As for the suggestion (by UKIP among others) that nobody has ever before been found in contempt of court and a postponement order made preventing the media from immediately reporting it, a handy example can be found on 22 May 2017, where one Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found to be in contempt at Canterbury, and a postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial.
So the knuckle-draggers claim Tommy Robinson is been singled out and his treatment highly selective and without precedent. The barrister counters by saying “Oh Lord no! He’s been treated like this before!” This is like something from a sitcom.
I suspect there are multiple examples of similar treatment being dished out to people other than Tommy Robinson, so why did the barrister not cite them instead of smearing him further, thus going some way to proving his supporters’ point? Frankly I don’t know, but it makes perfect sense if the post was written not so much to inform as to signal one’s virtue.