The Lemon Fool

Cleared by the courts after the Metropolitan police stitched him up and assaulted him. They also banned him from London (inside the M25).

Meanwhile the Metropolitan police escort hate marches and arrest or threaten anyone who might upset the marchers.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/f ... n-32653003

A barrister's view on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYnzJs7I9Q

Nemo wrote:Cleared by the courts after the Metropolitan police stitched him up and assaulted him. They also banned him from London (inside the M25).

Meanwhile the Metropolitan police escort hate marches and arrest or threaten anyone who might upset the marchers.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/f ... n-32653003

A barrister's view on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYnzJs7I9Q

He was cleared on a technicality - wrong date on police form.

"Robinson has been convicted for multiple crimes involving violence, stalking, financial and immigration fraud, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court. He has served at least four separate prison terms: for assault in 2005, for using false travel documents to enter the United States in 2012, for mortgage fraud in 2014, and 13 months in 2018 for contempt of court after publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering a law court (contravening a court order that disallows reporting on such trials while proceedings are ongoing)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

Well. Thomas Giles Robinson (born 1 June 1950) is a British singer, bassist, radio presenter and long-time LGBT rights activist, best known for the hits "Glad to Be Gay"

Ah not that one.

The point is that he was 'banned' from attending protest marches/meetings, unlike the mob who now take over London every weekend

If the police 'banned' him then why not the people who are on hate marches

Usual double standard. I'm glad that I don't live in London

Nemo wrote:The point is that he was 'banned' from attending protest marches/meetings, unlike the mob who now take over London every weekend

If the police 'banned' him then why not the people who are on hate marches

Usual double standard. I'm glad that I don't live in London

I can't be bothered to look it up but the reason just might be his previous convictions for violence and public order offences. He was also specifically asked by the organisers of the Jewish march not to attend but he ignored them. (Hmm, I wonder why?)

If by 'hate march', you mean the pro Palestine marches, why should anyone be banned from going to those unless they have relevant convictions? Are you against the right to demonstrate and free speech?

If you don't live in London, how do you know it is 'taken' over by the mob every weekend? London is actually quite a big place, and the demos are confined to a designated part of Central London (like all major London demos).

RockRabbit wrote: I can't be bothered to look it up but the reason just might be his previous convictions for violence and public order offences. He was also specifically asked by the organisers of the Jewish march not to attend but he ignored them. (Hmm, I wonder why?)

Tommy Robinson is actually a pro-Israel right-winger, he's been on pro-Israel demonstrations before, (there's even a picture of him on the internet wearing a Mossad t-shirt) so the question is rather, why did the organisers not want him to attend?

Another question is why the police decided to issue a dispersal order. Was it because they agreed with the march organisers that Tommy shouldn't be allowed there, or because they thought an un-named right-wing group might attend, which the article doesn't state whether Tommy belongs to?

RockRabbit wrote: If by 'hate march', you mean the pro Palestine marches, why should anyone be banned from going to those unless they have relevant convictions? AAAre you against the right to demonstrate and free speech?

Are we getting to a point where organisers of demonstrations can dictate to to the police who isn't allowed the freedom to travel where they want, and the police are in effect appeasing the demonstrators if they threaten violence?

MuddyBoots wrote:Tommy Robinson is actually a pro-Israel right-winger, he's been on pro-Israel demonstrations before, (there's even a picture of him on the internet wearing a Mossad t-shirt) so the question is rather, why did the organisers not want him to attend?

Ah little Stephen getting in to trouble again...he does seem to have his fans, even more than his aliases

But If I was organising a valid march I wouldn't want someone on bail, and famous for, racist thuggery and incitement about - but I suppose it depends on the type of crowd you want?
In this case though I heard at the time it part of the conditions of his bail that he stay out of the area?

For the organisers I think it would be more about the tainting of their protest with him present
- I've heard it put that if you're at an event and the fascists are there doing their fascist stuff and you're not evicting them you're at a fascist event
- I think this protest had better motivations and having this scrote present undermined those

servodude wrote: But If I was organising a valid march I wouldn't want someone on bail, and famous for, racist thuggery and incitement about - but I suppose it depends on the type of crowd you want?
In this case though I heard at the time it part of the conditions of his bail that he stay out of the area?

For the organisers I think it would be more about the tainting of their protest with him present
- I've heard it put that if you're at an event and the fascists are there doing their fascist stuff and you're not evicting them you're at a fascist event
- I think this protest had better motivations and having this scrote present undermined those

Well I don't know about his bail conditions - they aren't mentioned in the newspaper article - but if the protest organisers want to micromanage who is and isn't allowed to attend their event then my point is, should they be allowed to do that in a public place? If they want to have that kind of authority they're better off having their protest on private property.

MuddyBoots wrote:

servodude wrote: But If I was organising a valid march I wouldn't want someone on bail, and famous for, racist thuggery and incitement about - but I suppose it depends on the type of crowd you want?
In this case though I heard at the time it part of the conditions of his bail that he stay out of the area?

For the organisers I think it would be more about the tainting of their protest with him present
- I've heard it put that if you're at an event and the fascists are there doing their fascist stuff and you're not evicting them you're at a fascist event
- I think this protest had better motivations and having this scrote present undermined those

Well I don't know about his bail conditions - they aren't mentioned in the newspaper article - but if the protest organisers want to micromanage who is and isn't allowed to attend their event then my point is, should they be allowed to do that in a public place? If they want to have that kind of authority they're better off having their protest on private property.

The OP mentioned the M25 area and a quick check seems to confirm my memory that this was court ordered https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68058932

But on the bigger picture I'd argue that the protestors have a duty to ensure their protest is compliant with the law and a motivation for it to be well received by the wider public
- so I can't see how a request along the lines of "famous fascists please f**k off" when organising a protest isn't acceptable?
Having this walloper associated with your cause isn't going to do much for it outside a very narrow nasty cohort, run the risk of the event being overshadowed and very likely disrupted.

In my head it's the same as keeping known violent casuals/ultras away from football crowds

servodude wrote: The OP mentioned the M25 area and a quick check seems to confirm my memory that this was court ordered https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68058932

But on the bigger picture I'd argue that the protestors have a duty to ensure their protest is compliant with the law and a motivation for it to be well received by the wider public
- so I can't see how a request along the lines of "famous fascists please f**k off" when organising a protest isn't acceptable?
Having this walloper associated with your cause isn't going to do much for it outside a very narrow nasty cohort, run the risk of the event being overshadowed and very likely disrupted.

In my head it's the same as keeping known violent casuals/ultras away from football crowds

That seems rather strange, because if he was in breach of his bail conditions then what was the need for a dispersal order and why wasn't the bail issue included in the recent court case which ended up with "no case to answer"? Unless the bail conditions are part of a separate legal case?

Anyway, the protest organisers can request all they want but if they don't have the legal clout to prevent him attending, it's still just a request. I don't know Tommy's motivations for attending, but if he is a publicity seeker then creating all these headlines for him is playing into his hands. It might have been better to just ignore him altogether, but then we're forgetting the interests of the media - this protest without all the Tommy Robinson brouhaha would hardly have justified all the column inches and we would have probably never heard about it.

MuddyBoots wrote:

servodude wrote: The OP mentioned the M25 area and a quick check seems to confirm my memory that this was court ordered https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-68058932

But on the bigger picture I'd argue that the protestors have a duty to ensure their protest is compliant with the law and a motivation for it to be well received by the wider public
- so I can't see how a request along the lines of "famous fascists please f**k off" when organising a protest isn't acceptable?
Having this walloper associated with your cause isn't going to do much for it outside a very narrow nasty cohort, run the risk of the event being overshadowed and very likely disrupted.

In my head it's the same as keeping known violent casuals/ultras away from football crowds

That seems rather strange, because if he was in breach of his bail conditions then what was the need for a dispersal order and why wasn't the bail issue included in the recent court case which ended up with "no case to answer"? Unless the bail conditions are part of a separate legal case?

Anyway, the protest organisers can request all they want but if they don't have the legal clout to prevent him attending, it's still just a request. I don't know Tommy's motivations for attending, but if he is a publicity seeker then creating all these headlines for him is playing into his hands. It might have been better to just ignore him altogether, but then we're forgetting the interests of the media - this protest without all the Tommy Robinson brouhaha would hardly have justified all the column inches and we would have probably never heard about it.

Agreed
But it's very much a Catch 22 for the organisers
- this little chap has his supporters in the press and it doesn't really matter to them if the headline is "he's gone and been arrested" or "been asked not to go and suppressed" they''ll get something to publish about their pet perma-victim
so he steals the oxygen from the protest or rally either way

servodude wrote: Agreed
But it's very much a Catch 22 for the organisers
- this little chap has his supporters in the press and it doesn't really matter to them if the headline is "he's gone and been arrested" or "been asked not to go and suppressed" they''ll get something to publish about their pet perma-victim
so he steals the oxygen from the protest or rally either way

Yes I suppose that's the risk anyone takes when they have a public protest, they can't control who else is going to turn up and either disrupt it or steal the limelight. I doubt if the press are his supporters though or want to pet him, but just want good copy to sell and some people are happy to oblige. In which case there's more oxygen generated by an argument like this, than a peaceful protest without any arrests or controversy. Look at how the St George's day event is covered by Yahoo, it's all about the violence and arrests, and says very little about the rest of the event which most people attended.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/violence-brea ... 00149.html

MuddyBoots wrote:

servodude wrote: Agreed
But it's very much a Catch 22 for the organisers
- this little chap has his supporters in the press and it doesn't really matter to them if the headline is "he's gone and been arrested" or "been asked not to go and suppressed" they''ll get something to publish about their pet perma-victim
so he steals the oxygen from the protest or rally either way

Yes I suppose that's the risk anyone takes when they have a public protest, they can't control who else is going to turn up and either disrupt it or steal the limelight. I doubt if the press are his supporters though or want to pet him, but just want good copy to sell and some people are happy to oblige. In which case there's more oxygen generated by an argument like this, than a peaceful protest without any arrests or controversy. Look at how the St George's day event is covered by Yahoo, it's all about the violence and arrests, and says very little about the rest of the event which most people attended.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/violence-brea ... 00149.html

"Nothing really happens a St George's Day event" would be a great headline but "far-right groups and groups linked to football clubs travelling from elsewhere in the UK" mean you don't get nice things

Lets be clear
- these are thugs, they look for excuses to thug all day long and have done so for as long as I can remember
- sometimes it's sport they try to use to excuse themselves, sometimes it's religion, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's nationalism (theirs or others!), sometimes it is because they get confused about what a pediatrician is.. the common theme is "thugs gotta thug"

I'd love to deny them oxygen - but that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon

kempiejon wrote:Ah not that one.

No - not that one

The one in the thread isn't even really called that name. His real name is Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. This TR moniker was allegedly used to cover his previous convictions under his real name.

He has also been known as Andrew McMaster, Paul Harris and Wayne King.

I think that Tommy may have upset someone:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6658524/s ... upporters/

I'm not a fan of Tommy but I do feel that he is being targeted by the somewhat corrupt Met. police

didds wrote: and Wayne King.

Are you sure that's not just Viz? Or a Viz-wannabe?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

didds wrote: and Wayne King.

Are you sure that's not just Viz? Or a Viz-wannabe?

I confess I thought much the same thing

We had a cleaner at school with that first name and surname Kerr...

He was acquitted and the press reported it was on a technicality (ie the date was wrong) however what actually happened was the case was thrown out , ie no dispersal order was in place for him to comply with.

In fact the court made the unusual step of publishing why there was no case to answer, presumably to ensure the judge was not criticised for letting go a guilty man on a technicality.

He was charged with failing to comply with a dispersal order.

There were four areas looked at :-

Was there a material mistake of fact?

Yes. The officer testified that he the power of the section 35 to prevent disorder as march of the Palestine solitary campaign. This was false they were not ones marching, it was a protest against anti Semitism. Feels like someone was making stuff up on the hoof.

Does it comply with home office guidance? (section 34/35 has guidance for application which the police officer sited as justification)

Turns out he had never read it so was siting something he had no idea what it actually said. It turns out the court does not regard reading this stuff as necessary. However this particular guidance says the power to restrict liberty is not to be taken lightly. Thus the officer to required to have considered the guidance and applied it in the situation, which given he'd never read it indicated he could not in fact have done so. This was quite a big deal, section 34/35 are so powerful police need to be clearly articulate why they invoked it and the judge basically concluded they had not and it was therefore not lawful.

Was the authorisation actually in force?

This was where the date came from the authorisation was dated the 24th and he was arrested on the 26th. There was no lawful authorisation in force. This killed things good and proper. Even worse the Police got desperate and then tried to site a different dispersal order as justification, but this one related to the city of London (where he wasn't when they arrested him). I think the judge was becoming tired by now.

Was he going to comply with the order?

Which is what the Police really were prosecuting him for. By Police admission they ordered him to move and either within 30 seconds or 60-90 seconds they suggested he become aggressive and arrested him. Tommy Robinson testified he asked which way do you want me to go in response to being asked to leave at which point they arrested him. The court observed this was a very short time for the Police to conclude that he was not going to comply. In other words the court doesn't believe the police proved he had failed to comply as they had not given him long enough to do so.

Then they pepper sprayed a handcuffed man.

I don't really have a lot of time for Tommy and his ilk, but equally I'm appalled by how incompetent and malicious the Met Police appears to be and how little the main stream media reports about such things.

Anyway, I think he'll sue and he'll win and we the taxpayer will be compensating him, should be deducted from the salaries of the officer who did the arresting IMHO. Especially the one pepper spraying, they assaulted him whilst he was being unlawfully detained, big damages pay out.

I wonder if the arresting Officer made a 'mistake' in the heat of the moment when he couldn't remember what day of the week it was?