Tommy Robinson is being painted as a free speech martyr due to his contempt of court case. For those outside of the United Kingdom, it's easy to take this story and mention how "no papers are allowed to comment" on the case and make it out to be something it isn't. In the UK there are certain reporting restrictions. Tommy was not arrested for "reporting the truth about grooming gangs." He was arrested because this is the second time he has ignored the rules against taking photos or recording in a court precinct. That includes outside the court.
Tommy has been warned time and again about this. This is the second time he has been charged with contempt for ignoring reporting restrictions. The UK news can and does report on the situation of grooming games. However, in the case of Rochdale, premature reporting on the situation could have resulted in an unfavorable verdict where the rapists went free.
At this point, you really have to ask yourself why someone would do such a thing knowing the potential result. This case is not about Tommy Robinson, it's about a gang of rapists who specifically targeted young girls. If Tommy cared about those girls more than "a scoop" or becoming a "martyr for free speech" he could have waited until the case was complete before sharing any material he had been collecting.
Tommy had even been warned by Sky News during the Darren Osborne trial. They interviewed him for nearly a half hour and it was around the time they mentioned that they would, of course, be saving these materials for after the verdict had been brought back that he laughingly told them he had been livestreaming the entire interview. They warned him then and there that he could be liable for contempt and end up in court. This case, by the way, had nothing to do with Muslims or rape gangs, so it's not like the rules on reporting only apply to grooming gang coverage.
The reporting restrictions are there to prevent any coverage potentially prejudicing the trial proceedings. Another case in Leeds involved Tommy actually confronting the defendants. This kind of cavalier behavior may win some applause from the peanut gallery, but this kind of showboating is counterproductive. It's like the police catching a murderer and then beating him up in the interrogation room. Might feel good for the moment, but you just let one of the bad guys get away.
Julie Lake is a member of the National Front, a British Nationalist group, in addition to her piece at Dave Yorkshire's Mjolnir magazine on the subject, she has the following to say:
"The only ones that matter are the victims and their families. Can't they see what's happening here. Instead of focus on what the victims suffered, how it destroyed theirs and their families lives, and seeing the abusers sent down and justice prevailing, all of that is overlooked because now, its' all about Tommy F*g Robinson. Now, no one is even thinking about those girls and getting justice for them, Robinson has made it all about me, me, me. If he stage-managed this for publicity, then he's used the victims as cannon fodder for his own personal gain"
Read this from when the case first started and note well the following passage: 'We understand the trial will carry reporting restrictions which would only allow any reporting upon conclusion of the case. If an order is raised we will challenge it.'
In the UK, even with reporting restrictions, there are means to work within the law. The Examiner covered a story that was under restriction. They were willing to fight for the right to cover the story: "We understand the trial will carry reporting restrictions which would only allow any reporting on conclusion of the case. If an order is raised we will challenge it."
In the UK it is a criminal offense for the media to broadcast anything that could "create a substantial risk of serious prejudice" in any "active" legal proceedings. In short, once legal proceedings become "active", it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material which would A case is "active" once a person is arrested, a warrant is issued or a person has been charged. The case remains in an "active" state "until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted." Intention or knowledge of restrictions have no bearing on whether the crime committed should be charged, however, if it can be proved the person committing the crime was aware and acted intentionally then it may be punished more severely.