EDL's Tommy Robinson's (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) unfair arrest

They were not complying with the officers instructions nor the instructions of the two orders made before the event.

They were therefore being obstructive.

Then they should have been arrested for violating the 1986 Public Order Act not for obstructing a police officer which falls under the 1996 Police Act, it's a totally unrelated offence and makes the female police officer in question look like she doesn't know what she's doing.

I am sure there is someone somewhere sorting out the charges - and whether there will be any charges brought.

In any event, the legal definition of obstruct essentially means to make a police officer's job harder. It is very commonly used as a device to bring people in during situations like this - just like s.5.

Maybe they shouldn't have set up the non-British ghetto that is Tower Hamlets then, especially in the capital of Britain. It's like they want different communities so that then they remain unintegrated and divided from the rest of us.

This is Britain. If British people want to walk around England and raise money for charity or pay their respects to the victims of extremism the police should be there toi protect their right to do so (it's what we pay them for afterall), not arrest and obstruct them because an immigrant community find the idea of a couple of Brits walking around the capital offensive.

Could you imagine the Iranian government arresting a couple Iranians for upsetting the Anglo-Saxon 'community' while walking around Tehran?

This is wrong on so many levels it's almost surreal.

In any event, the legal definition of obstruct essentially means to make a police officer's job harder. It is very commonly used as a device to bring people in during situations like this - just like s.5.

Call me old fashioned but I thought you could only be arrested if you actually broke the law. In this instance it's fairly obvious the police were making it up as they went along because for political reasons they didn't want Robinson walking through certain parts of London. They can't do that. They can't suspend the rules as and when they feel because they have a personal grudge against Tommy Robinson. That's not how democracy works.

If the police officer in question made a wrongful arrest then I honestly believe she should be punished. As a professional it's her job to know what the law allows and what it prohibits, if she doesn't know then she's incapable of making these important decisions.

They had broken the law. If you watch the video, you'll hear the TSG Chief Inspector explain the arrest and the reasons for it.

It's a fair cop. It will be interesting to see whether s12 will come in to play should they be charged.

They had broken the law. If you watch the video, you'll hear the TSG Chief Inspector explain the arrest and the reasons for it.

It's a fair cop. It will be interesting to see whether s12 will come in to play should they be charged.

I wonder whether his right to a fair trial would be breached if the case were to be heard by a Muslim magistrate/judge...

Oh lord.

Yes, Tommy Robinson is a hero, valiantly fighting the oppression of the system. They could make a movie about this: the protagonist being the silenced Tommy Robinson, and the main villain being a bearded Muslim judge intent on sentencing him to life in prison for planning to walk near a mosque.

This is not an unreasonable arrest. Please stop over-dramatising everything. And don't generalise Muslims.

What i dont get is that they prioritized a quite minor offence, over a more serious one such as the assault.

They weren't arrested for breaking the law they supposedly broke, they were arrested for "obstructing a police officer" when it's patently obvious they were doing no such thing.

I have absolutely no idea what on earth you're talking about...?

I never said anything about Tommy Robinson being a hero or fighting the oppression of any system.

I never said anything about a bearded Muslim judge intent on sentencing him to life in prison for planning to walk near a mosque.

I never said anything about the arrest being unreasonable.

If you care to read from my posts regarding this situation, I have explained to those of TSR who doubt its legality, why it was in fact lawful.

I am questioning whether, in light of the decision in Alconbury and Porter v Magill [2002] there could be a breach of Right to a Fair Trial under Article 6 ECHR if a Muslim magistrate or DJ was to hear the case, based on the fact that such right would be breached if there was a 'real possibility' (not probability) of the presence of bias. To which I think that it's quite arguable that counsel could submit that a Muslim judge would raise a 'real possibility' of bias, thus breaching his human rights under Article 6.

I'd really welcome you to provide an answer and justify your submission?

If not, please don't be so arrogant in future to try and make me look like a fool when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Reserve your arrogance for a different occasion. It's not called for in the slightest... From a mod, that's pretty pathetic behaviour tbh.

It's called hyperbole, mate.



This is not exactly what I gleaned from your first post. The right to a fair trial being breached is not the same as the possibility of the right of a fair trial being breached. Would you not agree that there is a subtle, yet important, difference? Whether your statement is legally correct or not, the tone I gathered from it (following the tone of your many anti-Islam posts) led me to believe that you were more taking a jab at Muslims than arguing for legalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong....

Anyway, I'd assume it'd be drilled into a Muslim judge that this is not acceptable in this day and age, and I'm sure on the basis of professionalism, that they would understand that. I don't believe a Muslim judge would be any different. Whether they may subconsciously bring in bias is unknowable as they are of course human, but this could be the case with any judge and any ruling as long as there is *some* personal association. This cannot be eliminated.

Could you perhaps enlighten me on the relevance of Alconbury and Porter vs Magill to this hypothetical case of a Muslim judge breaching Tommy Robinson's right to a fair trail based on his religion?

Perhaps a decision may be made that it would be better for a non-Muslim to take the trial, but I'd actually imagine it'd be for other reasons than the Muslim judge seething with such hatred* that he would make a bias decision. Like, for example, the outrage that a Muslim judge would be taking this trial from EDL supporters across the country.

*just hyperbole again.



You're a law student, aren't you? I am sorry for questioning an eminent law student. Please, I hope the neg you awarded me has finished my punishment.

If you don't understand the legal situation, then I'm genuinely not interested in anything you have to say about it.

I wonder whether his right to a fair trial would be breached if the case were to be heard by a Muslim magistrate/judge...

Having taken a moment to read around the area and having had a think, my gut instinct is saying no.

I have no submissions or real authority to back that up though.

Story of my exams