Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed

[3.14159]

This thread is more of the same moronic crap from all the usual suspects!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 96981.html

[stui magpie]

Thanks for sharing, see you again in a few more months.

[Wokko]

This thread is more of the same moronic crap from all the usual suspects!

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 96981.html

Your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Pies4shaw]

I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought.

[Wokko]

I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought.

Is Tommy Robinson not in jail? Was he not reporting outside a courthouse? Was the trial not a gang of Muslim paedophiles?

I posted something and left the topic open to discussion and most people did just that. You just go on sneering and being out of touch, it's what you do best.

[David]

Hi everyone, let's try to remain civil and focused on the topic.

[Pies4shaw]

I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought.

Is Tommy Robinson not in jail? Was he not reporting outside a courthouse? Was the trial not a gang of Muslim paedophiles?

I posted something and left the topic open to discussion and most people did just that. You just go on sneering and being out of touch, it's what you do best.

He's in jail for contempt of court. This always happens summarily. He didn't get jailed for "reporting". He got jailed for committing a contempt.

The trial was, of course, of some persons accused of certain crimes. Like you (see bold above), he didn't seem to appreciate the distinction between being accused of something and being found guilty of it. That is how he found himself committing a criminal contempt of court. For the second time in 12 months, it seems.

Once might be unlucky. Twice is stupid. He's not a cause. He's a genuine object of derision.

See also http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 852297.htm

[David]

[watt price tully]

I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought.

Is Tommy Robinson not in jail? Was he not reporting outside a courthouse? Was the trial not a gang of Muslim paedophiles?

I posted something and left the topic open to discussion and most people did just that. You just go on sneering and being out of touch, it's what you do best.

He's in jail for contempt of court. This always happens summarily. He didn't get jailed for "reporting". He got jailed for committing a contempt.

The trial was, of course, of some persons accused of certain crimes. Like you (see bold above), he didn't seem to appreciate the distinction between being accused of something and being found guilty of it. That is how he found himself committing a criminal contempt of court. For the second time in 12 months, it seems.

Once might be unlucky. Twice is stupid. He's not a cause. He's a genuine object of derision.

See also http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 852297.htm

Correct weight. It was absolutely fake news and nothing to see here. Simply contempt of court.

(I don't think I like the violet font though)

Mind you when I first saw the name I thought of TRB

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar_saHB ... B60qU&t=34

[Pi]

All things being equal and consistent and judging from this;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... reets.html

Its likely Robinson will be free in 6.5 months after serving half the sentence, maybe even sooner with sentence appeal.

[thesoretoothsayer]

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

The best part of that article is that the accused raged "against Lily Allen".

It is not "fake news" to report the prosecution's opening. It may be that the prosecution was gilding the lily (no pen intunded) but if the prosecution did say that "Mr Robinson and Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, sent Mr Osborne messages days before the attack", as the article states (in terms), then the headline (which we must take on trust, since it is no longer the headline that appears when one opens that link) is apt. Sadly, Counsel (or even, God forbid, Senior Counsel) in a matter do occasionally open their case at a level that some (of the more circumspect) of us might say was an over-reach. That's why, after the opening, we have evidence to see whether the prosecution's opening is sustainable.

The report says that "Mr Robinson and Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, sent Mr Osborne messages days before the attack" is what the jury heard. Either it was said in front of the jury, or it wasn't. If it wasn't the journalist got it wrong. If it was, then the prosecutor said it and it can be reported. It is not the reporter's job to "fact check" whether what the prosecution says in opening to the jury was accurate - that's the purpose of having a trial and letting a jury decide. The journalist's responsibility is to (do their best to) report accurately that which was said in Court.

There is a whole separate discussion to be had about whether journalists should ever be allowed to report on Court proceedings, in the running - especially given the extraordinary potential for besmirching reputations. when it's reported inaccurately. That probably isn't a matter of paramount significance in a trial like the one the subject of the report.

[HAL]

What would be the reporter's job to fact check whether what the prosecution says in opening to the jury was accurate - that's the purpose of having a trial and letting a jury decide?

[Pies4shaw]

Stop sneering, Hal. It's unbecoming.