It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:29 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Judge tells Ezra Levant to stop tweeting opinions about Tommy Robinson's trial
Ezra Levant - Rebel Commander

Testimony began today on day two of Tommy Robinson's court case against Cambridgeshire Police, who he says harassed him and his family.



However, I became "part of the story" today as well...

As you may know, I've been live-tweeting the court proceedings. It's something I've done in other courts, when covering Tommy's cases.

But this afternoon, the judge took exception to some of the opinions I've expressed about this particular case.

She has ordered me to stop tweeting any "commentary," that is, any expressions of my personal opinions on the matter.

And not just in court — I'm also not allowed to tweet about the case outside of court, or after the case concludes, until the verdict has been handed down.

As you can imagine, I'm not happy about this, but this is her courtroom and her country.

It's only right that I reluctantly comply.

However, this makes me sad about the state of freedom in the United Kingdom.

So all I have to say to my readers and viewers in Canada and the United States:

Treasure and defend your freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while you still can...

PS: WATCH my full video reports at TommyTrial.com

...more at link
https://www.therebel.media/ezra-levant- ... ebel-media


Quote:
Rumpoleful
Thanks Ezra.
SAD! I agree.. very sad. I am trying to follow the goings on in UK from NZ and people tweeting their own observations is often as close as I can get. The MSM is useless... long since gelded. If individuals can not report facts, let alone their own opinions then who knows what dastardly things are going on in UK. It could be worse.... you could be declared a terrorist and BANNED from UK.... oh wait they actually do that to Canadian journalists. Good luck. It's like an old espionage movie where people can not speak freely until not only their plane takes off... but the flight they are on clears enemy airspace. Hope you escape the RAF fighters ok?

Quote:
Rumpoleful
I note that the reporting restrictions are imposed subtly. There is no clear law, or even a court order specifying precisely the situation. It's all intentionally vague, such that people feel forced to self-censor. The threat is nevertheless very real... as everybody saw when Tommy was dragged from the street outside court and tortured for 2 and a half months.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Ezra in Troub.... big smacks from Judge

Image
Ezra Levant leaving Peterborough County Court (Image: Cambridgeshire Live)


Tommy Robinson left early
Another factor in the afternoon's delay was that Robinson when out to talk to his lawyer for 15 minutes.

He did not hear PC Cobbett's evidence, as he left around 3.30pm.

This was a planned departure, as he had to go down to London.

We'll be back tomorrow with all the latest when proceedings start at 10.30am. The court is set to hear from a Bedfordshire police spotter, PC Mason.

...more at link
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/c ... y-15970130


Ezra Levant: UK locals teach me to pronounce "Peterborough"


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
DAY 3

Ezra Twitter
https://twitter.com/ezralevant?lang=en

Live updates: Tommy Robinson vs Cambridgeshire Constabulary - day three from court
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... t-15971393

Proceedings continue today (March 14), with a police officer from Bedfordshire being called to the stand. Bedfordshire police spotter, PC Mason.
The judge intends to give her verdict on Friday.




Ezra Levant: Tommy Robinson trial Day 3 updates
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 14, 2019


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:42 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson outside Peterborough court. 14/03/19


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:15 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Ezra back at it....
(Evidence from Police Constable Steve Mason (Bedfordshire Cops football fan spotter)
Spoiler:
I'm back in court; we're awaiting the judge; both counsel are at their desk. Adam Clemens, the lawyer for @CambsCops, is watching Rebel videos at http://www.TommyTrial.com . I think he's a fan?

The first witness is Police Constable Steve Mason, from Luton (@bedspolice). He is called by Tommy's lawyer, Alison Gurden.

Mason does not have a written statement with him today; but Gurden may refer him to other documents.

Reminder: when British football teams play each other, police from the visiting team accompany their team (and fans) to the home city. They are "spotters", who tell the local cops which "risk" supporters might be trouble.

Mason says he's been a football spotter for @bedspolice for 11 years. "I'm the dedicated football officer... 99% of games" Ezra: sounds like a fun job

Gurden: what do you do the rest of the week? Mason: I go through any threat assessments for home games; and send risk assessment to other cities' cops when Luton's football team is about to travel

Gurden: what does "risk" mean? Mason: anything -- pyrotechnic; smash a seat up; 50-60 hooligans coming for a fight. EU definition of risk is used.

Gurden: what is the EU definition: Mason: "any person, known or not, that has the capability or possibility of public order or anti-social behaviour whether that's spontaneous or pre-planned, at any football event"

Gurden: someone can be a risk supporter on some occasions and not others? Mason: correct.

Gurden: if someone has been a problem, they could have that risk label attached to them?
Mason: could be. But some people have "come back" from ban orders to be "good as gold". "That's quite common" [that people can amend their ways]

Gurden: how long have you known Tommy Robinson? Mason: 14 or 15 years Gurden: in your policing capacity? Mason: yes.

Gurden: how often do you engage with Tommy? Mason: "I don't have to. He's going to the football matches, and I have no cause to speak to him."

Gurden: you're aware that he was told that he had to leave a pub in Cambridge in August of 2016. Were you there? Mason: yes

Mason: "I was a spotter"
Gurden: Had you attended the @CambsCops briefing in the morning
Mason: I don't think I did
Gurden: I appreciate that you're working from your memory (i.e. he has no contemporaneous written statement to review)

Gurden shows Mason the notes from the @CambsCops police briefing that morning.

Mason says it's not jogging his mind. "I don't recall seeing some of these slides before"

Mason: if they ask, I can provide extra slides; I generally don't. Gurden: you generally provide information though? Mason: yes

Gurden: did you provide any info to @CambsCops about Tommy? Mason: I don't think I did. I can't recall. The only thing I might say is, "he's got tickets to the game"

Gurden: when did you first see him on that day? Mason: before the game. He was around town with his friends and some children. I could remember seeing him but not actively speaking to him.

Gurden; did you see him during the match? Mason: no Gurden: and then after the match? Mason: I saw him at a pub there with a few friends and children and that was it really.

Gurden: and that would have been when after the match? Mason: rough estimation 5:30 or 6 p.m. initially Gurden: did you speak to him? Mason: I spoke with him in the pub

Mason: @CambsCops asked me to make an assessment of the Luton fans in the pub. I saw Tommy and family; I saw Luton fans I know on a weekly basis; just to get the mood; spoke to the landlady; and then I came back to report to my @CambsCops counterparts.

Gurden: was Tommy with the other Luton fans? Mason: no, he was upstairs.

Gurden: was the landlady on the video, the one you spoke with? Mason: yes.

Gurden: what was the "feel" that you got from the landlady Mason: "that there were no issues. There was some singing, but there was nothing over and above the ordinary for me. And when I spoke to the landlady she said they were relatively well-behaved."

Gurden: the singing and raucousness -- was that Tommy? Mason: no

G: where was Tommy in relation to the other Luton fans? M: I coudln't see him (from there) so I presume he was upstairs.

G: what was the intention of the downstairs group of Luton fans? M: they said they were going to continue drinking and watching the football match on TV.

Gurden: you were asked to assess Tommy? Mason: I went upstairs. Spoke to Tommy to see how things were. Everything was fine. He was no issues. Everyone he was with was no issues.

Gurden: did Tommy tell you what his next steps were? M: no G: why didn't you ask him? M: I didn't feel i needed to.

Police Constable Mason: Tommy didn't draw my attention as someone we needed to keep our eye on.

G: you spoke to the landlady, Tommy, the other group of fans -- how did you report back to @CambsCops Mason: spoke by mobile phone to Cambridgeshire counterpart, PC Cobbett

Mason: I stayed outside the pub G: who was there? M: just police officers. A few people coming out for cigarettes. Probably were out there for about an hour and a half

Gurden: how did it come about for Tommy to be asked to leave?
Mason: I went in to advise the [other] Luton fans to leave the pub at 6:30 p.m.
Judge asks Mason to slow down a bit and repeat his last line.

Gurden: were you told why @CambsCops wanted the Luton fans out by 6:30? Mason: I can't recall. Gurden: what was the response of the fans? Mason: the fans didn't want to go, they wanted to watch the remainder of the @ManUtd game, which would end at 7 p.m. anyway

G: did you pass that info back to @CambsCops M: yes G: how M: by radio or by mobile phone

Mason: PC Cobbett from @CambsCops said they were looking to do a s. 35 dispersal order G: Did you tell Luton fans? M: yes; other Luton fans were angry, as they hadn't done anything wrong; and when I spoke to Tommy, I got the same answer

G: was Tommy angry?
M: I wouldn't say angry -- just "bemused and upset" with that kind of thinking [e.g. kicking fans out 30 minutes before a big match was over]

G: were you asked for your views? M: yes G: how? M: yes, discussed with @CambsCops Cobbett G: What did you say? M: I didn't think it would be necessary. The only issue with Luton acting up was because it was half an hour [e.g. provocative demand by cops]

Mason: taking into consideration the mood at that pub, personally, I don't think it was needed [to kick them out 30 minutes before the match was over on TV] G: was there any response to that? M: I spoke to a police sergeant who said, "the decision's made, it's happening"

Mason: at this point, I had to leave, because other risk fans were on the move and I had to [escort them] G: any other interaction with Tommy? M: I can't remember M: I do remember speaking with him outside the pub, with his children playing right beside him on the grass area.

Gurden: when was that? Mason: definitely after the game

Gurden: where you there when the s. 35 dispersal order matter happened? Mason: no

Mason: I had gone off, on my own, with the other Luton fans
Mason: I could still hear what was going on with other Luton spotters (e.g. sounds like a radio or phone live audio chat group)

Mason: I was at the bus station, when another cop said, "it's all going to kick up here; they're dishing up 35's"
Ezra translation: trouble coming now that we're handing out arrest notices.

Mason: I said, "I'm really surprised; but I kind of knew it would happen" Gurden: why did you know it was going to happen? Mason: because the Luton fans were upset that they were being marched out of the pub [30 minutes before the match was over on TV]

Gurden refers Mason to an e-mail from Mason to @CambsCops on March 16, 2017.

Gurden asks about a "gang" called Migs -- "men in gear".

Mason says he was just giving background about their history.

Mason's email (as read by Gurden) recalls that Tommy was watching TV, and it was 6:30 and they were being asked to leave

I don't have the e-mails in front of me; I think it's an "after action" report/conversation; my point is, I think this is evidence of recollection after the fact.

Gurden asks how Mason refers to Tommy -- in his nickname (Tommy) or his legal name (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).
Mason: i don't really have cause to talk to him, but I'd call him Lennon.

Mason says 75% of the police forces attached to football games ask him about Tommy. Gurden: do they usually say "Lennon" or "Tommy Robinson"? Mason: probably Mr. Robinson

Gurden: do you know what he was drinking? Mason: I don't even think he was drinking? G: Alcohol? M: right, I think it was water.

Gurden: did you consider that he was a risk? The @CambsCops lawyer Mr. Clemens jumps up to object to this question to Mason.

Judge: I'm dealing with a pleaded case of harassment, that's what I'm concerned with. How does it assist me to know if this police officer thinks Tommy was a risk? Clemens: if we're going to argue this, have Mason leave the room Judge dismisses Mason for the moment

Gurden: part of this is: did Sgt. Street have reasonable basis to issue a s. 35 against Tommy. Gurden paraphrase: The whole point of having spotters from Luton is to rely on their experience and knowledge

Judge: if this witness were to say Tommy wasn't a risk, where does that go? Gurden: takes us to whether Sgt. Street should have taken that information Gurden: reminds the judge that Street's "intel" was an anonymous drunk fan who said, "watch out for Tommy"

Gurden paraphrase: did Sgt. Street of @CambsCops take advice from a drunk person on the street, but not an expert from Luton? E.G. did Sgt. Street indeed have a reasonable suspicion about Tommy?

Gurden: so it has to be looked at, in terms of whether Sgt. Street had reasonable suspicion. We need to look at the circumstances, not just Street saying so.

Adam Clemens (the @CambsCops lawyer): effectively this is an attempt to get expert evidence in through factual evidence. But even if I'm wrong, it doesn't impact [the cast] at all.

Clemens says the reasonableness of Street's conduct is judged by what was in Sgt. Street's mind, not what other people's view (e.g. Mason from Luton) might have been at that time.

Clemens says, once reasonable suspicion is formed, there is no obligation for "further inquiry", e.g. what Mason would have said.

Gurden: Street said that he hadn't formed an opinion. It was a fluid situation. I think it's very relevant.

Gurden: it's not just the officer's determination as to whether it was reasonable. It's the judge's job.

Remember: we're arguing over whether PC Mason can answer Gurden's question as to whether or not he thought it was reasonable to kick out Tommy. Clemens objects. This debate is happening with Mason out of the room

The judge questions whether this will have any proper legal weight; and she warns that the "very interested public gallery" might act as a jury, and come to their own conclusions based on what PC Mason answers.


Mason is invited back into the court. Gurden is allowed to ask the question.

Gurden: taking into account what you saw with Tommy, what's your expert opinion... Judge paraphrase: I'm not taking it as an "expert" opinion; but I'll ask for his view, but I'm not taking it as an expert view.

Gurden is trying to rephrase the question.

Gurden: when you saw Tommy and spoke to him, did you consider that he was going to be a risk of any kind of disorder:
Police Constable Mason: no.


Gurden: it was suggested by (another cop) that Tommy would be a coordinator of disorder. Did you say that to the other cop? Mason: no. Gurden: did any other Luton officers say that to @CambsCops? Mason: not to my knowledge

Gurden: would Tommy be a coordinator of trouble (i.e. a hooligan)
Police Constable Mason: no.


Clemens is cross-examining Mason now. When did you last see this? Mason: the day it was sent.

Clemens: do you have any contemporaneous notes on the day? Mason: no Clemens: is this e-mail to @CambsCops the only document in which you comment on whether Tommy was part of the risk group? Mason: I can't recall.

Clemens: you knew you were dealing with @CambsCops legal? Mason: yes Clemens: and the questions you were asked were clear and you understood them? Mason: yes So your comments in that e-mail are "the definitive" version?

Clemens is now reading from Mason's e-mail, "after-action", as sent to @CambsCops. Clemens reads that Mason said Tommy was identified as a "risk nominal". Is the reference to the association to "Migs" supposed to mean "historical"? Mason: yes.

Clemens reads from the e-mail: "provide a note of all the other people in the pub" Question: was he "with" these other risk supporters? Mason: his old friends were old known MIG supporters Clemens -- albeit historical. Mason: yes

Clemens: so he was with known Luton risk? Mason: yes

Clemens: if you say he was separate, why not make it clear in that e-mail that he was separate? Mason: perhaps I could have elaborated that they were historical risk, in hindsight I should have stipulated that in my e-mail.

Clemens reading more: others noted in the pub included [redacted] were they current or historical risk? Mason: historical Clemens: you identified other risk nominals. How many? Mason: 15 to 20

Clemens: you say, "they all seemed annoyed with the decision" Mason: yes Clemens: did you ever call Tommy "Yax?" Mason: I have done

I would classify Mr. Clemens as a "risk supporter" of The Rebel.

Clemens: where were the Cambridge fans? Mason: in a pub nearby Clemens: you can't serve a s. 35 dispersal notice on someone if they live nearby. Is it more sensible to serve a dispersal notice on the travelling fans (than local fans)? Mason: yes

Clemens: as far as decision-making, you would have deferred to the @CambsCops chain of command in their home town? Mason: yes.

Clemens is done. Gurden now re-direct questions.

Gurden: you notified Tommy and the other group that he'd have to leave. You said the other group was quite angry. You said he wasn't angry -- he was "bemused and upset". When it was put to you, "Tommy was angry." Which was it?

Mason: It's hard to tell. It'd going to be an admixture of all three. I'm just trying to think of Tommy's thought processes. Initially he's going to be bemused "why are they doing this? upset "there are no issues" and kind of like...
...to be made to an officer come up to me in front of my kids -- that would anger me... I'm not Tommy, but the emotions that I would kind of see were all of those."

Gurden is now showing Mason his e-mail exchange with @CambsCops legal, about who was in the pub with Tommy. There are two redacted names with Tommy, and five other names elsewhere in the pub.

Gurden: you were asked by @CambsCops if they left the pub on their own accord. Why didn't you answer? Mason: I wasn't there at that point

Gurden: you were asked about your reference to Tommy as "Yax" How did your colleagues refer to him? Mason: with @bedspolice, it wouldn't be "Robinson".

Judge: this e-mail you sent to @CambsCops; there's a group downstairs of 5 known "risk nominals". And upstairs with Tommy and two other known risk. And you went to speak to them separately to find their intentions? Mason: yes

Judge: and you tell the @CambsCops and tell them that; and there's a back and forth telling them to leave; and then Mason (Tommy?) leaves? Mason: yes.

Judge: were the children upstairs? Mason: yes Judge: when? Mason: at the start. 5:30, 6 p.m.

Judge: whose children? Mason: I wouldn't know

Judge: after that, do you know where the children were? Mason: on the grass outside, playing football

Judge: when you went back and forth, were the kids there then? Mason: yes, I think so -- the second time.

Mason: this was just before I'd left. Judge: so just as you were leaving, you spoke to him then Mason: yes Judge: that's not in this (after-action) e-mail Mason: yeah.

Gurden: that e-mail -- that was just answering specific questions you were asked? Mason: yes

Judge: that is the end of the evidence Mr. Clemens stands to do some housekeeping matters


Clemens (Cops Defence) Final submissions
Spoiler:
Clemens is going right into his final submissions.

I think that the Rebel video Mr. Clemens was watching earlier, was from a video that Tommy made for us. I think it's this one:


Clemens: on causes of action (those are the legal grounds to sue). He says it's not harassment, because that requires more than one occasion -- harassment means a series of abuses.

Clemens refers to various human rights claims; I think it might refer to some European bill of rights. He also refers to the Equality Act.

Clemens: "If someone is reasonably suspected of a criminal offence.. then it's hard to see how their human rights could be breached."

Clemens now moves on to the evidence. "In some ways I am loathe to make them, but they must be made". I submit that the claimant's evidence in this case has been wholly unsatisfactory and evasive and was attempted to be used as a platform for irrelevant matters...

Clemens is referring to Tommy Robinson's testimony.

Clemens: Tommy said @CambsCops followed him to the railway station. "the allegation that there was a deliberate attempt to intimidate his children [wasn't pursued]".

Clemens: skeptical that Tommy's phone battery died. He says if there was more footage -- such as Tommy's daughter running into the road; or them following him further -- then Tommy should have it, or his friend should have it.

Clemens pulls back from his suggestion the other day that Tommy was a bad father; seems to retract his earlier comments.

We now hear from PC Mason that Tommy was in fact with risk supporters.

Clemens says Tommy has no proof that the @CambsCops acted based on Tommy's views were on Islam.

Clemens: "The only sensible answers given by Tommy were to my detailed questions.. did any officer mention your views on Islam"
Clemens: Tommy's answer: "no"
Therefore, he wasn't discriminated against because of his views on Islam.

Clemens says it can't be political discrimination, since his politics never came up. Clemens says it can't be harassment, because it was one event, not a series of events.

Clemens points out that Tommy's friends upstairs in the pub were (historical) risk supporters.
He says Tommy's name wasn't in the briefing notes/slides for the police, but says a cop testified it was verbally mentioned.

Clemens: we know from PC Mason that Tommy was "upset".

Judge to Clemens (paraphrased): what do you say to P.C. Mason's point that it would have been better to let the fans stay will the game was over at 7 p.m. instead of kicking them out at 6:30 p.m.

Clemens paraphrased: because you can't show weakness and compromise, or they'll take a mile. And decisions are made in real time.

Clemens: there are ample grounds to say that there was reasonable grounds to suspect that if Tommy was left in the pub there was a likelihood of disorder.

Clemens: "It's rather subtle and proportionate policing to use a carrot and stick approach, is it not?" Police can ask you to do all sorts of things; whether you have to comply is another matter. Video of subtle and proportionate policing: (see BofL vid)

Clemens says that "at no stage were Tommy's kids with him in the pub" Judge: Mason said they were Clemens: Mason says "some kids" were, but didn't know if they were Tommy's kids Judge: "they were there"

Clemens: "they were not followed or filmed by @CambsCops all the way to the railway station"

Clemens: the children crying was at least in part as a result of Tommy "remonstrating with police"

Clemens: Tommy's daughter was not almost hit by a car. Something might have happened, but it was not much.

Clemens: "things were operationally sound"

Clemens now speaks to "quantum" -- that is, if Tommy wins the case, how much money @CambsCops should pay him. Refers to a case of a woman who successfully sued some cops for humiliation, but he doesn't publicly say the financial amount (I'm sure it's in his written submissions)

Judge to Gurden: do you want to proceed now (it's 1 p.m. here)

They're discussing if they want to take a break now (e.g. lunch).

Judge says she has another appointment speaking to a school this afternoon (but says she could decline that); Gurden suggested she'd make her submissions tomorrow. Judge says if Gurden makes her submissions tomorrow, then she wouldn't have the judgement rendered on Friday.

To be clear, the judge said she's prioritize this trial over her school speech. The judge leaves the court to let Tommy and his lawyer (Alison Gurden) confer on the matter of timing. If Gurden does her final submissions today then the judgment comes out tomorrow.

The judge comes back and says she'd like to keep her promise to speak at a "state school" and that it's important she keep that promise. (I think she made that commitment, thinking the trial would be done by now.)

So she's asking the lawyers if they'll allow for things to be delayed. She's putting it to the lawyers. Gurden is conferring with Tommy.

They're discussing scheduling.

So we're done now. The judge has left. They're returning tomorrow at 11:30. Freddie will be here; I'll be back in Toronto.

I'll record a video now; and then head to the airport. You can see all my vids at http://www.TommyTrial.com .

Lunch time.... and court adjourned for t6he day :doh
Judge is off to speak at a school she did offer to cancel that... and I don't see why the lawyers did not insist... especially Tommy's lawyer? Pissing about in court COSTS the general public time and money. To have to come back for an extra day is SERIOUS!!!
Ezra, for instance has flight booked etc.. so will not be able to attend tomorrow.

Gurden (Prosecution) Final Submissions and Judge's verdict will have to WAIT until tomorrow. :wall

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Ezra Levant: Luton constable testifies on Tommy Robinson's behalf
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 14, 2019


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:30 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
DAY 4 - Starts 11:30 AM

Gurden/Prosecution (Tommy's lawyer) Final Submissions and Judge's verdict

Ezra Twitter (traveling back to Canada)
https://twitter.com/ezralevant?lang=en


Politicalite Twitter
https://twitter.com/politicalite


Live updates: Tommy Robinson vs Cambridgeshire Constabulary - day four from court
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... s-15977877

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:11 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
BREAKING: Tommy Robinson loses his court case; has to pay £20,000 in costs. He will join me live in a few minutes -- tune in now.


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Ezra Twitter....

I understand that the judge is about to release her judgement in the case of Tommy Robinson v. @CambsCops. I'm sorry I could not stay a fourth day in the UK to report live. I'll do my best to understand it from afar, by trying to decode the mainstream media & from friends there.

Freddie quotes the judge: "I conclude that PC Mason was mistaken in his evidence when he said the children were in the pub. Tommy gave no evidence that they were and I thoroughly accept where his children were. I am satisfied the children were not in the pub but on the green."

Police Constable Mason has known Tommy for more than a decade; he testified that he saw Tommy in the pub with the kids.
It was powerful evidence that Tommy was not a risk.
The judge says Mason must have misremembered.

From Freddie: "Judge says I am able to consider all the evidence before me. I heard evidence from Tommy himself. He called no other witness except an officer from Bedfordshire Police, PC Mason."
Why didn't Tommy's lawyer call other witnesses like the landlady, or his friend?

From Freddie quoting the judge ”While Mr Lennon says he was only drinking water, and somewhat surprisingly PC Mason remembers was drinking water, that is not what Sgt Street believes."
The judge suggests Tommy was drinking with his children.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:46 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
The Rebel Media - Podcasts

https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/ ... ia-Podcast



Tommy Robinson loses his court case against the Cambridgeshire police. What really happened?
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/dir-ft2v2-5c64ab3

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:49 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson's Verdict - A COMPLETELY CORRUPT SYSTEM!
Tommy Robinson
Published on Mar 16, 2019


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group