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: 21
65
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

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


If you did some basic research you would find the answer to your question.

All this has been explained to you anyway and has been widely reported in the media so either you just don't understand, which I doubt as you do not come across as being thick, or you have an agenda which you stick to regardless of things like what our laws actually are or facts.

In which case any chance of having a sensible discussion about all this with you seems remote, to say the least.




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian

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.


And there you have it.

You didnt even know that in the UK, media were ordered not to report on the arrest of tommy.


The judge in the case on Friday slapped a reporting ban on the case. The order bans reporters from reporting on a case if there is reason to believe the reporting could prejudice a trial. The order prevents reporting until the conclusion of the trial Robinson was reporting on.

The gag order led to news outlets in the U.K. removing their reporting from their websites to comply with the order. Most remaining reporting in the U.K. comments on Robinson’s arrest, but not on his purported sentencing.

Sources with knowledge of Robinson’s case spoke on condition of anonymity in part because of fear they would be arrested for contempt. One told Fox that Robinson’s lawyer warned that, considering the presence of Muslim gang members in prison, a 13-month sentence was tantamount to a death sentence.


www.foxnews.com...

Yes, the UK media was forced to remove articles about the arrest of tommy, and like sheep the obeyed.

And you didnt even know that the judge ordered this?

There is your free speech for you!

The media is welcome to freely speak on any government approved toipic.

However, they will cower and comply when told by the government they cant reprort on a case.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


If you did some basic research you would find the answer to your question.

All this has been explained to you anyway and has been widely reported in the media so either you just don't understand, which I doubt as you do not come across as being thick, or you have an agenda which you stick to regardless of things like what our laws actually are or facts.

In which case any chance of having a sensible discussion about all this with you seems remote, to say the least.





explain to me why there was a need to put a ban on reporting on tommys case, when he was already charged, sentenced, and put in prison?

What possible juror was going to be swayed when the case was already decided?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Read the law, theer's no jurors on a contempt case. Its either the Attourney General or two senior Magistrates depending on nature of the offence - its a civil not a criminal case.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Bottom line is Tommy has been made an example of, to sway others from informing the general public of ongoing cases.

Sure I read a while back about another group being locked up for something similar



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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?


Because minors are just that, minors.

The press is still aloowed to report on the case, just nmot say the persons name.

In the UK, you are not allowed to reprot on the case at all (well just if the government deems so as they are tryiong to cover something up)

And in fact, you can be told to remove reporting and not have any further on cases that have already been decided, like the gag order on reporting on tommys case.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Grambler

Read the law, theer's no jurors on a contempt case. Its either the Attourney General or two senior Magistrates depending on nature of the offence - its a civil not a criminal case.


Yes we know, you who lied and said tommy would have a case heard on tuesday, and would have already been out on Monday if there wasnt a holiday.

If there were no jurors, why was a gag order placed on the reporting of tommys case? Why werte media outlets in the UK forced to remove their articles on it?

What possible jurors could have been swayed if there were no jurors, and the case was already over?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bigyun
a reply to: Grambler

Bottom line is Tommy has been made an example of, to sway others from informing the general public of ongoing cases.

Sure I read a while back about another group being locked up for something similar


Yes he was made an example of.

To let [people know to shut up about child rape gangs, Just like the authorities told victims and whistle blowers for thirty plus years to shut up, and allowed the rapes to continue.

Funny how fast the law works when it charging people speaking up about these rapes, but it allows the rapes themselves to occur for over 30 years.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I see that you are still not letting things like actual facts get in the way of your agenda.

You plainly have no understanding of our laws or how they are applied and apparently no interest either in trying to understand this.

So yes, we Brits are sheep and do what we are told by our government and we have no free speech. We might as well live in the Soviet Union. Happy now?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Read the law - ffs
--
A convicted person will be sentenced
by the judge/magistrates (not by the jury) so the risk of serious prejudice might be
lower because a judge or magistrate could be less likely to be influenced by
publicity. Many publishers already treat the final verdict as the end of the active
period.
--

Read the gag order - was to prevent mistrial of case (1)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


I see that you are still not letting things like actual facts get in the way of your agenda.

You plainly have no understanding of our laws or how they are applied and apparently no interest either in trying to understand this.

So yes, we Brits are sheep and do what we are told by our government and we have no free speech. We might as well live in the Soviet Union. Happy now?


You keep saying that, yet offer nothing of substance.

Was there a gag order on reproting about tommys case?

Does the 1981 contempt of court law say you must be in fornt of the court to be arrested?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Grambler

Read the law - ffs
--
A convicted person will be sentenced
by the judge/magistrates (not by the jury) so the risk of serious prejudice might be
lower because a judge or magistrate could be less likely to be influenced by
publicity. Many publishers already treat the final verdict as the end of the active
period.
--

Read the gag order - was to prevent mistrial of case (1)


How would reporting that tommy had been arrested affect jurors in the grooming case?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Read the court notes, judges ruling and the law.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Grambler

Read the court notes, judges ruling and the law.


Ok so you have no answer.

Sure you dont want to just lie again like when you said tommy would have a hearing on tuesday?

Is the orginal case that tommy was reporting on even still ongoing?

If its not, why was their a gag order on tommys case?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


You know the answers to your questions so there is no point rising to your bait so i'm off to less trolled parts.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


You know the answers to your questions so there is no point rising to your bait so i'm off to less trolled parts.


Again, this is the classic comment from someone that knows they have nothing to say

"Well I know the anser but I wont tell you!"

Yeah ok sure.

See ya!



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Not really what I said at all but then you seem to like twisting peoples' words to suit you. I have plenty to say, just not to you, thank you.

'Bye.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No I have the answer, as I have done for every one of your false statements, misinterpretations of law and so on in a delusional attempt to make it seem you've read and understand 1500 pages of relevant law and know even more than the judge.

Every time I've posted evidence you've failed to read it, ignored it or recycled old debunked arguments discussed earlier. Instead of going away and reading stuff to get an informed view on the issue you're more interested in trolling like Oldcarpy said (pretty sure he's been a solicitor or similar). It's all in the links posted I provided earlier so why bother?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion


That's me, for my sins!

Off for a G&T or three, now.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Grambler

No I have the answer, as I have done for every one of your false statements, misinterpretations of law and so on in a delusional attempt to make it seem you've read and understand 1500 pages of relevant law and know even more than the judge.

Every time I've posted evidence you've failed to read it, ignored it or recycled old debunked arguments discussed earlier. Instead of going away and reading stuff to get an informed view on the issue you're more interested in trolling like Oldcarpy said (pretty sure he's been a solicitor or similar). It's all in the links posted I provided earlier so why bother?


You have not answered anything.

You just present a link, and says "See that answers everything!"

No it does not.

I also presented the 1981 contempt law.

So is it sufficient for me to say "Oh you had questions? I presented the law! So I am right and there is nothing more to say!"?

Of course, no doubt as somehone who balatantly lied early on on these threads, I am ot surprised you would think you would disingenuously pretend anything you linked was an answer.

Show me where in that case law it says that reporting on a second case that is finished nmay be gagged to prevent swaying jurors in another case?

And of course you didnt answer before, but is the orginal case that tommy was reporting on still going on?

How does your "case law" answer this?




top topics



 
65
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join