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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.




posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MickyKnox

He was convicted but only served two months before he won his appeal on a procedural technicality , the case was referred to the attorney general who decided the case was serious enough to go to retrial , that retrial has now happened and Robinson was found guilty again , justice is served.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




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

No , but I do accept the decision of the court if they believe reporting restrictions should be placed on a particular trial.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:55 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

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.



He was released because the original conviction was a farce, an injustice, and the trial was dismissed. He was punished, jailed and even thrown in solitary confinement.

Now your benighted court tries him, convicts him, and punishes him again.

You have the courts so far down your throat that I’m surprised you find time to speak.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

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



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: MickyKnox

He was convicted but only served two months before he won his appeal on a procedural technicality , the case was referred to the attorney general who decided the case was serious enough to go to retrial , that retrial has now happened and Robinson was found guilty again , justice is served.


It was an unjust trial. That’s justice served in the UK, eh?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: bobs_uruncle




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

No , but I do accept the decision of the court if they believe reporting restrictions should be placed on a particular trial.


What if you were being railroaded by the government and had people advocating for you outside and the government said they couldn't. How would you feel about that?

Or what if it was your kid that had been raped and abused by 20 scumbags and the government told you that you couldn't say anything. How would you feel?

I trusted the courts once to do the right thing, one of their requirements was I comply with gag orders. Guess what, they screwed me, I lost $32 million and none of those government f%) ($r's went to jail or paid fines for the $150 million they stole.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.


Yes, they found he had an unfair trial. I find it ironic to defend the right to a fair trial for child molesters, but not for Robinson.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.


Yes, they found he had an unfair trial. I find it ironic to defend the right to a fair trial for child molesters, but not for Robinson.


I absolutely defend the right for him to have a fair trial.

Barring any evidence to the contrary he has had one and got found guilty.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 02:44 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: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.


Yes, they found he had an unfair trial. I find it ironic to defend the right to a fair trial for child molesters, but not for Robinson.


I absolutely defend the right for him to have a fair trial.

Barring any evidence to the contrary he has had one and got found guilty.


Except he won the appeal in the first trial, which was proven unfair. Did you protest the unfair trial at the time? I suspect if I search the forums I’ll be disappointed with what I find, but I imagine you defended the judge, the courts, and not Robinson.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 03:13 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: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.


Yes, they found he had an unfair trial. I find it ironic to defend the right to a fair trial for child molesters, but not for Robinson.


I absolutely defend the right for him to have a fair trial.

Barring any evidence to the contrary he has had one and got found guilty.


Except he won the appeal in the first trial, which was proven unfair. Did you protest the unfair trial at the time? I suspect if I search the forums I’ll be disappointed with what I find, but I imagine you defended the judge, the courts, and not Robinson.


So the system works.

He had the right to appeal which he did.

He successfully got a retrial at which he was found guilty again.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Whatever you think of the bloke this is clearly a problem with the justice system. Notice how the case he was trying to bring attention to was blocked from being reported on, in a country where we apparently have free press, I cannot remember the last time that happened when the criminals were not from the same background as those who were being tried in court. He gets tried once and its found to be flawed so they go a second time and he is found guilty again on the same evidence that they claim was used when his care was "flawed".

Look lets be honest, Tommy is someone that the state/government in our country seems to have a major issue with. You can point to all his flaws, and explain how he is probably a giant scumbag but the way our justice system has gone after this fool shows that when the state wants to throw you away there more than capable of doing it.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 03:35 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: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.


Yes, they found he had an unfair trial. I find it ironic to defend the right to a fair trial for child molesters, but not for Robinson.


I absolutely defend the right for him to have a fair trial.

Barring any evidence to the contrary he has had one and got found guilty.


Except he won the appeal in the first trial, which was proven unfair. Did you protest the unfair trial at the time? I suspect if I search the forums I’ll be disappointed with what I find, but I imagine you defended the judge, the courts, and not Robinson.


So the system works.

He had the right to appeal which he did.

He successfully got a retrial at which he was found guilty again.





I looked. I saw. You were even calling for more jail time in a trial that subsequently turned out to be unfair. No need to comment further.



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 04:09 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: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Unless you’re Robinson. No free speech, no fair trial.


Only He did. He had an appeal that found that his original conviction was unnecessarily rushed and he should have a retrial.

At the retrial He was found guilty.

Just because you don't like the decision (for whatever reason) doesn't mean he didn't get a fair trial.


Yes, they found he had an unfair trial. I find it ironic to defend the right to a fair trial for child molesters, but not for Robinson.


I absolutely defend the right for him to have a fair trial.

Barring any evidence to the contrary he has had one and got found guilty.


Except he won the appeal in the first trial, which was proven unfair. Did you protest the unfair trial at the time? I suspect if I search the forums I’ll be disappointed with what I find, but I imagine you defended the judge, the courts, and not Robinson.


So the system works.

He had the right to appeal which he did.

He successfully got a retrial at which he was found guilty again.





I looked. I saw. You were even calling for more jail time in a trial that subsequently turned out to be unfair. No need to comment further.


I thought based on the available evidence he was guilty. Turns out I was correct.

What did you post?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: gortex

Whatever you think of the bloke this is clearly a problem with the justice system. Notice how the case he was trying to bring attention to was blocked from being reported on, in a country where we apparently have free press, I cannot remember the last time that happened when the criminals were not from the same background as those who were being tried in court. He gets tried once and its found to be flawed so they go a second time and he is found guilty again on the same evidence that they claim was used when his care was "flawed".

Look lets be honest, Tommy is someone that the state/government in our country seems to have a major issue with. You can point to all his flaws, and explain how he is probably a giant scumbag but the way our justice system has gone after this fool shows that when the state wants to throw you away there more than capable of doing it.


The case has been widely reported on. I doubt there are many people in the UK not familiar with the case.

Robinson's only contribution has been to endanger the integrity of the trial that could have resulted in child abusers being free.

Robinson was found guilty in his first trial (unsurprisingly as he confessed).

The appeal found that the case had been rushed as he had withdrawn the video so there was no on going contempt that required immediate action

The second trial has also found him guilty. There was nothing 'flawed' about the evidence.


edit on 5-7-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Send him down, the best place for him surely?



posted on Jul, 5 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

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.


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

Cheers - Dave


It's not a a free speech issue and never has been.

Excuse me? In front of a courthouse in a public area not being able to speak on an issue, IS A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. Welcome to the fascist dictatorship of the UK lol.

Cheers - Dave


We have plenty of free speech here. We also have the right to a fair trial.


Yep, it's the uk. You have the right to que and the right to stfu. You don't have the right to free speech and neither the right to a fair trial. You have the right to maybe say what your masters want and the right to a rigged show trial. You know what most governments smell like these days? Depends. And yours, like ours, needs changing.

Cheers - Dave



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join