Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s

[TTwiggy]

NoNeed said:

TTwiggy said:

And the sub editors who subbed it, and the chief sub who signed it off, and the legal dept (if they saw it) and the publisher, who is pretty much guaranteed to have final say on the lead story...

It's almost as if giving them a big fine is the most prudent way to proceed.

That would be a conspiracy that nobody has been charged with, I wonder why.

You're like a one-man advert for why the internet can be a dangerous thing. Your default setting is to see a conspiracy, when, in the scenario I've posted, it's just a group of people doing their jobs and making a mistake. And they were fined – heavily – for that mistake. What should have happened? Every member of staff gets sent to prison?

[NoNeed]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Now you are trying to pivot your argument onto safer ground. You made your original comparison on the basis TR was being treated unfairly. Just in the same way you tried to make a false comparison that the prison sentences were unfair in the debunked meme you posted.

I'm afraid when it comes to debating, you are the weakest link .

nope you are making it up as you go along, I have not altered my thoughts at all, the law should be applied fairly and evenly to all, tommy should not be treated any better nor any worse than those commiting a comparible offence, yet as we can see, a worse offence was committed yet the perpetrator has got off scot free due to the organisation he is working for having a fine.

[NoNeed]

TTwiggy said:

You're like a one-man advert for why the internet can be a dangerous thing. Your default setting is to see a conspiracy, when, in the scenario I've posted, it's just a group of people doing their jobs and making a mistake. And they were fined – heavily – for that mistake. What should have happened? Every member of staff gets sent to prison?

No as that would be as ridiculous as a company having a fine for a criminal offence by an employee 😁

[_dobbo_]

NoNeed said:

ope you are making it up as you go along, I have not altered my thoughts at all, the law should be applied fairly and evenly to all, tommy should not be treated any better nor any worse than those commiting a comparible offence, yet as we can see, a worse offence was committed yet the perpetrator has got off scot free due to the organisation he is working for having a fine.

More or less "scot free" than TR did when he got a suspended sentence and was allowed to go free?

[TTwiggy]

Do you remember the banking crisis around 2008? The root cause of much of it was decisions made by individuals, for profit (both of the company they worked for and on a personal level in terms of bonuses etc). But as the 'rot' was widespread and very difficult to pin onto one person, and the banks were culpable as organisations, they received fines.

Compare and contrast with cases of 'rogue traders' who have operated as individuals (albeit from within banks) and in that situation an individual has often been sentenced to prison.

Same 'crime', different 'punishments'.

[coldel]

Guys you are making this far to simple. I posted a link to the LAW around contempt of court a couple of pages back, read it. It has a section on how courts treat publications vs individuals and how other acts that are in law around publications interact with those laws. Please please just read up on stuff instead of trying to play the game of 'i know better than you' when in fact you have spent no time at all investigating for yourself what the actual law is. I literally took a quick look and this daft debate about fining individuals of companies vs individuals is all covered. Go read, learn, be better informed for it instead of relying on hearsay and propaganda to dictate how you think.

[NoNeed]

_dobbo_ said:

More or less "scot free" than TR did when he got a suspended sentence and was allowed to go free?

A suspended sentence is not free

[TTwiggy]

NoNeed said:

_dobbo_ said:

More or less "scot free" than TR did when he got a suspended sentence and was allowed to go free?

A suspended sentence is not free

If I was up on a serious charge, that I knew I'd committed and to which I'd plead guilty, I'd be dancing out of the court if I got a suspended sentence.

[NoNeed]

TTwiggy said:

If I was up on a serious charge, that I knew I'd committed and to which I'd plead guilty, I'd be dancing out of the court if I got a suspended sentence.

I would be livid as there was no good reason for a reporting ban in the first place, we have seen so many trials with cameras outside and it has never been a problem, but somehow our legal system is protecting rapists while criminalising reporters.

[TTwiggy]

NoNeed said:

I would be livid as there was no good reason for a reporting ban in the first place, we have seen so many trials with cameras outside and it has never been a problem, but somehow our legal system is protecting rapists while criminalising reporters.

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back to repeating right-wing nonsense spoon-fed to us by social media.

You're a lost cause. Sadly, you're not alone.

[wst]

TTwiggy said:

Aaaaaaaaaand we're back to repeating right-wing nonsense spoon-fed to us by social media.

You're a lost cause. Sadly, you're not alone.

More sadly, he's here. Hasn't had a single conversation about cars here, in a decade.

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

I would be livid as there was no good reason for a reporting ban in the first place, we have seen so many trials with cameras outside and it has never been a problem, but somehow our legal system is protecting rapists while criminalising reporters.

I can't tell if this is actually a troll post.

It can't possibly be serious.

The legal system protecting rapists whilst they're at crown court trials.

It's 'never been a problem before' despite restrictions often being used for multiple trial prosecutions.

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

can't tell if this is actually a troll post.

It can't possibly be serious.

I agree and I have thought that about another poster as well.

[Alpinestars]

@Noneed. If there’s a case to answer, I’m sure someone on Tommy’s side would have come up with a legal argument by now. They haven’t. Do you have one?

Also, the first case is somewhat of a red herring isn’t it? He was jailed for the second offence. The first offence extended the jail term. The important point for Tommy fans is the incarceration, not the fact that 3 months were added to the sentence. Do you agree?

[e30m3Mark]

NoNeed said:

TTwiggy said:

If I was up on a serious charge, that I knew I'd committed and to which I'd plead guilty, I'd be dancing out of the court if I got a suspended sentence.

I would be livid as there was no good reason for a reporting ban in the first place, we have seen so many trials with cameras outside and it has never been a problem, but somehow our legal system is protecting rapists while criminalising reporters.

Just one question please. How is implementing reporting restrictions until after sentencing, protecting those accused of (in the case you speak of) rape?

[bitchstewie]

NoNeed said:

I would be livid as there was no good reason for a reporting ban in the first place, we have seen so many trials with cameras outside and it has never been a problem, but somehow our legal system is protecting rapists while criminalising reporters.

I think you're falling into the "Tommy Trap".

Whilst they're being tried they're not rapists.

If they're convicted they are.

[ape x]

bhstewie said:

NoNeed said:

I would be livid as there was no good reason for a reporting ban in the first place, we have seen so many trials with cameras outside and it has never been a problem, but somehow our legal system is protecting rapists while criminalising reporters.

I think you're falling into the "Tommy Trap".

Whilst they're being tried they're not rapists.

If they're convicted they are.

If you knew anything about rape and abuse in the UK you'd know that you pretty much are protected from repercussions. We have one of the worst conviction rates for rape and abuse in Europe.
And it seems only one part of it, if a Pakistani is doing the abusing, is made news worthy to people..

Do some people really think that if they get through a week of not reading about a rape or child abuse in the papers of News at 10, that no rapes or child abuse happened?

It happens EVERY SODDING DAY. It rarely makes the news because it ain't news unless a celebrity did it (or a teacher or priest) or a Pakistani gang....

[NoNeed]

bhstewie said:

I think you're falling into the "Tommy Trap".

Whilst they're being tried they're not rapists.

If they're convicted they are.

They had been found guilty, they were racists, Tommy was sent to prison for going to report on the result of a trial, and I don't think that should ever happen. For the life of me I can't think how the judges actions that day made our society any better, he failed.

[Alpinestars]

Having briefly looked at a bit of law, I wonder whether the newspaper vs individual is covered by S5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1992.

(1)If any matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of section 1, the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—
(a)in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;
(b)in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter; and
(c)in the case of matter included in a relevant programme—
(i)any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included; and
(ii)any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

When prosecuting newspapers, the appropriate defendant to prosecute is the publisher, not the printer, although in many cases it will also be appropriate to consider the public interest in prosecuting the editor as well.

A newspaper for these purposes is a paper one. There is no Case Law to say an online publisher is a newspaper. In which case, individuals are prosecuted.

[bitchstewie]

NoNeed said:

bhstewie said:

I think you're falling into the "Tommy Trap".

Whilst they're being tried they're not rapists.

If they're convicted they are.

They had been found guilty, they were racists, Tommy was sent to prison for going to report on the result of a trial, and I don't think that should ever happen. For the life of me I can't think how the judges actions that day made our society any better, he failed.

How could they have been found guilty if they were being tried at the time of his livestreams?

On most threads people on PH are massive advocates on personal responsibility and accepting that your actions have consequences, yet on this thread it's always someone else's fault.

It's a curious double-standard.