Pray for brave Tommy.

  • Thread starter Deleted member 6179
  • Start date

Spinney

Bimbleur extraordinaire
Location
Under the Edge
I understand your point but he's not a transperson, nor is he an actor / or convert to a new religion as in the case of Cassius Clay .

Unless actually, he is pretending, and underneath it all he is a decent human being and this is some elaborate double bluff, by the progressives, to sucker the alt right into supporting him.

He then at an agreed moment rips off his t shirt to reveal on his chest a 'peace, love, and planetary justice for all' tattoo..

And goes

"Ta da!! See you idiots I've been a nice person all this time.. But you fell for the knuckle headed Daily Failisms every time"

OK this is turning into some kind of personal "Fantasy Friday"..

Better get back to the carrot hoeing :angel:
But anyone can choose what they are called. The trans person might be a bad example, as there is a clear reason there, but TR's name change is little different to the way an actor chooses a name that they think will be more popular. Or to take a political example, people do not continally refer to Tony Benn (real name Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn). I CBA to google, and that might be a bad example if he changed his name legally, but the principle is the same.

Part of opposition to TR's brand of hate is not to be like them. Part of which is applying the same rules to everyone, no matter where on the scale from decent human being to waste of oxygen they fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

KneesUp

Veteran
But anyone can choose what they are called. The trans person might be a bad example, as there is a clear reason there, but TR's name change is little different to the way an actor chooses a name that they think will be more popular. Or to take a political example, people do not continally refer to Tony Benn (real name Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn). I CBA to google, and that might be a bad example if he changed his name legally, but the principle is the same.

Part of opposition to TR's brand of hate is not to be like them. Part of which is applying the same rules to everyone, no matter where on the scale from decent human being to waste of oxygen they fall.
I believe that Private Eye used to refer to Tony Benn as Anthony Wedgewood Benn and/or Viscount Stansgate. He legally renounced his title so he could sit as an MP - the first person so to do, but he didn't change his name, Tony Benn was his preferred name, so that's what people called him.

I don't see many people referring to Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson by his full name (but they I don't read Private Eye anymore - maybe they do?)

I think there is a difference between preferring a shortening of your own name, or even using your middle name as your first, and inventing a totally new name - it rather suggests that one name is an act - it's something actors do. If he changes his name to TR, then fine, I guess. Having it as a second identity (or third, if you count Andrew McMaster, the identity he used to enter the US illegally, or fourth if you count the Wayne King name he used initially, or fifth if you count Paul Harris, or seventh if you count Stephen Lennon) just raises suspicions that he's not quite as he seems.
 

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke UK
Lawyers - including judges - assume jurors are weak and feeble minded.

The postponement order was made and Robinson breached it.

But, realistically, there was no prejudice.
I find that a very surprising argument from somebody who, as I understand it is either a lawyer or has long professional involvement with the courts.

What you write may be an argument for reform of the law of contempt but I think you're completely missing the point about SYL. The decision of the court is here. His actions went well beyond filming people milling about. He directly approached people he believed to be defendants and questioned them in an aggressive and persistent fashion while streaming live over facebook. The judges carefully consider the facts for each of a number of grounds on which the AG believed SYL to be in contempt. SYL's defence was laughable; all My Eye and Betty Martin to use a phrase of my Father's. Because there's a proper judgement he's actually got a much better record of why he was convicted than if a jury foreman had simply pronounced the word 'guilty' in relation to each of the charges.

Colleague reports that he's been seen around Northampton filming houses and shouting through letterboxes of those he regards as sex offenders.

He's a nasty, violent and very foolhardy man. Only the terminally misguided could regard him as a hero.
 
Last edited:

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
A bit OT but...

Would folks on here agree that, for example, a trans person would be entitled to use a name chosen for their new gender (e.g. Chelsea Manning) rather than continually being referred to as 'Chelsea Manning (real name Bradley)' all the time.
Actors are normally referred to by their 'acting' name rather than their real name. e.g Michael Caine (I can't even remember what his real name is).

Why should it be different for Tommy Robinson, just because he's a shite of the highest order? Note that I am not supporting the little turd in any way, but this business of always referring to him as SYL etc seems odd - one rule for folks we like/tolerate, a different rule for the rest.

Now back to speculating whether they serve gammon and milkshakes in prison...

edit: not aimed at you, mudsticks, but a general question, as the SYL thing is common in the media.
It's an interesting point.
We generally know why actors change their names, why transgender people change theirs, why some people would rather use their middle name than their forename etc, do we know why Lennon decided he wanted to be known as Robinson? I don't especially want to be searching round the internet for answers so the information may be out there, but I suspect that he was/is embarrassed by his actual name. I could see that he would consider his double barreled surname as not sitting as comfortably with his target audience as he would like. We do know that his chosen moniker is that of a football hooligan, his reasons for settling on that seem clear. Although I'm not sure it was taken into consideration Tommy is a far easier chant than Stephen too.
If, as seems likely, he has chosen a name in order to advance his racist, thug persona, I'd rather not give it added oxygen, in fact, such is my detest of the man and all he and his chosen name stands for, I don't even like typing it. Robinson, both the man and the name, is the cult, I feel it lends him/it and what he/it stands for legitimacy by using it.
 

Fab Foodie

hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
Interesting one, lots of people don't use their birthnames so where would you draw the line? e.g.

Cassius Clay
Rolihlahla Mandela
‎Leslie Lynch King jr
William Jefferson Blythe III
Steveland Hardaway Judkins
Eric Arthur Blair

And many others..
Why change name in the first place?

Surprised TR didn’t choose John Bull....
 

Salty seadog

Space Cadet...(3rd Class...)
I find that a very surprising argument from somebody who, as I understand it is either a lawyer or has long professional involvement with the courts./QUOTE]
Journalist.
 
What you write may be an argument for reform of the law of contempt
Reform of the laws of contempt - or at least the way they are applied - may be a better way of putting it.

The judges and lawyers still think we - as prospective jurors - are so weak and feeble minded as to be influenced by rants from the likes of Robinson.

I asked @srw, and I will ask you.

Would you let the opinion of anyone, let alone those of Robinson, interfere with your judgment as a juror?

Of course you wouldn't, and it is patronising in the extreme to say that others would be influenced.

On a more minor point, practically it's not so easy to find out about postponement and other orders as the lawyer prosecuting Robinson said it is.

The order is not widely published, often not even written down, as to do so would defeat its object.

An experienced court journalist would know to check directly with the judge - pass a note - or stand up and ask at a time when the jury is not sitting.

The court office - often only open an hour or two a day - may not know the terms of an order, but they would probably refer an inquirer to the court.

No one checked in this case, and anyway ignorance of the law is no excuse, Robinson is guilty.

The High Court judge said it is the responsibility of anyone taking video, or at least publishing it, to be make sure it's legal.

Moral of the story there is be careful waving your smartphone around outside a court.

Everyone is a publisher now, which was never contemplated when the laws were formulated.

Calling Robinson names is fine and dandy, nothing more than he deserves.

But there's a lot more going on in this story than that.
 

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke UK
Reform of the laws of contempt - or at least the way they are applied - may be a better way of putting it.

The judges and lawyers still think we - as prospective jurors - are so weak and feeble minded as to be influenced by rants from the likes of Robinson.

I asked @srw, and I will ask you.

Would you let the opinion of anyone, let alone those of Robinson, interfere with your judgment as a juror?
My professional background is that I worked for the Ministry of Justice and its predecessors for 35 years. For most of that time my profession meant I was disbarred from jury service as was any employee of the department; it would have been an offence for me to sit as a juror. The one time I got a jury summons, c1984, I was obliged to get it withdrawn. Since then the law has changed and, while excluding the court cleaner from jury service was absurd we've had a judge have to jump through hoops to avoid being on jury in a case he might preside over.

If I were called now hope I would be able to exclude anything I had read before and decide the case solely on the evidence presented in court. The question of influence from reporting is however much more nuanced than you suggest. We could ignore the fact that some jurors might be, whether through feeble mindedness or otherwise, convinced by SYL's well known views before they even take the oath. There's less overt influence in play too. We know, because it gets reported reasonably regularly, that there are jurors willing to disregard judges direction on trying case solely on evidence and go doing freelance research on the internet. If SYL or anyone else can publish what they like, without let or hindrance, then our juror may find that material. He may be convinced and, if he/she is the sort of character to be able to do so get others on side. That might be enough for a majority verdict.

I'd agree that law of contempt needs review, perhaps by a Royal Commission looking at the wider question of Criminal Procedure (it's a good 40 years since the last one), but I find your argument that in effect anything can go and we can rely on jurors being uninfluenced to be way too simplistic.
 
Last edited:

SteveF

Veteran
Why change name in the first place?

Surprised TR didn’t choose John Bull....
Nowt as stange as folk, as they say...

As I mentioned up thread, the name he has taken is of a fairly notorious Luton football hooligan, as he's from the Luton area I assume he's a bit of a fan of his
 
Last edited:

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
But anyone can choose what they are called. The trans person might be a bad example, as there is a clear reason there, but TR's name change is little different to the way an actor chooses a name that they think will be more popular. Or to take a political example, people do not continally refer to Tony Benn (real name Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn). I CBA to google, and that might be a bad example if he changed his name legally, but the principle is the same.

Part of opposition to TR's brand of hate is not to be like them. Part of which is applying the same rules to everyone, no matter where on the scale from decent human being to waste of oxygen they fall.

Does the fraudster, thug, racist, intolerant deceitful scumbag Tommy Robinson aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon deserve to be vilified and mocked at every turn? Yes.

But should his preferred choice of name be disregarded and disrespected? Abso-feckin-lutely!

If there's anything that can be done, however small, to upset or irritate him, to pick away at his cocky, smug persona, it ought to be done as widely and by as many people as possible.
 
My professional background is that I worked for the Ministry of Justice and its predecessors for 35 years. For most of that time my profession meant I was disbarred from jury service as was any employee of the department; it would have been an offence for me to sit as a juror. The one time I got a jury summons, c1984, I was obliged to get it withdrawn. Since then the law has changed and, while excluding the court cleaner from jury service was absurd we've had a judge have to jump through hoops to avoid being on jury in a case he might preside over.

If I were called now hope I would be able to exclude anything I had read before and decide the case solely on the evidence presented in court. The question of influence from reporting is however much more nuanced than you suggest. Even if we ignore the fact that some jurors might be, whether through feeble mindedness or otherwise, might be convinced by SYL's stuff there's less overt stuff in play too. We know, because it gets reported reasonably regularly, that there are jurors willing to disregard judges direction on trying case solely on evidence and go doing freelance research on the internet. If SYL and his mates can publish what they like, without let or hindrance, then our juror may find that material. He may be convinced and, if he/she is the sort of character to be able to do so get others on side. That might be enough for a majority verdict.

I'd agree that law of contempt needs review, perhaps by a Royal Commission looking at the wider question of Criminal Procedure (it's a good 40 years since the last one), but I find your argument that in effect anything can go and we can rely on jurors being uninfluenced to be way too simplistic.
Anything goes might be a bit much.

My grasp of the American system is a lot less than firm, but I get the impression they don't worry about publicity in the way we do.

Nothing to suggest American jury trials are any less - or more - fair than ours.

The High Court judge's comments about Robinson encouraging vigilante action are also worrying.

He was before for her contempt, her knowledge of the Contempt of Court Act will be greater than mine, but I don't think it covers vigilantism.

That may be covered by some incitement offence, but to lock someone up for that the judge needs a police investigation, witnesses, and a jury with the option of finding guilt (or innocence).

What is not needed is the opinion of a circuit judge in Leeds backed up by his judgly mates in London.

Does anyone suggest we deal with the child rapist defendants in the same way?

Never mind a jury trial costing millions, just chuck 'em before a judge and give them plenty of porridge.
 
Top Bottom