Pray for brave Tommy.

Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by Eddy, 11 Jul 2019.

  1. Spinney

    Spinney Bimbleur extraordinaire

    Location:
    Under the Edge
    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.
     
    C R likes this.
  2. KneesUp

    KneesUp Veteran

    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.
     
  3. Bromptonaut

    Bromptonaut Rohan Man

    Location:
    Bugbrooke UK
    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: 12 Jul 2019
  4. KneesUp

    KneesUp Veteran

    The big question is how many people are terminally misguided, and the issue is that the terminally misguided tend to be quite demonstrative.
     
    Profpointy likes this.
  5. Mugshot

    Mugshot Cracking a solo.

    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.
     
  6. Fab Foodie

    Fab Foodie hanging-on in quiet desperation ...

    Why change name in the first place?

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

    mudsticks Über Member

    Would have been too easy to add 'sh*t' on the end...
     
    Profpointy, raleighnut and Dayvo like this.
  8. Fab Foodie

    Fab Foodie hanging-on in quiet desperation ...

    ....the thought had occurred!
     
    raleighnut and mudsticks like this.
  9. Salty seadog

    Salty seadog Space Cadet...(3rd Class...)

    Journalist.
     
  10. Pale Rider

    Pale Rider Guru

    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.
     
  11. Bromptonaut

    Bromptonaut Rohan Man

    Location:
    Bugbrooke UK
    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: 13 Jul 2019
  12. SteveF

    SteveF Veteran

    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: 13 Jul 2019
    Fab Foodie and lane like this.
  13. glasgowcyclist

    glasgowcyclist Charming but somewhat feckless

    Location:
    Scotland

    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.
     
  14. Pale Rider

    Pale Rider Guru

    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.
     
  15. Milkfloat

    Milkfloat Veteran

    Location:
    Midlands
    If you are rich and white.
     
    Spinney likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice