Tommy Robinson to ask for ‘emergency political asylum’ in US Watch

the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 days ago
#41
Mr T should build a wall to keep people like Stephen out. 5'5" should be high enough.

:ahee:
2
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 days ago
#42
(Original post by the bear)
Mr T should build a wall to keep people like Stephen out. 5'5" should be high enough.

:ahee:
Lol, they just need to block anyone with surnames beginning YAX-something. Oh. Wait. Er.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 days ago
#43
He's back inside. Nine months.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ld-Bailey.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...tempt-of-court
0
reply
Trotsky's Iceaxe
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 days ago
#44
He’ll serve three months, be released, he’ll commit another crime and his supporters will claim he is a victim.

Thus the circle of life continues,
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 days ago
#45
(Original post by Trotsky's Iceaxe)
He’ll serve three months, be released, he’ll commit another crime and his supporters will claim he is a victim.

Thus the circle of life continues,
From his attitude (mocking the court with his teeshirt message, arriving late) it's clear that he wanted to be imprisoned. It's hard to be a martyr if nobody will martyr you.

Bit of a valid argument that it might have been better to give him an unpleasant community service that makes him look like a prat. One thinks of Boy George sweeping streets.
1
reply
username4874078
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 days ago
#46
He's an idiot. I lean slightly to the right and am all for free speech, but I really dislike this guy.
1
reply
Trotsky's Iceaxe
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 days ago
#47
It was at that moment Robnson realised he had not cleaned the jizz stains off his trousers.

Name:  ugugugug.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  168.9 KB
1
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 days ago
#48
(Original post by Jebedee)
How silly of me to expect consistency in law.
You don't seem to actually understand the law, and that's your main issue here.

The trial that TR reported on had a reporting restriction imposed upon it by the courts throughout the duration of the trial - as often is the case in gang cases.

TR's trial, and that of Count Dankula had no such reporting restrictions and the media were lawfully able to report.
Last edited by DSilva; 4 days ago
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 days ago
#49
(Original post by DSilva)
You don't seem to actually understand the law, and that's your main issue here.

The trial that TR reported on had a reporting restriction imposed upon it by the courts throughout the duration of the trial - as often is the case in gang cases.

TR's trial, and that of Count Dankula had no such reporting restrictions and the media were lawfully able to report.
Many would agree the restrictions were imposed out of convenience rather than for just reasons. Also if they are so concerned they should have arrested the BBC writers who published info prior to Tommy's report.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 days ago
#50
(Original post by Jebedee)
Many would agree the restrictions were imposed out of convenience rather than for just reasons. Also if they are so concerned they should have arrested the BBC writers who published info prior to Tommy's report.
And they too would be wrong and unwilling to understand the law.

In gang-related cases, there are often tens of defendants and that means there has to be a number of trials happening at around the same time, as you can't physically fit 30 defendants in the same court room trial. Therefore there will be lots of trials running concurrently on the same issues. In these cases there is usually a reporting restriction until all trials have concluded, as if a jury in one trial hears of the verdict or facts of another linked trial, it can prejudice them and even cause a mistrial at great public expense. Once all the trials are over, the reporting restrictions are lifted.

All of that is standard legal procedure, there is nothing conspiratorial going on. Educate yourself.

The BBC, as a registered and certified media outlet (along with Skynews etc) are allowed, by law, to report certain elements - but when it comes to reporting restrictions they too are heavily restricted. TR on the other hand, did not apply for and was not granted any authority to report on a trial with a reporting restriction in place

His actions risked causing the trials to collapse.
Last edited by DSilva; 4 days ago
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 days ago
#51
(Original post by Jebedee)
Many would agree the restrictions were imposed out of convenience rather than for just reasons. Also if they are so concerned they should have arrested the BBC writers who published info prior to Tommy's report.
So now you're (a) moving the goalposts and (b) confused.

Even if they were just for convenience, they were the law. Are you saying that the Far Right should be regarded as being above the law?

The BBC writers did not stand outside the court attempting to intimidate witnesses and people arriving there.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 days ago
#52
*opens non-alcoholic can of poron kusi (look it up on Urban Dictionary)*
(Original post by Trotsky's Iceaxe)
It was at that moment Robnson realised he had not cleaned the jizz stains off his trousers.

Name:  ugugugug.jpg
Views: 13
Size:  168.9 KB
:rofl3: Was he reading Mien Kampf before bed again?
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 days ago
#53
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
So now you're (a) moving the goalposts and (b) confused.

Even if they were just for convenience, they were the law. Are you saying that the Far Right should be regarded as being above the law?

The BBC writers did not stand outside the court attempting to intimidate witnesses and people arriving there.
What is the far right exactly?

I don't believe the reporting restriction was just and nothing was done that stopped the case from going ahead. It was a political move.

The BBC writers published this information in their paper. So who reached the bigger audience in your opinion?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 days ago
#54
(Original post by Jebedee)
What is the far right exactly?

I don't believe the reporting restriction was just and nothing was done that stopped the case from going ahead. It was a political move.

The BBC writers published this information in their paper. So who reached the bigger audience in your opinion?
Was it **** a political move. It was about basic standards of justice. Clearly if the country was dominated by Yaxley-Lennon and his facton, there would only be justice for Hard Right thugs and their fellow travelling weasels.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#55
Report 4 days ago
#55
(Original post by Jebedee)
What is the far right exactly?

I don't believe the reporting restriction was just and nothing was done that stopped the case from going ahead. It was a political move.

The BBC writers published this information in their paper. So who reached the bigger audience in your opinion?
You dont believe to understand what contempt of court is and why they have reporting restrictions.
He risked the fairness of the trial to which the defendants could have claimed a mistrial and a £multi million would have collapsed. Would you and your friends be willing to repay all those costs?

Have you started a gofundmepage for Tommy? You could also start a petition. Alternatively you could go and attack the police with the rest of your m8s.
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 days ago
#56
I'm loving that Tommy's supporters are arguing about unjust reporting restrictions, that were put in place to ensure a gang of pedophile Muslims saw the greatest chance of being convicted, something they have been calling for for years.
2
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 days ago
#57
(Original post by Jebedee)
What is the far right exactly?

I don't believe the reporting restriction was just and nothing was done that stopped the case from going ahead. It was a political move.

The BBC writers published this information in their paper. So who reached the bigger audience in your opinion?
Because you don't understand the law, or judicial procedure. Reporting restrictions are very often used in linked cases involving gangs to preserve fair trials. There was nothing 'political' about imposing a reporting restriction.

The BBC reported general information, but only after being granted authority to do so. TR had no such authority.

I thought you would be in favour of complying with the law of this country?
Last edited by DSilva; 4 days ago
2
reply
DarthRoar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 days ago
#58
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj2nzV9BAh0

Anyone fancy deconstructing this bad boi
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#59
Report Thread starter 3 days ago
#59
(Original post by Jebedee)
Many would agree the restrictions were imposed out of convenience rather than for just reasons. Also if they are so concerned they should have arrested the BBC writers who published info prior to Tommy's report.
Only those ignorant of the law or with a malicious political bias would attempt to make such an obviously dishonest argument.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Rock Fan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 3 days ago
#60
He's not the smartest person in the world
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (121)
19.45%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (58)
9.32%
No I am happy with my course choice (351)
56.43%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (92)
14.79%

Watched Threads

View All