Tommy Robinson Arrested for "Breaching the Peace"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

bastardofmelbourne:

I can't say for sure without actually seeing the conduct of the police officers, but usually a cop outside the court will go "hold on, no cameras," and then ask you to delete what you'd filmed. He'd only arrest you if you refused. Or if he was a colossal twat.

According to some sources he wasn't just filming, he was livestreaming. If so, by making material public he would have committed a gratuitous breach of his suspended sentence well beyond what the police could reasonably tolerate.

Agema:

bastardofmelbourne:

I can't say for sure without actually seeing the conduct of the police officers, but usually a cop outside the court will go "hold on, no cameras," and then ask you to delete what you'd filmed. He'd only arrest you if you refused. Or if he was a colossal twat.

According to some sources he wasn't just filming, he was livestreaming. If so, by making material public he would have committed a gratuitous breach of his suspended sentence well beyond what the police could reasonably tolerate.

Huh. Well, that almost seems deliberately reckless. Almost like he was trying to breach the terms of his probation so that he would get publicly arrested and jailed.

image

bastardofmelbourne:
Huh. Well, that almost seems deliberately reckless. Almost like he was trying to breach the terms of his probation so that he would get publicly arrested and jailed.

Well, if you're Tommy Robinson, you've already got a record and are possibly well accustomed to a jail cell so it holds less fear.

And potentially good marketing. Get to be a "martyr for the cause", international acclaim from the white nationalist peanut gallery, patreon donations, etc. Potentially beats a 9-5.

I don't really have a problem with Robinson. The only really negative things I've heard him say were about the Middle East and Muslims but so what? A lot of university students in the country I live in want a bloody revolution and the total destruction of the western society so he's not that bad, by comparison.

I think he wanted to get arrested. After the Count Dankula scandal and the millions of Pounds being wasted so that a fat ginger can pay ?800 fine, changing the hate speech laws became the hot topic for a lot of people.
The way I see it, this will also end with a small fine at best, wasting even more of the taxpayers money and strengthening Robinson's political influence in the process. More people will voice their concerns about the current state of "free" speech in the UK, some political parties will pick that up and make it their main talking point during the next elections.

I mean, just recently, the police in a small town in England called Wakefield Rural, were made fun of after making a big deal out of arresting 2 kids with a joint. In response, the cops threatened everyone who made fun of them with prison and the government was OK with it.
Shit is getting totalitarian in the UK.

Reporting on a crime is punishable, and reporting on the punishment is also punishable. How positively dictatorial. Seems they issued a change recently that people are now allowed to report on the punishment, but still, what the hell?

He broke the law, he was jailed, all perfectly legal. But gross violations of the concept of free speech by unethical and totalitarian enforcement of unjust laws has always been the safe harbor of dictators, tyrants, and oppressive rulers wanting to apply a thin veneer of justification. As is britan's other growing passtime of threatening to arrest people criticizing law enforcement.

Unsurprisingly, I have seen a number of the same people on twitter who cried foul when Trump criticized fake news a "the death of journalism and free speech" or who criticized his push to change language on documents as a sweeping censorship are defending this action.

But he said mean things and sides with a political lean they disagree with, so I guess it is ok to abandon those ideals now that it doesn't serve them.

The tribe's motto is "No bad tactics, only bad targets", after all.

He wasn't actually reporting on a crime though. Even by his own admission he never said anything, he just deliberately went out to show, live on the internet, people taking part in a mass trial. This isn't a free speech thing, this a "these people need to remain at a level of detachment so they're not influenced when trying to judge this trial" thing. Were he doing any actual reporting to the rules and standards reporters are supposed to keep he'd probably have been fine

runic knight:
*snip*

You know WHY it's illegal to film a trial and the witnesses, right?

Picture this, a mafia dude is on trial for money laundering. Someone in the courtroom films the trial and witnesses. Mafia sees it, identifies the witnesses and then later tells them "That's a nice family you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to them". Suddenly, the witness is now testifying that the mafia guy is totally innocent. Similar story for the jurors.

That law is to protect witnesses from threats, and to protect their privacy.

I wonder what the Speech Advocates would be saying if it was a Jezebel blogger in the dock for breach of court in regards to Weinstein's trial.

Intersectionalism... it's a hell of a drug. Sure, I think I'm better than some common oik too, but I prefer to draw the line at gloating at him likely getting shanked in prison for daring to piss on the charade. There's no Moral High Ground where you can celebrate the stunning bravery of the "#metoo Movement" and deplore the vigilantism that arises from the catastrophic institutional failure of the British authorities to confront an actual rape culture while you're studiously looking the other way.

Meanwhile, here's Douglas Murray's take:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/tommy-robinson-grooming-gangs-britain-persecutes-journalist/

Note that his suspended sentence was three months. The judge took 5 minutes to add 10 more for good measure.

aegix drakan:

runic knight:
*snip*

You know WHY it's illegal to film a trial and the witnesses, right?

Picture this, a mafia dude is on trial for money laundering. Someone in the courtroom films the trial and witnesses. Mafia sees it, identifies the witnesses and then later tells them "That's a nice family you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to them". Suddenly, the witness is now testifying that the mafia guy is totally innocent. Similar story for the jurors.

That law is to protect witnesses from threats, and to protect their privacy.

Considering the trial in question, and the fact he was outside recording, I find this argument holds little weight here. Especially because the violation was for "reporting" on the case itself existing, and not giving detail about witnesses in any way that would actually be relevant to the purpose you described.

He was arrested for breaching the peace while not making a spectacle, under the argument that by reporting on it, he was "inciting", and with a specific mention that stood out to be being about how they didn't want the jury "affected by irresponsible and inaccurate 'reporting'".

I also find the ban on reporting on his arrest to be very troublesome and more reminiscent of mafia tactics itself. A "make him disappear and don't talk about it" sort of mentality in play.

runic knight:

aegix drakan:

runic knight:
*snip*

You know WHY it's illegal to film a trial and the witnesses, right?

Picture this, a mafia dude is on trial for money laundering. Someone in the courtroom films the trial and witnesses. Mafia sees it, identifies the witnesses and then later tells them "That's a nice family you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to them". Suddenly, the witness is now testifying that the mafia guy is totally innocent. Similar story for the jurors.

That law is to protect witnesses from threats, and to protect their privacy.

Considering the trial in question, and the fact he was outside recording, I find this argument holds little weight here. Especially because the violation was for "reporting" on the case itself existing, and not giving detail about witnesses in any way that would actually be relevant to the purpose you described.

He was arrested for breaching the peace while not making a spectacle, under the argument that by reporting on it, he was "inciting", and with a specific mention that stood out to be being about how they didn't want the jury "affected by irresponsible and inaccurate ?reporting?".

I also find the ban on reporting on his arrest to be very troublesome and more reminiscent of mafia tactics itself. A "make him disappear and don't talk about it" sort of mentality in play.

I agree, seems like they're just trying to keep the whole thing under wraps and get through it quickly as possible before people can recognize there is a real grooming gang problem in Britain.

StatusNil:
Intersectionalism... it's a hell of a drug. Sure, I think I'm better than some common oik too, but I prefer to draw the line at gloating at him likely getting shanked in prison for daring to piss on the charade. There's no Moral High Ground where you can celebrate the stunning bravery of the "#metoo Movement" and deplore the vigilantism that arises from the catastrophic institutional failure of the British authorities to confront an actual rape culture while you're studiously looking the other way.

What does this have to do with intersectionality?

StatusNil:
Note that his suspended sentence was three months. The judge took 5 minutes to add 10 more for good measure.

I read the text of the initial decision and what surprised me most was the date. The original contempt charge was handed down on 22 May of this year. Which means that Tommy Robinson was arrested and sentenced for contempt of court, had his sentence suspended, and then days later got arrested for the exact same offence in the same place regarding the same trial.

I don't blame the judge for only taking five minutes on that decision. Robinson literally got caught doing a thing, got let off with a warning, and then did the thing again as soon as he was able to. The only plausible explanation for his behaviour is that he was trying to get arrested.

runic knight:
Reporting on a crime is punishable, and reporting on the punishment is also punishable. How positively dictatorial. Seems they issued a change recently that people are now allowed to report on the punishment, but still, what the hell?

The question of free speech and public interest is always a factor in courts issuing gag orders, but the fact is that it's relatively common for a judge to order that reporting on a trial be suspended until the trial is concluded. What's more difficult - and becoming harder every year - is the act of effectively enforcing those orders. It used to be fairly easy to make sure people coming into a court weren't carrying cameras; nowadays, anyone with a phone can livestream the events of an ongoing trial and put it online.

Down here in Victoria, we had a minor scandal when the crime drama Underbelly started airing as the real-life criminals who the show was based on were still headed to trial. This resulted in a fairly ridiculous situation where the judge had to order that nobody watch the highly-anticipated television show airing on Channel Nine at prime-time, because it would affect their judgement of the defendants. To the extent that it was ever imposed, the order was undermined almost immediately through the distribution of pirated copies of the episodes on the Internet. The fact is that if someone really, really, really wants to know what's going on inside the court, then they're gonna find out, and if that person wants to publish that scoop there's precious little you can do to prevent it.

The only real recourse a court has in that situation is to aggressively deploy contempt of court charges to dissuade anyone from disobeying the orders in the first place. And that doesn't exactly help matters, because people jailed for contempt are often seen as victims of political persecution - largely because most people don't even know what contempt of court is and don't see it as a "real" crime, but also because contempt is a judicial power that is genuinely vulnerable to abuse.

Anyway. I don't think this guy ought to have been jailed over this, both because of the free speech concerns and also because it's transparently obvious that this guy was trying to get arrested to make a spectacle of himself. I think the judge just went "oh, for fuck's sake," and did what most judges do when presented with a serial troublemaker, which was to slam the gavel down and over-punish like an angry parent.

runic knight:
Unsurprisingly, I have seen a number of the same people on twitter who cried foul when Trump criticized fake news a "the death of journalism and free speech" or who criticized his push to change language on documents as a sweeping censorship are defending this action.

What the balls does Trump have to do with it? Trump isn't a judge. He doesn't have the power to hold people in contempt.

If anything, Trump is likely to be defending himself against a contempt charge at some point or another.

Whitbane:

I agree, seems like they're just trying to keep the whole thing under wraps and get through it quickly as possible before people can recognize there is a real grooming gang problem in Britain.

Preventing reporting on an ongoing trial is routine when there's a significant chance that reporting can prejudice the outcome.

Vanilla ISIS:
I don't really have a problem with Robinson.

So you're fine with repeat criminals convicted of violence and fraud, etc.? Okay then!

In response, the cops threatened everyone who made fun of them with prison and the government was OK with it.
Shit is getting totalitarian in the UK.

That's an exaggeration. One way or another, the government has bigger issues to deal with than a policeman or two mildly overreacting to being made fun of on online media.

runic knight:
I also find the ban on reporting on his arrest to be very troublesome and more reminiscent of mafia tactics itself. A "make him disappear and don't talk about it" sort of mentality in play.

Whitbane:
I agree, seems like they're just trying to keep the whole thing under wraps and get through it quickly as possible before people can recognize there is a real grooming gang problem in Britain.

StatusNil:
...and deplore the vigilantism that arises from the catastrophic institutional failure of the British authorities to confront an actual rape culture while you're studiously looking the other way.

You guys could barely try harder to demonstrate you don't really know (/care) what's going on here.

To set the scene, when someone's accused of rape, you are exactly the sort of people who complain about "trial by media" and "the court of public opinion". Well, the intent of the contempt of court process Robinson fell foul of is designed to prevent that - specifically, interference with the process of justice in a trial by biasing the jurors. The principle of freedom of speech is not absolute. We all know it can come to a halt when it conflicts with other rights, such as where it is likely to or does cause physical harm. An important right in a civilised society is the right to a free and fair trial. Prejudicial media coverage is deemed potentially endangering to a free and fair trial in UK law - for instance by introducing material (even false material) not legally admissible in court, or by whipping up a lynch mob mentality, etc.

Whitbane's comment is particularly inaccurate because it's totally arse-end: the idea is not to protect the British from being aware of grooming gangs, it's a restriction because the British are already so aware of and hostile to grooming gangs that there is greatly higher risk of prejudicial media material. The reporting on Robinson then gets restricted because it draws attention to the paedophilia trial that is the real target. Also remember, this is only a temporary media block that exists for the court case itself. The arrests were reportable, and when the jury comes back with a verdict, it will be all over the front pages. In this sense, it's more reporting delayed.

StatusNil's comment is not compelling. There was one particularly major clusterfuck in a local area investigating a paedophile ring in recent years; from that the government appointed an official review to identify systemic failures and enact changes to make sure it never happened again. Meanwhile it has been successfully prosecuting a plenty such rings. This is hardly an institutional failure to confront crime. It is deeply unclear to me to who exactly you think are the hypocrites who overlook paedophile rings but applaud #MeToo (never mind that MeToo is not vigilantism, it's merely mass reporting). But then I'm aware thatisn't the point; it's just a rhetorical trick to fabricate a group of such people in a sufficiently nebulous way to implicate just about any political opponents.

* * *

Now, you can certainly query aspects of this contempt of court concept. But the underlying intent of protecting the right to free and fair trial, is extremely important, and you cannot have a useful discussion on it without addressing this. Dismissals of the reporting ban as "totalitarianism" are at best crass hyperbole. Stripping out the political element of white nationalists and their allies leaping in to support their own - because let's face it Robinson is by no means the first or only person ever penalised - there is an interesting debate to be had about whether the media do/can prejudice a trial (this is an ongoing debate within British law circles), or even whether in the social media era the law can be meaningfully enforced anyway.

And perhaps I wouldn't mind that much, but coming from citizens of country which routinely turns up press freedom scores considerably below most of the countries they deign to criticise (https://rsf.org/en/ranking), one might suggest you concentrate on removing the plank from your own eye before the speck from others'.

As we're talking jail and freedom, I likewise think it's worth pointing out the USA employs industrial-scale mass incarceration (rates ~10x higher than most of the Western world) of its own populace, not least under a load of extremely dubious judicial process where the poor have hopelessly inadequate legal representation. That's one hell of a lot of restriction of freedom of speech, plus other freedoms too. Never mind widespread denial of voting rights after sentence served, which whilst not exactly freedom of speech, is certainly a freedom of expression key to a civilised democratic society. And Christ, whoever it was talked about Robinson getting "shanked": British jails are at the worse end of Western standards, but they're still well short of the morass of violence and misery in your own country's.

Incidentally, another senior member of the EDL, Leigh McMillan, has been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old girl, and the EDL has been telling its members not to come forward with any information so that they don't look bad.

Real raPe cultuRe

Other than that, I can't really be arsed with explaining UK law any more, so I'll just let this blog by a law person do it:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

But just in case noone reads that.. let me post a statement from the judge who issued the suspended sentence last year, bold is mine:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as ?Muslim paedophile rapists?. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting ? if reporting indeed is what it is ? that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by ?irresponsible and inaccurate reporting?. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

You remember "innocent until proven guilty" right? It's that thing you all screech about whenever a white person is accused of raping someone.

evilthecat:
Incidentally, another senior member of the EDL, Leigh McMillan, has been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old girl, and the EDL has been telling its members not to come forward with any information so that they don't look bad.

Real raPe cultuRe

Other than that, I can't really be arsed with explaining UK law any more, so I'll just let this blog by a law person do it:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

But just in case noone reads that.. let me post a statement from the judge who issued the suspended sentence last year, bold is mine:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as ?Muslim paedophile rapists?. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting ? if reporting indeed is what it is ? that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by ?irresponsible and inaccurate reporting?. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

You remember "innocent until proven guilty" right? It's that thing you all screech about whenever a white person is accused of raping someone.

evilthecat:
Incidentally, another senior member of the EDL, Leigh McMillan, has been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old girl, and the EDL has been telling its members not to come forward with any information so that they don't look bad.

Real raPe cultuRe

Other than that, I can't really be arsed with explaining UK law any more, so I'll just let this blog by a law person do it:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

But just in case noone reads that.. let me post a statement from the judge who issued the suspended sentence last year, bold is mine:

This contempt hearing is not about free speech. This is not about freedom of the press. This is not about legitimate journalism; this is not about political correctness; this is not about whether one political viewpoint is right or another. It is about justice, and it is about ensuring that a trial can be carried out justly and fairly. It is about ensuring that a jury are not in any way inhibited from carrying out their important function. It is about being innocent until proven guilty. It is not about people prejudging a situation and going round to that court and publishing material, whether in print or online, referring to defendants as ?Muslim paedophile rapists?. A legitimate journalist would not be able to do that and under the strict liability rule there would be no defence to publication in those terms. It is pejorative language which prejudges the case, and it is language and reporting ? if reporting indeed is what it is ? that could have had the effect of substantially derailing the trial. As I have already indicated, because of what I knew was going on I had to take avoiding action to make sure that the integrity of this trial was preserved, that justice was preserved and that the trial could continue to completion without people being intimidated into reaching conclusions about it, or into being affected by ?irresponsible and inaccurate reporting?. If something of the nature of that which you put out on social media had been put into the mainstream press I would have been faced with applications from the defence advocates concerned, I have no doubt, to either say something specific to the jury, or worse, to abandon the trial and to start again. That is the kind of thing that actions such as these can and do have, and that is why you have been dealt with in the way in which you have and why I am dealing with this case with the seriousness which I am.

You remember "innocent until proven guilty" right? It's that thing you all screech about whenever a white person is accused of raping someone.

Their desperation to be seen as the unfairly victimised by some grand conspiracy is blocking any and all reasonable thought, regardless of how ridiculous it becomes. It's literally all they got going for pushing such a platform and they know it, so they cannot begin to even entertain the idea of letting that go. A fairly recent interview with an ex white nationalist explicitly mentioned the first attraction for him at the time was the narrative of white persecution that appealed to his feelings of isolation and being accepted into a group for once; it's their most effective hook.

An unrelated aside, did not know you could do that with the font here. Hmm...

Xsjadoblayde:
A fairly recent interview with an ex white nationalist explicitly mentioned the first attraction for him at the time was the narrative of white persecution that appealed to his feelings of isolation and being accepted into a group for once; it's their most effective hook.

In this case, it's perhaps even simpler.

Tommy Robinson isn't the guy's real name. It's a pseudonym, which he chose because it's the name of a prominent member of the Luton Town MIGs (a football firm - basically a group of people who attach themselves to a football club and travel to games in order to harass and attack opposition supporters). In the UK, there's a strong overlap between far-right groups and football firms, because they both provide their members with opportunities to collectively commit violence and intimidation.

That's the appeal. That's why the EDL never had any clear political affiliation or objective. That's why members of its leadership would claim to be anti-racist or anti-nazi while tolerating other members who were literally neo-Nazis or had backgrounds in groups like the BNP (Tommy Robinson himself is a former BNP member, although he claims he didn't know it was a neo-Nazi organisation). The fundamental appeal of the EDL is and always has been the opportunity to carry out violence and harassment, the people it attracts are the people who find violence fun and want to do it.

It's a way to get a big group of people together, bus them down to a Muslim or non-white community and harass the people living there, smash a few windows, maybe scare some people or send them to hospital, depending on whether the cameras are rolling. Robinson himself can pretend he's outgrown that but ultimately he still uses that name, doesn't he..

evilthecat:

In this case, it's perhaps even simpler.

Tommy Robinson isn't the guy's real name. It's a pseudonym, which he chose because it's the name of a prominent member of the Luton Town MIGs (a football firm - basically a group of people who attach themselves to a football club and travel to games in order to harass and attack opposition supporters). In the UK, there's a strong overlap between far-right groups and football firms, because they both provide their members with opportunities to collectively commit violence and intimidation.

I've heard about these groups ... are these the ones that also used to organize pre-game brawls with other football firms back in the 70s and 80s? Like, they'd pick a derelict factory yard or some other space the police won't likely find them for awhile and just beat eachother senseless? They also used to pull stunts like that in away games elsewhere, particularly in Ireland, to target Irish Catholics?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
They also used to pull stunts like that in away games elsewhere, particularly in Ireland, to target Irish Catholics?

That's only scratching the surface there, look at the B Specials for one.

evilthecat:
In this case, it's perhaps even simpler...

Ohh, he's one of those guys. That is indeed far simpler than assumed. Not that any good intentions were ever considered to be part of his personal cause, was more concerned with the people he hopes to inspire. Angry disillusioned young men are the ripest of pickings.

Agema:
And Christ, whoever it was talked about Robinson getting "shanked": British jails are at the worse end of Western standards, but they're still well short of the morass of violence and misery in your own country's.

That was me. And I should point out that the guy who desecrated a mosque (which by the way is not something I condone at all, in case someone wants to start something over it) did get killed in one of Her Majesty's non-morass prisons. Must have been for unrelated reasons, right?

But most of all, I'm curious about your info regarding "my country", the prisons, press freedom etc. Could we perhaps first establish which country we are talking about? Just curious, since I can't remember ever advertising my citizenship of any country here. Except Antarctica of course, and there are serious doubts about the veracity of that claim. Also, Antarctica has the nicest prisons.

evilthecat:
Incidentally, another senior member of the EDL, Leigh McMillan, has been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old girl, and the EDL has been telling its members not to come forward with any information so that they don't look bad.

And there I was thinking it should matter that Tommy Robinson disavowed EDL in 2013. But I guess not when it comes to misdirection.

StatusNil:

evilthecat:
Incidentally, another senior member of the EDL, Leigh McMillan, has been found guilty of grooming and sexually abusing a 10 year old girl, and the EDL has been telling its members not to come forward with any information so that they don't look bad.

And there I was thinking it should matter that Tommy Robinson disavowed EDL in 2013. But I guess not when it comes to misdirection.

Is he acting different to the EDL? (not the paedophilic stuff, I mean the anti-Islamic lean) He focusses on paedophiles from one race or religion over another. Me, I'm not prejudice. All paedophiles should be called out. If you want to be a reporter, report on all bad stuff, not just the stuff that makes people you dislike bad.

Ninjamedic:

That's only scratching the surface there, look at the B Specials for one.

Well... English Protestants, what do you expect? 'Blame the Catholics' is basically their battlecry of the last 400 years. Protestant werewolf trials? Catholics. Stubbed your toe on a step? Catholics. People fed up with Protestant occupation and the theft of their ancestral lands living in extreme poverty that routinely forced waves upon waves of Irish across the world? Catholics being problematic for being Catholic.

StatusNil:
And there I was thinking it should matter that Tommy Robinson disavowed EDL in 2013. But I guess not when it comes to misdirection.

The specific offence in question took place before the EDL was founded. It involved someone who was a key member of the organisation while Robinson was in charge, and was a personal friend even after he left.

Robison has never disavowed Leigh McMillan. He claims to have quit the EDL after realising (shock horror) that it had been partially taken over outspoken neo-Nazis rather than decent far-right leaning football hooligans. McMillan was never one of those outspoken neo-Nazis.

And hey, remember back in 2010 when one of the EDL founder members, Richard Price, was arrested for breaking police lines at an EDL rally and was discovered to have child porn images on his computer. Tommy Robison, of course, accused the police of raiding the house unfairly and implied the police had framed Price. He later retracted his statement after public criticism, then issued a statement claiming Price had never been a leader of the EDL, despite the fact that previous statements of his confirmed that Price had been one of the most senior leaders of the organisation.

If I wanted to derail, I'd bring in the couple of dozen other EDL members convicted of child sex offences at the time Robinson was in leader. I'm just sticking to people he knew personally.

But please, think of the ACTUAL RAPE CULTURE.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
They also used to pull stunts like that in away games elsewhere, particularly in Ireland, to target Irish Catholics?

Yeah, when I mentioned "connections between the far right and football firms" I was tempted to add "and Unionism/Loyalism" as well, but I didn't want to make the post too long. It's a connection which is no less important than any of the others though.

The EDL's "no surrender to the Taliban" chant comes from "no surrender to the IRA", a chant famously used at the 1995 Lansdowne Road football riot, which was orchestrated by members of the neo-Nazi group Combat 18. The phrase "no surrender" itself probably originated as part of unionist and loyalist politics of the 1980s, and crops up in football chants (often shouted between different sections) as a coded expression of either loyalist sympathy or general far right politics, depending on context.

I mean, that whole Lansdowne Road incident is pretty much the British far right in a nutshell. You've got explicit neo-Nazism, unionism/loyalism and football violence, all deeply connected with each other.

Pauline Hanson (notoriously xenophobic australian idiot and elected member of parliament) has taken up his cause.
http://caldronpool.com/australian-senator-pauline-hanson-sends-a-message-to-tommy-robinson-im-coming-to-the-u-k/

Addendum_Forthcoming:

I've heard about these groups ... are these the ones that also used to organize pre-game brawls with other football firms back in the 70s and 80s? Like, they'd pick a derelict factory yard or some other space the police won't likely find them for awhile and just beat eachother senseless? They also used to pull stunts like that in away games elsewhere, particularly in Ireland, to target Irish Catholics?

Well, they sometimes arranged fights. Often they'd just jump and maul unsuspecting fans of the opposite team, alone or in small groups, like much football violence. They can include plenty of people who are far more interesting in inflicting damage and pain on others than they are interested in football. After all, if you really get a buzz from assaulting people, may as well get the benefits of a gang with years of experience of how to evade getting caught by the police.

evilthecat:
But please, think of the ACTUAL RAPE CULTURE.

To be fair, I think a great deal of this is ignorance. Americans have read lots of right-wing American articles about brave old Tommy Robinson battling the Muslims on behalf of the West, and these articles have unfortunately omitted Robinson's lengthy history of crime and plentiful associations with neo-Nazis and child molesters.

Kwak:
Pauline Hanson (notoriously xenophobic australian idiot and elected member of parliament) has taken up his cause.
http://caldronpool.com/australian-senator-pauline-hanson-sends-a-message-to-tommy-robinson-im-coming-to-the-u-k/

She also cried on national TV last week when one from her own party didn't follow her lead. And then promptly ex-communicated him. When she was the one flip-flopping on the issue (like she usually does) of taxation.

On related news, Palmer has been putting billboards up saying MAGA (the A in this one is Australia) up here is QLD

trunkage:

Kwak:
Pauline Hanson (notoriously xenophobic australian idiot and elected member of parliament) has taken up his cause.
http://caldronpool.com/australian-senator-pauline-hanson-sends-a-message-to-tommy-robinson-im-coming-to-the-u-k/

She also cried on national TV last week when one from her own party didn't follow her lead. And then promptly ex-communicated him. When she was the one flip-flopping on the issue (like she usually does) of taxation.

On related news, Palmer has been putting billboards up saying MAGA (the A in this one is Australia) up here is QLD

Oh, FFS, can't he go round trying to make a real Jurassic Park and a second Titanic rather than trying to copy a complete disaster?

Wait, Palmer is still a thing? I thought he faded into obscurity when his party imploded.

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
Reporting on a crime is punishable, and reporting on the punishment is also punishable. How positively dictatorial. Seems they issued a change recently that people are now allowed to report on the punishment, but still, what the hell?

The question of free speech and public interest is always a factor in courts issuing gag orders, but the fact is that it's relatively common for a judge to order that reporting on a trial be suspended until the trial is concluded. What's more difficult - and becoming harder every year - is the act of effectively enforcing those orders. It used to be fairly easy to make sure people coming into a court weren't carrying cameras; nowadays, anyone with a phone can livestream the events of an ongoing trial and put it online.

Down here in Victoria, we had a minor scandal when the crime drama Underbelly started airing as the real-life criminals who the show was based on were still headed to trial. This resulted in a fairly ridiculous situation where the judge had to order that nobody watch the highly-anticipated television show airing on Channel Nine at prime-time, because it would affect their judgement of the defendants. To the extent that it was ever imposed, the order was undermined almost immediately through the distribution of pirated copies of the episodes on the Internet. The fact is that if someone really, really, really wants to know what's going on inside the court, then they're gonna find out, and if that person wants to publish that scoop there's precious little you can do to prevent it.

The only real recourse a court has in that situation is to aggressively deploy contempt of court charges to dissuade anyone from disobeying the orders in the first place. And that doesn't exactly help matters, because people jailed for contempt are often seen as victims of political persecution - largely because most people don't even know what contempt of court is and don't see it as a "real" crime, but also because contempt is a judicial power that is genuinely vulnerable to abuse.

Anyway. I don't think this guy ought to have been jailed over this, both because of the free speech concerns and also because it's transparently obvious that this guy was trying to get arrested to make a spectacle of himself. I think the judge just went "oh, for fuck's sake," and did what most judges do when presented with a serial troublemaker, which was to slam the gavel down and over-punish like an angry parent.

I find any sort of gag on reporting on a case to be entirely worthless, given how easily and often reports on suspect's name and charges end up reported on in general. If the concern about protecting the interests of the accused is important a concept, it should be preserved entirely, not selectively, for all defendants. Anything less and you end up with what you see here, with it coming off more as politically motivated punishments derived from harsh responses to often arbitrarily decided gags in the first place.
If the protection is more important than public interest in a person accused of breaking the laws of the society, all deserve it fairly. If it is not that important, than no one should get special consideration or exception from being reported upon. If the law is not equally enforced, then all it does is validate ever claim of legal favoritism, or political antagonism.

runic knight:
Unsurprisingly, I have seen a number of the same people on twitter who cried foul when Trump criticized fake news a "the death of journalism and free speech" or who criticized his push to change language on documents as a sweeping censorship are defending this action.

What the balls does Trump have to do with it? Trump isn't a judge. He doesn't have the power to hold people in contempt.

If anything, Trump is likely to be defending himself against a contempt charge at some point or another.

The point was the hypocrisy of those who express concern about the death of free journalism when Trump criticizes it, yet have fallen in line and abandoned the view that the public has the right to know or that a government agent declaring what can or can not be reported is a real threat to journalism itself when it comes to this case.

Trump being a judge or not is irrelevant to me pointing out inconsistency in the moral arguments of many of those I see defending this case.

Agema:

You guys could barely try harder to demonstrate you don't really know (/care) what's going on here.
-snip-

Very little of what you said matters to the topic itself, or the point of complaint.

A complaint about a ban on the reporting of a case is not the same thing as a complaint on the media declaring someone a rapist based on nothing but hearsay and their own political biases willing it be true.

The first is a complaint about public interest and free speech being violated, selectively, by a government agent deciding it as a special exception to the practiced norm, and silencing those who would report on it in any capacity.

The second is a complaint about the slanderous and demonizing nature of declaring someone is guilty of a crime before they are event judged fairly in a court of law.

One can hold both complaints without any contradictions. And while I can see how they would relate (not being able to report on a case would make it less likely they would report them preemptively guilty), that doesn't address the issues people have with the ban in the first place, and nor does it prevent the problem of preemptive demonization and accusing of guilt in practical application.

That reporting is "delayed" does not make it better, especially considering the nature of the case itself and how it impacts public interest in a way far beyond most trials. Bans on reporting in this case come off less like a "we will report it later" and more like "We will wait til public interest to die off and hope they forget about this". It has a very chilling effect on reporting and speech (and in a nation already being heavily criticized for oppression toward criticisms of their policies regarding speech, such as the CountDankula incident, or the police threatening to arrest people for facebook posts). In the end, it comes off more like a government agency promising to declassify something later on, and then when they do 20 years later, it is till nothing but black bars everywhere and few people care anymore.

Hell, in delaying it, it may even prevent victims coming forward that were currently unknown or who did not think anything was to be done about it til they heard about it publicized. That was the entire basis of the #MeToo movement wasn't it? That of letting women who were victims know they were not alone and to come forward in solidarity and to reveal the truth, so I find the defense of the ban on reporting on the trial and how it actively opposes that sort of response to be more than a little odd.

bastardofmelbourne:

What the balls does Trump have to do with it?

Trump supporters have to make everything about Trump. That's the rule #1 to be a Trump supporter: Trump is love, Trump is life.

He did something wrong and got punished for it, did it again, got punished again. A rarity in this world.

runic knight:
I find any sort of gag on reporting on a case to be entirely worthless, given how easily and often reports on suspect's name and charges end up reported on in general.

Right, but that information wasn't restricted and has been freely reported on.

runic knight:
If the concern about protecting the interests of the accused is important a concept, it should be preserved entirely, not selectively, for all defendants.

It is, which is why we have these kinds of reporting restrictions. Judges are obliged to impose reporting restrictions on any case in which there is a clear risk that the release of certain information could prejudice the jury. Heck, Tommy Robison's first contempt of court hearing was subject to reporting restrictions, since it took place in connection with another trial.

He was initially arrested in 2017 and found guilty of contempt of court in connection with section 41 of the Criminal Justice act 1925, which prohibits recording or photography inside a court room. This law applies to everyone and to any courtroom. Even national news teams are not allowed to take cameras onto court premises. The judge ruled that, given the content of his broadcast, his attempt to film despite having been told he was not permitted to do so and despite clear signs pointing out that it was illegal posed a very real risk of disrupting or prejudicing the court proceedings and could have caused serious harm to the integrity of the trial. Had he not been stopped, the defence could even have moved to have the trial postponed, causing immense cost to the taxpayer, denying justice to the alleged victims and leaving the accused in legal limbo.

Hence he was given a relatively short suspended sentence (effectively a warning that if he did the same thing within an 18 month period he would face prison).

All of this could have been avoided had he simply kept his livestream off court premises and thus avoided breaking the law, the same law everyone abides by, from members of the public to massive news organisations, plenty of whom reported on this trial, but none of whom brought cameras onto court premises, none of whom claimed the defendants were paedophiles before they had been sentenced, and none of whom deliberately attempted to disrupt the trial or oppose the pursuit of fair justice.

All of this could have been avoided had he not, after having been found in contempt of court, decided to return to a different courthouse, to once again film on court premises and to continue "reporting" on criminal proceedings knowing full well that he was breaching the terms of his suspended sentence. He admitted to being in contempt of court, even he doesn't contest that he committed a crime.

How many times is a person allowed to break the law before it becomes permissible to punish them?

evilthecat:

Yeah, when I mentioned "connections between the far right and football firms" I was tempted to add "and Unionism/Loyalism" as well, but I didn't want to make the post too long. It's a connection which is no less important than any of the others though.

The EDL's "no surrender to the Taliban" chant comes from "no surrender to the IRA", a chant famously used at the 1995 Lansdowne Road football riot, which was orchestrated by members of the neo-Nazi group Combat 18. The phrase "no surrender" itself probably originated as part of unionist and loyalist politics of the 1980s, and crops up in football chants (often shouted between different sections) as a coded expression of either loyalist sympathy or general far right politics, depending on context.

I mean, that whole Lansdowne Road incident is pretty much the British far right in a nutshell. You've got explicit neo-Nazism, unionism/loyalism and football violence, all deeply connected with each other.

Agema:

Well, they sometimes arranged fights. Often they'd just jump and maul unsuspecting fans of the opposite team, alone or in small groups, like much football violence. They can include plenty of people who are far more interesting in inflicting damage and pain on others than they are interested in football. After all, if you really get a buzz from assaulting people, may as well get the benefits of a gang with years of experience of how to evade getting caught by the police.

Well... yeah. I feel like football is the vehicle for neo-Nazi garbage. It allows for that initial tribalistic dynamic to establish itself, and through enculturation radicalize and justify political violence. The sport itself doesn't really matter... football just because it's the 'world game' seems like the best way to recruit newer members.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked