Grebfromgrebland Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 Should we defend this ship which is basically a parasite on society just like most companies and individuals and families who hold their assets offshore to avoid all the taxes but reap the benefits of the UK and currently the EU. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grebfromgrebland Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 48 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said: Should we defend this ship which is basically a parasite on society just like most companies and individuals and families who hold their assets offshore to avoid all the taxes but reap the benefits of the UK and currently the EU. Yes we should make an example of this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 15 hours ago, yorkie1999 said: Not defending robinson or anything but what i don't get is, he's been done for contempt for broadcasting a court case which apparently could be jepardized and they would have to start again or let a bunch of peodos off but i'm pretty sure i've seen loads of televised court case and reporters outside courtrooms on the news when the case isn't over with suspects in view of the cameras. OJ Simpson case was broadcast on the tv as was oscar pistorius the fastest south african legless runner in world. In the two examples you give it's pretty difficult for reporting to harm the victims, some may even say impossible, given that they're, you know, dead. The Oscar Pistorious case didn't have a jury and the OJ Simpson one did, there's plenty of differences in court structure and legal procedure across the world. There are also plenty of court cases that have restrictions on reporting - ranging from sex mad footballers with injunctions to victims of sexual assault. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James. Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 9 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said: This really is the pits. When I went hardly anyone climbed out out of respect. Looking at that picture it looks like no one gives a shit anymore. I really despair at the sheer ignorance and selfishness of people these days. I bet they haven't even bothered to learn about the history or significance of the aboriginal culture. Yet another example of the general quality of humanity going down the pan. True but just imagine the number of likes on Instagram. A price worth paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grebfromgrebland Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 Can anyone who actually likes the UK and is not happy supporting fascist ideology still want brexit? Whatever your reasons for voting brexit initially surely you didn't vote for this?? Be good if people on this forum would come out and say if they still think this version of brexit is acceptable to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innovindil Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said: Can anyone who actually likes the UK and is not happy supporting fascist ideology still want brexit? Whatever your reasons for voting brexit initially surely you didn't vote for this?? Be good if people on this forum would come out and say if they still think this version of brexit is acceptable to them. Yes. What do you mean by "this"? What do you mean by "this version of brexit"? Needs a bit of substance if you actually want answers, not some random Farage related tweet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wymsey Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 Saw this in a local online magazine and thought it was a good idea to inform readers on here about the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 26 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Yes. What do you mean by "this"? What do you mean by "this version of brexit"? Needs a bit of substance if you actually want answers, not some random Farage related tweet. Personally I think they should have their heads removed and be put on spikes along the coastline. Not far enough Nigel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 4 hours ago, David Guiza said: In the two examples you give it's pretty difficult for reporting to harm the victims, some may even say impossible, given that they're, you know, dead. The Oscar Pistorious case didn't have a jury and the OJ Simpson one did, there's plenty of differences in court structure and legal procedure across the world. There are also plenty of court cases that have restrictions on reporting - ranging from sex mad footballers with injunctions to victims of sexual assault. Those cases arent really relevant to this for the reasons you state. Doesnt mean there arent issues with the conviction of TR, which should trouble anyone who thinks politics shouldnt have a say in the justice system 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 You can like or dislike Tommy Robinson all you want to, anybody's choice. My question circles around his version of events that led to his arrest. He was trying to question sex offenders in front of a court building, after allegedly asking a policeman inside whether he'd be allowed to do so or not, reading up on the Contempt of Court restrictions beforehand and figuring out whether there were any reporting restrictions in place that day. Also, he claims the names or the sex offenders were already in the public domain, known to anyone who bothered to look up the information. So he wasn't reporting anything new. Still not sure where or how that "contempt of court" comes from? At which point did he do something illegal? That's not me defending the guy, that's me being curious with regards to UK court proceedings and law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgfualol Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/ccce1r/freetommyrobinson_is_trending_because_some_people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nalis Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 Tommy Robinson is loving all of this really. He's in contempt of court on a case where the accused are likely to be sent down anyway but oh no, he acts like some sort of vigilante for justice by adding a twisted rhetoric making him a hero for the far right on a case which will be dealt with anyway. The thing is, he's not an idiot like a lot of us want to think. He knows exactly what he is doing and plays his followers like puppets, worst thing is he will get away with this strategy of exploiting the ignorance of the far right for years to come. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 1 hour ago, Nalis said: Tommy Robinson is loving all of this really. He's in contempt of court on a case where the accused are likely to be sent down anyway but oh no, he acts like some sort of vigilante for justice by adding a twisted rhetoric making him a hero for the far right on a case which will be dealt with anyway. The thing is, he's not an idiot like a lot of us want to think. He knows exactly what he is doing and plays his followers like puppets, worst thing is he will get away with this strategy of exploiting the ignorance of the far right for years to come. He'll really be loving it if he gets killed inside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 2 hours ago, MC Prussian said: You can like or dislike Tommy Robinson all you want to, anybody's choice. My question circles around his version of events that led to his arrest. He was trying to question sex offenders in front of a court building, after allegedly asking a policeman inside whether he'd be allowed to do so or not, reading up on the Contempt of Court restrictions beforehand and figuring out whether there were any reporting restrictions in place that day. Also, he claims the names or the sex offenders were already in the public domain, known to anyone who bothered to look up the information. So he wasn't reporting anything new. Still not sure where or how that "contempt of court" comes from? At which point did he do something illegal? That's not me defending the guy, that's me being curious with regards to UK court proceedings and law. Reporting restrictions were in place until the end of the trials, so either his research wasn't especially thorough or he somehow believed that live streaming himself confronting the defendants as they were about to enter court would not constitute a breach. Can't say I've seen the videos but the judge said the confrontation was aggressive in nature and that he was encouraging "vigilante action" from his followers, which I imagine was taken into account. Whatever his motive, it was a pretty stupid thing to do and the type of thing an actual trained journalist would know not to do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 12 July 2019 Share Posted 12 July 2019 under the fake guise of 'journalism' he gets people to paypal him money to fund his 'investigations' and then hoovers it all up his nose. it's amazing that people are still falling for it. also, his t-shirt loi 'england = north korea' yeah ok m8, let's ship you off to north korea for a bit, see how it actually compares ffs lol. idiot. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 8 hours ago, lifted*fox said: under the fake guise of 'journalism' he gets people to paypal him money to fund his 'investigations' and then hoovers it all up his nose. it's amazing that people are still falling for it. also, his t-shirt loi 'england = north korea' yeah ok m8, let's ship you off to north korea for a bit, see how it actually compares ffs lol. idiot. He's just a thick, racist, chav with a desperate need for attention. Still, there's hope for him yet - just the qualities you need to become President of the USA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grebfromgrebland Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 Tommy Robinson clearly doesn't care about victims when you look at the company he keeps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 12 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said: Tommy Robinson clearly doesn't care about victims when you look at the company he keeps. I thought he had distanced himself from the EDL quite some time ago? Why do some people still bring it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buce Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: I thought he had distanced himself from the EDL quite some time ago? Why do some people still bring it up? He distanced himself from them because it was inconvenient to be constantly reminded that he supported one of his members who was caught with dubious pictures of kids on his phone. It's still brought up because it's highly relevant to his subsequent activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 Tommy Robinson is far from perfect and the EDL was of course not a good idea I feel like many people havent bothered to listen to him too much, his talk on yt of his dealings with the police for example, or his Oxford Union speech, probably because we all just assume there is nothing more there than a "chav racist thug" Seems to me we judge him from ivory towers a bit, probably many of us not living in the places where there are real issues in communities like Luton, or the suburbs of Paris, for example Idk, i'm not from those places either tbh. I have wondered how people in Luton feel about him. Couldnt find anything on the internet about that 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 12 hours ago, Guest said: Reporting restrictions were in place until the end of the trials, so either his research wasn't especially thorough or he somehow believed that live streaming himself confronting the defendants as they were about to enter court would not constitute a breach. Can't say I've seen the videos but the judge said the confrontation was aggressive in nature and that he was encouraging "vigilante action" from his followers, which I imagine was taken into account. Whatever his motive, it was a pretty stupid thing to do and the type of thing an actual trained journalist would know not to do. The thing is - from what I understand, and @AlloverthefloorYesNdidi posted a video about it, the judge had no right to impose restrictions based on the fact that the information on the sex offenders (their names) had already been made public (by several newspapers). Yet Robinson gets charged with "Contempt of Court": Quote A judge had imposed an order under the Contempt of Court Act that banned reporting on the proceedings until the last trial had finished, to prevent jurors being swayed by articles about previous cases. Judge Geoffrey Marson jailed Robinson for 13 months for breaching the restriction and imposed a separate ban on reporting proceedings against him that was successfully challenged by The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html So, a newspaper can undo restrictions, but an individual can't? Seems to me a case of a judge overruling existing law in his own favour. Fancy somebody clear this up for me. Sounds very odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 22 minutes ago, Buce said: He distanced himself from them because it was inconvenient to be constantly reminded that he supported one of his members who was caught with dubious pictures of kids on his phone. It's still brought up because it's highly relevant to his subsequent activities. The question that remains here is: Is he still in any way or form affiliated with the EDL, is he still in contact with current members, does he still have an influence within the group, is he still active? If the answer is "No", then I don't understand the fuss that is made about it - it then becomes another case of "guilt by association". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 Just now, MC Prussian said: The thing is - from what I understand, and @AlloverthefloorYesNdidi posted a video about it, the judge had no right to impose restrictions based on the fact that the information on the sex offenders (their names) had already been made public (by several newspapers). Yet Robinson gets charged with "Contempt of Court": https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-contempt-court-case-grooming-gang-trial-huddersfield-a8990436.html So, a newspaper can undo restrictions, but an individual can't? Seems to me a case of a judge overruling existing law in his own favour. Fancy somebody clear this up for me. Sounds very odd. According to Robinson they are supposed to publish restrictions on the website and outside the court and on a tv screen inside the court and they failed to do so The court brough an official to the witness stand who testified they had failed to do so, and according to TR they said that they didnt believe he checked anyway and whilst admitting he went into the court building some said they "hadnt seen him even look at the screen" which in error had nothing on it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Prussian Posted 13 July 2019 Share Posted 13 July 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: According to Robinson they are supposed to publish restrictions on the website and outside the court and on a tv screen inside the court and they failed to do so The court brough an official to the witness stand who testified they had failed to do so, and according to TR they said that they didnt believe he checked anyway and whilst admitting he went into the court building some said they "hadnt seen him even look at the screen" which in error had nothing on it anyway I understand that - but the main question is: If the information on the sex offenders was already in the public domain, then there was no point in issuing reporting/court restrictions in the first place. Because it is/was against the law - based on the official court reporting guidelines. Judging by the guidelines shown in the YouTube video you posted, that ruling - about court/reporting restrictions waved in case of offenders already known by the public beforehand - is quite short, but quite clear. The document related to the case against Tommy Robinson then shows that the judge amended an official guideline, did he not? That'd be unacceptable - and illegal. Please somebody clear this up for me. Hence and as a logical consequence, no information on reporting/court restrictions that day in Leeds last year, be it on TV, online or in the form of information shared by the police or court employees on location. Because they weren't allowed to, anyway. It all sounds so fishy to me - more like an attempt by a judge to save his own skin, because he failed to understand or follow the official reporting restriction guidelines himself. Edited 13 July 2019 by MC Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts