Tommy Robinson (Arrested)

originally posted by: Grambler

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.

And as Bastion has pointed out to you numerous times you are wrong.

a reply to: UKTruth


T. Robinson should have sat at home or anywhere else other than outside the court, and "reported" on the situation. He would be a free man with no worries in the world, instead he can now claim that the "man" is trying to shut him up and that the "Muslin agenda" is in control.

If he was just interested in "reporting" about the sad, and evil crimes being committed by small groups of Pakistani men then he could of done that from any where. It's just not in his interest, all he was attempting to do was rile people and spread his kind of hatred.

a reply to: ScepticScot

You failed. It's a fail, 'In my humble opinion'.

F A I L

Two things can be true at the same time

1) The guy broke the law. However technically or stupidly.
2) They came down on him solely for political reasons.

This is not a good case to rage about. There'll be other much less controversial cases in due time.

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: 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.

And as Bastion has pointed out to you numerous times you are wrong.

The written law on contempt and reporting restrictions would say you are wrong.
The state went after this man because they don't like him. That is as plain as day.
Scumbags always support tyranny if it is in their interest to do so.

originally posted by: UKTruth

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: 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.

And as Bastion has pointed out to you numerous times you are wrong.

The written law on contempt and reporting restrictions would say you are wrong.
The state went after this man because they don't like him. That is as plain as day.
Scumbags always support tyranny if it is in their interest to do so.

Tyranny? get a grip.

He risked the trial of alleged child abusers and you are supporting him

originally posted by: mightmight
Two things can be true at the same time

1) The guy broke the law. However technically or stupidly.
2) They came down on him solely for political reasons.

This is not a good case to rage about. There'll be other much less controversial cases in due time.

How often have you seen the media film defendants going into court - and the defendants trying to cover their faces???
Happens all the time.
If the govt wants to go after one of their enemies they can do so by selectively applying law - and in this case stretching it as far as they liked.

a reply to: ScepticScot

He risked the trial of alleged child abusers and you are supporting him

This is what is amazing me with these threads, and posts. It's like posters want a group of "alleged" child groomers, and abuser to walk free because poor Tommy got in trouble??

originally posted by: UKTruth

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: 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.

And as Bastion has pointed out to you numerous times you are wrong.

The written law on contempt and reporting restrictions would say you are wrong.
The state went after this man because they don't like him. That is as plain as day.
Scumbags always support tyranny if it is in their interest to do so.

Of course they know that.

Just look at the irony of this.

They have no problem potentially prejudicing jurors by calling tommy guilty, or a nazi, or a racist, they feel they should have the rigfht to do that (which I agree btw)

yet they feel tommy commenting on a court case involving alleged child rapists should not be allowed.

It is very telling, issnt it. They have more hatred for a man reporting on child rapists than they do the actual child rapists, and they feel they should be allowed to break the same laws they want tommy arrested for.

And we even see some of these great moral people saying that if Tommy gets killed in jail it would be a good thing.

Truly disgusting hypocrites.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: ScepticScot

He risked the trial of alleged child abusers and you are supporting him

This is what is amazing me with these threads, and posts. It's like posters want a group of "alleged" child groomers, and abuser to walk free because poor Tommy got in trouble??

And what amazes me in [posters that are saying tommy is guilty, that are thereby potneially allwoing tommy to walk free and allow more child groomers to walk free.

So I guess using the same logic you are using, people declaring tommy guilty are in effect want child groomers to walk free.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: ScepticScot

He risked the trial of alleged child abusers and you are supporting him

This is what is amazing me with these threads, and posts. It's like posters want a group of "alleged" child groomers, and abuser to walk free because poor Tommy got in trouble??

And what amazes me in [posters that are saying tommy is guilty, that are thereby potneially allwoing tommy to walk free and allow more child groomers to walk free.

So I guess using the same logic you are using, people declaring tommy guilty are in effect want child groomers to walk free.

Well he was already found guilty in a court of the original contempt charge so again not the same thing at all.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: UKTruth

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: 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.

And as Bastion has pointed out to you numerous times you are wrong.

The written law on contempt and reporting restrictions would say you are wrong.
The state went after this man because they don't like him. That is as plain as day.
Scumbags always support tyranny if it is in their interest to do so.

Of course they know that.

Just look at the irony of this.

They have no problem potentially prejudicing jurors by calling tommy guilty, or a nazi, or a racist, they feel they should have the rigfht to do that (which I agree btw)

yet they feel tommy commenting on a court case involving alleged child rapists should not be allowed.

It is very telling, issnt it. They have more hatred for a man reporting on child rapists than they do the actual child rapists, and they feel they should be allowed to break the same laws they want tommy arrested for.

And we even see some of these great moral people saying that if Tommy gets killed in jail it would be a good thing.

Truly disgusting hypocrites.

Who has said or even implied they have more hatred for Tommy Robinson than the child abusers. Stop lying.

originally posted by: UKTruth

How often have you seen the media film defendants going into court - and the defendants trying to cover their faces???
Happens all the time.
If the govt wants to go after one of their enemies they can do so by selectively applying law - and in this case stretching it as far as they liked.

Yes they can and they did. But you wont be able to move the discussion past legal technicalities and the man himself.
Be smart about it, this is not a hill worth dying on.

a reply to: Grambler


I take it you support T. Robinson "reporting" on this then even if that puts the court case in jeopardy?

They have no problem potentially prejudicing jurors by calling tommy guilty

Robinson isn't in court??

yet they feel tommy commenting on a court case involving alleged child rapists should not be allowed.

Yes the accused could walk free when their defence claim Robinson has prejudice the case.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: UKTruth

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: 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.

And as Bastion has pointed out to you numerous times you are wrong.

The written law on contempt and reporting restrictions would say you are wrong.
The state went after this man because they don't like him. That is as plain as day.
Scumbags always support tyranny if it is in their interest to do so.

Of course they know that.

Just look at the irony of this.

They have no problem potentially prejudicing jurors by calling tommy guilty, or a nazi, or a racist, they feel they should have the rigfht to do that (which I agree btw)

yet they feel tommy commenting on a court case involving alleged child rapists should not be allowed.

It is very telling, issnt it. They have more hatred for a man reporting on child rapists than they do the actual child rapists, and they feel they should be allowed to break the same laws they want tommy arrested for.

And we even see some of these great moral people saying that if Tommy gets killed in jail it would be a good thing.

Truly disgusting hypocrites.

They are indeed hypocrites - you may have noticed the same people so supportive of the UK legal system dictating what can be reported on and jailing those that dissent are the same that cry floods of tears for the 'freedom of the press' if your President uses the term 'fake news'. These people do not stand on principle at all, they believe in persecuting their 'enemies'. It's a diseased mindset - one that is so rotten and putrid, it's beyond saving. At this stage, they just have to be defeated.

a reply to: Artemis12


Maybe you should add an opinion about the actual thread and about your opinion of Robinsons arrest?

a reply to: Kurokage

I watched the video - the names and charges were mentioned. That is not disallowed under the law.
The thugs in our judicial system know that too, which is why Robinson was charged under breach of the peace, despite no trouble at all.
They have been trying to get him for some time, which they admitted to today. They were looking for anything to jail him. If you think that is fair and just policing, targeting an individual because you don't like them, then you really deserve to be living under a police state and be the victim of it. Only then might you see the light.

a reply to: UKTruth

It's a diseased mindset - one that is so rotten and putrid

Funny, its how I think about people supporting Robinsons decision to possibly risk a case like this. Like I posted before, why did he decide to stage his "reporting" from the court. He could have made his case about these low lifes from anywhere? He could of gone to a coffee shop across the road and "reported"??

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Grambler

No, have you rread any of the Law on Media Court Cases? Im not acting as media and not posting in UK. It's also legal to chat on forums and blogs.

So seeing as none of the laws you cite exist, are not relevant, are for the wrong medium and in the wrong hyemisphere - No.
The clue is in the name 'press restriction in the UK'.on't have the slightewst

I guess it's more than obvious now people don't have the slightest clue about the relevant laws despite posting thorough run throughs and guides/links to the law.

Deny ignorance indeed.

Really? legal to chat in blogs and forums? I guess as long as it is not wrongthink, don't the UK police social media and the web and threaten you with fines and jail time? We saw count dankula didn't we?