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: 2
65
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke



Grambler already nailed it.. I support free speech and it seems you lasses over in the UK would rather stick up for a bunch of scumbags who rape your young girls than a man who stand up against your government and police who turn a blind eye to it!

Thank God for the internet, because watching this experiment unfold in the EU is great info for me to share with my fellow countrymen in the USA!




posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Contempt of Court - it’s about being at the court - at the trial - swaying jurors.

Jurors are told not to read news while they are in the midst of the trial so they aren’t swayed. But how do they deal with someone who is there, at the courthouse? They can’t avoid him, like they can avoid the internet.

OP’s thread is rubbish.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: DieGloke

Grambler already nailed it.. I support free speech and it seems you lasses over in the UK would rather stick up for a bunch of scumbags who rape your young girls than a man who stand up against your government and police who turn a blind eye to it!

Thank God for the internet, because watching this experiment unfold in the EU is great info for me to share with my fellow countrymen in the USA!


No one is sticking up for the rapists. They are in court now as we speak, one already got 20 years. Which makes it perplexing why Tommy was trying to incite trouble out side that court room as the Islamic rapists where being tried and sentenced, just like he wanted!

There are plenty of better free speech problems in the UK to bring up, Mark Meechan being a very good example that boils my blood. A idiot that cant abide by his suspended sentence isn't one.
edit on 28-5-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I'm trying to imagine if we had similar laws in the US.

No one in the media, no one on-line, no one in public would be able to say, "Impeach Trump" because it might sway the investigation of Mueller.





posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Contempt of Court - it’s about being at the court - at the trial - swaying jurors.

Jurors are told not to read news while they are in the midst of the trial so they aren’t swayed. But how do they deal with someone who is there, at the courthouse? They can’t avoid him, like they can avoid the internet.

OP’s thread is rubbish.


exactly what did he do to sway jurors? did he intimidate them? did he threaten them? what did he say exactly to "sway the jurors"?


+3 more 
posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Contempt of Court - it’s about being at the court - at the trial - swaying jurors.

Jurors are told not to read news while they are in the midst of the trial so they aren’t swayed. But how do they deal with someone who is there, at the courthouse? They can’t avoid him, like they can avoid the internet.

OP’s thread is rubbish.


Pklease quote me the law saying that.

I listed the law in the OP.

Please show me where it says you have top be at the court.

In fact, tommy was carefull to stay on the public road off of court property in his video.

Here is part of the law.


(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.


Are you attempting to claim that when the law discusses speech writing and cable program services only when physiocally at the court house?

That is absurd.

Clearly the law means writing things that could ssway the case, like the UK members declaring tommys guilt on ATS have done.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'm trying to imagine if we had similar laws in the US.

No one in the media, no one on-line, no one in public would be able to say, "Impeach Trump" because it might sway the investigation of Mueller.




You would not have had Obama being a idiot and saying "travyon martin could be my son. That statement horrified me. Zimmerman should of been let free on a mistrial just on that.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'm trying to imagine if we had similar laws in the US.

No one in the media, no one on-line, no one in public would be able to say, "Impeach Trump" because it might sway the investigation of Mueller.



Every single person who protested Cosby would be thrown in jail.

ALl those declaring weinstein guilty would be jailed.

It would bascially end the meetoo movement.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke

Then you'd be silencing free speech and inhibiting opinion.

Censorship is never right.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Part of the conditions of his previous sentence was to stay away from future trials while “reporting”. He deliberately broke those conditions. He gathers a crowd and gets them all riled up about Muslims. Hard not to be swayed by that in some way - whether it makes you believe that all Muslims are indeed evil, or whether it makes you go the other way and feel the need to protect Muslims. Either way, it’s bad when you are supposed to be an impartial juror.

If people on ATS go to his trial and try to rile people up against him, then they should be charged too.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DieGloke

Then you'd be silencing free speech and inhibiting opinion.

Censorship is never right.







But the right to a fair trial is a right also.

Sometimes speech and opinion from a influential person can impact a trial.


So then you have a problem. You have two very important rights in conflict.

Do you allow complete free speech even if it is at expense of a fair trial?

Or do you prioritize the trial while limiting some free speech of some people regarding that trial?

Thing is a trial if it goes wrong can have devastating effects as a innocent person can lose there lie or liberty of a guilty monster could be set free. Where as telling a few people to shut up until the trial is over and the facts are in doesn't hurt anyone.

I guess it comes down to what right you think is more important. I guess there is no right or wrong answer.

Personally I think heads of states , politicians and celebrities should not comment on ongoing court cases.




edit on 28-5-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-5-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
When and where does the UK decide about press coverage and influence?

What is the difference for example with the Nazi Dog case and this case ?

See picture:



Who decides when the media is allowed to turn up at a trial ? And Why ?
edit on 28-5-2018 by EartOccupant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
When and where does the UK decide about press coverage and influence?

What is the difference for example with the Nazi Dog case and this case ?

See picture:



Well dont you understand, the nazi dog guy was a REAL DANGER!!!!

Now child rapists, they are no big deal at all.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Part of the conditions of his previous sentence was to stay away from future trials while “reporting”. He deliberately broke those conditions. He gathers a crowd and gets them all riled up about Muslims. Hard not to be swayed by that in some way - whether it makes you believe that all Muslims are indeed evil, or whether it makes you go the other way and feel the need to protect Muslims. Either way, it’s bad when you are supposed to be an impartial juror.

If people on ATS go to his trial and try to rile people up against him, then they should be charged too.


Did you actually watch the video of his live stream?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke

Facts and evidence should always be the deciding factor in any criminal case.


Courts should not apply a "Facebook" ruling and determine guilt or innocence based on number of likes.

Who cares what people think, does the evidence support a conviction?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
When and where does the UK decide about press coverage and influence?

What is the difference for example with the Nazi Dog case and this case ?

See picture:



What is there to protest about people on trial or rape?

That is where rapists should be IN COURT and later prison.

I see nothing to protest about.


On the other and Mark Meechan is a complete miscarriage of justice and highlights the eroding o free speech in the UK and protests should happen.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He’s said incendiary things about Muslims in public many times without being arrested. He was on a British morning show and said things - he was not arrested.

The only times he was arrested is when he was at the courthouse during trials. So yeah, I’m gonna say it’s about being at the trials and causing problems there.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke
He was picked up not necessarily because what he said but rather because he indicated that he was going to go into the courtroom itself, any disruption within the courtroom could cause a mistrial.

Unlike the USA, the UK takes it's right to a fair trial seriously.


If he is such a darling in the USA maybe you should grant him USA citizenship and take him for yourself's?



1984 Thought Police in action.

✴️



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DieGloke

Facts and evidence should always be the deciding factor in any criminal case.


Courts should not apply a "Facebook" ruling and determine guilt or innocence based on number of likes.

Who cares what people think, does the evidence support a conviction?



been saying this since this whole mess started. if some idiot with a facebook stream can derail a MAJOR trial, then the justice system is broken, or the prosecutors are inept beyond measure.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DieGloke

Facts and evidence should always be the deciding factor in any criminal case.


Courts should not apply a "Facebook" ruling and determine guilt or innocence based on number of likes.

Who cares what people think, does the evidence support a conviction?



But a lot of people are brain dead idiots who can think for themselves and will vote or decide on whatever there favorite politician or celebrity says.

In the Zimmerman cause the jury could very well have been stacked with libitards that would have declared Zimmerman guilty because of what Obama said. Which to me would have been a massive miscarriage of justice.

At the very least politicians should keep there mouth shut in regards to trials the same as they have to keep quiet in regards to military secrets..



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join