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: 3
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Grambler




So what law did he break?

He was told by the court last year not to do it again , by standing outside the court live streaming he was doing it again.


Yup and he was sentenced for it on Friday afternoon - trials closed, how is anyone in contempt?




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

Ok, but who and where is it decided that media coverage is allowed or not? And on what grounds ?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Blue Pill Casualty by free choice 👆



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke


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.



So we inhibit free speech, we deny free expression because some people might be stupid?

Seems like we're dumbing down our society to the lowest common denominator just because people are idiots.


Not a good way to go, in my opinion.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
There is so much ignorance around how law works, that it is worrying.

Tommy Robinson aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was found guilty of contempt of court on 22 May 2017. The verdict and sentencing remarks are fully disclosed in this Crown Court document, which opens in a PDF.

The judge at Canterbury Crown Court handed down a suspended sentence and gave a very clear indication of what what would happen if Robinson he did what he did again... Here, if you cannot read the full transcript (above link), the read the below quote from the transcript.


The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.


Crown Court search
edit on 28/5/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I expect UK members to defend the statist tyranny with great fervor.

But you are right...a massive hole in the logic that runs their notion of "freedom of speech".



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Yep. Contempt of court doesn’t mean you’re in your home writing stuff on the internet. Contempt of court means contempt of Court.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: DieGloke

Ok, but who and where is it decided that media coverage is allowed or not? And on what grounds ?


The judge decides in pre-trial sentencing based on evidence and risks involved. The grounds are on a case by case basis depending on age of accused, age of victim, is anonymous evidence being given, type of court and plenty more citeria.

The press are in attendance whether a trial can be reported on pre-sentencing, or very rare cases only post-sentencing. Once a trial concludes you can then apply for full court records of evidence, prosecution, defense to ensure transparency and a fair trial.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
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.


Show me the law then that says only discussing this in publi off of court property but close to it is againt the law.

I have posted the law that shows any thing including writing that could influence jurors should be against the law.

SO please show me the law you are claiming that would supercede that.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: paraphi

Yep. Contempt of court doesn’t mean you’re in your home writing stuff on the internet. Contempt of court means contempt of Court.


You have been asked to cite the actual UK law that supports your assertion. Repeating it over and over doesn't cut it.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Read Paraphi’s post. Read what the judge said. Tell me how what the judge says compares to people in their homes writing stuff on ATS.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
After reading all this bull , I am very glad to be in the US
Where they cant arrest you for what they think you are going to do...
And contempt of court really means contempt of court.
At least we get the benefit of the doubt
Sometimes too much .
But that is a thread for another day.

edit on 5/28/18 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke

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.

.


Sure and they may also vote based on what some guy says on social media, isnt that why Tommy was charged?

So all of the ATS people saying tommy is guilty could also cause those "brain dead idiots" to vote how these ats members are saying.

SO they should all turn themselves in and be arrested.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No you haven't, you've just failed to understand any of the law. Filming in/on court, asking the jury, witnesses, defendants for interviews and broadcasting it on a banned platform is not the same as typing a comment on a non-banned platform.

Also standing within 20ft of a court is on court grounds in media restrictions (people must be given clear entrance and exit).
edit on 28-5-2018 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:22 AM
link   
From the article

"The far-right activist showed men entering Leeds Crown Court in a livestream on Facebook, where he claimed to be “reporting” on the case."

The Judge said last time during sentencing.

“It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it’s about being innocent until proven guilty.

“It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate ‘reporting’, if that’s what it was.”



This is was for recording the accused in a crime, the same as recording the accused going in to court.

---

If you can't see the similarities to what he was originally sentenced for and what he was arrested for I don't know what to say.

The last thing is common sense, most people in this country know if you get a suspended sentence that it even means no littering, no public order offences, nothing, no matter how minor. You are basically serving your sentence outside of prison.

To go to a court and start streaming the accused along with names (which hasn't been getting mentioned) getting into scuffles with the public (he claimed he was attacked which proves there was a breach of peace) is a serious lack of common sense. Most people would have waited until the sentence was over, he pushed his luck and it backfired.
edit on 28/5/2018 by Taggart because: missed words.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Ok so then every single person who has potentially influenced jurors by delclaring tommys guilt now should be given a suspended sentence,, as tommy recieved when he first potentially influenced jurors.

Then if these people say tommy is guilty again, then should be fiven 13 months in prison.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
After reading all this bull , I am very glad to be in the US
Where they cant arrest you for what they think you are going to do...
And contempt of court really means contempt of court.
At least we get the benefit of the doubt
Sometimes too much .
But that is a thread for another day.


Don't feel to comfy with those thoughts! If we keep electing globalist progs and allow our judges to make up laws instead of upholding the ones written, this snip will be here VERY SOON!



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Ok, tnx!



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

Ok so then every single person who has potentially influenced jurors by delclaring tommys guilt now should be given a suspended sentence,, as tommy recieved when he first potentially influenced jurors.

Then if these people say tommy is guilty again, then should be fiven 13 months in prison.



How is anyone declaring his guilt, he's been already been convicted and found guilty in 2017. Therefore your analogy doesn't match up. He was then presumably stood infront of a judge and to which they probably said "You didn't listen, off to Her majestys pleasure. "

No case.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Only if they show up at his trial. Like Tommy did at the Muslim trial. As the judge said. The judge didn’t say “if you write or say anything negative about Muslims on the internet”. He said if you show up at court during a trial and say negative things about Muslims. How are you not hearing or reading that?




top topics



 
65
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join