Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s
Discussion
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.La Liga said:
frankenstein12 said:
Sorry La Liga but that attitude is precisely why i posted the video and why i wanted to discuss it.
It's nothing to do with attitude. I'm perfectly happy for protests to be facilitated and keep things as low-key as possible. However, when it gets hostilities and missiles are being thrown, that's a legitimate tactic to restore disorder.
Your comment seemed to me to be that regardless of the actions of the protestors because you consider them racist cavemen etc you would want to do them harm. If that was not your intent then that's fine. As an aside I have come across a few more videos from the previous event and the behaviour was imo utterly unacceptable and unwarranted by the protesters. From what i could see the police were simply standing in a line stopping them going down Whitehall and they charged the police and started throwing stuff.
frankenstein12 said:
As to your claims they were rescuing personnel I need to find other angle videos as that one isn't very clear to me. They MAY have been doing so but its hard to tell as the only extras who came out were two persons all in blue HV and they seemed to come out of RHS of screen rather than the police melee.
What else were they doing then? [Did they just happen to run in an extraction formation (without helmets on, batons drawn or shields), and coincidentally withdraw at the same time with PLOs? I was wondering if it was an intended snatch gone wrong in fact? Obviously going in to rescue people makes sense and I am not saying that's not what happened it just isn't clear. In reality a report of the incident would be handy to verify why they did what they did and it also would not change the reality that the way they did it seemed foolish and likely to get the reaction it did and so it needs to be considered whether lessons can be learned to be able to do better next time
frankenstein12 said:
No. Its about learning lessons and understanding context something you appear to struggle with.
Just not the potential context of the video so you can make comments like, "Whatever the intent it was very poorly executed..." EddieSteadyGo said:
Very informative post.
Thanks, at first glance I couldn't figure it out. La Liga said:
f you read the facts of the case you'll be reassured you need not worry.
I have, and I can't any any good reason that reporting bans were in place for either of the offences.A reporting ban was put on tommys case and removed at the first opportunity, sometimes things are done wrong or for the wrong reasons, I dont think reporting bans should be used willy nilly, the public have a right to know.
NoNeed said:
I have, and I can't any any good reason that reporting bans were in place for either of the offences.
A reporting ban was put on tommys case and removed at the first opportunity, sometimes things are done wrong or for the wrong reasons, I dont think reporting bans should be used willy nilly, the public have a right to know.
Another irrelevant point. The bans were in place. Tommy knew that. He knowingly broke the law. He hasn’t come up with a successful defence. He pleaded guilty. A reporting ban was put on tommys case and removed at the first opportunity, sometimes things are done wrong or for the wrong reasons, I dont think reporting bans should be used willy nilly, the public have a right to know.
ape x said:
This is ironic right?
It's a joke?
No, but your prejudice automatically puts me in a far right racist group, all because I think something is wrong.It's a joke?
I don't understand why reporting bans are being used so commonly and would rather they wasn't
I dont understand why sentencing is so varied and why some people appear to be treated wrose than others.
I said earlier that the law should be applied fairly and evenly, it should also be public s it always has been, with the only exception being a direct risk to life, such as an agent in the field.
Breadvan72 said:
No he was not.
No he was not .
No he was not.
No he was not.
Repeat 100000000 times.
Your views have NO VALIDITY because they are based on falsehoods.
what tommy did was go to report on a trial, I understand that that put him in contempt but what he did was report on a trial.No he was not .
No he was not.
No he was not.
Repeat 100000000 times.
Your views have NO VALIDITY because they are based on falsehoods.
I will again add that he contravened a reporting ban but as we later witnessed, they mean nothin as the ban on tommys case was lifted at the first oportunity, which tells me it was pointless and sending somebody to jail for something that is pointless is not justice, it is nothing like justice.
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 20th June 19:11
9 month suspended sentence for contempt of court - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/two-jurors-foun...
14 month jail term for contempt - https://www.step.org/news/uk-woman-has-83-year-old...
14 month jail term for contempt - https://www.step.org/news/uk-woman-has-83-year-old...
Weren't restrictions in place until after sentencing?
Robinson waiting till after would have made zero difference to his report, except that he wouldn't have been able to publicly accuse and abuse the defendants and that was always his main motive for even being there. If he really cared about the victims he wouldn't have done anything that might put the trial of their alleged attackers at risk. Instead he decided he knew best and deliberately ignored the courts. The judge had even spelled it out to him, that if he repeated the offence he would be going to prison. Yet here he is, begging money for his ''legal team'' to launch an appeal against the sentence he plead guilty too! As I said earlier, YouTube is full of requests for money and clueless American's believing the rubbish spouted on Fox News and Info Wars.
Robinson waiting till after would have made zero difference to his report, except that he wouldn't have been able to publicly accuse and abuse the defendants and that was always his main motive for even being there. If he really cared about the victims he wouldn't have done anything that might put the trial of their alleged attackers at risk. Instead he decided he knew best and deliberately ignored the courts. The judge had even spelled it out to him, that if he repeated the offence he would be going to prison. Yet here he is, begging money for his ''legal team'' to launch an appeal against the sentence he plead guilty too! As I said earlier, YouTube is full of requests for money and clueless American's believing the rubbish spouted on Fox News and Info Wars.
NoNeed said:
ape x said:
This is ironic right?
It's a joke?
No, but your prejudice automatically puts me in a far right racist group, all because I think something is wrong.It's a joke?
I don't understand why reporting bans are being used so commonly and would rather they wasn't
I dont understand why sentencing is so varied and why some people appear to be treated wrose than others.
I said earlier that the law should be applied fairly and evenly, it should also be public s it always has been, with the only exception being a direct risk to life, such as an agent in the field.
It’s all available on the www Including the relevant law.
From what I can glean, restriction on reporting on the Tommy imprisonment were temporary. But many non U.K. news outlets and social media platforms (helped by people like you), speculated about the whys and wherefores. The judge therefore lifted the restrictions following an appeal by one of those outlets, and following all the unhelpful speculation. That’s not to say the judge got the law wrong.
NoNeed said:
hat tommy did was go to report on a trial, I understand that that put him in contempt but what he did was report on a trial.
After being told he'd be arrested if he did so.Just as the media were told not to report on Ched Evans appeal against his rape conviction until the case was over.
rscott said:
9 month suspended sentence for contempt of court - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/two-jurors-foun...
14 month jail term for contempt - https://www.step.org/news/uk-woman-has-83-year-old...
I dont see how sending an 83 year old to jail helps society when is isn.t a danger.14 month jail term for contempt - https://www.step.org/news/uk-woman-has-83-year-old...
But good to see some similar sentencing, thank you.
Alpinestars said:
Another irrelevant point. The bans were in place. Tommy knew that. He knowingly broke the law. He hasn’t come up with a successful defence Yet. He pleaded guilty.
He has said he is in the process of lodging an appeal. So far as I am aware that has not been heard and as such we do not know if his appeal will succeed.NoNeed said:
hat tommy did was go to report on a trial, I understand that that put him in contempt but what he did was report on a trial.
I will again add that he contravened a reporting ban but as we later witnessed, they mean nothin as the ban on tommys case was lifted at the first oportunity, which tells me it was pointless and sending somebody to jail for something that is pointless is not justice, it is nothing like justice.
Actually they do have meaning. How fast or slow the ban on reporting on TR happened is irrelevant. There was no point in the reporting ban on Tommy as everyone was talking about it anyway and sensibly the courts recognised they cannot prosecute everyone for breaching the order so lifted it.I will again add that he contravened a reporting ban but as we later witnessed, they mean nothin as the ban on tommys case was lifted at the first oportunity, which tells me it was pointless and sending somebody to jail for something that is pointless is not justice, it is nothing like justice.
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 20th June 19:11
NoNeed said:
hat tommy did was go to report on a trial, I understand that that put him in contempt but what he did was report on a trial.
I will again add that he contravened a reporting ban but as we later witnessed, they mean nothin as the ban on tommys case was lifted at the first oportunity, which tells me it was pointless and sending somebody to jail for something that is pointless is not justice, it is nothing like justice.
The restrictions on Tommy's latest conviction were lifted because the media followed procedure - they applied to the court.I will again add that he contravened a reporting ban but as we later witnessed, they mean nothin as the ban on tommys case was lifted at the first oportunity, which tells me it was pointless and sending somebody to jail for something that is pointless is not justice, it is nothing like justice.
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 20th June 19:11
If Tommy was a vaguely serious journalist, he'd know that.
e30m3Mark said:
Weren't restrictions in place until after sentencing?
Robinson waiting till after would have made zero difference to his report, except that he wouldn't have been able to publicly accuse and abuse the defendants and that was always his main motive for even being there. If he really cared about the victims he wouldn't have done anything that might put the trial of their alleged attackers at risk. Instead he decided he knew best and deliberately ignored the courts. The judge had even spelled it out to him, that if he repeated the offence he would be going to prison. Yet here he is, begging money for his ''legal team'' to launch an appeal against the sentence he plead guilty too! As I said earlier, YouTube is full of requests for money and clueless American's believing the rubbish spouted on Fox News and Info Wars.
Of trial 2 or trial 3?Robinson waiting till after would have made zero difference to his report, except that he wouldn't have been able to publicly accuse and abuse the defendants and that was always his main motive for even being there. If he really cared about the victims he wouldn't have done anything that might put the trial of their alleged attackers at risk. Instead he decided he knew best and deliberately ignored the courts. The judge had even spelled it out to him, that if he repeated the offence he would be going to prison. Yet here he is, begging money for his ''legal team'' to launch an appeal against the sentence he plead guilty too! As I said earlier, YouTube is full of requests for money and clueless American's believing the rubbish spouted on Fox News and Info Wars.
Maybe i am misremembering but I thought the reporting ban was until end of sentencing in the last case not the one TR was arrested for reporting on?
frankenstein12 said:
e30m3Mark said:
Weren't restrictions in place until after sentencing?
Robinson waiting till after would have made zero difference to his report, except that he wouldn't have been able to publicly accuse and abuse the defendants and that was always his main motive for even being there. If he really cared about the victims he wouldn't have done anything that might put the trial of their alleged attackers at risk. Instead he decided he knew best and deliberately ignored the courts. The judge had even spelled it out to him, that if he repeated the offence he would be going to prison. Yet here he is, begging money for his ''legal team'' to launch an appeal against the sentence he plead guilty too! As I said earlier, YouTube is full of requests for money and clueless American's believing the rubbish spouted on Fox News and Info Wars.
Of trial 2 or trial 3?Robinson waiting till after would have made zero difference to his report, except that he wouldn't have been able to publicly accuse and abuse the defendants and that was always his main motive for even being there. If he really cared about the victims he wouldn't have done anything that might put the trial of their alleged attackers at risk. Instead he decided he knew best and deliberately ignored the courts. The judge had even spelled it out to him, that if he repeated the offence he would be going to prison. Yet here he is, begging money for his ''legal team'' to launch an appeal against the sentence he plead guilty too! As I said earlier, YouTube is full of requests for money and clueless American's believing the rubbish spouted on Fox News and Info Wars.
Maybe i am misremembering but I thought the reporting ban was until end of sentencing in the last case not the one TR was arrested for reporting on?
frankenstein12 said:
Alpinestars said:
Another irrelevant point. The bans were in place. Tommy knew that. He knowingly broke the law. He hasn’t come up with a successful defence Yet. He pleaded guilty.
He has said he is in the process of lodging an appeal. So far as I am aware that has not been heard and as such we do not know if his appeal will succeed.frankenstein12 said:
Your comment seemed to me to be that regardless of the actions of the protestors because you consider them racist cavemen etc you would want to do them harm. If that was not your intent then that's fine.
I can understand you inferring I meant 'in any circumstances' until I clafiried, but the 'racist cavemen' bit is rather creative. frankenstein12 said:
I was wondering if it was an intended snatch gone wrong in fact? Obviously going in to rescue people makes sense and I am not saying that's not what happened it just isn't clear. In reality a report of the incident would be handy to verify why they did what they did and it also would not change the reality that the way they did it seemed foolish and likely to get the reaction it did and so it needs to be considered whether lessons can be learned to be able to do better next time.
It seems clear enough, especially given I can't think of any other reasonable possibility. If officers are outnumbered and in danger and need extracting, then it needs to done quickly with sufficient numbers. That isn't foolish, that is what is expected.
NoNeed said:
I have, and I can't any any good reason that reporting bans were in place for either of the offences.
Because there were multiple trials taking place at once. NoNeed said:
I dont think reporting bans should be used willy nilly, the public have a right to know.
They're not. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff