@Mr B J Mann I am assuming you object to the term Grooming Gang , substitute rape and torture gang it means the same thing and refers to the litany of cases, you are probably right that grooming is a weakening of the horrific nature of the practices they refer to.

Regarding the re-trial of the Leeds Contempt case , it is interesting that Geoffrey Cox (AG) codpiece and all has set a date for Tommys re-trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RYmnsDeYTg

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2018/05/30/tommy-robinson-and-the-leftist-legalese-of-those-with-no-respect-for-the-average-citizen/

rogerglewis
May 30, 2018 at 9:02 pm
I beg to differ with the Barrister secret or otherwise john his intellect is I would say below par for that esteemed profession. Having employed some of the best in the Business over the years this chap would not get a job making the tea
There is an undoubted stitch up afoot here from the Court report widely circulated by the local court reporter in attendance and a chorus of cheerleaders for what is at best a dodgy application of best Advice.
I blogged on this myself today and include this link. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-reporting-restrictions-and-restrictions-public-access-hearings
The CPS guidance is quite clear in such cases as these the Attorney General would ordinarily be consulted, not necessarily but ordinarily.
Notifying the Law Officers
The Attorney General has a public interest function, part of which is to ensure the fair and proper administration of justice. In exercising his or her functions in relation to contempt, the Attorney General is acting independently of Government, in a public interest capacity, to ensure that justice is protected and accordingly takes it proper course. It is imperative that where an allegation of contempt of court arises and the Attorney may need to institute proceedings or his consent is required it is referred immediately to the Attorney General. Cases should be referred immediately even though further investigation is required or is being carried out and particularly where an Order has been made for the matter to be referred to the Attorney General.

Read the guidance yourself I think that Tommy was denied a proper Brief familiar with both the Canterbury case and the Extent one was a Big Own Goal by the presiding Judge and the prosecuting Officer.
/2018/05/mi5-mi6-mossad-and-cia-free-speech-and.html

I think the State has got its knickers in a twist with this, The Chabloz case and the Dunkula case. I looked at the court listings for the Leeds Case and to say its extensive is an understatement, That Tommy pleaded guilty is I think an indication of how poorly advised he in fact was.
As for the Secret Barrister, he should remain anonymous should he reveal his identity no one would instruct his chambers.