[Politics] Day for Freedom (live)

BadFish · May 28, 2018

BeHereNow said:
The law? Is that what they're calling it these days?
https://youtu.be/irhQtamQ6Mo

Is this the suggested alternative to the mainstream media?

I got to 3:42 before I finally gave up hoping for any thing remotely like balance. The reasons for the media not being allowed to report on the story and the reasons for Tommy Robinson not being allowed to film outside the courtroom are wilfully ignored leaving us with a piece of bias entirely constructed to support agenda.

The main stream media is far from perfect but if this is the alternative I will stick with it.

Tyrone Biggums · May 28, 2018

BadFish said:
If Tommy Robinson's presence and 'reporting' is going to put the trial in jeopardy because the defence can suggest that the jury have been influenced then surely it is better that he (like other journalists) keep their distance and let the trial run.

It seems to me that some people put the right to free speech (and concocting conspiracy theories) above the rights of victims to get justice.

It is a funny old world.

It's a joke that the line of "it will put the trial in jeopardy" is being used.

Would a trial of a Jimmy Saville, a Catholic Priest, Harvey Weinstein etc have been claimed to have been put in jeopardy with mass media reporting on it? Would a judge have put in place any kind of suppression of reporting on said cases? Highly doubt it.

BadFish · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
It's a joke that the line of "it will put the trial in jeopardy" is being used.

Would a trial of a Jimmy Saville, a Catholic Priest, Harvey Weinstein etc have been claimed to have been put in jeopardy with mass media reporting on it? Would a judge have put in place any kind of suppression of reporting on said cases? Highly doubt it.

I would agree but of course this is not a one size fits all situation. The differences in the case mean that different limitation are necessary.

I am assuming that judges far closer to the case than you and me have made the decision that it is in the best interest of the children involved and the case itself if it is not reported on. I am yet to see anything that suggests this is an error. The difference in the cases that you mention are probably that the victims in the cases you mention were older as it went to trial. The defendants in those cases..... well we all know the sensitivities involved in the case in the current context.

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
It's a joke that the line of "it will put the trial in jeopardy" is being used.

Would a trial of a Jimmy Saville, a Catholic Priest, Harvey Weinstein etc have been claimed to have been put in jeopardy with mass media reporting on it? Would a judge have put in place any kind of suppression of reporting on said cases? Highly doubt it.

I'll start with Fred West.

Guinness Boy · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
It's a joke that the line of "it will put the trial in jeopardy" is being used.

Would a trial of a Jimmy Saville, a Catholic Priest, Harvey Weinstein etc have been claimed to have been put in jeopardy with mass media reporting on it? Would a judge have put in place any kind of suppression of reporting on said cases? Highly doubt it.

Classic whataboutism.

As stated several times on this thread reporting restrictions are put on cases over here to protect witnesses and ensure that justice is correctly served. The Open Court principle has to apply unless very specific conditions are met.

You're citing a dead guy, an entire profession and an arrest in the US which has totally different rules to try to make a spurious point. What do you know about the specific case Tommy is moaning about from Geelong?

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
It's a joke that the line of "it will put the trial in jeopardy" is being used.

Would a trial of a Jimmy Saville, a Catholic Priest, Harvey Weinstein etc have been claimed to have been put in jeopardy with mass media reporting on it? Would a judge have put in place any kind of suppression of reporting on said cases? Highly doubt it.

Peter Sutcliffe.

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
It's a joke that the line of "it will put the trial in jeopardy" is being used.

Would a trial of a Jimmy Saville, a Catholic Priest, Harvey Weinstein etc have been claimed to have been put in jeopardy with mass media reporting on it? Would a judge have put in place any kind of suppression of reporting on said cases? Highly doubt it.

Rose West. Didn't see Timmy Robinson at that one. Does he really want changes to the Legal System?

Tyrone Biggums · May 28, 2018

Guinness Boy said:
Classic whataboutism.

As stated several times on this thread reporting restrictions are put on cases over here to protect witnesses and ensure that justice is correctly served. The Open Court principle has to apply unless very specific conditions are met.

You're citing a dead guy, an entire profession and an arrest in the US which has totally different rules to try to make a spurious point. What do you know about the specific case Tommy is moaning about from Geelong?

Except you've used a word that's not applicable. I'm not trying to discredit anything. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

In regards to the bold, plenty thanks for asking.

How? The same way you know stuff about OS issues. Or are you saying you live a completely insular life with little awareness of the world around you?

We had a similar case out here when a radio host revealed details of the criminal history of a POS who brutally murdered a woman and was sent to jail for contempt of court.

He's now a Senator in Parliament thanks to his views and actions.

That's why it interests me. No Government should be jailing its citizens for speech. That's what the like of the Chinese, Russians and Germans did.

Yet here we are in 2018 and there's people who support such a mindset.

Tyrone Biggums · May 28, 2018

knocky1 said:
Rose West. Didn't see Timmy Robinson at that one. Does he really want changes to the Legal System?

Why would you see a 13 year old kid doing that?

The Law is an Ass. Never a truer statement was made.

Laws and Government/Authorities should reflect the will of the people, not bureaucrats political ideologies.

13 months jail for contempt of court is Authoritarianism rearing its ugly head.

Tyrone Biggums · May 28, 2018

knocky1 said:
Peter Sutcliffe.

How about Adam Johnson? Rolf Harris?

Why do you think Crime Stoppers and the like show peoples faces? To alert the public maybe?

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
Yet here we are in 2018 and there's people who support such a mindset.

Absolutely. How on Earth can we have anyone support Timmy Robinson's mindset?

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
How about Adam Johnson? Rolf Harris?

Why do you think Crime Stoppers and the like show peoples faces? To alert the public maybe?

Reporting restrictions at both. A victim of Harris waived her anonymity and gave the press a defence to report.
The Telegraph was fined £80,000 for showing a photo of girl in Johnson case and flouting the restrictions. Come on keep up.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...raph-fined-80000-over-adam-johnson-photograph

Tyrone Biggums · May 28, 2018

knocky1 said:
Reporting restrictions at both. A victim of Harris waived her anonymity and gave the press a defence to report.
The Telegraph was fined £80,000 for showing a photo of girl in Johnson case and flouting the restrictions. Come on keep up.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...raph-fined-80000-over-adam-johnson-photograph

We're not talking about the victims.

We're talking about the suspects. That's why Johnson was jailed, not for putting information about the victims out there. As far as I know something he did not do.

Think you need to keep up.

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

Tyrone Biggums said:
We're not talking about the victims.

We're talking about the suspects. That's why Johnson was jailed, not for putting information about the victims out there. As far as I know something he did not do.

Think you need to keep up.

I didn't expect you to read it properly and give a reasoned response. Carry on though you're helping me to derail this thread.

carlzeiss · May 28, 2018

The case had already been reported by the BBC .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39580591

So guess the D notice was issued after 12th April 2017

Twenty-nine people have appeared in court as part of an inquiry into child sex abuse and neglect in Huddersfield.

The alleged offences took place in the town between 2004 and 2011 and involved girls aged between 11 and 17.

Twenty-seven men appeared before magistrates accused of offences against 18 people, including rape and trafficking. Two women are charged with child neglect.

In all the 29 defendants face a total of more than 170 charges.

Protestors shouted abuse as the defendants arrived at the town's court.

Live updates and more stories from Yorkshire

One defendant, Amere Singh Dhaliwal, 34, is charged with 54 separate counts, including 21 counts of rape.

Other charges faced by the accused include trafficking with intent to engage in sexual exploitation, sexual activity and supply of drugs.

Most of the defendants came from Huddersfield, but others came from Bradford, Dewsbury, Dudley, Manchester and Sheffield.

They appeared in groups before district Judge Michael Fanning during a lengthy court sitting and are next due to appear at Leeds Crown Court on 11 May.
.

aolstudios · May 28, 2018

The Secret Barrister's view...
https://webcache.googleusercontent....oor-tommy-robinson/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

knocky1 · May 28, 2018

aolstudios said:
The Secret Barrister's view...
https://webcache.googleusercontent....oor-tommy-robinson/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Thanks a very good explanation of the situation. This quote explains the reporting restrictions now in place:

"Furthermore, the judge on the last occasion imposed reporting restrictions (presumably under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981), postponing reporting of the details of Lennon’s contempt until the trial had concluded, for obvious reasons. A media circus and orchestrated attempt at martyrdom by Lennon and his deranged followers would present exactly the sort of distraction that threatened to disrupt the very serious criminal proceedings that the judge was desperately seeking to keep on the rails. Once the trial itself was over, Lennon’s misdeeds and penalty could be reported."

BeHereNow · May 28, 2018

BadFish said:
Is this the suggested alternative to the mainstream media?

I got to 3:42 before I finally gave up hoping for any thing remotely like balance. The reasons for the media not being allowed to report on the story and the reasons for Tommy Robinson not being allowed to film outside the courtroom are wilfully ignored leaving us with a piece of bias entirely constructed to support agenda.

The main stream media is far from perfect but if this is the alternative I will stick with it.

Brilliant.

Bevendean Hillbilly · May 28, 2018

aolstudios said:
The Secret Barrister's view...
https://webcache.googleusercontent....oor-tommy-robinson/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Always love the secret barristers view.

I think the last line in his summary is interesting “leaving a dotted line for those inclined to join him”

The judge has elected, given the sensitivity involved, to send out a warning to other activists. Don’t name, film or otherwise draw attention to Muslim rapists.

Robinson knew he would go down for this. He believes that Muslim rape gangs are worth going to jail to expose. Fair enough. The courts would never hang these creeps out to dry. Especially those convicted but with enough dough to keep their names out of the papers.

If it was any other group of people involved in the mass rape of another race...on the basis of race only, Methodists, Catholics, Jehovas Witnesses I can’t imagine for a second that a British court would hide them from us in the same way.

aolstudios · May 28, 2018

Bevendean Hillbilly said:
Always love the secret barristers view.

I think the last line in his summary is interesting “leaving a dotted line for those inclined to join him”

The judge has elected, given the sensitivity involved, to send out a warning to other activists. Don’t name, film or otherwise draw attention to Muslim rapists.

Robinson knew he would go down for this. He believes that Muslim rape gangs are worth going to jail to expose. Fair enough. The courts would never hang these creeps out to dry. Especially those convicted but with enough dough to keep their names out of the papers.

If it was any other group of people involved in the mass rape of another race...on the basis of race only, Methodists, Catholics, Jehovas Witnesses I can’t imagine for a second that a British court would hide them from us in the same way.

If he wanted justice he'd've stayed the **** away. He just wants chaos

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Day for Freedom (live)

Huge Member

Well-known member

Huge Member

Well-known member

Tofu eating wokerati

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Share this page