Tommy Robinson jailed in the UK.

[J.L.W]

OK, his wikipedia that FDR doesn't allow me to quote here, under the subheading arrests, quotes events and arrests for assault.

[RichardY]

18 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

I don't believe he's accusing Tommy of violence, so much as that it's how the people will see it as the media works it's magic.

Anyone who believes that cr*p in the MSM any more must be so throughly indoctrinated or dumb. What would be the point in talking to them. 

"Re-invent himself as non-violent".

Yeah what would really be good is some mass rape, riots & murd*r yeah!!! Personally I think as collectivists both the right and the left are deranged.

3 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

A guy just a few miles down the road from me was thrown into jail for more than two years for having 8 anti Islam posts in 2015 on his facebook.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15358854.___Bomb_a_mosque____man_jailed_for_web_race_hate/

Well that's the thing, avoid saying or doing anything with subtance be vague, forms, abstractions. Plenty of content to fill the forms with later, have the framework before the concrete is poured. Like the Movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Talk about "morality", but unless you know the person how do you know they aren't BSing you, cashing in on others misery. "If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." But if one group gains complete control of the power of the centralised state numbers won't matter. Most of the time there aren't people standing in your way, but ideas. Open borders for some but not others. Personally I couldn't care what others do, but NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) which being the UK, Europe for now, if you want to learn a language is rather small. Still not in that hellhole that is S.Africa. 

Still plenty of time to educate myself on various subjects. Given modern technology that is availble a person can do almost anything, if they are focused enough. Even if that achievement is small. 

 

[Kohlrak]

Just now, RichardY said:

Anyone who believes that cr*p in the MSM any more must be so throughly indoctrinated or dumb. What would be the point in talking to them. 

"Re-invent himself as non-violent".

Yeah what would really be good is some mass rape, riots & murd*r yeah!!! Personally I think as collectivists both the right and the left are deranged.

Well, you've defined the apathetic majority in a nutshell. They don't believe the MSM per se, but they believe the people who believe the MSM, because "news is boring, and doesn't affect me."

3 minutes ago, RichardY said:

Well that's the thing, avoid saying or doing anything with subtance be vague, forms, abstractions. Plenty of content to fill the forms with later, have the framework before the concrete is poured. Like the Movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Talk about "morality", but unless you know the person how do you know they aren't BSing you, cashing in on others misery. "If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." But if one group gains complete control of the power of the centralised state numbers won't matter. Most of the time there aren't people standing in your way, but ideas. Open borders for some but not others. Personally I couldn't care what others do, but NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) which being the UK, Europe for now, if you want to learn a language is rather small. Still not in that hellhole that is S.Africa.

I think i might've found Han Solo.

31 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

A guy just a few miles down the road from me was thrown into jail for more than two years for having 8 anti Islam posts in 2015 on his facebook.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/15358854.___Bomb_a_mosque____man_jailed_for_web_race_hate/

? That is the weirdest thing to say Big Brother is the government.

Not familiar with 1984?

26 minutes ago, J.L.W said:

OK, his wikipedia that FDR doesn't allow me to quote here, under the subheading arrests, quotes events and arrests for assault.

Link at least?

[Leathal]

This from the land that gave us the term 'fourth estate', the land that valued the capacity of the press to keep the ruling class 'honest' to some extent. As an Australian I am appalled at the virtual silence of our media on this topic. The one report I could find related to a protest in Melbourne. The worlds press should be even ashamed of themselves for complicity in this travesty against the truth. The British people have allowed this to happen by sitting on their hands and holding their tongues in the face of an incremental erosion of their civil liberties. Sadly, Australians (and others) are doing the same thing, largely out of fear of being given the usual ad hominem labels generously applied by the usual suspects on the left. Here there is no 'right to free speech' but only an implied (not enumerated) constitutional right to freedom of political communication recognised by the High Court of Australia. Reporting on paedophiles is not a political matter and the regime here would potentially be able to do the same thing if it chose to enact apposite laws.

Bearing that in mind, I see this Tommy Robinson matter as a kind of test to see how far a regime can go in restricting freedom of open discussion on 'sensitive' issues. They nearly got away with it but for some sources getting the news out before the censorship kicked in. If the protests peter out too quickly, they will do this again and again until it is completely normalised to the people.

Without wanting to incite anyone to engage in illegal conduct, I would encourage everyone in GB to pressure their legislators to revise the circumstances where reporting restrictions can be applied.

I would also encourage everyone in Australia to write to their media outlets demanding an explanation as to why they have not reported on this to us... we are not, and for a very long time have not been subject to English laws and there is NO EXCUSE for their silence on this matter. Australians should also pressure our legislators, both state and federal, to ensure such draconian measures are never enacted here.

Tommy should now be considered a political prisoner and any that remain silent and thus allow this to go unchallenged should be considered tacitly complicit. They risk a broader application of the same tyranny.

Where is the condemnation from Amnesty International, the UN and all of the other leftist do-gooders on this matter? I hear only crickets from that sector.    

We should all be very concerned.

[jgw2001]

Just another update.

It looks now as if the accused and those convicted are filing a motion for mistral under their article 6 rights.  So the people who he campaigned against could be set free because of his actions, well done Tommy.

Regarding if I agree with the law or not, lets use standard Libertarian property rights principles:

1) He enters private property, with signs clearly saying no filming, a clear contract he agreed to when he entered.
2) He decided to breach the ruling, and was "kidnapped",  and "incarcerated" for 3 months and warning he does not do it again.
3) He does it again, enters private property and starts filming again.

Another example, if I had signs on my property/land  signs "You will be shoot if you enter", it may be army base or wild life centre to protect rare animals, if you enter my property despite the warning then based on the property principle you risk being shoot especially if you are warned. Tommy was warned plenty of times even in his bloody face

With recent cases of false arrest by the police and media circle which exists in the UK (and not to the same extant as the US) then article 6 of the right to a fair trail is VERY IMPORTANT. While it is not perfect, it is all we have.

End of rant.
 

[barn]

14 minutes ago, jgw2001 said:

[...] End of rant.

Sorry but that's not element of the question I had asked you.

It's also possible you've not seen it?

[J.L.W]

You just ignored my last post.

There is a philosopher out there, you probably have not heard of him since you have given no indication that you have. He has recently interviewed someone who knows quite a bit about this case and lives in Canada so is outside the UK's jurisdiction.

His name is Stefan Molyneux... Perhaps you should check him out, if you are not too busy.

19 minutes ago, jgw2001 said:

Just another update.

It looks now as if the accused and those convicted are filing a motion for mistral under their article 6 rights.  So the people who he campaigned against could be set free because of his actions, well done Tommy.

Regarding if I agree with the law or not, lets use standard Libertarian property rights principles:

1) He enters private property, with signs clearly saying no filming, a clear contract he agreed to when he entered.
2) He decided to breach the ruling, and was "kidnapped",  and "incarcerated" for 3 months and warning he does not do it again.
3) He does it again, enters private property and starts filming again.

Another example, if I had signs on my property/land  signs "You will be shoot if you enter", it may be army base or wild life centre to protect rare animals, if you enter my property despite the warning then based on the property principle you risk being shoot especially if you are warned. Tommy was warned plenty of times even in his bloody face

With recent cases of false arrest by the police and media circle which exists in the UK (and not to the same extant as the US) then article 6 of the right to a fair trail is VERY IMPORTANT. While it is not perfect, it is all we have.

End of rant.
 

 

[J.L.W]

Kohlrak:

The wikipedia article excerpt did go through and I had meant to say, in answer to your earlier response. That BB is always the government when you had said BB refers to NGO's.

[Kohlrak]

1 hour ago, jgw2001 said:

Just another update.

It looks now as if the accused and those convicted are filing a motion for mistral under their article 6 rights.  So the people who he campaigned against could be set free because of his actions, well done Tommy.

Regarding if I agree with the law or not, lets use standard Libertarian property rights principles:

1) He enters private property, with signs clearly saying no filming, a clear contract he agreed to when he entered.
2) He decided to breach the ruling, and was "kidnapped",  and "incarcerated" for 3 months and warning he does not do it again.
3) He does it again, enters private property and starts filming again.

Another example, if I had signs on my property/land  signs "You will be shoot if you enter", it may be army base or wild life centre to protect rare animals, if you enter my property despite the warning then based on the property principle you risk being shoot especially if you are warned. Tommy was warned plenty of times even in his bloody face

With recent cases of false arrest by the police and media circle which exists in the UK (and not to the same extant as the US) then article 6 of the right to a fair trail is VERY IMPORTANT. While it is not perfect, it is all we have.

End of rant.
 

You have't been paying attention at all. If you want, i can show you the recording he did, which included his arrest. He was arrested for the content of his livestream being "breach of peace", which a police officer is recorded stating as they arrest him. In other words, they arrested him for racism.

1 hour ago, barn said:

Sorry but that's not element of the question I had asked you.

It's also possible you've not seen it?

Let's do him a favor.

1 hour ago, J.L.W said:

Kohlrak:

The wikipedia article excerpt did go through and I had meant to say, in answer to your earlier response. That BB is always the government when you had said BB refers to NGO's.

I'll PM you. XD

[Kohlrak]

 Big brother strikes again...

We found the charge.

Quote

United Kingdom citizens have a negative right to freedom of expression under the common law.^[146] In 1998, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10, into its domestic law under the Human Rights Act. However, there is a broad sweep of exceptions including threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace (which has been used to prohibit racist speech targeted at individuals),^{[147][148][149]} sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety (which has been used to prohibit speech of a racist or anti-religious nature),^{[150][151][152]}incitement,^[153]incitement to racial hatred,^[154] incitement to religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications,^{[153][155][156]} glorifying terrorism,^{[157][158][159]} collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist,^[160][161]treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy (which cannot be successfully prosecuted) or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch,^{[162][163][164][165][166]}sedition (no longer illegal, sedition and seditious libel (as common law offences) were abolished by section 73 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (with effect on 12 January 2010)),^[163]obscenity,^[167] indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency,^[168] defamation,^[169]prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings,^[170][171] prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors,^[171] scandalising the court by criticising or murmuring judges,^[171][172] time, manner, and place restrictions,^[173] harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and limitations on commercial speech such as advertising.

So the UK has a history of this, then.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Kohlrak
So i'm not post spamming

[ofd]

What Robinson did was stupid on many levels. Filming the accused child rapists while entering the court gives any lawyer that defend them to argue for a mistrial. His actions make it easier for the lawyers to defend them. It that was his goal, he achieved it. He knew what he was doing since he was convicted of the same offense a year earlier. Doing this stunt, knowing about the consequences for him and the victims of the grooming gangs is stupid and reckless. He picked the only place to present his message that might impede justice for the victims.

[jgw2001]

13 hours ago, barn said:

Sorry but that's not element of the question I had asked you.

It's also possible you've not seen it?

 

To answer you question:

Is it fair to say that what Tommy Robinson has said on his video recording or what could be heard around him was information fully in the possession of the public (anyone else could have gathered the same) at the time and around his incarceration?


No, not everything he said was in the public domain at the point he made the broadcast. From the recent news release he has admitted guilt and clearly knew there was a media restriction in place.  Also point out, 13 months in prison in the UK is not 13 months but on average he is most likely to only serve 6 months.


 

[Kohlrak]

6 hours ago, ofd said:

What Robinson did was stupid on many levels. Filming the accused child rapists while entering the court gives any lawyer that defend them to argue for a mistrial. His actions make it easier for the lawyers to defend them. It that was his goal, he achieved it. He knew what he was doing since he was convicted of the same offense a year earlier. Doing this stunt, knowing about the consequences for him and the victims of the grooming gangs is stupid and reckless. He picked the only place to present his message that might impede justice for the victims.

Only using the hysteria of his arrest. The jury, presumably, already had their verdict. Everyone was just waiting to hear it.

[jgw2001]

9 minutes ago, Kohlrak said:

Only using the hysteria of his arrest. The jury, presumably, already had their verdict. Everyone was just waiting to hear it. 

At the time of his live broadcast the jury had not made their official decision, some times the Jury may ask for more time or need further advise before making the final decision OR a JURY member is not able to attend and more time may be needed.  The Jury reveals their verdict to both the accused and the judge at the same time. The ban of videoing out side the court is also to protect the Victim who may also be entering the same doors (in this case the victim is under 16) or revealing the members of the Jury who would be entering court at the time of his live broadcast. I see the media ban has now been lifted, and the real truth is finally out.

[barn]

52 minutes ago, jgw2001 said:

To answer you question:

Is it fair to say that what Tommy Robinson has said on his video recording or what could be heard around him was information fully in the possession of the public (anyone else could have gathered the same) at the time and around his incarceration?


No, not everything he said was in the public domain at the point he made the broadcast. From the recent news release he has admitted guilt and clearly knew there was a media restriction in place.  [...]

I see. Where can I read it for myself? The Independent doesn't quote what surmounted to it. I can't find any specific information anywhere else on what did they actually use against him/(made him) admit to... y'know, today's world,... definitions can shape-shift with ease, especially in the MSM.

[vandoren]

7 hours ago, ofd said:

What Robinson did was stupid on many levels. Filming the accused child rapists while entering the court gives any lawyer that defend them to argue for a mistrial.

It wasn't inside the court, it was on the court stairs outside. The last year arrest was as unlawful as the current one.

[jgw2001]

1 hour ago, vandoren said:

It wasn't inside the court, it was on the court stairs outside. The last year arrest was as unlawful as the current one.

The Jury, the victim (who is under 16), witnesses enter the same door. By him videoing out side the court, he is at risk revealing the the identities of these Individuals hence the reason why there is a ban of recording outside the courts during a trial. Even in his own video he admits “There is a reporting restriction on this case,” and continues "I have to be super careful, you see, because when I was coming to these court cases, part of what the police did was they dawn raided me and they put me on a contempt of court charge, which would mean that I could face prison.” 



 

[Kohlrak]

3 hours ago, barn said:

I see. Where can I read it for myself? The Independent doesn't quote what surmounted to it. I can't find any specific information anywhere else on what did they actually use against him/(made him) admit to... y'know, today's world,... definitions can shape-shift with ease, especially in the MSM.

That's what we saw. The story keeps changing on what he was arrested and prosecuted for. I posted a link somewhere above to a recording of the stream, so we know for absolute certain (for the officer's own words) he was arrested for "breach of peace."

2 hours ago, jgw2001 said:

The Jury, the victim (who is under 16), witnesses enter the same door. By him videoing out side the court, he is at risk revealing the the identities of these Individuals hence the reason why there is a ban of recording outside the courts during a trial. Even in his own video he admits “There is a reporting restriction on this case,” and continues "I have to be super careful, you see, because when I was coming to these court cases, part of what the police did was they dawn raided me and they put me on a contempt of court charge, which would mean that I could face prison.” 



 

And he asked the police (i'm pretty sure), and the police said that as long as he was not on court property, this was OK. You can hear it around 5 minutes in. They didn't even arrest him for that: they arrested him for the content of his stream, as they themselves said, which the specific charge was "breach of peace," which is what they use to define "hate speech."

[Leathal]

Quote

2 hours ago, jgw2001 said:

The Jury, the victim (who is under 16), witnesses enter the same door. By him videoing out side the court, he is at risk revealing the the identities of these Individuals hence the reason why there is a ban of recording outside the courts during a trial. Even in his own video he admits “There is a reporting restriction on this case,” and continues "I have to be super careful, you see, because when I was coming to these court cases, part of what the police did was they dawn raided me and they put me on a contempt of court charge, which would mean that I could face prison.” 



 

You are right in saying this, and it is not unreasonable to place restrictions on reporting to prevent a miscarriage of justice or harm to the innocent. The issue of concern is the manner in which this situation was treated by the authorities and some elements of the media.

Another issue I have with all of this is the self evident bias of the so called unbiased media, especially the ABC here in Australia. Firstly, it took them 5 days to even bother with the story. Secondly, when they did report today their story included the usual derogatory terms, Ie., 'far right activist'. Thirdly, the ABC said that "...Robinson live-streamed..." the trial. They do go on to mention that "Robinson also has previous convictions for assault, fraud and other offences". No clarity is given to the facts or circumstances relating to these other offences. They did acknowledge that he founded the EDL but said it is "...now defunct".

Saying that Robinson live streamed the trial is a clear falsehood, he was not in the courtroom, he was outside the building. Far right is an exaggeration and as far as I know the EDL still exists and Tommy left it because it become too far to the right for him. If they are far right and he is to the left of them, how can he be far right? The article also neglected to point out that Robinson is no longer a part of the EDL.

Why let facts get in the way of spinning a good yarn. No one at the ABC took responsibility with a by line, the story seems to have been regurgitated directly from the AP. It seems that they did not even do their own research to fact check what they were publishing.

The ABC story can be found here:

<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/far-right-activist-tommy-robinson-jailed/9814524>.

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Leathal
I missed three words.

[J.L.W]

Reporting restrictions lifted:

Tommy Robinson Reporting Restriction Lifted, Jailed for 13 Months [Link]

[Kohlrak]

Big brother's getting really old right now.

[ofd]

Quote

Only using the hysteria of his arrest. The jury, presumably, already had their verdict. Everyone was just waiting to hear it. 

How does that matter? The lawyers can claim mistrial after the verdict has been spoken.
 

Quote

It wasn't inside the court, it was on the court stairs outside. The last year arrest was as unlawful as the current one.

Why risk something when for once something is going the right direction, people who participate in grooming gangs getting accused and receiving a verdict? At any other place Robinson could have spread the message without interfering in the legal proceedings.

 

Quote

The last year arrest was as unlawful as the current one.

How so?

[Kohlrak]

11 minutes ago, ofd said:

How does that matter? The lawyers can claim mistrial after the verdict has been spoken.
 

Why risk something when for once something is going the right direction, people who participate in grooming gangs getting accused and receiving a verdict? At any other place Robinson could have spread the message without interfering in the legal proceedings.

 

How so?

 

Were things really going in the right direction? I'm betting we won't know that for a long time, either. If you paid attention to Tommy, you hear him saying that it never really does go in the right direction, which is why he's there pointing out that it's happening to begin with, since it's severely under-reported.

[ofd]

Quote

If you paid attention to Tommy, you hear him saying that it never really does go in the right direction, which is why he's there pointing out that it's happening to begin with, since it's severely under-reported.

Then why do that in the only place where it makes it more likely that it doesn't go into the right direction?

[vandoren]

What Tommy did last year was in no way different from what other media outlets did. For example here:

 

[Kohlrak]

9 hours ago, ofd said:

Then why do that in the only place where it makes it more likely that it doesn't go into the right direction?

Because it's the only way to provide evidence.

6 hours ago, vandoren said:

What Tommy did last year was in no way different from what other media outlets did. For example here:

 

You see Tommy's not on their team, that's why it's different. They went to Journalism school and got Journalism degrees, and he didn't. (I'm not even kidding you; at another message board someone made this case.)

[barn]

Does anyone have the side by side video of Tommy and another guy (who isn't jailed as of yet) reading out the same thing?

I heard somewhere it was up on Fecebook for a while.

[ofd]

Quote

Because it's the only way to provide evidence.

Court documents don't exist?

[J.L.W]

Overview of the protest:

 

[J.L.W]

 

[J.L.W]

Overview of the protest:

#FreeTommy: The Good, The Bad and the chavvy [Link]