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: 43
14
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case




posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

the Canterbury case you stated was BEFORE Tommy Robinson did media and legal training to make himself aware of contempt. But even then NO JOURNALIST has been imprisoned for contempt since WWII
the Leeds case was totally different. Are you aware there were no notices about reporting restrictions on the court doors or screens and the court staff were not aware of any? And even if there were STILL it would not be contempt to do what Robinson did as it did not risk changing a verdict because the verdict had already been given. Even if it was not already given he didnt report anything not already in the public domain. so I just don't understand how the court can claim contempt.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.


The point is the law is broken all the time and not charged

Saying tommy broke other laws as well (which we can get in to) doesn’t change the fact the courts decide not to charge people they know break the law all the time



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.


The point is the law is broken all the time and not charged

Saying tommy broke other laws as well (which we can get in to) doesn’t change the fact the courts decide not to charge people they know break the law all the time


Yes they do. Because they take into account factors like intent, previous warnings and exact context of what was happening.

Not really a surprise then he was charged and found guilty.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.


The point is the law is broken all the time and not charged

Saying tommy broke other laws as well (which we can get in to) doesn’t change the fact the courts decide not to charge people they know break the law all the time


Yes they do. Because they take into account factors like intent, previous warnings and exact context of what was happening.

Not really a surprise then he was charged and found guilty.



And now the law has been clarified by the ag to apply to people posting about cases on social media

Which means it’s now up to the authorities to selectively apply this law to whoever they feel seeing as how thousands upon thousands break it



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.


The point is the law is broken all the time and not charged

Saying tommy broke other laws as well (which we can get in to) doesn’t change the fact the courts decide not to charge people they know break the law all the time


Yes they do. Because they take into account factors like intent, previous warnings and exact context of what was happening.

Not really a surprise then he was charged and found guilty.



And now the law has been clarified by the ag to apply to people posting about cases on social media

Which means it’s now up to the authorities to selectively apply this law to whoever they feel seeing as how thousands upon thousands break it


Which is why we have a legal system. The AG doesnt get to decide who is guilty.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.


The point is the law is broken all the time and not charged

Saying tommy broke other laws as well (which we can get in to) doesn’t change the fact the courts decide not to charge people they know break the law all the time


Yes they do. Because they take into account factors like intent, previous warnings and exact context of what was happening.

Not really a surprise then he was charged and found guilty.



And now the law has been clarified by the ag to apply to people posting about cases on social media

Which means it’s now up to the authorities to selectively apply this law to whoever they feel seeing as how thousands upon thousands break it


Which is why we have a legal system. The AG doesnt get to decide who is guilty.
No high ranking officials decide who to charge

As you have admitted, some they let you without and issue for breaking the law, others they go after

So they have chosen to allow child rapists to go free, and yet criminally charge some of the victims for drinking

They have chosen to go after a guy who called the out for that

That’s why selective application of laws should be fought against; because it allows for bias from the people deciding on who to apply them against



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

I understand how laws work just fine

I also see when they are being selectively applied as in this case


Clearly not.


Great post!

Meanwhile I spent a while thread going through the law

Even the transcript paraphinposted has the judge admitting the photograph law for contempt is broken all of the time but not charged

So it is selectively applied


Robinson wasn't just taking a photograph.


The point is the law is broken all the time and not charged

Saying tommy broke other laws as well (which we can get in to) doesn’t change the fact the courts decide not to charge people they know break the law all the time


Yes they do. Because they take into account factors like intent, previous warnings and exact context of what was happening.

Not really a surprise then he was charged and found guilty.



And now the law has been clarified by the ag to apply to people posting about cases on social media

Which means it’s now up to the authorities to selectively apply this law to whoever they feel seeing as how thousands upon thousands break it


Which is why we have a legal system. The AG doesnt get to decide who is guilty.
No high ranking officials decide who to charge

As you have admitted, some they let you without and issue for breaking the law, others they go after

So they have chosen to allow child rapists to go free, and yet criminally charge some of the victims for drinking

They have chosen to go after a guy who called the out for that

That’s why selective application of laws should be fought against; because it allows for bias from the people deciding on who to apply them against


Laws are applied selectively based on curcumstsncesvand evidence . That is exactly as it should be.

The child rapists have just been imprisonment for a very long time (arguably not long enough but consistent with current laws).

Robinson had, as explained to you numerous times, had nothing what so ever to do with bring these cases to justice or public attention. He is a low life thug who had atempted to use them for his own self promotion.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep tje people applying the laws let child rapists go for thirty years and sometimes charged the victims

Then they tried to silence reporters that outed them

But now they have turned a new leaf and are all good! So just trust them when they selectively apply laws



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yep tje people applying the laws let child rapists go for thirty years and sometimes charged the victims

Then they tried to silence reporters that outed them

But now they have turned a new leaf and are all good! So just trust them when they selectively apply laws


They never got as far as being considered for charges due to failings by the police and social care.

Nothing to do with selective application of the laws.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: bartconnolly
the Canterbury case you stated was BEFORE Tommy Robinson did media and legal training to make himself aware of contempt. But even then NO JOURNALIST has been imprisoned for contempt since WWII...


Um, you can go on as many training courses as you like, but if you misapply your training then you'll suffer the consequences.

As to journalists being jailed for contempt. Judges are frequently warning journalists (e.g. the Kane Gamble case), and of course Robinson was given a clear warning through a suspended sentence. As to the type of offence Robinson committed; well, he was not acting like a journalist, was he?



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

Well it takes a special hypocrite to complain about Islamophobia and then smear Christianity

Whatever this is well off topic

Tommy is in jail

So enjoy your celebration

And don’t worry about those pesky officials that let the rapists go on for three decades

As long as we get all the people locked up complaining about them , then problem solved
It should be obvious by now that you are dealing with a muslim plant. Don't waste your breathe, he's trying to fullful an agenda and that's fine. Just be aware of it.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

Well it takes a special hypocrite to complain about Islamophobia and then smear Christianity

Whatever this is well off topic

Tommy is in jail

So enjoy your celebration

And don’t worry about those pesky officials that let the rapists go on for three decades

As long as we get all the people locked up complaining about them , then problem solved
It should be obvious by now that you are dealing with a muslim plant. Don't waste your breathe, he's trying to fullful an agenda and that's fine. Just be aware of it.


Have you checked out Gramblers youtube channel, he self promotes it on this website, its great, people seem to enjoy the reverb it gives of, have you a link to Andyshake06 youtube channel for me



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

Well it takes a special hypocrite to complain about Islamophobia and then smear Christianity

Whatever this is well off topic

Tommy is in jail

So enjoy your celebration

And don’t worry about those pesky officials that let the rapists go on for three decades

As long as we get all the people locked up complaining about them , then problem solved
It should be obvious by now that you are dealing with a muslim plant. Don't waste your breathe, he's trying to fullful an agenda and that's fine. Just be aware of it.


Have you checked out Gramblers youtube channel, he self promotes it on this website, its great, people seem to enjoy the reverb it gives of, have you a link to Andyshake06 youtube channel for me


You implying my channel means I have an agenda?

I guess if wanting child rapists and the authorities that allow it to be brought to justice is an agenda, then I do have one



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

Well it takes a special hypocrite to complain about Islamophobia and then smear Christianity

Whatever this is well off topic

Tommy is in jail

So enjoy your celebration

And don’t worry about those pesky officials that let the rapists go on for three decades

As long as we get all the people locked up complaining about them , then problem solved
It should be obvious by now that you are dealing with a muslim plant. Don't waste your breathe, he's trying to fullful an agenda and that's fine. Just be aware of it.


Have you checked out Gramblers youtube channel, he self promotes it on this website, its great, people seem to enjoy the reverb it gives of, have you a link to Andyshake06 youtube channel for me


Now that was funny.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake

Well it takes a special hypocrite to complain about Islamophobia and then smear Christianity

Whatever this is well off topic

Tommy is in jail

So enjoy your celebration

And don’t worry about those pesky officials that let the rapists go on for three decades

As long as we get all the people locked up complaining about them , then problem solved
It should be obvious by now that you are dealing with a muslim plant. Don't waste your breathe, he's trying to fullful an agenda and that's fine. Just be aware of it.


Have you checked out Gramblers youtube channel, he self promotes it on this website, its great, people seem to enjoy the reverb it gives of, have you a link to Andyshake06 youtube channel for me


Now that was funny.


Well your agenda on this site seems to be to promote your YouTube channel.



posted on Jul, 8 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What part of this don't you understand:

Tommy Ten-Names knowingly jeopardised the outcome not just the trial of those accused in the case he was trying to breach English Law but also future trials in which some of the accused were also due to stand trial.
If those people's identities had been revealed the defendants could then have easily claimed that they would not receive a fair trial thus ensuring the accused paedophiles walked free.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of said laws that simply is how it is...and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was aware of that yet still proceeded to jeopardise both trials.

Why?

To raise his own public profile and further his own personal agenda.

Now we can argue till the cow come home about UK jurisprudence and its good and bad points.
We can also discuss the past serial failings of our Social Services, Police and Crown Prosecution Services.
But ultimately that will change nothing in this instance.....

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon knowingly and deliberately sought to potentially compromise the trial(s) of people who were charged - and fortunately later convicted - with grooming young and vulnerable girls.

That in my eyes is unforgiveable!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in

join