What sensitive details did he broadcast? The entire video is on YouTube if you need to refer to it. As far as I know, he read information already published in newspapers.

Did I mention that his entire video is still on Youtube? Still sitting their "jeopardizing" the case and it hasn't been taken down. Not only that, but anybody else outside the UK could repeat the same things and publish them anywhere on the internet without a problem. The UK no-talking-about-the-trial-in-public law completely fails without draconian China-scale internet censorship.

> What sensitive details did he broadcast

He threatened witnesses; he called defendants before they were convicted "muslim child rapists"; his actions nearly caused the collapse of the trial.

What threat did he make? The closest I saw was asking some questions of two people entering the court.

He used "alleged" as all media does for people who haven't been convicted.

Here are public details of the trials already published in the UK. It includes the names, charges, and effectively the description "child rapists". How does this not risk collapsing the trial but when Tommy Robinson said it, it did? Is it simply because he said they were Muslim while the newspaper only listed their obviously Muslim-sounding names?

https://www.examiner.co.uk/news/trial-dates-set-29-people-13...

He wasn't jailed for "speaking about potential child grooming", he was jailed for jeopardising a trial. If you are speaking out against child grooming, doing so in a way that jeopardises trials is counter to your cause.

Furthermore, he had already received a suspended sentence for doing the same thing. He wasn't immediately jailed without warning.

No, he went to jail for directly disobeying a judge in the most direct and absolute way possible. Twice. The subject of the court case does not matter.

Also a chunk of those 13 months was from the previous suspended sentence for doing pretty much the same thing.

So yeah, I would definitely check where you get your facts from.

Your "media" was gagged - completely unable to speak about the arrest, sentencing, and secret imprisoning of one of your fellow citizens.

Until that was immediately challenged and sensibly lifted 3 days later. It was only introduced as an extension to the already existing reporting restrictions on the trial that he broke.

The judge quite sensibly didn't want that case, sure to get lots of attention, to rub off on his ongoing court case which has existing reporting restrictions.

I'm also sure America could teach us a lot about gag orders though. Stick national security infront of it and then all freedom goes out the window?

>Until that was immediately challenged and sensibly lifted 3 days later.

After he was sentenced and in jail.

Love the coarse metric of British "sensibility"! Sounds like we need a "sensibility spectrum" to measure this all against. Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice!

> After he was sentenced and in jail.

... As he should be, for breaking a court order in the most ridiculous manner. Twice.

> Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice!

You are aware that you're commenting on a post about how a citizens freedom and property where taken without any due process? And how that happens a lot? And how it's legal?

I feel like you're just looking to be triggered by something, and this man breaking two court orders gets you going, so we might as well end it here.