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.

 

High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?


For almost getting the child abusers off. Not long enough.


He judge would have let the child abusers off. Robinson has no such power.


If his actions had let to the circumstances where the judge couldn't be satisfied ofa fair trial that would have been entirely the responsibility of Robinson.




posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?


For almost getting the child abusers off. Not long enough.


He judge would have let the child abusers off. Robinson has no such power.


If his actions had let to the circumstances where the judge couldn't be satisfied ofa fair trial that would have been entirely the responsibility of Robinson.


That’s right. The judge would let them off.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

There is more than one entrance to a court building and certainly, it is the responsibility of the Court and police to provide safe and expedient entry to the court. Outside the court is a public place and was full of reporters of a liberal bias. These liberal type reporters towing the party line were not impeded, only Robinson was. Seems like a bit of selective enforcement.

Just playing "devils advocate" here as the situation in the uk seems pretty crazy. They certainly appear to have thought crime laws, no freedom of speech, d-listing on any subject the government doesn't want public like parliament member paedophilia, etc.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?


For almost getting the child abusers off. Not long enough.


He judge would have let the child abusers off. Robinson has no such power.


If his actions had let to the circumstances where the judge couldn't be satisfied ofa fair trial that would have been entirely the responsibility of Robinson.


That’s right. The judge would let them off.


Don't you believe in the right to a fair trial?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: gortex

There is more than one entrance to a court building and certainly, it is the responsibility of the Court and police to provide safe and expedient entry to the court. Outside the court is a public place and was full of reporters of a liberal bias. These liberal type reporters towing the party line were not impeded, only Robinson was. Seems like a bit of selective enforcement.

Just playing "devils advocate" here as the situation in the uk seems pretty crazy. They certainly appear to have thought crime laws, no freedom of speech, d-listing on any subject the government doesn't want public like parliament member paedophilia, etc.

Cheers - Dave


The other media not breaking the reporting restrictions might have something to do with it.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

European Commision
edit on 5-7-2019 by MickyKnox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: YouSir
a reply to: Blueracer


Ummm...no...they we're hired on as chaperone's for various underage girl schools...

Aaaaand...given the keys to the city...

But let's jail the guy exposing these fine upstanding child sex groomers...who just happen to be muslim…

Such a fine system...where the perps are rewarded and the ones asking for justice are clapped in irons and made to walk the plank...

Gotta love those wig wearing wonders...who dispense judgement at the whim of political correctness...








YouSir


Conveniently ignoring the fact that they were all jailed for a very long time.


220 years divided by 20 people. Average of 11 years each so how long is Tommy getting for an f'ing video?


For almost getting the child abusers off. Not long enough.


He judge would have let the child abusers off. Robinson has no such power.


If his actions had let to the circumstances where the judge couldn't be satisfied ofa fair trial that would have been entirely the responsibility of Robinson.


That’s right. The judge would let them off.


Don't you believe in the right to a fair trial?


Yes.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:26 PM
link   
originally posted by: ScepticScot

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


Chances are every court is wrong when it comes to issues involving a political bias. Courts are after all the enabling arm of a corrupt government, that if it were any other entity would be charged under RICO laws for protection rackets, extortion, murder and other crimes.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/5.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

ec.europa.eu... criminal-proceedings-same-criminal-offence_en


And Robinson isn't being. He got a retrial due to procedural failings at his first trial.

You do understand there is such a thing as a retrial don't you?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

ec.europa.eu... criminal-proceedings-same-criminal-offence_en


From you own link

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.

He hasn't been.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

ec.europa.eu... criminal-proceedings-same-criminal-offence_en


From you own link

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.

He hasn't been.



That’s why I asked if he was convicted. If he wasn’t convicted of contempt of court, he was jailed for what reason exactly?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they already found guilty? Robinson was filming the sentencing so no jury was involved.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




Outside the court is a public place and was full of reporters of a liberal bias.

The court case he was filming was subject to blanket reporting restrictions so no one could report on it and not face action , that includes the liberal media.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

ec.europa.eu... criminal-proceedings-same-criminal-offence_en


From you own link

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.

He hasn't been.



That’s why I asked if he was convicted. If he wasn’t convicted of contempt of court, he was jailed for what reason exactly?


This has been covered multiple times now. Clearly you are either incapable or unwilling to understand a fairly simple concept and I have no intention of participating in your derailing of this thread any further.
edit on 5-7-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they already found guilty? Robinson was filming the sentencing so no jury was involved.


There was a a number of linked trials so the restrictions still applied.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

ec.europa.eu... criminal-proceedings-same-criminal-offence_en


From you own link

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.

He hasn't been.



That’s why I asked if he was convicted. If he wasn’t convicted of contempt of court, he was jailed for what reason exactly?


This has been covered multiple times now. Clearly you are either incapable or unwilling to understand a fairly concept and I have no intention of participating in you derailing of this thread any further.


I get it. It’s tough being thoroughly refuted again and again.

But if Robinson was convicted and punished for a crime once, it is double jeopardy if he was convicted and punished again for the same crime.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: gortex

There is more than one entrance to a court building and certainly, it is the responsibility of the Court and police to provide safe and expedient entry to the court. Outside the court is a public place and was full of reporters of a liberal bias. These liberal type reporters towing the party line were not impeded, only Robinson was. Seems like a bit of selective enforcement.

Just playing "devils advocate" here as the situation in the uk seems pretty crazy. They certainly appear to have thought crime laws, no freedom of speech, d-listing on any subject the government doesn't want public like parliament member paedophilia, etc.

Cheers - Dave


The other media not breaking the reporting restrictions might have something to do with it.


a reply to: gortex

So you agree with restrictions on freedom of speech in a public venue, is that correct?

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/5.2019 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.


He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.


Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.


No it doesn't. It happens all the time.


Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.


Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.


He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.


Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.


He has never been found innocent so double jeopardy doesn't apply. As already stated he could be retried ln the US in the same circumstances.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


But double jeopardy applies to those who were convicted and served time. He would not have been thrown in jail in the US to begin with.

Was he not convicted the first time?


You have contempt of court in the US as well.

He was was released on appeal pending a possible a retrial. It doesn't make him innocent and it doesn't mean he has served his time.



We can film defendants outside of courthouses and not be jailed for it.

But was he convicted the first time? Why was he in jail?



www.bbc.co.uk...

Explanation here.

We take right to a fair trial quite seriously.


Why was he put in jail?


For contempt of court as already covered.


So he was convicted, served time for the offence.


I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely just don't understand double jeopardy and suggest you look It up.


You believe a man who was already convicted and served time for a crime can be convicted and serve time again for the same crime. I suggest you need a little more reading yourself.


So really you don't understand it.

Guess you are right and I (along with every court system.in the world) am wrong.


You are wrong. You cannot be punished twice for the same crime in double jeopardy.

Here’s the European Commission disagreeing with you.

“Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence”

ec.europa.eu... criminal-proceedings-same-criminal-offence_en


From you own link

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law.

He hasn't been.



That’s why I asked if he was convicted. If he wasn’t convicted of contempt of court, he was jailed for what reason exactly?


This has been covered multiple times now. Clearly you are either incapable or unwilling to understand a fairly concept and I have no intention of participating in you derailing of this thread any further.


I get it. It’s tough being thoroughly refuted again and again.

But if Robinson was convicted and punished for a crime once, it is double jeopardy if he was convicted and punished again for the same crime.


Sigh - One last time. He was found guilty, served 2 months before a 13 month sentence before being released pending a retrial. Double jeopardy does not apply.

By your definition of double jeopardy there would be no such thing as retrials in countries with double jeopardy laws. Since there is you are clearly wrong. Sucks a bit for you but I suggest you accept it.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join