High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, would you like one rule for some and another for the rest?

Where would our legal system be if we started to perpetuate that madness?

Tommy and his ilk can do as they please but nobody else can?

Computer says "No" I'm afraid.

That only works for big business, corporations, royals, and billionaires.

And I'm lead to believe your own nations legal system suffers from the same distinction.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, would you like one rule for some and another for the rest?

Where would our legal system be if we started to perpetuate that madness?

Tommy and his ilk can do as they please but nobody else can?

Computer says "No" I'm afraid.

That only works for big business, corporations, royals, and billionaires.

And I'm lead to believe your own nations legal system suffers from the same distinction.

How many people are convicted and in jail for “breaching reporting restrictions” in the UK?

a reply to: MickyKnox

I'm not sure he is being punished twice. If he was found innocent, and then re convicted, that would seemingly be double jeopardy. I don't think he was found innocent.

Law is a tricky thing. I honestly do not know enough details on this, or UK law.

a reply to: MickyKnox

Plenty of people are gaoled for contempt of court, happens on an almost daily basis.

He was charged because he was knowingly potentially jeopardising a trial.

And not the first time neither, i really fail to comprehend what you canny understand about that.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: MickyKnox

I'm not sure he is being punished twice. If he was found innocent, and then re convicted, that would seemingly be double jeopardy. I don't think he was found innocent.

Law is a tricky thing. I honestly do not know enough details on this, or UK law.

Being thrown in jail, even in solitary confinement, for three months after an unfair trial sounds like punishment enough for me, especially for such a non-crime. What more do they need to prove?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Plenty of people are gaoled for contempt of court, happens on an almost daily basis.

He was charged because he was knowingly potentially jeopardising a trial.

And not the first time neither, i really fail to comprehend what you canny understand about that.

Plenty of people were jailed for homosexuality. I don’t see how that justifies justifies it.

a reply to: MickyKnox

Ilegal right up until 1981 where i hail from, but that's then not now.

It does not justify anything.

The world spins.

Laws and times change.

Whats your point?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Grambler

"Remember, the stage is being set for you to also be arrested for your social media posts as well"

Aye well, nonsensical repeat criminal racists seem to be at the head of the queue, so there is that i suppose.

It was not the social media posts that landed him in the mess he is in per-say, but where and when he chose to do so.

He was told by a judge, he refused to listen, and done it again Grambler, it's not like he did not get a warning first.

Yes it seems social media people discussing trials are more focused in than gangs of men raping girls by the thousands

Meanwhile be careful what you wish for

That attorney generals statement was very clear, EVERYONE needs to watch themselves when commenting on cases in social media

You think it’s hreat now cause they got a guy you don’t like

I hope the same draconian laws don’t end up being enforced on you

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Well, would you like one rule for some and another for the rest?

Ok so then if I were to show you many people filming outside a sex crime trial in the Uk, and they weren’t arrested and charged

Would you admit then the system selectively went after Robinson?

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: MickyKnox

I'm not sure he is being punished twice. If he was found innocent, and then re convicted, that would seemingly be double jeopardy. I don't think he was found innocent.

Law is a tricky thing. I honestly do not know enough details on this, or UK law.

I think you are right

To my knowledge tommy was let out of prison because he was appealing his charges

He now had his appeal, and was found guilty

So this was on charge, not a double jeopardy sort of thing

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: Grambler
Haven’t read the whole thread

This line stuck out to me though from the op

The case was then referred back to Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, who announced in March that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings.
Speaking after the latest verdict, Mr Cox said the court's decision reflected the seriousness of posting online material which risks prejudicing legal proceedings.

"I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court," he added

www.bbc.com...

All of you people celebrating, that posted on ats before Robinson’s hearing that you knew he was guilty

Remember, the stage is being set for you to also be arrested for your social media posts as well

I will stand up for your right to free speech, but you will have no one but yourself to blame if your social media posts land you in jail

Very good point. The creep of this sort of censorship usually starts at cranks like Robinson. People dismiss it because they don’t like the guy, but by the time it comes for them it’s too late.

Here is a thread I did in May 2018 that outline how the letter of the law that tommy was charged with means anyone commenting on social media on trials are guilty of the same crime.

Now we have an AG in the UK warning everyone of just that.

The british government hates tommy, and so they are selectively punishing him.

But for these cheering for this, remember, you ay one day criticize someone during a trail that the government doesnt like, and find yourself locked up for it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Grambler

Comments on social media about trials that haven't been concluded, is that right? No media coverage including social media until the trial has been concluded .

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

Comments on social media about trials that haven't been concluded, is that right? No media coverage including social media until the trial has been concluded .

Yes that is correct according to my reading of the law

This everyone who commented on Tommy Robinsons and his guilt before the judge ordered this decision is guilty of the same law Tommy broke

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

Plenty of people are gaoled for contempt of court, happens on an almost daily basis.

He was charged because he was knowingly potentially jeopardising a trial.

And not the first time neither, i really fail to comprehend what you canny understand about that.

He was charged with the 1981 contempt of court act.

That act says commenting in writing on an ongoing trial is not allowed.

Thousands of people (if not more) comment on ongoing trials all of the time in the UK, and are not charged for it.

You said you dont want the law to be different for tommy than everyone else.

I can even show many media people filming outside of courts in the UK during child sex cases.





None of the media there were charged

So its clear the the UK law enforcement is applying laws selectively because they dont like tommy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

Comments on social media about trials that haven't been concluded, is that right? No media coverage including social media until the trial has been concluded .

Yes that is correct according to my reading of the law

This everyone who commented on Tommy Robinsons and his guilt before the judge ordered this decision is guilty of the same law Tommy broke

I'm fairly certain that law is to protect people who's names are not public knowledge, everyone knows who Tommy Robinson is because he is such a public nuisance.

The idea is to avoid trial by media, so to protect witnesses etc etc, with Tommy that is impossible to avoid.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Grambler

Comments on social media about trials that haven't been concluded, is that right? No media coverage including social media until the trial has been concluded .

Yes that is correct according to my reading of the law

This everyone who commented on Tommy Robinsons and his guilt before the judge ordered this decision is guilty of the same law Tommy broke

I'm fairly certain that law is to protect people who's names are not public knowledge, everyone knows who Tommy Robinson is because he is such a public nuisance.

The idea is to avoid trial by public, with Tommy that is impossible to avoid.

Ill post the law.

Show me where it says it only applies to people that arent known to public

www.legislation.gov.uk...

And just because a person in known to public doesnt mean that saying he is guilty during priceedings couldnt sway public opinion

a reply to: Grambler

Common sense, in trials like of these rapists nobody knows who they are except the authorities , nobody knows who the victims are, the accused or any witnesses, the idea is to keep the trial free from public interference and also to protect all involved in the trial until it's conclusion .
ETA. People like Robinson, and Rolf Harris for that matter are already all over the news media it's impossible to stop people from talking about them.

Breaching name suppression orders and ‘outing’ pedophile Christian priests: commendable

Breaching name suppression orders and ‘outing’ organised islamic rape-gangs: “REEEEEEEEE”

a reply to: Grambler

So how many of those media people filming outside of the courts are going on about Muslim pedophiles and rapist for there own personal gain?

Robinsons not a journalist. LoL

Which college or university did he get a degree in Journalism Studies?

None.

Guys lucky if he has a standard grade in Woodwork ffs.

Was Roff Harris or Gary Glitter labeled Presbyterian Pedos?

And how many of those what i assume to be paparazzi have previous for attempting to derail trials of a similar nature?

The law is not any different for them as if they had been up in the dock for similar crap beforehand and then perpetrated they same crap again I'm sure the would also be charged.

a reply to: andy06shake

Can you show me in the law where it says journalists have an exemption?