#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
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:-
|
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!
