Tommy Robinson 'arrested while filming outside grooming trial' in Leeds - Sensationalist Headlines

The right wing activist was streaming a Facebook live video outside Leeds Crown Court, where a grooming trial is reportedly underway, on Friday morning. He can be heard saying: "I'm being arrested? I am being arrested...I'm 'causing a breach of peace'...I'm being arrested for breaching the peace. Source The Video Not a lot of sources at the moment, the RT and Mirror article seem to have disappeared.

Wait, he was out of jail again?

He can be heard saying: "I'm being arrested? I am being arrested...I'm 'causing a breach of peace'...I'm being arrested for breaching the peace. Yeah, you're being arrested, you daft cunt.

Usually there is significant overlap with being a fucking idiot. And it checks out again.

What exactly is a grooming trial?

A reporting restriction has apparently being put in place preventing anyone from publishing what happened to Tommy, might explain why the RT and Mirror article I found just disappeared. He's also being given 13 months in prison.

He may be a cunt but that's no reason to arrest him, breach of the peace is just a convenient excuse to arrest people.

Source on both of these points? There are articles right there in the OP with all the info, and I can't find anyone reporting the 13 months thing

Take the reporting restriction point with a grain of salt however I updated OP with a screenshot of a tweet from Caolan Robinson stating he was jailed for 13 months. He's since deleted a lot of his recent tweets.

He's currently got a suspended sentence for contempt of court so this was probably all they needed to lock him up.

Man it sure is super weird that none of the people outraged about this seem to have mentioned the suspended sentence.

These fuckwits always try to find the most petty excuse to make themselves appear as martyrs.

Wait I'm confused, he's been arrested and they put a gag order on all information about his detainment? Why?

Contempt of court.

The suspended sentence was for a previous count of contempt of court and what he did here is also classified as contempt of court so he just committed the same crime twice. If it isn't clear already he isn't a very bright man.

It's amazing what you can find on google these days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

This tweet thread from a journalist will answer all your questions about this https://twitter.com/StephanieFinneg/status/1001440604616843265?s=19

I don't see the actual thread? From what I can tell he was arrested because the jurors might hear him say things that are untrue in front of the courthouse?

She wrote up an actual article, here ya go https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/tommy-robinson-jailed-facebook-live-14718619

It's in the tweet, a little further down in the replies.

Banning anyone from questioning the official narrative until after the sentencing seems like a great way to silence all dissenting opinions until the damage has already been done. I'm not nearly informed enough to know if that applies to the trial in question, but just generally, there are lots of times people come out and refute public knowledge during trials.

Yeah, we can tell. He was shouting biased, racist, untrue bullshit about the trial in earshot of jurors arriving at the court. Answer my question: what exactly is so crazy about not wanting to have your jurors unfairly influenced?

It's hard to get more info while there is that reporting restriction in place on the original trial. Here are the guidelines on when a reporting restriction can be issued by a court, though.

Thanks for taking a 7 word phrase totally out of context and ignoring the overall point!

Still sounds like bullshit to me, what about cases like Rolf Harris, the media was all over that, which could easily be seen as influencing the jurors, yet when it happens to be 29 Muslim men the media don't say a word, even the article you linked has no mention of it, double standards are completely unacceptable, it's no wonder the far right are on the rise in the UK.

I'll be honest with you, I skimmed through some of that, and it seems extremely vague. Many of those points could be argued for any trial at all. It seems to come down to whether the judge thinks public reporting would create a "substantial risk," which is basically meaningless as a real point of decision. Any report, at all, can create an "substantial risk" if the reporting is widely spread.

You're comparing generic "the media" with a specific man (TR) repeatedly committing the same offence. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

As far as I'm concerned he hasn't committed any offence other than highlight the media blackout over the case, yes he was wrong to try talk to them but I still believe he was right on reporting it, the UK has the worst press freedom rating in Western Europe.