Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s
Discussion
TTwiggy said:
La Liga said:
thought the same. The answer is I don't know. Perhaps BV or someone else with lots of legal knowledge can shed some light.
If I were to speculate, I imagine it's a question of scale (in terms of the newspaper being a large business and covering a range of matters), along with wanting to ensure that we punish the papers when they do wrong (the fines, negative publicity), but we don't make them too risk averse in their reporting by having the staff thinking they'll go to prison, unless there are repeat breaches. Articles going through a few hands before publishing may also spread the liability.
I've never worked for a paper but I have worked for several magazines. Those that publish in an arena where legal issues might be a problem have sub editors with a degree of legal knowledge on the team and the option of 'kicking it upstairs' to the real lawyers if it's too complex/serious for the subs to deal with. As a result, when a mistake is made, there's probably a defence of due diligence - though many publications are still successfully sued of course.If I were to speculate, I imagine it's a question of scale (in terms of the newspaper being a large business and covering a range of matters), along with wanting to ensure that we punish the papers when they do wrong (the fines, negative publicity), but we don't make them too risk averse in their reporting by having the staff thinking they'll go to prison, unless there are repeat breaches. Articles going through a few hands before publishing may also spread the liability.
Edited by alfie2244 on Wednesday 20th June 09:53
TTwiggy said:
alfie2244 said:
Amy different if a reporter say working for a production company, TV etc?
Not an area I have any particular knowledge of. But I would assume that in any reporting where there might be an issue, 'legal' would take a look first.
But would any legal action be taken on the individual?
alfie2244 said:
Any different if a reporter say working for a production company, TV etc?
I assume so. Here's an example of Sky where they would apparently likely face a fine: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15818712Perhaps the 'shield' is a legitimate company. 'TR no Islam ltd'?
As I say, we need someone who knows more about the law to go into it.
La Liga said:
thought the same. The answer is I don't know. Perhaps BV or someone else with lots of legal knowledge can shed some light.
If I were to speculate, I imagine it's a question of scale (in terms of the newspaper being a large business and covering a range of matters), along with wanting to ensure that we punish the papers when they do wrong (the fines, negative publicity), but we don't make them too risk averse in their reporting by having the staff thinking they'll go to prison, unless there are repeat breaches. Articles going through a few hands before publishing may also spread the liability.
Well as tommy was working for rebel media at the time I think we can discount that theory, but when you talk of scale the scotish reporter and editors crime was far far worse than what tommy did.If I were to speculate, I imagine it's a question of scale (in terms of the newspaper being a large business and covering a range of matters), along with wanting to ensure that we punish the papers when they do wrong (the fines, negative publicity), but we don't make them too risk averse in their reporting by having the staff thinking they'll go to prison, unless there are repeat breaches. Articles going through a few hands before publishing may also spread the liability.
alfie2244 said:
You were too quick
But would any legal action be taken on the individual?
That might depend on the circumstances. I have known editors who have been sued as individuals for stories their publications have run (granted, these are civil rather than criminal cases).But would any legal action be taken on the individual?
The 'Fake Sheikh', Mazher Mahmood, was jailed.
NoNeed said:
Well as tommy was working for rebel media at the time I think we can discount that theory
I don't think a Facebook live video which hasn't been through editors / a legal department is quite the same. NoNeed said:
but when you talk of scale the scotish reporter and editors crime was far far worse than what tommy did.
In terms of severity, I think that attempting to film the defendants and causing a judge to have to provide an alternative route for a jury to leave the court is rather serious. Regardless, there's clearly consistency in the application of the law, so what is your point? That you feel the media organisations are treated too sortly? Or that Tommy has been treated differently to others (in an inconsistent way, not just that a paper got a fine, like they all seem to, and he didn't)?
It seems you're intent on finding some 'double standards' angle, with that stupid picture and this.
I have to say I am finding the constant 'look at this random report I have found online about someone who looks like they did the same thing and didn't get jail why is that its not fair' a bit of a waste of time on this thread. You are better served not reading anything into those far right propaganda such as the ridiculous posters, and if you really are that concerned spend more time looking at the actual law such as this link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49 and working out for yourself if the judiciary was within their rights to take the action on TRs case that they did. If you feel that they took the wrong course of action based on the law as dictated in the UK then by all means state the case by showing what TR did did not warrant jail time based on law.
This endless 'compare this with this' comments coming up here are such a waste of time. No one on here knows the exact details of the case TRs is being compared to and I would say 99% of us are not lawyers either.
This endless 'compare this with this' comments coming up here are such a waste of time. No one on here knows the exact details of the case TRs is being compared to and I would say 99% of us are not lawyers either.
La Liga said:
n terms of severity, I think that attempting to film the defendants and causing a judge to have to provide an alternative route for a jury to leave the court is rather serious.
Regardless, there's clearly consistency in the application of the law, so what is your point? That you feel the media organisations are treated too sortly? Or that Tommy has been treated differently to others (in an inconsistent way, not just that a paper got a fine, like they all seem to, and he didn't)?
It seems you're intent on finding some 'double standards' angle, with that stupid picture and this.
are you seriously suggesting that the jury was in danger? That. Is the most stupid thing I have read so far.Regardless, there's clearly consistency in the application of the law, so what is your point? That you feel the media organisations are treated too sortly? Or that Tommy has been treated differently to others (in an inconsistent way, not just that a paper got a fine, like they all seem to, and he didn't)?
It seems you're intent on finding some 'double standards' angle, with that stupid picture and this.
There are double standards, weather you like it or not. The judge has allowed personal prejudice to influence his sentence or else there would be a scotish reporter in a cell as well, (suspended of course) but that reporter didn't even face a charge for his crime despite it severely jeopardising the case, where tommy only shared information already available in some media outlets. There is no comparison really.
NoNeed said:
La Liga said:
thought the same. The answer is I don't know. Perhaps BV or someone else with lots of legal knowledge can shed some light.
If I were to speculate, I imagine it's a question of scale (in terms of the newspaper being a large business and covering a range of matters), along with wanting to ensure that we punish the papers when they do wrong (the fines, negative publicity), but we don't make them too risk averse in their reporting by having the staff thinking they'll go to prison, unless there are repeat breaches. Articles going through a few hands before publishing may also spread the liability.
Well as tommy was working for rebel media at the time I think we can discount that theory, but when you talk of scale the scotish reporter and editors crime was far far worse than what tommy did.If I were to speculate, I imagine it's a question of scale (in terms of the newspaper being a large business and covering a range of matters), along with wanting to ensure that we punish the papers when they do wrong (the fines, negative publicity), but we don't make them too risk averse in their reporting by having the staff thinking they'll go to prison, unless there are repeat breaches. Articles going through a few hands before publishing may also spread the liability.
Is your argument that an £80,000 fine is a significantly more lenient penalty than a three month suspended sentence? I accept they are not the same, and I don't know all of the facts in the newspaper case, but on first impression they are not *that* different in severity. I mean, if you were guilty of contempt of court which sanction would you prefer?
What "tommy" did which was far worse was to deliberately ignore the explicit warnings from the judge and commit the same act again. Hence why the judge converted his suspended jail sentence into a proper one.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Let's pass over the implication from your reference to Rebel Media that "Tommy is just a hard working journalist". We all know that is BS. Even viewed with the benefit of the doubt, he is an activist with an agenda.
Is your argument that an £80,000 fine is a significantly more lenient penalty than a three month suspended sentence? I accept they are not the same, and I don't know all of the facts in the newspaper case, but on first impression they are not *that* different in severity. I mean, if you were guilty of contempt of court which sanction would you prefer?
What "tommy" did which was far worse was to deliberately ignore the explicit warnings from the judge and commit the same act again. Hence why the judge converted his suspended jail sentence into a proper one.
Again you are trying to deflect from the point, we are not talking about the second time but the first that got him a suspended sentence.Is your argument that an £80,000 fine is a significantly more lenient penalty than a three month suspended sentence? I accept they are not the same, and I don't know all of the facts in the newspaper case, but on first impression they are not *that* different in severity. I mean, if you were guilty of contempt of court which sanction would you prefer?
What "tommy" did which was far worse was to deliberately ignore the explicit warnings from the judge and commit the same act again. Hence why the judge converted his suspended jail sentence into a proper one.
Nobody seems to have a valid reason on why a more serious case was dealt with more leniently.
NoNeed said:
Again you are trying to deflect from the point, we are not talking about the second time but the first that got him a suspended sentence.
Nobody seems to have a valid reason on why a more serious case was dealt with more leniently.
If you can produce the case notes for both cases, pulling out the specifics as applied to current legislation where the case for TR was dealt with in a biased way and list them here then I think you have a point. By comparing a news article with your understanding of TRs case I don't see how you have enough understanding to come to this conclusion?Nobody seems to have a valid reason on why a more serious case was dealt with more leniently.
Again, no one on here is going to have a 'valid reason' for you, in the same way you do not have a list of valid reasons because a. we are not lawyers and b. we do not have the full details of both cases to hand.
NoNeed said:
Again you are trying to deflect from the point, we are not talking about the second time but the first that got him a suspended sentence.
Nobody seems to have a valid reason on why a more serious case was dealt with more leniently.
Would you rather have an £80,000 fine or a suspended sentence? It's clearly easier to hit a big corporation in the pocket rather than trying to go after an individual - who was 'just doing their job - and try to make a conviction stick.Nobody seems to have a valid reason on why a more serious case was dealt with more leniently.
NoNeed said:
La Liga said:
n terms of severity, I think that attempting to film the defendants and causing a judge to have to provide an alternative route for a jury to leave the court is rather serious.
Regardless, there's clearly consistency in the application of the law, so what is your point? That you feel the media organisations are treated too sortly? Or that Tommy has been treated differently to others (in an inconsistent way, not just that a paper got a fine, like they all seem to, and he didn't)?
It seems you're intent on finding some 'double standards' angle, with that stupid picture and this.
are you seriously suggesting that the jury was in danger? That. Is the most stupid thing I have read so far.Regardless, there's clearly consistency in the application of the law, so what is your point? That you feel the media organisations are treated too sortly? Or that Tommy has been treated differently to others (in an inconsistent way, not just that a paper got a fine, like they all seem to, and he didn't)?
It seems you're intent on finding some 'double standards' angle, with that stupid picture and this.
There are double standards, weather you like it or not. The judge has allowed personal prejudice to influence his sentence or else there would be a scotish reporter in a cell as well, (suspended of course) but that reporter didn't even face a charge for his crime despite it severely jeopardising the case, where tommy only shared information already available in some media outlets. There is no comparison really.
KentOnline said:
Judge Heather Norton told him: "This is not about free speech... not about the freedom of the Press, nor about legitimate journalism, and not about political correctness.
“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.”
“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.”
NoNeed said:
are you seriously suggesting that the jury was in danger? That. Is the most stupid thing I have read so far.
The most stupid thing you've read which wasn't written. The risk to jury was being influenced and an expensive trial (and potentially the other linked ones) being abandoned and started again. Nothing to do with physical danger / risk.
NoNeed said:
There are double standards, weather you like it or not. The judge has allowed personal prejudice to influence his sentence or else there would be a scotish reporter in a cell as well, (suspended of course) but that reporter didn't even face a charge for his crime despite it severely jeopardising the case, where tommy only shared information already available in some media outlets. There is no comparison really.
Except all the examples I could find where the media companies punished something resulted in a fine, which suggests a consistent application. That'd leave whether Robinson was treated differently, not from the media companies you've focused upon, but other individuals in comparable circumstances. The problem people like you have is that you work backwards. You have the conclusion you want and then try to find the evidence to support it (confirmation bias). Although you actually have a higher (lower) standard of flawed thinking. You take evidence that doesn't support your conclusion (that stupid picture, the media contempt comparison) and pretend it does, which is supported by your apparently inability to recognise total speculation (the judge allowed personal prejudice) from fact.
We're naturally biased to make up stories we find as coherent in our own world, but through education / critical thinking we can overcome that and ask critical questions of the information sources and ourselves.
NoNeed said:
re you seriously suggesting that the jury was in danger? That. Is the most stupid thing I have read so far.
Try reading your own stuff.The jury as a legal entity was in danger. The jury is legally bound to only take into account information presented in the courtroom. Stephen was a danger to the entire court case because if the jury had been exposed to his incoherent raving it is possible for the defence to claim that the jury is no longer impartial and that the case is a mistrial.
It's not a complicated concept, and it's been explained countless times.
wst said:
ry reading your own stuff.
The jury as a legal entity was in danger. The jury is legally bound to only take into account information presented in the courtroom. Stephen was a danger to the entire court case because if the jury had been exposed to his incoherent raving it is possible for the defence to claim that the jury is no longer impartial and that the case is a mistrial.
It's not a complicated concept, and it's been explained countless times.
lol nobody has yet explained why a more lenient sentence was passed, nor how a corporation can commit a criminal offence as that is just buildings and a logo, yet at another corporation the individual is arrested.The jury as a legal entity was in danger. The jury is legally bound to only take into account information presented in the courtroom. Stephen was a danger to the entire court case because if the jury had been exposed to his incoherent raving it is possible for the defence to claim that the jury is no longer impartial and that the case is a mistrial.
It's not a complicated concept, and it's been explained countless times.
All pretty clear really
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff