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.
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Words
Robinson plead guilty once it was explained.
But yeah let's let the guy off even though he broke the law. Does it work that way in the states...nope.
Streaming yet sentenced people could have brought a mis trial I for one do not want the victims of abuse to have to go through it all again. Robinson could have caused all that pain plus the many hundreds of thousands of pounds it would have cost.
He was an idiot tbh he knew what he was doing and still did it.
originally posted by: Words
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Words
Robinson plead guilty once it was explained.
But yeah let's let the guy off even though he broke the law. Does it work that way in the states...nope.
Streaming yet sentenced people could have brought a mis trial I for one do not want the victims of abuse to have to go through it all again. Robinson could have caused all that pain plus the many hundreds of thousands of pounds it would have cost.
He was an idiot tbh he knew what he was doing and still did it.
I don't find "he broke the law" to be a great argument, especially when the law is trash. Think about all the homosexuals who broke the law in your country and had to spend time in jail. Would you dismiss them by saying "well, they broke the law"?
No, facebook streaming or whatever does cause pain and misery and money nor a mistrial. The silly law does./
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Boadicea
Robinson's actions did jeopardise the trial.
You might disagree with the law but it is the law and Robinson was well aware of that.
His actions were all but his own self promotion.
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ScepticScot
Again, he did not "jeopardise" the trial. The law does. The only reason that trial would go to mistrial is because of the law, not because of Robinson.
originally posted by: Boadicea
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Boadicea
Robinson's actions did jeopardise the trial.
How? Spell it out for me. Draw me a picture. Just don't tell me your presumptions. Don't give me your opinions. Don't tell me what someone told you might happen or could happen. Give me cold hard facts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his action jeopardized the trial.
You might disagree with the law but it is the law and Robinson was well aware of that.
Yup, I sure do disagree with the law... yup, it sure is the law... and yup, I'm pretty sure Robinson was well aware of that.
His actions were all but his own self promotion.
Maybe... maybe not. But we both know that's just your opinion. You have absolutely no way to know what's really in Tommy's heart and mind. But you've already presumed so much, why not presume this as well?
Yes he did as he knowingly broke laws on reporting on ongoing trials that could have resulted in a mistral.
Again you are free to disagree with those restrictions but that doesn't change the fact that he knowingly flouted them.
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes he did as he knowingly broke laws on reporting on ongoing trials that could have resulted in a mistral.
Again you are free to disagree with those restrictions but that doesn't change the fact that he knowingly flouted them.
Again, the only reason that trial would go to mistrial is because of the law, not because of Robinson. People do exactly the same thing as Robinson in trials elsewhere, and no mistrial occurs. This is because the laws are different, not because they were streaming outside of a courthouse.
Yes laws are different. UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. Still Robinson who broke the law in a spectacularly stupid way
originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: Boadicea
What the Tommy Robinson haters don't realize or maybe they do and that is why the are defending an authoritarian judicial system that can change the laws at the whim to lock up someone who speaks out against said government, it that Tommy has awakened the Nationalists! Nope, not the NEW definition of Nationalism that the Progressive Globalist humpers use, but the one where it means a person who loves their country/culture.
The Progressive/Globalist agenda is running scared
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes laws are different. UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. Still Robinson who broke the law in a spectacularly stupid way
Yet Tommy was just released because he had an unfair trial.
Because if...
... the defence can show that his actions could have...
...prejudiced...
...the opinion...
...of the jury it would result...
...in a mistrial.
Not complicated.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes laws are different. UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. Still Robinson who broke the law in a spectacularly stupid way
Yet Tommy was just released because he had an unfair trial.
Yes try reading that back and see if it makes the point you think it does...
originally posted by: Words
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes laws are different. UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. Still Robinson who broke the law in a spectacularly stupid way
Yet Tommy was just released because he had an unfair trial.
Yes try reading that back and see if it makes the point you think it does...
It was toward your point that UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. It was not ensured in this instance.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Words
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Words
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes laws are different. UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. Still Robinson who broke the law in a spectacularly stupid way
Yet Tommy was just released because he had an unfair trial.
Yes try reading that back and see if it makes the point you think it does...
It was toward your point that UK puts a lot of emphasis on ensuring a fair trial. It was not ensured in this instance.
After he got released by said legal system as it was not sure he got a fair trial...
originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Words
A better result? So you want the victims to go through the ordeal of going through the trail again? And maybe the scumbags getting off?.
Nope.