The video below is doing the rounds and was sent to me by an acquaintance, who also mentioned Jordan Peterson.

I’m going to hold off commenting on the personalities involved!! The implication is white voices of dissent are stifled/unfairly treated/made an example of in comparison to Muslims, who are given special privileges by the government/legislators.

There’s a lot of this stuff being circulated at moment! It’s uncannily similar to the tactics used in the sates on a daily basis i.e. liberals/left ideology suppressing freedom of speech, special privileges for minorities including rampant criminality which is turned a blind eye to and hysterical/nonsensical left wing activism.

Is there any truth to the narrative of telling it how it is, talking sense and opposing repression?

Katie Hopkins and Fox news obviously just want to push people’s buttons to make money. Why do you think they would have any interest in truth?

Well, I couldn’t bring myself to watch more than about a minute of that awful woman, but she seemed to completely miss the fact that he was already under a suspended sentence, and that what he was doing was very likely to lead to a mistrial. And was illegal.

Here’s a somewhat different view from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about and isn’t pushing an agenda with omissions and distortions:

What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know.

When she says “these are very dark times for the UK” though, she should really take a long hard look in the mirror.

From the link above:

6. What happened at Canterbury Crown Court?

On 8 May 2017, during the course of a rape trial at Canterbury Crown Court involving four (Asian) defendants, Yaxley-Lennon attended court and attempted to film the defendants for an online broadcast entitled “Tommy Robinson in Canterbury exposing Muslim child rapists”. He was thwarted by the judge making arrangements for the defendants and jurors to leave court through alternative routes, and so settled for filming himself on camera, both on the court steps and inside the court building, preaching to his online followers about “Muslim paedophiles”. He was interrupted and told by court staff that recording was prohibited (section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925, as we’ve discussed above), but continued to record, insisting that he had been told by a different court that he was entitled to film the defendants (notwithstanding that court buildings are plastered with signs reminding people not to do this). His video diatribe – in which he said that “the paedophiles are hiding”, that the police had asked him not to “expose” them as paedophiles (presumably on the basis that they were, at that time, defendants in a live trial) but that “we will”, and that he would be “going round to their house” to catch the defendants on camera – thus continued. The judge hearing the rape trial was made aware, and he was brought before court to be dealt with for contempt of court.

The judge, HHJ Norton, dealt with Yaxley-Lennon on 22 May 2017. She found that he was in contempt by having filmed inside the court building, contrary to section 41, but was also in common law contempt by having continued to film having been told to stop by the court staff. The judge considered the content of his broadcast, and the real risk of his actions derailing the trial, and committed him to prison for 3 months, suspended for a period of 18 months. In practical terms, a suspended sentence means that the prison sentence (3 months) hangs over you for the operational period (18 months). If you remain offence-free and comply with any requirements the court makes, you will never have to serve your sentence. If you reoffend, the presumption in law is that you will serve that prison sentence, additional to whatever sentence you receive for the new offence.

7. So what you’re saying is that Tommy Robinson was given a suspended sentence simply for trying to report on a case? Free speech is truly dead.

No, ye of little brain. He was found to be in contempt of court and given a suspended sentence because his actions put a serious criminal trial in jeopardy. Running around a court building shouting “paedophile” at defendants during a live trial, or live-streaming defendants and members of the public – potentially including jurors – entering and exiting a court building against a tub thumping narration of “Muslim paedophile gangs”, is hardly conducive to ensuring a fair trial. And if there can’t be a fair trial, nobody gets justice. Not the accused, not the complainants, not the public. This is not theoretical – serious criminal trials have nearly collapsed because of the actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon.

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt. Therefore while criminal courts are open to the public, and it is absolutely fine to report soberly and accurately about ongoing criminal trials, anything which might prejudice or intimidate the jury is strictly forbidden. And this makes sense. It would be a nonsense, for example, to have strict laws preventing individuals from walking up to a juror to say, “The defendant you are trying is plainly a dirty paedophile”, but to allow broadcasters or tabloid columnists to trumpet that message to jurors through the media. Self-defined “free-speech advocates” – particularly a number on the other side of the Atlantic – have difficulty understanding this, so it’s worth pasting in full what HHJ Norton said:

“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”

8. How is all that relevant to what took place on 25 May 2018?

It is relevant because, when passing the suspended sentence, HHJ Norton gave some fairly clear warnings to Yaxley-Lennon:

“[Y]ou should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought, a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court.

In short, Mr Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as “Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists” and so and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand?”

And what did Yaxley-Lennon go and do?

9. What did he go and do?

As we know now, he went and committed a contempt of court by reporting on court proceedings. He did so in a way that expressed his “views” on the guilt or otherwise of the defendants, creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the proceedings by jurors seeing or becoming aware of his ill-informed ramblings. If this wasn’t enough, he was also in breach of reporting restrictions which he accepted he knew about. He was therefore, it seems, in contempt twice over. This could have led to an application by the defence advocates to discharge the jury and start afresh, potentially meaning vulnerable complainants having to go through the trauma of a trial all over again, or even an application to “stay” (bring to an end) the proceedings altogether.

Importantly, Yaxley-Lennon admitted that he was in contempt of court.

And he was committed to prison for 10 months, with the suspended sentence of 3 months activated and directed to run consecutively. Exactly as he’d been warned.

10. He was tried in secret on the day he was arrested, with no lawyers and the media were banned from reporting what had happened. This is Kafka on steroids, surely?

Contempt proceedings do not attract a jury trial. The procedure for a court dealing with a criminal contempt is set out in the Criminal Procedure Rules. These allow for a “summary procedure”, where the court, having made its own enquiries and offered a contemnor (for that is the official term) the chance to seek legal advice, can deal with the offender straight away. The Crown Court can commit a contemnor to prison for up to two years. There is nothing unusual in him being dealt with on the day of the contempt. Courts are required to deal with contempts as swiftly as possible. There is no suggestion of any prejudice; Yaxley-Lennon was legally represented by an experienced barrister and would have received full legal advice.

He also wasn’t tried in secret; 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. This, you may think, is for obvious reasons. A media circus and orchestrated attempt at martyrdom by Lennon and his followers – as was indeed attempted when the restrictions were defied by far-right blogs and foreign news outlets – would present exactly the sort of distraction that threatened to disrupt the very serious criminal proceedings that the judge was desperately seeking to keep on the rails.

In the event, the repeated breaches of the order by foreign news outlets and social media users meant that the judge’s intentions were thwarted. An application to discharge the reporting restriction was made on 29 May 2018 and the judge agreed that, in light of what had happened over the Bank Holiday weekend, restrictions should be lifted to allow publication of the facts.

It is also worth noting that there is a Practice Direction dealing with situations where defendants are imprisoned for contempt of court. This requires that full judgments be published online and handed to the media where a person is committed to prison for contempt. As we can expect imminently.

As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial.

So “white voices of dissent are stifled/unfairly treated/made an example of in comparison to Muslims, who are given special privileges by the government/legislators” is bullshit. There was a trial for defendants accused of a very serious offence, some ignorant assholes wanted to turn it into a racist media circus, the judge said “no” to that and locked up the dumbass who violated a court order in order to preserve the basic principle of our justice system that even defendants who commit heinous crimes should get a fair trial.

Fox News + Katie Hopkins = Don’t watch.

There’s a lot of this stuff being circulated at moment!

@ Malvern Rider – It’s easy to dismiss and that’s exactly what I did! I don’t think you or I are the target audience though.

It’s interesting to see the liberals/libtards are to blame for everything angle being imported to the UK.

Come on guys we can organise a candle lit vigil, get some #FreeTommy union jack socks on sale to go towards the cause.

Fight the real fight, fight the good fight, fight the power 😀

He pleaded guilty end of.

Complete and utter nonsense peddled by and for morons.

It’s a thinly-veiled attempt to legitimise racism by saying that “whites” have been marginalised.

Every time I hear this attempt to import “liberals are to blame” guff I picture a load of befuddled LibDem members wondering what they’ve done wrong now…

Yep crock of really, he is a truly shit human being

https://far-rightcriminals.com/category/tommy-robinson/

Convicted of being an illegal immigrant to the US for irony perhaps?

Haven’t this lot got a football match or a dog fight to be at or something?

When you’re accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression.

the more you post the vids the more they get shared the higher they rank. Please stop promoting their misguided propaganda.

It’s typical of the era, we are reliving 1934 – have you seen the video of crying kids in essentially animal cages in US detention centres?

The polarisation that the 30s saw with brownshirts and commies  is back……it’si getting a bit Spanish civil wary.

“It’s typical of the era, we are reliving 1934”

Spot on.  I think part of the problem is that the generation that experienced the rise of fascism in the 30’s, and then WW2 have passed away now – and we don’t seem to have learned any lessons from history.  My wife said she once asked her grandad (who fought in the Western desert and France) why Churchill was quickly voted out when the war ended – he said ‘we’d just spent 5 years fighting fascists, we weren’t going vote them back in!’

I often think that politics is a bit like the face of a clock – at 12 o’clock you’ve got the centrists who are normally reasonably sensible, and the left and right drift down towards 6 o’clock, and once you get close to it, they’re all nutters.  Just look how rabid some of Trump and Corbyn’s supporters are. You can kind of see how groups like the SS, Stasi, Isis/Daesh found it so easy to recruit willing participants – I guess they’re all the same personality types, but just wearing different badges.

I’m not so sure rabid Corbyn supporters show up in army fatigues, armed, with bulletproof vests like Trumps patriots but I suppose there’s time yet!