Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 July 2019 07:19
snoop1130

British far-right activist jailed for contempt of court

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

I'm not disputing that Robinson contravened British law, or did so knowingly. But if the pat Brit response to this is, Well, this is British law, end of story--those of you making this so-called argument might  want to refrain  the next time from questioning every American policy with ex cathedra authority. Or maybe the American poster might come back and say, This is America, not your country. End of story.

Well the US does seem to give reverence to a document a couple of hundred years old, bit like muslims holding the koran n reverence.

 

However, in UK and Oz the law can change with the times. Oz does not have free speech in the constitution but it is implied by common law and precedents. But govts can pass laws to restrict that speech, such as against hate speech. I see that as an improvement to freedom of speech.

 

But in any event, it was the court that ordered suprresion. If he didnt like it he could have petitioned the court to lift the order. Its happened before.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

I'm not disputing that Robinson contravened British law, or did so knowingly. But if the pat Brit response to this is, Well, this is British law, end of story--those of you making this so-called argument might  want to refrain  the next time from questioning every American policy with ex cathedra authority. Or maybe the American poster might come back and say, This is American, not your country. End of story.

Fine. Do so. What's the problem?

American jurisdiction is yours, British jurisdiction is ours. What is wrong with discussing such matters in a considered and thoughtful way?

I do so frequently with American friends. However neither they or I are nationalistic firebrands. This helps, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Ok. I have come back to this post. in the US Jurors  are sequestered but the media and public are allowed "comment". The UK  media and public  can also  freely "speculate".

But in the US can you declare they are allowed  to  publish evidential details and pictures of defendants in defiance of a  court ruling  against such?

The media and public in America are allowed far more than "comment." I've never even heard of a mistrial being declared in America because some person or a media powerhouse published a biased editorial. The defense can always argue for a change  of venue if they believe the jury pool has been tainted. Defendants in American have no protected right to anonymity. I admit, this is not always a good thing, but the alternative is worse, if the  alternative is the suppression of the freedom of speech of individual  citizens and the media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well the US does seem to give reverence to a document a couple of hundred years old, bit like muslims holding the koran n reverence.

 

However, in UK and Oz the law can change with the times. Oz does not have free speech in the constitution but it is implied by common law and precedents. But govts can pass laws to restrict that speech, such as against hate speech. I see that as an improvement to freedom of speech.

 

But in any event, it was the court that ordered suprresion. If he didnt like it he could have petitioned the court to lift the order. Its happened before.

In for one would rather have my freedom of speech, as any other right, explicit rather than merely "implied." You have wonder why not make it explicit? what is the UK afraid of? 

 

If you think "hate speech" laws are an improvement to freedom of speech than you have no idea what freedom of speech truly is.  You're merely paying mouth-honor to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, baboon said:

Fine. Do so. What's the problem?

American jurisdiction is yours, British jurisdiction is ours. What is wrong with discussing such matters in a considered and thoughtful way?

I do so frequently with American friends. However neither they or I are nationalistic firebrands. This helps, I think.

No problem at all, so long as America and it's policies get the same consideration, which we all know is not likely to happen. Oh well, this is America and these are our policies. The next Trump-bashing frenzy on this forum, that's how I'm going to reply. I doubt that will end the thread. BTW, I'm not a "nationalistic firebrand." Quite the opposite, I consider myself an individualist, the furthest thing from a nationalist. 

Edited by OtinPattaya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

No problem at all, so long as America and it's policies get the same consideration, which we all know is not likely to happen. Oh well, this is America and these are our policies. The next Trump-bashing frenzy on this forum, that's how I'm going to reply. I doubt that will end the thread. BTW, I'm not a "nationalistic firebrand." Quite the opposite, I consider myself an individualist, the furthest thing from a nationalist. 

Why would America and her legal system receive the the same consideration as British law on a thread about the trial of a British citizen in a British court under British law?

By all means promote Trump as you see fit, but I don't think that this is the thread for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, evadgib said:

The irony is that FCO London also staged a Global Conference for Media Freedom today 🙄

 

 

 

4 hours ago, chokrai said:

So much for free speech in Britain.

 

Are you two aware of Yaxley-Lennon's supporters' attitude to media freedom and free speech?

 

Tommy Robinson supporters attack journalists and clash with police outside Parliament after he is jailed for contempt of court

 

Perhaps, like him and his supporters, you both believe that press freedom only extends to those saying things with which you agree?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was the BBC the biased BBC what I have read today in the press about this case is SO WRONG it is disgraceful but people like you just lap it up and defend the lying Press.

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Tommy read out a news report from the BBC , which is still there today .

UK law states that info already in the public domain can be repeated publically   

As has been said many, many times before; the BBC report was published before reporting restrictions were put in place, When those restrictions were imposed, the BBC removed it from their site. 

 

Whether the report now on the BBC site is the original one reposted after the restrictions were lifted or a new version I do not know. It's irrelevant, anyway.

 

If information which is in the public domain is subsequently the subject of a court order restricting reporting of that information, then to repeat it publicly is in breach of that order and so contempt of court.

 

It is the same with the YouTube video of Yaxley-Lennon's so called report. It may be there now, but while the reporting restrictions were in place it was not available; at least not here in the UK. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 7by7 said:

As has been said many, many times before; the BBC report was published before reporting restrictions were put in place, When those restrictions were imposed, the BBC removed it from their site. 

 

Whether the report now on the BBC site is the original one reposted after the restrictions were lifted or a new version I do not know. It's irrelevant, anyway.

 

If information which is in the public domain is subsequently the subject of a court order restricting reporting of that information, then to repeat it publicly is in breach of that order and so contempt of court.

 

It is the same with the YouTube video of Yaxley-Lennon's so called report. It may be there now, but while the reporting restrictions were in place it was not available; at least not here in the UK. 

 

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH 
 

It is all on video mate he read it LIVe from the BBC website 

again this is a complete stitch up 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...