Tommy Robinson (Arrested)

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

Muslims aren't the problem. Islam Is.

That's like saying Christians aren't the problem, Christianity is.

Prison Population :

Christians percent of society > 15 yrs old 61.3%, Prison population 48.5% INDEX 79
Muslim percent of society > 15 yrs old 4.0%, Prison Population 15.2% INDEX 380

Source : House of Commons Library, UK Prison Population Statistics, published April 2017

file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf]file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf

Muslims are nearly 5 times more represented in the prison population than Christians.

So, no, not all Muslims, but there is a problem in the Muslim population that needs addressing.
Throwing people in jail for highlighting it is not the answer.

Who has been thrown in jail for highlighting anything?

Perhaps refer to the thread topic.
At least you didn't deny the very real problem with crime within the Muslim community.
It needs highlighting as Tommy Robinson was doing when he was first arrested and given a suspended sentence and then arrested again and thrown in jail, especially when it comes to sick grooming gangs destroying kids lives.

Only he hasn't been thrown in jail for highlighting anything. He has been for contempt of court by ignoring court rules.

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

You're not worth it.

That may or may not be true but still doesn't make any more sense of your posts.

a reply to: bastion

You posted saying that people would be violating the judges order on reporting under section 4(2) of the 1981 contempt of court law if they spoke about the case on a UK server.

I have not seen you post why Facebook meets that criteria and ATS doesnt, seeing as how Facebook is held on a US server as well I believe. Would you then admit that any UK citizen that posts about Tommys case on Facebook is also guilty and should be arrested?

However, That is a separate issue from the crime Robinson broke, which I believe you are breaking, which is section 1 of the 1981 contempt of court law.

The relevant part.

Contempt of Court Act 1981
1981 CHAPTER 49

...

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

This is what Tommy was charged with, and what you have been arguing is a problem.

Basically, the claim is he would potentially allow these people to have their court case thrown out because they could claim that Tommy swayed public opinion against them.

That is exactly what you are doing.

Show me anywhere in that law where its illegal to post on Facebook, but not on ATS.

a reply to: Grambler

FaceBook has servers world wide.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bastion

You posted saying that people would be violating the judges order on reporting under section 4(2) of the 1981 contempt of court law if they spoke about the case on a UK server.

I have not seen you post why Facebook meets that criteria and ATS doesnt, seeing as how Facebook is held on a US server as well I believe. Would you then admit that any UK citizen that posts about Tommys case on Facebook is also guilty and should be arrested?

However, That is a separate issue from the crime Robinson broke, which I believe you are breaking, which is section 1 of the 1981 contempt of court law.

The relevant part.

Contempt of Court Act 1981
1981 CHAPTER 49

...

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

This is what Tommy was charged with, and what you have been arguing is a problem.

Basically, the claim is he would potentially allow these people to have their court case thrown out because they could claim that Tommy swayed public opinion against them.

That is exactly what you are doing.

Show me anywhere in that law where its illegal to post on Facebook, but not on ATS.

Tommy Robinson was under a suspended sentence for filming at court on a previous occasion. Not the same thing at all.

a reply to: ScepticScot

And you are still behaving like a woman hating bigot. 'in my humble opinion.'

In case you hadn't noticed Tommy published in the UK, this is published in the US. Publication in another country is allowed under UK law.

The precedent for Facebook was set after a Juror posted a poll on her page asking people to vote innocent or guilty on the accused, which caused Facebook and Twitter to come under the ban due to the majority of the population being members.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.theregister.co.uk...
reaction.life...
www.bbc.co.uk...

There is no mention it's illegal to post on ATS. Social media is not barred by Contempt of Court 1981, the AG and IJ are reviewing and tighetening up that law at the moment.

P.S - May want to check the status of his 'case' before continuing this nonsense.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bastion

You posted saying that people would be violating the judges order on reporting under section 4(2) of the 1981 contempt of court law if they spoke about the case on a UK server.

I have not seen you post why Facebook meets that criteria and ATS doesnt, seeing as how Facebook is held on a US server as well I believe. Would you then admit that any UK citizen that posts about Tommys case on Facebook is also guilty and should be arrested?

However, That is a separate issue from the crime Robinson broke, which I believe you are breaking, which is section 1 of the 1981 contempt of court law.

The relevant part.

Contempt of Court Act 1981
1981 CHAPTER 49

...

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

This is what Tommy was charged with, and what you have been arguing is a problem.

Basically, the claim is he would potentially allow these people to have their court case thrown out because they could claim that Tommy swayed public opinion against them.

That is exactly what you are doing.

Show me anywhere in that law where its illegal to post on Facebook, but not on ATS.

Tommy Robinson was under a suspended sentence for filming at court on a previous occasion. Not the same thing at all.

But why is that relevant?

At some point, he had to break the law to have his sentence reinstated.

So what law did he break to have his sentence reinstated.

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

And you are still behaving like a woman hating bigot. 'in my humble opinion.'

The only person to mention gender is you.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

Muslims aren't the problem. Islam Is.

That's like saying Christians aren't the problem, Christianity is.

Prison Population :

Christians percent of society > 15 yrs old 61.3%, Prison population 48.5% INDEX 79
Muslim percent of society > 15 yrs old 4.0%, Prison Population 15.2% INDEX 380

Source : House of Commons Library, UK Prison Population Statistics, published April 2017

file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf]file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf

Muslims are nearly 5 times more represented in the prison population than Christians.

So, no, not all Muslims, but there is a problem in the Muslim population that needs addressing.
Throwing people in jail for highlighting it is not the answer.

Who has been thrown in jail for highlighting anything?

Perhaps refer to the thread topic.
At least you didn't deny the very real problem with crime within the Muslim community.
It needs highlighting as Tommy Robinson was doing when he was first arrested and given a suspended sentence and then arrested again and thrown in jail, especially when it comes to sick grooming gangs destroying kids lives.

Only he hasn't been thrown in jail for highlighting anything. He has been for contempt of court by ignoring court rules.

Yeah, ok fella.
As despicable as Tommy Robinsons approach to the very serious problem of Muslim crime is, he is worth far more than a person who would stand up for the govt putting people in jail and abusing the court system for the 'crime' of telling the truth and reporting the truth.

Only a scumbag way worse and far more dangerous than Tommy Robinson could be standing up for his arrest and incarceration.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

Muslims aren't the problem. Islam Is.

That's like saying Christians aren't the problem, Christianity is.

Prison Population :

Christians percent of society > 15 yrs old 61.3%, Prison population 48.5% INDEX 79
Muslim percent of society > 15 yrs old 4.0%, Prison Population 15.2% INDEX 380

Source : House of Commons Library, UK Prison Population Statistics, published April 2017

file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf]file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf

Muslims are nearly 5 times more represented in the prison population than Christians.

So, no, not all Muslims, but there is a problem in the Muslim population that needs addressing.
Throwing people in jail for highlighting it is not the answer.

Who has been thrown in jail for highlighting anything?

Perhaps refer to the thread topic.
At least you didn't deny the very real problem with crime within the Muslim community.
It needs highlighting as Tommy Robinson was doing when he was first arrested and given a suspended sentence and then arrested again and thrown in jail, especially when it comes to sick grooming gangs destroying kids lives.

Only he hasn't been thrown in jail for highlighting anything. He has been for contempt of court by ignoring court rules.

Yeah, ok fella.
As despicable as Tommy Robinsons approach to the very serious problem of Muslim crime is, he is worth far more than a person who would stand up for the govt putting people in jail and abusing the court system for the 'crime' of telling the truth and reporting the truth.

Only as has already been pointed out he hasn't been jailed for that.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bastion

You posted saying that people would be violating the judges order on reporting under section 4(2) of the 1981 contempt of court law if they spoke about the case on a UK server.

I have not seen you post why Facebook meets that criteria and ATS doesnt, seeing as how Facebook is held on a US server as well I believe. Would you then admit that any UK citizen that posts about Tommys case on Facebook is also guilty and should be arrested?

However, That is a separate issue from the crime Robinson broke, which I believe you are breaking, which is section 1 of the 1981 contempt of court law.

The relevant part.

Contempt of Court Act 1981
1981 CHAPTER 49

...

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

This is what Tommy was charged with, and what you have been arguing is a problem.

Basically, the claim is he would potentially allow these people to have their court case thrown out because they could claim that Tommy swayed public opinion against them.

That is exactly what you are doing.

Show me anywhere in that law where its illegal to post on Facebook, but not on ATS.

Tommy Robinson was under a suspended sentence for filming at court on a previous occasion. Not the same thing at all.

But why is that relevant?

At some point, he had to break the law to have his sentence reinstated.

So what law did he break to have his sentence reinstated.

Why is it relevant that he was doing the same thing he got charged with contempt of court for?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

Muslims aren't the problem. Islam Is.

That's like saying Christians aren't the problem, Christianity is.

Prison Population :

Christians percent of society > 15 yrs old 61.3%, Prison population 48.5% INDEX 79
Muslim percent of society > 15 yrs old 4.0%, Prison Population 15.2% INDEX 380

Source : House of Commons Library, UK Prison Population Statistics, published April 2017

file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf]file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf

Muslims are nearly 5 times more represented in the prison population than Christians.

So, no, not all Muslims, but there is a problem in the Muslim population that needs addressing.
Throwing people in jail for highlighting it is not the answer.

Who has been thrown in jail for highlighting anything?

Perhaps refer to the thread topic.
At least you didn't deny the very real problem with crime within the Muslim community.
It needs highlighting as Tommy Robinson was doing when he was first arrested and given a suspended sentence and then arrested again and thrown in jail, especially when it comes to sick grooming gangs destroying kids lives.

Only he hasn't been thrown in jail for highlighting anything. He has been for contempt of court by ignoring court rules.

Yeah, ok fella.
As despicable as Tommy Robinsons approach to the very serious problem of Muslim crime is, he is worth far more than a person who would stand up for the govt putting people in jail and abusing the court system for the 'crime' of telling the truth and reporting the truth.

Only as has already been pointed out he hasn't been jailed for that.

His first arrest, and thus the suspended sentence in the first place, was for reporting the truth.
The court decided it was contempt. Like I said, only scumbags would support the abuse of our legal system to incarcerate their enemies.
But we seem to have some serious scumbags, far worse than Robinson, in our midst. I'd go far as to say that they are worse than the scum who groom kids and more dangerous to society.

a reply to: bastion

Your first link is about jurors posting on social media. Had they posted a "poll" asking the guilt on ATS, I am sure that they would have faced the same punishment.

No where in any of your links does it say that the courts have said that twitter and facebook have some special status that makes them differnet than other blogs or social media.

In fact, from your 4th article.

Anyone commenting about a case or defendant in a way that could prejudice a trial could be prosecuted for contempt and imprisoned.

That is why the attorney general is going to start publishing advice - that previously only went to the media - to the public via his website and Twitter feed.

It is designed to help inform people about the legal pitfalls of commenting in a way that could be seen as prejudicial to a court case or those involved.

Mr Grieve said blogs and social media sites allow individuals to reach thousands of people with a single post, which he said was an "exciting prospect" but one which "can pose certain challenges to the criminal justice system".

www.bbc.com...

Get that? He doesnt say just twitter and facebook, he says online social media and blogs in general, of which ATS would apply.

It specifically says anyone posting that could prejudice a juropr could be jailed.

Ok thats you.

Agian, we can argue about this among ourselves.

But clearly you are very concerned about potential breaking of this law; so turn yourself in and let the prosecutors decide.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Artemis12
a reply to: ScepticScot

Muslims aren't the problem. Islam Is.

That's like saying Christians aren't the problem, Christianity is.

Prison Population :

Christians percent of society > 15 yrs old 61.3%, Prison population 48.5% INDEX 79
Muslim percent of society > 15 yrs old 4.0%, Prison Population 15.2% INDEX 380

Source : House of Commons Library, UK Prison Population Statistics, published April 2017

file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf]file:///home/john/Downloads/SN04334.pdf

Muslims are nearly 5 times more represented in the prison population than Christians.

So, no, not all Muslims, but there is a problem in the Muslim population that needs addressing.
Throwing people in jail for highlighting it is not the answer.

Who has been thrown in jail for highlighting anything?

Perhaps refer to the thread topic.
At least you didn't deny the very real problem with crime within the Muslim community.
It needs highlighting as Tommy Robinson was doing when he was first arrested and given a suspended sentence and then arrested again and thrown in jail, especially when it comes to sick grooming gangs destroying kids lives.

Only he hasn't been thrown in jail for highlighting anything. He has been for contempt of court by ignoring court rules.

Yeah, ok fella.
As despicable as Tommy Robinsons approach to the very serious problem of Muslim crime is, he is worth far more than a person who would stand up for the govt putting people in jail and abusing the court system for the 'crime' of telling the truth and reporting the truth.

Only as has already been pointed out he hasn't been jailed for that.

His first arrest, and thus the suspended sentence in the first place, was for reporting the truth.
The court decided it was contempt. Like I said, only scumbags would support the abuse of our legal system to incarcerate their enemies.
But we seem to have some serious scumbags, far worse than Robinson, in our midst. I'd go far as to say that they are worse than the scum who groom kids and more dangerous to society.

The court decided it was contempt as he clearly broke the rules and could have resulted in a mistrial resulting in the child abusers going free. This rest of your post is just offensive drivel.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: bastion

You posted saying that people would be violating the judges order on reporting under section 4(2) of the 1981 contempt of court law if they spoke about the case on a UK server.

I have not seen you post why Facebook meets that criteria and ATS doesnt, seeing as how Facebook is held on a US server as well I believe. Would you then admit that any UK citizen that posts about Tommys case on Facebook is also guilty and should be arrested?

However, That is a separate issue from the crime Robinson broke, which I believe you are breaking, which is section 1 of the 1981 contempt of court law.

The relevant part.

Contempt of Court Act 1981
1981 CHAPTER 49

...

Strict liability
1 The strict liability rule.

In this Act “the strict liability rule” means the rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so.
2 Limitation of scope of strict liability.

(1)The strict liability rule applies only in relation to publications, and for this purpose “publication” includes any speech, writing, [F1programme included in a cable programme service] or other communication in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.

(2)The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.

This is what Tommy was charged with, and what you have been arguing is a problem.

Basically, the claim is he would potentially allow these people to have their court case thrown out because they could claim that Tommy swayed public opinion against them.

That is exactly what you are doing.

Show me anywhere in that law where its illegal to post on Facebook, but not on ATS.

Tommy Robinson was under a suspended sentence for filming at court on a previous occasion. Not the same thing at all.

But why is that relevant?

At some point, he had to break the law to have his sentence reinstated.

So what law did he break to have his sentence reinstated.

Why is it relevant that he was doing the same thing he got charged with contempt of court for?

Ok there you have it.

The he was originally charged with breaking the law for the same thing.

My contention is that this was ridiculous in the first place.

I cited the law, as did others.

The law says any post in writing or on camera that could prejudice jurors is against the law.

That is exactly what ATS uke members have done.

SO please, for the sake of having a fair trial, please turn yourself in.