Death of free speech in the UK.

Robert said:
Man currently on a suspended sentence is convicted of second offence after he "pleaded guilty to contempt of court" and consequently gaoled?
Oh.. my.. god...!
Click to expand...

Robert, back up a second and think about what you are saying. A man was just sentenced to 13 months for standing on a public sidewalk live streaming himself. I'm not talking about what may or may not have happened before this. Since when is standing on a public sidewalk live streaming yourself a crime?
 
ilwrath said:
13 months for Contempt of Court? That really does seem... Excessive?
Click to expand...

I thought so too but the fact he was already on a 3 month suspended sentence meant it was likely to at least be more than that. He'll also possibly get it reduced on appeal and will be unlikely to serve the full term either way.

I'm not entirely comfortable with what went on either but the hysterical, ill-informed and often counter-productive ranting that has accompanied it isn't particularly helpful.
 
redrumloa said:
Robert, back up a second and think about what you are saying. A man was just sentenced to 13 months for standing on a public sidewalk live streaming himself. I'm not talking about what may or may not have happened before this. Since when is standing on a public sidewalk live streaming yourself a crime?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for Tommy, what happened before is entirely relevant when it comes to sentencing and he was already on a 3 month suspended sentence for the same offence.
As for what Tommy did being a crime, if you back up yourself, you previously posted a link reporting he pleaded guilty, so perhaps he accepts it was a crime himself.
 
Robert said:
As for what Tommy did being a crime, if you back up yourself, you previously posted a link reporting he pleaded guilty, so perhaps he accepts it was a crime himself.
Click to expand...

Not being in the court room or with his attorney, if he had one, I couldn't tell you why he pleaded guilty. I still fail to see how on any planet someone should get 13 months for standing on a public sidewalk live streaming as a private individual. They are desperately protecting dozens of child rapists while throwing political prisoners in jail? Thank god for 1776 I suppose.
 
redrumloa said:
I still fail to see how on any planet someone should get 13 months for standing on a public sidewalk live streaming as a private individual.
Click to expand...

Yes, I see you still seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of an existing criminal record and how this influences future sentencing, the concept of an existing sentence for a similar previous offence or, indeed, contempt of court itself but it's all in the public domain (much of it on this thread) if you care to educate yourself.

Horse to water, etc.

They are desperately protecting dozens of child rapists while throwing political prisoners in jail?
Click to expand...

Exactly the kind of unhelpful, moon-howling nonsense I was talking about earlier and is a great example of why we can't have nice things. :p

As I've already said, I have my own concerns about the length of his sentence and other aspects of the case but hysterical ranting about "protecting child rapists" has drowned out any nuanced debate.

Ask yourself this question: if the aim is simply to protect the suspects, why put them on trial at all?
 
Robert said:
Not to say the tweet wouldn't be removed anyway but in this instance the second account's tweets are protected so it would show as unavailable regardless (unless you are followed by that account on Twitter).
Click to expand...

He changed his status to "private' in response to the tweet, which also removed all his previous posts to the thread
 
Robert said:
Yes, I see you still seem to be having difficulty grasping the concept of an existing criminal record and how this influences future sentencing, the concept of an existing sentence for a similar previous offence or, indeed, contempt of court itself but it's all in the public domain (much of it on this thread) if you care to educate yourself.
Click to expand...

Robert, repeat after me. He was standing on a public sidewalk live streaming himself to friends/followers. At this point nothing prior should matter. Please point out the UK law that states standing on a public sidewalk using your smart phone is a crime.

Here's another example. You are on a suspended sentence for the UK equivalent of DUI. You are ordered to not drive for 1 year. You decide to walk to the grocery store and you get arrested for walking to the store, then sentenced to 13 months in the prison. People who hear about it ask why your are sentenced 13 months for walking to the bank, but they are told repeatedly because you were on a suspended sentence for DUI.

Logical?

Exactly the kind of unhelpful, moon-howling nonsense I was talking about earlier and is a great example of why we can't have nice things. :p
Click to expand...

I'm not the only one who sees things this way. You can find plenty of people, on both sides of the pond, with the same opinion. Many have a much larger platform than me for sure. I'm really kind of stunned you are taking this position. You've previously stated your concerns about the treatment of people like Count Dankula. I have to assume it is because you specifically don't like Tommy as a person?
 
Last edited:
redrumloa said:
Logical?
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

I'm not the only one who sees things this way.
Click to expand...
Obviously. If you were it would be quite easy for the rest of the world to ignore you and discuss the actually issues.
Instead we have the "protecting rapists" nonsense on one side and the "deserves to be locked up because he's a Nazi" nonsense on the other.
You've previously stated your concerns about the treatment of people like Count Dankly.
Click to expand...
I also stated I have concerns about this case (3 times in this thread now - sinking in yet? Probably not.)
I have to assume it is because you specifically don't like Tommy as a person?
Click to expand...
No, it's just the usual scenario of you ignoring what people tell you.
 
Last edited:
redrumloa said:
Robert, repeat after me. He was standing on a public sidewalk live streaming himself to friends/followers. At this point nothing prior should matter. Please point out the UK law that states standing on a public sidewalk using your smart phone is a crime.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133630

It appears to absolutely be Contempt of Court to broadcast or publish information about an active trial in the UK. That is exactly what he was doing. That is exactly what he pled guilty of doing. That is exactly what he had a previous conviction for. It really is pretty cut-and-dried.

That's not a law in the US. In the US, it falls upon the jurors to isolate themselves. Apparently in the UK it falls upon the publishers and broadcasters to not disclose that information.

You can argue how you'd like. But even in the US there are restrictions on free speech. For example, you can't say something to incite a public panic. In the UK, apparently you can't publish information that could cause a mistrial. It seems odd to us. But it's a real law. A real law he violated.

The rest is all strawman nonsense.
 
ilwrath said:
It appears to absolutely be Contempt of Court to broadcast or publish information about an active trial in the UK. That is exactly what he was doing. That is exactly what he pled guilty of doing. That is exactly what he had a previous conviction for. It really is pretty cut-and-dried.
Click to expand...

Your more direct than the LOLz from Robert, thanks. I was under the impression Tommy is a private individual and not a journalist.

ilwrath said:
That's not a law in the US. In the US, it falls upon the jurors to isolate themselves. Apparently in the UK it falls upon the publishers and broadcasters to not disclose that information.
Click to expand...

So in the UK an individual who owns a cell phone is considered a publisher or a broadcaster? I could be totally wrong here, maybe Tommy is a professional journalist. I was always under the impression he was just a private individual.

Or maybe what I am getting at here a couple questions:

1) Is there legal precedent for an individual with a cell phone is automatically considered a journalist? Or could Tommy himself been that legal precedent?
2) Is it limited to someone transmitting via some medium? Example would be if Robert happened to walk down the street with 2 friends and casually mention to them there was a court case going on, would he be arrested if the bobbies overheard him?
3) If 2 is yes, would that theoretically extend in a tinfoil hat world to Robert sitting at home with his wife having dinner discussing it with Alexa a few feet away? Would the bobbies break down his door and arrest him?

ilwrath said:
It seems odd to us. But it's a real law. A real law he violated.
Click to expand...

If it is a real law, which I've been trying to get at, it is more than odd. It is horrendously frightening.
 
Last edited:
Robert said:
No, it's just the usual scenario of you ignoring what people tell you.
Click to expand...

No you just continued to ignore my actual question and/or frame it as something else. Ilwrath didn't seem to have a problem understanding the actual question and tried to answer it. These closest you got was a twitter link, that I could go to in order to dig through the feed to find a "thread" that just lead to one person ranting how bad of a person Tommy is. Not very helpful. I could be forgiven for thinking you just don't like Tommy.
 
What a strange world this is becoming when I quote this guy.

Pop Icon Morrissey Comes to Tommy Robinson’s Defense

Anne Marie Waters seeks open discussion about all aspects of modern Britain, whereas other parties will not allow diverse opinion. She is like a humane version of Thatcher…if such a concept could be. She is absolute leadership, she doesn’t read from a script, she believes in British heritage, freedom of speech, and she wants everyone in the UK to live under the same law. I find this compelling, now, because it’s very obvious that Labour or the Tories do not believe in free speech…I mean, look at the shocking treatment of Tommy Robinson…

I know the media don’t want Anne Marie Waters and they try to smear her, but they are wrong and they should give her a chance, and they should stop accusing people who want open debate as being ‘racist’. As I said previously, the left has become right-wing and the right-wing has become left – a complete switch
 
‘Certain Death’ as Tommy Robinson Abruptly Moved to Violent, Muslim-Dominated Prison

The move, which happened on June 12, effectively hurls Robinson into what supporters say is certain death.

Onley, a notoriously violent prison, is overrun by Muslim gangs and has a reputation for riots. InfoWars’s Paul Joseph Watson is reporting Onley has a 71 per cent Muslim population.

Watson tweeted inmates were banging on Robinson’s cell all night chanting death threats. According to a press release, Robinson’s family confirms he has received numerous death threats from Muslim inmates who object to Robinson’s critique of radical Islam.

They’ve also reported he is sleeping in an unheated cell that has nothing but a thin mattress. The family believes the abrupt move, which happened without warning, was intended to disrupt a new legal appeal being put together in his defense.
 
In the UK,
one man raped a child,
and another man reported a rape was being held.
Which man went to jail?
 
Instead of a new thread for death of free speech in the EU, will drop here.

Proposed EU Copyright Law Spells the Death of Memes

The new amendment, Article 13, threatens to make memes go the way of the dodo, alongside other user generated contributions. Without known photos or illustrations, memes–which are repurposed images to make a funny or poignant point, much like a political cartoon–cannot exist.

People speaking out against the law say it can “destroy the internet as we know it.”

“Should Article 13 of the Copyright Directive be adopted, it will impose widespread censorship of all the content you share online,” one campaign says.

Under the new rules, platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter would be tasked with policing what is uploaded by users to their sites. Most of these sites are already under fire for silencing political speech and targeting conservative users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top