Utopia Talk / Politics / Tommy Robinson

Aeros Member	Sat May 26 11:28:37 So some angst far right guy got arrested in Britain. But that's not really the story. The story is he was arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail in the span of a single hour. And that is not even the worst of it. Though it should be. The worst of it is the British courts ordered a media ban in the whole thing, so the trial and conviction of someone could happen hidden from public view. The British press immediately pulled their articles and shortly after the AMERICAN PRESS pulled their articles as well as most have British offices. Fuck you like fucking fucks. I Don't care if Tommy Robinson is the second coming of Adolf Hitler. I did not even know who he was until yesterday. But your Orwellian kangaroo race courts are starting to effect me and I cannot abide this at all.
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Sat May 26 11:30:26 channellung your inner Alex Jones.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 11:32:34 So he was standing on a corner heckling some groomer gangs and got snatched up by yellow-vested goons and immediately carted off to a cage?
Aeros Member	Sat May 26 11:32:48 Please. Just because Alex Jones spergs out about something does not mean the rest of us should. The American Press were censored by a jumped up magistrate in Leeds. The entire national media. People watched the articles get pulled off the aggregating sites in real time.
Daemon Member	Sat May 26 11:33:58 What's your source? There are reports on his arrest, example: http://www...l-founder-latest-a8368821.html
Aeros Member	Sat May 26 11:34:07 *Rest of us shouldn't
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 11:35:20 I avoided commenting last night, because the only people saying he was convicted and sent to jail were indeed Alex Jones types. But many articles that were still up last night seem to have been scrubbed, as Aeros mentioned. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/edl-founder-tommy-robinson-arrested-14705652?utm_source=google_news&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=google_news&utm_content=sitemap Sorry... We can't find the page you requested
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 11:38:46 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/watch-former-edl-leader-tommy-12594744 Sorry... We can't find the page you requested http://www...oogle_news&utm_content=sitemap Sorry... We can't find the page you requested
Daemon Member	Sat May 26 11:50:21 Seems like it should not be reported about his case until the other cases are finished: http://www...00000000000000000000003-15.jpg
obaminated Member	Sat May 26 11:51:46 Maybe they got purged because it was a false story?
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Sat May 26 11:55:11 http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Tommy+Robinson
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 11:59:54 Daemon's pic is blocked, but the main article appears to have the picture, a reporting restriction issued by the court, to last until after the grooming trials end. Which seems to be a pretty grave injustice. If he's already been sentenced and caged while these guys' trials are still ongoing, it pretty well vindicates the hundreds marching the streets demanding his release.
Paramount Member	Sat May 26 12:02:11 ”The worst of it is the British courts ordered a media ban in the whole thing,” I doubt the courts can do that. Britain has a free press. Do you have a source, Aeros?
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 12:04:56 They argue that they need to muzzle any discussion about the cases because the defense is allowed to peddle arguments like, "muh jury is tainted because of muh far right".
Seb Member	Sat May 26 12:55:09 Aeros: Firstly, he was convicted months ago for contempt of court doing the same thing as now (he calls it protesting, but the courts take a dim view of people rabble rousing outside the court in a manner that would reasonably intimidate the jury while implying very strongly the jury should make a particular decision). His sentence was suspended. The very quick time between arrest and jail reflectscthe fact that rather than being tried this time, all that has happened is that by breaching the terms of suspended sentence (think probation) his three month custodial sentence for the previous crime is no longer suspended. The court order against journalists relates to an attempt to limit the potential of prejudicing the ongoing trial. New articles that comply with the court order are going up.
Seb Member	Sat May 26 12:57:11 Forwyn: Er, yeah, when you are a notorious ex leader of a far right group with a history of violence leading an angry protests heckling jurors as they enter the court, prejudicing the trial is exactly what you are doing. Ffs.
Seb Member	Sat May 26 12:59:37 I mean, if that allowed any trial against organised crime would be a joke. 30 heavies with mobile phones changing "no discrimination against legitimate business men!". I can see the conviction rates now. Right to fair trial is pretty much the foundational civil right. Without it, the others could not be enforced.
Aeros Member	Sat May 26 13:00:52 I could care less what sort of Orwellian nonsense the UK wants to get up too. My objection is over this shit starting to bleed over the border.
Seb Member	Sat May 26 13:02:35 Forwyn: He was tried and seintended for doing the same thing months ago, and granted a suspended sentence. I don't know if you have that in the US but basically it is akin to going straight to probation. And a condition of that will not to be to repeat the offence. Which he then goes and does. So off to jail: no doubt he will later be tried for this offence. But he's in jail for the last one.
Seb Member	Sat May 26 13:03:27 Aeros: Go fuck yourself Nazi. The last time someone threatened our freedom it didn't work out for them.
Aeros Member	Sat May 26 13:14:17 I am not the one threatening your freedoms.
Rugian Member	Sat May 26 13:16:09 "The last time someone threatened our freedom it didn't work out for them." Theresa May seems to be doing fine, Seb.
Dukhat Member	Sat May 26 13:18:34 More butt-hurt over a retard edge lord. *yawn*
The Sentinel Member	Sat May 26 13:42:00 "Judge Heather Norton handed him a three months imprisonment in May last year but suspended it for 18 months on the condition he did not commit further offences." Perhaps he should have abide his current conditions that were stipulated last may.
The Sentinel Member	Sat May 26 13:47:24 "He co-founded the English Defence League (EDL) in 2009 and has been arrested numerous times during demonstrations and at fights between football fans, as well as being jailed for mortgage fraud in 2014." Perhaps he should stop being a criminal.
The Sentinel Member	Sat May 26 13:49:38 "On 24 August 2010, Robinson was involved in a fight between supporters of Luton Town and Newport County in Luton, on the evening that the two clubs played at Kenilworth Road. Robinson reportedly led the group of Luton fans, and played an integral part in starting a 100-man brawl, during which he chanted "EDL till I die". Eleven months later, in July 2011, he was convicted of having used "threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour" on the night of the incident. He was given a 12-month community rehabilitation order with 150 hours' unpaid work and a three-year ban from attending football matches. He was also ordered to pay £650 in costs.[31] Robinson was arrested after an EDL demonstration in Tower Hamlets on 3 September 2011 for breach of bail conditions, as he had been banned from attending that demonstration. After his arrest, Robinson began a hunger strike in custody in Bedford Prison, saying that he was a "political prisoner of the state",[32] and refused to eat what he believed was halal meat.[33] A local paper reported that Bedford Prison sources had said that the hunger strike lasted only 24 hours.[34] A handful of EDL supporters protested outside the prison in support of Robinson during his incarceration; the support peaked at a turnout of 100 protesters on 10 September.[35] Robinson was released from prison on 12 September.[36] On 29 September 2011, he was convicted of common assault after headbutting a fellow EDL member at a rally in Blackburn in April that year.[37] He was given a 12-week jail term, suspended for 12 months.[38] Robinson said that the assault had happened because of a confrontation with a neo-Nazi who had joined the EDL's rank and file.[39][40] Interviewed on BBC Three Counties Radio on 9 October 2013, the day after he had resigned from the EDL, Robinson said, "One of the things people condemn me for is having a criminal record; what they don't wish to say is that part of that criminal record is for confronting neo-Nazis in Blackburn at one of my demonstrations, where I was taken before the courts and charged for assault...during the last four years we've had in-house battles, physical battles to keep these elements out. Now I’ve got to the point—listeners can look on Youtube for 'RVF EDL', they'll see there's these Nazis and they're talking to me telling me they're going to kill me—and there are fifty of them with balaclavas on."[40] On 8 November 2011, Robinson held a protest on the rooftop of the FIFA headquarters in Zürich against FIFA's ruling that the England national football team could not wear a Remembrance poppy symbol on their shirts. For this he was fined £3,000 and jailed for three days.[41] In October 2012, Robinson was arrested and held on the charge of having entered the US illegally. Robinson pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to using someone else's passport—"possession of a false identity document with improper intention"—to travel to the United States in September 2012, and was sentenced in January to 10 months' imprisonment.[42][43] He was sentenced under the name of Stephen Lennon, but the judge added that he suspected it was not his true name, in the sense that it was not the name on his own passport. He was released on electronic tag on 22 February 2013.[44] On being released, Robinson told the BBC that he was dismayed to discover that the EDL's ranks had been swollen with racist and neo-Nazi supporters: "I've battled for four years to keep certain elements out of this movement, to keep it down the path that we want to take it down. And I've seen that they've been welcomed back, they're the Nazis and the fascists—they were welcomed back."[45]" This guy is a model citizen.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 16:02:10 You would suspect that those who aren't complete retards and worry about jury tampering would simply have the jury enter at discreet locations, rather than applying blanket bans on protesting and filming by saying that twelve of the hundreds of people filing in happen to be jurors. But then, I'm not Seb. Curious that the cops never said anything about the jury at the scene, and were blathering about disturbing the peace and shutting off his live feed.
The Sentinel Member	Sat May 26 16:07:10 Forwyn is right. This criminal should not be penalized for breaking the law or violating his conditions.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 17:39:45 Breaking the law, in this case, seems to be any political action within the general vicinity of courthouses during business hours. Thanks for the chance to clarify, The Cuckinel.
The Sentinal Member	Sat May 26 18:07:28 I think forwyn doesn't understand that this criminal should not have been penalized until the british law of 1925. I am in agreement. Criminals who violate their probation should not be penalized because of political reasons. It should be overlooked.
The Sentinal Member	Sat May 26 18:07:57 until = under
Seb Member	Sat May 26 18:21:32 Forwyn: Why the fuck should we do that? Build courts with secret entrances etc. Jury tamperers will find them anyway. It is incumbent for the proper functioning of courts, and the gauranteed right to a fair trial - the most fundamental right - that jurys are not prejudiced or threatened. That trumps "political protest" - go protest after the verdict, or away from the court. It's far simpler to simply not permit people to stand outside court protesting and revording, and if they do prosecute them, than start inventing magic secret entrances to courts that jurers enter through which will be secret for about five minutes.
Seb Member	Sat May 26 18:22:40 "waaa. Waaa. Poor racist should be allowed to prejudice trials, break the law etc. Because he's on our side. Waaa"
The Sentinal Member	Sat May 26 18:31:55 It should be like here in the states. Where Jurors are sometimes taken to public restaurants under guard and blindfolded so they cannot see other people who are holding up signs.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 20:19:10 "Secret entrances" There are no employee entrances? Courthouses have a single entry and exit? Don't be retarded. "Jury tamperers will find them anyway." And then there's no defense for the accused. As it stands, yeah, you're arguing that there's no free speech at all in the vicinity of the courts during any trial - which is always.
Forwyn Member	Sat May 26 20:26:26 "break the law etc. Because he's on our side." Other than him heckling rapists and traffickers, I doubt he's on my side. I'm more on the side that people shouldn't be thrown in a hole for standing on a corner with a phone shouting, unless it's an exigent threat.
Seb Member	Sun May 27 04:30:45 Forwyn: Court houses - especially crown courts - are secure. Do you really think we'd have multiple entrances with gaurds, metal detectors etc? So, what, the gentry aren't offended to see the tradesmen enter? Lol.
Seb Member	Sun May 27 04:33:05 Yes,freedom of speech doesn't extend to standing outside a court, with a mob, recording jurors as they enter, and issuing vague threats, prejudicing a trial. Outrageous I know. You'll be telling me next how outrageous a violation of free speech it is that judges, *judges* will only let people talk in court if it's procedurally approved. The horror!
Seb Member	Sun May 27 04:33:53 Forwyn: "exigent threat" Like recording and attempting to identify jurors, legal reps of the accused etc.?
Seb Member	Sun May 27 04:34:29 Fucking idiot, you are, aren't you?
Seb Member	Sun May 27 07:49:37 His lawyer admitted he filmed inside the court too. It's been illegal to do that since the invention of photography.
The Sentinal Member	Sun May 27 07:52:05 Oh, do you mean the criminal broke the conditions that were mandated from a British Judge from his last case? I am for one shocked that the criminal violated those stipulations and had been warned to stay out of trouble to avoid prison time. And now this. Anyone can see this was purely a political dog and pony show. The injustice!
patom Member	Sun May 27 17:21:17 Aeros. When someone violates their terms of release, whether that be bail, probation, or conditions imposed upon them like say 90 days and to never have contact with their victim again (example). They are subject to immediate arrest and return to jail or prison to serve the remainder of their sentence. These terms are made perfectly clear by either the bail commissioner or the Judge. They sign papers agreeing to these conditions. If they are arrested for breaking their conditions of release then so be it. You can't fix stupid and your sympathy should be for their victims.
Aeros Member	Sun May 27 17:47:06 I am mad about the censorship. I couldn't care less what he did.
Seb Member	Sun May 27 17:50:18 Aeros: I think you could leave it at the first three words.
Aeros Member	Sun May 27 17:58:37 We speak real english on this board. The first three words are accurate.
delude Member	Sun May 27 18:22:50 Yes, you're mad. Mad that someone violated their probation. Oh well.
patom Member	Sun May 27 23:01:47 Aeros, it isn't news worthy if some ass hat violates their conditions of release and are arrested for that.
Aeros Member	Sun May 27 23:56:27 If you read my first post, the one at the top, you will note my ire is the over the fact that a magistrate in Leeds can and did compel US based media outlets from removing published articles on an event that occurred.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 00:18:51 We would not tolerate a court in China giving and order that violated the 1st amendment of the Federal Constitution and having that order followed by US based media companies. We should not tolerate a court in the United Kingdom carrying out a similar action. The fact that I have to compare a UK court to a Chinese court is a crying shame, but that is precisely what has happened here. I won't stand for it, and no American who claims that title for themselves should stand for it either.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 00:24:28 Our entire business and diplomatic relationship with the United Kingdom is predicated on the belief that we are common travelers in the great cause that is liberal democracies. That laws that exist in America are largely reciprocated in Britain. It is why we allow such great media and trade integration that even close US allies like Japan or Turkey do not enjoy. These actions by the crown courts of England throw this trust into open question, and perhaps we must relegate England to the list of countries with questionable adherence to the bedrock principles of our Republic.
Wrath of Orion Member	Mon May 28 00:32:53 Is it just me, or has Aeros been spiraling further and further into deep retardation over the last handful of years?
Dukhat Member	Mon May 28 00:52:42 American laws are a joke. Our laisez faire system of truth belonging to the highest bidder got Trump elected. No other democracy goes as far with unregulated free speech. I'm not crying crocodile tears over some dumbass troll.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon May 28 01:43:59 >>Is it just me<< It isn’t just you, several people have spiraled down reardation lane the past decade.
Seb Member	Mon May 28 05:26:15 Aeros: Welcome to the 21st century. American media can simply close their offices here if they like.
Seb Member	Mon May 28 05:26:44 US companies regularly kowtow to China as the price of doing business.
Seb Member	Mon May 28 05:34:12 Aeros: You know there was US supreme court case that permits states to ban recording in courts. Presumably enforceable. Oh noes, freedom of speech limited. Can I suggest that perhaps the US media shouldn't be undermining the integrity of our court system and that our right to a fair trial clearly trumps your freedom of speech when it relates to matters occurring solely in the UK. Far more clearly than, for example, NY states right to lock up UK based bankers for fraud against their UK employer which did not consider itself to have been defrayded, this fraud being conducted in the UK, and having only the most tenuous of connections to the US (the internet traffic having crossed into the US jurisdiction en route); which appears to have happened purely so the prosecutor's (which you elect) could claim to have locked up some bankers in the wake of a financial crisis without actually upsetting his constituenci submit that, in fact, is the real problem here, and when the US gives up on extra jurisdictional law application, then, and only then, can you legitimately whine about stuff like this.
American Democrat Member	Mon May 28 06:09:47 Aeros: " The worst of it is the British courts ordered a media ban in the whole thing, so the trial and conviction of someone could happen hidden from public view." I am not entirely sure why there is any outrage. You are aware that across the states and many different court rooms that Judges have order banned on media and electronic devices. There are only specific people in court that are allowed to record. There are many factors as to why this occurred. Intimidation factors, threat factors, and keeping the integrity of the case itself. And from what I've read regarding this individual, he violated is conditions of release. Which has been pointed out. However, forwyn does bring up a valid point. Since that is a concern and most definitely a safety issue. Why not have an alternative route for witnesses or jurors to avoid incidents like this? Seb; "Why the fuck should we do that? Build courts with secret entrances etc. Jury tamperers will find them anyway." Just because that at some point it could happen, does not negate the concept that mitigation should intervene, to at least stifle such incidents that involves individuals like Tommy Robison. I am also of the opinion that UK courts probably do take such precautions and this may be an isolated incident and its a big story due to the person that is involved.
American Democrat Member	Mon May 28 06:16:12 quick edit: * have ordered bans on media.....
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 28 10:08:32 So england jails a guy for reporting on mass muslim rapes that they were trying to hide? Sounds about normal for that fucking retarded country. Can you believe they used to conquer the world? How the mighty have fallen. Churchill and Nelson are crying.
Seb Member	Mon May 28 10:31:24 American Democrat: There's a subtle difference between having a back door for emergencies, and saying that it should be used routinely to enable fuckwits who are setting out to prejudice a trial to be protected from their own intentionally criminal behaviour - especially as: 1. How are jurors to know to turn up to the back door? 2. How are such back doors, if routinely used, not to become well known to everyone who wishes to know? Sam: You mean the rapes that have been widely reported by UK media for years? The rapes uncovered by the UK media? Do you mean those rapes Sam? Or the secret covered up rapes?
Seb Member	Mon May 28 10:33:48 Churchill and Nelson would both decry people trying to sabotage a court case for self publicity. Understand what Tommy R is doing here: inventionally and deliberately trying to get the prosecution to fail so he can then claim the system is broken. He's trying to get these bastards to walk so he has the issue. If you support that you probably need to kill yourself.
Sam Adams Member	Mon May 28 11:11:33 "He's trying to get these bastards to walk so he has the issue. " If that is true he should of course be jailed.
Seb Member	Mon May 28 12:57:42 Lol Tommy Robinson is now asking his followers to stop trying to contact him in jail because he fears it will prejudice his trial.
American Democrat Member	Mon May 28 15:17:32 "There's a subtle difference between having a back door for emergencies, and saying that it should be used routinely to enable fuckwits who are setting out to prejudice a trial to be protected from their own intentionally criminal behaviour - especially as: 1. How are jurors to know to turn up to the back door? 2. How are such back doors, if routinely used, not to become well known to everyone who wishes to know? " Well, it is called a contingency plan to avoid issues such as what had transpired. And I would think court officers or officials would be the ones to monitor and usher where those that are part of the jurors would go. Maybe things are done oddly in the UK. Not entirely sure. However, to avoid any juror of being compromised there are measures taken here to ensure that the integrity remains tact.
Seb Member	Mon May 28 16:09:32 American Democrat: There are measures taken here too. Hence Tommy is now in prison.
American Democrat Member	Mon May 28 16:41:14 Yes, not disputing that. Don't have an issue with that. It does not make forwyn's point any less as he establishing a protocol that makes sense that is supporting my point to avoid incidents like Tommy Robisons'.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 19:09:09 Every law has a good and sound reason behind it. It is why the phrase about the road to hell is so true. "Aeros:  Welcome to the 21st century." You say this as if I am unaware of the issue. I am aware of the issue, hence this thread. I can also flip the coin on this as well. If the US does not like how Britain treats it's companies, Britain is more then welcome to be cut off from the American economy. Nobody considers second and third order effects of their actions.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 19:25:25 Also I do know about how American companies kowtow to the Chinese courts and I don't like it either. But feel free to continue to compare your legal system to that of an authoritarian police state. It's rapidly becoming an unironic comparison.
Forwyn Member	Mon May 28 19:45:30 Been enjoying my weekend, where I don't need a Holiday License to leave the borough. "Do you really think we'd have multiple entrances with gaurds, metal detectors etc?" A simple google street search of the Leeds Court shows a side entrance about 100 feet from the main parking lot gate - probably key fob. So, yes. "Yes,freedom of speech doesn't extend to standing outside a court, with a mob, recording jurors as they enter, and issuing vague threats, prejudicing a trial." Sounds like a lot of speculation. "1. How are jurors to know to turn up to the back door?" Because they are instructed to during their initial appearance? "2. How are such back doors, if routinely used, not to become well known to everyone who wishes to know?" There is little means of determining whether someone entering an employee entrance is a juror or an employee. If they have gone through the hassle of figuring this out just to fuck with jurors, then you have eliminated a defense of free speech - because, again, picketing outside a courthouse is not automatically jury tampering, unless they're doing all of the things you've speculating they're doing.
American Democrat Member	Mon May 28 19:45:30 Aeros, your argument does not hold water. Are arguing the law that was broken, which is coincidentally cause for his arrest thus violation his condition of release in lieu of serving time the first stint. Or are you saying that he should be allow to violate the current law. No matter how you cut it, the law specifically states what not to do, which he did do it and knowingly would be the result. Exactly what are you really being angry about? In fact, I presented to you a few posts back that here in the US we have similar laws. Quite honestly, you seem to be an emotional wreck that isn't making a logical argument to really be followed.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 21:02:24 I am angry about a court in Leeds apply British law to US based news agencies. A law, passed in 2015 by that shit head Blaire, and one that is patently opposed to the principles of the US constitution. I am mad that those US based media companies obeyed this judge in Leeds, and am now furious that Sen seems to think the United States should kowtow to the kangaroo courts of Britain as a cost of doing business.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 21:06:13 Sorry now Blaire, but my point stands. The law this judge used to muzzle the press is a new one, and is part of the creeping authoritarianism of the British state and I reject that on general principle. If it what the British want then they can have it. But under no circumstances should the United States be compelled to obey. My anger is that we may soon have to classify the UK in the same category as Turkey. An ally, but certainly not a nation that shares our values.
Aeros Member	Mon May 28 21:06:45 My phones autocorrect sucks.
Seb Member	Tue May 29 03:30:16 AD: It doesn't and cannot "avoid" such incidents. It can mitigate their impact but is no substitute to prohibiting this behaviour and prosecution of the perpetrators. The thrust of Forwyns point was "allow people like Tommy to do what he was doing, use secret back doors instead", not "use a back door while police remove perpetrators". Aeros: Your businesses choose to do business here. They are reporting on British incidents. I think your businesses are more than willing to make concessions to ensure access, and I'm fairly sure that your suggestion that their actions be curtailed and their freedom to trade blocked would infringe their constitutional rights. Further, they could very simply create local businesses here to subvert such crack handed infringements on their rights. You are correct, you seldom do think things through.
Seb Member	Tue May 29 03:37:49 Forwyn: So basically, you think the side gate would be in general use for all active jurors on criminal cases. So for crown courts with, say 10 trials running at a given time, a 120 people entering each day, with gaurds on the door, and a queue of people outside waiting to be checked. Why won't Tommy Robinson simply wait there? Assure from being small, and on the side of the building, how is this helping?
Average Ameriacn Member	Tue May 29 03:38:12 UK: first they took away your guns, then free choice of healthcare, now the freedom of the press. What will be next? Remember: it always starts with taking away your guns!
Seb Member	Tue May 29 03:41:31 Aeros: Sub judice rules go back forever. They were codified in statutory law in the contempt of court act in 1981, before I was born. It has nothing to do with Tony Blair, and yes, US companies operating in the UK are subject to UK law. No shit. And as for claims that this is done fundamental breach of values, as has been pointed out US states have been ruled by US supreme court to have the same right to prohibit recording.
Seb Member	Tue May 29 03:42:55 Average American: Anyone can buy private healthcare and the supposedly unfree press is full of articles about this. A few articles were modified to remove elements sub judice to publish after.
Seb Member	Tue May 29 03:49:08 Aeros: "Right to fair trial is less important than free speech, how dare the UK flip them". This is the thing Aeros, in the US you tollerate reducing people's right to a free trial to maximize free speech; which many here regard as an intolerable reduction in vital rights. This is actually far more similar to authoritarian govts that errode such rights than a minor restriction on speech. If you are using your free speech to undermine the prosecution of suspected child groomers on a foreign country, I really think there's a problem there.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 29 07:25:12 We can pretend like this was the only case of jackboot thuggery in the UK, maybe no one would be bothered if this was the only case, but it isn't, is it? It is a unending string of retardation down the slippery slope, which everyone like you denies exists as a real threat to free speech principles. If it wasn't for the hushed up rape gangs, the jailing of comedians for jokes and investigating people for facebook posts, if. But we live in the now and now we have to defend this former hooligan based on principle. Death to the Queen.
American Democrat Member	Tue May 29 07:36:01 "It doesn't and cannot "avoid" such incidents. It can mitigate their impact but is no substitute to prohibiting this behaviour and prosecution of the perpetrators. The thrust of Forwyns point was "allow people like Tommy to do what he was doing, use secret back doors instead", not "use a back door while police remove perpetrators"" I am not sure if the message relayed was lost in translation or that you outright ignored what was actually said. So I'll clear it up. 1. I introduced the concept of mitigation and avoidance, they were my earlier points. To emphasize protocols to protect witnesses or jurors by providing a controlled entrance or route. Which tags along with forwyn's point earlier in the thread. When he said.... "You would suspect that those who aren't complete retards and worry about jury tampering would simply have the jury enter at discreet locations, rather than applying blanket bans on protesting and filming by saying that twelve of the hundreds of people filing in happen to be jurors." I am not agreeing with him in the aspect that a Tommy Robinson should have carte blanche access to do whatever. But I understand and see a point for another access or route to be used to assist in avoidance encounters with people like him. Again, as I said previously, it is a contingency. There is no need for a philosophical debate of what words mean. Which seems that you are attempting to do with the words mitigation or avoid. As they were used and in the context of my point, synonymously. 2. The second part of your statement. I know exactly what forwyn was saying. And I elaborated upon it. Establishing instead of the appearance of violating free speech. Have other avenues that can be exhausted to prevent such incidents that is presently being discussed. And if a person like a Tommy Robinson decides to find a way to access to intervene and to break the law. Then no mercy and arrest them on the spot. The underlying point, primarily. Was that forwyn's point is valid. There should maybe be a reassessment on how to protect witnesses and or jurors.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue May 29 07:48:52 "The underlying point, primarily. Was that forwyn's point is valid. There should maybe be a reassessment on how to protect witnesses and or jurors." Brilliant, that this is in fact, another case of seb (and his like minded compatriots) applying first order thinking to solve the immediate problem (protecting jurors), but breaking other stuff in the process. Other stuff being the violation of free speech principles. I for one can not think of any other way!
Seb Member	Tue May 29 08:00:58 Nim: Pretty much all the so called "retardation" is actually inserted by the "retards" as you so well put it, who produce or take at face value partisan reports of events. Pretty much all of them have as much substance as this one (none at all). The fact you smell smoke is because it is *your* pants are on fire.
Seb Member	Tue May 29 08:09:07 AD: I was under the impression you were making a point regarding my response to Forwyn? If so it seems relevant to consider what Forwyn was actually proposing here, even if nothing more than to understand the context of my response! In this case, it is "rather than applying blanket bans on protesting and filming by saying that twelve of the hundreds of people filing in happen to be jurors" that makes it clear - any side entrance can only be used to try and limit the damage caused by any activity seeking to disrupt or prejudice a trial. It cannot be an alternative, or as he put it "rather than applying blanket ban"; only a supplement to it. On that I think we agree - though I took your first post to me (the one where I had said "why the fuck would we do that") to be disputing what I had meant in the context of Forwyn's original intent. What I was referring to was somehow, side entrances to courts could remove any need for sub-judice or contempt rulings that constrain freedom of speech. Incidentally it isn't a blanket ban, courts have significant discretion, but in this case had made their feelings very, very clear! I think it is safe to say we agree?
Seb Member	Tue May 29 08:31:41 AD: "Have other avenues that can be exhausted to prevent such incidents that is presently being discussed." I'm not really sure what you are getting at. From my perspective, in terms of practical protections of juries and trials, yes, there are other supplementary measures that can be undertaken to protect the integrity of a trial - but they can only be in addition to the basic provisions provided that would always allow a judge to prohibit someone from gather a large group of people outside a court, record those entering and leaving, while shouting intimidatory slogans likely to prejudice the views of the jury. If, as Forwyn and Nim appear to be doing here, one were to be looking to find a series of alternative measures that would enable people, in all circumstances, to conduct that kind of activity in a way that minimises the risk of prejudicing a trial order to extend their freedom of speech; I don't think that's necessary. Firstly, because the whole intent of the activity is to prejudice the trial so they will seek to overcome those other measures too - so why bother? Secondly, because the rights of Tommy etc to protest and make statement can be *easily* done within the confines of the present law: Perform such protests away from the immediate vicinity of the court, do not record those entering or leaving the court (or events inside the court) - and if you must protest on site, wait until after the verdict and do so at sentencing or acquittal. These are perfectly reasonable, limited measures that make only a very small limitation to "free speech" in a very narrow set of circumstances, and do so in order to protect more important issues, namely: 1. The right to a fair trial 2. The integrity of the entire criminal justice system, faith in which the good functioning of society depends. As the saying goes "Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done". Nim: The lack of self awareness you display is breathtaking. You are arguing that Tommy Robinson, who is deliberately setting out to influence a jury, should be protected by free speech. His entire intent here is to influence a jury - which I hope you and I agree is "not a thing that should happen". The only benefit then by ensuring this behaviour is protected is to notionally say "Free speech has been guaranteed, lets find some other ways that would stop him influencing a jury that mean he can do this activity, even if the only point of this activity is to influence a jury". It sounds to me that it is *you* that is not considering how first order attempts to ensure free speech in as many circumstances as possible - even circumstances that only arise in order to try and achieve an outcome we agree needs to be prevented - is the very definition of applying first order thinking (Free speech good!) while ignoring second order effects! This isn't a blanket ban, it's specific rulings on a case by case basis to prohibit activities which can very easily be made compliant if the intent is anything other than prejudicing a trial. It's a straight up case: Which should be prioritised, enabling free speech in all cases - even cases where it is harmful to other rights and public goods, or fair trial?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 02 06:30:30 "*you* that is not considering how first order" Breathtaking, was it? Your inability to see past your own stupidity. Even after someone took the time and explained that these two issues do not need to be at odds, and concretely how other countries deal with it. I assumed it was obvious that my first order thinking post is predicated on the fact that you do not need to break one to uphold the other. Instead you defend blunt measures, where the arbiter has "significant discretion" (there by pretty much guaranteeing great variability in outcome) so we can have cases with people like Robinson, to can pour gasoline on the conspiracy theory thinking you so despise. Why? Because people like you are too dumb to think beyond the immediate problem and solve them without a sledgehammer. It was sort of the issue many of raised with how Spain handled the Catalan "uprising", by sending in police to bash in heads. You people need to be saved from yourselves!
Seb Member	Sat Jun 02 07:18:17 Nim: Firstly, no, AD did not suggest that anything was an alternative to the laws in question. Note, prejudicing the jury was not an unfortunate accident, it was Mr Yaxley-Lennons intent, so presumably whatever measures you might put in would not resolve a problem. Indeed there is no evidence there actually is any problem here other than Mr Yaxley Lennons desire to deliberately prejudice an ongoing trial. There simply are not huge swathes of people winding up on court because their legitimate protests are falling foul of contempt laws. There is no evidence that judges are abusing their powers under contempt laws. And nobody so far has ventured the idea that Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson) should legitimately be allowed to record jury members, harass them, and shout prejudicial material to them. So, please explain to me why we should change the law given the only people falling foul of it are people doing things we actually think they shouldn't be doing? As for conspiracy theorists, well there's only so far one can bend over backwards for them. Ultimately it's your responsibility as a citizen here to make good judgements. I am far more worried that if people are allowed to record and harass jurists we would lose all confidence that juries we're reaching a fair and impartial verdict based on the evidence presented in court that the defendant has had a right to respond to. Were you ever a defendant, I'm pretty sure you would not like to think a jury might be convicting you based on unchallenged falsehoods your defence team had no opportunity to refute and indeed were never aware of, much less that they reached a verdict based on fear of being persecuted by a campaign if they returned the "wrong" verdict. This is far more important than a bunch of nutty right wing loons think.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 02 07:25:17 The point of protest is to influence. And that is a fundamental right in a free society. However, the point of law is to deliver justice without fear or favour. And we go to great lengths to ensure justice is not influenced. So those arguing free speech should trump the importance of the protections and limits put in place to prevent a trial from being influenced seem to me to be failing to address head on the key issue here: Do you want an independent judiciary where trials are fair and conducted by due process; or are you arguing that society should have channels to directly influence the outcome of a trial? That's the key question here. Now if there was evidence that the measures to protect trials were going to far, we should have some evidence of people being prosecuted and convicted for activity that was unlikely to influence a trial and where the people performing that activity had some legitimate intent. Yaxley-Lennon did not fall under that category. His intent was always to influence the trial. Therefore it is appropriate he is in jail.
murder Member	Sat Jun 02 21:05:41 When in Rome ...
murder Member	Sat Jun 02 21:11:11 Aeros: You're ex-army aren't you? Being a soldier you accepted all manner of restrictions, and had more placed upon you at the whim of your superiors, did you not? Did you also not have restrictions placed upon you depending on where you were deployed? Didn't the US media covering the war have restrictions placed on its reporting?
Aeros Member	Sat Jun 02 23:54:28 Sure, but arrests are not something that is ever restricted, even in the military. They don't have to say why someone was arrested, but they are required to say they have been arrested. Further in the US indictments, even ones under UCMJ are public record. The contents of the indictments can be sealed for various reasons, but their existence cannot be denied once they are filed with the court.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 03 03:10:10 Aeros: The restriction order didn't cover that he'd been attested. A few US outlets may not have understood the order. What would not have been disclosable is what he was doing/saying to get arrested prior to the first trials verdicts bring announced. As to public record, everything was a matter of public record, the prohibition was reporting it in the media prior to the first trial verdict.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 03 03:13:47 N.b. most media will usually chose to wait to report so they can tell the story. "A man was arrested today outside Leeds court for breach of the peace and subsequently sentenced to 13 months for contempt of court after...." Being more interesting than: "A man was arrested today for breach of the peace"
Allahuakbar Member	Thu Jun 14 18:02:54 Now we'll get him http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/247445 'Certain death' for Tommy Robinson in new prison Activist Robinson transferred yesterday to Onley Prison with high Muslim majority, known as violent prison. Tens of thousands demonstrate Anti-Muslim takeover activist Tommy Robinson was jailed last month for a “breach of the peace” while live-streaming a trial involving a Muslim rape gang outside Leeds Crown Court. He was sentenced to 13 months in prison for interfering with court proceedings. At first he was transferred to a prison that was considered relatively safe. However, his transfer to Onley means "certain death", say observers.
Dukhat Member	Thu Jun 14 22:29:19 The article uses infowars and breitbart as sources. Is there a non-retarded article about this?
Forwyn Member	Fri Jun 15 11:00:19 The most recent inspection of HMP Hull found the Muslim population was 79, which is 7.4 per cent. According to the most recent inspection of HMP Leicester, the Muslim population was 44, which is 14.3 per cent. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/tommy-robinson-moved-muslim-prison-14786200
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: