Out of all the alternative media coverage that has occurred as a result of the gaoling of Mr Tommy Robinson for contempt of court, Breitbart London has in my opinion done one of the better jobs of covering this story. I say this because they mocked the gagging order imposed by a court in the North of England that not only forbids Britons and British publications from discussing the trial at the centre of the furore, but also forbids discussion of Mr Robinson’s imprisonment and the reasons behind it.

Breitbart London have very cleverly managed to walk the tightrope between breaking the court order and complying with it by liberally using the word ‘redacted’ to replace every one of the banned words.

Breitbart said:

(Redacted) arrested for (Redacted) outside (Redacted): Leeds Crown Court issues media ban. The Leeds Crown Court has issued a UK media ban following the arrest of well-known activist and citizen journalist [redacted] outside [redacted].

The reporting restriction, which requires on all publications within the United Kingdom to cease any mention of the details of the arrest or court proceedings of [redacted], was issued Friday afternoon:

The media ban, along with [redacted]’s arrest has sparked a wave of controversy on social media with many criticising the arrest and the court proceedings that followed it.

Supporters of [redacted] have called for a mass protest in front of number 10 Downing street with the hashtag [redacted].

I like the way that Breitbart London have done this. It is clever, it stays within the letter of the court gagging order, yet still manages to highlight the unjust absurdity of gaoling someone for such a considerable length of time for a contempt of court offence when they were merely reporting from outside the precincts of the court.

Of course I understand that the Contempt of Court Act is there, in part to ensure free and fair trials for defendants in cases where there may be two or more linked trials. The Act forbids publication of details of a trial that is either in progress or has concluded when it is not the final end of a particular case in order that any jury in subsequent linked cases are not unduly influenced. I have little doubt that Mr Robinson contravened the Contempt of Court Act by allegedly livestreaming images of the defendants in the second of three linked trials. However it’s not the breach of the Act itself that concerns me and others with regards Mr Robinson, but the severity of the sentence imposed on him.

I believe that Mr Robinson is being treated extremely harshly by the courts because of his stance on the ideology of Islam and especially Mr Robinson’s consistently powerful work in helping to expose Britain’s horrific and worsening Islamic Rape Gang problems. I do wonder whether anybody else who had done what Mr Robinson has done would have been treated in a similar harsh way? The answer that comes back when I consider these issues is maybe not.

Mocking this gagging order as Breitbart London has done in the piece linked above, is a highly effective way of highlighting the harshness and absurdity of it.

It should be quite possible and permissible to, for example, be able to write about side issues to trials that are subject to Contempt of Court Act restrictions, without compromising the fairness of the main trial that the side issue is connected to. Unfortunately the judge in this particular case disagrees and British people and the British press are being denied information about an incident that is being freely discussed in those countries that have Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. This case highlights starkly how few free speech rights we have left in Britain and how easily the mainstream media can be cowed by legal instruments such as gagging orders that go much further than needed for the purposes of ensuring free and fair trials for those brought before Britain’s courts. Mockery is sometimes a very powerful weapon and Brietbart London have on this occasion used this weapon skillfully.