figure!
It seemed clear that the politically correct British State had in the words of one commentator “gone too far this time”.
There have since been a series of protests, on the quite understandable basis from what we knew, that Tommy Robinson seemed to have been arrested and then sent down for 13 months without any proper due process, trial etc.
Many generous offers of help were also being made, particularly by Ezra Levant offering help with Tommy’s legal fees and also Lord Pearson offering payment of his legal fees. General Batton and Lord Pearson of UKIP even both went so far as to threaten to prosecute the current Home Secretary, Sajid Javid. I found this somewhat odd as I cannot think there would be any prospect of getting a magistrate even to issue the summons to prosecute the Home Secretary over injuries sustained in a prison. Whilst pursuing one part of his ministerial responsibility, he does not have any direct operational involvement with them. I can however understand that in the heat of anger at the moment them making threats which in the cool light of day now look implausible.
Another implausible call was of course for Habeas Corpus and Common Law. Under Common Law judges did have a very wide discretionary power to punish for contempt of court. Habeas Corpus is the traditional order of the court whereby a Judge orders and the name comes from the Latin recital to the order to the person who has the body of the prisoner who is to be produced to the court. In a situation where the court has ordered a person to be imprisoned that of course has no relevance. It was an historical order principally against officers of the Crown or the King himself who had wrongly imprisoned somebody.
Reasonably sizeable demonstrations have been held and various speakers, including both UKIP’s and For Britain’s Leadership made speeches about how outrageous and unconstitutional the decision to imprison Tommy Robinson has been. I suspect they all now feel a bit embarrassed. No doubt they were acting from the best motives, but the facts that have now come out have delivered them over for ridicule by our collective multi-culturalist opponents.
What has now come out is that there was already a restriction order on further publication of any details about the trials of 29 defendants in yet another horrific example Muslim/Pakistani heritage pimping child prostitute gangs. The facts include the all too normal use of extortion, violence and drugs against their victims, together with huge criminal profits. Such orders are made against the media and against all journalists. It is because Tommy Robinson, for some time now, has been saying publically on his website, on his output and where relevant in court that he is a journalist that he was clearly caught by this Order.
In the circumstances I think it likely that he was correctly advised, by his very experienced Counsel, Matthew Harding, from a legal point of view to plead guilty to the charge of breach of this court Order i.e. contempt of court. That Court Order was made to try to ensure that these criminals could be fairly tried. The consequence of it being impossible to fairly try them means that they might go free. The Order against the media was therefore a sensible Order to make, provided of course that once the criminals were convicted that the media were not only free to report on it but actually did so.
Of course part of the reason why we are all so suspicious about the “Fake News” from the mainstream media is that they frequently choose to make a big fuss about historic cases against old white men rather than to report the real crisis that is going on around us at the moment of these Muslim child rape gangs. Our suspicion was further raised by the treatment of Tommy Robinson who has been the key torch bearer throwing light on this issue to the embarrassment of the British Political Establishment.
Once it is understood that Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court it becomes obvious that this would automatically trigger his suspended sentence for 3 months imprisonment to which he was sentenced in Canterbury Crown Court last year. Therefore Tommy would be going to prison for at least that 3 months sentence. I think it would also be inevitable that any Judge would then add to that sentence.
I do however think that an immediate actual custodial sentence of a further 10 months was a very stiff sentence and it is there that we and Tommy Robinson himself should perhaps be directing attention, since that sentence is of course appealable.
There is also the disparity of treatment between Tommy Robinson and other reporters whereby he has been singled out for punishment when usually mainstream media reporters are not punished. There is also the fact that he is completely outside the self-censoring system which revolves around the Defence and Security Media Advisory whereby the mainstream media decide what they are going to report and what they are going to censor in the interests of their globalists/internationalist, multi-culturalist owner’s agenda.
I came across a very good article explaining this system which I reproduce below.
The other point to bear in mind is of course that the Judge that decided to sentence Tommy Robinson for an additional 10 months over and above the 3 months that were triggered by his pleading guilty, is His Honour Judge Geoffrey Marson QC who was one of the first products of the change to the judicial appointments under Tony Blair whereby a Judicial Appointments Commission was set up with rules, which Tony Blair’s friend, Lord Irvine, said would ensure that “nobody with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary.
Judge Marson was appointed by Tony Blair’s personal friend and former flatmate, Charlie Faulkner, who, as Lord Chancellor presided over the dismantlement of the ancient and traditional English office of Lord Chancellor. Faulkner replaced it with the EUish institution of a “Ministry of Justice” which has since presided over the virtual implosion of the English Court system. Judge Marson is I suspect a typical example of such appointment as his own old chambers proudly boasts of being multi-culturalist, Park Square Barristers of 6 Park Square East, Leeds, LS1 2LW say that they are “Progressive - … we have a strong balance of women and BME members.” Here is a link to their website >>> https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/about/
I mentioned above the control centre of Establishment spin the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee. Here is that interesting article I mentioned:-
“D-Notices, State Censorship And The Cynical Collusion of Mainstream Media
By TruePublica: If you’ve been following the Skripal/Novichok/Chemical weapons/Syria drama unfold through TruePublica you’ll be up to date on most, if not all, the relevant information there is to know.
On several occasions, we have published news relating to the D-Notices sent out by the state to censor the mainstream media in both print and broadcast to ensure that their version of the story, one filled full of holes, didn’t go, well, mainstream.
One question raised a few times by our readers was, who is it actually decides when to issue a D-Notice and who sits on its committee.
Here is the explainer and an interesting one it is too.
Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports - Essential Weekend Reading - Safe Subscribe
A DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) — formerly a DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice), and before that called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for “reasons of national security.”
In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices were only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are today slavishly complied with by the media.
In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged; and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices (Defence Advisory Notices).
One of the recommendations resulting from the 2015 review of the DA-notice system, included the renaming of the system to the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee. In 2017, the notices were reworded and then reorganized into the following categories:
- DSMA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities
- DSMA-Notice 02: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon Systems and Equipment
- DSMA-Notice 03: Military Counter-Terrorist Forces, Special Forces and Intelligence Agency Operations, Activities and Communication Methods and Techniques
- DSMA-Notice 04: Physical Property and Assets
- DSMA-Notice 05: Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions
From here, it gets interesting because in 2015 the ‘committee’ from all accounts seemed to change shape, which beforehand had been made up of state officials, and some elements of the press, particularly in times of real national security such as the world wars. Nowadays it is made up of a few state officials and mostly – the mainstream media.
There are 15 senior media people who sit on this censorship committee. As well as the BBC, ITV, ITN and Murdoch’s Sky News, representing broadcasters, there are a variety of representatives from the broadsheet and tabloid press, regional and Scottish newspapers and magazines and publishing – including two News UK and Harper Collins, (both owned by Murdoch) as well as Trinity Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Guardian.
On the government side of the committee are the chair from the MoD and four intelligence connected representatives from the MoD (Director General Security Policy), Foreign Office (Director for National Security), Home Office (unspecified post) and Cabinet Office (Deputy National Security Adviser for Security, Intelligence, and Resilience).
The DSMA committee itself obviously likes to project the view that it is a rather dull and uninteresting meeting of minds and that there’s nothing going on to report. But these meetings are to discuss and agree what can and cannot be printed or broadcast in the mainstream media. Then, instead of going back to their respective places of work and simply passing on the message – the state then issues notices to the same people who just agreed not to print the scandals the government just asked them not to print in the first place.
SpinWatch makes an interesting point by highlighting exactly how much the mainstream media collude directly with government on controlling the output.
“as a former vice chair of the committee (a journalist) put it, ‘is emphatically not censorship… but voluntary, responsible media restraint’. Then working at Sky News, that vice chair, Simon Bucks, is now CEO at the Services Sound and Vision Corporation, the broadcasting service which says it is ‘championing the Armed Forces’. Bucks also wrote that the DSMA committee is ‘the most mythologised and misunderstood institution in British media… “Slapping a D-notice” on something the establishment wanted suppressed has been the stuff of thrillers, spy stories and conspiracy theories for more than a century”.
The reader should have gathered from that statement alone, that indeed, slapping a D-Notice on the media is not the stuff of conspiracy theories otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. The conspiracy is that that the mainstream media stand accused of colluding in important cover-ups with and for the state. That is not a theory – that is a fact.
The Labour party is currently attacking freedom of speech and the free press, if there was indeed one to speak of, with a Bill tabled by deputy Labour leader Tom Watson (known as Labour’s ‘bully boy’) this week. This Bill was described by the Financial Times thus: “it would force our hand and chill freedom of expression in this country. Investigative journalism – such as the FT’s expose of The Presidents Club this year – could well become too risky given the potential costs.” It would be handing rich individuals a licence to harass the press, free of charge.”
Thankfully this draconian measure failed.
No doubt being caught up in the expenses scandal that the Telegraph printed didn’t exactly help with Mr Watson’s general view that Britain should benefit from a free press. His proposal came a couple of days after the World Press Freedom report showing Britain is now languishing nicely in 40th place in a group of other countries who also despise free speech – by those who try to hold power to account.
Here is a link to the original article>>> http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/d-notices-state-censorship-and-the-cynical-collusion-of-mainstream-media/ …
Here are the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee’s Media Members:-
Here is a link to their website>>> http://www.dsma.uk/committee/index.htm
There was also some interesting fall-out for the multi-culturalist British Political Establishment which I think was able to see that large numbers of traditionally minded patriots are now absolutely fed-up with the way things are going and are close to the point where there could be widespread civil disorder. Whether they take any notice of that information we will see shortly. So far it looks to me as if the official reaction is likely to be to try to clamp down still further which I suspect will be like sealing the lid on a pressure cooker!