Goat

Probably easiest to just not go the the Middle East in the first place.

Dorothy Hodgkin, pioneered the x-ray crystallography techniques used by Franklin in her work on DNA. The Duke fought against the French but alongside Portugal & Spain in the peninsular war and alongside Germans, Dutch and Belgians at Waterloo, so maybe not the best poster boy for brexit..

Interesting if long article about the transition: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/27/this-guy-doesnt-know-anything-the-inside-story-of-trumps-shambolic-transition-team But then it's the Guardian so they would say that wouldn't they.

Not sure I totally buy this, he seems a bit senior to be used on a simple hit like this, why not just use a sergeant instead? Not that it changes anything.

It's not a telephone, it's a powerful minaturized micro-computer that also makes phone calls. Still not worth £1,500 IMO, but I don't live in that world so what do I know?

Kremlin bots are busy aren't they?

15 years ago and the 7/7 bombers didn't travel via heathrow airport, maybe their cameras are better.

They discovered that Russia is cold. Yep, if I shared a 2,600 mile border with China I'd be worried too, especially if what passed for my economy was based on oil extraction from lands adjacent to China. That is what you were saying isn't it?

So it's the word of a convicted fraudster then.

Can you give us a link to that, preferably from a reliable source rather than TR's autobiography. Also, just in case it isn't obvious, TR pled guilty to that one too.

Plus also check another appliance in the suspect socket, if your lamp/radio etc works in it then the socket is fine. OP, if you are going to start taking the socket apart then please make sure you turn the power off at the fuse box first (ideally to the whole house).

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, the only reference I can find to proportion is in para 69 when discussing whether time should be allowed before sentencing, so not that the sentance was wrong, but that TR should've been allowed more time to advance mitigation. Again I don't know where you get that idea from, per para 78 "the alleged contempt was serious and the sentence might be longer than already served". There are plenty of other cases out there where contemenors have been committed to prison, albeit this case is unique. The 1981 Act sets a 2 year maximum for breaching s4(2) orders, so again odd that you think this doesn't usually attract a custodial sentence. It's an interesting legal point that a committal for CoC is not the same as a sentence imposed for a criminal offence, albeit the effect is largely the same. Finally, have a read through para 80 where the court gives guidance on the factors to be considered when assessing punishment, a - d seem to suggest a committal towards the top of the range, e is debatable, f is unhelpful and g+h again are heavily against TR.

Here is what he said: Hostage-to-fortune time, what would my best prediction be? Emphasising that we still do not know the full facts – transcripts of what happened at Leeds Crown Court, for example, were before the Court of Appeal and will be vital in establishing the key issues (e.g. whether the contempt was put to Y-L; what procedure was followed; what was said in mitigation), and the parties referred to written submissions that have not yet been made public – my guess is that the Court will not agree that the contempts are invalid, but may well find that relevant matters of mitigation were not taken into account, and so reduce the sentence by a few months. So congratulations, his guess was wrong and yours turned out to be right, it happens from time to time. My guess is that when TR ends up back in court in a few weeks time he'll plead guilty again and the judge will find a way to give him an even longer sentence (12, maybe 15 months) on top of the 3 months for the previous offence. Presumably you'll be happy then.

Nope. You've simply developed a habit of dismissing inconvenient arguments and opinions out of hand because "of course they would say that", TSB being a classic example of this, as well as anything on Guardian, BBC or any other mainstream publication. Appeal to motive. And your mind is only open to the fake news conspiracy bulls*** pedalled by the likes of Infowars (this was the source of all this TR stuff was it not).

How can an opinion be false? Are you saying that TSB secretly believes TR is totally innocent and is saying otherwise because of some ulterior motive? TSB latest here: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/08/01/the-tommy-robinson-judgment-what-does-it-all-mean/ TLDR version, procedures not followed so Leeds judgement quashed and case will be reheard, probably next month, presumably TR will plead guilty again and it's quite possible that he'll get a longer sentance. My personal take is that the court has given in to the pressure generated by the TR mob and has decided that if he really wants to play that game then they'll play it too, by the book and to the letter, and since they're much better at that game than him once they've finished said book will be thrown at him very firmly indeed.