Proceedings resume in the libel case Jamal Hijazi v Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson)
Barrister, for the claimant, Catrin Evans QC resumes her cross-examination of a defence witness who was involved in the violent incident, a video of which led to these proceedings.
Evans challenges the witness account that he was not present at a previous incident that left Jamal Hijazi ended up with a broken arm.
He says he was not present.
Proceedings resume in the case of Jamal Hijazi V Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson)
Mr Robinson calls his second witness, (again as it's a younger person I'm choosing not to name them)
The witness confirms that he had a "troubled time at school," says he is not a supporter of the English Defence League but thinks is was an organisation that "tackled grooming gangs," and wasn't a racist group.
Back at London's picturesque Royal Courts of Justice for day 2 in the libel case against Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson.
Proceedings due to commence at 10.30 am.
The judge enters court and proceedings begin.
The judge now dealing with a request for an anonymity order for two witnesses.
Proceedings resume in the libel case between Jamal Hijiza and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson)
The next witness is Jamal's father, Mr Hijazi, who is giving evidence via an interprer.
He confirms his witness statements are accurate and signed by him.
Mr Robinson rises to cross-examine the witness.
He asks Mr Hajazi about health problems he mentions in his witness statements and asks if he has any other relatives here, he says no.
At the Royal Courts of Justice for the expected start of a libel trial involving EDL founder "Tommy Robinson," (Being heard under his original name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
Proceedings due to begin at 10.30
Robinson is being sued for libel by the family of Jamal Hijazi, who was filmed being pushed to the ground and threatened with drowning at Almondbury school in Huddersfield.
Robinson made a number of remarks about the case on YouTube which led to today's trial.
This is the "evidence" for the "They want to lower the age of consent to 10!" trope
Stuart Campell (aka Wings over Scotland) takes this paragraph from a declaration from a group called "ILGA world" (who he admits he's never heard of.
1
He then notes that the World Health organisation defines adolescents as people aged between 10 to 19 and concludes, from apparently nowhere, there is only "one possible explanation"
2
He then whips out a partial list of groups who have signed up to this declaration and lo and behold, there are two Scottish organisations on it (in amongst The Labour Party, various trades unions and London councils)
3