Is Tommy Robinson an Establishment Shill?

Well you say that but the last occasion on which he strutted his ego proved him to be a prize idiot.

I managed to acquire a copy of the statement made by the judge who made the reporting restrictions Mr Yaxley-Lennon found so objectionable. The document was available on a cloud server somewhere although I got it from the courts service website.

In short Man A had been convicted in court A of some pretty revolting act carried out in cahoots with men B,C,D,E and F

Man A was sentenced along with men B through F but was due to appear at a future date to answer a set of similar charges pertaining to a set of similar allegations arising from an occasion in a different location with a different set of individuals P Q R S and T

In common with many trials the judge imposed reporting restrictions for the duration of the first, which meant that anyone was free to go to the courtroom and witness the proceedings but none present were permitted to speak of them much less publish their experience

In the vast majority of cases those restrictions are lifted after the verdict.

In this case the judge directed that no public mention of the proceedings could be made at all until Man A had appeared in the second trial and the result of that was returned by the jury after which all would be free to speak of both.

This is again a common measure used where one defendant is to stand trial separately to answer separate charges

Newspapers and News websites often use phrases akin to ‘Following the conviction yesterday afternoon of Messrs Sue, Grabbit And Run in such and such a court for the crime of whatever, we are now able to reveal that Mr Grabbit was last month also found guilty in another part of the country for the crimes of this and that’

It is standard judicial practice and far from censorship as Mr Yaxley-Lennon ridiculously alleged, it is done to ensure as far as possible the jury hearing the second case hear it without the knowledge that one of the accused was done last week for the same crime carried out against someone else.

It is done because the court at which the convicted criminal is going to stand trial for separate crimes must weigh up guilt and innocence on the basis of fact and testimony presented there, and to reveal one of those charged has only last week been done for a separate offence buggers both the chance of a fair trial on THIS matter for the recently convicted piece of shit, but ALSO screws the fairness of the hearing for those in the dock with said piece of shit

I have no interest in defending those scum, but i wish to see them convicted on the basis of evidence presented speaking to the view that they were there and they did it, not on the basis that they did the same thing last week, or were standing in a room with a bloke who did the same thing last month

I don’t know what a ‘shill’ is so i don’t know what would make them work for, or against the establishment

However, i do know a man prepared to destroy the impartiality of a jury called to hear a case against a bunch of alleged kiddie fiddlers by revealing one of them was busted for a a masterful work of violin playing last month is a prize prick who deserved to be thrown into a jail for contempt and NEVER let out, as our laws already oermit.