It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK ATS members declaring Tommy Robinson guilty should turn themselves in to be arrested

page: 14
65
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: darkbake

Again though, I dont feel that the amount of views should be relevant.


Well, we agree on some things and disagree on others. I think it is more relevant that Tommy Robinson was disobeying a court order by being on the courthouse property and I think it is more relevant that he has a history of directly interfering with participants on the courthouse steps in the past.

While I don't think his YouTube stream should be central to his arrest, in his case he was only making a bad situation worse by streaming from the courthouse in addition to violating his probation.

If there was a court that decided who was violating a media ban, the first thing I would expect is for it to apply to official media outlets. Then this is where we disagree - I would entirely expect the number of views and followers someone has to be taken into account when it was time to determine if a private individual qualified as a media outlet. The amount of followers and views someone obtains has a direct impact on the probability of interfering with a juror.

Even so, I find media bans a little troubling (which is why I keep on pointing out the other reasons Tommy Robinson was arrested) as I think it is far easier just to tell the members of the jury to not watch or read any media regarding their case.


edit on 29amTue, 29 May 2018 10:58:09 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 29amTue, 29 May 2018 11:01:09 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
What I find particularly amusing about all of this...

On my facebook right now there are a lot of people celebrating this turn of events, they're the same people who openly share and applaud videos where groups of vigilantes take justice into their own hands.

They share images of alleged pedo's on fb with no clue who the people are or how valid those claims are...I see it all the time.

Same as the Yes campaign, same as the Brexit nonsense, they tend to be those who align themselves with irish catholic sectarianism...many people in Scotland (not all, many) are only happy because Tommy stands for English adn British values. they simply don't like him...they don't care about the background or what this is really all about.

They care about their own petty biases.

Give it a week and they'll be sharing those pics of random strangers they know nothing about - cursing them because someone shared a picture of that person with some text on it claiming said person is a child molestor.

Or they'll be sharing videos where groups of retards are going around taking it upon themselves to confront alleged pedo's - that's perfectly fine and what the legal system thinks of this means nothing to them.

The armchair IRA sympathisers and *actual* bigots, who hate their British rulers will happily switch sides when their oppressive rulers mete out punishment, be it legitimate or not, to those they simply dislike.

Frauds, I call them.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

Well Mr Robinson sure knows all about mortgage fraud, that's a matter of public record.


Keep in mind everyone is a hypocrite on some level most especially so our politicians, judges and Police.

Kind of what keeps the system in place and supplies meat for the grinder really.

That being said Mr Robinson pretty much jumped feet first into "There" grinder of his own accord, and not for the first time i might add.

Stupid is as stupid does i suppose.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Not sure what mortgage fraud has to do with anything, this is about alleged grooming gangs operating in the UK.

Again...people come with biases.

I'm wondering, how many of the people who are riding the "Tommy broke the law and justice was served" train happily share the videos and images of alleged pedo's on fb etc with zero proof whatsoever.

If you're so concerned about mortgage fraud why don't you start a thread about it?



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.



Since you like going back to your O.P., I thought I would check it out once again and I noticed that the amount of views and followers someone has does seem to have an impact on the strict liability rule. My assertion is that with less than 1,000 views on a post and 4 friends, you wouldn't have anything to worry about if you lived in the UK and expressed an opinion online that would affect a court case.

Also, this is from the article you referenced.


“This isn’t contempt of court?” he asked during the broadcast. “You are allowed to do this, aren’t you?”


Here is another article that goes more in-depth.


At the time of his arrest, Robinson was already subjected to a suspended sentence after being found guilty of using a cellphone to film inside a courtroom in Canterbury—an act which is a criminal offence under British law.

While sentencing Robinson, a judge warned that if he appeared at another court and risks “substantially derailing” a trial, he would jailed for breaking contempt of court laws, which aim to safeguard the judicial process and stop trials collapsing over fears the jury has been swayed before they have delivered a verdict.

During the Facebook Live video outside Leeds Crown Court, which was viewed more than 250,000 times, Robinson even admitted that he needed to be “super careful” as “they [police] put me on a contempt of court charge, which would mean that I could face prison.”


Newsweek

So the first thing I notice is that he was already warned when he got in trouble last time for a very clear violation of British law. The fact that he ignored the warning is one of the real reasons he's in so much trouble now. The second thing I notice is that he is fully aware of the danger he is in.

Lastly, as you already made clear, you don't like liars, yet Tommy seems to have lied when he told the police that he thought he wasn't in contempt of court.
edit on 29amTue, 29 May 2018 11:41:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: Grambler

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.



Since you like going back to your O.P., I thought I would check it out once again and I noticed that the amount of views and followers someone has does seem to have an impact on the strict liability rule. My assertion is that with less than 1,000 views on a post and 4 friends, you wouldn't have anything to worry about if you lived in the UK and expressed an opinion online that would affect a court case.


Well yes but then we get into all osrts of gray areas.

Such as; define substantial?

OVer what time period do views count?

If a post is shared by a different person with more views, am I still held responsible?

It seems like a pretty crappy law to say I can type something that is perfectly legal today, but if by some series of events it goes viral tomorrow, it is then illegal.

In addition, legality aside, if members were worried about influencing potential jurors as they calim, then they would not take the risk of proclaiming anyones guilt at all online.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I think in Tommy Robinson's case, the steps the court took were very clear, very lawful, and very fair as far as the law is concerned. I don't see how he was targeted for his views, in fact, I see the court being lenient with him in the past and giving him chances which he squandered.

As for me, I don't even care about his views, I'm just pointing out that as the law stands today in the U.K., his arrest was just. I also feel that someone who has gone to the extent of Tommy Robinson to interfere with trials should be punished for it.

If he had simply streamed a YouTube video from his home with no prior history and no intent to interfere with the trial and got punished for that, I would agree with you that he shouldn't have gotten into trouble.

In fact, this same agreement with you is the very reason I don't think that people posting on ATS have anything to worry about.

So there's that for starters. Now, when it comes to the media bans and the like, I am not a fan of them, as I have said before. But don't forget that Tommy Robinson was doing much more than simply streaming to YouTube.

I added some information to my previous post that you might have missed detailing his previous crime and the fact that he was warned.
edit on 29amTue, 29 May 2018 11:50:57 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Konduit

Tell Me if you can, the top picture in your meme was that before, during or after the courts verdict? Then if you can tell us about the bottom pic...


If you want particulars, both were taken during the day of the verdict. One was about a guy playing a distasteful prank on his girlfriend, the other was about 29 Muslim men running a pedophilia sex trafficking ring. Guess which one was a media fiasco, and which one was completely barred from being reported on by the media?


Here's another one for you to dissect.

I'm living the high life, boasts released child abuser who was jailed for part in Rotherham grooming gang as he jets off on holiday to Pakistan




posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Hey I appreciate your opinion.

If it wasnt obvious, I meant my OP srt of tongue in cheek, in that I welcome all people to give their opinions on these cases.

I am just pointing out the dangers and irony of where these laws may lead.

As far as tommy interfering with cases;

Here in the US, we call that normal journalism.

Look at the press outside of Cosby, Jackson, OJ, and literally hundredfs of other cases every year, trying to get comments from defenents, lawyers, etc.

This is especially true for things like the meetoo movement, who want their voices heard about alleged rapeists.

No one considers this unfair meddling in a trail.

If the UK wants that to be the case, then so be it I guess. I am just poiinting out that people ought to be careful what they wish for, because they may be thrown in jail next for expressing an opinion on a case.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Can you elaborate on the mortgage fraud issue since it's clearly so pertinent to this thread?

There was a concerted effort to silence Tommy during the whole Rotheram scandal, did you know this?

While the authorities tried to keep it all hush-hush, certain groups were aware of the situation as was Tommy, due to give a speech at a rally he was then arrested for alleged "criminal damage" and scheduled to appear in court...on the day he was due to give his speech. The crime? He allegedly damaged a door closer in a hotel room - an accusation denied even by the hotel manager - and who even gets arrested for damaging a door closer in a hotel, anyway?

They then tried to have him up on charges regarding tax irregularities - not only did they dig into his financial past but also that of his wife and parents. They actually raided the homes of him and his family - ARMED!

When that attempt failed they then brought him up on charges of mortgage fraud...do you know the facts of this case?

Probably not...you heard it elsewhere and so you repeat it as you think it's relevant and valid...it's not. The case was thus - Tommy's brother applied for a mortgage, he earned somewhere in the region of £10,000 per year. In order to obtain the mortgage the brother required a down-payment of £20,000 - Tommy loaned him the money. It later transpired that the bother lied about his income, claiming he earned £20,000 per year...crime of the century!

that was his involvement in the mortgage fraud.

Can we agree now that it's irrelevant? If not then I'll simply revert to the belief that it was indeed yet another stich-up to prevent Tommy from bringing to light the massive coverup of the systematic abuse, torture and rape of upwards of 1,400 people which was covered up by the south Yorkshire police...which it was.

What else you got?
edit on 29/5/2018 by LungFuMoShi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke



And the fact we left the EU, means we take our border very seriously. Its harder now to get into the UK than the USA.


We're still in the EU. We've always been able to set our immigration policies.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I agree with you that I like the U.S. system better, but even following U.S. law, Tommy Robinson goes too far when he does things like film inside a courtroom or attempts to reveal the identities of people involved in the trial who are protected by law.

Here is an interesting article that I had to look up in order to learn about the U.S. laws on video cameras in a courtroom.

Wikipedia: Courtroom photography and broadcasting

My main issue with Tommy Robinson is that conservatives are trying to paint his arrest as something different than it was as if he was simply an innocent man doing a YouTube live stream and was arrested for his political views. As I noted before, if this were the case, I would support him.

So I guess I agree with your sentiment that there should be a free press and no media bans and the like. I just disagree with the disinformation that conservatives are spreading about this particular incident.

I am glad you are interested in lengthy debates. Thanks for paying attention to my posts.
edit on 29pmTue, 29 May 2018 12:01:25 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

How about in 2012 when he called himself Andrew McMaster (or similar) so he could illegally gain entry to the USA? Apart from anything else, that makes him an illegal immigrant - oh the irony!



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

But I never have seen evidnce of him filming inside a court house.

In fact, I thought in the case of his suspended sentence, the judge particularly said he didnt film inside the trail.

If he did, I agree that is wrong, unless he was goven permission by the court.

This is for various reasons (private testimoney being recorded, etc.)

As far as sitting outside the courthouse and recording defendants and others, I see o problem with that, and its a regular occurence in the US.

What is an outrage is arresting him, charging him in under 4 hours, not allowing him to have his personal lawyer there, sentencing him to over a year in jail, and then telling the press they werent allowed to report on it.

That is disgusting.

And looking at the laws outlined in the OP, it seems like they also could be applied on the whim of a magistrate to charge people in contempt for posting online.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

Little bit more to it than just loaning his brother some money.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Just part of a long record of dishonesty and criminality from Robinson.
edit on 29-5-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Indeed - he was arrested with a fake passport.

He wasn't an immigrant, though - he had no intention of permenantly residing in the USA. I still don't see why it's relevant, though - it wasn't even in the UK.

The mortgage thing, ridiculous as it is...is actually more valid than this.

So...your point?

Seems to me the narrative is this - anyone convicted of any crime, regardless of how meaningless it is to the current situation, is inherently guilty of whatever they are accused.

Is that how it works? If not...can you explain why it's relevant at all?



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yeah, we really should listen to the BBC, particularly when it comes to matters concerning fraud.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Tell me, do you believe everything the BBC tells you? Or are you selective about it?

That'll be those biases I mentioned in an earlier post.

Jimmy Savile was a charitable and noble man.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yeah, we really should listen to the BBC, particularly when it comes to matters concerning fraud.


There are plenty of other sources you to pick from.

It's not an opinion piece but a news article on his conviction.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

The fact that you are swayed by mainstream media is apparently very obvious given your stance on the current situation - let's just assume that same applies to historic, irrelevant cases reported by the BBC and others like tham.

Now that we've put that to one side...about this particular situation...



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join