It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:27 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson SUES police — Ezra Levant will cover the trial
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 11, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:31 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson SUES police for harassment!
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 11, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:43 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson This Is Why Hes Taking FASCIST Cambridge Police To Court Tomorrow
tr. news
Published on Mar 11, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:44 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
3-Day Trial - starts Tuesday 10:00 am

Image


Ezra's Twitter will be a good place to look for updates....
https://twitter.com/ezralevant?lang=en



Tommytrial.com
http://www.TommyTrial.com



Rebel Media on YT
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGy6uV ... ZEg/videos



Image

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:04 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tomorrow we fight back
Tommy Robinson
Streamed live 45 minutes ago


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:20 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Heathrow Arrivals
https://www.heathrow.com/arrivals


Looks like Ezra from Toronto is due into Heathrow on British Airways flight BA092
(Scheduled duration: 7 hr 5 min)

(This flight also operates under the following flight numbers under codeshare arrangements: AA6210 , AY5992 , EI8792 , IB7336)

Image

Updates
https://www.heathrow.com/arrivals/fligh ... oronto-yyz



British Airways flight BA092 - Flight tracker
https://www.heathrow.com/flight-tracker ... 19/ARRIVAL

SCREENSHOT
Image

NOTE - Downhill to London
I wasn't paying close attention but near the start of the flight (over land) the speed was a little under 500 mph. Over water I saw that was up to 630 mph and rose from there up to 670 720 mph.
(no dramatic change in the estimated time of arrival... so this must be normal/expected)
(Altitude was consistently 39,000 ft)

Big changes.... (1,000 ft higher altitude, speed back down to 600 mph, still West of Ireland))
Positional information
Latitude 53.85
Longitude -16.02
Speed 604.0mph
Bearing 97.86
Altitude 40000.0ft



The Ezra has landed 06:15 AM

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:52 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Live @ Tommy Robinson Court Case
Danny Tommo
Streamed live 6 minutes ago




Periscope
https://www.pscp.tv/w/1BdGYOwkOANxX

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:22 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
According to Danny Tommo...

Police made ANOTHER offer of cash settlement... Tommy declined :)

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:39 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson: Live updates as EDL founder sues Cambridgeshire police for harassment

Tommy Robinson claims he was 'harassed' by police after being removed from the Hop and Grain Store pub in Cambridge

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... l-15959422

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:41 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

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

Spoiler:
I’m in Peterborough, UK, to report on the three-day trial of Tommy Robinson v. Cambridgeshire Police. Tommy is suing them for harassment of his family. For all my reports (and to help crowdfund my flight) please visit http://www.TommyTrial.com

The courtroom has a dozen visitors, in addition to four journalists. Tommy and the police each have one lawyer. Cambridgeshire Live is a local paper with a journalist in attendance. Other than that, it's me, @JamesDelingpole and Liam Galvin, a YouTuber.

Forgive me -- earlier I saw Darrell Goodliffe of @politicalite -- I just didn't see him this moment.

The Cambridgeshire Police's lawyer is discussing preliminary matters. If I understand him, he is proposing the need to adduce evidence about Tommy's own past.

Tommy's lawyer, @gurdena, briefly responds, saying the whole question is rather minor.

Adam Clemens - I believe this is the lawyer for the Cambridgeshire police:

Mr. Clemens says he thinks the evidence will be done with by tomorrow. There are two witnesses scheduled for today.

There is a whole of law in the UK called "football law". It encompasses, amongst other things, special limits and restrictions on football (soccer) fans, including where and when they can congregate. It was an anti-hooligan law that was abused to kick Tommy out of a restaurant.

Here is the Football Act of 2000, if you can believe it. A whole law governing football fans: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/25

They're discussing s. 35 of the Anti Social Behaviour Act. It's a wide police power to sweep up anyone -- here's a critique of it, from a fan's point of viwe: https://untold-arsenal.com/archives/59373

They are still discussing preliminary matters -- the trial proper has not yet begun. In the meantime, let me show you an example of football law, from Tommy's lawyer's blog. It's a court case involving a football chant:
https://alisongurden.blog/2017/11/02/di ... t-yd-case/

Alison Gurden (Tommys lawyer) says Tommy wasn't "manifesting" any of his beliefs when he was at lunch, and swarmed by police. So he wasn't protesting or expressing himself. He was a private citizen having lunch with his family. So he was targeted for merely holding those beliefs.

As in: Tommy Robinson was targeted for who he was, not what he had done. That's pretty self-evident from the video footage Tommy took that day on his cell phone. That's pure discrimination -- he was literally banished from a town for Wrongthink.

Here is the cell phone video Tommy took that day (with annotations from @brianoflondon). As you can see Tommy was literally in a restaurant with his kids. The cops burst in and drove them out. The restaurant manager intervened for Tommy. She was ignored: (see video above)

The judge says she understands Mr. Clemens concerns about the widely drafted pleadings. If I understand her, she's saying the lawsuit is not as focused as it could be. Ms. Gurden (Tommy's lawyer) says Tommy "was targeted" because of who he is. That seems to be obvious to me.

We are still in preliminary skirmishes -- the trial has not begun. Mr. Clemens (and the judge) is suggesting that the pleadings (i.e. Tommy's claim) needs to be explained or focused more. Mr. Clemens is saying he doesn't want to be surprised by a changing case he has to meet.

Clemens makes the laughable suggestion that the police may not have known who Tommy was or what he stood for -- that a squad of 20 Cambridgeshire cops, with a clear plan, with video cameras in tow, "randomly" targeted him. I can't believe he said that with a straight face.

Clemens said it with a sneer: that it may be hard for some people to accept that not everyone knows who Tommy is or what he stands for. Do you doubt every cop there knew exactly what he was doing, and why, and to whom? Desperation + snobbery. The first sign of weakness I've seen.

Mr. Clemens says he wants all of the Cambridgeshire witnesses to be allowed to sit through the whole trial, to hear each other. That is something that is generally not allowed when witnesses would potentially tailor their testimony to echo the other.

The judge says that exclusion rule usually applies to criminal matters, not civil matters. Ms. Gurden says there's a conflict between Insp. Johnson and Sgt. Street. "I have concerns..." because one is the other's boss.

Gurden says that the lower-ranked cop, if he hears what his senior officer says, may tailor his own testimony accordingly. Remember: this is about police misconduct; the Cambridgeshire police claim there wasn't any.

I should note that the Cambridgeshire police have made several settlement offers to Tommy to go away -- in the form of cash. He has rejected those, insisting on an apology, or a full trial.

My own view is that neither a cash payment nor a lawyerly apology are of any use to Tommy. What is useful is to shine a light of public scrutiny on police misconduct, to prove that when Tommy calls himself the "enemy of the state", he's not exaggerating -- they're hostile to him.

Tommy told me that he and his lawyer have seen evidence from the police body-cameras wherein at least one police offices expresses discomfort with their bullying. That's what I mean -- who cares about an apology; let the truth come out.

When Tommy alleges that the police are "out to get him" or that it's all "a stitch-up", it could sound like a conspiracy theory. But if it were all proven, under oath, in testimony in court -- well then it's not a conspiracy theory, is it? It's a conspiracy fact.

That was the great value of the Court of Appeal ruling last year that freed Tommy from prison for contempt of court. Everything Tommy had said about abuse of process, about false arrest, about improper procedure -- it was all vindicated by the Lord Chief Justice himself.

If you have the time, I recommend perusing that court of appeal ruling -- which you can find here, as well as a helpful summary also prepared by the court: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v- ... -robinson/

We've been here for nearly an hour, and we're still debating preliminary matters (e.g. witness exclusion). Now they're talking about CCTV video that will be shown later today and how to play those videos.

Judge: "there's body-cam footage from the police, and there's footage from the plaintiff himself". Gurden: we have several small clips for ease of reference. Procedural minutiae.

Judge says she'll want to view the whole footage at the outset. That will be very interesting. Judge says they're done the preliminary issues now.

Ezra Twitter.. Trial Proper
Spoiler:
Judge says she's read all the paperwork; understands the issues; invites Gurden to open the case.

Gurden says she'll make a short opening remark.

"In a nutshell, Mr. Lennon is a Luton Town supporter who travelled by train to watch the Cambridge United against LT football match" in 2016. He travelled with his friends and children, all under 12.

"They took the children to the public fair; they went into a pub to buy soft drinks; then they walked to the football match; passed without incident; and afterwards he went to the "grain and hop store public house" for a bite." (I'm not being 100% verbatim here, but close.

Judge asks where the pub was on a map. (Reminder for North Americans: Brits often go to the pub for lunch with their families -- they're not like bars in North America that are restricted to adults and have a liquor focus.)

They're still talking about where the pub is.

All this talk about pubs is making me thirsty.

Swear to God, they're still talking about the pub.

I'm convinced: https://www.tripadvisor.co.nz/Restauran ... gland.html

Still talking about how the pub is kid-friendly. I feel like I know the place so well now, I might even write a Tripadvisor review.

Now Gurden is talking about how Tommy was in and out of the pub, enjoying the day, being sociable. Gurden mentions that Tommy specifically talked to security.

Gurden says that police who are tasked with finding "football fans who are trouble" spoke to Tommy, asked him what his plans were, and Tommy said his plan was to finish watching the match on TV, and then return on the train with his kids to Luton. That was a Bedfordshire cop.

So the Bedfordshire cop -- who apparently travels with the Luton football team, to keep an eye on hooligans -- was fine with Tommy. But a Cambridgeshire cop then told Tommy that he had to leave, and that it was "non-negotiable", and he had to leave before the match was done...

...and if he didn't leave immediately, he'd be arrested. Tommy and his friends and their kids left, and walked back to the train station. During the walk back, he was followed by Cambridgeshire police.

We're still hearing from Gurden's opening remarks. She notes that Tommy protested all of this.

Tommy found this "humiliating and degrading". His "children were distressed and cried, particularly one of his daughters." Since this incident, "she refuses" to go to any more football games.

I see the Cambridgeshire cops come in to the court room now. I recognize them from the video of them harassing Tommy.

Here's Tommy's telling of the story, with that video, where you can see the cops:
https://www.therebel.media/tommy_robins ... ire_police

They're playing Tommy's cell phone video of the cops demanding Tommy leave. Tommy asks "for what?" and they reply: OK, we'll give you a s. 35 order. Tommy asks why; the cop says, "you'll understand why on the form (of the order)".

Why? "Because there's likely to be disorder". Tommy keeps saying "why?" The cop says, "shush! I'm trying to talk on my radio!" Tommy says "I'm minding my own business, and you've come off the street..."

"Mate, you know this is ridiculous... the boss has authorized the s. 35". Remember, the s. 35 order is to order a man to leave -- but it's for hooligans and rioters -- not a man having lunch with his family in a pub!

Tommy emphasizes that he's with his family; "the situation is, because there's a likelihood of violence if the group stays here". As in, the cops says Tommy's children are likely to cause violence? What else could he mean?

"Why am I going to get arrested?" "You're going to talk yourself into this." "Why?" "It's already been explained." "Why have you come up to me?" "You're part of a group." "I'm with my kids" "You've been identified a group potential... violent"

You absolutely must watch the video. It's outrageous. And I can tell you, watching that video again, and seeing those same police here in court, I now know how important this trial is.

"You are persecuting me, with my children."
"You're drinking."
"I'm not drinking, I'm on water."

They're playing this video in the court. Those cops are a disgrace, plain to see. A disgrace.

"Why? I'm with my three children. What violence are we going to cause/ Do you think I'm going to cause trouble?" "We don't know."

In comes the restaurant manager, talking to police. Tommy "caused no problem"; been in the pub all day. Tommy: "she's telling you she's seen my family all day"

"Girls, we're not being forced to leave", Tommy says to his kids. Little did he know the hatred harboured against him by the Cambridgeshire police -- or whomever they called "The Boss". Who did those cops mean, when they mentioned "The Boss"? This trial is necessary.

Now the video shows Tommy is outside the restaurant. "Am I getting a section 35?" "Yes" "Do you want to give my children a s. 35? Do you want to arrest my kids?"

Tommy: "look at how many police officers. I'm out with my three kids. I understand you have a job -- but you must be embarrassed yourself. I'm with my children; we caused no problems."

"We have to go, come on" Tommy tells his kids. And he proceeds to go, with his kids. He's sober; had been drinking water; he's with his kids. But the cops stalk him, frog-march him out of the city, filming them the whole way.

This is all on video. "My daughter is crying. They're scared." "We're following you. There's no way out of that." WHY. WHY DID THOSE COPS INSIST ON TERRIFYING TOMMY'S KIDS, EVEN AS THEY WERE LEAVING TOWN? WTF IS WRONG WITH THEM?

Now the video is Tommy's children crying uncontrollably. And the police... seem to be enjoying it. Those F-CKING COPS ARE WATCHING THE VIDEO OF THEIR TERROR IN COURT RIGHT NOW.

The Cambridgeshire police are a discredit to the profession. They are a disgrace. Tommy on tape: "look at how scared they are! Go away! Stop following us!" But they don't The cops are enjoying it. They like tormenting Tommy's family. And they're watching the video right now.

It is essential that the public trust and respect the police. It is desirable that the public even love the police. I feel respect for the police. But you cannot watch this video, without feeling a deep loathing for the police, without hating their abusiveness, their cruelty.

"Is there any reason why you're throwing them out?" asks a bystander. "Ask our bosses" These Cambridgeshire police make it hard to love the police. They are a discredit to the profession.

"Keep going or you'll get yourself arrest. Look at the scene you're making," says a cop. "You're going to talk yourself into this," said the cop. "Why?" "It's already been explained." "Why have you come up to me?"

"You were part of a group of people who've been identified as potentially involved with violence." "Who are you serving or protecting?" "I'm not playing this little game with you." "When the officer gets here. You get the form. If you stay you get arrested."

How can anyone in Cambridgeshire trust their own police force? Forget politics; just the sheer lack of humanity; the abusiveness. The humiliation; the joy in humiliating people. The joy in making children cry.

How can you trust a police officer who literally takes pride and joy in making little girls cry? Those men are sitting in this court, watching the video of their disgraces. How do they still have their badges and uniforms?

What is a conservative? A liberal who has been mugged. What is a liberal? A conservative who has been falsely arrested. These cops have destroyed the goodwill of the law. They have brought the administration of justice into disrepute. How can you watch that video & not be moved?

The video is done. Alison Gurden, Tommy's lawyer, is now giving some remarks. He summarizes that Tommy objects to the s. 35 dispersal order, and he objects to being followed while he was in fact dispersing.

1. Told that he had to leave the pub; and the city of Cambridge; 2. And that he was then followed whilst doing so. And you can see that there was an officer filming AND THAT FOOTAGE WAS NOT PROVIDED. The cops haven't given that footage to Tommy.

The lawyer for the police quarrels with this, implying that the video was deleted. Oh -- then I'm sure that's OK then. #thugs

I need to do something to detoxify my mind from the hatred and abusive of these police. I need to watch some real police heroes, to regain my respect for the noble profession that was besmirched.


Court has adjourned for ten minutes

I wont copy every tweet for next 3 days.... Refer to Ezra's twitter.
Also there will be video summary reports.

After lunch....
Quote:
Ezra Twitter
The lawyers are talking about my interaction with the cops. Over lunch, I had asked them if they had any regrets about their misconduct. They ignored me. But apparently they complained to the judge that they felt intimidated. So I apologized to the judge.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:50 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
"I'm angry": Police treatment of Tommy Robinson shocks Ezra Levant
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 12, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:58 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson talks to Ezra Levant outside court | TommyTrial.com
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 12, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:02 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Ezra Levant UPDATES Tommy Robinson's trial (Day One) | TommyTrial.com
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 12, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:17 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Breaking: First Day of Trial - Tommy Robinson SUES Police
Tommy Robinson
Published on Mar 12, 2019


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:19 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Court update
Tommy Robinson
Streamed live 68 minutes ago


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:00 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Day one Tommy Robinson vs Cambridge Police after pub abuse court case
Brian London
Premiered 42 minutes ago


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:44 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Tommy Robinson sues police for harassment (DAY ONE) | Ezra Levant
Rebel Media
Published on Mar 12, 2019


_________________
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 2:46 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
DAY 2


Live updates: Tommy Robinson vs Cambridgeshire Constabulary - day two from court
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... s-15965386


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

_________________
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 6:44 am 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Ezra Tweets... (Bad Cop, Sgt Street, LYING evidence)
Spoiler:
There is security in the court. Why? Is there an implication that Tommy, or his supporters, are a threat? Or is to protect citizens from the @CambsCops and their abusive conduct?

Tommy's lawyer is asking the judge if more people can be let in to sit in an empty row of seats. The judge says she doesn't want the front row to be used, because she doesn't want the court "overfull".
There are 19 empty seats.

The judge speaks to me directly again, referring to "pejorative" tweets I made yesterday, but not particularizing them. I presume she refers to my description of the police as "pervy" for filming Tommy's kids and making them cry. I told the judge I will not say that again.

I will continue to tweet my honest opinions based on the facts I see; opinion journalism is a legitimate species of journalism, perhaps one of the most important. But it is not my goal to offend the court or to interfere with her, so I will defer to her sensibilities.

I had no idea that @CambsCops were so sensitive, and I want them to know that the court will remain a "safe space" for them.

Back to the matters at hand. Sgt. Paul Street takes the stand. He's the main antagonist accosting Tommy in the pub that day.

Sgt. Street says he's been a cop for a dozen years. He says he's policed football matches and political protests. Tommy's lawyer (Alison Gurden) asks if he's policed the EDL. "I think I probably have but I can't remember," he says.

Gurden: is it right that you knew Mr. Lennon as Tommy Robinson? Street: I only knew him as Tommy Robinson Gurden: how much did you know about him? Street: my limited understanding was that he was an 80's football hooligan P.S. Tommy was born in the 1980s.

FYI -- according to my Twitter analytics, my tweets yesterday were viewed 4.7 million times. Thank you to all of my viewers and readers who helped crowdfund my trip here. You can see my videos at http://www.TommyTrial.com

Gurden asks Street about briefing notes about Luton football fans, including about possible drunken disorderliness. (Tommy is indeed a Luton football fan, but he attended the match that day with his children, and did not drink.)

Gurden: is there anything in the briefing presentation to police before the action about Tommy Robinson? Street: no; but "his name was mentioned in the briefing by someone" I'd comment on the credibility of this witness, but I don't want to intimidate the poor lad.

Gurden is now playing Sgt. Street's bodycam footage (or is about to). We learn that the camera is turned on and off by the police himself.

Street on bodycams: "when you slide the button down and it goes on; on the old ones you have to press a button, too". Street is the cop from the video here, e.g. at about 4:30 in: (brian of London Cambridge video)

We're watching the body cam version of the interaction here. So, we've heard the audio before, and we've seen it from Tommy's point of view. The body cam is the same incident, filmed from the cop's camera.

Audio of Street: "You're with a group of people who have been identified as potentially being involved with violence." Translation: "where's your having-lunch-with-your-kids loicence, bruv?" (Sorry to be intimidating.)

Gurden: at this point, Tommy is saying he's with his children. Why didn't you ask about it? Street: because he wasn't with his children, he was with a group of men drinking beer... he was with a group of men ordering pints of beer. But actually Tommy wasn't drinking beer.

I'm not sure if calling Sgt. Street a liar is too pejorative in this land without a First Amendment, or too intimidating for @CambsCops finest, so I will refrain from calling Sgt. Street a liar. #NotALiar

Orwell was a Brit. I'll channel him.

Sgt. Street is claiming that the @bedspolice "spotters" identified Tommy as a "risk supporter". As in a risk of violence. Even though he wasn't drinking, and was with his kids.

"I'm not lying. I have no reason to lie" -- Sgt. Street. #LOL

"Are you calling me a liar?" -- Sgt. Street #LOL

Street claims someone complained about Tommy being a risk of violence. But Gurden points out Street didn't mention that in his official statement, and asks why he conveniently remembers that now. Street replies "are you calling me a liar?" That's an odd answer to a question.

The other police officers yesterday were stone-faced, inscrutable. They'd be good a playing poker, I think. Sgt. Street has answered half his questions angrily, "are you calling me a liar!?"

Street's statement says he was "told" to issue s. 35 dispersal notices to any Luton fans who didn't leave by 6:30 p.m.
Gurden points out that, as described in his statement, he has no discretion. Street says officers had the discretion "whoever the officer is on the ground".

But does Sgt. Street not recall that he is on tape, repeatedly saying that the big "boss" has ordered this heavy-handed enforcement?

Gurden: Tommy wasn't drunk? Street: right Gurden: Tommy wasn't with any group causing a problem Street: right

Street claims that a "drunk football supporter", walking away from the pub, claimed that Tommy said was going to be a problem. "That's intelligence. You can't just ignore that... I partially relied on that."

Gurden: then why didn't you rely on the manager of the pub who specifically came up to you and told you they had been no problem all day? Why did you not rely on that?

Street: because s. 35 is a "likelihood" of committing violence. That would be my s. 35 power.

Sgt. Street just admitted that he gave more weight to an anonymous drunk man's musings, that he suddenly claims to remember but didn't mention before, and that was his "intel", and that trumped the pub manager vouching for Tommy. This is @CambsCops's best. (That's embarrassing)

Gurden: what's a "risk supporter"? Street: a football fan who is at risk of becoming violent

Street: It's not just taking one aspect. It's taking all the information I've been given, and making the best decision to keep the public safe. FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC, TOMMY AND HIS CHILDREN HAD TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE PUB.

Street: Tommy had a “strong smell of alcohol” Gurden: he hadn't had a drop to drink Street: I would find it very hard to accept that, because he smelled of alcoholic drink and was irate Gurden: wasn't he irate because you were kicking him out?

I'm a bit biased -- and lord knows, I'm mighty intimidating -- but Sgt. Street is a terrible witness. Emotional, incredible, clearly angry still. He really is, "in real life", the person shown in this video: (BoL Vid)

Sgt. Street claims that Tommy's video "isn't the start of our interaction". That's surely true. But funny enough, Street doesn't have any other video. It's that funny! Just like they accidentally deleted the video of them filming him and his kids walking to the railway station.

Gurden: why would Tommy have to leave the pub if you weren't serving him with a s. 35 notice? That's a pretty killer question. Street's written statement: "upon being told to leave, Tommy raised his voice". Well, there it is. Raise your voice, get arrested.

Gurden: so did he actually had to leave then? Street: no; it was a "negotiation" Gurden: so by raising his voice, he then tripped the s. 35 wire? Was that it? Street: well, that and "other intel" -- as in, his imaginary drunk friend that he just remembered

We're watching more video. Tommy was asking why he was being forced to leave. And Sgt. Street said, "you'll read it on the form." So it's a catch-22. You can't be told why you are breaking the law, until we hit you with the law. That's not a "negotiation". It's bullying.

Gurden: a s. 35 order should be served in writing Street: yes Gurden: you were just waiting for someone to bring you more s. 35 tickets, because you had run out. Otherwise you would have served him immediately, right? Street: right

Gurden: so a s. 35 order was actually never served on him!? Street: right. So they frog-marched him out of the pub, and to the railway station, without following their own rules! Without actually having being compelled by the force of law!

So they did not actually have the legal notice to him -- s. 35 "notice" is the name of it! -- and they are claiming that he left voluntarily! Street: "of his own accord!"

Sgt. Street is saying that Tommy left voluntarily! We watched video: Tommy, "tell me why I have to leave?" Gurden to Street: but you never did answer him, did you!? Because he didn't have to leave, you didn't serve him the notice! Street: erm.

We saw more video, where the cop say, "the boss" orders you out. Gurden: Luton officers said "the boss" had ordered a s. 35 order Who was that? Street: that Luton cop didn't know what he was talking about. #convenient

More video of Tommy saying, "I'm with him children, I'm with my family" Gurden: who said that? Street: a Cambridgeshire officer. Funny. One minute ago, Street blamed a Luton cop, saying Luton didnt' know what they were talking about. Now Street admits it was a @CambsCops

More video. Street said: "Keep going and you'll get yourself arrested." Gurden for what? Street: Assault of police (The court gallery laughs at this.) Gurden: he hadn't sworn at all, had he? Street: no.

Street: "he's pointing in my face and becoming loud" Gurden: he's surrounded by police officers; he's not a risk to anyone is he? And what he's saying to you is tell me why I'm being arrested Street: loudly, continuously, he's not being reasonable. Street: I was professional #LOL

Sgt. Street basically said that by continuing to ask why he was being arrested, that was ground to arrest him. Nothing else yet rose to the level; he hadn't been served a s. 35 notice; he wasn't violent. He was just asking too many questions. This is the worst witness.

Sgt. Street actually said, what if someone else comes in the pub and gets violent with him? Oh -- I thought it was the imaginary drunk guy who gave him the "hot intel" about Tommy.

Gurden: what if he would have gone back into the pub? Street: he would have been given a s.35 notice Gurden: so, effectively you hit him with the notice just for asking about it Street: well, he didn't actually get it

Video: "in a moment the form is going to come. If you stay you're going to be arrested." Gurden: so he's basically been arrested Street: erm.

Street: "the way Tommy is behaving, he's not a good example to his children" Are you telling me if another risk supporter came in, are you telling me he wouldn't [break the law]?

Tommy on video: "what violence am I going to cause? That is ridiculous". Gurden: The Luton officers were well aware Tommy had his kids with him Street: yes. Tommy on video: you know I'm not going to cause any trouble? Cops: "a decision has been made"

Pub security on video talking to Street: "Tommy and his family have been no problem" Street: you're being stupid. Gurden: why is that stupid? Street: Because he keeps asking me the same question Gurden: but you never answered him; you told him there was no discussion to be had

Sorry to be pejorative, and I know I'm intimidating. But if I were Sgt. Street, I might not go around calling other people stupid.

More video. Gurden: are you outside when Tommy was talking with his kids? Street: I don't know Gurden: but at some point you realize he's with his kids Street: yes.

True confession. I'm sitting next to @freddie_lynne who is live-blogging for @Cambslive And I think he feels a bit intimidated by me.

Video of cops frog-marching Tommy & kids on the street: Cop on video: "we're making sure that you're safe" Gurden: That's not what was happening, was it? Sgt. Street: I can't control what my officers say. Me: could you imagine if that were accepted as an excuse?

Gurden: did you see his daughter run away from him? Street: that absolutely was not seen by me Ezra: but he absolutely saw the imaginary drunk source of "intel"

Gurden reads from Street's statement, that claims Tommy was "shouting and swearing and his demeanour and behaviour caused his children to start crying"
Street: Tommy made his children hysterical
Gurden: you can hear she's crying before any of that

Gurden: what swear? Street: not in the pub Gurden: what swear? Street: he said bollocks once Gurden: that wasn't him

Gurden: any problematic fans had already left?
Street: I hadn't seen any fans causing problems.
Huh? All morning he's been talking about the risk of someone coming into the pub, meeting up with Tommy, and causing

Gurden: so you made no notes of any interactions between Tommy and any other football fans? Street: no Gurden: so this wasn't an incident that required any notes to be made? Street: not at that time.

Gurden is reading from Street's statement. There was a "drunk group" that had already left.

Gurden: what was it that gave you reasonable grounds to suspect that Tommy had contributed, or was likely to contributed to violence or disorder?

Street: "a football risk supporter" (e.g. the drunk imaginary friend).

Gurden: what else? Street: some other guy who said, "it's not the group outside who would be causing problems" Gurden: but he never mentioned Tommy? Street: right

Street: and also the behaviour of Tommy inside the pub

Gurden: what about the landlady saying they had been no problem? Street: irrelevant. He actually said that. Street said his imaginary friend saying Tommy would be a problem was relevant but the landlady saying he was fine was irrelevant. @CambsCops didn't send their best.

Street: the landlady wasn't aware of "the bigger picture". Got it. "The bigger picture", guys. I'm looking through the statute and can't find that. But hey, it's @CambsCops.

Gurden: so that was your reasonable suspicion. But why was it necessary? Street: I genuinely believe that Tommy would have contributed to crime or disorder. To keep the other members of the public safe who were there.

Gurden: let's be candid. You were instructed to do this. Street: why would I do that? I was acting lawfully and made the best decision I could.

Street: you're suggesting I've deliberately gone after this guy. But there was no reason for me to do that. Why? Gurden: because you were told to issue a s. 35 order Street: that doesn't mean anything.

.@CambsCops say I'm intimidating. Yeah, about as intimidating as a baby lamb. What is intimidating -- genuinely, truly, terrifyingly -- is the authoritarian, abusive policing this trial has exposed. I don't even think it's primarily political. It's just bullying with a badge.

Street "I don't agree that he was in and out of the pub checking on his kids, because he was talking with me." Street's basis for saying Tommy wasn't with his kids all day -- even though the landlady said he had been -- was because at that moment Street was talking to him.

Gurden: you could have actually asked him if he was drinking alcohol? Street: yeah Gurden: you could have asked the landlady about her statement, couldn't you? Street: yes Gurden: you could have asked him his intentions Street: I could have asked him a whole lot of questions.

Strong points by Gurden. Instead of actually asking Tommy any questions; instead of actually asking the people who had spent all day with Tommy, Street relied on his imaginary drunk friend on the street. Street: yup.

The police lawyer, Mr. Clemens, is back up, redirecting questions to his witness.

Clemens and Gurden are now conferring quietly.

Gurden: did you know anything about Tommy's politics? Street: no Gurden: but you said you thought Tommy Robinson was an 80's football hooligan? Street: yes Gurden: and that was the Tommy Robinson who was mentioned in the briefing? Street: um.

Street was asked about policing EDL demos.
Street said he was told all about Tommy Robinson.
Street said Tommy's name came up in teh police briefing.

But Street thinks that "Tommy Robinson" was some hooligan from 35 years ago?

The judge has one question of her own, I think:
Judge to Street: "did you say Luton police said Tommy was a risk? Street: a risk or a potential risk.

Street is done. It's 12:30. But it appears we're going to hear from another cop now. I'll try to catch his name.

Ezra Tweets... (Another Cop witness) (The Creepy (pervy) cop with the Camera - deleted footage)
(This PC Ruddy, who was the officer filming with a handheld camera (not bodycam) down Regent Terrace.)
Spoiler:
New Cambridgeshire cop. His lawyer Mr. Clemens directs him to his written statement.

Clemens: you were an evidence-gatherer that day? Cop: yes Clemens: you've seen some of the footage. Were you the one videoing Tommy? Cop: yes Clemens: Did you follow them down the road Cop: yes

Clemens referring to an email from the cop: "you'd been asked about disclosure, and you said "as nothing happened after 24 hours I made no such entry" Cop: yes Clemens: "unlike the plaintiff we are required to dispose of the footage after 28 days"... long-since deleted. Explain?

Cop: if you record footage that's not of evidential value it should be disposed of within 28 days. In this instance, no-one had been arrested under s. 35 so the footage had no evidential value, so I disposed of it.

Clemens: did anyone tell you to keep the footage? Cop: no.

Clemens: was complaint letter received outside the 28-day period? Cop: right Clemens: any request to keep any evidence once the complaint came in? Cop: it would have been deleted anyways by then.

Gurden to the evidence-gatherer. "You say you filmed them while they received s. 35 notices?" Cop: yes Gurden: You were aware that Tommy uploaded his own video footage online? Cop: maybe later I was. Gurden: your police commissioner made a statement about it? Cop: I didn't know.

Videotaping cop: "nothing had happened worthy of any note"

Gurden: Why did you stop filming? Video cop: we had stop filming him? Gurden: why? Video cop: we videographers stand back; if the officers let the people go, there's no reason to follow.

Gurden: it was actually when Tommy's daughter almost ran into the street? Video cop: are you claiming we caused that, or destroyed evidence because we witnessed that? Wow -- so, not an answer, but a defensive counter-question to the lawyer.

Gurden: so you were going to evict the football fans
Videocop: yes
Gurden: you were at the pub?
Videocop: yes
Gurden: in your statement, you said Tommy "had to leave Cambridge"
Videocop: yes

Gurden: you said you filmed the exchange "in case something happened" Videocop: yes Gurden: so you had evidence of the exchange Videocop: well, the use of the word evidence... people arguing with police is not necessarily evidence.

Videocop: as it happened, nothing good place. Gurden: there was no violence or disorder? Videocop: correct.

Gurden: you said you were surprised they didn't arrest Tommy for being drunk & disorderly. Why? Videocop: Right; I had to make an assessment based on what I saw. Gurden: what did you see? Videocop: he was arguing. Gurden: so that was it? Videocop: yes.

Gurden: officers had to warn him about his language in front of his children. But that's not on tape, is it? That didn't happen? Videocop: well, just because it's not on Tommy's video, doesn't mean it didn't happen(!)

Gurden: you said Tommy continued to shout and swear Videocop: swear, no Oh -- so he admits that part of his statement just wasn't true. (Sorry to be so intimidating.)

Gurden: why do you say Tommy wasn't being singled out? Videocop: police chatter said others were being asked to leave Gurden: but actually there weren't really problems, where there? Videocop: ummm.

Gurden now reads from a transcript of radio chatter in police earpieces. She's referring to specific comments about Luton "risk supporters" (again, for people who don't live on Airstrip One, a risk supporter is someone who police think are at risk of committing violence.)

Gurden: do you see there is nothing that suggests anyone (other than a handful of cases) was given a s. 35 notic? Videocop: argues; says maybe the police radio didn't mention it. Ezra: funny; he's being argumentative. Just the sort of thing that could land someone an arrest.

Gurden: would there have been a record of when you deleted the footage? Videocop: no Oh.

Videocop: I would imagine that I deleted it the next day. Gurden: So even if the request had been made within 28 days, the footage wouldn't have been available. Videocop: right.

Judge has a question for the video cop: "do you recall how long that video was?"
Videocop: for that 80 to 100 meter walk.

Were done for lunch.

LUNCH
Ezra Gets a bollocking from the judge.. UK has no Journalism
Spoiler:
We're back in the court. As before, there are 23 empty seats, but security is detaining the public from entering.

Both lawyers are conferring with the judge in private. I wonder if it is about the next steps in the trial. But if it is like last time, it is about complaints regarding my tweeting. I hope it's not that.

I have told my seatmate, @freddie_lynne, that if I am taken to the dungeons in the Old Bailey, for him to contact the Canadian embassy on my behalf.

On second thought, given that Justin Trudeau is the Canadian prime minister, I'm probably better off without help from the embassy.

Sorry, I was kibitzing with @freddie_lynne.

Just a word about the matters where the public was asked to leave the courtroom. The judge confirmed that the remaining people in the room were parties, council or "accredited media". (Of course in Canada, we don't have media accreditation.)

The judge addressed live-tweeting (and obviously mine). The judge and I went back and forth on the subject, and I told her I have no wish to have a quarrel with her or the court, nor for the matter to be raised again -- and that I would abide whatever her directions were.

I asked if there were any tweets I had done that she wanted me to delete; she declined. I asked for advice on tweets going forward. She suggested not giving my opinion or commentary on the proceedings, but just reporting it, more in the style of a stenographer (my word).

I asked the judge to clarify if her suggestion applied only to my tweets from the court, or other comments outside the court, or even my commentaries after the court case itself was done. Her advice was to refrain from political commentary until after the judgement was issued.

I was deferential (as I truly am -- this is her court, and this is Tommy's lawsuit. I am not a party; I have no standing here). But I respectfully made the point that opinion journalism is a species of journalism. I didn't want to belabour the point, so I submitted.

I am here because I believe in justice and the hope it will come from this trial. I'm here because I know the BBC, Sky News, the tabloids, etc. will not cover this trial fairly. I'm here because Tommy's a friend. And I'm here because hundreds of viewers crowdfunded me to be here.

But I am not here to reform the UK's approach to journalism and justice. That's not my job, and I'm not equipped to do it. And I'm certainly not here to get into quarrels with judges, or to interfere with their proceedings -- however they interpret that.

I note Tommy was imprisoned for 10 weeks for reporting -- with colourful commentary -- outside a court in Leeds last May. I don't need to be another test case in that. But it is certainly something that the UK -- the media, lawyers, judges and mostly citizens -- should address.

So I will submit. And for the remainder of this trial, I will report as a stenographer would do -- bloodlessly. No commentary, no view. That is not how I'm built, but I'm in the judge's house, in a foreign land. That seems just a little bit more foreign to me today.

I say again: the judge has not ordered me to do anything; the judge has not even asked me to do anything. Her answers to my questions were slightly cryptic. But out of an abundance of caution, I'll just stop opining, at least until her verdict is in.

I can see why someone as stubborn and as free as Tommy would fall afoul of these laws. (Or as we now know from the court of appeal, he was not actually imprisoned in a lawful manner.) But interpretations can be vague and subjective. That's not why I'm here.



But enough about me -- from now on, it'll be just stenography. But now you know why.

If you're a Canadian and an American, rejoice in your freedom of speech. And keep it.

And if you're a Brit, think about what you have lost.

Back to the Trial Stuff
Spoiler:
Enough about me. The public has been let back into the courtroom. There are 26 empty seats. The lawyers are just standing around. I'm irritating @freddie_lynne. The usual.

The judge is back in. Gurden speaks. She announces that a Luton policeman, named Mason, is in the court. He will be back in court tomorrow morning to testify. It sounds like he will be testifying on Tommy's behalf.

Gurden emphasizes that any Tweeters are doing so on their own behalf, not on his behalf.

The judge reminds everyone to turn their phone ringers off.

The judge tells the public that she has spoken to the press. She emphasizes that reporting has to be accurate and fair, so the wider public can know what's happening. So she's pro-tweeting -- but she doesn't want it to interfere.

Clemens (lawyer the @CambsCops) call another cop, Lee Cobbett I think is his name.

Clemens takes Cobbett to his official statement.

Gurden: what was your role that day? Cobbett: Football intelligence officer, generally with Cambridge "risk". When the groups are likely to become disorderly, to identify that to police "spotters" from other football teams.

Gurden: did you interact with Luton police spotters?
Cobbett: yes, including officer Mason
Gurden: have you seen the footage today?
Cobbett: i've seen what was shown today

Gurden: did you talk to the Luton cops about who their risks were?
Cobbett: yes, including from Police Constable Mason

Gurden: were you in the footage? Cobbett: yes, I was downstairs near the main entrance of the pub (Video now being shown)

Gurden is asking Cobbett to identify various police in the video footage.

Gurden: did you go upstairs at all? (where Tommy was) Cobbett: no.

Gurden is asking Cobbett how he communicates -- minutiae of how he uses his radio.

Video sounds like Cobbett referring to a "section 35 notice being served by our bosses".

He says bosses again.

He is not the only police officer to refer to bosses making the decision.

Gurden: did you think Tommy had been served a s. 35 notice? Cobbett: I was unsure Gurden: you were aware he was being told to leave the pub Cobbett: yes Gurden: did you know he wanted to stay till the end of the match on TV? Cobbett: no.

Cobbett: I was ore concerned with the 4-5 identified risks Gurden: the ones who left beforehand? Cobbett: they took some cajoling to get moving Gurden: before Tommy? Cobbett: I don't know Gurden: s. 35 notices? Cobbett: I don't know.

Cobbett: we're dealing with two sets of fans. We try to keep the fans separate. I was with a Luton cop (a spotter). I'd identify the Cambridge risk; he'd identify the Luton risk. We'd try to keep the team's supporters separate.

Cobbett refers to people as "risk"; a noun. "You escort the risk away".

Cobbett followed the Luton "risk" group. Gurden confirms Tommy wasn't amongst that group.

I recorded this video before the judge's comments this afternoon. In the next break, I will carefully review this footage and decide whether it complies with the judge's admonition not to express an opinion on the credibility of witnesses. I think I might have to delete it. https://twitter.com/TheRebelTV/status/1 ... 9236033536

Back to the courtroom. Cobbett is referring to other Luton fans -- not Tommy -- who were risk supporters. Five of them; they were issued warning to leave, on penalty of a s. 35 complaint.

Cobbett: "I had no reason to engage with Tommy Robinson". He was told by Officer Mason of Luton that Tommy was no risk.

Cobbett's written statement: I do not believe he was in the pub to cause public disorder.

"During a football match, football supporters aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree". -- Officer Cobbett of @CambsCops

Despite his written statement, Cobbett now says: "I believe he is a focal point of disorder."

Gurden: was it "necessary" for him to be dispersed? Cobbett: "I believe it was necessary to remove him; it would have been safer for him and for everyone else if he had been removed"

Gurden asks: are you saying that -- because of who he is and what he believes -- he ought to be removed? Mr. Clemens objects.

Gurden: according to Cobbett's statement, Tommy kept asking why he had to leave. Cobbett: we didn't want to undermine the sergeant, so we didn't "interfere" with another decision.

Gurden: don't you think you should have provided your input on whether an s. 35 should have been issued? Cobbett: only if I was asked.

Cobbett is done. Court is adjourned until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

Adjurned for the day... but Ezra in troub!
Spoiler:
Mr. Clemens, the lawyer for @CambsCops just called out to me from across the building. He said, “I suggest you not leave the building”. It was very odd. I asked him what he meant, and he said he would say nothing more.

I’m not sure what he means, but I presume he has made some complaint about my tweets again. I’ll wait around.

Mr. Clemens is very mad at me.

I asked Mr. Clemens if it was personal and he said “no”. I asked if it was something for which I needed to retain a lawyer. He said “that’s up to you”. I think maybe I have hurt his feelings, so perhaps he’s trying to hurt mine, but I find it just confusing.

I’ll stick around to see if the judge wants to talk with me further. I can’t imagine she wants to, but maybe Mr. Clemens is asking her to.

Anyways, I think Clemens is complaining to the judge a out me. I think that’s the only explanation that makes sense for asking me to stick around. I have no other obligations this afternoon so I’ll wait to see if the judge herself really does want to talk with me.

1. I have had my meeting with the judge in the courtroom. The two lawyers were there, as well as the clerk and usher. So it was the six of us, and we talked about my tweeting.

2. I told the judge it was her courtroom and I had no desire to get offside with her -- and I'd comply with whatever she proposed.

3. She reiterated her view that I shouldn't offer an opinion on the goings-on of the case, that I should report it without commentary, and to save any comments until after she renders her judgement (which I understand could be as soon as Friday).

4. I asked the judge to tell me what tweets were causing her concern; she didn't want to be specific, although she did mention a few where I speculated about what a future witness might say. She also reference a few opinions, and a joke (that I thought was self-deprecating).

5. I have therefore deleted five tweets -- three were opinions, one was a guess about a future witness, and one was a joke. But I have saved them, and will consider if they're worth republishing once the trial is over and the judge renders her judgment.

6. I'm not a party in this trial; I'm not legal counsel; I have no standing; in fact, I'm not even a Brit. So I wouldn't dare to try to change a judge's view about such things. And: she is surely right about the status of British freedom of the press. That's what makes me so sad.

7. When I left that meeting -- it wasn't a hearing, even though everyone was there; it was a conversation in the courtroom -- some photographers for the tabloids were there, to snap pictures of me. I'm sure this will be reported with glee. By journalists.

8. I would argue that in the age of social media, rules about reporting in courts ought to be modernized. And in the UK, they certainly ought to be clarified. Certainly the law reform commission has said so: https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lawc ... ummary.pdf

9. But like I say, that's not my fight. And judging by the reaction of those with skin in the game -- British lawyers, journalist, and mainly the public -- most people are fine with these restrictions.
Tommy fought the law and the law won, or at least threw him in prison.

10. I'll be back in court tomorrow and it will be stenography. I don't need to be told a third time and I certainly don't want to irritate the judge.

And I guess instead of being sad about the state of the free press in the UK, I should preserve what we have left in Canada.

_________________
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 3:15 pm 
Online
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 56973
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
It seems that (under duress) everybody is "self censoring"

Self imposed "Reporting restrictions"?

No video summaries of Day 2 anywhere... not even straight summary with no opinion.... SAD!!

Lets hope Ezra can and will say more once he clears UK airspace on his way back to Canada...

_________________
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 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group