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: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Robinson had absolutely nothing to do with breaking Rotherham. Robinson only got involved when it was already being investigated, despite being asked not to get involved by the victims and those responsible for breaking the story (as well as the Police).

I have been reading some of the US coverage of this and i don't blame US members for getting confused as the coverage is atrocious. The legal systems are also different. Impartiality is key over here in trials, which certainly doesn't appear to be the case over in the US.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

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


Again you are wrong.

I read the whole thing.

Show me which section it mentions the press being allowed outside other trials of accused child rapists.

Of course ytou wont, because this is what you have dobne all along.

You say "yeah it answers it" and yet cant be bothered to ever quote how it does that.



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

Can you show they were streaming live?



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

Clearly you didn't. The whole article explains in detail why he was arrested but this covers your particular question.

14. But the BBC reported on the same trial that Tommy did, and they’re not in prison. Why not?

Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Grambler

Robinson had absolutely nothing to do with breaking Rotherham. Robinson only got involved when it was already being investigated, despite being asked not to get involved by the victims and those responsible for breaking the story (as well as the Police).

I have been reading some of the US coverage of this and i don't blame US members for getting confused as the coverage is atrocious. The legal systems are also different. Impartiality is key over here in trials, which certainly doesn't appear to be the case over in the US.


Robinson started speaking up in Luton well before any of the child grooming cases hit the public.

He spoke of this, and for it he was called a crazy racist nazi and dismissed.

This was at a time when the official rotherham documents show that the police knew that child rape gangas were raping hundreds of victims in rotherham, and treated the victims with contempt and allowed it to continue.

Yet the police somehow found time to go after tommy seriously.

The point is there has been a concerted effort to cover up these rapes for decades, and it has led to thousands of giurls being raped.

And it just so happens the people that speak out, rather it be social workers, MP's, or police, are often silenced or punished.

This should disgust every single person, especially UK citizens. They should be demanding the names of the police and officials that knew, and demanding punishment for them.

But they are more outraged at tommy, insist on calling him names, get angry at his pseudonym, and cheer his imprisonment with such passion that it dwarfs what they feel of the actual child rapists.

So given the history, it seems rather fair to point out other cases where peoplke filmed outside of the court house and were not charged.

Because it seems like the tradition of sweeping the grooming gangs under the rug is continuing.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Grambler

Can you show they were streaming live?


My god another goal post move!

Where in the law does ot saw film is ok, just niot live stream?

Why would that be worse?

Were the jurors on their iphones watching a livestream?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Clearly you didn't. The whole article explains in detail why he was arrested but this covers your particular question.

14. But the BBC reported on the same trial that Tommy did, and they’re not in prison. Why not?

Because any BBC reports, which as far as I have seen relate entirely to the outset of proceedings before the judge made the reporting restriction, were not in contempt of court. They were fair and accurate, rather than propagandist rants seeking to disseminate information that a judge had specifically ordered should not be in the public domain (such as details of charges against the defendants that had been dropped), and were not in breach of reporting restrictions.


That doesnt answer it at all.

That says that BBC reporters, that were not on the sight filming, were not in contempt.

Yeah no kidding. The claim of tommy being in contempt was that he was filming defendants outside the courthouse asking questions.

The same as the reporters outside the rolf harris and gary glitter trials.

Tommy did not say anyone was guilty, and read only the charges the BBC had reported.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It really is obvious you have not read the links provided.
Did you read what the judge actually said? you do realise Mr Robinson has admitted guilt his lawyer has said he did not understand that the trial could have been dismissed because of his actions.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Again you clearly haven't read or comprehended the link. It explains exactly what he was charged with and why (to which he pled guilty).



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Here is what the judge said.

Tommy Robinson was given 10 months in jail for contempt of court, and a further three months for beaching a previous suspended sentence.

It is the second time he has committed the offence after previously being told he was on a 'knife edge' when he was sentenced last May for trying to film four men accused of gang-raping a girl who were standing trial at Canterbury Crown Court that May.

At the time, Judge Heather Norton said: 'This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about the freedom of the press.

'This is not about legitimate journalism, this is not about political correctness, this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly.

'It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function.

'It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as 'Muslim paedophile rapists'.

'A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms.

'It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial.'

www.dailymail.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Again you clearly haven't read or comprehended the link. It explains exactly what he was charged with and why (to which he pled guilty).



Yes I read the link.

You insisting I didnt, and it answers everything is a tiresome argument the proves nothing.

Tommy was charged with contempt for filming outside an ongoing case, which could prejudice jurors, as you and many other said repeatedly on the other threads.

He was not calling people guilty, he was only listing the charges that were public knowledge and reported in other outlets.

Other reporters have also filmed such as tommy did outside the trials i showed in the OP, and no one was arrested.

This shows that the laws are selectively applied.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Yes I see what judge norton said in the previous trial.

Tommy was saying these people were guilty, hence he could be prejudicing a jury.

Show me where he did that in this most recent case.

I watched the liverstream,. he repeats over and over these men are only accused and are not guilty until they are found as such.

So what was the problem again?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

Again you clearly haven't read or comprehended the link. It explains exactly what he was charged with and why (to which he pled guilty).



Yes I read the link.

You insisting I didnt, and it answers everything is a tiresome argument the proves nothing.

Tommy was charged with contempt for filming outside an ongoing case, which could prejudice jurors, as you and many other said repeatedly on the other threads.

He was not calling people guilty, he was only listing the charges that were public knowledge and reported in other outlets.

Other reporters have also filmed such as tommy did outside the trials i showed in the OP, and no one was arrested.

This shows that the laws are selectively applied.



Again showing that you have either not read or not comprehended the link given as he was not charged for filming outside of the court.

I would urge anyone reading to read the link as it is provides an excellent explanation as opposed to the made up drivel being provided by too many posters on this site.
thesecretbarrister.com...

edit on 1-6-2018 by ScepticScot because: Link added



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
Deny your own ignorance of the unalienable right of free speech at your own risk.

Grambler's post summarized


Gambler's post is not based on reality. It relies on falsehood and inaccuracy and a wilful ignorance of the way the English courts work. There are several parallel discussions on this on ATS with accurate analysis, yet some people are like a stuck record and are parroting the same inaccuracy and rubbish.

Free speech is not at risk, and is not in question.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I've said it many times before. Are people really that naive to how the world works ?

Grooming gangs and Illegal prostitution rings have been a thing for centuries. It's nothing new.
It's just that the UK is finally cracking down. Thing is it's not just immigrants or people with ties to islam, it's every type of person you can imagine.
Tommy is just taking advantage of this case to push his own agenda to get people going on a whitch hunt for people who aren't white.
And from the looks of it lots of people gobble up this clowns garbage.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Justoneman
Deny your own ignorance of the unalienable right of free speech at your own risk.

Grambler's post summarized


Gambler's post is not based on reality. It relies on falsehood and inaccuracy and a wilful ignorance of the way the English courts work. There are several parallel discussions on this on ATS with accurate analysis, yet some people are like a stuck record and are parroting the same inaccuracy and rubbish.

Free speech is not at risk, and is not in question.


I see I have been going about this wrong.

I will play by your guys rules.



That anwers everything and if you disagree you are not in reality
edit on 1-6-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: Grambler


Hmm... I wonder what was different.



What was different was that Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (his real name fyi, I wonder why he hides behind a pseudonym) doesn't have a press pass, given that he's not a real journo but a recently self styled one. You're going about this all the wrong way, instead of hero worshipping this racist cretin (The EDL are laughed at for the thugs they are and rightly so) maybe you could go a different way about highlighting the real issue at heart here. Stephen (not Tommy, there is no Tommy) might have a good point but he went about it the only way he knows, idiotically. Yes, there are good points you're making about how these cases are brushed under the rug but it's lost in your idolization of a thug

He got what he deserved (and as per your last thread on your hero, I spoke to a friend who is a police officer and told him I was handing myself in because I thought the in poster known as Tommy Robinson deserved to be in jail. We had a good laugh at that...


When did it become law that you cant have a camera and an opinion without a document proving you're legal to speak?


I wasn't aware it had. The OP asked what was different in this case compared to the examples he gave and I answered. And a Press Pass isn't to prove you're legal to speak, it proves you are actually a member of the press and allows you certain freedoms that Joe Public don't get like access to info and places.

Now, is there anyone else who hasn't read what I've written or wants to try and spin my posts as if I'm saying something other than what the words I type say, like this and the previous responder to my replies have?...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: djz3ro

You admit the validity of the point but just can't get over the ad hom character assassination long enough to maintain the logical wherewithal to truly grasp the point you see as valid?

Thats some hardcore cognitive dissonance.

FWIW i cannot fathom why it bothers folks that he has a pseudonym. As a fan if Colion Noir i kinda get it.


The point of this thread appears to asking why the cases the OP gave are different to that of one Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, I responded to the discussion topic. You another poster think I'm not outraged enough at the concept that police refused to prosecute on the grounds they may appear racists. Rape is a horrible crime and anyone who commits an act of rape should be castrated (with painful castration reserved for those who abuse children and other vulnerable people) however, this isn't the topic being discussed here. It's just another thread from someone who has got a real bee in their bonnet about a criminal going to jail for committing a crime he had been warned of before.

If he was an intelligent fella he would have realised he couldn't get away with this and would have found a new, more effective strategy. What is it they say about people who do the same things and expect different results? (as if i didn't know)....



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Look It's the toothless dog again. These were a "media circus" because the media were already onto these revelations, but you also have to remember that no children were in court giving evidence, some victims/witnesses/accuser had already gone to the press, also if you actually look at what you've posted the media have waited till after the court has finished and the press are not threatening to film inside.


EDA... we try and prosecute these types of vermin in Great Britian what about you guys in America, what do you do with them????

Link to news article



edit on 1-6-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Look It's the toothless dog again. These were a "media circus" because the media were already onto these revelations, but you also have to remember that no children were in court giving evidence, some victims/witnesses/accuser had already gone to the press, also if you actually look at what you've posted the media have waited till after the court has finished and the press are not threatening to film inside.



Tommy didn’t threaten to film inside

There were no childvictims present

He even says in his livestream he only will film defendants, which he does

He does not gknow be any info on the trial that wasn’t already reported in the uk press

He doesn’t call the defendants guilty

He is doing exactly what these reporters in the video in the op are doing

Filming defendants outside of court and asking ng yjem questions



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join