Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Tommy Robinson, the court case and (guffaw) 'free speech'

Where did the kid get the money to start suing in the first place from? Was there someone with deep pockets and a strong enough dislike of Tommy willing to stake half a million on it?
I don't know if someone funded it, but in any event I expect a lot of law firms will be willing to take a high-profile case like this, with a high probability of success, on no-win-no-fee terms.
 
I don't know if someone funded it, but in any event I expect a lot of law firms will be willing to take a high-profile case like this, with a high probability of success, on no-win-no-fee terms.

That would kind of backfire here, if he has no money, they won't get paid.
 
I'm not sure that's exactly how it works, but they will have had a good idea what the risk of not getting paid was. They may have felt it was worth it for the kudos. They will be able to mention it on their website forever.

Yes, that's true. A fairly straight forward case too.
 
If he hasn't got the cash, maybe somebody should start a "Help Tommy Robinson" fundraiser to trick his supporters into paying the settlement.
 
Here's a report to remind us about his bankruptcy, and how they are trying to unearth his hidden assets.

In 2018, he claimed to have received £350,000 in donations in just two weeks and made more than £2 million, The Times reported.

The official receiver will now search for concealed assets under other people's names, after Robinson, 38, used the name Stephen Lennon for his bankruptcy, The Times reported.

 
I really think that failing to pay the full amount of damages and costs awarded should be an automatic contempt of court.
The plaintiff should not need to have another case to force the defendant ("bankrupt" or not) to pay up, especially when the defendant defaults on agreements / commitments to pay.

[And I am speaking as someone has suffered from not being able to get such damages & costs paid to them, on more than one occasion and I might have to go down the court route again in the near future.]
 
I really think that failing to pay the full amount of damages and costs awarded should be an automatic contempt of court.
The plaintiff should not need to have another case to force the defendant ("bankrupt" or not) to pay up, especially when the defendant defaults on agreements / commitments to pay.

[And I am speaking as someone has suffered from not being able to get such damages & costs paid to them, on more than one occasion and I might have to go down the court route again in the near future.]


Why when you libel someone in such a manner that they must abandon their education and leave their home/town, is the only sanction for causing that harm a financial one that may or may not be avoided by pretending not to have any money? If you damage people's lives in other ways you are often required to take a hit to your own life in the form of loss of liberty, and all that can follow from that.
 
Where did the kid get the money to start suing in the first place from? Was there someone with deep pockets and a strong enough dislike of Tommy willing to stake half a million on it?

A lot of defamation work is done on no win no fee so if Jamal had lost his lawyers would have been entitled to fuck all
 
A lot of defamation work is done on no win no fee so if Jamal had lost his lawyers would have been entitled to fuck all
I've learn't something new there, I thought only injury cases were eligible for no win, no fee. Sadly of course 'Tommeh' will no doubt do his weasly best to weasel out of paying.
 
I've learn't something new there, I thought only injury cases were eligible for no win, no fee. Sadly of course 'Tommeh' will no doubt do his weasly best to weasel out of paying.

Nope. Defamation too.

On a no win no fee case the lawyer charges a success fee if they win. So the costs here may well be £250k with a 100% success fee.

Transactions that aren't legit or for full value can be reversed. So if he gave his wife his house or sold it for a lot less than the real value, that transaction can be undone. And because he's so hated, I can see the person running his bankruptcy really getting into all the nooks of his finances
 
There’s an assumption that the gaff was in both their names & was transferred This may not ever have been the case.report above suggests it was never in their names
 
There’s an assumption that the gaff was in both their names & was transferred This may not ever have been the case.report above suggests it was never in their names
Maybe, but in that case, where's his money gone?

(And, no, "up his nose" isn't an answer.)
 
it has president you heard what happened to katie hopkins, if not look it up its funnier than a house landing on her head

I guess you mean precedent? Do you have a link? I'm curious, but don't want to trawl through pages of tedious nonsense about that Ms Hopkins.
 
Doesn’t really matter, he’s not thick enough to have stuff in his name surely. I have known serial bankrupters (cunts) who never had a penny when it got legal and they stayed legal if structured correctly

This is why the shitty people stay wealthy and those who work are screwed
But the situation here is not that he's declaring bankruptcy - he's already done that. It's that he's pleading no means. It's different process, and he will need to convince the court that it is actually not possible for him to pay, rather than that he meets a set of criteria. I think he'll find it difficult unless all the money he's piled up is actually disbursed (spent and gone). Claiming not to have any money because he's given it to his wife is unlikely to work IMO.
 
Claiming not to have any money because he's given it to his wife is unlikely to work IMO.
I think it depends when it was done. If it was when it became clear he was going to lose then he's presumably in trouble. If it was before the court case then I think he's clear.
 
Back
Top Bottom