Tommy Robinson (Arrested)

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


The defence could say the jury "could" be lead by listening to T. Robinson outside the court and putting their defendents presumed innocence at risk.

The jury are forbidden to read up about the case they sit on nor are they allowed to 'google' about any of the people involved in the case whilst they are sitting. They are not to read about it on social media while they sit in the jury. Nor are they to discuss, with anyone outside the other jurors any aspect of the case. If my memory serves correct.

So if they saw "Tommys" live stream then that would mean the juror is in contempt of the court.

Does anyone know why the trial was under a D notice at all ?
My limited understanding of the DSMA system and Wiki page seems to say they can only be used when there is a threat to national security, and secondly that they are voluntary arrangements between the state and the media.
Usually jurors are warned to not read media or the trial is moved etc as has been mentioned.

a reply to: fenian8

Do they sequester juries in high profile cases in the UK as they do in the US? This would be the only way to control the jury being influenced by outside media.

originally posted by: Outlier13
Do they sequester juries in high profile cases in the UK as they do in the US? This would be the only way to control the jury being influenced by outside media

I do not think so. This is why in the UK there are reporting restrictions around trials and why (in this case) Robinson has got in to trouble.

On a side note, and judging by the flurry of threads about Robinson, it seems he's got quite a following from Americans who do not understand the UK court systems and seem to think this is a problem with free speech. People in the UK are able to discern the difference between free speech and trying to compromise a criminal trial in flight.

Theres no sequestering, hence temporary reportingrestrictions - a reply to:

fenian8

True contempt applies to both jurors, however the media can also be found guilty if they break media reporting restrictions, which with strict liability for breaking them. Tommy broke several of these and has has been said repeatedly was already on a suspended jail sentence for the same offense.


a reply to: Blackmoth

Theres no DA notice, as you say they don't apply here and link to current ones is here:

There were reporting restrictions enforced by the judge, he tied on a 4(2) A ruling whiuch prevented the media reporting on it until the trial he was predjudicing had finished. However the 4(2) A was appealed by the media and overturned by the MSM due to the widespread false reporting by foreign media and social media.

originally posted by: Outlier13
a reply to: fenian8

Do they sequester juries in high profile cases in the UK as they do in the US? This would be the only way to control the jury being influenced by outside media.

That`s not the legal phrase used here, however the judge does tell the jury, politely but very firmly as they are sworn in that from that moment until the conclusion of the trial that they are not to read about, watch news reports of or engage in any social media posts about the case.

In regard to media restrictions normally if it`s about vulnerable children their names are omitted and replaced with things like Child X, Baby P etc.

However if the trial involves mainly Pakistani peadophile rape gangs then we are not allowed to know anything.

a reply to: bastion

Thanks for the reply, probably I was unclear though. I we not asking about the initial gag on reporting on Tommys arrest.
I was talking about the grooming trials Tommy was arrested both times for covering.
Why and how are those trials under no reporting rules ?
Obviously witness anonymity would apply - but how and why can they gag the whole trial ?

a reply to: fenian8

That's interesting and surprising. It would be incredibly easy for a jury member to create fake accounts that do not tie them to who they are so they could engage in social media. As far as watching news, that too, is interesting. How many times do you think they may be at the local pub and the news cycle is focused on that trial or patrons are getting pissed and discussing it over pints?

Difficult to keep an unbiased point of view in today's technology driven and information everywhere world.

Replying to Outlier13

That`s very true and I am willing to wager many a jury member has broken these rules. I remember one jury ruined a trial because they used a ouija board to help determine their verdict. I don`t think the judge had covered that you must not discuss this trial with the dead lol.

Must say though that I have known 2 people who were called to do jury service, one was a teacher and the other a single mum and they stuck to their oath. However I know several people who would be down the pub or round their mates giving them chapter and verse of their day in court. I presume it's all done on trust.

Anyway I think we're drifting off thread

Oh and it turns out that its not thatb uncommon at all for reporters to film and take questions of accused child sex offenders outside the court during their trials, and they dont seem to get arrested.

Rolf Harris



Gary Glitter



I wonder why it was different with tommy?

Any UK residents reading this thread care to comment on this article here: newswars.com...

Quote from article:

“These are very dark times in the UK; it’s a very curious feeling in this country at this moment, and I would say the country is on a knife edge."

Is this reporter sensationalizing with his statement or do any of the UK posters here feel he is accurately portraying the current environment?

originally posted by: Grambler
Oh and it turns out that its not thatb uncommon at all for reporters to film and take questions of accused child sex offenders outside the court during their trials, and they dont seem to get arrested.

Rolf Harris

Gary Glitter

I wonder why it was different with tommy?

I agree. The more I read about what is actually happening the more it reeks of intentional silencing of the right. In just 5 days there are now more than 550,000 signatures on a petition to have Robinson freed. People are rallying behind Robinson. The voices of the UK are getting louder.

www.change.org...

a reply to: Outlier13

Oh I know.

But look how smugly all of the celebrators of tommy arrest were.

"Its a crime to film outside the court house like that! Anyone who does it would be arrested!"

Whoops!

But I am sure they will be here to tell us how it was ok to film these white guy accused child rapists, but not the child grooming gangs.

a reply to: Grambler

Since you are making basically the same posts on mu tuple threads might as well give you the same reply.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Again you are failing to get basic facts correct.

originally posted by: Outlier13
Any UK residents reading this thread care to comment on this article here: newswars.com...

Quote from article:

“These are very dark times in the UK; it’s a very curious feeling in this country at this moment, and I would say the country is on a knife edge."

Is this reporter sensationalizing with his statement or do any of the UK posters here feel he is accurately portraying the current environment?

It's quoting Katie Hopkins so it's utter drivel.

a reply to: Fermy

Traitor?

Let me tell you something about loyalty. When your grandfathers, both smart men, men you trust, men who served this country, my country, in the harshest environments that human beings have ever survived, men who saw hell and came home from it, tell you independently of one another, that the most important thing that a British citizen can do for his country, is oppose any effort to start a right wing, nationalistic uprising on ones doorstep, you do that. You stand there in opposition, and you dare the enemies of freedom, the spiritual successors to those already defeated in the forties, to make themselves known to you. You dare them to try and take power for themselves, and when they do, you crush them. You break them, you mangle them, everywhere you find them, no matter what excuses they use, no matter what propaganda they use to protect themselves, no matter whether they instigated it or just became caught up in it.

Because to do any other damned thing, is disloyalty to the flag I live under, the soil beneath my feet, and the men whose actions in yesteryear, guaranteed the circumstances in which I could even have come to exist at all. Traitor? No. I am afraid not. I am a God damned patriot. I love this country of mine, and I love its people. I will not allow the contagious, infectious disease of fascism dressed up in a nationalist frock, to turn this country into the next nest which has to be cleared for the protection of the human race, from those who wish to weaken it with racist, fascist ideals, based on an inaccurate understanding of both their own nations history, and indeed, an inaccurate understanding of what has been sacrificed in their names already.

If you have a problem with people of different colours, and religious belief systems, then YOU are the traitor, YOU are the one disloyal to this country, the one pissing on the memories of our nations greatest heroes, and their efforts to keep this country free of fascist filth.

Tommy Robinson is an enemy of freedom, and those who follow him, those who are members of his modern day BUF, are traitors, and regardless of your ill informed, historically ignorant understanding of the fact of it, a fact it remains. Luckily, your perception of the matter does not affect the reality of it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I, too, am a patriot of my country and I support people from any an all nations being patriots of their own countries. But as long as they are IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

The previous poster stated a truth and he did not challenge your loyalty. He said (I'm paraphrasing) if you support radical Islam as much as you do then you must also support their culture. Culture is the non-genetic behavioral styles passed from one generation to the next. Religion is a huge part of what shapes our behavioral style. Sharia Law is being openly enforced in parts of the UK with respects to these rape gangs. Therefor the poster is telling you if you support their behavioral styles so much then go live with them.

It has nothing to do with a person accepting another person for their culture. The issue is that incoming cultures such as Islamist who practice radical laws such as Sharia do not have a respect for the culture they are migrating to and they seek to change it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Your grandfathers and also mine would sure be surprised at what a rainbow nation the Uk has now become
and it is fine if all support there now country like the Irish, Scots, Welsh and any other creed that plays the English / UK game. When you start acting like you still live in the Dessert or The slums of some backward country with no rules or warped historical blarney codes you must expect some Patriots to stand up and shout about it instead of ignoring or even colluding
so as not to offend. I come from Irish stock by the way and supported my Birth country with Army service.. Peace.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

If you have a problem with people of different colours, and religious belief systems, then YOU are the traitor, YOU are the one disloyal to this country, the one pissing on the memories of our nations greatest heroes, and their efforts to keep this country free of fascist filth.

Pretty sure most people just have a problem with PEDOPHILE & CRIMINAL behaviour.