This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Badger11  Beckenham 22 Jul 21 8.11pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
According to the Mail TR's video had 1m views I think if I had been libelled I would also want to clear my name.
One more point |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
PalazioVecchio  south pole 22 Jul 21 8.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
According to the Mail TR's video had 1m views I think if I had been libelled I would also want to clear my name. how many hundred times has TR himself been libelled ?
Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 22 Jul 21 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Now I am very wary of TR for all sorts of reasons, and suspect he is the pay, or in thrall, of a variety of state agencies, but what I struggle to understand is why this trial did not have a jury? Is that standard with libel cases? I at first assumed it had but after reading the judgement, that is clearly not the case and it all seems to boil down to the Judge deciding not to believe the witnesses that TR produces. Surely that is the role of a jury? Happy to be educated on this one.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Jul 21 8.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio
how many hundred times has TR himself been libelled ? And this is what is wrong with our libel laws, not that this boy obviously had financial help but that if you don't have money you cannot sue. Don't complain that TR was sued complain that ordinary people with no access to money get no justice.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 22 Jul 21 9.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
And this is what is wrong with our libel laws, not that this boy obviously had financial help but that if you don't have money you cannot sue. Don't complain that TR was sued complain that ordinary people with no access to money get no justice. Well this chav got a financial reward. So is that the justice or was it TR losing the case.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Jul 21 9.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Well this chav got a financial reward. So is that the justice or was it TR losing the case. Don't forget that TR started this he decided to comment on the video of a young boy being attacked. He couldn't then back up his claims in court.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 22 Jul 21 10.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Well this chav got a financial reward. So is that the justice or was it TR losing the case. The chav has got a £100k settlement to pay as well as legal costs of £500k reportedly.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 22 Jul 21 11.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Now I am very wary of TR for all sorts of reasons, and suspect he is the pay, or in thrall, of a variety of state agencies, but what I struggle to understand is why this trial did not have a jury? Is that standard with libel cases? I at first assumed it had but after reading the judgement, that is clearly not the case and it all seems to boil down to the Judge deciding not to believe the witnesses that TR produces. Surely that is the role of a jury? Happy to be educated on this one. Juries in libel cases were effectively abolished in 2014. Trial by judge only now. There is the possibility of a jury trial if the court decides but I’m not aware of one. I assume the costs involved were a factor, plus the fact that juries may not be impartial, or so it is thought.
Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 23 Jul 21 5.21am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by DanH
The chav has got a £100k settlement to pay as well as legal costs of £500k reportedly. This could damage this kid for ever. Like I said again a pawn to try to finally shut down TR once and for all.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 23 Jul 21 6.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kevlee
Juries in libel cases were effectively abolished in 2014. Trial by judge only now. There is the possibility of a jury trial if the court decides but I’m not aware of one. I assume the costs involved were a factor, plus the fact that juries may not be impartial, or so it is thought. Right. One thing I have heard TR's supporters say is that the way in which the courts are effectively used against him is that they never, ever, put him in front of a jury. But if this is the case with all libel trials then I guess it is line but in terms of the impartiality, then I suspect that there is not a judge in the country who would not take against him and this trial does seem to boil down to a judge deciding against believing witnesses that TR called in his defence. I can remember a case bought against Nick Griffin, a fair while ago now, for inciting racial hatred (I think) for labeling Islam 'evil'. The case was based on undercover filming at a private meeting but a jury gave him a not guilty and if I remember correctly at the time, there was some disquiet even amongst the usual Lefties, that this was not perhaps the wisest of judicial moves for a whole host of reasons.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 23 Jul 21 7.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
I haven't followed the trial I don't know if anyone on here has? What evidence / witnesses did TR produce? At the pre-trial Robinson said he had loads of witnesses (unnamed) who could give evidence as to the bullying nature of this boy but that they were afraid to testify. I don't know if he was able to persuade them or if this was wishful thinking on his part. All we do know is that the onus was on him to prove the allegations and he didn't. If he feels the judge was wrong or bias he can appeal.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kevlee born Wandsworth emigrated to Lanc... 23 Jul 21 8.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Right. One thing I have heard TR's supporters say is that the way in which the courts are effectively used against him is that they never, ever, put him in front of a jury. But if this is the case with all libel trials then I guess it is line but in terms of the impartiality, then I suspect that there is not a judge in the country who would not take against him and this trial does seem to boil down to a judge deciding against believing witnesses that TR called in his defence. I can remember a case bought against Nick Griffin, a fair while ago now, for inciting racial hatred (I think) for labeling Islam 'evil'. The case was based on undercover filming at a private meeting but a jury gave him a not guilty and if I remember correctly at the time, there was some disquiet even amongst the usual Lefties, that this was not perhaps the wisest of judicial moves for a whole host of reasons. Would he have done better in front of a jury in say Bradford? I suspect not.
Following Palace since 25 Feb 1978 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.