Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qpr fan arrested.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

    I'm mates with Tommy, my information is directly from him and his lawyers. The law does not state the offence carries any minimum custodial sentence. Rod Liddle was found guilty of the same offence plead guilty and was given a fine.
    You're clearly not being completely honest about your ' friendship ' with Yaxley Lennon as you have made too many mistakes... Do you want to tell us all again how his initial legal team weren't in charge for the appeal or how he never admitted the offence to avoid a 15 month sentence on top of his 3 month suspended one?

    Maybe you could tell us how the studio was built when it wasn't again?

    Liddle didn't stand outside a court broadcasting and wasn't out on suspended sentence either. Oh, and the 10 month minimum for what he did is actually real... But you would know that if he was your friend...

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by OldR View Post

      You're clearly not being completely honest about your ' friendship ' with Yaxley Lennon as you have made too many mistakes... Do you want to tell us all again how his initial legal team weren't in charge for the appeal or how he never admitted the offence to avoid a 15 month sentence on top of his 3 month suspended one?

      Maybe you could tell us how the studio was built when it wasn't again?

      Liddle didn't stand outside a court broadcasting and wasn't out on suspended sentence either. Oh, and the 10 month minimum for what he did is actually real... But you would know that if he was your friend...
      I have made no mistakes, nowhere in this thread do I say his initial legal team were not in charge for his appeal, I stated they always contested all charges, they even contested his previous contempt conviction. Only when his initial legal team told him they brokered a deal that he wouldn't have to serve anymore time in prison if he pleaded guilty at his retrial did he decide to sack them.
      He's new legal team contested all charges at the retrial which was referred to the attorny general.

      He did not plead guilty to the charge of contempt on the day he was convicted, that is just a lie.

      I've stood in the studio, if you watch his YouTube channel you will see the studio you claim was never built in many of his videos.

      The sentence guidelines for this offence have no mandatory custodial sentence, it can range from a fine to a two year custodial sentence. Not sure where you heard otherwise.

      https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...ccess-hearings

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by OldR View Post

        He's not in it for the money but has repeatedly lied about suing a number of institutions, publications and persons to fleece more 'donations' from the gullible. For example, he made a mad rant/plead for money after the Darren Osborne case saying he was going to sue the Metropolitan Police, CPS, The Independent and Lizzie Dearden for what was said in court and received 'thousands' of donations equating to thousands of pounds despite the fact that anything said in court is not subjected to libel laws and The Independent/Dearden can't be sued for reporting what was said in court.... Yes, those gullible should have done some research to ascertain whether or not he was telling the truth but he purposefully set out to deceive the naive for their money. It's now his full time job and everything he does is for the money now.

        As for a 'clear prejudice' against the white working class, absolute nonsense. If I hated the people from the background I came from I'd be celebrating how many he has managed to con. Also, he isn't working-class. His real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, he grew up in leafy Bedfordshire (not Luton) and he now lives in Wilstead. He's about as working-class as I am a Dutchman.

        Should he be subjected to 'special treatment' by the State? Absolutely not and aspects of his recent case would be pulled up by Amnesty International if his name was Ngdongo Maushe and he lived in Zimbabwe but two wrongs don't make a right and he is a despicable, rabble-rousing opportunist who deceives naive and uneducated people.
        If he is deceiving naive people then he sounds like every politician in this country including the Conservatives that you vote for.
        Half of MPs have a shadier past/present than TR yet you choose to single him out?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

          That legal team was dismissed before they could represent Tommy in court,
          Hmmmmmm, that's not a mistake, is it.

          Why do people always claim to be friends with Yaxley Lennon when their hero is exposed for what he is?

          As for the studio, you post one video from his completed studio from the last year then...

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by SM3 Ranger View Post

            If he is deceiving naive people then he sounds like every politician in this country including the Conservatives that you vote for.
            Half of MPs have a shadier past/present than TR yet you choose to single him out?
            Anyone who wants to be a MP should be banned from being one.

            However, not delivering on promises is very different from conning people out of money.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by OldR View Post

              Mate, you are stark racing and a permanent resident on cloud cuckoo land. Seriously, you need to get off Twitter as soon as possible.

              I am a proud Conservative voter who also voted LEAVE in 2016. Not everyone who voted for , or against, Brexit shares the same consensus on all matters though I am terribly disappointed to be the one who breaks this to you.

              Yaxley Lennon isn't a journalist. He has never attended one journalism course and is not recognised by any journalistic body to be one. Nothing to do with Looney lefties or political correctness gone mad but for one simple reason, he isn't a journalist.Social Media influencer? Yep, I'll give you that but he isn't a journalist.

              if he was a journalist, by the way, he wouldn't have broken the law and fall foul of clearly defined contempt of court laws. The media blackouts on the trial, in case you didn't know, were also instigated by the Crown PROSECUTION Service who wanted to find the defendants guilty after a fair trial. Once again, nothing to do with Looney lefties , political correctness or appeasing Muslims but because they WANTED to have rapists found guilty and sent to prison. What did Yaxley Lennon do to help secure their prosecution? Oh yeah, that's right, act in a manner that could have got them off the hook and allow rapists to walk free... The blackout was lifted once all three trials were concluded and what happened next? Oh yeah, the mainstream media covered the crimes, trials and sentences. Strange that, isn't it...

              I'm not sure of the relevance of your anecdotes of Africans affecting the working class when discussing the criminality of Stephen Yaxley Lennon to be honest. Is there a point you were trying to make because, if you were, it was lost on me... Mass immigration was part of the reason why I voted for Brexit by the way..... Remember what I said about not having a consensus of views?

              FInally, I note with interest how you went out of your way to label me a leftie with his head in the sand, post a couple of conspiracy theories you read on Twitter and post a couple of YouTube videos to add weight to your, erm, cough, argument, but didn't once address the issues of how Yaxley Lennon has decieved, conned and fleeced thousands of naive people with his lies... I wonder why.
              Have a look at the definition of journalism and have a look at the work he does for Rebel Media.

              Journalists don't ever get arrested... phone hacking scandal... cough cough

              Victory for Robinson that they were forced to cover it. Ignored the major FLA marches last year but running commentary even in the lead up to the Remoaner march

              My point is there is a huge section of this country that blindly let the Establishment do what they want and the abuse of Robinson because of your negative perception of his history is part of that.

              I didn't talk about his history because it's irrelevant. It's not okay for the Establishment to pick out individuals and abuse them and the law because of that. They aren't picking on him for past convictions for fraud. They picked on him because he helps brings a voice (in a clumsy way) to grievances held by a section of society often ignored

              If you're from the right or a centrist who would have voted for Blair, whatever. Point is it's a shame otherwise intelligent people get swept up by the propaganda and look past abuses because they think they're on the "good side". Gaz is right that is what is clouding your judgement

              Nothing else to say on this from me. If you don't get me then fair enough. Said at the start your mind was made up

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by OldR View Post

                Hmmmmmm, that's not a mistake, is it.

                Why do people always claim to be friends with Yaxley Lennon when their hero is exposed for what he is?

                As for the studio, you post one video from his completed studio from the last year then...
                Before they could represent him in the retrial, where a plea hearing was required. It wasn't required at the appeal hearing.
                This is getting tedious, you're obviously not interested in the truth

                Comment


                • #68
                  I think we need separate the issue from the man because every conversation about T-bag Robinson inevitably becomes a straw man argument. You can judge a man by the company he keeps and by the looks of the low-rent yobs that turn up in support of Robinson says it all. I'm pleased he had a hard time in jail, shows the system isn't all HD tv's and parties like the Daily Madeup likes to pretend. He might not explicitly say anything racist, but he doesn't need to because the consequence of his words have the same effect. He claims to be against radical Islam but it's funny how it's never these 'radicals' who have their shops smashed up or receive racist abuse in public. These so called 'hard' men who turn for the EDL or Football Lads Day Out or whatever it's called are idiots who know nothing about Islam or Politics and should stick to the football violence where at least there was some sort of lose code of conduct.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Route One View Post

                    Have a look at the definition of journalism and have a look at the work he does for Rebel Media.

                    Journalists don't ever get arrested... phone hacking scandal... cough cough

                    Victory for Robinson that they were forced to cover it. Ignored the major FLA marches last year but running commentary even in the lead up to the Remoaner march

                    My point is there is a huge section of this country that blindly let the Establishment do what they want and the abuse of Robinson because of your negative perception of his history is part of that.

                    I didn't talk about his history because it's irrelevant. It's not okay for the Establishment to pick out individuals and abuse them and the law because of that. They aren't picking on him for past convictions for fraud. They picked on him because he helps brings a voice (in a clumsy way) to grievances held by a section of society often ignored

                    If you're from the right or a centrist who would have voted for Blair, whatever. Point is it's a shame otherwise intelligent people get swept up by the propaganda and look past abuses because they think they're on the "good side". Gaz is right that is what is clouding your judgement

                    Nothing else to say on this from me. If you don't get me then fair enough. Said at the start your mind was made up
                    'victory for Robinson that they were forced to cover it'

                    They had reported on similar cases before he committed contempt of court and they will always do. With this particular trial the CPS requested a media blackout for a duration to ensure a fair trial. After this was lifted the media covered the crimes and trial as they were always going to do. What Yaxley-Lennon and his followers wanted was something akin to a show trial which is simply not how we do things in Britain. Every person has the right to a fair, and honest, trial but some people wanted it to be run on the basis of Britain's Got Talent.

                    Should the DLFA marches get more coverage? I'm not sure and they aren't the only large protest marches held in London not to receive any attention. In fact, most marches DON'T receive any coverage at all and it can be quite frustrating maneuvering around Whitehall when one is on that has had no significant coverage.

                    "They picked on him because he helps brings a voice (in a clumsy way) to grievances held by a section of society often ignored"

                    But not one victim of the rape gangs has, even using anonymity, come out and thanked Yaxley Lennon for his 'work' so who is he giving a voice to? I get that people are angry, I honestly get that, and I understand the need to understand why a small section of a particular part of the country is so significantly over-represented in these trials, but let the courts and CPS do their job. He isn't helping the victims - how helpful is it putting trials at risk of collapse? - and is just happy building his 'brand' and the financial rewards which come with it. That;s the simple truth.

                    And I didn't judge him before understanding what he is like. He is, whether I like it or not, a 'political' force at present and I took time to understand him and what he represents. Needless to say, I am less than impressed.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

                      Before they could represent him in the retrial, where a plea hearing was required. It wasn't required at the appeal hearing.
                      This is getting tedious, you're obviously not interested in the truth
                      He hasn't had a re-trial. He was represented by a team who acknowledged his contempt of court in Leeds up to two weeks ago which included an appeal hearing, in court. Something you said NEVER happened.

                      As for not interested in the truth, do you want to explain why every newspaper who covered the Leeds 'case' said he admitted the offence and yet you're coming on here saying that he never? You can't be sued for saying something in court or for reporting what was said in court but you can be if you say someone said something in court which they didn't. We know he likes the cash so why hasn't he sued or even asked for correcting statements...?

                      And finally, rather than try to play the 'you're not interested in truth' card, why don't you post a video of this completed studio which you have stood in.... we both know why...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by OldR View Post

                        He hasn't had a re-trial. He was represented by a team who acknowledged his contempt of court in Leeds up to two weeks ago which included an appeal hearing, in court. Something you said NEVER happened.

                        As for not interested in the truth, do you want to explain why every newspaper who covered the Leeds 'case' said he admitted the offence and yet you're coming on here saying that he never? You can't be sued for saying something in court or for reporting what was said in court but you can be if you say someone said something in court which they didn't. We know he likes the cash so why hasn't he sued or even asked for correcting statements...?

                        And finally, rather than try to play the 'you're not interested in truth' card, why don't you post a video of this completed studio which you have stood in.... we both know why...
                        His case was reheard at the old Bailey where Tommy and his team intended to contest all charges. Because of this the judge decided it was appropriate to refer the case to the attorny general.

                        ​​​​​​https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-at-old-bailey

                        As for the studio

                        ​​​​​​https://youtu.be/TVVzdkkWFas

                        You can check out Jack Buckbys YouTube too as he uses the studio to film his Rebel media content

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by gaza09 View Post

                          His case was reheard at the old Bailey where Tommy and his team intended to contest all charges. Because of this the judge decided it was appropriate to refer the case to the attorny general.

                          ​​​​​​https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-at-old-bailey

                          As for the studio

                          ​​​​​​https://youtu.be/TVVzdkkWFas

                          You can check out Jack Buckbys YouTube too as he uses the studio to film his Rebel media content
                          Big problem here... you have posted a video from an empty attic room with a couple of lights in it... So, I ask again, where is this studio that you have stood in? Because, what he described, and what people paid money for, was a high-tec room which would contain a proper studio... Are you suggesting that he simply built an extension?

                          As for the the article you posted, that would have been the re-trial but the judged referred it upwards. If you get arrested you will go to a magistrates court and if it goes up to Crown you have not been 'tried' until it has been heard by the Higher body. Same here, he turned up to what was, in effect, a hearing... Regardless, that was on 23/10/18 the day AFTER he sacked his legal team who had admitted his contempt of Court in Leeds...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by OldR View Post

                            Anyone who wants to be a MP should be banned from being one.

                            However, not delivering on promises is very different from conning people out of money.
                            Ha ha........... and Mps and government officials don't fiddle their expenses etc(which is conning us the taxpayer)?
                            At least giving money to TR is free will and not a forced taxation.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Anyway back to the bonfire burners, and the real question that needs addressing.
                              Is it now a criminal offence if you offend somebody in the UK?
                              Another question should it be?....Personally I think not

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by SM3 Ranger View Post

                                Ha ha........... and Mps and government officials don't fiddle their expenses etc(which is conning us the taxpayer)?
                                At least giving money to TR is free will and not a forced taxation.
                                And those MPs should be subjected to the law too... I know the people who 'donated' to Yaxley Lennon when he was pretending to build a studio (subsequently shown to be a loft extension) and sue people who couldn't be sued did so of free will and SHOULD have investigated whether he was telling the truth, but something doesn't sit easy with me when working-class people are basically conned and ripped off for money/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X