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

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As noted a very big deal if he had caused the defendants to walk free due to a mistrial or the jury being dismissed.
[/quote]

Emily Alexander has said it was one judges ruling.

NO-ONE here is defending child abusers and I’d think twice before levelling such accusations at fellow posters.
[/quote]

That is good because it comes across that you are more concerned about photos.

They did prior to his death in 2014 and have faded into obscurity.

There are no news articles or recent years on them.

But there are still other member remaining of this group, albeit it is a small outlier among the various faiths in the US. A vanishingly small outlier, but it still for now remains in existence.
[/quote]

It is still a group. As I pointed out it was a very small group to begin with.

They do not make the press.
 
Last edited:
I understand by this point you are not interested in showing manners or respect to people from other nations or attempting to understand conditions there.
[/quote]

Now I am disrepectful?

No I think there are judges who do many things that people don’t agree with

Great, useful information, now in return read the information provided about how British law works
[/quote]

I am glad you found the information usefeul. I did read the law that you provided on another thread

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64

No that’s a foolish comment which originates in the fact you refuse to read around the case or try and understand why the judge wanted to ensure conditions didn’t exist where the defendants would try and get mistrials declared or push for new juries to be selected. You can of course like Tommy make such comments and pat yourself on the back all day but the actual fact the case went through to completion was not due to Tommy horsing about much as he would like to have presented himself as the hero of the hour.
[/quote]

. Of will change it but this judge seems to be the only one.
 
Last edited:
_Ruby said:
40.png
gam197:
/I understand you have a misguided judge.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Ok I am sorry if I offended and changed the language to say mis guided. Yes Ruby these girls were horribly abused and they deserve to get justice and these men deserved, well I won’t go there.

This seem to be the ruling on one judge. As I said Ghislaine Maxwell will be photographed and her name will be plastered all over the internet. It will not matter.

They may try to say she will not get a fair trial but I doubt it. She will get a trial.

The trial is over, in the UK the men have been sentenced and Tommy Robinson is still due to get 2 years in prison for a video.
 
Last edited:
What of that? Does something have to ‘make the press’ to exist or have a tangible reality?
[/quote]

The are a nothing group. They have the right to freedom of speech anywhere they want.

Did you miss the fact that it could have resulted in jurors being dismissed and a whole new jury having to be selected? It would also leave room to challenge any conviction as unsafe.
[/quote]
I understand the concern but it did not happen.

I am going to ask you once only to cease that right now
[/quote]

Got it that you are concerned that these men get justice and these girls also get justice.
 
Last edited:
Please remove this from your posts.
[/quote]

Removed 1234
 
Last edited:
gam197 said:
40.png
_Ruby:
40.png
gam197:
/I understand you have a crazy judge.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Ok I am sorry if I offended and changed the language to say mis guided. Yes Ruby these girls were horribly abused and they deserve to get justice and these men deserved, well I won’t go there.

This seem to be the ruling on one judge. As I said Ghislaine Maxwell will be photographed and her name will be plastered all over the internet. It will not matter.

They may try to say she will not get a fair trial but I doubt it. She will get a trial.

The trial is over, in the UK the men have been sentenced and Tommy Robinson is still due to get 2 years in prison for a video.
Click to expand...
Im sorry Gam, but I don’t find your change of phrase any less offensive. The bottom line is that you are supportive of those who put the whole trial at risk. Those girls deserve better than to have the trial they waited for and fought for so long to happen, collapse, because people couldn’t respect the need for an impartial jury.

I cannot engage with you any further in this. Your comments and disregard for these girls is pushing me to a place where I feel I cant remain cordial and continue in good faith.
 
Last edited:
Hardly, you’ve had numerous posters try and explain the background of the trial and give you links. In return you’ve implied people are defending child abusers rather than dealing with the material presented to you. It was pointed out to you that such restrictions are rare and not used normally and that this was an exceptional case. You are free of course to disagree with that, but you are not free to start implying fellow posters support or facilitate child abuse. That would be case in itself for a court action in many places if we were using our real names or if such a comment was made towards other individuals in public
[/quote]

Emily Alexander has said it was one judge who decided.
 
And you can remove this attempt to say the same thing in another more roundabout way also please
[/quote]

Deleted the whole line.
 
Last edited:
_Ruby said:
Im sorry Gam, but I don’t find your change of phrase any less offensive. The bottom line is that you are supportive of those who put the whole trial at risk. Those girls deserve better than to have the trial they waited for and fought for so long to happen, collapse, because people couldn’t respect the need for an impartial jury.

I cannot engage with you any further in this. Your comments and disregard for these girls is pushing me to a place where I feel I cant remain cordial and continue in good faith.
Click to expand...
How is it offensive to question a judge’s decision on a case. We do that all the time in the USA. We constantly talk about judge’s rulings and decision on cases, whether the judge is bias and such

We question on both sides of the aisle whether the judge is too restrictive on law. It goes on all the time here…

When we restrict freedom of speech even to discuss judges decisions
 
Last edited:
gam197 said:
How is it offensive to question a judge’s decision on a case. We do that all the time in the USA. We constantly talk about judge’s rulings and decision on cases, whether the judge is bias and such.
Click to expand...
Because the choice boils down to whether you support a fair trail with an impartial jury, or you don’t.

The judge supports a fair trial and made a decision to ensure the jury was not biased or influenced in any way. You called his decision ‘crazy’. I think it is offensive that you think actually convicting these men in a fair trial is ‘crazy’, or that taking steps to stop the trial collapsing is ‘crazy’ or that ensuring the girls are not subject to more trauma by way of an appeals process by the abusers is ‘crazy’.
gam197 said:
When we restrict freedom of speech even to discuss judges decisions
Click to expand...
Im sorry - but I really cannot muster a charitable reply to this.
 
Hardly, you’ve had numerous posters try and explain the background of the trial and give you links. In return you’ve implied people are defending child abusers rather than dealing with the material presented to you. It was pointed out to you that such restrictions are rare and not used normally and that this was an exceptional case. You are free of course to disagree with that, but you are not free to start implying fellow posters support or facilitate child abuse. That would be case in itself for a court action in many places if we were using our real names or if such a comment was made towards other individuals in public.
[/quote]

I am glad that they are rare and this can be discussed.
 
gam197 said:
Deleted the whole line.
Click to expand...
Deleted all lines on my posts that were found to be offensive. Some posts have been flagged and removed so please let me know if there is any other language that you found offensive.
 
I take it out of all my posts because you and Ruby found it offensive and then it get repeated over and over again. It was a bad choice of words. I find many judges decisions to be misguided and this judge felt that it would endanger the trial but it did not. Some judged make these kinds of decisions.
 
Last edited:
And are in their own nation and with the awareness of local legal customs and conditions that brings in a far better place to make such calls. Had the there been a need to rerun the trial the stress this would have put the girls under would have been immense. It’s issues like that which Tommy didn’t take into account in his attempt to interfere with the proceedings.
[/quote]

Tommy Robinson made his own decision because apparently he felt he had a right to video tape outside a court house. He will go to prison again up to two years.

He just got out of prison for contempt of court.

Prolifer may find that is the only avenue they have if the ban of free speech remains and they are forced into free sprech zones 330 feet away from clinics…

They will have to break the rule, get closer, get arrested and have a trial. That is sometimes the way it is.
 
Last edited:
He didn’t and actions carry consequences. Tommy has nothing to do with the issue from the other thread and police would likely just issues fines in those cases, you are trying to muddle issues up once again in a manner that benefits the dialogue or discussion of neither subject.
[/quote]

I am trying to understand what is going on. Tommy Robison did make the choice to video tape outside a courthouse.
The 36-year-old former leader of the English Defence League is accused of breaching reporting restrictions by livestreaming a video on Facebook while the jury in that case was considering its verdicts.

He was arrested while still filming and was jailed for 13 months in May 2018, only to be freed on appeal because the hearing was “fundamentally flawed”.
Click to expand...
This has been ongoing.
 
Last edited:
So he got three months and then 10 added on for video taping outside the courthouse.
The judge activated a three-month sentence for a previous contempt of court offence that had been suspended by another judge in Canterbury on the condition that Robinson committed no further crimes.

Judge Marson added 10 months for the new offence, telling Robinson that he had violated restrictions aiming to ensure a fair trial and risked sparking an application to discharge the jury.
Click to expand...
This is still pending and maybe more prison time if he does not show. He has already done 9 weeks in prison for this charge.
 
Last edited:
Do you think perhaps in addition to being a vile racist thug he is also a bit of a pillock?
 
Isn’t plonket a nasty word - according to the definition on the internet?
 
For some reason I can’t get that old West Side Story song out of my head:

“Officer Krupke, you’ve done it again
This boy don’t need a job, he needs a year in the pen
It ain’t just a question of misunderstood
Deep down inside him he’s no good.”

😁
 
gam197 said:
Isn’t plonket a nasty word - according to the definition on the internet?
Click to expand...
Well there are other British definition that I can’t repeat here according to the internet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top