UK -Tommy Robinson Driven Into Exile by Arson Attack; Suspects BLM

[EmilyAlexandra]

one member of parliament asked each member of parliament if their area would also be using exclusion zones and they all replied yes.

The thing is, an MP doesn’t actually have any authority over the area they represent, except insofar as an Act of Parliament could affect that area. My MP may well think that X, Y, and Z should happen in the constituency, but those decisions are more likely to be within the jurisdiction of the two local authorities that cover this constituency, one of which is controlled by a different political party than the one to which our MP belongs.

Honestly, I don’t think this is a major freedom of speech issue. Of course, people who want to oppose abortion must be allowed to express their views, and they do express their views quite a lot. However, that right has to be balanced against the rights of people who are going about their lawful business. It is a crime in England and Wales to cause another person harassment, alarm, or distress. If somebody suffers harassment, alarm, or distress, the law is entitled to prioritise avoiding that harm. Freedom of speech does not mean that you have to be free to express yourself everywhere and under all circumstances.

 

[gam197]

Its a ridiculous comparison. 29 general members of the public in the UK are not on the same publicity level as Epstein or Weinstein.

No it is not. You stated it was a highly publicized trial in the UK so it sounds like it was a major bust of the child solitation ring. There are 29 men compared to only one man Epstein. Granted he was involved with high profile people but twenty nine men involved in child abuse seems unbelieveable.

It is silly. A high profile UK case made the news for a long time in the UK and you are claiming it was ‘nothing’ because it didn’t make your news.

Jharek has given you the links to educate yourself on the case. We are again at an impasse where further engagement on this topic is fruitless because you wont read the information provided to you.

I am not claiming it was nothing. I am glad it got all the publicity that you claim it got and hopefully these bad people will be sent away and not return. My feeling on child abusers is the same as Epstein, give them the rope.

I will read but what will I actually learn only that 29 men abused girls and 20 were sentenced on 120 counts of child abuse. That is overwhelming to think these evil people exist. Not one Epstein but 29 of them.

 

[gam197]

Not outside a courthouse.

Well it certainly is a troubled UK when prolifers are seen as the bad people and have had their rights ot freedom of speech taken away.

 

[gam197]

The thing is, an MP doesn’t actually have any authority over the area they represent, except insofar as an Act of Parliament could affect that area. My MP may well think that X, Y, and Z should happen in the constituency, but those decisions are more likely to be within the jurisdiction of the two local authorities that cover this constitue

That has been expressed. It is the council in the area that apparently makes the decision. The MP was speaking in parliament to each MP from their district and asking them what their councils had decided. All 4 MP said that their areas would restrict freedom of speech for prolifers in that they said their areas would enforce buffer zones.

Honestly, I don’t think this is a major freedom of speech issue. Of course, people who want to oppose abortion must be allowed to express their views, and they do express their views quite a lot. However, that right has to be balanced against the rights of people who are going about their lawful business. It is a crime in England and Wales to cause another person harassment, alarm, or distress. If somebody suffers harassment, alarm, or distress, the law is entitled to prioritise avoiding that harm. Freedom of speech does not mean that you have to be free to express yourself everywhere and under all circumstances.

Yes it is, it is infringement of the pro lifers freedom of speech. They have right to have their opinions and express them on an public way they chose.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Granted he was involved with high profile people

Kind of makes a difference. A few years ago in my state 21 people were arrested in a sex traficking ring. Last month 24 were arrested in a sting. During last years super bowl 169 were arrested. These things are disturbingly regular, but dont get much note in general without a high profile actor being involved.

I do not understand why people are defending these abusers

It looks more like people are defending the legal process to which all citizens of the nation are entitled.

 

[gam197]

A few years ago in my state 21 people were arrested in a sex traficking ring. Last month 24 were arrested in a sting. During last years super bowl 169 were arrested.

What state do you live in? Weird stuff. I live in the Norteast and I can’t tell you the last time a case with child trafficing in girls came up. It doesn’t happen.

gam197:

do not understand why people are defending these abusers

It looks more like people are defending the legal process to which all citizens of the nation are entitled.

Defending against taking pictures outside a courthouse of some major child abusers. Please.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What state do you live in?

Georgia.

I live in the Norteast and I can’t tell you the last time a case with child trafficing in girls came up.

It’s common enough to motivate a change to section 230( c ) immunity. An overwhelming majority of the children taken for sex traficking in the USA are minorities. Most are African-American (52% according to FBI). Some believe that it is because the issue that primarily affects minorities that it doesn’t get much attention.

New York had 151 known instances of sex traficking in 2018. I don’t see 2019 statistics. There have been instances in all 50 states.

Defending against taking pictures outside a courthouse of some major child abusers. Please.

Consider this. A person taking matters into their own hands can taint a trial and open a pathway for the defendant to argue that a trial was not fair. After a person is convicted, then appropriate sentencing can occur. Ignoring Article 6 could result in a person that has committed some violation in going free or experiencing delayed justice.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

What state do you live in?

Georgia.

Had not heard these cases.

It’s common enough to motivate a change to section 230( c ) immunity. An overwhelming majority of the children taken for sex traficking in the USA are minorities. Most are African-American (52% according to FBI). Some believe that it is because the issue that primarily affects minorities that it doesn’t get much attention.

New York had 151 known instances of sex traficking in 2018. I don’t see 2019 statistics. There have been instances in all 50 states.

New York has had cases which I think I did see that mentioned but you are right in that these cases are not getting the attention they should. Why are they minorities and 52% are African-Americans, again never have heard these kinds of statistics. I really think the death penalty should apply to these level of offenders.

gam197:

Defending against taking pictures outside a courthouse of some major child abusers. Please.

Consider this. A person taking matters into their own hands can taint a trial and open a pathway for the defendant to argue that a trial was not fair

I think taking video outside a courthouse would not seem to hurt a trial and in the case in the UK it did not as these men were convicted. Still they are after him now to do 2 years in prison. Here is a man trying to bring out what is going on but they do not want it known for some reason.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think taking video outside a courthouse would not seem to hurt a trial and in the case in the UK it

Not just taking video, but live streaming it. There was a reporting restriction in place, and he was reporting. The second guesses that one makes about the effect of the court’s reporting band are not of much relevance to determining if Lennon violated the reporting band.

never have heard these kinds of statistics.

Many have not.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

I think taking video outside a courthouse would not seem to hurt a trial and in the case in the UK it

Not just taking video, but live streaming it. There was a reporting restriction in place, and he was reporting. The second guesses that one makes about the effect of the court’s reporting band are not of much relevance to determining if Lennon violated the reporting band.

Apparently he wanted it known what was going on. Live streaming outside a courthouse, big deal.

gam197:

never have heard these kinds of statistics.

Many have not.

I have not heard of these statistics in the African American communities. This is something that should be looked at, why are they not reporting on these abuses on young girls. Why do we as a society allow such behavior and squelch reporting. Where are all the major media on these crimes?

Maybe the reporters fear being called racists so they do nothing to stop the crimes.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Exactly. A good example are the laws to prevent people protesting at funerals.

Homepage

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/5037/text/eh

That is true. However, freedom of speech laws in the UK are really not as different to freedom of speech laws in the US as some in the US would like to believe. Both countries have very robust traditions of free speech with some necessary limitations. The ways in which free speech are both guaranteed and abridged in the two countries do have some differences, but the differences are by no means as fundamental as some people seem to believe.

All 4 MP said that their areas would restrict freedom of speech for prolifers in that they said their areas would enforce buffer zones.

Many local authority areas are represented by more than one MP, as a local authority area can contain several parliamentary constituencies. It is also possible for a parliamentary constituency to contain more than one local authority area. For example, Ealing contains three constituencies, Richmond contains two constituencies, and Manchester contains five. So potentially as many as 10 MPs could have answered a question relating to just three local authority areas.

Yes it is, it is infringement of the pro lifers freedom of speech. They have right to have their opinions and express them on an public way they chose.

I never said that it isn’t an infringement of freedom of speech. I said that it was not an important infringement. Freedom of speech is infringed in all kinds of ways. For example, in England and Wales, there are various laws in common law and statute law that criminalise acts that disturb religious worship. Therefore, I cannot go into a Catholic church during Mass and shout over the priest, “the sacrifices of Masses were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” My freedom of speech is to that extent abridged, and rightly so.

I do not understand why people are defending these abusers and why this guy Tommy is getting two years in prison for taking some video outside a courthouse of some evil men.

Because “this guy Tommy” risked the defendants all being acquitted on all charges on the grounds that they could not receive a fair trial due to his unhelpful interventions.

Live streaming outside a courthouse, big deal.

It would have been a big deal if a bunch of paedophiles had walked free because of his stupid actions.

 

[gam197]

Exactly. A good example are the laws to prevent people protesting at funerals.

There is no law to prevent people from protesting at funerals in the US. That was one group Westboro Baptist Church and that group has not protested in years and it was prior to the 2014 law where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled you could not have buffer zones. This keeps being brought up when there is no such law. The courts have never seen the case because the group that did this stopped many years ago and no longer protest. The father and leader died and the children do not follow their father’s beliefs. How many times does this need to be stated in this thread.

Please read posts #160 to 194 and then posts #226 to 238, as this has been discussed again and again.

 

[gam197]

I never said that it isn’t an infringement of freedom of speech. I said that it was not an important infringement.

It is very important to those losing their freedom of speech such as the pro lifers in this case.

Freedom of speech is infringed in all kinds of ways. For example, in England and Wales, there are various laws in common law and statute law that criminalise acts that disturb religious worship. Therefore, I cannot go into a Catholic church during Mass and shout over the priest, “the sacrifices of Masses were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.” My freedom of speech is to that extent abridged, and rightly so.

Granted you can yell anything you want during Mass but will be escorted out because you are interfering in a service. You are infringing on their right to freedom of speech(their right to listen and respond). If you were outside the church, you could hold a sign and yell things. These kinds of protests were very common when some priests molested males and were found guilty. . Many such protests took place outside churches.in the Boston area.

Because “this guy Tommy” risked the defendants all being acquitted on all charges on the grounds that they could not receive a fair trial due to his unhelpful interventions.

That video was outside a courthouse hardly a problem in the US. Actually most press people wait outside courthouses to take pictures and ask questions of defendants.

gam197:

Live streaming outside a courthouse, big deal.

It would have been a big deal if a bunch of paedophiles had walked free because of his stupid actions.

Pictures and video taping are allowed outside of courthouses in America so I am not seeing the issue. Ghislaine Maxwell will be photographed 1000 times before the trial is over.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

T here is no law to prevent people from protesting at funerals in the US .

Are you saying that all of those laws have been repealed/struck down by the SCOTUS or state supreme courts?

There is nothing in the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act that refers specifically to Westboro Baptist Church.

It is very important to those losing their freedom of speech such as the pro lifers in this case.

It’s really not important. You don’t live here, you have not witnessed the protests first hand, you do not understand how English law and national and local government work. People here have freedom of speech. There are small restrictions on that freedom to protect other people from harms that are proportionately greater than the benefits of the exercise of free speech.

I am perfectly entitled to go and stand in the high street right now shouting “Abortion is murder! Save unborn humans!” What I am not entitled to do is stand directly outside an abortion clinic where an exclusion zone has been imposed accosting people with anti-abortion propaganda.

That video was outside a courthouse hardly a problem in the US. Actually most press people wait outside courthouses to take pictures and ask questions of defendants.

Pictures and video taping are allowed outside of courthouses in America so I am not seeing the issue. Ghislaine Maxwell will be photographed 1000 times before the trial is over.

In general, criminal trials are freely reported in the media. In this case, unusually, a reporting restriction was imposed by the judge (HHJ Marson QC in case you want to give him tips on how to be a judge) in order to guarantee a fair trial. The restriction would as a matter of course be lifted after the end of the trial. It is just a temporary ban on reporting so that the defendants cannot claim that the jury was prejudiced by the media. I honestly don’t know why you find this so hard to understand.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Yes, there used to be a Muslim preacher on my high street whose main argument seemed to be that nobody knows when the day of judgement will be, so do you want Allah to catch you doing your shopping on the day of judgement?

There are some pleasant seeming young men in Brixton who protest about people not wearing tassels. It’s something biblical, but I cannot claim to understand it. They seem to think that some passage in the Bible requires that everyone wears tassels all of the time. So they protest on Rye Lane telling people about the importance of wearing tassels.

Oh, and you’ll appreciate this. I sometimes see the Black Israelites (or whatever they are calling themselves now) at Oxford Circus and Elephant and Castle, and they have a list of the present day peoples who are black people descended from the 12 tribes of Israel. One of them is apparently the Irish.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

In general, criminal trials are freely reported in the media. In this case, unusually, a reporting restriction was imposed by the judge (HHJ Marson QC in case you want to give him tips on how to be a judge) in order to guarantee a fair trial.

Adding to this since there is an assistance in seeing this from a USA point of view. In the USA there may also be cases where there is action taken to ensure that the media or others do not influence the jury or trial. It is sometimes achieved by putting restrictions on the jurors. It could be as simple as having the jurors not watch news show, engage in social media, or talk about the case. Or it could take the form of isolating the jury from the rest of the community by putting them in lodging during the course of the trial and prohibiting them from accessing the TV or Internet.

It is rare that this is done, but may occur for high profile cases for which there may be a lot of conversation. The jury members for the cases of OJ Simpson, Bill Cosby, and George Zimmerman involved sequestered jurys.

If a member violates the sequester order, he or she will be removed from the case. If there is a back-up juror they will be brought into the case. If there is not, or if the person has contaminated the other jurors with the information they have acquired then the case may have to start all over again with a new jury. If such action is discovered after the trial then a mistrial could be declared.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My father had to do this too. He was gone for two weeks. We were allowed an occasional phone call. After the case was all over we were then allowed to see him and the court documents too.

 

[gam197]

I will concede that no universal law restricting their right to protest and that this was struck down. They do protest but fortunately don’t have the ability to attract the media as they once did and the children in many cases seem to loather their late father, which is hardly surprising considering what is known of him.
[/quote]

They do not protest. The children have even said they apologize for their dad’s protests.

This is an old articles from 2014…

From Daily Mail…

• Fred Phelps’ estranged son Nate calls his father a ‘sociopath’ and ‘narcissist’ in an exclusive interview just hours before church founder’s death

• He claims his father was addicted to speed and prescription drugs and filled with rage

n November 2012, at age 26, Megan and her sister Grace finally left Westboro, fleeing to South Dakota to hide from the world as they found a new equilibrium

Fred Phelps had 13 children and many have left and spoken out against their dad. This is a very small church with only 70 members at the time and most were relatives. It was said to be a cult so no they do not protest and have not done so in a very long time.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

T here is no law to prevent people from protesting at funerals in the US .

Are you saying that all of those laws have been repealed/struck down by the SCOTUS or state supreme courts?

There is nothing in the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act that refers specifically to Westboro Baptist Church.

There was one state Nebraska and there 49 other states which do not have any laws or restrictions on an protests. Nebraska is small state with a poulation of 1.9 million. The law has not made it to the Supreme courts but maybe it will some day.

There are 326 million Americans who have no restrictions.

This case somehow keeps coming up. Again leader Fred Phelps died in 2014. Their are no protests nationwide recently. Remember these were military funerals.

This is how the US works. State laws are only in regard to that one state. Federal laws overrule state laws .

gam197:

It is very important to those losing their freedom of speech such as the pro lifers in this case.

It’s really not important. You don’t live here, you have not witnessed the protests first hand, you do not understand how English law and national and local government work. People here have freedom of speech. There are small restrictions on that freedom to protect other people from harms that are proportionately greater than the benefits of the exercise of free speech

No I do not live there??? It is important for those who have lost their freedoms. The prolife people have tried to take it to the courts. The appeals courts has said stood with people who have vilated their rights so they have tried to go further but courts have no taken the case. Bot only that but partiament took a 10 minute vote on banning all pro life people and placing them in free speech zones and that past

Anti-abortion protesters lose appeal over clinic buffer zone

An exclusion zone for protesters at an abortion clinic will remain, the Court of Appeal rules.

www.bbc.com

And this is vote by MP’s

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/mps...on-clinics-but-bill-is-unlikely-to-become-law

gam197:

Pictures and video taping are allowed outside of courthouses in America so I am not seeing the issue. Ghislaine Maxwell will be photographed 1000 times before the trial is over.

In general, criminal trials are freely reported in the media. In this case, unusually, a reporting restriction was imposed by the judge (HHJ Marson QC in case you want to give him tips on how to be a judge) in order to guarantee a fair trial. The restriction would as a matter of course be lifted after the end of the trial. It is just a temporary ban on reporting so that the defendants cannot claim that the jury was prejudiced by the media. I honestly don’t know why you find this so hard to understand.

/I understand you have a miss guided judge. He seems to be the only one.

 

[_Ruby]

/I understand you have a crazy judge.

Gam, this is really very offensive.

These girls were horribly abused and let down by both social services and the police. The very very least they are entitled to was for their abusers to be tried and convicted in a fully fair and above board trial.

The fact you call a judge who took steps to ensure the jury was as fair and impartial as possible, ‘crazy’ is honestly, quite sickening. The reporting restrictions were in place to protect these girls and ensure their abusers would be convicted without grounds to appeal on the basis of an unfair or biased jury.

You accused others of ‘defending the abusers’ and yet you come out with statements like that.