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: 8
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

So the last 30 years might as well be water under the bridge as long as the issue is being dealt with now .

Right.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666

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.


I fear it's you that doesn't get it. Read the link provided by ScepticScot above and all will be clear.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


I think your the fool here for supporting someone endangering a trail of groomers and rapist.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler




The gary glitter nfootage is him on his way out of the court


see what you typed here.



The rolf harris footage was footage of him entering the court


Before the case had started.


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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: UKTruth


I think your the fool here for supporting someone endangering a trail of groomers and rapist.



It is legal to report during a trial.
It always has been.

You really are a joke.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


There is on certain types of cases but not on others. You can support Robinson all you like but that doesn't prove you right!
edit on 1-6-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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 was written by a Judge btw.


Oh and if a judge wrote the following


details of Yaxley-Lennon’s situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond.


then your system has far more problems with fair trials than a guy reporting outside the court steps.

What a biased immature scum bag to say that, and you think we should somehow lend legitimacy to this author because he is a judge?

Wow.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: UKTruth


There is on certain types of cases!! You can support Robinson as much as you like but that still doesn't prove you right.


There is very clear law in place for the type of case in question.
We don't have to guess what is allowed and what is not.

Here is a link that I hope you will read.
Reporting Restrictions

This was not a private hearing and there is nothing that Tommy Robinson said in his live stream that meets the strict liability rule.
edit on 1/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




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


From your link.



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

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: UKTruth




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


From your link.


How then could the media be at the court house filming gary glitter and rolf harris AFTER they had been charged?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

There are many people who agree with the stance of people like Tommy, that doesn't change anything. STOP with your anti British rhetoric, it won't save you from your situation. We were friends once, we will be again.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: UKTruth




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


From your link.


FFS!!!!

That relates to the VICTIMS.
At no point did Tommy Robinson identify the victims.

Jesus Christ.


edit on 1/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Calling me the all mighty isn't needed, but thanks any way.
Robinson was there for his own ego and didn't care about putting others at risk, simple.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: djz3ro

Tommy didn’t call your hero’s, the child rapists guilty

He merely reported on publicly available details and filmed, like all of the media did for the two trials I posted



Ha ha ha this is pathetic, seriously you need to get a grip. Did you read what i think should happen to rapists? Not just Asian ones either, all rapists....
edit on 1/6/18 by djz3ro because: autocorrect is a dlck



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Go read the link provided by UKTruth.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: UKTruth


Calling me the all mighty isn't needed, but thanks any way.
Robinson was there for his own ego and didn't care about putting others at risk, simple.



Lol.

Your post literally makes zero sense.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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 was written by a Judge btw.


Oh and if a judge wrote the following


details of Yaxley-Lennon’s situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond.


then your system has far more problems with fair trials than a guy reporting outside the court steps.

What a biased immature scum bag to say that, and you think we should somehow lend legitimacy to this author because he is a judge?

Wow.


He also explains his departure from his usual language and posting style at the end, another point you missed.

The thing is man, you keep asking things that are explained accurately in the link. Try reading it again but without taking offence to it. You moght find if you ignore the bits you don't like you might find the actual answers to the very questions you're asking.

You keep asking stuff that is covered in the link and the answers are perfectly logical.

I put it to you that you are not really interested in the truth, instead preferring to go for sensationalism and ignorance.

Have fun with that...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Grambler


Go read the link provided by UKTruth.


Yes i read the link.

It says that you can not jeopordize outing a vicgtim of sexual abuse after charges have been filed.

So the claim is by tommy filming outside the court, he could have possibly done this.

However, then the same would be true of the reporters outside of the trials of gary glitter and rolf harris.

Why were they allowed to film outside the court and jeoprdize outing victims of sexual abuse?




top topics



 
41
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join