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: 11
41
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's definitely not about protecting a court case.

I will try to say this one more time and hope it sinks in.

Jurors are adults. Most adults are capable human beings that when confronted with being a juror can seperate media from the trial. In the US it is even a part of the jury selection process to eliminate anyone who may be biased to begin with.

If you really don't believe that people are mentally capable of this the world is deep trouble.

This man was made an example out of pure and simple.

You can defend unjust laws if you want. But I will not. I prefer to think for myslef than blindly follow something called a law, just because it's the law. When the law is wrong it is the law that needs to change not the human being.


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




posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ScepticScot

It's definitely not about protecting a court case.

I will try to say this one more time and hope it sinks in.

Jurors are adults. Most adults are capable human beings that when confronted with being a juror can seperate media from the trial. In the US it is even a part of the jury selection process to eliminate anyone who may be biased to begin with.

If you really don't believe that people are mentally capable of this the world is deep trouble.

This man was made an example out of pure and simple.

You can defend unjust laws if you want. But I will not. I prefer to think for myslef than blindly follow something called a law, just because it's the law. When the law is wrong it is the law that needs to change not the human being.



The laws on reporting are there to try and ensure the best chance of a fair trial. Something UK courts take very seriously.

Now you might think that the law is wrong but in this case it would be irrelevant anyway.

Put it this way. If there was a law that if anyone turned up at court wearing purple there would be a mistrial might think that law stupid. You might protest against it. You might write to you MP or vote for politicians promising to change it. You might even change yourself to the barriers at Downing Street.

What you don't do is turn up at the trial of accused child molesters dressed as Prince.

Robinson knew about the risks of a mistrial, he admitted as much and still carried on. He deliberately risked the trial of child molesters. The guy is a scumbag for that alone.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
May I just provide my perspective for what it's worth, as a British Police Officer in the 1990's onward serving the West Midlands area (central UK).

In the UK, there were/are children's homes. These are Social Service run homes designed to house a variety of children from different and sometimes harrowing social backgrounds. Some children were placed their through circumstance, others may have placed there through court orders etc, due to disruptive or criminal behaviour. This reasons for placement is long an varied.

Some of these homes were quite large buildings, containing 10 - 12 bedrooms whilst others were small converted houses or pairs of semi detached houses of 4 to 8 bedrooms. The smaller properties were attempting to provide a more home like environment for the residents.

During the mid to late 90's, the majority of these homes were not designated as secure. No matter how disruptive or violent the children were, staff were not allowed to lock the children inside the home or facility. Only secure units could do this.

I often saw disruptive teenagers rampaging through these homes, smashing up the places but staff could do little or nothing to stop such behaviour. This type of violence would impact younger children too. Some would withdraw through fear, others would emulate or copy the behaviour. Both boys and girls could be equally violent during such outbursts.

The majority of Police officers including myself, would be regularly called to these homes in response to missing person reports. This is when a child has left the home in the day time and not returned in the evening.
Often, it would be the same children who went missing, night after night. Many would return home in the early hours.
We would record the details of the missing child and place their details onto the National Police Database as vulnerable missing persons. Kind of like an APB.
When the child returned, police would visit them to ensure their safety and attempts would be made to establish where they had been and who they had been with.
The majority of young teenage girls would say they had been with their boyfriends and some would blatantly admit to receiving large sums of money and clothing as gifts as signs of love and commitment from these men. The girls would never name these so called boyfriends but staff would state that the majority were Asian men of various ages who regularly pulled up in cars outside the homes.
The staff were powerless to stop these girls from leaving despite suspecting the girls as being sexualy activite with these men.

One of the biggest problems for Police, was lack of cooperation.The girls would point blank refuse to cooperate in any way shape or form. The majority had been so well groomed, that now saw us as the enemy. They truly believed the web of lies these men had spun. They were convinced (at the time), that they were loved and adored by these men, not raped or abused. The money and cigarettes they received was the convincer. When attempts were made to question the girls to establish if they had been at risk during their excursion, the majority would tell us in no uncertain terms, to go forth and multiply. They knew only too well, that we would arrested these men if offences were disclosed. In their groomed minds, we would be arresting their 'boyfriends'.

Another huge problem these girls faced was the attitude of some officers who simply couldn't care less about what the girls got up to. I was shocked and stunned to witnesses a number of officers referring to these girls as little slags (whores). These officers had no sense of responsibility toward these vulnerable young adults. They obviously did not understand the true power of grooming, or they simply didn't care. This was truly a huge failure on their part.
As a Father myself, I found this attitude to be both shocking and heartbreaking.

Young adolescent girls can be naive and sometimes foolish, refusing to listen to the cautionary warnings of care staff or Police.
Many could not see or accept they were being exploited by gangs of Paedophiles.

Despite being this, they were still children. It was our responsibility to keep them safe, to keep them from harm and to protect and guide them.
More should have been done to educate and protect them for their own safety.
I believe they were all failed by the social care system and a total lack of willingness to take positive protective action.
I don't accept that this lack of action was due to many of the offenders being of Asian origin though. In my view Senior management themselves didn't truly understand the power or the scale of these grooming gangs.

These children were failed, and on an industrial scale. The police can cite lack of evidence or an unwillingness of the victim to cooperate but in reality, much more could have and should have been done to protect them.

Many Police officers on the ground would raise our concerns with senior management and file Social Service referral forms which would highlight our suspicions that grooming and abuse was taking place but we would never receive a response to our reports.

It's my view that these children were viewed as an irritation to senior management. They were resource hogs and nothing more. Management wanted us to deal with these cases as quickly as possible and on several occasions, I found myself reprimanded for spending too much time trying to offer help and guidance to such individuals in the hope they would help us to help them.

In short, when I hear people say the Police covered this up, it's not strictly true, because without a witness statement or factual evidence, little action that could be taken at the time. But as any parent knows, trust and confidentiality has to be earned. It takes time to be up trust with any young person, let alone a victim of abuse but enough time was never made available to achieve this.

Where abuse or sexual abuse was suspected, far more action should have been taken. There should have been a support network in place between agencies but I saw little or no evidence of this.

Don't get me wrong, had any of these girls made a complaint of rape or abused, the offender would have been arrested, no matter what colour his skin was. The hard part was convincing the victim to provide a statement.

I'm sure that looking back, the majority of these girls now realise that they were indeed victims of rape, because an underage child in the UK, cannot consent to sexual intercourse, so by definition alone it is rape.

I wish more could have been done at the time to make the girls understand this. I truly hope these children who are now women can overcome what happened to them.
They were failed by a system of ineptitude and ignorance on an industrial scale

I hear many say today that these girls got what they wanted and what they deserved, that they were sexually active through choice and refused all help and support with two fingers in the air.
Such statements prove that ignorance still prevails.
The truth is we failed these CHILDREN who most need our care, protection and guidance and we continue to fail them through lack of action against these vile offenders who live and walk amongst us.

These children stood no chance against these gangs but even less chance against a system that should have protected them as a parent would protect their own child.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Why is this starbaiting circle Jerk of thread still active?

He was arrested because he broke the terms of his suspended sentence, end of.

That is why other protesters have not been arrested as they where not serving a suspended sentence.

Simple as.

Like in the USA when you are serving a probationary sentence you have a large number of restrictions on your freedom a ordinary person would not. Simple as.


And why the USA is pointing fingers at us, in the USA police shot a black man for closing the door on a cop............. Least we give trials in the UK and not summary executions.




edit on 3-6-2018 by DieGloke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The judge lifted the gag order. Also media was not prevented from taking videos. They were barred from putting it on tv. The guy arrested live streamed the accused entering court in violation of that order.
edit on 3-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: studio500

Thank you for this, insightful.

However, I must point out that the police and social services did intentionally try to cover this up. Maybe not the people on the ground, but let's not forget that when the newspapers started investigating this seriously and police and social services documents were leaked (to the Times I believe), not only was there no investigation to help the kids, the investigation that did take place centred on the leak and then lawsuits followed to try and place a gag order on the investigative reporters.

There was an active effort by both the police and social services to hide all this and we know it from the documents leaked and their actions when the stories began to break.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I will ask the same question I did before.

What is more important -
The rights of the accused or the right s of the people to know?

Since it deals with freedom the rights of the accused overtake the rights of the public to know.

We try people in a court of law and not in a court of public opinion.


I would also say that if any person in this thread were ever accused of these types of crimes your initial response would be to defend yourself from the charges and would adopt a position where you dont want the media reporting on it since it would drag your name thru the mud for nothing but allegations.

If these people are found guilty by the court then by all means hang em. However being found guilty in the court of public opinion has no relevance.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok that’s fine then

Then explain why the law was only applied to Tommy, and not the the dozens of reporters filming Gary glitter and Rolf Harris

Why weren’t their rights of the accused upheld?
edit on 3-6-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Well tommy robinson was arrested because you cant have people standing outside of a court, or reporting on trials, because it could influence jurors.


I’m not surprised that your O.P. rushed straight out of the gate with fabricated propoganda.

Tommy Robinson got in trouble for recording video inside a court room during a trial (something also illegal in the U.S.) among many other violations, and was told, because of this, to stay off of courthouse property during certain court cases. He knowingly violated this rule and was therefore arrested. Cry me a river.
edit on 04amMon, 04 Jun 2018 00:15:47 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DieGloke

This guy gets it. Grambler, how have you not caught on yet? People have been explaining this to you multiple times in multiple threads but yet you continue to bury your head in the sand?

How can you continue to spread your Tommy Robinson propoganda after learning this? Unless you are purposefully being dishonest! But I thought you were against that!
edit on 04amMon, 04 Jun 2018 00:19:11 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 04amMon, 04 Jun 2018 00:19:39 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

In many instances the reason a defendant can't be shown is because no one knows what they look like thus preventing anyone from popping up at the last minute saying 'Hey I know that guy, I saw him do this and do that' and they can give an accurate description of him. EVERYONE knows what Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris look like and so the need for defendant privacy is precluded.

In the case you are citing it may also be the case that a 'relative' of one of the accused is in fact a victim - in which case anonymity for the victim is required, which can't be guaranteed if Tommy is posting pics of 'Her dad, her uncle' or whatever. If reference is made in court to a victim's Uncle or Dad, then looking at pics of the defendants could lead to her identity being made known. Thus such images must be prevented. The UK media are aware of all the pitfalls in court reporting and act accordingly - sometimes they too get it wrong and get hauled over the coals for it. You mustn't look at court proceedings as being all about protecting 'defendants' - the victims have to be taken into account and sometimes to preserve their anonymity the defendants must remain anonymous or at least 'not photographed and made public'.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok that’s fine then

Then explain why the law was only applied to Tommy, and not the the dozens of reporters filming Gary glitter and Rolf Harris

Why weren’t their rights of the accused upheld?


It has already been explained to you! You are being deliberately obtuse.

The difference it that Tommey Robinson WAS ON A SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
He was not a free man, he was serving a probationary sentence that restricted what he could do and where he could go.


Talk about a Echo Chamber or deliberate ignorance.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok that’s fine then

Then explain why the law was only applied to Tommy, and not the the dozens of reporters filming Gary glitter and Rolf Harris

Why weren’t their rights of the accused upheld?


It has already been explained to you! You are being deliberately obtuse.

The difference it that Tommey Robinson WAS ON A SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
He was not a free man, he was serving a probationary sentence that restricted what he could do and where he could go.


Talk about a Echo Chamber or deliberate ignorance.


No, it's already been explained to you.

Robinsons FIRST suspended sentence was completely unjust. He was filming in the same way as is common.
He may have been silly for doing it again, but it does not change the fact he has been targeted in a way that others are not.

Here is Cardinal Pells appearance in court for his trial on child abuse charges



Quite the media scrum.
Where are the arrests?



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

His suspended sentence was filming inside the court building, continuing to film when told to stop and referring to accused as pedophiles despite not having been convicted at that point.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


You just don't want to let go of your hero Robinson do you?
Like I said when this first appeared on ATS, he was a fool for trying to do the exact same thing as he had done before after being put on a suspended sentence.



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Xcathdra

Ok that’s fine then

Then explain why the law was only applied to Tommy, and not the the dozens of reporters filming Gary glitter and Rolf Harris

Why weren’t their rights of the accused upheld?


Lets start with his history -

Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon also known as Tommy Robinson aka Andrew McMaster aka Paul Harris

What has Tommy Robinson done?

1982: Born in the working class town of Luton, Bedfordshire
2003: Robinson was fired from his engineering job at Luton Airport for punching an off-duty police officer during a drunken row
2009: He co-founded the English Defence League claiming the activist group was opposed to the spread of “militant Islam”.
2011: Robinson was convicted of using “threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour" during a 100-man fight between football supporters in Luton.
Following that conviction, he was ordered to complete 150 hours of community service and banned for three years from attending football matches.
In September, he was arrested again at an EDL demonstration in East London after being banned from attending the protest as part of his bail conditions.
While being held in custody at HM Prison Bedford, the controversial activist went on hunger strike reportedly claiming to be a “political prisoner of the state" while refusing to eat food he believed was “halal”.
He was released before his trial, but was then convicted of common assault on September 29, after headbutting an EDL member at an event in April in Blackburn in north west England.
Robinson was handed a 12 week sentence which was suspended for 12 months.
In November of that year, he was arrested at Fifa headquarters in Zurich after protesting a decision to stop the England football team wearing poppies on their shirts.
He was jailed for three days and fined £3,000.
2012: In October, Robinson was arrested after entering the United States illegally using another person’s passport.
2013: In January, he was sentenced to 10 months in jail for his passport fraud conviction.
On February 22, he was released but was ordered to wear an electronic tag.
2014: He was jailed for 18 months for committing mortgage fraud.
After being released on parole, he was recalled to prison in October 2014 for breaching the terms of his licence before he was scheduled to talk at the Oxford Union.
He was released again in November 2014
2017: Robinson was captured on film repeatedly punching a man in the head at Royal Ascot.
2018: The activist was banned from Twitter on March 28 for breaching the social media platform's "hateful conduct" policy.
Robinson was jailed for 13 months for contempt of court on May 25.


Not only is he known to the courts he has been repeatedly warned by the courts and the police over contempt of court laws.

He has been on license (probation) since around 2010 +/- for convictions dealing with his EDL party and was supposed to be off license at the end of 2015 however I think his violations of other laws extended that time frame to 2016.

When you are constantly warned by the Crown Courts and the police that the actions you are engaging in are A - a violation of a court (contempt of court) or a violation of his license (probation). In 2017 he snuck a camera into the trial of a girl who had been raped and received a suspended sentence. He was placed on a GPS tracker as a result of that action.

All of which plays into why he is serving 13 months in prison.

When you are out on license you agree to certain restrictions and behavior. When you stir up crap at a Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter trial by being present and ignoring police or by violating court gag rules by commenting on it on twitter you get arrested.

Tommy Robinson is the one who formed his own media group and defines himself as a reporter. If you are going to do that job know the rules and laws of where you are at. Further if you are going to be controversial while having an extensive criminal history that leads to multiple prison terms in addition to suspended sentences and probation terms follow them.

If you dont you end up arrested.

Simple as that.

Also -
Rolf Harris's conviction was over turned after it was discovered a witness had dreamed up their testimony in court. To my knowledge the CP did not prosecute him again.

* - Tommy Robinson - wiki
* - The war on Tommy Robinson
* - Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson arrested after 'trying to film Muslims' outside court - May 2017
* - Far right activist Tommy Robinson was warned by police after turning up at Canterbury Crown Court
* - rabble rouser What has Tommy Robinson done, what is the petition about and why was the ex-EDL leader jailed?
* - Tommy Robinson was arrested for ‘attempted journalism’ after Canterbury Crown Court 'warning

*Note
When you are on probation (license in the UK) the terms of that probation can include restrictions on behavior in addition to associating with certain individuals. They can prohibit certain behavior or actions up to and including the use of social media in a manner that violates the terms set. It can include restrictions on travel as well as location specific IE you cant be at this address or this court building for any reason other than for your own criminal hearings / legal business related directly to you.



edit on 4-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Robinson is an extremely rough and unsavoury character that was very much part of the football hooliganism that was ingrained in the culture here (albeit at the tail end).

I care not a jot about that and I don't see the relevance of your list.
Do you think that a troublesome past means that one can never have a point and can never be discriminated against? Can never defend themselves against media smearing and must accept state control over what they say for the rest of their lives? If, not then what relevance does your list have other than reinforcing the view that the police are targeting the man?

I know three things for sure:
1) His message is clear and correct - and in no way racist.
2) The police and social services were caught trying to cover up the scale of child rape gangs
3) Robinson has shone a light on the filth responsible



edit on 4/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If your response was to my post the relevance of the list goes directly to his current legal problems. As I stated he has been charged and convicted numerous times and as a result has been on probation almost continuously. Probation and the terms set are not restricted to just certain crimes while ignoring others. That means his previous legal troubles and the consequences that came with them had a direct impact on his current situation. Especially when those prior bad acts are allowed in as evidence, which was the case in a few of his court appearances.

Dont get me wrong I am all for freedom of the press however I have to keep asking the same question -

Do the rights of the individual outweigh the right of the public to know? People are innocent until a court says otherwise and by media coverage that process can be tainted.

It is not the public who are charged and it is not the public who faces decades in prison if they are found guilty.

In the US our 1st amendment and several supreme court rulings have made it clear that judges can not restrict what 3rd parties unrelated to the case or the media say or report about ongoing cases. However judges can place gag orders on the prosecution and defense and individuals associated with the case.

That means the media can report and that reporting is almost always based on leaks or information that is inaccurate / out of context or flat out wrong. However because of the gag order on the parties involved they are prohibited from correcting any false / misleading or out right lies reported by the media, placing the defense or the prosecution at a disadvantage than can result in an innocent person going to jail or a guilty person walking free.

Hence the reason we try people in a court of law and not in the court of public opinion.

Our 1st amendment does not make journalists immune from the law and the laws in the UK are the same in that regard.



originally posted by: UKTruth
I know three things for sure:
1) His message is clear and correct - and in no way racist.
2) The police and social services were caught trying to cover up the scale of child rape gangs
3) Robinson has shone a light on the filth responsible


None of which has anything to do with why he was arrested. He reported on the story, live streamed the accused entering court and sounded off on social media - all in violation of a judges order.

People seem to be confusing why he was arrested with whats going on with the case when they are not the same.
edit on 4-6-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Robinson is an extremely rough and unsavoury character that was very much part of the football hooliganism that was ingrained in the culture here (albeit at the tail end).

I care not a jot about that and I don't see the relevance of your list.
Do you think that a troublesome past means that one can never have a point and can never be discriminated against? Can never defend themselves against media smearing and must accept state control over what they say for the rest of their lives? If, not then what relevance does your list have other than reinforcing the view that the police are targeting the man?

I know three things for sure:
1) His message is clear and correct - and in no way racist.
2) The police and social services were caught trying to cover up the scale of child rape gangs
3) Robinson has shone a light on the filth responsible




Except filming inside a court room, Calling defendants before conviction pedophiles are illegal and for very good reason.

And then breaking a suspended sentence and getting arrested again is just stupid.

His message may have some merit but he has choose the wrong venue to express them.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DieGloke
His message may have some merit but he has choose the wrong venue to express them.


/applause



new topics




 
41
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join