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.

 

Dozens of reporters film defendents outside of pedophile trials in UK; no arrests

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:04 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: UKTruth

Do political prisoners normally plead guilty?


Yes in fact.

Straight out of the gate otto warmbier comes to mind.

Plead guilty, was tortured to death in north korea.

In fact many people frogmarched into a court that no reporting or discussion is allowed to take place probably plead guilty and plead for mercy from the court.







Explain why Robinson would give up his chance to plead his case for free speech?


Because he didnt want to get senetnced to prison, where he was attrackled l;ast time and almost killed.

Because he knew that the laws wpould be selectively applied, and contempt of court can be stretched to find near anyone guilty.

Because he knows judges like the one whose article you keep posting that called his supporters knuckle dragging racist hate him and pre judge him, and he wouldnt have stood a chance at a fair trial.


That was the article you claimed to have read yet you think it was written by a judge?



It was me that said it was written by a judge. While talking about judges the author referred to "we" in a way that suggests this to be true.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

thesecretbarrister.com...

Explanation in here.


No its not!

I love this theme from you lot.

Post a link, say it answers everything, and then smugly claim anyone who doesnt agree doesnt know anything about english law.

Show me anywhere in that amatuer name calling screed that it remotely explains why there were allowed to be press outside the court during gary glitter and rolf harris's trial yelling questions at him.


It states clearly that accurate and factual reporting is allowed outside of a court house, you obviously didn't read all of the link or you would no this. It was written by a Judge btw.


Yes it does state that, doesnt it.

Ok so show me in tommy live stream where he reported something not factual.

He didnt say anyone was guilty, he read the names and charges from an article in the Sun.



I dont think it was about him not being factual, he clearly did listen to the judge. Though I think yourself or someone else on the "Rock on Tommy" (not many outside the UK will get that reference) side stated that he was filming people going in saying they were possible suspects. That's supposition and, if he was mistaken in his finger pointing, would be non-factual.

This idea that I somehow side with the rape gangs because I think your man deserves to be in jail is a stretch too far, of course I'm offended by them and I actually do think those responsible for the cover-up pr should be held to account for their actions, just as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has been...


I dont think you side with the rape gangs.

I think you are being snarky and ridiculous by constantly saying because I am sticking up for free speech, tommy is "my hero"

So as long as you continue to spread that insinuation, I will continue to point pout how your defnese of jailing tommy for speaking against child rapists must mean the child rapists are "your hero"

As to the meat of your post:

You posted saying that factual reporting is allowed ourside a court house.

Tommy said nothing that wasnt factual.

The livestream is up; show me where he said something that was not factual.

And as has been shown over and over again, the judge found him guilty in this instance regardless of his suspended sentence.

His suspended sentence would only be triggered if he broke the law by being held in contempt of court.

So yes, tommy was held in contempt for filming and factually reporting outside the case; something you have admitted is legal.


I apologise good sir. I saw your second post on this man ans you do seem to be ignoring facts and asking stiff already answered. I was too hasty to pounce on you as a fan of this man. I did do so because, although I agree with your opinion on the rape fangs and those that enabled them to continue so long, your posts on the subject are geared towards Yaxley-Lennon which, I feel, is actually distracting us from the real issue.

I think a new thread is in order, unless anyone has a link for one that's less Lennon/Robinson-centric, we can't suddenly start having a serious discussion about the core issue in among all this...


I agree with this.

The issue of the rape gangs should not be conflated with Robinson arrest.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Do political prisoners normally plead guilty?


Yes in fact.

Straight out of the gate otto warmbier comes to mind.

Plead guilty, was tortured to death in north korea.

In fact many people frogmarched into a court that no reporting or discussion is allowed to take place probably plead guilty and plead for mercy from the court.







Explain why Robinson would give up his chance to plead his case for free speech?


Because he didnt want to get senetnced to prison, where he was attrackled l;ast time and almost killed.

Because he knew that the laws wpould be selectively applied, and contempt of court can be stretched to find near anyone guilty.

Because he knows judges like the one whose article you keep posting that called his supporters knuckle dragging racist hate him and pre judge him, and he wouldnt have stood a chance at a fair trial.


That was the article you claimed to have read yet you think it was written by a judge?



It was me that said it was written by a judge. While talking about judges the author referred to "we" in a way that suggests this to be true.


Fair enough.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

No need for an apology but I accept it, and also offer you one if I upset you.

I wasnt upset, I was giggling as I was childishly was going back at you.

(yeah I suck sometimes and am childish and petty, its a vice)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Fair enough the error about the author was not yours.

Not sure who you prefer to write about legal matters than a barrister?


Was a simple mistake, I dont think anyone was malicious in getting the authors job wrong.

I dont mind a barrister writing it.

I am making this point.

If we are going to use an authors job to bolster what they write as somehow making it more credible, we should also look at other factors that inform onto teir credibility.

A person who is so biased that they cant help but say supporters of the person they are writing about are racist knuckle draggers seems to not deserve undue amounts of credibility.

And the fact that there are people in the legal system that prejudge like that shows that bthis could be a problem.

Having said that, by no means am I saying he bias or childish language proves his article wrong.

I have argued it doesnt answer things such as why other people can report in front of on going trials, but that has nothing to do with hiss bias.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Funnily enough he covers this in the article as well

15. Do you have to be so snarky in your lawsplaining? Aren’t you just turning off people who you need to convince?

This is a fair question. Ordinarily, I do my best in these posts to embrace rather than alienate in an effort to explain or persuade. But cases like this, involving co-ordinated transnational campaigns disseminating blatant falsehoods about our legal system and gaslighting the public are, I feel, different. And call for a different approach. As I see it, there are two types of people currently propagating the Free Tommy Robinson myths: far-right sympathisers deliberately sowing discord and falsehoods, whose concern for due process is a cipher for hero-worship; and good people confused and worried about what they’ve heard about the “threat to free speech” posed by the overbearing English and Welsh justice system. The first category are never going to be swayed by facts or rational argument. That is plain from their every interaction on social media, and their every appearance on Fox News. Their motives are clear, their integrity irretrievable and they are not only beyond reach but, frankly, not worth the effort. The second group will, I hope, realise from this explanation that the toga party they have wandered into is in fact a Klan meeting, and will understand the urgency and frustration that underpins the argument.

However the reality is that most people out in the world are probably paying little attention to the ballad of St Tommy, but may form partial views based on what snippets they read and hear. I want this – the truth – to be that snippet. If the key to turning up the online volume is a snappy tone and uncompromising beatdown of idiots and liars, then that’s the game I’ll play.
edit on 1-6-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: djz3ro

No need for an apology but I accept it, and also offer you one if I upset you.

I wasnt upset, I was giggling as I was childishly was going back at you.

(yeah I suck sometimes and am childish and petty, its a vice)



Aye I was enjoying banter too. I'm 40 going on 16 ha ha



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: djz3ro

No need for an apology but I accept it, and also offer you one if I upset you.

I wasnt upset, I was giggling as I was childishly was going back at you.

(yeah I suck sometimes and am childish and petty, its a vice)



Aye I was enjoying banter too. I'm 40 going on 16 ha ha


Totally off topic,

But I was laughing as two or three people commented on how angry I was getting posting tha past few days.

I guess I could see it coming off as that, but all the while I am snickering at my own attempted lame jokes or outbursts.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Fair enough the error about the author was not yours.

Not sure who you prefer to write about legal matters than a barrister?


Was a simple mistake, I dont think anyone was malicious in getting the authors job wrong.

I dont mind a barrister writing it.

I am making this point.

If we are going to use an authors job to bolster what they write as somehow making it more credible, we should also look at other factors that inform onto teir credibility.

A person who is so biased that they cant help but say supporters of the person they are writing about are racist knuckle draggers seems to not deserve undue amounts of credibility.

And the fact that there are people in the legal system that prejudge like that shows that bthis could be a problem.

Having said that, by no means am I saying he bias or childish language proves his article wrong.

I have argued it doesnt answer things such as why other people can report in front of on going trials, but that has nothing to do with hiss bias.


I do think the language he used was wrong, because he seems to be known for explaining court proceedings in laymans terms and he would have done a better job of doing that if he approached the subject without bias and especially without name calling. If I have time,

I might try editing it later to remove unnecessarry derogatory comments because I really do believe that, as a barrister and his history of these blogs, the information seem to be sound (my legal expertise stopped when I left school and stopped taking part in the Barr National Mock Trial competitions.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed




pleasure of visiting the fine establishment of law in your country, whether it be UK, U.S or OZ it's all similar.


"fine establishment of law" You've got to be kidding.

Here; this sheds a bit of light how "contempt of Court" is used to silence the little man

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 judge III

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.....


Ian Munro-Meeks spends his working days in the belly of the court system.








Obviously you missed the sarcastic undertone of my comment



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

You realize that article is from someone whose language clearly indicates their own bias writing against others with a different bias.

This was not written from a legal perspective but a biased political one and the writers choice of language leaves his argument completely invalid except in the minds of those who share the same bias as the author.

Comfirmation bias is a sneaky demon that bites even the most well intentioned. For if we didn't feel our opinion was the most right we would of course change our minds.
edit on 1-6-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What part of "linked trials" confuses so many people?

Gary Glitter's trial was a standalone.

The one Tommy Robinson chose to be martyred on was a linked one.

The principle is simple

If there is anything close media circus around the first one, the defence for the subsequent ones can call for dismissal. That means the bad guys go free.

I can understand why sh*tstirring blogs want to cloud the issue. I can't understand why soi-disant critical thinkers can't see through it.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth



I see your complete ignorance extends to the law and the foundations of the open justice principle in the UK.
There is NO restriction on reporting during a trial.


What, apart from D notices, Mary Bell orders and the kind of restrictions imposed in the case Tommy Robinson tried to sabotage for ratings?
edit on 2-6-2018 by Whodathunkdatcheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ScepticScot

You realize that article is from someone whose language clearly indicates their own bias writing against others with a different bias.

This was not written from a legal perspective but a biased political one and the writers choice of language leaves his argument completely invalid except in the minds of those who share the same bias as the author.

Comfirmation bias is a sneaky demon that bites even the most well intentioned. For if we didn't feel our opinion was the most right we would of course change our minds.


He has a clear bias against stupidity and liars.

Not sure how that would invalidate his arguments if they are correct.

Can you point out anywhere he is not correct,?



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Go read the link provided by UKTruth.


I think he probably has, which is why he knows you are talking out of your rear end.
You can't even tell the difference between the accused and the victims, fella.



It seems that your bitterness and support of Robinson has got the better of you. The accused could have called for the case to be dismissed because of biased reporting by Robinson and also Robinson put the victims ID at possible risk. But if you want to support Robinson's beliefs and his petty attempt at fame , go ahead!!



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

So in britain, dozens of reporters film old white guys accused of pedophilia outside of courthouse, a ok and a great job.

One guy films grooming defendants outside of courthouse; 13 months in pricson.



Reporting restrictions are not automatic in every case. The court has discretionary powers to restrict reporting when certain criteria are met.

Taking photos of the Defendant(s) outside of court would be restricted on a case-by-case basis.

Outside of that, the arrest may flow from a different matter - for example, breach of court order made against the specific person taking the photos/video/etc.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

You're not sure how calling someone knuckle dragging racists invalidates what they say? I assume by your defese of the author you think that emotionally inflammatory debate tactics are acceptable.

Keep following those who support the restrictions of your freedoms and would call everyone who disagrees a bad name. Because apparently some of us are still in grade school and don't know how to speak like civilized adults.

I will keep fighting for free speech.


edit on 2-6-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73

Have you ever met a member of the EDL? The guy explains who they are very well.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Isurrender73

Have you ever met a member of the EDL? The guy explains who they are very well.


I've read a little about Tommy. If the stuff is true he is a real scumbag. But that doesn't mean you don't have a problem in your country that he is calling attention too. Nor does it justify the way Tommy was treated and the length of sentence he recieved. It appears they wanted to make of example out of him in order to silence others who might think they have the freedom to speak. Imo

In the US we just defeated those who stole our freedoms and we are fighting with our president to restore them. In the US he would be a free scumbag with the right to continue to think and speak however he feels.

I'd prefer to die for the rights of scumbags to freely voice their opinions, than live one day having my freedom of speech taken from me.


edit on 2-6-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ScepticScot

You're not sure how calling someone knuckle dragging racists invalidates what they say? I assume by ypur defese of the author you think that emotionally inflammatory debate tactics are acceptable.

Keep following those who support the restrictions of your freedoms and would call everyone who disagrees a bad name. Because apparently some of us are still in grade school and don't know how to speak like civilized adults.

I will keep fighting for free speech.



Doesn't invalidate what he says if it's accurate.

It's not a debate its a description of the law as applied in this case.

You can keep fighting for free speech as much as you want but this isn't a free speech issue.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join