Those who are defending "Robinson" and suggest he is being punished for who he is, and not what he did, are completely missing the point. This extract from the BBC's legal correspondent, Clive Coleman, explains it pretty well:-

"Contempt of court laws exist to ensure people get fair trials. The idea is that juries must not be influenced by anything but the evidence they hear in court.

The rules apply to everyone from journalists to people posting comments on social media, and even jurors.

If someone interferes with a trial, the defendants can walk free and a new trial may have to be held.

The maximum sentence for contempt of court is two years in prison, but it can also be punished with an unlimited fine.

Contempt includes publishing anything that creates a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing "active" criminal proceedings. Proceedings become "active" when a suspect is arrested.

Someone could also be in contempt by actions including taking photographs or film, recording what is said in court or talking to a jury member about a case.

Reporting restrictions had been put in place postponing the publication of any details of the 2018 case at Leeds Crown Court until the end of a series of linked trials involving 29 defendants.

Robinson broadcast the footage from outside the court on 25 May 2018, while the jury in the second trial of the series was considering its verdict.

The video lasted an hour-and-a-half and was viewed online 250,000 times after being live-streamed on Facebook."

So just suppose that any of the lawyers defending the 29 accused men had successfully argued that their client's defence had been compromised and a guilty man had then walked free because of "Robinson's" contempt how would you feel about it?

Was what "Robinson" did really in the best interests of all the abused victims, if it potentially allowed their abusers to walk free?

The fact that reporting restrictions were in place also, I trust, lays to rest all those accusations about the press failing to do their job. They were bound by law not to report anything.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (06 Jul 2019 9.47am)

That is totally untrue. Nobody has ever given any proof that Lennon did anything to stop the grooming gangs. He just jumped on a moving bus to advertise his broader views about Muslims

Again I ask, show me any evidence his interventions have done something positive.

Much though you and so many others here might want this to be true, it isn't. It is simply wrong!

The answer is it is against the law and as the law is the same for everyone it is blind to issues of race or religion.

The government may well not want a backlash but they don't have any role at all in this. The person issuing the reporting restriction order would have been the presiding Judge who would take their decision unrestricted by government. Parliament may make the law but once made the judiciary operate it, free of any interference.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (06 Jul 2019 11.29am)

Except Cliff Richard wasn’t afforded any of this consideration.

Much though you and so many others here might want this to be true, it isn't. It is simply wrong!

The answer is it is against the law and as the law is the same for everyone it is blind to issues of race or religion.

The government may well not want a backlash but they don't have any role at all in this. The person issuing the reporting restriction order would have been the presiding Judge who would take their decision unrestricted by government. Parliament may make the law but once made the judiciary operate it, free of any interference.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (06 Jul 2019 11.29am)

It might have been reprehensible and something which deservedly attracted criticism but you are comparing chalk and cheese.

So far as I am aware CR was not even arrested, let alone charged with an offence and tried in a Court. His home was raided by the Police seeking evidence. Therefore there were nor could have been any reporting restrictions.