Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s
Discussion
rscott said:
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.
Yet sever question time panelists were condemning him before he even had a trial, then again after his trial, why have a ban Just as the media were told not to report on Ched Evans appeal against his rape conviction until the case was over.
On the appeal? Pointless. And again somebody could be in jail for ignoring something that is pointless
NoNeed said:
rscott said:
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.
Yet sever question time panelists were condemning him before he even had a trial, then again after his trial, why have a ban Just as the media were told not to report on Ched Evans appeal against his rape conviction until the case was over.
On the appeal? Pointless. And again somebody could be in jail for ignoring something that is pointless
The correct way for the jury to hear this new evidence for the first time was in a court setting. Where issues such as admissibility had been thrashed out to ensure it was both fair to Evans and the complainant. I have no doubt this is what Evan's and his legal team would also want as opposed to the jurors potentially reading commentary about, 'how previous sexual history is being brought up and it takes us back to the dark ages' etc etc.
Don't you find it embarrassing you keep commenting on things you have no idea about? Is this the sort of thing you do all the time in real life and are only surrounded by people who let you get away with it? Or is it at the stage where they know it's not worth pointing out that you're wrong because you'll just keep at it and bore them to death?
This is you: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-thi...
La Liga said:
Don't you find it embarrassing you keep commenting on things you have no idea about?
This wasn't a glib comment;andy_s said:
NoNeed said:
andy_s said:
Its pretty easy to figure out if you examine both cases.
Go on then, enlighten meLa Liga said:
he restrictions placed by the court of appeal were because new evidence was heard. That new evidence caused his conviction to be quashed, and that new evidence was going to be presented to a jury at his re-trial.
The correct way for the jury to hear this new evidence for the first time was in a court setting. Where issues such as admissibility had been thrashed out to ensure it was both fair to Evans and the complainant. I have no doubt this is what Evan's and his legal team would also want as opposed to the jurors potentially reading commentary about, 'how previous sexual history is being brought up and it takes us back to the dark ages' etc etc.
Don't you find it embarrassing you keep commenting on things you have no idea about? Is this the sort of thing you do all the time in real life and are only surrounded by people who let you get away with it? Or is it at the stage where they know it's not worth pointing out that you're wrong because you'll just keep at it and bore them to death?
This is you: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-thi...
every jury is told to only consider evidence presented to them in a courtroom and not in the mediaThe correct way for the jury to hear this new evidence for the first time was in a court setting. Where issues such as admissibility had been thrashed out to ensure it was both fair to Evans and the complainant. I have no doubt this is what Evan's and his legal team would also want as opposed to the jurors potentially reading commentary about, 'how previous sexual history is being brought up and it takes us back to the dark ages' etc etc.
Don't you find it embarrassing you keep commenting on things you have no idea about? Is this the sort of thing you do all the time in real life and are only surrounded by people who let you get away with it? Or is it at the stage where they know it's not worth pointing out that you're wrong because you'll just keep at it and bore them to death?
This is you: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-thi...
You keep saying I have no idea, yet if every piece of evidence required the protection to say is required there would be no public reporting at all. The state can then do a s it feels, and I dont like that.
NoNeed said:
every jury is told to only consider evidence presented to them in a courtroom and not in the media
That doesn't do much to stop our biases and flawed psychology. There are lots of experiments where information people have been told to forget directly influences their decisions upon the information they're told to actually use. Look at 'anchoring' as an example.
It's in the interests of justice for a jury to be exposed the information for the first time at a trial. In a high profile trial like Evans, where lots of people will give an opinion on the fresh evidence (it was quite controversial), this is even more pronounced.
Older BBC article providing examples of the outcome that restrictions are aiming to avoid: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905765
NoNeed said:
You keep saying I have no idea, yet if every piece of evidence required the protection to say is required there would be no public reporting at all.
I'm struggling a bit with with what you mean with this sentence. NoNeed said:
The state can then do a s it feels, and I dont like that.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'state'. Government? Judiciary? Both? They both can't do what they want because we have laws which prevent that. For example, the 'state' can't sentence someone to death.
Do you re-read what you've written and ask yourself, "Is what I have written correct? Can I support it with facts and evidence?" Or do you simply just type the first thing that comes into your head and post it?
NoNeed said:
very jury is told to only consider evidence presented to them in a courtroom and not in the media
You keep saying I have no idea, yet if every piece of evidence required the protection to say is required there would be no public reporting at all. The state can then do a s it feels, and I dont like that.
You’re making very little sense. In what way is the jury “the state”? How are the people in the public gallery “the state”?You keep saying I have no idea, yet if every piece of evidence required the protection to say is required there would be no public reporting at all. The state can then do a s it feels, and I dont like that.
“yet if every piece of evidence required the protection to say is required there would be no public reporting at all.” And if your auntie was a man she’d be your uncle. So what?
Some trials cannot be reported on until they are over, others can be reported on so, other than in your head, how can “the state” “do as it feels”?
NoNeed said:
rscott said:
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.
Yet sever question time panelists were condemning him before he even had a trial, then again after his trial, why have a ban Just as the media were told not to report on Ched Evans appeal against his rape conviction until the case was over.
On the appeal? Pointless. And again somebody could be in jail for ignoring something that is pointless
Pothole said:
Why do you not understand that it's not up to you (or any of us) to decide which laws to obey? (or it is, but we have to be prepared to face the consequences)
Of course it is up to us, we are policed by consent, laws are passed by our representatives, when we think something is wrong, providing it is enough of us it should be changed.berlintaxi said:
"We are silently raising our voices for Tommy"...Erm.
frankenstein12 said:
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.
Hey, Mr Bloke On The Internet QC, good luck with an appeal against a guilty plea made after receiving advice from an experienced defence barrister! Mmmmmmm, this popcorn is super salty!Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st June 15:43
It has occurred to me that I may possibly be the only person posting in this thread who has actually conducted arguments both for and against restrictions on reporting, in courts up to and including the House of Lords (as the UKSC was) and the ECtHr. My experience in that field, which dates back to the Spycatcher litigation in the mid 1980s, has been that reporting restrictions are very sparingly granted, and that where they are granted inappropriately the media or other legitimately interested parties are usually able to overturn them.
I have also litigated contempt of court allegations, and habeas corpus and false imprisonment cases. My experience has been that it is very rare for a prison sentence to be given for contempt of court. My experience has been that most judges take open justice, freedom of expression, and the liberty of the subject very seriously.
Contrary to popular opinions, most judges and indeed a great many lawyers care rather a lot about justice and about liberty.
But, hey, feel free to believe that this whole thing is a bent establishment stitch up, and that liberty has died on the altar of PC.
I have also litigated contempt of court allegations, and habeas corpus and false imprisonment cases. My experience has been that it is very rare for a prison sentence to be given for contempt of court. My experience has been that most judges take open justice, freedom of expression, and the liberty of the subject very seriously.
Contrary to popular opinions, most judges and indeed a great many lawyers care rather a lot about justice and about liberty.
But, hey, feel free to believe that this whole thing is a bent establishment stitch up, and that liberty has died on the altar of PC.
NoNeed said:
when we think something is wrong, providing it is enough of us it should be changed.
Rubbish. That's not how our society works or is ever supposed to work.Campaigning to get a law changed is an entirely different thing to simply ignoring any laws you don't agree with and expecting not to get punished.
Breadvan72 said:
It has occurred to me that I may possibly be the only person posting in this thread who has actually conducted arguments both for and against restrictions on reporting, in courts up to and including the House of Lords (as the UKSC was) and the ECtHr. My experience in that field, which dates back to the Spycatcher litigation in the mid 1980s, has been that reporting restrictions are very sparingly granted, and that where they are granted inappropriately the media or other legitimately interested parties are usually able to overturn them.
Don't come on here with your so called 'experience' and 'expertise'. I have memes / Facebook, thanks.
Pothole said:
Rubbish. That's not how our society works or is ever supposed to work.
Campaigning to get a law changed is an entirely different thing to simply ignoring any laws you don't agree with and expecting not to get punished.
Good job the sufragettes didn't think like you isn.t it.Campaigning to get a law changed is an entirely different thing to simply ignoring any laws you don't agree with and expecting not to get punished.
NoNeed said:
Pothole said:
Rubbish. That's not how our society works or is ever supposed to work.
Campaigning to get a law changed is an entirely different thing to simply ignoring any laws you don't agree with and expecting not to get punished.
Good job the sufragettes didn't think like you isn.t it.Campaigning to get a law changed is an entirely different thing to simply ignoring any laws you don't agree with and expecting not to get punished.
Breadvan72 said:
Get you! Talking about police policy, doctrine, and operational methods from a standpoint of a ranking police officer with years of practical experience. We don't need any of that b
ks when we have The People's Champion Mr Tommy and his PH pals.
Throughout history we have seen change for the better happen time and time again when the masses are stirred. One thing I am certain of is that tommy knows how to stir the masses. We have seen him claim the these media bans are all part of the cover up and yet even in his own case a pointless van was put in place, it is almost like the state and the judiciary want to prove him right.ks when we have The People's Champion Mr Tommy and his PH pals. We post here all talking of our views on tommy yet thousands of our children have been systematically raped and abused for decades, yes decades and it is only in recent times something is actually being done other than keep the media quiet.
What has been happening is shameful and the masses are stirred, yes you may all have great technical knowledge as regards the law, but unless you have the moral high ground my money is on the masses.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff