Free Speech In The Uk

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O1aEL4wYCE

[JWB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29

[Panzermann]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29

 

 

as is so often the case, the talk page and edit history are more interesting on Wikipedia.

[Stuart Galbraith]

So he joins the BNP, and doesnt know what its about. Ok. So we are to believe he is smart enough to qualify for an apprenticeship out of 600 people, but not smart enough to know that non whites cant join the BNP. Really?

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tommy_Robinson_%28activist%29

 

 

as is so often the case, the talk page and edit history are more interesting on Wikipedia.

 

Former Tanning Salon owner. So he DOES know Trump.

[rmgill]

Someone in the State Department mentions that one of Ryan's goto sources of half truths, ignorance and outright disinformation

What do they teach you guys? Argument from fallacy first?

 

Can you guys argue facts and principle instead of emotion and hyperbole please?

 

 

[DB]

 

 

Someone in the State Department mentions that one of Ryan's goto sources of half truths, ignorance and outright disinformation

What do they teach you guys? Argument from fallacy first?

 

Can you guys argue facts and principle instead of emotion and hyperbole please?

 

When I presented a post by a lawyer in good standing which repudiated every single aspect of the argument about "Tommy Robinson", you ignored it, continued to repeat the false information you've been spoonfed by those who just love useful idiots, of whatever stripe, and then claim that you never see fact based responses, please forgive me for thinking of you as a fool.

[rmgill]

I'm sorry, are you gaslighting again? Should I get out a .455 revolver and bowler so I'm suitably attired for your gaslighting? Or should I just open a window because of the miasma?

So you posted something from a lawyer. *Golf clap* Any time a lawyer says something we can all just go with that and go home. This is what's known as an 'appeal to authority.' I seem to remember asking questions on various points and disagreeing instead of just ignoring it. And many of the points were already raised. Yes I know the scope of the 'can't report on active cases' doctrine. I've specifically asked why that protocol was extant when the government seems to side step it entirely. I was aghast at the idea that multiple media sources felt like they couldn't even legally report on it during the week that it happened. That itself seems curious.

If you were going to discuss this in good faith you'd respond to points instead of stooping to one fallacy after another. This is after all, a discussion forum and not an appeal to authority forum. As for fact based responses, yes, there are facts. Yes we know what he was arrested for. I know what MLK was arrested for. Police can gin up charges. Saying someone is disturbing the peace by video taping is curious as a boiler plate charge for what ever you want it to be.

If you'd paid closer attention instead of repeated drive by fallacies, you'd have noted that some of the things I've posted were somewhere on the other side of the was the arrest justifiable. The Britisher made some very astute points about that without falling over himself to cling to the dogma as right and proper. But, by all means though, go with what the man on the talking box says DB. Do what your betters tell you to do and think and don't rock the boat.



Once again, I'll ask the same question. What is too far insofar as speech prohibitions in the UK go for you DB? Others have seemingly ignored this. The impression I get is that you lot have no red line. Nothing is too far as far as I can tell.

Edited July 23, 2018 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'm sorry, are you gaslighting again? Should I get out a .455 revolver and bowler so I'm suitably attired for your gaslighting? Or should I just open a window because of the miasma?

 

So you posted something from a lawyer. *Golf clap* Any time a lawyer says something we can all just go with that and go home. This is what's known as an 'appeal to authority.' I seem to remember asking questions on various points and disagreeing instead of just ignoring it. And many of the points were already raised. Yes I know the scope of the 'can't report on active cases' doctrine. I've specifically asked why that protocol was extant when the government seems to side step it entirely. I was aghast at the idea that multiple media sources felt like they couldn't even legally report on it during the week that it happened. That itself seems curious.

 

If you were going to discuss this in good faith you'd respond to points instead of stooping to one fallacy after another. This is after all, a discussion forum and not an appeal to authority forum. As for fact based responses, yes, there are facts. Yes we know what he was arrested for. I know what MLK was arrested for. Police can gin up charges. Saying someone is disturbing the peace by video taping is curious as a boiler plate charge for what ever you want it to be.

 

If you'd paid closer attention instead of repeated drive by fallacies, you'd have noted that some of the things I've posted were somewhere on the other side of the was the arrest justifiable. The Britisher made some very astute points about that without falling over himself to cling to the dogma as right and proper. But, by all means though, go with what the man on the talking box says DB. Do what your betters tell you to do and think and don't rock the boat.

 

 

 

Once again, I'll ask the same question. What is too far insofar as speech prohibitions in the UK go for you DB? Others have seemingly ignored this. The impression I get is that you lot have no red line. Nothing is too far as far as I can tell.

 

Ryan, what part of 'Contempt of Court' are you having difficulty with?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

 

Its not hard to understand. Its only hard to understand if you willfully ignore the facts.

[Panzermann]

And tommy willfully did it again, going for the scandal, although having been told not to. funny that they snatched him up quickly, when he loudly announced it on social media beforehand.

 

 

 

If the current laws to protect court proceedings are any good is a different discussion.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well the current legislation dates from 1981, so Robinson cant say it was sprung on him.

 

You know, what I find incredible is we keep getting slagged off for Rotherham and going soft on Muslims indulging in child rape. And then when we prosecute one, we get blamed for prosecuting the guy whom threatens the trial. I mean, that is pretty screwed up isnt it?

[rmgill]

I am aware of the nature of the initial charge and the court agreement. I am questioning if that it was a valid charge on face and thus that challenges the validity of the later charges. More over, the basis of his previous charges unrelated to the court house video and the close police scrutiny of Robinson is curious and I think dubious.

 

Again, Dr King had all manner of charges trumped up against him to justify the arrests because he was saying things the the state did not want him to say.

 

Does the idea that such a frame ork as modern law presents with the many charges that may be brought not give you chaps pause? It's a fair bet that of most US members on this grate site, if the police were to probe their lives under some contrived pernicious investigation, could be found to have committed some number of offenses easily prove by the police. I would be astonished if the same were not true in the U.K.

 

We have a very valid reason for requiring probable cause before a criminal investigation is began. The crown taught us that more than 200 years ago.

[Briganza]

And tommy willfully did it again, going for the scandal, although having been told not to. funny that they snatched him up quickly, when he loudly announced it on social media beforehand.

 

 

 

If the current laws to protect court proceedings are any good is a different discussion.

Don't forget that he pleaded guilty to the offence he was charged with so he must have thought he was bang to rights.

[Briganza]

I am aware of the nature of the initial charge and the court agreement. I am questioning if that it was a valid charge on face and thus that challenges the validity of the later charges. More over, the basis of his previous charges unrelated to the court house video and the close police scrutiny of Robinson is curious and I think dubious.

 

Again, Dr King had all manner of charges trumped up against him to justify the arrests because he was saying things the the state did not want him to say.

 

Does the idea that such a frame ork as modern law presents with the many charges that may be brought not give you chaps pause? It's a fair bet that of most US members on this grate site, if the police were to probe their lives under some contrived pernicious investigation, could be found to have committed some number of offenses easily prove by the police. I would be astonished if the same were not true in the U.K.

 

We have a very valid reason for requiring probable cause before a criminal investigation is began. The crown taught us that more than 200 years ago.

 

Can't see how you could possibly use Robinson and Dr King in the say sentence. Robinson would be the first to get upset being linked to Dr King.

 

Do some research on how many cases don't get to court due to insufficient evidence and those that do don't often pass the jury. Not Sure that your definition of probable cause is correct. You investigate to find out if there is probable cause. Not the other way round.

[rmgill]

Can't see how you could possibly use Robinson and Dr King in the say sentence. Robinson would be the first to get upset being linked to Dr King.

He would? Ok. He's a racist racist we can discount anything he says because racism. That's wearing a bit thin.

 

 

Do some research on how many cases don't get to court due to insufficient evidence and those that do don't often pass the jury.

I have. I've seen the video where Robinson is threatened with arrest for having BEEN assaulted in a train station. I've seen other examples.

 

I have also seen cases that had CLEAR evidence that was NOT there and they were so large that they went to court and the party was convicted. Others were so large that it's surprising the jury didn't convict given the furor involved. Look at the Martin/Zimmerman trial, I saw the evidence presented because I watched it during the day at work, the case should have never gone to trial, yet it did. Look at some federal cases where folks are convicted of lying to investigators but where the initial basis for the investigation doesn't hold water. You can easily find cases where folks were brow beaten into pleading guilty due to the threats. I'm not saying all cases are like this, but the Robinson case sounds fishy. Theres too much character assassination going on used to suppress things that folks don't want to hear. If it was JUST him then id be less suspicious but its not.

 

Heck, just look at the currently circulating basis for the Trump FISA warrant. Do I need more?

 

Not Sure that your definition of probable cause is correct. You investigate to find out if there is probable cause. Not the other way round.

Some evidence of a crime comes first. Fishing for evidence doesn't come first. THEN when you have probable cause that a crime occurred, you get a warrant BASED on that PC.

Edited July 24, 2018 by rmgill

[Briganza]

 

Can't see how you could possibly use Robinson and Dr King in the say sentence. Robinson would be the first to get upset being linked to Dr King.

He would? Ok. He's a racist racist we can discount anything he says because racism. That's wearing a bit thin.

 

 

Do some research on how many cases don't get to court due to insufficient evidence and those that do don't often pass the jury.

I have. I've seen the video where Robinson is threatened with arrest for having BEEN assaulted in a train station. I've seen other examples.

 

I have also seen cases that had CLEAR evidence that was NOT there and they were so large that they went to court and the party was convicted. Others were so large that it's surprising the jury didn't convict given the furor involved. Look at the Martin/Zimmerman trial, I saw the evidence presented because I watched it during the day at work, the case should have never gone to trial, yet it did. Look at some federal cases where folks are convicted of lying to investigators but where the initial basis for the investigation doesn't hold water. You can easily find cases where folks were brow beaten into pleading guilty due to the threats. I'm not saying all cases are like this, but the Robinson case sounds fishy. Theres too much character assassination going on used to suppress things that folks don't want to hear. If it was JUST him then id be less suspicious but its not.

 

Heck, just look at the currently circulating basis for the Trump FISA warrant. Do I need more?

 

Not Sure that your definition of probable cause is correct. You investigate to find out if there is probable cause. Not the other way round.

Some evidence of a crime comes first. Fishing for evidence doesn't come first. THEN when you have probable cause that a crime occurred, you get a warrant BASED on that PC.

 

Dr King probably wouldn't mind too much but Robinson would get a little upset being compared to Dr King.

 

Are you deliberately dancing on a pin. Just so we're clear the comment was about criminal cases in general not some self advertising look at me loon.

 

Why would you need a warrant before you start investigating? You seem to have the cart before the horse. "Hello, police, I can see someone climbing through a window of a house across the road, they are on holiday". "We will have to get a warrant before we can investigate this, we could be there by lunchtime Monday, bye".

 

You apply for a warrant before you have to do a search to continue the investigation. To get a warrant you have to have probable cause, that's why you investigate to see if there is probable cause.

 

But let's not forget that Robinson stood up in court and said "Yep, I'm guilty". What then surprised him was the sentence as he probably thought he would get a slap on the wrist, like the other times he had defied the courts.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I am aware of the nature of the initial charge and the court agreement. I am questioning if that it was a valid charge on face and thus that challenges the validity of the later charges. More over, the basis of his previous charges unrelated to the court house video and the close police scrutiny of Robinson is curious and I think dubious.

 

Again, Dr King had all manner of charges trumped up against him to justify the arrests because he was saying things the the state did not want him to say.

 

Does the idea that such a frame ork as modern law presents with the many charges that may be brought not give you chaps pause? It's a fair bet that of most US members on this grate site, if the police were to probe their lives under some contrived pernicious investigation, could be found to have committed some number of offenses easily prove by the police. I would be astonished if the same were not true in the U.K.

 

We have a very valid reason for requiring probable cause before a criminal investigation is began. The crown taught us that more than 200 years ago.

 

Unrelated? It was the same charge.

 

2017:

In May 2017, Robinson was convicted of contempt of court for using a camera inside Canterbury Crown Court and received a suspended sentence.

2018:

In May 2018, Robinson began serving a 10-month prison sentence for contempt of court after publishing a Facebook Live video of defendants entering a law court, contrary to a court order to prevent reporting those specific trials while proceedings are ongoing.

So not ONLY did he once again commit the same offense as when he was suspended, a pretty stupid thing to do im sure you would agree, but he also violated a court order to prevent specific reporting. And such court orders are not unusual. A case I was on jury service on not only restricted releasing details of the victim, as best I can tell they also restricted details of the offender because of various details about his health. None of the people concerned was a racial minority.

Top and bottom of it, events here have been distorted to create a narrative that the British Government is after Robinson for speaking 'The Truth'. Now, not only would I object to the idea that his narrative of 'The Truth' passed anywhere near reality (you can find his video online where he blames those whom died in Grenfell tower for their own deaths by packing it full of illegal immigrants) its also directly contrary to the fact that anyone was after him. He was told not to do something, by a court no less, and on two separate occasions broke the law. He even specifically broke reporting restrictions. And then supposedly, its the state that is to blame for him being a fucking idiot and not recognizing what the law of the land is, or doing what he has been specifically instructed not to do?

A reporter couldn't break these restrictions. That he did so, tell's me he wanted to be arrested. Where he was an utter cheb was in assuming he wouldnt be jailed. Well at least he made a big splash, I guess he got what he wanted.

[Briganza]

The reason there are reporting restriction in place on cases like this is because muppets like Robinson turn up at your house and try to kill you before you have been convicted of any offence. A quick search will find the vigilante mob get out in force at the first sign of child abuse (the fact that a lot of the mob would also be on the child abuse register if we looked at them closely is never mentioned by the mob of public justice) and often directed at the wrong person.

[Panzermann]

The reason there are reporting restriction in place on cases like this is because muppets like Robinson turn up at your house and try to kill you before you have been convicted of any offence. A quick search will find the vigilante mob get out in force at the first sign of child abuse (the fact that a lot of the mob would also be on the child abuse register if we looked at them closely is never mentioned by the mob of public justice) and often directed at the wrong person.

 

THis here is the problem. For one waht if someone has been acquitted? And beforehand the media machinery has hanged the defendant already. A direct accusation is not really needed, just being mentioned in relation to a case can kill a person's life. The only thing that often sticks is a suggestuve headline and the name in connection with the crime. Doesn't matter if the defendant is perfectly innocent and just happened to be at the wrong time at the wrong place. Also a loud media machine is certainly going to influence the judge and jury, if they want it or not. I mean the most important facor for propaganda is repetition. Something always sticks unconsciously.

 

 

That in the mob with the torces and the pitchforks often cases of projection are running and carrying the biggest torches is also not unususal. I guess to distract from themselves and their own felt guilt. But that is just my kitchen psychology. YOu know, the one happening at kitchen tables at parties at 4 AM.

[Stuart Galbraith]

We just had a case here where Cliff Richard (he of summer holiday infamy) was accused of being a paedophile. And the police whom were investigating the charges, tipped the wink to the BBC, whom had a helicopter on hand whilst they were doing a property search. They got a good shot through the window as the police were rifleing the drawers.

 

So he took it to court, and he won. And the police got censured, and the BBC got fined. Because he hadnt even been charged with anything, it was just an inquiry.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/20/cliff-richard-and-freedom-of-the-press

 

We are already on a slippery slope of media partiality and prejudgement. No way should be making it easier for the Robbinsons in this life whom think the rules dont apply to them because they have a personal mission.

[Briganza]

One other that sticks in my mind was from Bristol.

 

Christopher Jefferies was vilified for a murder he didn't commit - now he's a privacy crusader Jefferies was arrested in 2010 for the murder of Joanna Yeates, and saw his character traduced by the tabloid press. Powerful people now seek his opinions, he has an agent, and his story is to be made into a film

[Panzermann]

We just had a case here where Cliff Richard (he of summer holiday infamy) was accused of being a paedophile. And the police whom were investigating the charges, tipped the wink to the BBC, whom had a helicopter on hand whilst they were doing a property search. They got a good shot through the window as the police were rifleing the drawers.

 

So he took it to court, and he won. And the police got censured, and the BBC got fined. Because he hadnt even been charged with anything, it was just an inquiry.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/20/cliff-richard-and-freedom-of-the-press

 

We are already on a slippery slope of media partiality and prejudgement. No way should be making it easier for the Robbinsons in this life whom think the rules dont apply to them because they have a personal mission.

 

I bet there are people that put Cliff richard in the same pot as Jimmy Saville if you made a survey, because of the hubub. Cliff Richard? Wasn't there somethng with little children?

[rmgill]

The reason there are reporting restriction in place on cases like this is because muppets like Robinson turn up at your house and try to kill you before you have been convicted of any offence. A quick search will find the vigilante mob get out in force at the first sign of child abuse (the fact that a lot of the mob would also be on the child abuse register if we looked at them closely is never mentioned by the mob of public justice) and often directed at the wrong person.

Then why isn't there a blanket ban on reporting of anyone accused of a crime? I've pointed this out before, when Count Dankula was arrested, the media was tipped off by the police. He was pilloried by the press with speculation and digging into his past as proof of how awful a person he was. Members here have even re-posted the reports as evidence for why we can ignore the case entirely. The character assassination is the reason why it doesn't matter. That's what raises the red flags for me.

 

If the objective is fair trials and privacy of the accused until convicted then there would be ZERO reporting allowed on the identity of the accused. That's clearly not the case.

 

Edit:

We had a loud media machine that was out to convict Zimmerman. I watched the trial. I saw the evidence. Even our then President pushed for a guilty verdict. We didn't get that. We got a not-guilty. Martin was banging Zimmerman's head off the pavement with his fists, sitting astride his body. There was no standing your ground, it was shoot Martin or die of a TBI.

 

Maybe the issue is that British Juries can't be trusted to judge facts of the case? Is that the problem?

Edited July 25, 2018 by rmgill

[rmgill]

We just had a case here where Cliff Richard (he of summer holiday infamy) was accused of being a paedophile. And the police whom were investigating the charges, tipped the wink to the BBC, whom had a helicopter on hand whilst they were doing a property search. They got a good shot through the window as the police were rifleing the drawers.

 

So he took it to court, and he won. And the police got censured, and the BBC got fined. Because he hadnt even been charged with anything, it was just an inquiry.

Wait, so the organized folks who have legal council working for them who did the same thing as Robinson didn't go to prison? They had a fine and were censured? Is that all?

 

We are already on a slippery slope of media partiality and prejudgement.

You've been on it, but you're sliding the other way.

 

Robinson goes to jail for offense X. Police and BBC get fined as organizations. Did anyone get fired? Loose money personally?

 

Dankula says "gas the jews" and gets arrested and fined after a year long trial. The media reports on it, publishes the EXACT same words and nothing.

 

The slippery slope is that the law isn't applied equally and that certain parties are allowed to flagrantly violate it at will. Other parties get the police showing up and turning their lives upside down for a year or three.

[rmgill]

I think this is well worth the point.

 

The centroid of the issues are as Benjamin (aka Sargon) puts them.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by rmgill