Shopping & Style1 min ago
Tommy Robinson Cleared.
The charges against activist and independent journalist Tommy Robinson were dropped today (Tuesday) after a judge at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court found that a police order banning him from a protest in London was unlawful.
After which he said; “The point I want people to understand, I’ve just said I’ve won. Have we won? Do we have freedom? For the last six months I’ve been banned from entering my capital city, while jihadists have taken over our capital city, week in week out with the grace of the police allowing them to. I’ve had my restrictions, my right to a family life, I even went to court to ask whether I could take my children to the Christmas lights turn-on and I was refused that opportunity.
“For the last six months I’ve had to go to a Muslim police officer and ask permission to come into my own capital city, of which one of the meetings was to interview a member of Parliament. That Muslim police officer refused that request. That is a police state, that is not freedom. The judge today stood on the side of truth, but I have been in these politicised buildings too many times."
All true, but would andy-hughes agree?
Answers
TR doesnt fit the Agenda, so the left will accept anything done to him as correct.As is perfectly illustrated in this thread.
09:03 Wed 24th Apr 2024
Nothing to do with "the left". Just common decency. Do you think there are many Tory MPs who'd condone the actions of this man?
https:/
His case was thrown out on a technicality I don't blame the police for thinking that wherever Robinson goes trouble is bound to follow.
'The meaning of the idiom “give a dog a bad name and hang him” is judging or criticizing someone on the basis of their previous reputation. In other words, if you have a negative reputation in society then, it is very difficult to lose it or change it. People generally tend to follow the trend, if they analyze any negative impression then, they will continue to think that you have a negative personality. Thus, it becomes difficult to overcome such a scenario. Sometimes, people will criticize you or condemn you even if you haven’t done anything wrong. It is because of their past experience or false information.'
Also known as blind stupidity.
As has been mentioned a couple of times already, an error in the paperwork does not constitute a vindication of 'Tommy Robinson'.
The Met have shown themselves to be nothing more than a craven bunch easily intimidated and persuaded to act against the best interests of Londoners for far too long.
That they can't even get the date correct on an important piece of paper is hardly a cause to rejoice.
Mr Robinson was subject to a dispersal order, seemingly made under Section 34 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. This act gives the police wide ranging powers to order people to leave a particular area. These powers are not normally available outside the circumstances under which the Act provides for them. In giving the police these powers , the Act provides a number of safeguards and defines a procedure which must be complied with so that the order is deemed lawful (which, without the Act, would not be the case). The procedure in this case was clearly (on the admission of the police inspector who undertook it) deficient:
Questioning the inspector, Mr Williamson said: "This document is not correct is it? Can we have any confidence that there was a lawful order in place?"
To which the inspector replied: "No."
“…and it saddens me that respectable people would stand up for him.”
I am (I think) a respectable person. But I would defend anybody on the wrong end of the police who ordered them to do something when the order was not lawful. The police in the UK have considerable powers and these are enhanced on occasions that warrant it by things such as search warrants and dispersal orders. It is important these extensions are made within the law. This one wasn’t so, as odious as Mr Robinson may seem to some, he walks. And he has my full support in that respect.
"I've never heard of anyone being banned from London - especially for just being there."
His ban fom London (within the M25) was not directly as a result of the s34 dispersal order, naomi. Such orders only apply to a small area and are restricted to a maximum 48 hours duration. Instead it stems from the conditional bail he was granted by the police when being released pending the court case (for failing to comply with the s3order) came to court. He tried unsuccessfully (in January, I think) to have that ban lifted, though the District Judge hearing that application allowed him to attend political meetings, press meetings and meetngs with his solicitor but had to seek prior permission from the police. Those conditions will now no longer be applicable as he has been acquiited.
Even NJ can't bring himself to condemn him for what he is
I don't know much about him to be honest. In fact I've probably learned more about him from this thread than I knew previously.
What I am concerned about, though, is the police taking a view of his political beliefs and using them to justify any action they may take against him for criminal acts. As far as I can see it, the police bail conditions that he should not enter London beyond the M25 seems somewhat unjustified. They said it was to mitigate their fear that he may reoffend. If they considered he posed such a threat that his presence anywhere in London (with an area of more than 600 sq. miles) might see him reoffend then they should have kept him in custody after charging him and put him before a court where the question of bail could have been properly explored. Bail conditions must be relevant and proportional. I don't know too much about Mr Robinson's activities but I would find it hard to justify banning someone entirely from Greater London when he faces a charge which stemmed from a demonstration in Central London.
Khandro - //
The charges against activist and independent journalist Tommy Robinson were dropped today (Tuesday) after a judge at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court found that a police order banning him from a protest in London was unlawful.
After which he said; “The point I want people to understand, I’ve just said I’ve won. Have we won? Do we have freedom? For the last six months I’ve been banned from entering my capital city, while jihadists have taken over our capital city, week in week out with the grace of the police allowing them to. I’ve had my restrictions, my right to a family life, I even went to court to ask whether I could take my children to the Christmas lights turn-on and I was refused that opportunity.
“For the last six months I’ve had to go to a Muslim police officer and ask permission to come into my own capital city, of which one of the meetings was to interview a member of Parliament. That Muslim police officer refused that request. That is a police state, that is not freedom. The judge today stood on the side of truth, but I have been in these politicised buildings too many times."
All true, but would andy-hughes agree? //
I am unsure exactly which parts, or if indeed all, of your OP I am supposed to agree with.
Do I agree that this is a police state?
Clearly not - if it were, then the police would have quietly stepped over their error and continued "Mr Robinson's" perceived persecution with impunity.
The fact appears to be that a proceedural error has been discovered in "Mr Robinson's" case, and that has been corrected.
Naturally he is seeing this as a 'victory', as though he has won something, when in fact he has simply been the victim of a proceedural error.
"Mr Robinson" delights in presenting himself as a professional victim, when in fact he is a professional agitator who looks for trouble, seemingly on a daily basis, and then cries 'foul' when it does not affect his life in the way he feels it should - spreading his ignorant bigoted nonsense to his bone-headed followers with utter impunity.
But since the OP was addressed to me by name, let me be absolutely clear.
The law applies equally and fairly to everyone, without exception.
That means that if "Mr Robinson" was treated incorrectly, he is entitled to have his sanction lifted, as would apply to any other citizen.
The fact that he chooses to crow about it, and see it is a 'victory', is symptomatic of his endless desire for attention and self-publicity, and seeing himself once again as the 'right man, wronged by the system'.
He is, and always will be, a nasty, manipulative, bigoted,attention-seeking idiot, but none of those factors mean he should be subject to any different treatment under the law than anyone else, whomever they may be.
He will be in trouble again - it's what he lives, breathes and gets paid for, and hopefully, proper proceedures will be followed then, and at all future times.
Not because he is entitled to them - and he absolutely is - but because failure to be even and fair damages us as a society, and gives ammunition to professional agitators taking up valuable police time, when the police have far better things to do.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.