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: 22
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well that is a complete misunderstanding of the reporting ban but i am really not surprised. You have you're narrative and you're determined you're sticking to it, regardless of the reality of the situation.




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Grambler

Well that is a complete misunderstanding of the reporting ban but i am really not surprised. You have you're narrative and you're determined you're sticking to it, regardless of the reality of the situation.



What are you taalking about?

Media outlets were forced to remove their reporting on tommy being arrested.

How is that a misrepresentation?

I swear, you people are so determined to defend the silencing of free speech, you honestly think that just saying "No your wrong I have proof but wont show you" is an answer.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Are You still moaning about something you clearly have no idea or
understanding about. A reporting "ban" doesn't work like you say it does. You really need to read peoples posts instead of blindly following your own agenda to belittle the British legal system. It may not be perfect but we don't let the media circus decide if some one is guilty or innocent.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Are You still moaning about something you clearly have no idea or
understanding about. A reporting "ban" doesn't work like you say it does. You really need to read peoples posts instead of blindly following your own agenda to belittle the British legal system. It may not be perfect but we don't let the media circus decide if some one is guilty or innocent.


Were medial outlets ordered to remove reporting on tommys case or face contempt?

Yes.

That is working EXACTLY how I was discussing.

Again, another poster whose great conbtribution to this is "Nuh uh you're wrong!"

Tell me were that is wrong.

Are you claiming I am making all of this up, and media outlets werenbt forced to remove details of tommys arrest?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Were medial outlets ordered to remove reporting on tommys case or face contempt?

NO. They were not!! You have even posted links to newspapers reporting on Robinsons case, Its only "American media" and you claiming gags!!

You seem to like acting like a muppet I think? Lots of posters have linked to laws that could be crossed when reporting on the on going court case against the accused child groomers and rapists and how Robinson crossed that line before in previous cases.



…...whose great conbtribution to this is "Nuh uh you're wrong!"

This is exactly what you're doing and have been doing for a few days now.

ETA.......To be clear, the "gag order" you talk of, were links to the grooming court case and not directly to Robinson.



A judge initially banned media reports of contempt proceedings against Robinson over fears it could affect the ongoing trial,

edit on 31-5-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

You literally have no idea what happened.

truly sadd.

Yes, there was a gag order that uk media was not allowed to report on this.

This order was lifted (yesterday I think)

I dont blame you for not knowing.

You apparently live in the UK, so you had no idea yu were in a media black out.

Truly sad.

Even people on this thread that think it wasnt a big deal have admitted this gag order occured.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


It was removed almost immediately and was there originally to protect the ongoing case against child groomers and not about Robinson himself, it was removed several days ago or more specifically last Tuesday.

And I don't blame you for not understanding what the "order" was originally ordered for and for how long it lasted.
edit on 31-5-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


It was removed almost immediately and was there originally to protect the ongoing case against child groomers and not about Robinson himself, it was removed several days ago or more specifically last Tuesday.

And I don't blame you for not understanding what the "order" was originally ordered for and for how long it lasted.


So yes, articles about tommy case were removed under threat of contempt of court!

Wow! It took you long enough to admit that, as you lied the entire time saying that didn't occur!

Unreal!

And how would reporting on robisnons arrest or sentence jeopardize jurors in a completely different case?

In fcat we know that it wouldnt, beacuse that first case is still ongoing, and the judge has now lifted the gag order after ridicule from people outside the UK and protests.

In other words, judhes can force the media in the UKL to not report on cloised cases by merely making the assertion that reporting on that case could hypoctehtically sway a juror in some other case.

And the UK media will happily oblige.

And then that same judge can arbitrailiy decide to lift that gag order that he deemed was neccessary to protect another case, EVEN WHEN THAT OTHER CASE IS STILL ONGOING!

Proving that the gag order had nothing to do with protecting jurors in the other case; it was about not wanting people to know what happened to tommy.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
What's truly sad is your blind hatred for a legal system that may be imperfect but was trying to protect children's identities and uphold "innocent until proven guilty" so those accused could be tried justly which is what American law was and still is based up on.
It was linked to Robinson because of the reporting of the case he was trying to "report" on, which have orders on because of the delicate nature of the case which includes children. It wasn't actually about Robinson himself in the first place.

You seem to misunderstand the order entirely and why it was first placed and then removed.
You're like a dog with no teeth, you keep blindly chewing but nothing is happening.





edit on 31-5-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive"

Truth is our laws can be as deceptive as our criminal element, more so even.

They are not perfect, not even close, but then again nether are your own.

Fact is through unless we wish to see anarchy prevail and vigilantism be the rule of the day, the law of the land must be enforced or at least seen to be done, especially so when Muppet's like Robinson push there luck in the manner he did with there own ulterior agenda to satisfy.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Grambler

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive"

Truth is our laws can be as deceptive as our criminal element, more so even.

They are not perfect, not even close, but then again nether are your own.

Fact is through unless we wish to see anarchy prevail and vigilantism be the rule of the day, the law of the land must be enforced or at least seen to be done, especially so when Muppet's like Robinson push there luck in the manner he did with there own ulterior agenda to satisfy.



Yes the law should be enofrced equally shouldnt it?

And a free press or free speech is the best bulwark against abuse of the law.

Unfortunately, that seems to be easliy stymied in the UK.

Lets hear another racist nazi describe how he wishes that the law would have been as vigilant and swift in its efforst to stop child rape gangs as it was to get tommy.




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion




by trying to interview a defendant which iis illegal.


If what you say is true then I stand corrected - it puts a whole conspiracy spin onto him trying to get the defendant off due to a mistrial?

Can you point me to a link where it says he actually tried to interview the defendant. In serious cases the defendant is usually in custody. How was this possible?



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: bastion




by trying to interview a defendant which iis illegal.


If what you say is true then I stand corrected - it puts a whole conspiracy spin onto him trying to get the defendant off due to a mistrial?

Can you point me to a link where it says he actually tried to interview the defendant. In serious cases the defendant is usually in custody. How was this possible?



He did in fcat film defendants walking in to court.

They were not in custody.

In the US this is very common, as rpeorters interview defendandt, therir lawyers, and prosecutors all of the time in front of court houses.

Apparently this can lead to contempt of court in the UK, as can blogging about an ogoing case.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

This free press or free speech that is the best bulwark against abuse of which you speak, they employ people to do the job?

Those people are paid monies, by people who have money.

Now if those people don't do as they are told, by there masters, then they don't get paid, and dont have a job.

Free press and free speech?

End of the day they are beautifully notions but about as real as purple unicorns really.......and that's in both our nations, never mind the rest of the civilised world.

Tommy's still an arse through that played right into "There" hands.

Stupid really, but then again most racist are indeed stupid.
edit on 31-5-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake


I agree with you, a free press can be bought or biased with there reporting, just look at the American press and the "fake" news malarkey.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You have no proof he is racist, islam is not a race, people like Maajid have said he is not a racist.

But thats irrelevant to the discussion.

Of course the press can be scummy; the msm in the US is terrible.

However, hacving freedom of the press is important because it allows even us peon to be citizen journalists, and report on things.

In the UK, all press, rather corporate and paid for, or citizen journalists, were warned to to speak on tommys case less they be charged with contempt under the 1981 contempt of court act.

This is profoundly disturbing and is indictive of a society that can allow girls to be raped for 30 years, and for people that speak up about this to be attacked including the victims by authorities.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

OK caught up with the rest of the thread. I have a problem with this "contempt of court".

It appears to be used at times by a privileged class the Judiciary to teach a lesson. "Dont mess with us - you will pay a price"


quadrant.org.au...


Contempt of Court? Well That Depends…
Three federal ministers recently were given the rounds of kitchen by Victorian judges, who declined to lock them up for alleged contempt. No doubt, through gritted teeth, the politicos resented their humiliation, but they should have rejoiced. Little people are granted no such indulgence

Contempt charges are almost always an exercise in judicial muscle. You are a gnat, a court will say, who has attacked the very foundations of the legal system that protects us all. And should you happen to be charged you’ll almost certainly be paraded, humiliated and spat out by judges claiming to act more in sorrow than anger. The problem is that some punished for contempt are lower-hanging fruit than others.

Legal precincts have always had their crews of cranks and angries, pushing traffic fines to extreme appeals, spending hours reading up obscure Privy Council judgments, busting to beat the system. Noble enough in the exercise of accessing a citizen’s right to seek justice, and courts indulge them to a point. But eventually the more bothered of them get charged with contempt for what are usually nothing more than cumulative and forlorn outbursts against what they regard as The System.

A soon-to-retire judge recently described one such litigant as “a pain in the arse”. A magistrate locked up another for interrupting him. A bubblegum-blower was led out the secure door for his act of misplaced defiance. These were little people of no consequence and few resources, and their fates stand in stark contrast to that of the three federal ministers who Victoria’s most senior judges said committed “prima facie” contempt for their observations that, in their personal opinion, judges were being soft on terror. A media squall that would otherwise have passed mostly unnoticed, the Victorian Supreme Court in this instance went full beserker on the ministers, also slapping The Australian for publishing their views.

Is there a lesson in this? Yes, but not perhaps the most obvious one. What those of us who haunt the courts understand is that self-represented litigants who lose their cool wind up in the clink, yet a trio of legally trained but half-baked ministers, represented by a phalanx of taxpayer-funded lawyers, get to skate after first frustrating the court with qualified regrets, which the beaks found insufficient, before finally making a finger-in-the-wind apology.

It goes further than that.

Forget you’ve perched your glasses on your head while seated in the body of the court and a clerk or tipstave will be dispatched by the bench to order that they put in in your pocket or on your nose. This is exactly what happened several years ago to a Herald Sun reporter, who was advised that he could be locked up if he did not do as ordered. The reporter, short-sighted, needed the spectacles off to see what he was writing in his notebook, and he needed them down to observe the judge and lawyers. The irony? He was covering the trial of Islamic radicals charged with conspiring to perpetrate terror. The weird beards refused to stand for the judge and went unpunished for their open and intended contempt. The inoffensive reporter wasn’t so blessed.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

OK caught up with the rest of the thread. I have a problem with this "contempt of court".

It appears to be used at times by a privileged class the Judiciary to teach a lesson. "Dont mess with us - you will pay a price"


quadrant.org.au...


Contempt of Court? Well That Depends…
Three federal ministers recently were given the rounds of kitchen by Victorian judges, who declined to lock them up for alleged contempt. No doubt, through gritted teeth, the politicos resented their humiliation, but they should have rejoiced. Little people are granted no such indulgence

Contempt charges are almost always an exercise in judicial muscle. You are a gnat, a court will say, who has attacked the very foundations of the legal system that protects us all. And should you happen to be charged you’ll almost certainly be paraded, humiliated and spat out by judges claiming to act more in sorrow than anger. The problem is that some punished for contempt are lower-hanging fruit than others.

Legal precincts have always had their crews of cranks and angries, pushing traffic fines to extreme appeals, spending hours reading up obscure Privy Council judgments, busting to beat the system. Noble enough in the exercise of accessing a citizen’s right to seek justice, and courts indulge them to a point. But eventually the more bothered of them get charged with contempt for what are usually nothing more than cumulative and forlorn outbursts against what they regard as The System.

A soon-to-retire judge recently described one such litigant as “a pain in the arse”. A magistrate locked up another for interrupting him. A bubblegum-blower was led out the secure door for his act of misplaced defiance. These were little people of no consequence and few resources, and their fates stand in stark contrast to that of the three federal ministers who Victoria’s most senior judges said committed “prima facie” contempt for their observations that, in their personal opinion, judges were being soft on terror. A media squall that would otherwise have passed mostly unnoticed, the Victorian Supreme Court in this instance went full beserker on the ministers, also slapping The Australian for publishing their views.

Is there a lesson in this? Yes, but not perhaps the most obvious one. What those of us who haunt the courts understand is that self-represented litigants who lose their cool wind up in the clink, yet a trio of legally trained but half-baked ministers, represented by a phalanx of taxpayer-funded lawyers, get to skate after first frustrating the court with qualified regrets, which the beaks found insufficient, before finally making a finger-in-the-wind apology.

It goes further than that.

Forget you’ve perched your glasses on your head while seated in the body of the court and a clerk or tipstave will be dispatched by the bench to order that they put in in your pocket or on your nose. This is exactly what happened several years ago to a Herald Sun reporter, who was advised that he could be locked up if he did not do as ordered. The reporter, short-sighted, needed the spectacles off to see what he was writing in his notebook, and he needed them down to observe the judge and lawyers. The irony? He was covering the trial of Islamic radicals charged with conspiring to perpetrate terror. The weird beards refused to stand for the judge and went unpunished for their open and intended contempt. The inoffensive reporter wasn’t so blessed.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

"You have no proof he is racist"

Aside from his racist tweets/txt and the crap that spews out the Mans puss.

Never mind his previous involvement with the EDL.

No proof whatsoever.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Heres a great vid - Tommy even admits there are some racists in the EDL. Its interesting that action is now being taken against thee grooming gangs. Whats funny is that the interviewer is trying to give the Met the credit for the arrests, even though there was a conspiracy of silence for so long.



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join