Justice Sharp returned & confirmed that live-tweeting is fine. Of course it is. But I find it deeply telling that a rival journalist (likely from the BBC state broadcaster) literally interrupted the trial, and literally complained about my journalism. That's the state of the UK.

When the court adjourned so suddenly, I thought there might have been some security emergency (there's a terrorism inquiry going on in another court room). But no: it was someone trying to deplatform me and my http://www.RealReporters.uk . Shocking but not surprising.

Imagine being a journalist, and actually interrupting a trial to complain that another journalist is reporting on it. That's the state of journalism: they are more interested in deplatforming alternatives reporters than doing journalism in the first place. So gross.

Back to the case. The AG is still up, still trying to make the case that it is in the public interest to go after Tommy, despite the fact that he clearly didn't interfere with the jury (their deliberations was done) and Tommy had no information from insider the court.

So the AG is claiming that Tommy was mean to one of the child rapists as he was coming in on judgment day. I'm serious. That's why the AG thinks Tommy should be prosecuted -- because he was verbally mean to a man who raped girls hundreds of times. I'm serious.

Because Tommy said, "by the end of the day, hopefully millions of people will have seen the faces of these alleged offenders" -- he said this outside court -- that is contempt of court somehow? Worthy of a second prosecution? Maybe another 10 weeks in prison? #1984

(I still can't get over that a Media Party journalist stopped the trial and complained that I was live-tweeting. Doesn't that say it all? This prosecution is to silence Tommy. Obviously they want to silence me for talking about them silencing Tommy. The UK is sick, friends.)

I'll give the AG this: he's doing his best to make something from nothing. I'd hate to have to make the case for re-prosecuting a man who already served 10 weeks in solitary, where the court of appeal called it an abuse of process. I mean, good luck with that.

The AG acknowledges that the jury in Leeds was not affected by Tommy's livestream. (How could they? The trial was over; the jury had deliberated.)

"The AG does not pursue a strict liability jury approach". As in, they're not even going to try to claim Tommy meddled with the jury. So really, all that's left is politics. If it didn't impact the trial, why are they prosecuting him -- for a second time?

"The reason the AG takes such a serious view, the treatment of defendants has not had prominent attention of the courts... the AG is extremely concerned". So they're prosecuting Tommy because he was mean to a serial child rapist. That's what the AG just said.

Tommy Robinson called out to the serial child rapists as they walked into court. They called out back; one threatened his family. Tommy never touched them; I don't even think he swore at them (I can't recall). And that's why we're here again, a year later?

Now the AG is talking about photography on the court precincts. Tommy was clearly outside the court. On the street and sidewalk. Is that why we're here?

AG lawyer says Tommy Robinson's witness statement has an "I'm not guilty of anything tone to it." Perhaps that's because it was filed as evidence of innocence?

Tommy's lawyer says there's a serious issue of unfairness with the AG proceeding. He cites a case precedent that the judges and lawyers have in their binder.

There is a technical debate now. Tommy's lawyer asks what the test is for proceeding. What is the authority of the AG to proceed; is there a requirement for proportionality, etc.

The attorney general has discretion as to whether or not to re-prosecute. Prosecuting Tommy would undoubtedly have had cabinet sign-off -- this is a completely political prosecution and would not be done by an AG not yet a year on the job without confirming with No. 10.

Tommy's lawyer agrees that the laws surrounding citizen journalists are indeed something that ought to be flushed out. "This case, nearly 12 months after the incident may not be proportionate to litigate."

I mean, seriously -- it's been a year. The rapists are all convicted and jailed. Tommy didn't disrupt the trial -- the trial judge himself said so. There is no reason to be here at all, other than a political prosecution.

Did Tommy film from court precincts? No. Did Tommy film a witness or a juror? No. Did Tommy interfere with the jury? No, trial was over. Did the judge say Tommy interfered? No. So why are we here? The AG says Tommy was really mean to some serial child rapists. That's why.

The AG is on his feet again, talking about proportionality. The enormous resources of the state being deployed against Tommy, a year later, for what? And to do what -- put him back in prison a bit longer?

Ezra and the BBC are arguing over ‘live tweeting’ in the courtroom. The BBC’s reporter has sat down. Making him even smaller.

Ezra describes the BBC journalist who was acccused of complaining about his live tweeting as a “thug with a state broadcaster and everyone knows it.”

There's a government journalist here called @BBCDomC who, during the break, claimed that he did not lodge the complaint with the judge. But in fact, he himself lodged a complaint against me with the police last year -- the actual police (I have a copy of his e-mail).

Strangely enough, @BBCDomC didn't want to talk about complaining about me to the cops! He works for the same company as Jimmy Savile, so that's the ethics he's used to.

The government journalists are back in their seats

CENSORSHIP: The court has ruled that Tommy Robinson will in fact stand trial for a second time for contempt of court. A win for Theresa May, a win for BBC state media, another setback to freedom of the press. The lights are going out in the UK, my friends.

So we'll be coming back to court again. For the full, substantive second hearing of a contempt of court case dating back 12 months, for which Tommy has already served 10 weeks in solitary confinement, for which there were no interruptions in the underlying trial. It's political.

I'm a bit surprised. But the most terrifying thing in the UK is the complete unanimity in their Media Party that this is a good thing; that Tommy belongs in jail, and so do his supporters, and so does anyone who says anything out of line with the official narrative.

This is a country where police come to your house to have a "talk" with you, if you say something on Facebook or Twitter about Brexit or transgenderism that's politically incorrect. The Media Party here is fine with that -- they're part of the mob, actually.

Tommy's jailing should have been a civil liberties outrage; when the court of appeal said it was, there ought to have been op-eds saying, "I don't like Tommy, but I like freedom". They never came. Because the land of John Milton and George Orwell is now the land of censorship.

Not a peep from @RSF_inter or @pen_int or @amnesty -- they love the censorship of Tommy, because they disagree with them. I come to the UK because it is my private time machine: I can see our Canadian future 5 years from now, America's 10 years from now.