More Preaching than Informing

A point raised in the comments by Matthew McConnagay regarding The Secret Barrister’s post on Tommy Robinson deserves wider attention:

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.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

15 thoughts on “More Preaching than Informing

  1. This is a class issue and I’ve noticed people are either in denial or are dishonest about this.
    TR can be discounted by middle class folk because he has convictions including football hooliganism etc. He also communicates at a very basic but highly motivated manner. I don’t know if working class people realise how that disqualifies his content. His supporters are a former majority who are rapidly becoming less important. …they have fewer children, don’t invest for the future and are a toxic brand for anyone who has aspirations of reaching the profession class.
    He’s not wrong but is much more popular with US and European counter jihad activists than most British people. For a start he is an Irish cockney…..
    I’m not saying he is stupid….but he isn’t someone who can lead a movement.

  2. So out of the whole post from SB, all it comes down to is playing the man not the ball as rebuttal?

    I suspect the reason he gave TR as an example as that you would have thought all the people rushing to defend TR and saying that it not had any precedence beforehand would have been at least a little familiar with his previous cases and known that was not the case. Perhaps too much to ask.

    Other wise i’m sure SB would then be accused of being an elitist by referring to cases that the average lay person might not have been aware of and couldn’t be expected to know about.

    Anyways i found it pretty informative with good references and less speculative than some article that surrounded this event when people first rushed to give judgement.

    As ever Tim if you want to find more examples on the postponement order, google is your friend and a quick search of “postponement order was made restricting publication until the end of the substantive trial” throws up results of where it has been applied before. This Article from 2011 :

    this legislation was used in Cristiano Ronaldo v Telegraph Media Group Limited,(2) in which the judge made and continued an order that there be no reporting of any hearing relating to an interim application by Telegraph Media Group that the action be stayed as an abuse of process.

    that was pretty, much the second link i’m sure there are more than you can find by optimizing the search term.

  3. So out of the whole post from SB, all it comes down to is playing the man not the ball as rebuttal?

    It wasn’t a rebuttal.

    As ever Tim if you want to find more examples on the postponement order

    I don’t, but thanks.

  4. He doesn’t need to lead, he does seem to be a catalyst for bringing previously apolitical people into becoming involved in the growing struggle against our leaders crushing of the English people. I’ve a couple of friends who have surprised me lately by their rather vehement support of EDL etc when previously they had shown no interest in anything political beyond the usual Liverpool clown politics.

  5. It seems to me down to trust. Both the judge and SB seem to assume that they and the legal profession at large deserve it as of right. Nobody does. Trust has to be earned, and that can’t be done in secret.
    Given the manifest failings of the police, social services and the politicians that direct them over the past couple of decades all state authorities have some work to do even if their particular part has in fact worked well. And I’m not entirely sure that the legal profession has all been above raising false issues of racism, nor has it always taken seriously the concerns of the general populace.
    Indeed had the concerns of the general populace been addressed from the start instead of being sneered at there might now be room in one court for all those accused of gang rape.

  6. There maybe a another group of players in the game .

    Call them the “Cod-Cons”.

    Not “womiccumalobus” because not openly cultural Marxist. Middle -class and generally well-off. The London Bubble Scum” bit remains to be seen. Helping the scummy state out in its brazen persecution of one of the few overt fighters against the left’s plan is not a good start.

    And the element of snobbery of course “Snob-Cons” perhaps.

    The CM Plan is that first the white working class will be destroyed and replaced ( with largely non-workers) and then whites in general. The “womi” middle class is in denial about the last bit and don’t care about the first bit–cos it isn’t their kids getting imported dick in every orifice. As numbers and 3rd world morality grow here however it will be. As in Germany/Sweden with middle and working class both getting it.

    So the snob-cons are mega-keen to uphold “fair trials” –unless you are an old white sleb etc–and are just eaten up with concern for “justice” in the same country where molesting an 11 year old girl gets you a suspended sentence because your missus can’t speak English and 4 grand to have her taught at our expense. Ordered by a Judge. If you belong to one of CM client groups.

    Don’t get me wrong. I think most middle class folk ARE decent patriots who–however uncouth TR may be– know very well he is on the side of good and is being shafted and his life endangered by TPTB.

    But now it appears we may have to deal–on the borders of our own ranks– with a newly exposed group of useful idiots (to use marxist terminology) all the more dangerous because they are ostensibly on our side. Idiots useful to the CM cause. The SnobCons. Let the state float some crappy excuse for its antics and there the SnobCon’s will be nodding sagely and astroturfing “Well this is a bit of an shafting BUT..”

  7. You are aware, of course, that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is, in fact, Tommy Robinson. If an American 4,000 miles (6,440 km) away knows that, surely a Brit knows it, too.

  8. I think that it’s interesting that a great many trials are reported on whilst on-going. The reporting black-out is an unusual thing.

    Perhaps we might ask ourselves what the common factor might be in two trials that TR has been found in contempt of…?

    DK

  9. You are aware, of course, that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is, in fact, Tommy Robinson.

    Yes, of course.

  10. 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.

    The two motives are not mutually exclusive. The man has the knowledge, so he spills it out, dripping in a bit of contempt for the simple rubes who didn’t even know what questions to ask.

    @David Stanley

    I don’t know if working class people realise how that disqualifies his content.

    Count me as one of those, though I’m not British working class by any stretch of the imagination. This is something I really would like to understand better. I sometimes get the feeling that I’m hearing something very different than what the average middle-class Brit hears when we both listen to one of his interviews. I say to myself ‘it’s got to be that class thing I keep hearing about’, but that’s a label, not an explanation. I would very much appreciate an elaboration.

  11. He was arrested for ‘breach of the peace’, not a contempt of court under the Sub Judice rule for which he was actually found guilty and imprisoned.

    Could it be they decided to get him off the street – he had been there an hour – then figure out something with which they could nail him. It seems he was not in fact charged with nor is to be tried for breach of the peace.

    In what way was he disturbing the peace – shouting, swearing, acosting people – does anyone know?

  12. If TR doesn’t have a lawyer on speed dial then he really is the knuckle-dragging imbecile he’s been painted.

    More to the point, where is the enquiry into what went wrong? Not I hope some Lawrence /Grenfell whitewash about “institutional failings” but fingering some real people with a pulse who didn’t do their job; “pour encourager les autres”.

  13. zut alors! – an inquiry into Muslim paedo rape gangs, you mean? Why would they bother? After all that shit came to light, the good people of Rotherham voted their Labour council back in.

  14. Matthew M –

    I’m not sure what alternative the voters of Rotherham had, or what %age of the electorate actually bothered to vote, but the return of a Labour council does rather put the kibosh on serious reform

  15. David – presumably the alternative was an actual werewolf

    Otherwise I’ll have to think ill of them

Comments are closed.