Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: 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 oconsequences, yet on this thread it's always someone else's fault.
It's a curious double-standard.
sentencing was ongoing, they had already been found guilty.On most threads people on PH are massive advocates on personal responsibility and accepting that your actions have oconsequences, yet on this thread it's always someone else's fault.
It's a curious double-standard.
I am all about personal responsibilty but some criminals are allowed to hide behind corporations
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 20th June 17:41
NoNeed said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: 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 oconsequences, yet on this thread it's always someone else's fault.
It's a curious double-standard.
sentencing was ongoing, they had already been found guilty.On most threads people on PH are massive advocates on personal responsibility and accepting that your actions have oconsequences, yet on this thread it's always someone else's fault.
It's a curious double-standard.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has...
Judge said:
“This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as “Muslim paedophile rapists”. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting – if reporting indeed is what it is – that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by “irresponsible and inaccurate reporting”. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.”
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: are you sure?
Whike I was not in the courtroom I am fairly certain that the defendents werey there for sentencing.I wilk go further and say that judges can be wrong, they can make mistakes and they can allow their own prejudice to influence them. If the judge sentencing tommy was right in all his action his media ban would not have been lifted a few days later
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 20th June 17:54
NoNeed said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: are you sure?
Whike I was not in the courtroom I am fairly certain that the defendents werey there for sentencing.I wilk go further and say that judges can be wrong, they can make mistakes and they can allow their own prejudice to influence them. If the judge sentencing tommy was right in all his action his media ban would not have been lifted a few days later
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 20th June 17:54
NoNeed said:
Whike I was not in the courtroom I am fairly certain that the defendents werey there for sentencing.
I wilk go further and say that judges can be wrong, they can make mistakes and they can allow their own prejudice to influence them. If the judge sentencing tommy was right in all his action his media ban would not have been lifted a few days later
Let's focus in a little:I wilk go further and say that judges can be wrong, they can make mistakes and they can allow their own prejudice to influence them. If the judge sentencing tommy was right in all his action his media ban would not have been lifted a few days later
Judge said:
If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again.
If you truly cared about justice for the victims of abuse you'd want to ensure these folks got the fairest trial imaginable so that if they were convicted the conviction would be beyond reproach.Tommy Robinson is like Max Mosley's dad but without any intelligence, nor an understanding of what is right, rather than right, because he is too young and missed out on 1933 to 1989.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPCZvYu0QBA
A very cutting and funny 30 year old plus sketch.
NOTN news sum up Mr Robinson very well even though they are not playing anymore. Shame, I am sure nowadays they would rip him a new one as the expression goes. Tommy needs to go pastel pink rather than the black overtones if he wants to get the kids of today on board ! Sorry, young adults...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPCZvYu0QBA
A very cutting and funny 30 year old plus sketch.
NOTN news sum up Mr Robinson very well even though they are not playing anymore. Shame, I am sure nowadays they would rip him a new one as the expression goes. Tommy needs to go pastel pink rather than the black overtones if he wants to get the kids of today on board ! Sorry, young adults...
Alpinestars said:
It’s plain wrong. We have another Tommy fan who is a) a legal expert and b) doesn’t respect our laws. How ironic.
Lol that is just your bigotted view, I am not a tommy fan nor a legal expert, I am just a concerned citizen, worried about civil liberties being eroded and in particular press freedoms as that is a very slippery dangerous slope.NoNeed said:
Alpinestars said:
It’s plain wrong. We have another Tommy fan who is a) a legal expert and b) doesn’t respect our laws. How ironic.
Lol that is just your bigotted view, I am not a tommy fan nor a legal expert, I am just a concerned citizen, worried about civil liberties being eroded and in particular press freedoms as that is a very slippery dangerous slope.Did you read the law I posted?
NoNeed said:
Alpinestars said:
It’s plain wrong. We have another Tommy fan who is a) a legal expert and b) doesn’t respect our laws. How ironic.
Lol that is just your bigotted view, I am not a tommy fan nor a legal expert, I am just a concerned citizen, worried about civil liberties being eroded and in particular press freedoms as that is a very slippery dangerous slope.You are saying press freedoms are being eroded due to this? Same week when Cannabis for medical use got widely reported and changes might be made ? Well done the non shackled British press and media.
You are on a very slippery slope my friend claiming that in support for Tommy.
But please continue.,,,,
NoNeed said:
Alpinestars said:
It’s plain wrong. We have another Tommy fan who is a) a legal expert and b) doesn’t respect our laws. How ironic.
Lol that is just your bigotted view, I am not a tommy fan nor a legal expert, I am just a concerned citizen, worried about civil liberties being eroded and in particular press freedoms as that is a very slippery dangerous slope.I thought that Frankie was obstinate, but even he sort of accepted some persuasion (only to go back on this - as Robinson himself did - he once renounced bigotry and then embraced it again redoubled); but compared to NoNeed Frankie is a Nobel Prize winning professor of Logic, and could probably have a pop at bagging a Chair in Law at Cambridge. NoNeed's application for that position is, er.... in the pending pile.
NoNeed said:
Alpinestars said:
It’s plain wrong. We have another Tommy fan who is a) a legal expert and b) doesn’t respect our laws. How ironic.
Lol that is just your bigotted view, I am not a tommy fan nor a legal expert, I am just a concerned citizen, worried about civil liberties being eroded and in particular press freedoms as that is a very slippery dangerous slope.It's a joke?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff