Tommy Robinson shoots himself in the foot

[Diasi]

There was no need for the school staff to attend the Judge quite rightly accepted Robinsons own recording as admissible to the Court

Just for clarity, are you saying that the recordings made by Tommy Robinson, where school staff told him about the attacks, were admissible & therefore presumably played to the court.

Since Tommy Robinson was found guiltyof libel it would seem that, if what you say is correct, the court decided that the school staff had fabricated the allegations which weren't true & which he then repeated.

In which case why weren't libel procedings taken against the people who first made the allegations.

[Wandering Walter]

I am not going  to go round and round and around in circles on Robinsons load of nonsense , he was held to account for his behaviour yet again and lost yet again, Robinson is a liar 

I do not know for certain what the Court heard , for anyone to know that you would either have to be in Court to listen to the entire hearing or read the Court Transcript now that it is over and done with.


Robinson apparently secretly recorded a conversation with Staff at the school did it happen or was it fabricated by Robinson do you know ?, which he posted on Social Media the Judge was made aware of that fact by Robinson himself at the hearing to me that suggests he was trying to use it in his defence, Robinson also made other allegations about the schoolboy on Social Media as well.






Here is what the Guardian reported on the hearing and what the Judge said




https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/22/tommy-robinson-loses-libel-case-brought-by-syrian-schoolboy
     

[Alex22]

No way will I open a Guardian link 

[Wandering Walter]

    I do to see what the buggers are up to 

[Jacqueline]

I don't think we are hearing the truth here at all.  The Syrian boy didn't bring the case to court the damned lawyers who work for  immigrants did, they wouldn't work for the likes of you and me in a similar case. most ordinary people could never pay for lawyers to take on a libel case.

Is Tommy Robinson daft enough to say something that is not true?, I expect some will say yes, but I doubt it, he was obviously given information by the staff, I doubt he made this all up.  And as Diasi said why not take the staff to court too they started it.

[Diasi]

I do not know for certain what the Court heard , for anyone to know that you would either have to be in Court to listen to the entire hearing or read the Court Transcript now that it is over and done with.

Robinson apparently secretly recorded a conversation with Staff at the school did it happen or was it fabricated by Robinson do you know ?, which he posted on Social Media the Judge was made aware of that fact by Robinson himself at the hearing to me that suggests he was trying to use it in his defence, Robinson also made other allegations about the schoolboy on Social Media as well.
     

As this was a civil court case I look at it from the accepted legal judgement criteria for civil cases which is based on the 'balance of probabilities'.

I therefore submit that on the balance of probabilities,

a:Tommy Robinson, knowing how everything he says is scrutinised, would not make statements that he didn't consider to be factually correct.

b:It was reasonable for Tommy Robinson to believe that his informants, given their social standing, had given him factually correct information.

c:It was reasonable for Tommy Robinson to record the conversations in order to protect himself in the event of the legal system trying to stitch him up.

d:It was reasonable for Tommy Robinson to inform the Judge that he had recordings of the information given to him & they were the reason he thought that the information was factually correct.

If the Judge thought that Tommy Robinson had fabricated the recorded conversations, or that there were no recordings, would it not be reasonable for the Judge to order Tommy Robinson to produce the recordings to be played in court?

If the Judge thought there was any doubt about what Tommy Robinson said he'd been told by his informants, wouldn't the reasonable thing be for the Judge to require the informants to attend court so they could be questioned by the prosecution & by Tommy Robinson?

If the Judge had ordered Tommy Robinson to produce his recordings & he couldn't produce any, it would have been all over the media but it wasn't.

If Tommy Robinson had produced his recordings, which backed up his defence, it would have been all over the news but it wasn't.
 
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I have to take the view that Tommy Robinson's recordings were not heard by the court & neither were his informants required to attend court.

[Michael Rolls]

Seems logical

[GrannyMac]

The transcript.


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hijazi-v-Yaxley-Lennon-judgment-220721.pdf

[Wandering Walter]

As this was a civil court case I look at it from the accepted legal judgement criteria for civil cases which is based on the 'balance of probabilities'.

I therefore submit that on the balance of probabilities,

a:Tommy Robinson, knowing how everything he says is scrutinised, would not make statements that he didn't consider to be factually correct.

b:It was reasonable for Tommy Robinson to believe that his informants, given their social standing, had given him factually correct information.

c:It was reasonable for Tommy Robinson to record the conversations in order to protect himself in the event of the legal system trying to stitch him up.

d:It was reasonable for Tommy Robinson to inform the Judge that he had recordings of the information given to him & they were the reason he thought that the information was factually correct.

If the Judge thought that Tommy Robinson had fabricated the recorded conversations, or that there were no recordings, would it not be reasonable for the Judge to order Tommy Robinson to produce the recordings to be played in court?

If the Judge thought there was any doubt about what Tommy Robinson said he'd been told by his informants, wouldn't the reasonable thing be for the Judge to require the informants to attend court so they could be questioned by the prosecution & by Tommy Robinson?

If the Judge had ordered Tommy Robinson to produce his recordings & he couldn't produce any, it would have been all over the media but it wasn't.

If Tommy Robinson had produced his recordings, which backed up his defence, it would have been all over the news but it wasn't.
 
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I have to take the view that Tommy Robinson's recordings were not heard by the court & neither were his informants required to attend court.

I did say I was not going around in circles on this , but as you are I will respond .


I am fully aware that Civil Courts work on probabilities I did state in an earlier post the burden of proof in a Civil Court is lower than a Criminal Court.


As for your assumptions guess work even Civil Courts do not work on assumptions even they require tangible facts proof that what they are being told has some substance and is accurate .


Robinson even in the preliminary trial hearing made the Court aware of his secret recordings allegedly of pupils from the school and members of Staff as he claimed he had been in Huddersfield obtaining evidence to back up his claim that what he had posted on Social Media about the schoolboy was true a


You call them informants I think the Court would call them witnesses if you believe Robinson claims, he claimed that none of them would stand by him because they were scared, however why did Robinson not call them to give their evidence to the Court ?


He must at least have known the identity of one or more of the Staff at the School and what position they held in the school, Teacher, Caretaker , Teaching Assistant whatever that he allegedly spoke to and secretly recorded without their knowledge. He told the Judge that if people were free to tell the truth he would not be in Court


He could have asked the Judge to issue and serve witness summonses on at least one of them to attend Court to speak in Robinsons defence as far as I am aware he did not one has to think why did he not do so ?


As far as I am concerned it is not hard to work out why he did not   

[Wandering Walter]

The transcript.


https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hijazi-v-Yaxley-Lennon-judgment-220721.pdf

Thank You

[Diasi]

I did say I was not going around in circles on this , but as you are I will respond .

My post was to answer the question you asked me, as shown below.

What make you think he may not have had a fair hearing ?

[Diasi]

The transcript.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hijazi-v-Yaxley-Lennon-judgment-220721.pdf

Thanks GrannyMac, I was going to search for the court transcript but you've done it for me.

A very interesting document that, to me, raises far more questions than it answers & shows, quite worryingly, how a court case can be biased by the careful use of the legal process.

And how the facts of what really happened can be spun by a duplicitous media & presented in a totally false light.

Above all else it's shone a spotlight on how the school bent over backwards to make the Syrian appear as the victim & the other pupils the appear as the aggressors.

[Wandering Walter]

What unanswered questions would they be ?


Robinson did not even get in the witness box ask yourself why

[digitalis]

It would be nice to give an exhaustive and critical analysis of enclosed transcript. Alas,my years and time are limited...and I would not be paid(unlike those employed in the case)


I would give a golden dollar that more than a lot of people would like to see this judgement and trial televised and/or re-enacted. I am always impressed by the legaleze and sophistry employed by how verdicts and judgements are made: the same sophistry and wordcraft, and legal precedents, are employed in Belorussia and China,I believe. I hold their judicial systems as fair and as just as our own.


No one who is sensible and who values his or her life would give evidence towards supporting anything Tommy Robinson was to say today: he is poison. It is all a bit of a shame,because I believe he is not an evil man,nor racist. Still,it would be personal suicide but to say anything that did not discredit him...even tho the truth would exonerate him.


I dont blame any teacher,judge for finding against him: families and careers and monies must be earnt and protected. Some are made to be martyred. Truth is the first casualty in war.


I still remain at a loss as to why such a large number of working class people are so hated by those in better positions. I really dont understand their enmity


 

[Diasi]

It would be nice to give an exhaustive and critical analysis of enclosed transcript. Alas,my years and time are limited...and I would not be paid(unlike those employed in the case)

I would give a golden dollar that more than a lot of people would like to see this judgement and trial televised and/or re-enacted. I am always impressed by the legaleze and sophistry employed by how verdicts and judgements are made: the same sophistry and wordcraft, and legal precedents, are employed in Belorussia and China,I believe. I hold their judicial systems as fair and as just as our own.

No one who is sensible and who values his or her life would give evidence towards supporting anything Tommy Robinson was to say today: he is poison. It is all a bit of a shame,because I believe he is not an evil man,nor racist. Still,it would be personal suicide but to say anything that did not discredit him...even tho the truth would exonerate him.

I dont blame any teacher,judge for finding against him: families and careers and monies must be earnt and protected. Some are made to be martyred. Truth is the first casualty in war.

I still remain at a loss as to why such a large number of working class people are so hated by those in better positions. I really dont understand their enmity

"I am always impressed by the legaleze and sophistry employed by how verdicts and judgements are made: the same sophistry and wordcraft, and legal precedents, are employed in Belorussia and China,I believe. I hold their judicial systems as fair and as just as our own".

Exactly so, when the Chinese & Russian dissidents end up in prison, the UK's virtue-signallers cry foul & go running to Amnesty International, but these dissidents have had a fair trial because the trial complied with the laws of China & Russia.

Just as those who condemn Tommy Robinson will point out that he had a fair trial because it complied with laws of the UK.

"No one who is sensible and who values his or her life would give evidence towards supporting anything Tommy Robinson was to say today: he is poison. It is all a bit of a shame,because I believe he is not an evil man,nor racist. Still,it would be personal suicide but to say anything that did not discredit him...even tho the truth would exonerate him.I dont blame any teacher,judge for finding against him: families and careers and monies must be earnt and protected. Some are made to be martyred. Truth is the first casualty in war".

Exactly right once again, no career-minded professional would ever speak up on behalf of Tommy Robinson but I have to express huge admiration for the school children who gave evidence in support of Tommy Robinson, even though the claimant's legal team did their best to discredit these children & their evidence.

Successfully it would seem.