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: 9
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Yeah the video I posted answers everything you are qestioning.

Watch it again.

This article does not explain why reporters would have been allowed outside other child rape cases.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jonjonj
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.


I dont understand this.

I spent years condemning the US nation building wars, often with my friends from the UK and iother places.

Was this anti US rhetoric?

When I criticize the prison system in the US, is that anti US rhetoric?

When I criticze the US deep state, of the msm in the US, is that anti US rhetoric?

Why is calling out a system that allowed the rape of thousands of girls, and defending free speech make me anti british?

And are you saying we cant be friends because of that stannce?

That seems absurd



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This conversation boils down to the Strict Liability Rule.
There is no other basis that is relevant in this case.

The link I provided describes the rule and when compared to the video Tommy Robinson was live streaming, there is no indication that the strict liability rule would apply.

To be clear, it is perfectly legal to name the defendants, to film the defendants, to list the charges. The law is clear that this can all be done contemporaneously. Prejudicing the case is also totally allowable under the law as long as reporting is fair and any influence is incidental to the fair reporting. Tommy Robinson even went as far as to use the word 'allegedly' when discussing the defendants and the charges.

Tommy Robinson is a political prisoner.
edit on 1/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Do political prisoners normally plead guilty?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Do political prisoners normally plead guilty?


Ask Dinesh D'Souza.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Do political prisoners normally plead guilty?


Ask Dinesh D'Souza.



Why what expertise does he have?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth

Do political prisoners normally plead guilty?


Ask Dinesh D'Souza.



Why what expertise does he have?


He pled guilty under threat of a greater sentence after the govt singled him out, kept a file on him, red-flagged him as an 'influential conservative' and ultimately jailed him for an offence in which the specific circumstances had never seen anyone jailed before.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:43 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 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...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   

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.


Yeah, but apart from that - why would he plead guilty?




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.



It is but there are rules, regulations and restrictions on said reporting. Any of the papps who were at the Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter case who did as Mr. Yaxley-Lennon has and also had a suspended sentence hanging over them for a similar offence, would have met a similar fate.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: UKTruth

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.



It is but there are rules, regulations and restrictions on said reporting. Any of the papps who were at the Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter case who did as Mr. Yaxley-Lennon has and also had a suspended sentence hanging over them for a similar offence, would have met a similar fate.


I have already posted the specific restrictions to public hearings.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:55 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?



From poster djz3ro


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.



Upon now looking in to it, it turns out that he is not a judge, but a barrister.

Which is only slightly less worse.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

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...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
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?



new topics




 
41
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join