Dozens of reporters film defendents outside of pedophile trials in UK; no arrests

Well tommy robinson was arrested because you cant have people standing outside of a court, or reporting on trials, because it could influence jurors.

That is just the way it is in the UK we are told.

Its not that tommy being singled out; anybody giving details of an ongoing trial or filming in front of a courthouse would be arrested for interfering with a trail.

I mean, surely anyone who filmed an accused pedophile outside of a courthouse before a trail would be arrested.

Oh wait, whats that, there are examples of that exact same thing happening and no one was arrested?

Gary glitter

Yeah remember that pedophuile singer garyt glitter?

Well he had a trial in the UK in 2015 (not that long ago)

And what do you know, there was a media frenzy of stories during the trial, and a littany of reporters and camera men taking images of himn on his way to court.



Not the video on this link of him arriving at court.

news.sky.com...

Many camera men taking photos. Surely his case got tossed right, and all of these people were arrested.

Oh none of that happened?

I wonder why it was different with tommy?

Here are more stories detailing what was happening in the case while it was ongoing.

www.abc.net.au...

www.channel24.co.za...

www.independent.co.uk...

No problem there though!

Hmm... I wonder what was different.

How about Rolf harris who was on trial for sex charges against minors.

here is a sketch of him during the trial, with details of what happened that day. Why was that allowed, could it not hace influenced people by being in the media?

www.theguardian.com...

Here is a video of him arriving at court for his trial, while many reporters outside the court take photos and yell questions at him.


Oh they werent.

But wait you say.

The fine folks defending the arrest of tommy robinson on ATS have told us that it is just about equal application of the law, and anyone interfering in a trail by filming defendants outside the court would be arrested.

So surely all of these people would have at least been gioven suspended sentences right, for filming outside the court house!

I know, as shcoking as it sounds, they werent!

I wonder what the difference is?

Its almost like there was something special about the case tommy was reporting on, that they didnt want the public hearing about.

Maybe, just like how the authorities allowed these rape gangs to go on for decades out of fear of being called racist, the court didnt want cases like these to be broadcast.

So in britain, dozens of reporters film old white guys accused of pedophilia outside of courthouse, a ok and a great job.

One guy films grooming defendants outside of courthouse; 13 months in pricson.

What a country!

How can this be? Surely all of these people were arrested, right?

a reply to: Grambler


The media harping on a someone who "broke a law" in the EU breaking the same law? Can we make this snip up?

I am sure all of the UK members who bragged how their system would not allow a media circus showing defendants outside a trial, and how people that film defendants outside the court would be arrested will be here any minute to voice their outrage, and tell us how they are going to write their MP's to ensure these reporters all get jailed.

Any second now....

Go get em boys and girls.

a reply to: Grambler

Quick question.

Did any of those reporters have a suspended sentence with a condition saying they can’t report at court houses?

If the answer is no, then your thread is bull.

a reply to: Grambler

No but you see his restrictions didn't allow for him to occupy public space they deemed inappropriate. Or he's racist so.his rights don't matter, I think that's how it goes.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: Grambler

No but you see his restrictions didn't allow for him to occupy public space they deemed inappropriate. Or he's racist so.his rights don't matter, I think that's how it goes.

All of these posters, all of them claiming how much they know, and I am just dumb, and I dont understand the law.

And all the while it was exactly as I thought it was; the law was selectively applied, because they hate tommy and dont want people discussing these grooming gangs.

For the same reason they allowed these gangs to rape children for decades.

And people gleefully cheer this draconian system. Its surreal.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Grambler

Quick question.

Did any of those reporters have a suspended sentence with a condition saying they can’t report at court houses?

If the answer is no, then your thread is bull.

Why did tommy get a sentence in the first place?

Oh thats right, for filming outside of court houses like this.

So then logic would have it all of these people would have received suspended sentences.

In addition, tommy received more than just his suspended sentence, because what he did on his liove stream was itself a crime.

which means what these reporters did was also a crime.

originally posted by: Grambler
Well tommy robinson was arrested

Where is the lynch mob who should be there busting him out of the slammer?

Everyone standing idly-by deserves everything they're gonna get.

Shame!!

a reply to: Grambler

Not quite.

He had a suspended sentence for contempt of court and gatecrashing a court case while it was in progress and taking photos/filming while in court (which is illegal in this country). NOT for filming outside the court.

Part of the conditions put on his suspended sentence was he wasn’t allowed to report in or around a court. He broke the condition of his suspended sentence, which means he goes to jail.

BTW, a suspended sentence is for someone who has been found guilty, but can stay out of prison for the full term IF they don’t break the conditions set out.

a reply to: Grambler

Odd that it's seems our Resident News Organization Protection Agency Against Trump and Supporters RNOPAAS jumped on the bandwagon as well, almost makes you wonder if they believe what they say. Real government action taken vs Twitter beef action.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Right I know what a suspended sentence is.

He was given one for three months.

Yet he was sentenced to 13 months in prison>

Why the additional time? Because the judge said what he did here with his livestream was a crime.

Also, I did not see that tommy originally filmed in a court sessions. I would like to see evidence of that.

a reply to: Grambler

You can get extra time added for breaking the conditions of a suspended sentence. It’s kind of a “be good for a few months, or you’ll be in jail for a year” incentive (incentive is the wrong word, but I can’t think of the right one).

After discovering that security staff had made arrangements for the jury and the defendants to leave by a side entrance, he began making a “piece to camera” - filming inside the court building, in which he accused the police of colluding in a cover-up.

source

ETA: From the same source.

The judge said: “There are notices all over the court building making it clear that filming or taking a photograph was an offence and maybe a contempt of court.

As a side note. I know some might think TV is real, but the TV show “Judge Rinder” is neither a real judge or filmed in a real court house.

Just thought I’d clear that up before someone jumps on that bandwagon

a reply to: TerryDon79


I thought I read in the judges decision of the suspended sentence that he was not sure if he was filming in the court

The judge said even if that wasn’t the case, filming outside the court was not allowed and was considered court property

Meaning these people were breaking the law as well

a reply to: Grambler

You can film outside of court as much as you like (unless there are conditions previously set out). As soon as your foot touches the steps and/or car park, it’s classed as being “in the courthouse”.

From what I’ve read, his first offence (which he got the suspended sentence for) he was actually inside the building, not on the steps.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Grambler

You can film outside of court as much as you like (unless there are conditions previously set out). As soon as your foot touches the steps and/or car park, it’s classed as being “in the courthouse”.

From what I’ve read, his first offence (which he got the suspended sentence for) he was actually inside the building, not on the steps.

I read he was immediately told when he entered the court no cameras allowed and he turned it off

The judge then said even aside from that, it was a crime for him to film outside the court

I will find the judgement where she says that tomorrow

And if you look at the threads, you will see over and over and over again the people cheering Robinson’s arrest saying you can’t film defendants outside the courthouse because that is a crime

And then they say those of us that don’t understand that are stupid

Well where are they now?

a reply to: Grambler

He was outside the courthouse when he broke the conditions of his suspended sentence. You could be getting the first offence and the second mixed up. It’s easy enough to do.

As for why there’s nobody here yet from the UK on this thread? It’s 440am over here. Not all of us are night owls like me

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Grambler

He was outside the courthouse when he broke the conditions of his suspended sentence. You could be getting the first offence and the second mixed up. It’s easy enough to do.

As for why there’s nobody here yet from the UK on this thread? It’s 440am over here. Not all of us are night owls like me

Oh yeah, different time zones! Duh!

Anyways here is a link to his first sentence that was suspended

www.judiciary.gov.uk...

Notice near the beginning she says filming defendants even outside the courthouse is a crime

Now look in page 11 at the bottom

She says his sentence will be unsuspected if he takes actions that result in contempt of court again, such as showing up at a court house and calling defendants rapists (he was careful to announce all the accused were only alleged and not found guilty yet in his livestream)

This means he would not have the sentence activated for merely showing up to court, but for again breaking the law and being held in contempt

That means that his actions of filming the livestream alone were deemed contempt of court

This means all of the above videos of journalists filming defendants outside the court would have also broke the law

a reply to: Grambler

Line D refers to the first offence (for which he got a suspended sentence).

D filming. That filming was firstly on the steps at the front of this court building and, secondly, inside this court building, although of course I readily accept there was no filming or attempt to film inside a courtroom. The only person who was filmed was effectively yourself. It was, as Mr. Kovalevsky has described it, a to-camera piece in both instances.

So your trying to say all those journalists were doing the same, is wrong.