6 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So it is ok  with you that the trial of  accused is portrayed  according to an extremist view via social media rather than in a court with the presentation of   factual evidence  versus  defense unhindered by popular  speculative  media ? Innocent  until proven guilty or  guilty until proven innocent? If outcome is  guilty  have the freedom to say what will. Until such time  do  not assume vigilante'  rights.

Who cares what is expressed in social media, whether extremist or not? Can't your British courts distinguish between the two? Or your free and informed populace? Are you going to suppress what your citizens can or cannot say publicly because it might prejudice a jury pool? Are you a bunch of unthinking children?

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by OtinPattaya

1 minute ago, OtinPattaya said:

Who cares what is expressed in social media, whether extremist or not? Can't your British courts distinguish between the two? Or your free and informed populace? Are you going to suppress what your citizens can or cannot say publicly because it might prejudice a jury pool?

Actually  yes. A jury pool is a  population sample. As such it is responsible  for  heeding court evidence without prejudice. To the point where  jurors are sometimes  secluded for the period of a trial.

 

1 minute ago, OtinPattaya said:

Who cares what is expressed in social media, whether extremist or not? Can't your British courts distinguish between the two? Or your free and informed populace? Are you going to suppress what your citizens can or cannot say publicly because it might prejudice a jury pool?

The court cares, thats why they had a suppression order. 

 

The short answer to your question is yes. You cannot have a jury influenced by what is said in public, because those comments may be wrong and not subject to rules of evidence.

 

I understand you think its ok to break the laws of the land because you think you know better or that US law is the best ever.

 

Do you live by the laws in thailand or say to a judge that US law is for you.

1 minute ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Actually  yes. A jury pool is a  population sample. As such it is responsible  for  heeding court evidence without prejudice. To the point where  jurors are sometimes  secluded for the period of a trial.

 

Either you understand the sanctity of freedom of speech or you do not. It's that simple. In America jurors are commonly sequestered but we don't outlaw private citizens or newspapers from posting publicly about the trial because, however prejudicial those posts may be, we hold the freedom of speech as a higher standard, which evidently the UK does not.

1 minute ago, OtinPattaya said:

Either you understand the sanctity of freedom of speech or you do not. It's that simple. In America jurors are commonly sequestered but we don't outlaw private citizens or newspapers from posting publicly about the trial because, however prejudicial those posts may be, we hold the freedom of speech as a higher standard, which evidently the UK does not.

News alert. This trial was in UK, not US.

 

 

2 hours ago, Mackstask said:

The guy's got ball's to say as it is.  Not like the gutless politicians who are running Great (ha ha) Britain into oblivion.  <deleted> nanny state!

 

         A  Martyr in the making .  He will return a hero . 

         Not part of the establishment ..

        

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by elliss

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

News alert. This trial was in UK, not US.

 

 

The fact that it was the UK and not the US doesn't make it right. Brits on this forum don't seem to have any reservations expressing their opinion about America and its policies. 

9 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

Who cares what is expressed in social media, whether extremist or not? Can't your British courts distinguish between the two? Or your free and informed populace? Are you going to suppress what your citizens can or cannot say publicly because it might prejudice a jury pool? Are you a bunch of unthinking children?

One thing I believe  US citizens have a  problem with is the instituted belief that the  US Constitution is the  be all and  end all of  prescribed democratic freedoms. I see it as a prescription of "rights"  without  any true  freedom or individual protection. Us citizens  are  slaves to it. The UK  and  most  countries  with  demonstrable  democracies  have  no  such  defined  constitution. Instead they abide  by  adherence  to accepted principles  of  democratic  convention as  defined in  general terms   by  ancient  international  accord. And  in so have  IMO  have better  balance in personal and social rights and therefore  justice outcome. There is  no  limitations on freedom of speech. But there are limitations  on freedom to  bs !

11 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

Either you understand the sanctity of freedom of speech or you do not. It's that simple. In America jurors are commonly sequestered but we don't outlaw private citizens or newspapers from posting publicly about the trial because, however prejudicial those posts may be, we hold the freedom of speech as a higher standard, which evidently the UK does not.

lol. That is  obscene! And actually  not  valid.

But it does  explain  the  current POTUS ! lmao

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by Dumbastheycome

3 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

The fact that it was the UK and not the US doesn't make it right. Brits on this forum don't seem to have any reservations expressing their opinion about America and its policies. 

Bit even TR said what he was doing was illegal. Live with it.

 

i agree with suppression orders. In oz its illegal to even name a defendant in a pedo case so that the victim cannot be even remotely identified. Its not fair on the victims.

 

but in any event, you are chasing the wrong horse. What he did was illegal, he knew it, yet did it.

10 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

One thing I believe  US citizens have a  problem with is the instituted belief that the  US Constitution is the  be all and  end all of  prescribed democratic freedoms. I see it as a prescription of "rights"  without  any true  freedom or individual protection. Us citizens  are  slaves to it. The UK  and  most  countries  with  demonstrable  democracies  have  no  such  defined  constitution. Instead they abide  by  adherence  to accepted principles  of  democratic  convention as  defined in  general terms   by  ancient  international  accord. And  in so have  IMO  have better  balance in personal and social rights and therefore  justice outcome. There is  no  limitations on freedom of speech. But there are limitations  on freedom to  bs !

If you or any other Brit has better alternative, and can actually make an argument for it, I'd love to hear  what you think a better alternative would be to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I've yet to hear that argument even from your own academics. 

 

How, pray tell, is the likes of Robinson being afforded "freedom or individual protection" under the British rule? Something he absolutely would be afforded under American law. 

 

"There is no limitations on freedom of speech." Surely you must be ironic, because isn't this entire thread about one man being imprisoned for exercising just that, his freedom of speech? You can't have it both ways

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by OtinPattaya

He might end up two'd up with the scum he videoed to add to his woes and on the plus side he can continue his interview for authentic journalism ???? 

1 minute ago, OtinPattaya said:

If you or any other Brit has better alternative, and can actually make an argument for it, I'd love to hear  what you think a better alternative would be to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I've yet to hear that argument even from your own academics. 

 

How, pray tell, is the likes of Robinson being afforded "freedom or individual protection" under the British rule? Something he absolutely would be afforded under American law. 

In what sense? If under the US legal system  he had not contravened law then that be US  law. He  committed an offense under UK law. Knowingly.

I am not about  to get into debate over the US  Constitution. That is a topic which career academics have spent lifetimes debating . However  declaring  it as  some basis  for dispute over juristic  events in the UK  seems a little  desperate

27 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

Either you understand the sanctity of freedom of speech or you do not. It's that simple. In America jurors are commonly sequestered but we don't outlaw private citizens or newspapers from posting publicly about the trial because, however prejudicial those posts may be, we hold the freedom of speech as a higher standard, which evidently the UK does not.

Ok. I have come back to this post. in the US Jurors  are sequestered but the media and public are allowed "comment". The UK  media and public  can also  freely "speculate".

But in the US can you declare they are allowed  to  publish evidential details and pictures of defendants in defiance of a  court ruling  against such?

10 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

In what sense? If under the US legal system  he had not contravened law then that be US  law. He  committed an offense under UK law. Knowingly.

I am not about  to get into debate over the US  Constitution. That is a topic which career academics have spent lifetimes debating . However  declaring  it as  some basis  for dispute over juristic  events in the UK  seems a little  desperate

I'm not disputing that Robinson contravened British law, or did so knowingly. But if the pat Brit response to this is, Well, this is British law, end of story--those of you making this so-called argument might  want to refrain  the next time from questioning every American policy with ex cathedra authority. Or maybe the American poster might come back and say, This is America, not your country. End of story.

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by OtinPattaya

5 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

I'm not disputing that Robinson contravened British law, or did so knowingly. But if the pat Brit response to this is, Well, this is British law, end of story--those of you making this so-called argument might  want to refrain  the next time from questioning every American policy with ex cathedra authority. Or maybe the American poster might come back and say, This is America, not your country. End of story.

Well the US does seem to give reverence to a document a couple of hundred years old, bit like muslims holding the koran n reverence.

 

However, in UK and Oz the law can change with the times. Oz does not have free speech in the constitution but it is implied by common law and precedents. But govts can pass laws to restrict that speech, such as against hate speech. I see that as an improvement to freedom of speech.

 

But in any event, it was the court that ordered suprresion. If he didnt like it he could have petitioned the court to lift the order. Its happened before.

5 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

I'm not disputing that Robinson contravened British law, or did so knowingly. But if the pat Brit response to this is, Well, this is British law, end of story--those of you making this so-called argument might  want to refrain  the next time from questioning every American policy with ex cathedra authority. Or maybe the American poster might come back and say, This is American, not your country. End of story.

Fine. Do so. What's the problem?

American jurisdiction is yours, British jurisdiction is ours. What is wrong with discussing such matters in a considered and thoughtful way?

I do so frequently with American friends. However neither they or I are nationalistic firebrands. This helps, I think.

11 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Ok. I have come back to this post. in the US Jurors  are sequestered but the media and public are allowed "comment". The UK  media and public  can also  freely "speculate".

But in the US can you declare they are allowed  to  publish evidential details and pictures of defendants in defiance of a  court ruling  against such?

The media and public in America are allowed far more than "comment." I've never even heard of a mistrial being declared in America because some person or a media powerhouse published a biased editorial. The defense can always argue for a change  of venue if they believe the jury pool has been tainted. Defendants in American have no protected right to anonymity. I admit, this is not always a good thing, but the alternative is worse, if the  alternative is the suppression of the freedom of speech of individual  citizens and the media. 

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well the US does seem to give reverence to a document a couple of hundred years old, bit like muslims holding the koran n reverence.

 

However, in UK and Oz the law can change with the times. Oz does not have free speech in the constitution but it is implied by common law and precedents. But govts can pass laws to restrict that speech, such as against hate speech. I see that as an improvement to freedom of speech.

 

But in any event, it was the court that ordered suprresion. If he didnt like it he could have petitioned the court to lift the order. Its happened before.

In for one would rather have my freedom of speech, as any other right, explicit rather than merely "implied." You have wonder why not make it explicit? what is the UK afraid of? 

 

If you think "hate speech" laws are an improvement to freedom of speech than you have no idea what freedom of speech truly is.  You're merely paying mouth-honor to it. 

49 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The court cares, thats why they had a suppression order. 

 

The short answer to your question is yes. You cannot have a jury influenced by what is said in public, because those comments may be wrong and not subject to rules of evidence.

 

I understand you think its ok to break the laws of the land because you think you know better or that US law is the best ever.

 

Do you live by the laws in thailand or say to a judge that US law is for you.

I remember the press helicopters flying over Cliff Richards house, tipped off by the police as they came to rifle his house and no doubt influence the following events relating to false historical sex claims.

I recently followed a case in the English press where a serial rapist was described as “a tall man with long black hair”

I didn’t believe witness accounts could be so vague regarding obvious details like skin colour or suspected nationality.

Under pressure from women and parents in the town and just normal f+@*ing people, police bravely admitted they were looking for a black man.

British justice and policing is rotten from top to bottom. 

Tommy Robinson is hardly an enemy of the state. 

 

22 minutes ago, baboon said:

Fine. Do so. What's the problem?

American jurisdiction is yours, British jurisdiction is ours. What is wrong with discussing such matters in a considered and thoughtful way?

I do so frequently with American friends. However neither they or I are nationalistic firebrands. This helps, I think.

No problem at all, so long as America and it's policies get the same consideration, which we all know is not likely to happen. Oh well, this is America and these are our policies. The next Trump-bashing frenzy on this forum, that's how I'm going to reply. I doubt that will end the thread. BTW, I'm not a "nationalistic firebrand." Quite the opposite, I consider myself an individualist, the furthest thing from a nationalist. 

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by OtinPattaya

2 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

No problem at all, so long as America and it's policies get the same consideration, which we all know is not likely to happen. Oh well, this is America and these are our policies. The next Trump-bashing frenzy on this forum, that's how I'm going to reply. I doubt that will end the thread. BTW, I'm not a "nationalistic firebrand." Quite the opposite, I consider myself an individualist, the furthest thing from a nationalist. 

Why would America and her legal system receive the the same consideration as British law on a thread about the trial of a British citizen in a British court under British law?

By all means promote Trump as you see fit, but I don't think that this is the thread for it.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Perhaps he should do so legally. Cant complain when he knew what he was doing was illegal.

No, the Court didnt follow the legal requirement by clearly stating that there were reporting restrictions in place and placing that notice on the courtroom door 

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

The court cares, thats why they had a suppression order. 

 

The short answer to your question is yes. You cannot have a jury influenced by what is said in public, because those comments may be wrong and not subject to rules of evidence.

 

 

Tommy read out a news report from the BBC , which is still there today .

UK law states that info already in the public domain can be repeated publically  

I do disagree that he is "far-right" .

TR is only opposed to Islamic extremism  , terrorism , rape gangs and hardcore Muslims attacking non Muslims .

He defends Blacks , Jews and non extremists Muslims  , his only issue is with extremism 

 

The ignorance of the posters here is astonishing and anyone that has followed this case ACCURATELY they know this is a complete stitch up by the gov.

I will not go into it because most here are sheep that will listen and believe what they are fed by the state..

The UK justice system is broke 

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by Hogs

4 hours ago, evadgib said:

The irony is that FCO London also staged a Global Conference for Media Freedom today ????

 

 

 

4 hours ago, chokrai said:

So much for free speech in Britain.

 

Are you two aware of Yaxley-Lennon's supporters' attitude to media freedom and free speech?

 

Tommy Robinson supporters attack journalists and clash with police outside Parliament after he is jailed for contempt of court

 

Perhaps, like him and his supporters, you both believe that press freedom only extends to those saying things with which you agree?

 

 

It was the BBC the biased BBC what I have read today in the press about this case is SO WRONG it is disgraceful but people like you just lap it up and defend the lying Press.

 

56 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Tommy read out a news report from the BBC , which is still there today .

UK law states that info already in the public domain can be repeated publically   

As has been said many, many times before; the BBC report was published before reporting restrictions were put in place, When those restrictions were imposed, the BBC removed it from their site. 

 

Whether the report now on the BBC site is the original one reposted after the restrictions were lifted or a new version I do not know. It's irrelevant, anyway.

 

If information which is in the public domain is subsequently the subject of a court order restricting reporting of that information, then to repeat it publicly is in breach of that order and so contempt of court.

 

It is the same with the YouTube video of Yaxley-Lennon's so called report. It may be there now, but while the reporting restrictions were in place it was not available; at least not here in the UK. 

 

Just now, 7by7 said:

As has been said many, many times before; the BBC report was published before reporting restrictions were put in place, When those restrictions were imposed, the BBC removed it from their site. 

 

Whether the report now on the BBC site is the original one reposted after the restrictions were lifted or a new version I do not know. It's irrelevant, anyway.

 

If information which is in the public domain is subsequently the subject of a court order restricting reporting of that information, then to repeat it publicly is in breach of that order and so contempt of court.

 

It is the same with the YouTube video of Yaxley-Lennon's so called report. It may be there now, but while the reporting restrictions were in place it was not available; at least not here in the UK. 

 

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH 
 

It is all on video mate he read it LIVe from the BBC website 

again this is a complete stitch up