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.

 

Lifting of gag order in robinson case proves it was never about protecting child rape case

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Grambler

That Maajid Nawaaz video makes populist sound like a dirty word.


Yes I disagree with him on that.

But he is spot on about the silence on the rape gangs.


That would be the rape gangs that have been convicted or are currently being prosecuted?


Yes the ones that have existed for 40 years and had nothing done about them. well not nothing, the aithorities did manage to treat the victims like priostitutes, and punish whistle blowers that spoke out on this such as officers or social workers.

But thats it I guess.

So i guess we will not hear of any other grooming gangs that have been oprating for years.

I mean, you are assuring us, its all been taken care iof.

yes thousands of more girls were raped than was neccessary as the authorities allowed it to happen becuase they didnt want to be called racist.

But thats all over now!

I mean, if we do hear of another gang like this, you are going to look pretty follish.

But nope, you are certain! yay UK authorities!


A gish gallop of replies to statements I never actually made. Again the same as the other threads.


Then what was the point of your comment.

yes, some child rapist have been arrested.

What does that have anything to do with there are still many out there, and the authorities knew of them for decades and did nothing except attack victims?



It was making the point that Robinson arrest has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of other gangs. He was too busy endangering the trial of accused child molesters to actually investigate any other potential gangs.


Yes, as the judge has now endangered that child rape case by allowing people to talk about the robionson case.

well done judge!


Nope still just Robinson that was doing that.




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Copy and paste from previous post.

'
The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose. '

Do you just not understand?


Yes, i understand that this is not an answer.


If the order was in place because discussing robinsons case was going to potentially influence people in the child rape case, then removing it days later because some people were talking about it makes no sense at all.

we see that most main stream outlets in the UK removed their stories on the tommy case or never put them up in the first place, so clearly it affected them.

Why risk allowing these outlets to now influence the child rape case?

because it was never about that.


Because keeping the reporting ban in place just left it to idiots online to speculate and come up with nonsense about his free speech being oppressed rather than having the details reported correctly.

As the arrest was already being widely discussed online and on non UK news sources it served no further purpose.


Do you not understand the stupidity of that if this is why the judge decided?

First, presumably he thought the gag was important to protect the first trial, so lifting it would only have the chance of endangering that trial. yet he did it anyway.

Secondly, if the rest of the world reporting on it makes the gag worthless, then arresting tommy was the aboslute WORST thing that the judge could have done.

First because it was poibntless, because everything he reported on his live stream was already public knowldege.

And second because by arresting him, it led to his story blowing up, and hence the details of the child rape case blowing up.

No, if the judge felt the gag was needed to ensure the integrity of the first trial, he would have never lifted it.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Copy and paste from previous post.

'
The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose. '

Do you just not understand?


Yes, i understand that this is not an answer.


If the order was in place because discussing robinsons case was going to potentially influence people in the child rape case, then removing it days later because some people were talking about it makes no sense at all.

we see that most main stream outlets in the UK removed their stories on the tommy case or never put them up in the first place, so clearly it affected them.

Why risk allowing these outlets to now influence the child rape case?

because it was never about that.


Because keeping the reporting ban in place just left it to idiots online to speculate and come up with nonsense about his free speech being oppressed rather than having the details reported correctly.

As the arrest was already being widely discussed online and on non UK news sources it served no further purpose.


Do you not understand the stupidity of that if this is why the judge decided?

First, presumably he thought the gag was important to protect the first trial, so lifting it would only have the chance of endangering that trial. yet he did it anyway.

Secondly, if the rest of the world reporting on it makes the gag worthless, then arresting tommy was the aboslute WORST thing that the judge could have done.

First because it was poibntless, because everything he reported on his live stream was already public knowldege.

And second because by arresting him, it led to his story blowing up, and hence the details of the child rape case blowing up.

No, if the judge felt the gag was needed to ensure the integrity of the first trial, he would have never lifted it.


Spectacularly tortured logic.

Are you really arguing that Robinson should get immunity from the law because of the publicity it would generate?

Robinsons behaviour in flouting the law and ignoring the terms of his suspended sentence was stupid and criminal. He clearly thinks himself above the law and the judge had no option but to convict (not arrest) him.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Copy and paste from previous post.

'
The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose. '

Do you just not understand?


Yes, i understand that this is not an answer.


If the order was in place because discussing robinsons case was going to potentially influence people in the child rape case, then removing it days later because some people were talking about it makes no sense at all.

we see that most main stream outlets in the UK removed their stories on the tommy case or never put them up in the first place, so clearly it affected them.

Why risk allowing these outlets to now influence the child rape case?

because it was never about that.


Because keeping the reporting ban in place just left it to idiots online to speculate and come up with nonsense about his free speech being oppressed rather than having the details reported correctly.

As the arrest was already being widely discussed online and on non UK news sources it served no further purpose.


Do you not understand the stupidity of that if this is why the judge decided?

First, presumably he thought the gag was important to protect the first trial, so lifting it would only have the chance of endangering that trial. yet he did it anyway.

Secondly, if the rest of the world reporting on it makes the gag worthless, then arresting tommy was the aboslute WORST thing that the judge could have done.

First because it was poibntless, because everything he reported on his live stream was already public knowldege.

And second because by arresting him, it led to his story blowing up, and hence the details of the child rape case blowing up.

No, if the judge felt the gag was needed to ensure the integrity of the first trial, he would have never lifted it.


Spectacularly tortured logic.

Are you really arguing that Robinson should get immunity from the law because of the publicity it would generate?

Robinsons behaviour in flouting the law and ignoring the terms of his suspended sentence was stupid and criminal. He clearly thinks himself above the law and the judge had no option but to convict (not arrest) him.


No I am arguing the opposite in fact.

That publicity and public discourse should not effect legal decisions.

Your claim is that the judge lited his gag order because people were talikng about it anyways.

that is insane.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Copy and paste from previous post.

'
The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose. '

Do you just not understand?


Yes, i understand that this is not an answer.


If the order was in place because discussing robinsons case was going to potentially influence people in the child rape case, then removing it days later because some people were talking about it makes no sense at all.

we see that most main stream outlets in the UK removed their stories on the tommy case or never put them up in the first place, so clearly it affected them.

Why risk allowing these outlets to now influence the child rape case?

because it was never about that.


Because keeping the reporting ban in place just left it to idiots online to speculate and come up with nonsense about his free speech being oppressed rather than having the details reported correctly.

As the arrest was already being widely discussed online and on non UK news sources it served no further purpose.


Do you not understand the stupidity of that if this is why the judge decided?

First, presumably he thought the gag was important to protect the first trial, so lifting it would only have the chance of endangering that trial. yet he did it anyway.

Secondly, if the rest of the world reporting on it makes the gag worthless, then arresting tommy was the aboslute WORST thing that the judge could have done.

First because it was poibntless, because everything he reported on his live stream was already public knowldege.

And second because by arresting him, it led to his story blowing up, and hence the details of the child rape case blowing up.

No, if the judge felt the gag was needed to ensure the integrity of the first trial, he would have never lifted it.


Spectacularly tortured logic.

Are you really arguing that Robinson should get immunity from the law because of the publicity it would generate?

Robinsons behaviour in flouting the law and ignoring the terms of his suspended sentence was stupid and criminal. He clearly thinks himself above the law and the judge had no option but to convict (not arrest) him.


No I am arguing the opposite in fact.

That publicity and public discourse should not effect legal decisions.

Your claim is that the judge lited his gag order because people were talikng about it anyways.

that is insane.


If the gagging order is not working it then its continued application just penalises the legitimate press and allows misinformation.

No conspiracy needed.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose.


That's dumb.

If the order was necessary, it was necessary. If it was so necessary, they needed to summarily try, sentence and jail one guy with no legal recourse allowed., then it's still necessary. You don't just drop that because "Oh, now a bunch of other people are doing what we told them not to do ... Oh, noes! I guess we give up. Boo hoo!"

No. If you are violating one person's rights that baldly, then you are calling in the guard and going to town a bunch of other people too to preserve that order.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose.


That's dumb.

If the order was necessary, it was necessary. If it was so necessary, they needed to summarily try, sentence and jail one guy with no legal recourse allowed., then it's still necessary. You don't just drop that because "Oh, now a bunch of other people are doing what we told them not to do ... Oh, noes! I guess we give up. Boo hoo!"

No. If you are violating one person's rights that baldly, then you are calling in the guard and going to town a bunch of other people too to preserve that order.


Yes my point exactly.

Under that same justification, the judge would now lift the gag order discussing the child rape case, because jsut about the same amount of people discussing tommys case have discussed it.

So if that means the gag order on tommys case is now worthless and needs to be lifted to help stop disinformation, so should the one on the child rape case.

The truth is, as I am sure you know, that this is not why the gag order was lifted.

It was lifted because of pressure from free speech advocates, and the order never had anything to do with protecting the integrity of the child rape case.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   
This was done to limit exposure of a political arrest over a bank holiday weekend.
The judge said in court that the sentence had nothing to do with the previously suspended sentence - so in effect he jailed Robinson for filming on a public street.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
This was done to limit exposure of a political arrest over a bank holiday weekend.
The judge said in court that the sentence had nothing to do with the previously suspended sentence - so in effect he jailed Robinson for filming on a public street.


So are you saying that there was a completely new trial and a new set of (different) charges?

Not taking issue, it was my assumption that the speedy incarceration was for violating the terms of the suspended sentence for contempt and the prior conviction/sentence was then applied. Is that even close?

ganjoa



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose.


That's dumb.

If the order was necessary, it was necessary. If it was so necessary, they needed to summarily try, sentence and jail one guy with no legal recourse allowed., then it's still necessary. You don't just drop that because "Oh, now a bunch of other people are doing what we told them not to do ... Oh, noes! I guess we give up. Boo hoo!"

No. If you are violating one person's rights that baldly, then you are calling in the guard and going to town a bunch of other people too to preserve that order.


Two different issues. The court order on reporting and the conviction itself.

The conviction was a a result of Robinson repeated breech of court rules. His rights weren't violated.

As the order in reporting was clearly creating more problems than it solved it was removed. Not difficult to understand if you read anything other highly biased right wing sites.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ketsuko

The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose.


That's dumb.

If the order was necessary, it was necessary. If it was so necessary, they needed to summarily try, sentence and jail one guy with no legal recourse allowed., then it's still necessary. You don't just drop that because "Oh, now a bunch of other people are doing what we told them not to do ... Oh, noes! I guess we give up. Boo hoo!"

No. If you are violating one person's rights that baldly, then you are calling in the guard and going to town a bunch of other people too to preserve that order.


Yes my point exactly.

Under that same justification, the judge would now lift the gag order discussing the child rape case, because jsut about the same amount of people discussing tommys case have discussed it.

So if that means the gag order on tommys case is now worthless and needs to be lifted to help stop disinformation, so should the one on the child rape case.

The truth is, as I am sure you know, that this is not why the gag order was lifted.

It was lifted because of pressure from free speech advocates, and the order never had anything to do with protecting the integrity of the child rape case.


Only it wasn't lifted due to pressure from free speech advocates. Like much of the rest of the false narrative you have tried to spin about this that is a fabrication.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Copy and paste from previous post.

'
The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose. '

Do you just not understand?


Yes, i understand that this is not an answer.


If the order was in place because discussing robinsons case was going to potentially influence people in the child rape case, then removing it days later because some people were talking about it makes no sense at all.

we see that most main stream outlets in the UK removed their stories on the tommy case or never put them up in the first place, so clearly it affected them.

Why risk allowing these outlets to now influence the child rape case?

because it was never about that.


Because keeping the reporting ban in place just left it to idiots online to speculate and come up with nonsense about his free speech being oppressed rather than having the details reported correctly.

As the arrest was already being widely discussed online and on non UK news sources it served no further purpose.


Do you not understand the stupidity of that if this is why the judge decided?

First, presumably he thought the gag was important to protect the first trial, so lifting it would only have the chance of endangering that trial. yet he did it anyway.

Secondly, if the rest of the world reporting on it makes the gag worthless, then arresting tommy was the aboslute WORST thing that the judge could have done.

First because it was poibntless, because everything he reported on his live stream was already public knowldege.

And second because by arresting him, it led to his story blowing up, and hence the details of the child rape case blowing up.

No, if the judge felt the gag was needed to ensure the integrity of the first trial, he would have never lifted it.


Spectacularly tortured logic.

Are you really arguing that Robinson should get immunity from the law because of the publicity it would generate?

Robinsons behaviour in flouting the law and ignoring the terms of his suspended sentence was stupid and criminal. He clearly thinks himself above the law and the judge had no option but to convict (not arrest) him.


So the law says anyone filming defendents outside a court house while the trial is about to begin or ongoing should be arrested.

Then I assume you are outraged all of these people were not arrested.

Rolf harris trial



Gary Glitter trial




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Only that's not why he why he was charged.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Again you are failing to get basic facts correct.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Even Robinson understood what he did was wrong.

Mr Harding, defending, said his client felt 'deep regret' after realising the potential consequences of his actions.

He could have caused the case to collapse.
His message is a valid one but he went about it the wrong way.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: ScepticScot

Even Robinson understood what he did was wrong.

Mr Harding, defending, said his client felt 'deep regret' after realising the potential consequences of his actions.

He could have caused the case to collapse.
His message is a valid one but he went about it the wrong way.


Very true. Many people are ignoring the fact that the reason he could be convicted so quickly was he plead guilty.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Did you really need another thread for people to point out your total jack of understanding of the subject?

The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose.


I think the thread was made to ask a question. However, yes, we are well aware that people such as yourself exist who are not capable of answering a question without insulting the one asking.

I hope that helps explain things for you, so you don't have to be so helplessly frustratingly confused anymore 👍 I know, I know, life is a lot harder and much less enjoyable when you are a mean, rude, intolerant person. And I'm sorry about that, I really am. How can I Not feel sorry for someone who exudes pure misery?

A happy, healthy person certainly does not talk to other people that way. In a rude way.

Grambler was just asking if anyone knew anything about this situation. You didn't have to treat him like that. You can start treating people like a human being, how about that for a change, huh?

You really oughta shape up your act.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Grambler

That Maajid Nawaaz video makes populist sound like a dirty word.


Yes I disagree with him on that.

But he is spot on about the silence on the rape gangs.


That would be the rape gangs that have been convicted or are currently being prosecuted?


A criminal being prosecuted or convicted is not the same as making the public aware of this danger, unless you're assuming every person is in the coutroom listening to every case, but I don't think that is what happened.

So according to ScepticScot, all you gotta do is punish the criminals.

Nevermind warning and educating the public that these gangs exist and how they work, so they know what to watch out for so it DOESNT Happen Again!!



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: ScepticScot

Even Robinson understood what he did was wrong.

Mr Harding, defending, said his client felt 'deep regret' after realising the potential consequences of his actions.

He could have caused the case to collapse.
His message is a valid one but he went about it the wrong way.


Very true. Many people are ignoring the fact that the reason he could be convicted so quickly was he plead guilty.


Here you've made a potentially valid point.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Did you really need another thread for people to point out your total jack of understanding of the subject?

The order was lifted as it was already being discussed widely and served no further purpose.


I think the thread was made to ask a question. However, yes, we are well aware that people such as yourself exist who are not capable of answering a question without insulting the one asking.

I hope that helps explain things for you, so you don't have to be so helplessly frustratingly confused anymore 👍 I know, I know, life is a lot harder and much less enjoyable when you are a mean, rude, intolerant person. And I'm sorry about that, I really am. How can I Not feel sorry for someone who exudes pure misery?

A happy, healthy person certainly does not talk to other people that way. In a rude way.

Grambler was just asking if anyone knew anything about this situation. You didn't have to treat him like that. You can start treating people like a human being, how about that for a change, huh?

You really oughta shape up your act.


You might want to check out how many treads Grambler had authored on this exact same subject, and how he has repeatedly ignored the answers given, before jumping to such erroneous conclusions about peoples motivations.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: Grambler

That Maajid Nawaaz video makes populist sound like a dirty word.


Yes I disagree with him on that.

But he is spot on about the silence on the rape gangs.


That would be the rape gangs that have been convicted or are currently being prosecuted?


A criminal being prosecuted or convicted is not the same as making the public aware of this danger, unless you're assuming every person is in the coutroom listening to every case, but I don't think that is what happened.

So according to ScepticScot, all you gotta do is punish the criminals.

Nevermind warning and educating the public that these gangs exist and how they work, so they know what to watch out for so it DOESNT Happen Again!!


There has been a lot of coverage of the trials already and Robinson had no involvement what so ever in uncovering or making people aware of these cases.

What he has done is repeatedly broke court rules designed to ensure a fair trial and by doing so could have prejudiced the case resulting in child molesters getting off on a technicality.

Attempts to portray Robinson as some champion of the victims or martyr for free speech are incredibly misplaced.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join