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: 20
65
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Used to love ATS never been a big contributor but significant lurker for some years. This thread is exactly the reason why I come here less and less these days. Seems to me the forums are the home of those with the sort of opinions I’m bored of reading on a daily basis. Misinformed, incorrect and largely intolerant whilst at the same time ‘defending free speech’.

Thanks ATS it’s been a ball but I won’t be back.

As for the OP send me a DM you can escort me to any police station in the UK and watch as they laugh in your face. Sensationalist, virtue signalling, faux outrage claptrap.

Cheerios




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   
contempt of court is one of those non laws Franklin talked about, along side resisting arrest and driving without a license. Artificial constructs to make people appear criminally minded, and therefore in the same basket as rapists and serial killers. In reality, these are structures of slavery and power distance.

that the media person was guilty of a non crime that facilitated another non crime - violating his terms, it shows that the world wastes billions inflicting harm and punishing innocent people. The logical ebb and flow of justice therefore dictates that some measure of inversion of the moral interpretation is necessary for the label criminal. The classical example being Robin Hood.

Conclusion,

Robinson is a hero.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: skynet2015

What Robinson did threatened the impartiality of the trial. Is the right to a free and fair trial a non law? If you believe so, i would urge you to think of the potential ramifications for all of us.

It doesn't matter if it is someone stealing food to survive or a mass murdering child rapist - the right to a free and fair trial is a cornerstone of any decent democracy, something we have recognised in this country for over a thousand years.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 0010110011101

Ditto. Hiajcked by right wing idiots.
I remember a time when we used to fight the fascists.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
He was warned by a Judge in the clearest of terms that if he repeated his behaviour he would go to prison. He did it again, regardless. Almost as if he wanted to get arrested?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: 0010110011101

It's so #ing weird! Been coming here over 15 years, it's almost unrecognizable sometimes, it's like the opposite of what it used to be, sign of the times I guess, I dunno?

It's not even like this topic is hard to understand, and yet the spin doctors and outrage crew are in full effect!

It drums up support for people like Robinson and the ''so called'' free speech brigades Youtube and patreon money though, which is all this really comes down to if you haven't got the blinkers on!
edit on VamThursday58am531 by valiant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: 0010110011101

Hey see you we’ll miss you!

Such a good little subject complaining about a thread someone writes

Are you offended by it?

I guess that’s against the law too, huh

But hey, enjoy saying what you can! As long as you keep licking your leaders boots, you can still say what they allow you



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: skynet2015
contempt of court is one of those non laws Franklin talked about, along side resisting arrest and driving without a license. Artificial constructs to make people appear criminally minded, and therefore in the same basket as rapists and serial killers. In reality, these are structures of slavery and power distance.

that the media person was guilty of a non crime that facilitated another non crime - violating his terms, it shows that the world wastes billions inflicting harm and punishing innocent people. The logical ebb and flow of justice therefore dictates that some measure of inversion of the moral interpretation is necessary for the label criminal. The classical example being Robin Hood.

Conclusion,

Robinson is a hero.


Genuinely one of the most stupid and ill informed posts I have read on here, and that is a high bar to achieve.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: valiant

You are right the topic is not hard to understand

The uk does not have freedom of speech

It is more concerned ncerned with making sure no one reports on rape gangs, or teaches dogs mean gestures

Than dealing with the decades of child rapes that they not only allowed to occur, but actively went after victims and authorities that tried to speak up

But I so glad you virtue signaler could post how outraged you are about people calling that out

Everyone should just shut up and celebrate the crown and the child rapers, right?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dr X
a reply to: 0010110011101

Ditto. Hiajcked by right wing idiots.
I remember a time when we used to fight the fascists.


And now you are the fascists!

Congratulations!



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: valiant

Everyone should just shut up and celebrate the crown and the child rapers, right?



Yeah, because that's what I said ....


You guys need to get a #ing grip on reality and stop basing your view of the world off Fox news and right wing outrage commentators ... they are making fools of you all!

Or don't, I honestly don't give a #!

I'm from England ... so I will leave it here, argue your bull# with others if that's what ya like, it bores me to death tbh! oh and all of these words are on the ''approved speech'' list, have to be careful, don't want to be arrested, ya know?




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The UK does have freedom of speech, thanks. We also have the right to a fair trial and our laws simply protect that and prevent idiots from potentially compromising that right.

You seem to have a problem understanding this.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: valiant

You are right the topic is not hard to understand

The uk does not have freedom of speech

It is more concerned ncerned with making sure no one reports on rape gangs, or teaches dogs mean gestures

Than dealing with the decades of child rapes that they not only allowed to occur, but actively went after victims and authorities that tried to speak up

But I so glad you virtue signaler could post how outraged you are about people calling that out

Everyone should just shut up and celebrate the crown and the child rapers, right?



You are quite clearly struggling to understand the topic and also the application of law, despite it being explained ad nauseum.

The only other viable option is that you are willfully not attempting to understand the topic - which would imply an agenda. As you are quite clearly NOT a stupid individual, it would appear that this latter option is most likely. Which raises the question as to why?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The uk does not have freedom of speech


This is not a problem with free speech, as has been said many time so far. It's a problem with your wilful ignorance of the way the courts are run in England and Wales, and how trials are conducted.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi


Very true. We are talking about English law which applies in England and Wales, Northern Irish law in Northern Ireland and Scottish law in Scotland.

Here is an explanation of UK law for foreign people who are unfortunately not blessed enough to reside in this sceptred isle:

Law of the UK



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


The UK does have freedom of speech, thanks. We also have the right to a fair trial and our laws simply protect that and prevent idiots from potentially compromising that right.

You seem to have a problem understanding this.


If you have freedom of speech, why did your news outlets have to take down stories about tommys arrest?

Oh you mean you have free speech for what the government allows you to talk about!

Just like the soviet union!



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: valiant

You are right the topic is not hard to understand

The uk does not have freedom of speech

It is more concerned ncerned with making sure no one reports on rape gangs, or teaches dogs mean gestures

Than dealing with the decades of child rapes that they not only allowed to occur, but actively went after victims and authorities that tried to speak up

But I so glad you virtue signaler could post how outraged you are about people calling that out

Everyone should just shut up and celebrate the crown and the child rapers, right?



You are quite clearly struggling to understand the topic and also the application of law, despite it being explained ad nauseum.

The only other viable option is that you are willfully not attempting to understand the topic - which would imply an agenda. As you are quite clearly NOT a stupid individual, it would appear that this latter option is most likely. Which raises the question as to why?


I understad the topic just fine.

1. The laws are authoritarioan and mean the UK does not have free speech. Hence why jopurnalists had to take down their story about tommys arrest.

2. Journalists reporting on cases, even in front of court houses, should be allowed in a country with free speech. If this were not the case, all of the women from the meetoo movement that protested Cosby, weinstein and others when they were arrested or brought to trial would have been forced to shut up.

Did protests of cosbys case stop him from having a fair trial? Of course not.

3. I posted the contempt of court law in the OP. In now where there does it say you have to be in front of the court for it to apply. It even says things like writings can apply.

I posted a followup article showing that solicitors are worried "blog posts" about a trial could be found in contempt.

4. I do not want anyone on ats to be charged, in fact II support and encourage free speech about tommys case, even speech I disagree with.

The point is those celebrating tommys arrest are doing so by claiming his speech could have swayed jurors. Then those same people proclaim he is a guilty racist, thereby potentially swaying jurors. They do this because they are hypocrites, and rely on saying things like "we dont reach as many people as tommy" as a lame defense.

Also, as we have seen with cases like the girl getting charged for posting rap lyrics to honor her friend, the UK is not beyond using their laws to ridiculous ends, meaning that these cvery people mocing this OP may very well find themselves arrested some day for being "offensive" or commenting on an ongoing court case.

5. And at the end of the day, we all know what this really is about. Its PC culture. The police have admitted the fear of being called racist has let decades iof child rapes occur. We know that whan victims and authorities spoke up against these child rapes, they were attacked by the rest of the authorities in many cases.

And now they seek to stop anyone from calling attention to it again.

Hence why tommy was arrested, why the media was gagged from talking about tommys arrest, and why he can be arrested and sentenced to over a year in 4 hours, but raped gangs can rape children for decades.

And its sad that so many in the UK on ats cheer this system.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


The UK does have freedom of speech, thanks. We also have the right to a fair trial and our laws simply protect that and prevent idiots from potentially compromising that right.

You seem to have a problem understanding this.


If you have freedom of speech, why did your news outlets have to take down stories about tommys arrest?

Oh you mean you have free speech for what the government allows you to talk about!

Just like the soviet union!


Wherever did you get that idea? I am genuinely curious because if that is how it is being reported in the US then you are receiving some seriously fake news. His arrest was covered by all the major print media, their online derivatives and was on national tv news.

What the media were not reporting, beyond the basics, was the trial itself (as per UK Law). Just as a simple example, the Leeds area is covered by Look North (for the BBC - local news network). Look North reported on this trial as it was in progress, just without going into detail. They were definitely reporting there was an ongoing grooming gang trial currently under way at Leeds Crown Court though, i know as i watched coverage multiple times myself.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

In the US the press are not allowed to give the name of a minor that is involved in the commission of a crime. How is that any different than what occurs in the UK?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: valiant

You are right the topic is not hard to understand

The uk does not have freedom of speech

It is more concerned ncerned with making sure no one reports on rape gangs, or teaches dogs mean gestures

Than dealing with the decades of child rapes that they not only allowed to occur, but actively went after victims and authorities that tried to speak up

But I so glad you virtue signaler could post how outraged you are about people calling that out

Everyone should just shut up and celebrate the crown and the child rapers, right?



Yes we do. Check the law. Open court vs. Freedom of Speech: Plus the public are more than welcome to submit their thoughts to the AG's ongoing review of social media and contempt. Tommy could have done that or read the law instead of risking collapsing yet another trial.

The temporary press restraints are to ensure that this trial and at least one other don't collapse due to a mistrial. The public waiting a few weeks for any in depth coverage on it is a small price to pay to preserve anonymity of victims, witness, jury and to ensure justice is delivered.


14 Contempt by publication is needed to protect the system of justice, including the
right to a fair trial. This is because, in a criminal case, the jury should reach its
verdict based only on the evidence which has been heard in court. Any
information which the jury discovers from outside the courtroom will not have
been examined by the parties and the judge. This could mean that this
information which a juror relies on is mistaken or untrue.

15. On the other hand, it is also important that the law protects the right to freedom of
expression and it is especially important that the public knows what happens in
court in order to have confidence that the system works properly.
16. The law on contempt by publication is based on the need to protect the jury from
finding out information that they should not take into account when deciding on
their verdict. But the law should only do this in so far as it needs to protect a fair
trial and it should not go beyond what is needed to protect that trial.

17. There are two ways of committing a contempt by publication. One is known as
“strict liability” contempt, and is covered by the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This
contempt is committed when a publication occurs when a case is “active” and
that publication creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to
that case. The contempt occurs even if the publisher did not know that this risk
would be created (that is, the publisher was not intending to prejudice the case).

18. The other form of contempt by publication is covered by the common law (that is,
judge-made law). Under this law, it is a contempt to publish information with the
deliberate aim of impeding or prejudicing a case even if the case is not active.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join