ANTI-IMMIGRATION PROTESTER JAILED IN LONDON JUDGE ORDERS PRESS BLACKOUT ROBINSON SILENCED!

[JimC]

Well there we are then, now we know you think the EDL member who was live-streaming people going in and out of the court was acting in good faith.

What in the world are you on about?

I don't know what faith he was acting in. I barely know anything about this guy. I might have heard of him before, but I can assure you the policies and platform of the EDL are not only unknown to me, I have approximately zero fucks to give about what sort of faith they act in. It doesn't matter (to me).

And yet you objected to the sentence by citing that "a person is not guilty of contempt in respect of a fair and accurate report of a legal proceeding held in public, published contemporaneiously and in good faith."

If you are not objecting to the sentence and the contempt conviction on this basis then on what basis are out objecting to it?

I think 42 is making a vague, generalised legal point, which may have merit in some cases, but simply does not apply here. Brazenly filming the defendants in a legal case as they emerge from court, labelling them as muslim pedophiles, and widely distributing the footage is not an example of "a fair and accurate report of a legal proceeding held in public, published contemporaneiously and in good faith."

[rainbow]

L'Emmerdeur, I've been quite clear in my manner of addressing this issue. There is nothing disingenuous about it. There is certainly, on my part, an incomplete understanding of what happened (due to a variety of conflicting and vague reports), and a gradual accumulation of legal and factual information.

Drivel.

You claimed to have done a Google search on this and found nothing. It has been pointed out to you.

You now feign ignorance.

That is disingenuous.

[Scot Dutchy]

Some relatively normal - small 'c' conservatives read it - whereas Tyrannical is a big 'C'.

Followed by a 'u', 'n', and 't'.

[Brian Peacock]

Steady on.

[mistermack]

Of all the people posting here, L'Emmerdeur would be the last person that could be credibly accused of writing stupid stuff. Seriously, this is asinine.

This is like a rat calling a monkey clever.

I can see why you're impressed.

[Forty Two]

L'Emmerdeur, I've been quite clear in my manner of addressing this issue. There is nothing disingenuous about it. There is certainly, on my part, an incomplete understanding of what happened (due to a variety of conflicting and vague reports), and a gradual accumulation of legal and factual information.

Drivel.

You claimed to have done a Google search on this and found nothing. It has been pointed out to you.

You now feign ignorance.

That is disingenuous.

Oh for the love of dog.... stop it. Just stop it. I did not claim to have "found nothing." I said what wasn't found - first, I did not see as where he had admitted guilt and pled guilty. And, if you read the articles that come up in an internet search, there is no mention. The link provided to me, which I expressed thanks for, was from a Leeds website which did not come up in searches. I even tried to find it after the fact, and it doesn't come up. Sometimes that happens. It was provided to me, and I was grateful for it. The next item was the order of the court in the Muslim rape gang case for the publication ban. That still has not been found. It has not been pointed out to me.

This is a case where there was a publication ban for a time on the issue of Robinson's arrest, which was later lifted. So, initiially, reports were, in fact, very hard to come by. If you don't understand that, then you're not following the issue in the slightest. Fuck off.

[pErvinalia]

Of all the people posting here, L'Emmerdeur would be the last person that could be credibly accused of writing stupid stuff. Seriously, this is asinine.

This is like a rat calling a monkey clever.

I can see why you're impressed.

There it is, the smiley. Argument lost. You really should stop digging yourself in holes, man.

[Forty Two]

Well there we are then, now we know you think the EDL member who was live-streaming people going in and out of the court was acting in good faith.

What in the world are you on about?

I don't know what faith he was acting in. I barely know anything about this guy. I might have heard of him before, but I can assure you the policies and platform of the EDL are not only unknown to me, I have approximately zero fucks to give about what sort of faith they act in. It doesn't matter (to me).

And yet you objected to the sentence by citing that "a person is not guilty of contempt in respect of a fair and accurate report of a legal proceeding held in public, published contemporaneiously and in good faith."

If you are not objecting to the sentence and the contempt conviction on this basis then on what basis are out objecting to it?

I did not object to the sentence by citing that. I discussed the issue by quoting the relevant law.

Section 4.2 was the section noted in some articles as applying to this case, and the court supposedly sentenced him for violating the publication order (which we have not seen here, yet). And, one main issue I discussed, which I couched very clearly as being potentially a function of my understanding being mainly of US law, and not being familiar with British law, is that I could not understand how walking around on a public street and filming people could be a "contempt of court." That's why I was going through the applicable British law on the topic.

The original suspended sentence made sense to me - he was filming inside the courthouse after being warned that he could not film inside the courthouse. That much I understand, but outside onthe street seems materially different, and I mentioned in the US that a judge would have no right to tell people what to do out on the street.

In the UK, there is a power of the court under the contempt act to enter a prior restraint on the media to not publish stories and images about a trial until it is over. But to do that, the court apparently has to enter a specific order setting out the constraints.

There has been mention of the section, too, about the British law that says you can't take pictures in the court, and the court includes the "precincts" of the court. Now a precinct of a building or structure is, as I understand it, within the walls or compound of a building or set of building. I did not understand it to mean the "public way/street passing by the building," but apparently, in the UK, it does.

It's a puzzling set of laws, to an American.

If we had them here, then the media would not have been able to publish about, say, Bill Cosby, and they would not have been allowed to film and broadcast him traveling to or walking into the court, and the protesters from the #metoo movement would not have been allowed to freely assemble near the courthouse, take pictures, and report, etc. Same thing with other high profile cases. The public would just be in the dark about what was going on.

This is a discussion thread, isn't it? Every fucking exchange doesn't have to be a fight. If it makes you feel better, Tommy Robinson is a scumbag racist, and deserves everything he's getting because he knew full-well what to expect when he went to film and livestream the defendants entering court. Happy? Let's just end all discussion of the law, the propriety of the law, the basis for the court's decision, and such, because whatever one media outlet or another published is definitely correct and accurate, and the judge's decision was definitely proper under the circumstances and in no sense an overreach. Such things don't happen in Britain and Europe at large, as humans there are always honorable and never make mistakes.

[Strontium Dog]

If you have evidence that the judge has made a mistake in this case, then all well and good. If not, then there is no basis for argument.

[Scot Dutchy]

Can somebody change the capitals in the thread title.

[Forty Two]

If you have evidence that the judge has made a mistake in this case, then all well and good. If not, then there is no basis for argument.

There is plenty of basis for discussion. The propriety of the law, for example. The details of what happened, etc.

And, in legal matters, there is lots of room for differences of opinion, even where reasonable judges and other minds might differ.

Even if the judge's decision was completely justified under the law, there is plenty of room for discussion and debate.

[mistermack]

Using the logic of this judge, virtually all reporting of the Cosby case would be prejudicial to a jury.

Maybe it was.

Prejudicing juries seems to be the norm in the USA. Absolutely everything seems to be considered fair game, including public statements by prosecutors for the hungry media as the trial progresses.

Who is right, the total free-for-all of the the USA, or the selective censorship of this British judge?

I would be in the middle, between the two. They're all a bunch of cunts. A bit of reporting, of accurate facts, but without any insinuation of guilt or innocence can't be too hard to understand.

[Scot Dutchy]

Do you believe the English system is superior to the American? JFCOAPS. You really know fuck all.

[Brian Peacock]

I did not object to the sentence by citing that. I discussed the issue by quoting the relevant law.

Section 4.2 was the section noted in some articles as applying to this case, and the court supposedly sentenced him for violating the publication order (which we have not seen here, yet). And, one main issue I discussed, which I couched very clearly as being potentially a function of my understanding being mainly of US law, and not being familiar with British law, is that I could not understand how walking around on a public street and filming people could be a "contempt of court." That's why I was going through the applicable British law on the topic.

The original suspended sentence made sense to me - he was filming inside the courthouse after being warned that he could not film inside the courthouse. That much I understand, but outside onthe street seems materially different, and I mentioned in the US that a judge would have no right to tell people what to do out on the street.

Pah. Again you ignore the context while suggesting that location or proximity is somehow significant. Journalists are just as bound by the restrictions in the court room as they are in their offices, and those restrictions extend to anyone reporting on the case. Livestreaming comings and goings at the court, identifying defendants, or family members, jurors, or counsel contravened the reporting restrictions wherever it occured. The way to object to the imposition of reporting restrictions is not to just ignore them but though the appeals system.

In the UK, there is a power of the court under the contempt act to enter a prior restraint on the media to not publish stories and images about a trial until it is over. But to do that, the court apparently has to enter a specific order setting out the constraints.

There has been mention of the section, too, about the British law that says you can't take pictures in the court, and the court includes the "precincts" of the court. Now a precinct of a building or structure is, as I understand it, within the walls or compound of a building or set of building. I did not understand it to mean the "public way/street passing by the building," but apparently, in the UK, it does.

It's a puzzling set of laws, to an American.

Apparently so. The point of reporting restriction, and the contempt charge if/when they are contravened, is rooted in the precept that judges are responsible for ensuring a fair trial as free from external influence as possible.

If we had them here, then the media would not have been able to publish about, say, Bill Cosby, and they would not have been allowed to film and broadcast him traveling to or walking into the court, and the protesters from the #metoo movement would not have been allowed to freely assemble near the courthouse, take pictures, and report, etc. Same thing with other high profile cases. The public would just be in the dark about what was going on.

Reporting restrictions are not routinely imposed in all cases, so the if the Cosby case was held under the UK system it would be up to the judge to decide if their imposition was appropriate in those particular circumstances. Both the prosecution or the defnece can can ask judges to consider them, or the judge can impose them if they deem it appropriate in the circumstances.

This is a discussion thread, isn't it? Every fucking exchange doesn't have to be a fight. If it makes you feel better, Tommy Robinson is a scumbag racist, and deserves everything he's getting because he knew full-well what to expect when he went to film and livestream the defendants entering court. Happy? Let's just end all discussion of the law, the propriety of the law, the basis for the court's decision, and such, because whatever one media outlet or another published is definitely correct and accurate, and the judge's decision was definitely proper under the circumstances and in no sense an overreach. Such things don't happen in Britain and Europe at large, as humans there are always honorable and never make mistakes.

If you want to understand the UK laws and legal system then study them rather than asking others to justify an assumed shortfall.

• Judiciary guidance, reporting restrictions in the criminal courts: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publicatio ... -courts-2/
• Prosecution service guidance, reporting restrictions, contempt &c: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/c ... s-hearings
• Contempt of court Act 1981: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49
• Contempt of court Act overview: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/ ... court-act/

^

[rainbow]

L'Emmerdeur, I've been quite clear in my manner of addressing this issue. There is nothing disingenuous about it. There is certainly, on my part, an incomplete understanding of what happened (due to a variety of conflicting and vague reports), and a gradual accumulation of legal and factual information.

Drivel.

You claimed to have done a Google search on this and found nothing. It has been pointed out to you.

You now feign ignorance.

That is disingenuous.

Oh for the love of dog.... stop it. Just stop it. I did not claim to have "found nothing." I said what wasn't found - first, I did not see as where he had admitted guilt and pled guilty. And, if you read the articles that come up in an internet search, there is no mention. The link provided to me, which I expressed thanks for, was from a Leeds website which did not come up in searches. I even tried to find it after the fact, and it doesn't come up. Sometimes that happens. It was provided to me, and I was grateful for it. The next item was the order of the court in the Muslim rape gang case for the publication ban. That still has not been found. It has not been pointed out to me.

This is a case where there was a publication ban for a time on the issue of Robinson's arrest, which was later lifted. So, initiially, reports were, in fact, very hard to come by. If you don't understand that, then you're not following the issue in the slightest. Fuck off.

Gosh you do get angry when you've been caught out telling porkies.

I'll carry on pointing it out whenever you try to play these silly games

If you don't like it don't come here.