Pray for brave Tommy.

The offence of dangerous driving exists to deter people from driving dangerously in a way which might cause 'accidents'. The offence of contempt exists to deter people from acting in ways which might cause prejudice to ongoing proceedings. In either case the gravity of the offending will be a factor in sentencing. In either case gravity of offending will increase and further offences may be charged if which 'might cause' becomes 'caused'.

Mr Mochrie's offending, posing with a once famous acquitted defendant, presumably falls below the charging threshold. That though may not be enough to save him from a reprimand from the Bar.

Let me try again, have you read the court's reasons?
Gascoigne has yet to be tried.

Whatever you say, no person is sentenced for what they might have done, they are sentenced for what they did.

Dangerous driving is merely 'driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver'.

It's easy an easy enough offence to commit, there doesn't need to be a crash.

Robinson breached the order, so he's clearly guilty.

Court orders must be obeyed, even barmy ones, so one could argue the need for a deterrent sentence.

But Robinson could be forgiven for feeling a bit aggrieved when he compares his case to Mochrie's.

Both men took illegal pics of defendants at court resulting in no harm.

The barrister who did it walks away, the member of public who did it goes to prison.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with the notion that lawyers - when push comes to shove - stick together.
 
Last edited:
No, there were two uniformed police officers strolling about - these two were not plain clothes police 'gathering info' by any means.
To answer your question seriously, with the onset of digital photography police - in uniform - started to take pics of people at protests.

Some of those protesting didn't like that, so they took to taking pics of coppers (and others) as a 'tit for tat'.

I suppose it's the nature of protesting.
 

Bromptonaut

Rohan Man
Location
Bugbrooke UK
Gascoigne has yet to be tried.

Whatever you say, no person is sentenced for what they might have done, they are sentenced for what they did.
What I am saying is they are sentenced for offences predicated on stopping dangerous or undesirable activities. The law is intended to deter or prevent those behaviours. That applies whether the offence is dangerous driving or contempt. The more egregious/risky the offending the more severe the sentence.

I'll ask yet again, have you read the court's reasons for its finding of contempt (or sentence?)
 
In case anyone is confused about the SYL thing, this is trying to shut up a journalist

View: https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1149983119199625218


SYL's case isn't.
A warning here for anyone tempted to make, er, bold statements about wealthy people.

Politicians have generally taken being called names on the chin, it's seen as part of the rough and tumble of politics.

Others have been less forgiving and more litigious, for example, Elton John, and the parents of that lass who went missing from the holiday apartments.

It seems Ms Cadwalladr accused Banks of telling porkies - always actionable unless true.

Banks has engaged Kingsley Napley, reckoned to be about the best firm for this sort of stuff, so if anyone can engineer a result in his favour, they can.

Ms Cadwalladr appears to be running the defence of justification - essentially the statements she made are true, and demonstrably so.

Proving an allegation of this type of dishonesty is notoriously difficult.

Hopefully for her, Ms Cadwalladr has her ducks in a row and she was not just shooting from the hip when she made the claims.
 

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
Hopefully for her, Ms Cadwalladr has her ducks in a row and she was not just shooting from the hip when she made the claims.
Let's hope so.
A warning here for anyone tempted to make, er, bold statements about wealthy people.
It's more than a little concerning that a journalist should be worried about making statements or carrying out investigations into rich powerful people specifically because they have the means to sue them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
He might be getting some company soon, which will be nice for him;

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-07-19/duo-to-go-on-trial-accused-of-anna-soubry-nazi-jibe/
 

captain nemo1701

Space cadet. Deck 42 Main Engineering.
Location
Bristol
I'm really fed up of this arrogant moron. Reading the BBC article about him, he's been in/out of prison on various charges:

Tommy Robinson's key convictions:
  • 2005: Jailed for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (12 months)
  • 2011: Community order for football brawl (12 months)
  • 2013: Travelling on another man's passport to the USA (10 months)
  • 2014: Mortgage fraud (18 months)
  • Others offences: Possession of drugs, threatening behaviour and breach of court order.
Apparently took the name Robinson from someone who was a Luton football hooligan - really says it all. I wish he'd get life for something. This country doesn't need scumbags like this one.
 

Bonefish Blues

Banging donk
Location
52 Festive Road
I'm really fed up of this arrogant moron. Reading the BBC article about him, he's been in/out of prison on various charges:

Tommy Robinson's key convictions:
  • 2005: Jailed for assault occasioning actual bodily harm (12 months)
  • 2011: Community order for football brawl (12 months)
  • 2013: Travelling on another man's passport to the USA (10 months)
  • 2014: Mortgage fraud (18 months)
  • Others offences: Possession of drugs, threatening behaviour and breach of court order.
Apparently took the name Robinson from someone who was a Luton football hooligan - really says it all. I wish he'd get life for something. This country doesn't need scumbags like this one.
I'd rather that his nationality was taken away - I'd rather have Shamima Begum here than him, if I had to choose.

Now wouldn't that be gloriously ironic?
 
This country doesn't need scumbags like this one.
I agree, but regrettably there are thousands of criminals with worse records.

More than 100 previous convictions for a defendant at magistrates' court no longer raises any eyebrows.

Have a snoop around Bristol Crown Court - or any other - and you will find lots of (usually) men with criminal records as bad or worse than Robinson's.

The difference is those blokes don't get long articles on the BBC website because their crimes, while just as bad, are not committed by someone with Robinson's profile.

I have no problem with the contention Robinson's overall record deserves stiffer punishment, but to be fair, you would also have to up the punishment for thousands of others.
 

icowden

Senior Member
Location
Surrey
Gascoigne has yet to be tried.

Whatever you say, no person is sentenced for what they might have done, they are sentenced for what they did.

Dangerous driving is merely 'driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver'.

It's easy an easy enough offence to commit, there doesn't need to be a crash.
Actually that isn't true. A person is convicted for the offence (i.e. what they did). However what they "might have done" is taken into account .For example a case of Dangerous Driving where the driver might have killed someone (i..e Prolonged bad driving involving deliberate disregard for safety of others) may be moved from the Magistrate to the Crown Court which has much greater ability to impose a custodial sentence (remember Magistrates require no legal training, just a 12 week training course and some enthusiasm).

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/

Additionally, when sentencing both Magistrate and Judge must take into account aggravating and mitigating factors such as aggressive driving etc in order to determine sentence.

Oh - and re the name thing - he uses different names, to get away with different fraudulent activities. he hasn't legally changed his name.
 
Top Bottom