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: 59
14
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




Surely that’s what he wanted?


That is the problem. What he really wanted was publicity for himself and his abhorrent views and agenda.

I see that his followers outside Court were pelting Police with bottles and such. You can judge a person by the friends he keeps.

Obviously, I stand to by corrected in due course by the TR fan club.




posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
9 months jail for next to nothing, eh? Wow. The UK used to be a beacon of liberty. Not so much any more.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

That sort of depends if you feel comfortable as describing this as "next to nothing":




In a written ruling, Dame Victoria said Robinson had claimed his intention in making the broadcast was to "denounce the media" for their behaviour. But the judges found he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him". This created "a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded", she said.


You know, like endangering a trial of numerous rapist scum.

You OK with that?
edit on 11-7-2019 by oldcarpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

That sort of depends if you feel comfortable as describing this as "next to nothing":




In a written ruling, Dame Victoria said Robinson had claimed his intention in making the broadcast was to "denounce the media" for their behaviour. But the judges found he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him". This created "a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded", she said.


You know, like endangering a trial of numerous rapist scum.

You OK with that?


He encouraged the media to do their job, to harass child rapists instead of people like him.

Yes, child rapists need to be exposed but the media’s silence on it was deafening, something I’m sure you and the courts are fine with.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: bartconnolly

Don't know where you get those claims and fine figures from but they're untrue First of all the law came in in 1981:

'Man jailed for two months for taking photograph inside court'
www.independent.co.uk...

Man jailed for filming trial and livestreaming on facebook'
www.mirror.co.uk...

Man jailed for filming Manchester court hearing
The 21-year-old, of Hunwick Close, Middlesbrough, admitted contempt of court and was jailed for three months.

A brief handful, all jailed on first offence which is a harsher punishment than Tommy receiving a suspended sentence for the same offence.

As for fines, see these - 'strict liability rule' is a very expensive mistake to make.

'The Daily Mirror has been fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000 for contempt of court for articles published about a suspect arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates.'

'Daily Mail and Sun online fined £15,000 each for publishing photograph of defendant that risked prejudicing trial '

www.gov.uk...

'Sunday Mirror fined £75,000 for contempt of court '

www.theguardian.com...

'Scottish Daily Record fined £80,000 for contempt over two stories including one showing 'dramatic' arrest pic with 'GOT HIM' caption'

www.pressgazette.co.uk...


It's also untrue that no reporting restrictions were in place. As was outlined in the original pre-trial, reporting restrictions there were a series of linked trials taking place where photos and the identities of those involved. This wasn't the final trial in the linked series, the next trial started three months later. The reporting ban which every newspaper followed when covering the case was still in place.


DId I say no reporting restrictions were in place? Where did I say that?
I said the court didnt follow its own rules about notifying others that reporting restrictions were in place.
the reporting restrictions (have you seen the order) as far as I remember was on the progress of the trial i.e. what was oping on INSIDE the court. You should know the REASON behind these laws isnt to protect the accused but to protect the VICTIMS. People dont want to be identified as the victim of a rape. But I accept that accused also should be afforded some protection ( which is NEVER given to Tommy Robinson) and should not be harassed or attacked on the way to court. I dont regard tommy Robinsons questions as harassment.
Tommy Robinson DIDNT AFFECT the third part of the Trial. the Judge said so. He is being convicted of potentially affecting it e.g. if a jury member from the third trial or if the accused of the third trial arrived at the sentencing of the second trial and he was identified and attacked or his background researched and given to a jury member that would affect the third trial. But that never happened! He is being convicted of the idea that that could have happened. It is ridiculous.

Thank you for that. I will check the cases but accept a person has been jailed for two months and three months. One of your references is to the Tommy robinson case.

the Three months is a case of filming INSIDE COURT and he was not a journalist!
The Two months is a case of a man inside a court and NOT a journalist!


Im not aware of more than a £5000 fine. All the cases above for tens of thousands are NEWSPAPERS not the actual Journalists!



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

That sort of depends if you feel comfortable as describing this as "next to nothing":




In a written ruling, Dame Victoria said Robinson had claimed his intention in making the broadcast was to "denounce the media" for their behaviour. But the judges found he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him". This created "a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded", she said.


You know, like endangering a trial of numerous rapist scum.

You OK with that?

WRONG!
"he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him".
WRONG!
the Judge Misrepresented that! Look aty the following video! TR was clearly talking about the MEDIA harassing the leader of Generation Identity and NOT asking people to attack the accused rapists. He was asking the media why dont they go after the families of groomers like they go after Generation identity!
youtu.be...



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Explained for you here:

www.bbc.co.uk...




Yes, child rapists need to be exposed but the media’s silence on it was deafening,


Because: reporting restrictions:




Lawyers for the Attorney General said reporting restrictions had been put in place. These postponed the publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials, involving 29 defendants. This was to stop the juries in those cases being influenced.


Yes, I am fine with trials of rapist scum not being prejudiced by the actions of an idiot.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Explained for you here:

www.bbc.co.uk...




Yes, child rapists need to be exposed but the media’s silence on it was deafening,


Because: reporting restrictions:




Lawyers for the Attorney General said reporting restrictions had been put in place. These postponed the publication of any details of the case until the end of a series of linked trials, involving 29 defendants. This was to stop the juries in those cases being influenced.


Yes, I am fine with trials of rapist scum not being prejudiced by the actions of an idiot.



A guy filming on public property will prejudice a trial. The only arguments you guys have is repeating the arguments of the court. No conscience or sense of justice. Just repeat the courts and prosecution, That’s frightening.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: bartconnolly




You should know the REASON behind these laws isnt to protect the accused but to protect the VICTIMS.


No, contempt of court laws exist to ensure people get a fair trial. The idea is that juries must not be influenced by anything but the evidence they hear in Court.

Please, stop shouting in capitals.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Robinson’s crime. Shooting a video like this will nab you jail time in the UK. But if you run a child grooming gang they’ll sweep it all under the carpet for you.




posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Jeez, fella, have you even read the Judgment?



The only arguments you guys have is repeating the arguments of the court. No conscience or sense of justice. Just repeat the courts and prosecution, That’s frightening.


Your only argument seems to be based on having no knowledge of what you are talking about but nevertheless expressing an opinion on it and then getting all judgmental about other posters. That is not "frightening" - it's just getting a bit tedious.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
Robinson’s crime. Shooting a video like this will nab you jail time in the UK. But if you run a child grooming gang they’ll sweep it all under the carpet for you.



Oh, so the child grooming gang did not all get heavy custodial sentences, then?



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Jeez, fella, have you even read the Judgment?



The only arguments you guys have is repeating the arguments of the court. No conscience or sense of justice. Just repeat the courts and prosecution, That’s frightening.


Your only argument seems to be based on having no knowledge of what you are talking about but nevertheless expressing an opinion on it and then getting all judgmental about other posters. That is not "frightening" - it's just getting a bit tedious.


Yes, the part you already repeated to me was false. You repeated it because you appeal to authority, because you have no knowledge what you are talking about.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Which bit was false!? I can assure you that I do know a bit about the law, sunshine.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Which bit was false!? I can assure you that I do know a bit about the law, sunshine.


This part:

“But the judges found he had encouraged others "to harass a defendant by finding him, knocking on his door, following him, and watching him". This created "a real risk that the course of justice would be seriously impeded", she said.”

It’s false.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

No, it isn't.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

No, it isn't.


Why? Because the judge said so?

You can watch the video and see that her ruling is false. He clearly was not encouraging vigilante justice.
edit on 11-7-2019 by BuckyWunderlick because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

If you say so. Bored now.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

If you say so. Bored now.


See? You got nothing else to repeat, no other argument. You can watch the video for yourself but I wager you fear the truth, sunshine.



posted on Jul, 11 2019 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Whatever.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join