Recommended Posts

To avoid totally derailing the other thread....What exactly has happened to him? Has he been jailed or something?

If so, what's the story? (briefly if possible)

Im out so can't Google the story BTW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had a suspended sentence for contempt of court for prejudicing an ongoing case.  He did it again.  He got arrested, he plead guilty and was jailed for both the original sentence, suspension removed, and for this one.

His own fault, no conspiracy, just him thinking he was somehow immune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ckn said:

He had a suspended sentence for contempt of court for prejudicing an ongoing case.  He did it again.  He got arrested, he plead guilty and was jailed for both the original sentence, suspension removed, and for this one.

His own fault, no conspiracy, just him thinking he was somehow immune.

If that's the story, it sounds fair enough to me. I'll do a bit if reading up on it later. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were also reporting restrictions in place so some things couldn't be reported.

This allowed the build up of a few conspiracies, aided by lots of alt right americans commenting on a legal system that is different to their own.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

This allowed the build up of a few conspiracies, aided by lots of alt right americans commenting on a legal system that is different to their own.  

It's both surprising and worrying how many high profile American alt right  new fascist types are up to date with the antics of such a no-mark as Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Similarities with the recent sad case of Alfie Evans with all sorts of extremely ill informed yanks pilling in.

Edited by Griff9of13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it interesting the people that are essentially making the argument that we shouldn't have jailed him because it adds fuel to the fire of the extremist claims of the far right? Would they also make the argument we shouldn't jail Muslims breaking the law (twice) in case it helps radical Muslims? 

He is not some free speech warrior, just a man who is happy to risk paedophiles going free so he can have his martyrdom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Who is Yaxley-Lennon?😕

The former football hooligan who refers to himself as Tommy Robinson so that people like him more.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So having read a bit of Bob8s links, have I got this right..... He was streaming live coverage of an ongoing court case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

So having read a bit of Bob8s links, have I got this right..... He was streaming live coverage of an ongoing court case?

Not quite.  He was outside the court and streaming live the people involved in the court case entering the court.   I think the hearing was a sentencing hearing rather than the actual trial, although I may be wrong on that.  But he'd done something similar at a trial in Salisbury I think and so was under suspended sentence for the original contempt.  There were also reporting restrictions on this particular case and as there were 30 defendants there were a series of trials running one after another.  The reporting restrictions were in place until all the trials had completed.

I saw an explanation of this by the secret barrister earlier today.  Reporting restrictions have now been lifted and so the whole story could be told.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Saintslass said:

I saw an explanation of this by the secret barrister earlier today.  Reporting restrictions have now been lifted and so the whole story could be told.  

That's a pretty good summary. People like @BarristerSecret are very good at explaining this sort of thing.

Edited by Griff9of13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a school of thought, though I'm not 100% convinced myself, that his actions were a deliberate attempt to endanger the trial and he was hoping that the accused would get off on a technicality (that he was totally responsible for) and he could then whip up a barrage of indignation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

There is a school of thought, though I'm not 100% convinced myself, that his actions were a deliberate attempt to endanger the trial and he was hoping that the accused would get off on a technicality (that he was totally responsible for) and he could then whip up a barrage of indignation.

That has happened in the past apparently with far right 'gangs' being in contact with family of the accused.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saintslass said:

Not quite.  He was outside the court and streaming live the people involved in the court case entering the court.   I think the hearing was a sentencing hearing rather than the actual trial, although I may be wrong on that.  But he'd done something similar at a trial in Salisbury I think and so was under suspended sentence for the original contempt.  There were also reporting restrictions on this particular case and as there were 30 defendants there were a series of trials running one after another.  The reporting restrictions were in place until all the trials had completed.

I saw an explanation of this by the secret barrister earlier today.  Reporting restrictions have now been lifted and so the whole story could be told.  

 

It was Canterbury but otherwise correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

I do find it interesting the people that are essentially making the argument that we shouldn't have jailed him because it adds fuel to the fire of the extremist claims of the far right? Would they also make the argument we shouldn't jail Muslims breaking the law (twice) in case it helps radical Muslims? 

He is not some free speech warrior, just a man who is happy to risk paedophiles going free so he can have his martyrdom. 

I agree with you, your last paragraph especially.

These were organised paedophiles as you say. Unfortunately now people are talking about him instead.

However I think the population are aware of the horrors of what happened. There is no longer a stigma on stating the ethnicity of the perpetrators in each case and the Police and Courts are taking action.

Interestingly the topic is covered now in many media, I recently read a couple of crime novels that dealt with the issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be an interesting twist here. The judge who sentenced him saw his arrest (and presumably, the events leading up to). I think there's a legal principle that should have barred that judge from presiding in his case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Might be an interesting twist here. The judge who sentenced him saw his arrest (and presumably, the events leading up to). I think there's a legal principle that should have barred that judge from presiding in his case.

Would that matter in this case?  Contempt of Court is usually done by the Judge at the trial isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

Would that matter in this case?  Contempt of Court is usually done by the Judge at the trial isn't it?

Don't know. I think the rules are different for contempt of court but  I'm not a lawyer. He wasn't arrested for contempt though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with this case so won't comment.It's sad to see what the UK has become, but, the surprising thing from comments I read on here and elsewhere no one seems to care.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, frank said:

I'm not familiar with this case so won't comment.It's sad to see what the UK has become, but, the surprising thing from comments I read on here and elsewhere no one seems to care.

I'm curious, what has the UK become?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

Don't know. I think the rules are different for contempt of court but  I'm not a lawyer. He wasn't arrested for contempt though.

Read the first link above in Bob8's post, you'll get all the answers you need.

There were no rules stopping the judge sending him down and you could be arrested for littering and be charged with murder, the two aren't linked at all.

Also, the facts in my second post still stand:

1. He had a previous conviction for contempt of court for endangering and interfering with a trial.  He plead guilty.  He received a suspended sentence of 3 months.

2. He did it again.  He endangered the course of a trial.

3. He was arrested, irrelevant what for.

4. He was professionally represented by his own choice of lawyer who didn't protest or use any claim that it was an abuse of process for the judge or anyone else to be involved.

5. He plead guilty. Again.  Again, he was professionally represented and he would have had advice on what the consequences were for his suspended sentence.  All I can think is he was using the court's mandatory "guilty" plea sentence reduction process as he knew he was going down.

6. The judge, based on his past character and the wilful disregard for the lessons of his previous conviction sentenced him to 10 months in jail, plus the 3 months from his suspended sentence.

If this had been someone who had thumped his wife, got a 3 month suspended sentence and did it again then the calls would have been "should have locked him up first time!".  But it's easier for some people (not you, old bean) to claim conspiracy and "freedom of speech" injustices than accept that he's a bit thick and can't seem to accept that he got off lucky first time around for his contempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

INteresting poll on that page - 65% think it is wrong he was sent to prison.

There is a lot of 'outside' interest in it (USA Alt right and Russian bot activity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express Yearbook 2018/19 - Order Now


Rugby League World - Nov 2018

Rugby League World - Nov 2018



League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday