FREEDOM OF SPEECH COMES AT A PRICE
BY: BIANCA BARDEN
July 8, 2019
British judges on Friday found British activist Tommy Robinson guilty of 'contempt of court', after he filmed defendants and posted the footage on social media, supposedly breaching reporting restrictions on the case.
What the mainstream media have continually failed to point out is that the trial of the defendants was already over. The men had already been convicted and were just awaiting sentencing. As they were walking into court to be sentenced, Tommy Robinson, in his capacity as a freelance journalist, asked the men "how do you feel about your verdict?".
Robinson has always denied the claim that he breached reporting restrictions, saying he only broadcast information that was already published by other news outlets and in the public domain, saying that everything he read out on video was read on the BBC News website.
The charges were as follows, in Tommy's own words:
Charge 1 - Breaching Reporting Restriction - I followed the reporting restriction guidelines published on the judiciary own website where it clearly states that the court has no power to restrict information already in the public domain. All I did was read information that was already in the public domain on the BBC news website! The Government Lawyers response in court was 'the document on the judiciary website is wrong!"
Charge 2 - Causing the Muslim rapist anxiety - They actually said that because I asked the now convicted child rapist how he felt about his verdict, that could have caused him to feel anxious and interfered with the proceedings. They seem to have ignored the fact that 20-30 reporters asked me the very same question as I walked into my trial on Thursday!
Charge 3 - Taking a picture of the Muslim Child rapists entering court has today been deemed contempt of court. Every single mainstream media newspaper printed a picture of me entering court yesterday. "This is a complete corrupt stitch up and I am being tried for who I am not what I did."
In the Judiciary Reporting Restrictions Guide of May 2016 it clearly states, "Courts have no power under Section 4 (2) to prevent publication of material that is already in the public domain". If the information Tommy Robinson reported on was already in the public domain, and the judiciary's own guidelines state they have no power over this, then it would beg the question, why was he convicted at all?
The judge even went so far as to claim that the Judiciary Reporting Restrictions Guide, posted on the www.juiciary.uk website was wrong.
While the MSM take the view that Tommy was rightfully convicted, previous BBC correspondent, Katie Adie, has been the only journalist to express genuine concern for the precedent that was set with the ruling against Tommy.
She tweeted, "I, and most of my colleagues, have done exactly what he has done with no repercussions. Is there an agenda?"
Commentator Katie Hopkins said: “Next time someone tells you ‘the law is the law’ remember Tommy Robinson. The law is whatever the Establishment wish to interpret it to be. “Tommy Robinson will not survive time inside,” Hopkins warned. “This is how the British cleanse their Enemies of the State.”
In a bizarre twist and blatant case of hypocrisy, Tommy Robinson was shouted at by a Muslim child rapist, yet Tommy is the one headed to court for causing them 'anxiety'.
All it takes is a close look at the Tommy Robinson case and that of our own Israel Folau to see that there is a politically motivated agenda in preventing Freedom of Speech, and it all stems from the left side of politics, at the highest level, by parliamentarians in conjunction with the elites.