Free Speech In The Uk

[rmgill]

Unrelated? It was the same charge.

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the other charges. The ones used to shut down his rallies, speaking engagements and events. The way Tommy describes them makes me wonder.

 

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'.

Again. If it was just Robinson, I'd put more faith in what you're writing. But it's not just Robinson. Why was Lauren Southern excluded from the UK under Terrorism accusations?

 

But it's not just Tommy is it? He's just the more stubborn one among the lot.

 

And again, his guilt for you guys seems to hang on "he's a racist" and "he's a cheb" so 'he's getting what he deserves.' You've specifically pushed that 'he's a racist so I can discount what he says' narrative too far Stuart. Any of the British folks I've pointed to with differing views, you've just discounted as being alt-right or what not.

[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.

Then why isn't there a blanket ban on reporting of anyone accused of a crime?

 

There is a big discussion about this now particularly in rape cases. Women can't be named but men can, and if you are found innocent, as has happened on a number of cases recently your life is still up shit creek.

 

Over the last few days a 3 year old was attacked with acid in a supermarket. Very quickly 5 men were arrested by Tuesday and in front of the magistrate today, Before today they were not named, normally when charged you are named to ensure the hte state is not just locking people up, as you claim. 4 of the 5 have been named but the father of the child has not. Why. Because the child is under 18 and so can't be identified and naming the father would do that.

 

A lot of the time it is down to the judge if reporting restriction can be lifted. It may be to protect the defendant or the witnesses. Reporting on cases is restricted when a person has been charged and the press can freely report on evidence that has been in court that day if the judge has lifted the restrictions. It could also be that the first case is part of a longer trial of other defendants and to report it could prejudice the out come of other cases.

 

Jurries in the UK are picked at random and unless there is very good reason for you not to site you are in. There is no jury selection by the defence or prosecution just you name drawn from a hat. On the day of the trial your name is called and down you go. You are then asked if there is any reason why you can't sit ie. yes he is my brother, if not then you on.

 

As to Robinson, HE SAID HE WAS GUILTY, CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. That is why he is locked up not because he is a plonker.

[Briganza]

 

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.

 

Totally different situation and if you can't see that there is no point in explaining it to you as you still will not get it.

[rmgill]

As to Robinson, HE SAID HE WAS GUILTY, CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. That is why he is locked up not because he is a plonker.

Ok. He's guilty. He reported on something that isn't to be discussed for 'reasons'. But those things can be discussed by other people and they suffer lesser or no consequences.

 

 

Over the last few days a 3 year old was attacked with acid in a supermarket. Very quickly 5 men were arrested by Tuesday and in front of the magistrate today, Before today they were not named, normally when charged you are named to ensure the hte state is not just locking people up, as you claim. 4 of the 5 have been named but the father of the child has not. Why. Because the child is under 18 and so can't be identified and naming the father would do that.

Cases involving children are unique, they're underage. That's a standard we have over here. But if the persons are known, I see little reason to try to HIDE the details surrounding the court case DURING the trial.

 

I have to ask, how does the state naming you prevent it from just locking people up? If the threshold is a subjective "something X said was offensive" it's not exactly preventive is it? More over, a ban on reporting on an ongoing case would seem to assist in the state just locking people up for what ever reason they contrive.

 

 

 

Totally different situation and if you can't see that there is no point in explaining it to you as you still will not get it.

It's a totally different thing. You won't understand.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

As to Robinson, HE SAID HE WAS GUILTY, CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. That is why he is locked up not because he is a plonker.

Ok. He's guilty. He reported on something that isn't to be discussed for 'reasons'. But those things can be discussed by other people and they suffer lesser or no consequences.

 

 

Over the last few days a 3 year old was attacked with acid in a supermarket. Very quickly 5 men were arrested by Tuesday and in front of the magistrate today, Before today they were not named, normally when charged you are named to ensure the hte state is not just locking people up, as you claim. 4 of the 5 have been named but the father of the child has not. Why. Because the child is under 18 and so can't be identified and naming the father would do that.

Cases involving children are unique, they're underage. That's a standard we have over here. But if the persons are known, I see little reason to try to HIDE the details surrounding the court case DURING the trial.

 

I have to ask, how does the state naming you prevent it from just locking people up? If the threshold is a subjective "something X said was offensive" it's not exactly preventive is it? More over, a ban on reporting on an ongoing case would seem to assist in the state just locking people up for what ever reason they contrive.

 

 

 

Totally different situation and if you can't see that there is no point in explaining it to you as you still will not get it.

It's a totally different thing. You won't understand.

 

 

 

Because sometimes details about the defendant can indicate the identity of the children. I also suspect in the judges mind he was trying to curb the likelihood of the National Front turning up on the doorstep, putting any witnesses off from showing up and buggering up the trial. Which in fairness to him if it was one his motives, came perilously close to happening.

 

Ultimately Its our country and our aws. Dont like them, dont live here. Go and live somewhere where they turn trials into a media farce, like the United States for example.

[rmgill]

 

 

Ultimately Its our country and our aws. Dont like them, dont live here. Go and live somewhere where they turn trials into a media farce, like the United States for example.

Awww, this shibboleth again. I guess you'll leave off on commenting on Trump, the US military and other USian things from now on?

 

We're discussing something which British people have brought up and which British people find of import.

 

[NickM]

 

 

 

Ultimately Its our country and our aws. Dont like them, dont live here. Go and live somewhere where they turn trials into a media farce, like the United States for example.

Awww, this shibboleth again. I guess you'll leave off on commenting on Trump, the US military and other USian things from now on?

 

We're discussing something which British people have brought up and which British people find of import.

 

 

 

see, here is the thing: I'm still wondering if the lurid reporting RE: Muslims in the UK (or places like Scandinavia or Germany) are radicalizing & not assimilating and engaging in various antisocial behaviors is true, semi true or wild exercises in Yellow Journalism; I ask here but am not told flat out it's true, it's (slightly, moderately or wildly) exaggerated or total BS.

 

Based on what I read in UK/European papers about the US's peculiarities I've concluded THEY don't know 'Jack' about what's going on here...so, I take the more breathless stuff with that big old grain of salt but nobody wants to commit & say anything 'clear' either way.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

Ultimately Its our country and our aws. Dont like them, dont live here. Go and live somewhere where they turn trials into a media farce, like the United States for example.

Awww, this shibboleth again. I guess you'll leave off on commenting on Trump, the US military and other USian things from now on?

 

We're discussing something which British people have brought up and which British people find of import.

 

 

 

Again? Im just repeating the same arguments you always use when anyone finds anything to criticise in America.

[rmgill]

I never originated that. It originated when you lot were bitching about our commentary on your gun laws.

As I've repeatedly said, we're quite happy to discuss issues with the US and even point out flaws you may not even know about. Because we're not about being thin skinned, we're about at least understanding what the problems are and maybe, one day being able to get the political wherewithal to fix them.

[rmgill]

see, here is the thing: I'm still wondering if the lurid reporting RE: Muslims in the UK (or places like Scandinavia or Germany) are radicalizing & not assimilating and engaging in various antisocial behaviors is true, semi true or wild exercises in Yellow Journalism; I ask here but am not told flat out it's true, it's (slightly, moderately or wildly) exaggerated or total BS.

 

Based on what I read in UK/European papers about the US's peculiarities I've concluded THEY don't know 'Jack' about what's going on here...so, I take the more breathless stuff with that big old grain of salt but nobody wants to commit & say anything 'clear' either way.

 

Issues being over blow is a risk I'm very willing to acknowledge that. That's why 48 hour rules on things is important. For me the incident that taught me that rule was the Twana Brawley case.

 

Isolated incidents are statistical noise. More instances of the same sort, and one starts to see patterns. The various trucks of peace (plus bombing attacks) in Europe are, I think, notable. What's odd is that they say that there's no issues. But then they point to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, see, there are more examples of incidents there. Yes, but there were more Irish around too to have arguments with other Irish about catholic vs protestant and being part of the UK or not I would say. The rates of crimes by Muslims seems out of proportion wrt their population.

 

News agencies are of imperfect. They can make mistakes. The market for the news and the nature of the 24 hour news cycle also pushes that envelope. The nature of the sort of people who go into news reporting is also something that introduces biases in the reporting. It's hard to see unless you actually get to know reporters. How things sound vs how they work are a major issue. Gell-Mann Amnesia effect and all that too.

 

What makes me suspicious is how strident the cries are and who I see making the cries that 'there is no problem'. They are, in many cases, the same folks who are pushing identitarian concepts which value people's group more than the individual. You obviously have to keep an eye out for the Richard Spencer types. But if you listen to their talks you can zero in on what they actually want because if they can speak freely, they will actually hang themselves with their own words. Look at the interview/discussion that Sargon did with Richard Spencer. That bit solidified my dislike for Spencer FAR more than any yaping person just calling him a racist ever could. Conversely, I've listened to some talks by Robinson and in the face of the things cast about by folks here, all they've done is muddy the waters more I think. 'me thinks they doth protest too much'.

 

I figure at best one can do is try to listen to sources on both sides and see what they say. Then try to judge. Given for example, the HM's Gov't sought to exclude a leggy blonde Canadian Activist/Journalist I think there's at least a smouldering fire where the smoke is at. Folks like Sargon/Carl Benjamin also make compelling points.

Edited July 26, 2018 by rmgill

[BansheeOne]

The bloody law-bending British court system is at it again.

 

Tommy Robinson bailed after Court of Appeal win

1 August 2018

Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson has been released on bail after winning an appeal against a contempt of court finding.

 

The 35-year-old admitted the charge and was jailed in May for filming outside Leeds Crown Court during a trial.

 

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett ruled the case be reheard as there had been technical flaws by the judge who jailed him.

 

Robinson's solicitors said everyone has the "right to a fair hearing".

 

The far-right activist, from Luton, was not present for the ruling in London and was released from his 13-month sentence being served at Onley Prison, near Rugby just before 15:30 BST.

 

Speaking to reporters, Robinson said: "All the British media do is lie. I have a lot to say but nothing to you.

 

"I want to thank the British public for all their support."

 

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.

 

"We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge."

 

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon, will attend the Old Bailey for the hearing, conducted by the Recorder of London, "as soon as reasonably possible".

 

[...]

 

Robinson had challenged two contempt of court findings but Lord Burnett said a suspended sentence he was given relating to a trial in Canterbury in May 2017 should stand.

 

He was given 10 months for contempt of court in Leeds and a further three months for breaching the suspended sentence handed to him in Canterbury.

 

Robinson attended Canterbury Crown Court during a rape trial of four men and filmed on the steps of the court and inside the building while the jury was considering its verdicts.

 

At an earlier hearing, Robinson's QC argued that procedural "deficiencies" had caused "prejudice" in Leeds.

 

Lord Burnett said the judge should not have commenced contempt proceedings the same day he was arrested.

 

He explained "no particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant", and there was "a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered".

 

Robinson's bail conditions order that he does not "approach within 400m (0.2 miles) of Leeds Crown Court".

 

His lawyers had argued that a rehearing was not necessary due to the length of time he served in prison.

 

But the Court of Appeal said the "alleged contempt was serious" and the sentence might be longer than that already served.

 

[...]

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45029755

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ooops, cant comment on that, is subjudicy. I notice Robinson is also being very cagy about what he says. Clearly his own trial is not one he wants to comment on, curiously.

[Briganza]

The bloody law-bending British court system is at it again.

 

Tommy Robinson bailed after Court of Appeal win

1 August 2018

Former English Defence League (EDL) leader Tommy Robinson has been released on bail after winning an appeal against a contempt of court finding.

 

The 35-year-old admitted the charge and was jailed in May for filming outside Leeds Crown Court during a trial.

 

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett ruled the case be reheard as there had been technical flaws by the judge who jailed him.

 

Robinson's solicitors said everyone has the "right to a fair hearing".

 

The far-right activist, from Luton, was not present for the ruling in London and was released from his 13-month sentence being served at Onley Prison, near Rugby just before 15:30 BST.

 

Speaking to reporters, Robinson said: "All the British media do is lie. I have a lot to say but nothing to you.

 

"I want to thank the British public for all their support."

 

In his written judgement, Lord Burnett said: "We are satisfied that the finding of contempt made in Leeds following a fundamentally flawed process, in what we recognise were difficult and unusual circumstances, cannot stand.

 

"We will direct that the matter be reheard before a different judge."

 

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley Lennon, will attend the Old Bailey for the hearing, conducted by the Recorder of London, "as soon as reasonably possible".

 

[...]

 

Robinson had challenged two contempt of court findings but Lord Burnett said a suspended sentence he was given relating to a trial in Canterbury in May 2017 should stand.

 

He was given 10 months for contempt of court in Leeds and a further three months for breaching the suspended sentence handed to him in Canterbury.

 

Robinson attended Canterbury Crown Court during a rape trial of four men and filmed on the steps of the court and inside the building while the jury was considering its verdicts.

 

At an earlier hearing, Robinson's QC argued that procedural "deficiencies" had caused "prejudice" in Leeds.

 

Lord Burnett said the judge should not have commenced contempt proceedings the same day he was arrested.

 

He explained "no particulars of the contempt were formulated or put to the appellant", and there was "a muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered".

 

Robinson's bail conditions order that he does not "approach within 400m (0.2 miles) of Leeds Crown Court".

 

His lawyers had argued that a rehearing was not necessary due to the length of time he served in prison.

 

But the Court of Appeal said the "alleged contempt was serious" and the sentence might be longer than that already served.

 

[...]

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45029755

 

But I am sure someone on here said that the courts are run by the government and that the government locked him up to keep him quiet. Or did I get that wrong adn that the courts are independent of the government.

 

Conspiracies can be so difficult. Has any group taken responsibility for freeing him. I do so hope that his barrister was paid lots of money to argue his case and that it didn't come out of the public purse.

[DB]

Someone also pointed at frothy discussions where it was claimed that "they" had given him a death sentence. I suspect they were mistaking British prisons with US federal supermax prisons, but I could be guilty of stereotyping. I dunno where he was put, but I doubt it ws with murderous islamic ray guns.

[rmgill]

Someone also pointed at frothy discussions where it was claimed that "they" had given him a death sentence. I suspect they were mistaking British prisons with US federal supermax prisons, but I could be guilty of stereotyping. I dunno where he was put, but I doubt it ws with murderous islamic ray guns.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/28/murders-and-suicides-in-prisons-in-england-and-wales-hit-17-year-high

 

Source Data from HM's Gov't.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-march-2018

 

Deaths in custody.

 

Assaults in custody.

 

What's apparently missing is rates among those various groups so you can see what trends are instead of absolute numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rmgill]

The bloody law-bending British court system is at it again.

 

Tommy Robinson bailed after Court of Appeal win

1 August 2018

[snip]

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-45029755

Notably absent in most reporting on court cases is citations to the actual textual ruling by the judges where present. My own view is that reporters are usually quite bad at legal analysis and I prefer to try to read what the judge(s) wrote in a decision before I formulate any concrete opinions on the case itself.

 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Ooops, cant comment on that, is subjudicy. I notice Robinson is also being very cagy about what he says. Clearly his own trial is not one he wants to comment on, curiously.

Over here, usually when you are on trial for something, it's a good idea to shut your pie hole lest you incriminate yourself, speak off the cuff and spoil your own case or what not. Lawyers even recommend that you comment not at all on such issues.

 

I'm pretty sure you have some concepts around the same thing over there. Though I do note that there's something named as "Privilege against Self-Incrimination". Interesting that it's a privilege and not a right.

Edited August 2, 2018 by rmgill

[Harold Jones]

It helps if you remember that the bill of rights was mostly a reaction to what were seen as the abuses of rights by the crown. So it's no surprise that the two countries legal systems differ on the rights of the accused.

[Cinaruco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZZD89ucoI

 

So, he talks like a Venezuelan political prisoner, after going to jail for something he said. Er, if you can't see the problem here, maybe it is too late for you.

[Briganza]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZZD89ucoI

 

So, he talks like a Venezuelan political prisoner, after going to jail for something he said. Er, if you can't see the problem here, maybe it is too late for you.

He went to jail because he ignored a Judge and thought he could get away with it. Please remember that he pleaded guilty to the offence. If he thought he was innocent he should have said when asked "not guilty".

 

Contrary to what some think the Government couldn't give a toss about him, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Ooops, cant comment on that, is subjudicy. I notice Robinson is also being very cagy about what he says. Clearly his own trial is not one he wants to comment on, curiously.

Over here, usually when you are on trial for something, it's a good idea to shut your pie hole lest you incriminate yourself, speak off the cuff and spoil your own case or what not. Lawyers even recommend that you comment not at all on such issues.

 

I'm pretty sure you have some concepts around the same thing over there. Though I do note that there's something named as "Privilege against Self-Incrimination". Interesting that it's a privilege and not a right.

 

 

Im just making the point Ryan, he feels perfectly free to prejudice other peoples trials, but not his own. Which is hilarious, not that I would expect those of same to appreciate the irony.

[Cinaruco]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZZD89ucoI

 

So, he talks like a Venezuelan political prisoner, after going to jail for something he said. Er, if you can't see the problem here, maybe it is too late for you.

He went to jail because he ignored a Judge and thought he could get away with it. Please remember that he pleaded guilty to the offence. If he thought he was innocent he should have said when asked "not guilty".

 

Contrary to what some think the Government couldn't give a toss about him, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

 

It always comes down to something he said about Muslims, no matter what mental gymnastics you do about it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

No, it came down to his breaking the law, no matter how many people want to reframe it as something else.

 

Does anyone actually want to try and understand my country? Does it take too much effort to actually listen to what the people whom live here actually say?

[Briganza]

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZZD89ucoI

 

So, he talks like a Venezuelan political prisoner, after going to jail for something he said. Er, if you can't see the problem here, maybe it is too late for you.

He went to jail because he ignored a Judge and thought he could get away with it. Please remember that he pleaded guilty to the offence. If he thought he was innocent he should have said when asked "not guilty".

 

Contrary to what some think the Government couldn't give a toss about him, they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

 

It always comes down to something he said about Muslims, no matter what mental gymnastics you do about it.

 

I have just been reading the Appeal Court ruling on the case and it would seem you are wrong. Part of his contempt was in filming in or around the court which is against the law.

 

If you wish to read it.

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2018/1856.html

 

Some point from it that are relevant.

 

 

To secure a fair trial for some accused of crime it is from time to time necessary for the judges to make and order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court ACt 1981 postponing the reporting of the proceedings.

 

Paras 11 to 25 are the most relevant and are titled "The Facts".

 

 

The contempt, however, arose from filming in the precincts of the court.

 

This order, the validity of which is not in dispute, prohibited the publication of any report of the proceedings until after the conclusion of that trial and of a related trial which was yet to take place.

 

The appellant recorded the video close to the entrance used by the defendants and jurors. In it he referred to the trial, the identity of the defendants, the charges against them and to charges which had not been proceeded with against some of the defendants. He had confronted some of the defendants as they arrived at court.

 

Contrary to what many think he has not been found not guilty, he is to have a retiral and looking at what the appeal court has said he is going down, again.

[Cinaruco]

If tossing a guy for filming in a courthouse makes all of this more palatable to you, then good. Its still some Banana Republic shit. Tommy reminds me of my school friend that ended up as a political prisoner for 100 days, same story, same physical decay.

 

Contrary to what many think he has not been found not guilty, he is to have a retiral and looking at what the appeal court has said he is going down, again.

 

I am glad you are enjoying Tommy's situation. And thank you for clarifying that Tommy could still spend allot of time in Kebab jail.

 

I mean, sending the guy to the largest musilm prison in Britain, that is something the courts do only when they wish to punish people, and not legally, but by abusing their power.