| TOMMY ROBINSON 07:42 - May 26 with 65274 views | getcarter |
Not a fan but his arrest yesterday challenges freedom of speech.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  | | |  |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 08:45 - May 29 with 2330 views | Badlands |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 08:34 - May 29 by getcarter |
It really is nauseating to listen to the self centered , arrogant, supposedly superior people telling us how it should be, the rich, politicians and members of the legal profession all handsomely rewarded taking the intellectual moral high ground believing they are far more intelligent than the rest of us. |
'taking the intellectual moral high ground' do you applying the laws of the land?
I'm not rich, a politician or a member of the legal profession but believe Robinson has had a light touch as far as the law is concerned. If he was an ordinary bloke and not a 'political' mission of self publicity he'd have been collared lang ago. |  |
| |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 09:01 - May 29 with 2317 views | londonlisa2001 |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 08:34 - May 29 by getcarter |
It really is nauseating to listen to the self centered , arrogant, supposedly superior people telling us how it should be, the rich, politicians and members of the legal profession all handsomely rewarded taking the intellectual moral high ground believing they are far more intelligent than the rest of us. |
Tommy Robinson breaking the law isn’t a class issue. It’s not a wealth issue. Its not a moral issue. It’s not a free speech issue. It’s an issue of someone breaking the law while already on a suspended sentence and getting done for it as a result.
The reason I described his supporters as thick is because they can’t understand that basic fact. Neither can they understand it seems, that he has done this deliberately to cause exactly the reaction it’s caused. | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 09:44 - May 29 with 2264 views | Batterseajack |
Seems to me that Tommy Robbinson is either just really thick and doesn't realise that his actions may result in a contempt of court whereby the defendants he's protesting against could walk away free, or its a sinister attempt under the guise of freedom of speech to get the case thrown out under contempt of court so that he can then complain that muslim criminals get some sort of special treatment.
Which is it fan boys?
Court ruling below...
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-201705 [Post edited 29 May 2018 9:45]
| | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:26 - May 29 with 2231 views | controversial_jack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 09:44 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
Seems to me that Tommy Robbinson is either just really thick and doesn't realise that his actions may result in a contempt of court whereby the defendants he's protesting against could walk away free, or its a sinister attempt under the guise of freedom of speech to get the case thrown out under contempt of court so that he can then complain that muslim criminals get some sort of special treatment.
Which is it fan boys?
Court ruling below...
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-201705 [Post edited 29 May 2018 9:45]
|
We don't know what he was actually convicted for as it's been censored, but he was initially arrested for breech of the peace - which quite clearly there wasn't.This is what concerns people, not his politics, not his background or his character, but the main points seem once again to get lost on this site | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:35 - May 29 with 2223 views | Batterseajack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:26 - May 29 by controversial_jack |
We don't know what he was actually convicted for as it's been censored, but he was initially arrested for breech of the peace - which quite clearly there wasn't.This is what concerns people, not his politics, not his background or his character, but the main points seem once again to get lost on this site |
I've provided you with a link of the actual court ruling , then you say you don't know what he was convicted of and that its censored. Christ alive! [Post edited 29 May 2018 10:39]
| | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:42 - May 29 with 2212 views | controversial_jack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:35 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
I've provided you with a link of the actual court ruling , then you say you don't know what he was convicted of and that its censored. Christ alive! [Post edited 29 May 2018 10:39]
|
Did i miss the government issuing a "D" notice? | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:45 - May 29 with 2207 views | Batterseajack |
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-201705
This contempt hearing is not about free speech.
This is not about the freedom of the press. This is
not about legitimate journalism; this is not about
political correctness; this is not about whether one
political viewpoint is right or another. It is about
justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be
carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring
that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying
out their important function. It is about being
innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people
prejudging a situation and going round to that court
and publishing material, whether in print or online,
referring to defendants as "Muslim paedophile
rapists". A legitimate journalist would not be able
to do that and under the strict liability rule there
would be no defence to publication in those terms. It
is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and
it is language and reporting - if reporting indeed is
what it is - that could have had the effect of
substantially derailing the trial. As I have already
indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had
to take avoiding action in order to make sure that the
integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice
was preserved and that the trial could continue to
completion without people being intimidated into
reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected
by "irresponsible and inaccurate reporting".
So as i said, either too thick to realise what he's doing, or is for some reason, deliberately trying to get the case thrown out for more sinister reasons. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:47 - May 29 with 2205 views | Batterseajack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:42 - May 29 by controversial_jack |
Did i miss the government issuing a "D" notice? |
I have no idea what your talking about. I suggest you read the judges ruling against Stephen Yaxely-Lennon which I've provided you with if you want answers. | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:47 - May 29 with 2205 views | FerrisBuellerJB |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:35 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
I've provided you with a link of the actual court ruling , then you say you don't know what he was convicted of and that its censored. Christ alive! [Post edited 29 May 2018 10:39]
|
I think what trying to be said is he was arrested for breach of the peace but charged and sentenced with contempt of court. Technically he was wrongfully arrested as he should have been charged with what he was arrested for. |  | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:48 - May 29 with 2203 views | Batterseajack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:47 - May 29 by FerrisBuellerJB |
I think what trying to be said is he was arrested for breach of the peace but charged and sentenced with contempt of court. Technically he was wrongfully arrested as he should have been charged with what he was arrested for. |
So what if he was arrested for one thing, then found guilty of another? | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:49 - May 29 with 2201 views | Highjack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:47 - May 29 by FerrisBuellerJB |
I think what trying to be said is he was arrested for breach of the peace but charged and sentenced with contempt of court. Technically he was wrongfully arrested as he should have been charged with what he was arrested for. |
Nope you don't have to be charged with what you were arrested for. |  |
| |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:51 - May 29 with 2198 views | controversial_jack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:45 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-201705
This contempt hearing is not about free speech.
This is not about the freedom of the press. This is
not about legitimate journalism; this is not about
political correctness; this is not about whether one
political viewpoint is right or another. It is about
justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be
carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring
that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying
out their important function. It is about being
innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people
prejudging a situation and going round to that court
and publishing material, whether in print or online,
referring to defendants as "Muslim paedophile
rapists". A legitimate journalist would not be able
to do that and under the strict liability rule there
would be no defence to publication in those terms. It
is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and
it is language and reporting - if reporting indeed is
what it is - that could have had the effect of
substantially derailing the trial. As I have already
indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had
to take avoiding action in order to make sure that the
integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice
was preserved and that the trial could continue to
completion without people being intimidated into
reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected
by "irresponsible and inaccurate reporting".
So as i said, either too thick to realise what he's doing, or is for some reason, deliberately trying to get the case thrown out for more sinister reasons. |
He wasn't reporting on the case, he was doing a live stream from public property, which any member of the public could do.He wasn't in the building or even on court property, he was careful not to do that.
I'm not a supporter of his, but this has raised much wider issues which seems to have been lost on many in here, but it is huge it has gone worldwide and makes this country look really bad indeed. | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:52 - May 29 with 2196 views | Highjack |
If you get arrested for assault and the person you assaulted then dies you don't get charged with assault. | |
| |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:55 - May 29 with 2195 views | controversial_jack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:48 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
So what if he was arrested for one thing, then found guilty of another? |
That's not how the law works. If it had been found the original arrest was unlawful, which it clearly was then no contempt of court would have happened.I wonder if he was even allowed a solicitor/ | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:01 - May 29 with 2184 views | FerrisBuellerJB |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:52 - May 29 by Highjack |
If you get arrested for assault and the person you assaulted then dies you don't get charged with assault. |
Yes but they are linked to the same original offence. Breach of the peace and contempt of court are separate issues | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:03 - May 29 with 2179 views | Batterseajack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:01 - May 29 by FerrisBuellerJB |
Yes but they are linked to the same original offence. Breach of the peace and contempt of court are separate issues |
Contempt of court is a serious issue. What if his actions got the case thrown out? Why aren't you not concerned about that? | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:05 - May 29 with 2172 views | controversial_jack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:03 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
Contempt of court is a serious issue. What if his actions got the case thrown out? Why aren't you not concerned about that? |
It wasn't contempt of court, that's just the excuse the judge use to silence him | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:10 - May 29 with 2160 views | Batterseajack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 10:51 - May 29 by controversial_jack |
He wasn't reporting on the case, he was doing a live stream from public property, which any member of the public could do.He wasn't in the building or even on court property, he was careful not to do that.
I'm not a supporter of his, but this has raised much wider issues which seems to have been lost on many in here, but it is huge it has gone worldwide and makes this country look really bad indeed. |
I suggest you read the ruling....
"That filming was firstly on the steps at the
front of this court building and, secondly, inside
this court building, although of course I readily
accept there was no filming or attempt to film inside
a courtroom."
"When you were outside the court you were within
the precincts of the court. When you were in the
court building you were, of course, self-evidently in
the court building."
Public order offences are a different beast altogether, you can get one for swearing in public, get a £50 fine slapped on you in which you can't always defend yourself of. | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:15 - May 29 with 2156 views | FerrisBuellerJB |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:03 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
Contempt of court is a serious issue. What if his actions got the case thrown out? Why aren't you not concerned about that? |
I’m actually concerned about a lot things regarding this whole debacle. The wrongful arrest of someone doesn’t matter who they are. This should have no bearing on the case although it probably will. The evidence had already been heard he was there at the time of sentencing. The other issue is this censorship malarkey that EDL leader kiddie fiddler got done last week and was all over the press and rightly so I hope he never gets released. But there seems to be protection for certain members of society based on colour and religion. | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:26 - May 29 with 2135 views | peenemunde |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 09:01 - May 29 by londonlisa2001 |
Tommy Robinson breaking the law isn’t a class issue. It’s not a wealth issue. Its not a moral issue. It’s not a free speech issue. It’s an issue of someone breaking the law while already on a suspended sentence and getting done for it as a result.
The reason I described his supporters as thick is because they can’t understand that basic fact. Neither can they understand it seems, that he has done this deliberately to cause exactly the reaction it’s caused. |
FairPlay you back tracked faster than an Italian tank there. |  | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:51 - May 29 with 2104 views | Batterseajack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:15 - May 29 by FerrisBuellerJB |
I’m actually concerned about a lot things regarding this whole debacle. The wrongful arrest of someone doesn’t matter who they are. This should have no bearing on the case although it probably will. The evidence had already been heard he was there at the time of sentencing. The other issue is this censorship malarkey that EDL leader kiddie fiddler got done last week and was all over the press and rightly so I hope he never gets released. But there seems to be protection for certain members of society based on colour and religion. |
How was it a wrongful arrest?
Had he not been arrested, his actions could have had a bearing on the outcome of the trial. | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:52 - May 29 with 2104 views | controversial_jack |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:10 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
I suggest you read the ruling....
"That filming was firstly on the steps at the
front of this court building and, secondly, inside
this court building, although of course I readily
accept there was no filming or attempt to film inside
a courtroom."
"When you were outside the court you were within
the precincts of the court. When you were in the
court building you were, of course, self-evidently in
the court building."
Public order offences are a different beast altogether, you can get one for swearing in public, get a £50 fine slapped on you in which you can't always defend yourself of. |
He wasn't anywhere near the court precinct, total nonsense | | | |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 12:01 - May 29 with 2096 views | FerrisBuellerJB |
| TOMMY ROBINSON on 11:51 - May 29 by Batterseajack |
How was it a wrongful arrest?
Had he not been arrested, his actions could have had a bearing on the outcome of the trial. |
Have you actually watched watched the video? He was arrested for breach of the peace an offence he didn’t commit. As I’ve said I couldn’t really care less about him I’m more concerned about the authorities arresting people on false pretences. These actions could be construed as the start of an Orwellian state. [Post edited 29 May 2018 12:03]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
