End of UK as free society RE: Tommy Robinson jailed for BS; released on bail.

yeah because theres never been children raped before muslims started doing it right? theres never been kids blown up in the UK until muslims started doing it right?


wtf do you know about my "delusional position"?

There would be less rapes and less terrorism if they weren't there.

Quite a bit, just look at what you're posting in this thread.
 
There would be less rapes and less terrorism if they weren't there.

Quite a bit, just look at what you're posting in this thread.
what am I posting in this thread? All Ive stated is that Tommy broke the law and was arrested for it.

but you keep making assumptions kiddo ;)

edit: but I do agree with the first line of your post
 
Something can be codified in law and yet be immoral (history is filled with things we no longer accept in this way) so the conversation shouldn't stop just because it is illegal now. The law is an evolving document just like the Constitution has amendments.

For consideration is the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The key element in question here is the statement of 'by an impartial jury'. It is a Constitutional right and should be held sacred for justice for all that a trial is as fair and impartial as possible.

So what happens if someone uses their so called free speech to sway a jury, by advertising previous convictions, the race, religious beliefs, ethnicity, or other factors such as wealth or infidelity that should not be used in determining guilt? When someone is doing this they impede the right to a fair trial and deny someone their Constitutional rights. That is why there are reporting bans as they can pervert the course of justice and this is, to my knowledge, what he is being charged with.

The news reports I have read say breech of the peace but let's assume it was for contempt.
And let's both agree since we are talking about England we are just talking about general principles not the exact text of the 6th amendment.

The public has a extremely important right to know what is transpiring in court. The court system needs to be transparent so that people know justice is being carried out. If all the public know is somebody got released or put away how do you know the process was fair?

Secondly the public has a right to a free press.

Those rights need to be balanced with the right of the accused to a fair trial.

If the right of the accused to a fair trial was paramount over all things then the logical thing to do is to ban ALL reporting on a crime from the time it is committed to time of punishment. Would you be okay with that? Of course not.

Here, since the jury was already chosen. The proper balance of thing rights is to put the onus of the government to put a little more effort into sequestering the jury rather than muzzle the public
 
Last edited:
dude I have provided you with the reasons to why he was arrested. The law is clear about the ethics journalists have to stick to whilst court proceedings are taking place. He would know if he actually studied to become a journalist, instead of just picking up a camera and harassing people on the streets.

continue creating a conspiracy if you want.... but he broke the law and was punished for doing it. end of story

You argue that he was creating a substantial risk of disruption to the trial.

How was he doing that? And was how he was doing some how more egregious than what is typically done during high profile criminal trials?

Life's all swings and roundabouts but I'd like you to clarify.
 
You argue that he was creating a substantial risk of disruption to the trial.

How was he doing that? And was how he was doing some how more egregious than what is typically done during high profile criminal trials?

Life's all swings and roundabouts but I'd like you to clarify.
NazirAfzal4.png

NazirAfzal5.png


because the lawyers of the monsters that possibly done this can use it against the court
 
The news reports I have read say breech of the peace but let's assume it was for contempt.
And let's both agree since we are talking about England we are just talking about general principles not the exact text of the 6th amendment.

The public has a extremely important right to know what is transpiring in court. The court system needs to be transparent so that people know justice is being carried out. If all the public know is somebody got released or put away how do you know the process was fair?

Secondly the public has a right to a free press.

Those rights need to be balanced with the right of the accused to a fair trial.

If the right of the accused to a fair trial was paramount over all things then the logical thing to do is to ban ALL reporting on a crime from arrest to time of punishment. Would you be okay with that? Of course not.

Here, since the jury was already chosen. The proper balance of thing rights is to put the onus of the government to put a little more effort into sequestering the jury rather than muzzle the public

All I see is that you appear to be very quick to discard other peoples rights to fair trial when it is convenient for your cause.

The press and public can know once the outcome is provided, and they can also know a good amount of information in the meanwhile so long as it doesn't prejudice the jury's ability to reach an impartial decision. If there was a history of hopelessly corrupt decisions we can have a conversation about that but there isn't. The rest of your comments I see them as overly conflating the situation into something it simply isn't.

So no, just because you feel something is important and you want to know you can't trample someone elses right to a fair trial.
 
what am I posting in this thread? All Ive stated is that Tommy broke the law and was arrested for it.

but you keep making assumptions kiddo ;)

<23>


Delusional progressive insanity like this:

Those numbers dont scare anyone


yeah because theres never been children raped before muslims started doing it right? theres never been kids blown up in the UK until muslims started doing it right?


Those rape gangs and all the terrorism wouldn't happen if they weren't there.

There also wouldn't be progressives demanding Tommy be put in prison for merely speaking the truth.
 
NazirAfzal4.png

NazirAfzal5.png


because the lawyers of the monsters that possibly done this can use it against the court

This does not say what he actually did.

I have no doubt that there is some set of fact where reporting can prejudice a trial. These tweets don't speak to anything Tommy was actually doing.
 
All I see is that you appear to be very quick to discard other peoples rights to fair trial when it is convenient for your cause.

The press and public can know once the outcome is provided, and they can also know a good amount of information in the meanwhile so long as it doesn't prejudice the jury's ability to reach an impartial decision. If there was a history of hopelessly corrupt decisions we can have a conversation about that but there isn't. The rest of your comments I see them as overly conflating the situation into something it simply isn't.

So no, just because you feel something is important and you want to know you can't trample someone elses right to a fair trial.

How is what he was doing trampling on anyone's rights. He was in a public area outside the courthouse. I am sorry but if that can prejudice a trial then the British legal system has some issues.
 
How is what he was doing trampling on anyone's rights. He was in a public area outside the courthouse. I am sorry but if that can prejudice a trial then the British legal system has some issues.

Rights to a fair trial.
 
<23>


Delusional progressive insanity like this:




Those rape gangs and all the terrorism wouldn't happen if they weren't there.

There also wouldn't be progressives demanding Tommy be put in prison for merely speaking the truth.
the numbers shouldnt scare anyone, they will always be a minority in the UK. thats just a fact. Dunno what is so "progressive" about that statement?

yes THOSE rape gangs would go away, and most of the terrorism(you dont have to be a muslim to be a terrorist you know?) would also. But they are here, so what do you expect to happen? mass deportation of all muslims?

Also no-one is "demanding" Tommy be jailed..... we are just pointing out WHY he was jailed. its not a difficult concept..... you just have to engage your brain for a second lil fella ;)
 
This does not say what he actually did.

I have no doubt that there is some set of fact where reporting can prejudice a trial. These tweets don't speak to anything Tommy was actually doing.
did you not watch his live stream vid? thats what he done..... the defendants lawyer couldve used that to get them off with it.
 
I get that is what you are saying he was doing but how is what he doing actually doing that?

Well that is what he is charged with, I'm sure we can follow the trial to see if it is substantive or not.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, had claimed that verdicts were due on Friday but court officials confirmed that the trial of nine defendants is ongoing.

“This isn’t contempt of court?” he asked during the broadcast. “You are allowed to do this, aren’t you?”

Contempt of court is a criminal offence that can see people jailed for speeches or publications that create a "substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced".

Robinson is already under a suspended sentence for committing contempt of court over a gang rape case heard in Canterbury last year.

Judge Heather Norton handed him a three months imprisonment in May last year but suspended it for 18 months on the condition he did not commit further offences.

“This is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness,” the judge told Robinson at the time

“It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it’s about being innocent until proven guilty.

“It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate ‘reporting’, if that’s what it was.”
 
Well that is what he is charged with, I'm sure we can follow the trial to see if it is substantive or not.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Lennon, had claimed that verdicts were due on Friday but court officials confirmed that the trial of nine defendants is ongoing.

“This isn’t contempt of court?” he asked during the broadcast. “You are allowed to do this, aren’t you?”

Contempt of court is a criminal offence that can see people jailed for speeches or publications that create a "substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced".

Robinson is already under a suspended sentence for committing contempt of court over a gang rape case heard in Canterbury last year.

Judge Heather Norton handed him a three months imprisonment in May last year but suspended it for 18 months on the condition he did not commit further offences.

“This is not about free speech, not about the freedom of the press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness,” the judge told Robinson at the time

“It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it’s about being innocent until proven guilty.

“It is about preserving the integrity of the jury to continue without people being intimidated or being affected by irresponsible and inaccurate ‘reporting’, if that’s what it was.”



What I am saying is that is a extremely subjective standard that can be and I suspect in this case was abused.

But we will see at Tommy's trial I suppose. I just hope he makes it that long.
 
How is what he was doing trampling on anyone's rights. He was in a public area outside the courthouse. I am sorry but if that can prejudice a trial then the British legal system has some issues.
The funny thing is, is that they charged him with "breaching the peace". Not with "impacting proceedings", I think even the cops know that would be hard to justify, a grey area like "breach of peace" is easier.

did you not watch his live stream vid? thats what he done..... the defendants lawyer couldve used that to get them off with it.
The people he interacted with. . . "How do you feel about your verdict". So they can get off post-sentencing?

The police would have to prove the jurors in the other ongoing trial are affected by him on the street, since that's a long shot "breach of peace" is the path of least resistance.
 
The people he interacted with. . . "How do you feel about your verdict". So they can get off post-sentencing?

The police would have to prove the jurors in the other ongoing trial are affected by him on the street, since that's a long shot "breach of peace" is the path of least resistance.
It is about justice and ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly, it’s about being innocent until proven guilty.

the trial is still ongoing, what do you think his inbred fans wouldve thought if there wasnt a verdict at the end of the day? they wouldve went crazy

also the last part is key, it is about being innocent until proven guilty..... Tommy immediately assumes guilt
 
did you not watch his live stream vid? thats what he done..... the defendants lawyer couldve used that to get them off with it.

How so? Did he mess with the jury somehow? I saw him heckle the alleged Muslim Gang Rapists. The does not prejudice the jury. I saw him speak to a few members of the public as well.

Let's say some juror overheard him. How does some random British guy talking about the case cause a substantial risk of changing the outcome of a trial?

I can see threatening or bribing a juror could meet the substantial but n. But not some guy talking outside a courthouse.

That said he was not arrested for contempt. The cop says in the livestream video that he is being arrested for breech of the peace so this conversation is somewhat off track.
 
the numbers shouldnt scare anyone, they will always be a minority in the UK. thats just a fact. Dunno what is so "progressive" about that statement?

yes THOSE rape gangs would go away, and most of the terrorism(you dont have to be a muslim to be a terrorist you know?) would also. But they are here, so what do you expect to happen? mass deportation of all muslims?

Also no-one is "demanding" Tommy be jailed..... we are just pointing out WHY he was jailed. its not a difficult concept..... you just have to engage your brain for a second lil fella ;)

They're a minority now and causing a lot of damage to society. In the future there will be way more.

Downplaying is a common progressive tactic.

Exactly, less Muslims means less rape and less terrorism. An end to Islamic immigration and mass immigration in general. Deport any involved in rape, terrorism and Jihad. Simple really.

If no one was demanding that Tommy be jailed... he wouldn't be in jail.

<Prem973>
 
Back
Top