Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s

[NoNeed]

rscott said:

The restrictions on Tommy's latest conviction were lifted because the media followed procedure - they applied to the court.
If Tommy was a vaguely serious journalist, he'd know that.

I agree, I am not a tommy fan, but he broke a rule that should not have been there. The fact that it was there allows people like him to claim it is a cover up and things are being hidden, it is about time we banned reporting bans unless there is a direct threat to life and the application for a ban should be made to a different judge than the one hearing the case.

I really do think this has made the UK look bad around the globe.

[rscott]

NoNeed said:

rscott said:

The restrictions on Tommy's latest conviction were lifted because the media followed procedure - they applied to the court.
If Tommy was a vaguely serious journalist, he'd know that.

I agree, I am not a tommy fan, but he broke a rule that should not have been there. The fact that it was there allows people like him to claim it is a cover up and things are being hidden, it is about time we banned reporting bans unless there is a direct threat to life and the application for a ban should be made to a different judge than the one hearing the case.

I really do think this has made the UK look bad around the globe.

The ban was to protect both the accused and witnesses/victims. Seems to make perfect sense to me.

I'd prefer reporting restrictions to be in place on ALL sexual prosecutions until the sentencing is completed. Just look at the innocent men who've had their lives ruined by false accusations/poor police or CPS work recently.

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

rscott said:

The restrictions on Tommy's latest conviction were lifted because the media followed procedure - they applied to the court.
If Tommy was a vaguely serious journalist, he'd know that.

I agree, I am not a tommy fan, but he broke a rule that should not have been there. The fact that it was there allows people like him to claim it is a cover up and things are being hidden, it is about time we banned reporting bans unless there is a direct threat to life and the application for a ban should be made to a different judge than the one hearing the case.

I really do think this has made the UK look bad around the globe.

Are you saying if there's a serious risk of prejudicing a trial, but there's no direct threat to life, then we don't have any restrictions and allow the risk of prejudicing a trial to continue?

This is the problem when you make it up as you go along.

[bitchstewie]

Bad reporting (which is ironic) is what's made us look bad, and that's subjective on what you consider "bad".

Replace all the emotive political prisoner bks with "stood outside a courtroom livestreaming "they did it" during a live trial" and I expect many people would see it differently.

[frankenstein12]

rscott said:

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.

No, 2 people who claim to speak for him have said he's going to appeal. Coincidentally they've also started fundraising for him.

Please feel free to read his letter at the end of which he states his appeal has gone in for "both his sentence and conviction and bail app" to loosely quote him.

[anonymous-user]

frankenstein12 said:

Please feel free to read his letter at the end of which he states his appeal has gone in for "both his sentence and conviction and bail app" to loosely quote him.

If that is actually what he wrote then he really is pure moron.

[NoNeed]

La Liga said:

re you saying if there's a serious risk of prejudicing a trial, but there's no direct threat to life, then we don't have any restrictions and allow the risk of prejudicing a trial to continue?

This is the problem when you make it up as you go along.

In most serious cases the crime has already been widely reprted on, putting a ban in place once a trial starts to me is just wrong.

Take a case like the yorkshire ripper, to find abjury that wasn.t aware some some gruesome detail would be impossible, yet it seems that if that were today a ban would be put in place when the trial starts. There is no point as we have had such a large amount of white sick fkers tried openly that when these bans are used in a case involving somebody not white and english, it gives people like tommy a platform.

Fair even and transparent justice in a modern internet world is the only way forward.

[bitchstewie]

But people don't want fair and even and transparent.

I posted a thread up a couple of weeks back about those guys from National Action who were plotting to kill an MP.

There hadn't been any coverage due to reporting restrictions.

I think there were a few posts but shockingly I didn't see any of the free press champions on this thread asking why we couldn't know and demanding judicial reform.

Why not?

[Zod]

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 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]

bhstewie said:

But people don't want fair and even and transparent.

I posted a thread up a couple of weeks back about those guys from National Action who were plotting to kill an MP.

There hadn't been any coverage due to reporting restrictions.

I think there were a few posts but shockingly I didn't see any of the free press champions on this thread asking why we couldn't know and demanding judicial reform.

Why not?

We can't complain nor scrutinise what we don't know about, that is why I want transparency. They sound like a right bunch of nutters that the public need to know about.

[rscott]

NoNeed said:

n most serious cases the crime has already been widely reprted on, putting a ban in place once a trial starts to me is just wrong.

Take a case like the yorkshire ripper, to find abjury that wasn.t aware some some gruesome detail would be impossible, yet it seems that if that were today a ban would be put in place when the trial starts. There is no point as we have had such a large amount of white sick fkers tried openly that when these bans are used in a case involving somebody not white and english, it gives people like tommy a platform.

Fair even and transparent justice in a modern internet world is the only way forward.

Trouble is, these bans are often used in the prosecution of white and English too (as opposed to the brown and English whose trial Tommy disrupted?) and have been for many years.

For example - https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/f...



Oh look - the MSM successfully challenged reporting restrictions . https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/judgments/the-bbcs-app...

Seems reporting restrictions were in place during the trial of Leigh McMillan for grooming offences too. That was only reported in the media once he'd been sentenced to 17 years. He was most definitely white..

4 years ago the NUJ published guidelines to their members advising how to ensure they don't find themselves in contempt of court - https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/reporting-restrictions... .

[rscott]

NoNeed said:

bhstewie said:

But people don't want fair and even and transparent.

I posted a thread up a couple of weeks back about those guys from National Action who were plotting to kill an MP.

There hadn't been any coverage due to reporting restrictions.

I think there were a few posts but shockingly I didn't see any of the free press champions on this thread asking why we couldn't know and demanding judicial reform.

Why not?

We can't complain nor scrutinise what we don't know about, that is why I want transparency. They sound like a right bunch of nutters that the public need to know about.

The public knew they'd been charged (or had the opportunity to know - their arrests and charging was reported on, just as the 29 in the Leeds cases were reported in). Then there are restrictions while the trial(s) are underway which are lifted afterward.

So we can be told they've been charged then, once the sentencing is completed, can be told details of the trial. Nothing is permanently witheld from us, only delayed to ensure a fair and unbiased trial (would you have wanted the 10 on trial in Leeds to be freed because of a mistrial claim?).

[bitchstewie]

NoNeed said:

We can't complain nor scrutinise what we don't know about, that is why I want transparency. They sound like a right bunch of nutters that the public need to know about.

When you have 220 pages of people fighting tooth and nail for press freedom and claiming anything else is oppression by the judiciary and police brutality on one thread, and virtual silence on lots of other threads about some pretty deplorable people and behaviours, you do start to think "What's the difference between this thread and all of those ones?".

I'd be cautious about being seen to value transparency on some things more than others.

[anonymous-user]

NoNeed said:

La Liga said:

Are you saying if there's a serious risk of prejudicing a trial, but there's no direct threat to life, then we don't have any restrictions and allow the risk of prejudicing a trial to continue?

This is the problem when you make it up as you go along.

In most serious cases the crime has already been widely reprted on, putting a ban in place once a trial starts to me is just wrong.

Take a case like the yorkshire ripper, to find abjury that wasn.t aware some some gruesome detail would be impossible, yet it seems that if that were today a ban would be put in place when the trial starts. There is no point as we have had such a large amount of white sick fkers tried openly that when these bans are used in a case involving somebody not white and english, it gives people like tommy a platform.

Fair even and transparent justice in a modern internet world is the only way forward.

You didn’t answer the question in bold.

If there are multiple trials at once, we want to ensure the jury from trial A aren’t hearing details from trial B. They may not be at the same stage, some information may be relevant and admissible in trial A bit not B etc etc.

Think about it.

[Pothole]

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.

But you do understand that how you see a law is irrelevant to how that law is framed and applied? The law is not open to your interpretation.

[Alpinestars]

NoNeed said:

bhstewie said:

But people don't want fair and even and transparent.

I posted a thread up a couple of weeks back about those guys from National Action who were plotting to kill an MP.

There hadn't been any coverage due to reporting restrictions.

I think there were a few posts but shockingly I didn't see any of the free press champions on this thread asking why we couldn't know and demanding judicial reform.

Why not?

We can't complain nor scrutinise what we don't know about, that is why I want transparency. They sound like a right bunch of nutters that the public need to know about.

Why are you even here then? You’re doing a hell of a lot of scrutinising about something you know very little about.

[frankenstein12]

bhstewie said:

But people don't want fair and even and transparent.

I posted a thread up a couple of weeks back about those guys from National Action who were plotting to kill an MP.

There hadn't been any coverage due to reporting restrictions.

I think there were a few posts but shockingly I didn't see any of the free press champions on this thread asking why we couldn't know and demanding judicial reform.

Why not?

I didn't see it but would be ok with it being reported on.

[e30m3Mark]

rscott said:

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.

No, 2 people who claim to speak for him have said he's going to appeal. Coincidentally they've also started fundraising for him.

Just saw a live stream on YT to do with Rebel Media and they had quite a stream of donations going.

Just out of interest, what does TR do toy support himself? (other than mortgage scams)

[NoNeed]

Pothole said:

But you do understand that how you see a law is irrelevant to how that law is framed and applied? The law is not open to your interpretation.

I hope its not open to anybodies interpretation. Any law that can be interpreted differently is written wrong

[Alpinestars]

NoNeed said:

Pothole said:

But you do understand that how you see a law is irrelevant to how that law is framed and applied? The law is not open to your interpretation.

I hope its not open to anybodies interpretation. Any law that can be interpreted differently is written wrong

That’s exactly what statute is. It can’t be written with every caveat and every nuance in mind. So it requires lawyers and judges to interpret it, which by definition makes if fluid. And that’s why we have Case Law, which moves with the times and applies to real world scenarios. You really don’t understand any of this, and you’re way too obstinate to either learn or admit it.