How many times have you read obfuscated fakery on the internet, in the gutter fake-news press and by those who love to troll comment sections on Pro-Tommy articles? In fact, the articles to which we are referring to don't even need to have a "Pro-Tommy" slant. They could be articles that are written without an agenda, without any bias slant, and with an objective eye for the interpretation and application of the law.
The fullfact.org website claims to be the UK's independent fact-checking charity who provides free tools, information and advice so that anyone can check the claims they hear from politicians and the media. We propose this is where the problem starts for them, politicians and the media are generally, and certainly in the most part, biased and hostile towards Tommy Robinson. The website also makes the claim that they are independent, impartial and effective, the question remains to what end exactly?
The fullfact.org website makes the bold claim that Tommy Robinson was not prosecuted for causing distress to men on trial for grooming. In brief, they examine the claim that:
"Tommy Robinson was prosecuted for causing distress to defendants in a grooming trial."
They then conclude that:
"Mr Robinson was prosecuted and found guilty of contempt of court for breaking a reporting ban".
You can see this "independent, impartial and effective fact-checking website" is anything but what it claims to be with only a modicum of common sense and the ability to read the judgement approved by the Court for handing down. The case between Her Majesty's Attorney General and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon gives very clear (if not disputable) context and provides conclusions that are framed by law.
"aggressively confronting and filming some of the defendants in that case as they arrived at court, thereby directly interfering with the course of justice".How did the Judges come to that third conclusion?
Dame Victoria Sharp, in her "judgement approved by the court for handing down" which was passed to Tommy's legal team dated 9th of July 2019, provides a "LEGAL CONTEXT" for the decisions and judgements that were made. Page 7 and 8 of this document go into detail (point 26) which we will copy here for you:
The law of contempt has been supplemented and shaped by statute. Four aspects of the law are relevant in this case. The first is interference with parties on their way to and from Court. It is well established that this may amount to contempt at common law. The Court of Appeal summarised the principles and their rationale in R v Runting (1989) 89 Cr. App. R. 243, 245:
"...the law insists that a defendant and witness, and indeed anyone else who has a duty to perform at Court, whether in a criminal trial or in a civil trial, is entitled to go to and from the Court, that is between his home and the Court, whether on foot or otherwise, without being molested or assaulted or threatened with molestation.You can see that original part of the "judgement approved by the court for handing down" below.There are two reasons for that, it seems to this Court. The first is, there must be nothing to create in the minds of such persons any fear such as to make them less likely to wish to come to Court to carry out their proper functions. The second reason, which is perhaps more difficult to put adequately into words is this: that the authority of and dignity of the Court require that those who attend the Court to carry out their duties should be allowed to do so without let or hindrance, and again without fear of molestation."
Journalists have been warned by Tommy Robinson that what has happened to him, can now happen to them also, journalists should carefully read the above citation.
Just remember the wording used here - hindrance, fear, molestation, assaulted, threatened, molested, as they relate specifically to the Judge's third reason for finding Tommy guilty because he was in their mind:
"aggressively confronting and filming some of the defendants in that case as they arrived at court, thereby directly interfering with the course of justice".
The case, as now put forward, has three linked aspects to it. The first aspect is a risk that (a) one or more of the defendants would (i) be harassed on their way to Court by followers of the respondent who would have seen the video, or (ii) reasonably apprehend that this might happen, creating distraction and ANXIETY which would impede their ability to participate properly in the trial. Secondly, in the light of the first risk, it is suggested that there was risk (b), that the Court and/or the police might have to take or arrange additional measures to ensure that the defendants on bail would be able to continue to attend Court without hindrance or harassment, and to participate properly in the trial. Thirdly, publication of the video is said to have created a "more than remote risk" that, with or without such measures, one or more of the defendants on bail might abscond; the suggested reasons are having seen the video and/or having been harassed by followers of the respondent who had seen it and/or being fearful of such harassment.
These are the charges laid out for the Attorney General's case against Tommy. Again look at the words used - harassed, distraction, ANXIETY, hindrance, harassment, and fearful.
You can see a copy of page 21 point 68 of the "judgement approved by the court for handing down" below.
In that article, we provided you with a copy of a legal paper that spelt out in unequivocal terms, that Tommy was accused of causing a Muslim paedophile ANXIETY because the poor Muslim child rapist should be able to go to Court without "fear" of "molestation".
Can you see a repetition of these legal terms? - Fear, molestation, harassed, distraction, hindrance, harassment, fearful, assaulted, threatened and ANXIETY! All of these words are used in reference to the Attorney Generals case against Tommy, specifically Tommys "treatment" of the now-convicted Muslim paedophiles as they entered the Court.
These words specifically apply to the "LEGAL CONTEXT" that Dame Victoria Sharp cited in her reasoning for coming to a conclusion that Tommy was:
"aggressively confronting and filming some of the defendants in that case as they arrived at court, thereby directly interfering with the course of justice".The Attorney General specifically cited the word ANXIETY as you can see below. Tommy caused ANXIETY to Muslim paedophiles as they walked into Court.
What this "fact-checking" website charity has done is no different to the bias fake-news gutter press and those who have an axe to grind with Tommy. They have used a semantical argument that actually holds no weight at all when the word ANXIETY has been mentioned and in fact, is covered BY LAW which the Attorney General and the two Judges agree on, hence the third reason for Tommy's conviction under the Contempt Of Court Act 1981.
ANXIETY is synonymous with "fear" and "fearfulness". Everyone should know and understand why we say and will continue to say, without fear or prejudice, that Tommy Robinson was found guilty of causing a convicted Muslim paedophile rapist ANXIETY!
The last time we looked, the Attorney General was PROSECUTING the case against Tommy, the Attorney General used the word ANXIETY in his prosecution of the case, so it is evident that the fullfact.org website has OMITTED this fact from their "fact-checking" and come to an entirely erroneous conclusion.
Even if we were to take the fullfact.org website claim that Tommy Robinson was not prosecuted for causing DISTRESS to men on trial for grooming, let's look at the wording they have used - DISTRESSED. The word DISTRESSED is synonymous with another word. Can you guess what that word is? That word is, of course, ANXIETY! The media, supposed "fact-checkers" and politicians always play a word salad war game, however, we see through the fog of semantical obfuscation and call it out.
Let's see if this "independent, impartial and effective fact-checking website" that has just been "fact-checked" and exposed for its semantical obfuscating propaganda realises its mistake and corrects itself accordingly. That would be the "independent, impartial and effective" thing to do after all.
We have sent them an email advising of their error, feel free to pass this information onto anyone who also obfuscates this point, many are guilty of playing the language game, call them out!
