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: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
To the OP. This is another thread that demonstrates an inability to understand law in England, all revolving around some guy called Tommy Robinson. Reporters outside courts in the UK are allowed, and do report. It's what usually happens.

This may help people challenged with English law and Robinson


We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt.


Deny ignorance...


Deny your own ignorance of the unalienable right of free speech at your own risk.

Grambler's post summarized

England has prevented justice in the cases of the children and attacked the people reporting the crimes.

What do we do about that now when the testimony is the camera was not on the victims was it?

Nothing left for me to add but "Enjoy" your tyranny. If you like your tyranny you can keep your tyranny.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Excellent link. Should be required reading for anyone posting on his topic.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: paraphi
To the OP. This is another thread that demonstrates an inability to understand law in England, all revolving around some guy called Tommy Robinson. Reporters outside courts in the UK are allowed, and do report. It's what usually happens.

This may help people challenged with English law and Robinson


We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt.


Deny ignorance...


Deny your own ignorance of the unalienable right of free speech at your own risk.

Grambler's post summarized

England has prevented justice in the cases of the children and attacked the people reporting the crimes.

What do we do about that now when the testimony is the camera was not on the victims was it?

Nothing left for me to add but "Enjoy" your tyranny. If you like your tyranny you can keep your tyranny.


You clearly didn't read the link.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

That report is pretty damning, if true and the police through to higher levels of government did indeed know about and cover up these crimes, I would say it would be time to burn the whole place down as that is not in any way acceptable .



Yes it is damning.

Now imagine you were from one of these towns and watched your daughters and friends daughters be raped, and the police not only do nothing, but treat you with contempt for speaking up.

You would probably want to speak up and protest.

And you would then nbe called a racist, told to shut up, and harrassed by the police.

Careful saying they should burn the while police system down.

Thats danderous speech, and thats liable to get you arrested in the UK.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

No where is the law does it mention anything like needing a press pass.

In addition it seems quite likely one of gthe dozens of people outside the trials of Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter I posted dint have press passes, yet I didnt see the police checking everyone for press passes to make sure they didnt have to arrest anyone.

You are just adding stipulations because you dont like him, and so want to justify his imprisonment.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Yes that means all of the media outside the two trials I posted could have caused a mistrail for the exact same reasons.

They were shouting questions at the defendants and filming them, would could have swayed potential jurors.

yet none of them were arrested.

I wonder why that is?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

So the pedophile cases of rolf harris and gary glitter, those victims didnt need protection?

How did the people filming their know that victims wouldnt have been walking in to the court?

Again, if the law is you cant fuilm outside cases with child victims, fine. But we clearly see that happening in other cases with no arrests.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

thesecretbarrister.com...

Explanation in here.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

You are talking complete and utter rubbish. How has justice been prevented? Gangs are currently either in jail or going through the legal process.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
To the OP. This is another thread that demonstrates an inability to understand law in England, all revolving around some guy called Tommy Robinson. Reporters outside courts in the UK are allowed, and do report. It's what usually happens.

This may help people challenged with English law and Robinson


We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt.


Deny ignorance...


First off, this article sucks, calling people that have problems with the way tommy was jailed


inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond


Very professional!

This article makes the point that certain cases, like those involving child sex victims, are not allowed to have cameras or reporting outside the court.

Again, that fails to answer why this was allowed in the cases of rolf harris and gary glitter.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Grambler

Quick question.

Did any of those reporters have a suspended sentence with a condition saying they can’t report at court houses?

If the answer is no, then your thread is bull.


Didn't read any further because I had to say something. First of all, his suspended sentence was also unfair in the first place and secondly, they arrested him for this reason:
Breach of peace.

Not anything else, don't care what they say now [it has changed, which in itself is a farce]. The 'breach of peace' was totally made up on the spot because he literally was one guy walking around, speaking into a mobile phone with not many people around him [actually only a couple that walked by].
It wasn't for reporting on the trial, that's what they say now!!!!
I don't easily forget original news.


Of course any arrest will then be linked with his suspended sentence. They made up any old codswallop to arrest him and then send him down.

He was arrested for 'breach of peace', but didn't commit any. Then they said he can't do this because of his suspended sentence and without a jury and in 5 hours flat, he was sentenced to 13 months.

If you don't get it, I fear you don't read enough about the topics you comment on.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: strongfp

So the pedophile cases of rolf harris and gary glitter, those victims didnt need protection?

How did the people filming their know that victims wouldnt have been walking in to the court?

Again, if the law is you cant fuilm outside cases with child victims, fine. But we clearly see that happening in other cases with no arrests.



Well, for one, those cases were historic abuse - the victims were adults when it came to court. Many of the victims on the on going case in Leeds are minors.

Come on Grambler, this is just getting silly now.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: paraphi

Excellent link. Should be required reading for anyone posting on his topic.


Yes of course you liked that link calling people who had a problem with this knuckle dragging racist.

But then again, you hacve been wrong at every step of this.

Shall we fgo back to your posts on the intial day saying that Tommy hadnt been sentenced to 13 months. Oops you were wrong there.

Or how about all of your posts saying in the UK, the press isnt allowed outside of trials when they are going because it would sway jurors. Oops you were wrong there.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

Again, total bull crap. According to his own solicitor, when it was explained to him Robinson admitted he had messed up. So the person you are saying has been stitched up has actually admitted he was wrong.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Grambler

This is the main reason why he was arrested:


3.2 Victims of sexual offences Victims of a wide range of sexual offences are given lifetime anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The 1992 Act imposes a lifetime ban on reporting any matter likely to identify the victim of a sexual offence, from the time that such an allegation has been made and continuing after a person has been charged with the offence and after conclusion of the trial. The prohibition imposed by s.1 applies to “any publication” and therefore includes traditional media as well as online media and individual users of social media websites, who have been prosecuted and convicted under this provision.27


www.judiciary.gov.uk...

Tommy was filming during a sensitive case that needs strict media supervision in order to protect the victims.
What if Tommy boy was out there and a car pulls up with one of the victims and how many thousand people saw their face?
What's he gonna say? Oh sorry?

God this website turns it's narrative on a dime, even when people say one thing, usually the truth, and it just goes way over their head because, biased opinion.

Here is a good article breaking down why he was arrested.

His arrest has nothing to do with stomping on free speech, it has everything to do with just plain and simple, don't break the law!


Thank you for sharing this. I was in agreement with the OPs points up to reading this post. It does make sense that live streaming was the provocation in this case.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You didn't read the link as it does cover that.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Justoneman

You are talking complete and utter rubbish. How has justice been prevented? Gangs are currently either in jail or going through the legal process.




Again the official government report from the internal investigation into rotherham linked on page 2 by me, says that the police knew of the rape gangs there for years, and treated victims with contempt, and did nothing, partially out of fear of being called racist.

Thats one city. Now there has to be another investigation in Telford, which is said to have over 2000 victims.

And these problems are now popping up in other cities as well.

How many girls have to be raped before people will admit this is a problem?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: strongfp

So the pedophile cases of rolf harris and gary glitter, those victims didnt need protection?

How did the people filming their know that victims wouldnt have been walking in to the court?

Again, if the law is you cant fuilm outside cases with child victims, fine. But we clearly see that happening in other cases with no arrests.



Well, for one, those cases were historic abuse - the victims were adults when it came to court. Many of the victims on the on going case in Leeds are minors.

Come on Grambler, this is just getting silly now.


Yes it is getting silly.

The amount of goal post moving to jsutify the arrest of tommy is rmearkable.

First it was you cant have any filming outside of an ongoing trial.

That was debunked.

Then it was well because he was on a suspended sentence. well that sentence clearly said he would be recharged if he was found in contempt again, meaning that it had nothing to do with him being arrested again, only the length of his sentence.

Then it was well you cant show defenants faces. that was debunked.

Now its you cant have cameras outside child rape cases because you may see victims (even though tommy says in his livestream he is only pointing the camera at adult male possible defendants), but that only applies if the victim are still children.

Please show me that law.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Hecate666

Again, total bull crap. According to his own solicitor, when it was explained to him Robinson admitted he had messed up. So the person you are saying has been stitched up has actually admitted he was wrong.


Of course he did, he was arrested and sentenced in 4 hours to over a year in proson!

What did you want him to do, try to fight back? He didnt even have access to his own lawyer.

Again, if what tommy did was illegal, why wasnt it illegal for all of the reporters I showed in the OP to film outside the court house and shout questions at the defendant?

I am sure had a few of them been brought in front of a judge in similar circumstances, they would have apologized and admitted guilt in hopes of a light sentence.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join