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

[Animavore]

Former EDL leader Tommy Robinson spends first night in prison, converts to Islam

Muslim fundamentalists have radicalised former EDL leader Tommy Robinson after he spent his first night in prison.

Robinson was sentenced to 13 months in prison for contempt of court and breaking the terms of a previously suspended sentence, also for contempt of court.

Robinson’s staunch anti-Islam stance softened dramatically after a lengthy conversation with his cellmate Manzoor, who explained why his worldview had ‘a number of troubling aspects’.

His conversion to Islam was revealed at breakfast this morning when he greeted the kitchen staff with “As-Salaam-Alaikum”.

As one prison guard explained the incident. They told us, “I’ve seen it many times, these radicals seek out the weak minded, those with a feeble intellect, and before you know it they’re reciting the Koran all day long, calling themselves Mustafa, and growing a beard.

“Tommy’s only got a day’s worth of stubble, but the beard has clearly started. It’ll be coming along nicely by the time he gets out next year. You’re always much easier to convert if you’re a fundamentalist before you get into prison.”

http://newsthump.com/2018/05/29/former- ... -to-islam/

[NineBerry]

[Brian Peacock]

The despicable excuse for a human being deserves everything he gets.

From Hamlet:

Polonius: My Lord, I will give them all they deserve.

Hamlet: Good heavens, man, give them more than that! If you pay everyone what they deserve, would anyone ever escape a whipping? Treat them with honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more your generosity is worth. Lead them inside.

As it happens he is on a suspended sentence for something similar - enough reason for an arrest.

"Something similar"? Similar to peacefully livestreaming in a public place, outside a public trial, causing no uproar, and breaching no peace?

Another favorite of mine, A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

When our reasons for not caring about injustice is that the victim of said injustice does not deserve justice, and is an evil man who does not deserve the rights of an Englishman, then we are sacrificing the very principles on which the English common law, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and sending Rumpole of the Bailey doing back flips in his fictional grave.

Here, some are expressing schadenfreude over the scumbag Tommy Robinson getting what he deserves. Yeah! Give the asshole what he deserves! Let him have it! Cut a road through the law to get at that Devil, Tommy Robinson.

When that law is down, however, there will be no place for the rest of us to hide, because Tommy Robinson's rights are our rights. A press blackout ordered by a judge over reporting the fact of the arrest of Tommy Robinson? So, they're going to do it - pick him up for livestreaming, peacefully, in a public place, and then tell everyone else it can't be talked about - we want no inquiry in to this, or the inquirers, too, will find themselves rooming with Tommy Robinson. Shut up, all of you!

No liberal can support what happened and still call himself a liberal.

Like anyone on probation, a suspended sentence or community service order, he was 'bound over'. Any infraction of the law when bound over, however minor, is considered a contravention of the conditions of the previous judgement. The idea that he's being persecuted simply for peacefully going about his everyday business, or that an otherwise peaceful pursuit is being criminalised, is a non-starter - filming, photography, or recording within the precinct of a court is regulated for clear and obvious reasons and he's subject to the same laws and legal conditionalities as everyone else, regardless of his political or religious views.

[Animavore]

How many times do you need to repeat the same thing?

You're being trolled.

[Forty Two]

The despicable excuse for a human being deserves everything he gets.

From Hamlet:

Polonius: My Lord, I will give them all they deserve.

Hamlet: Good heavens, man, give them more than that! If you pay everyone what they deserve, would anyone ever escape a whipping? Treat them with honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more your generosity is worth. Lead them inside.

As it happens he is on a suspended sentence for something similar - enough reason for an arrest.

"Something similar"? Similar to peacefully livestreaming in a public place, outside a public trial, causing no uproar, and breaching no peace?

Another favorite of mine, A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

When our reasons for not caring about injustice is that the victim of said injustice does not deserve justice, and is an evil man who does not deserve the rights of an Englishman, then we are sacrificing the very principles on which the English common law, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and sending Rumpole of the Bailey doing back flips in his fictional grave.

Here, some are expressing schadenfreude over the scumbag Tommy Robinson getting what he deserves. Yeah! Give the asshole what he deserves! Let him have it! Cut a road through the law to get at that Devil, Tommy Robinson.

When that law is down, however, there will be no place for the rest of us to hide, because Tommy Robinson's rights are our rights. A press blackout ordered by a judge over reporting the fact of the arrest of Tommy Robinson? So, they're going to do it - pick him up for livestreaming, peacefully, in a public place, and then tell everyone else it can't be talked about - we want no inquiry in to this, or the inquirers, too, will find themselves rooming with Tommy Robinson. Shut up, all of you!

No liberal can support what happened and still call himself a liberal.

Like anyone on probation, a suspended sentence or community service order, he was 'bound over'. Any infraction of the law when bound over, however minor, is considered a contravention of the conditions of the previous judgement. The idea that he's being persecuted simply for peacefully going about his everyday business, or that an otherwise peaceful pursuit is being criminalised, is a non-starter - filming, photography, or recording within the precinct of a court is regulated for clear and obvious reasons and he's subject to the same laws and legal conditionalities as everyone else, regardless of his political or religious views.

Well, it's not clear yet what the judge's finding was -- was he found in contempt? For what exactly? If they say that he violated the no-publication order in the Muslim pedophile rapist case, then I'd like to see the order. I haven't been able to find it. The law refers to recording "the proceedings" (based on my reading), and I think it's a fair question to ask if "the public street" is part of the "proceedings."

[Forty Two]

How many times do you need to repeat the same thing?

You're being trolled.

The same thing hasn't been repeated, and I'm not trolling. Discussing a relevant issue of the day - current events - is not a bad thing, not to any sane person, anyway. Certain people think there should be no discussion, and that if someone like Robinson is involved, then it's an open and shut case. Judge said he should be locked up, so it must have been the right decision. I think this is a fascinating issue, that relates to an issue of British law, and a lot of other thorny issues. You may not think so. Fine. That's great. But, I'm interested. And, nobody "needs" to post here at all. Just those interested in talking about the topic.

Can't you just fuck off to a thread you like?

[Sean Hayden]

I think it's the whole "I just find it interesting" routine that puts people off 42. Try to imagine Seth arguing like he does but without any convictions. He's seen to be consistently taking a particular side in every issue, but according to him you're imagining things and he's really just fascinated by all these issues, and specifically how everyone seems to get them wrong in just this way every time. You'd be like dude, Seth, you're totally a right-winger, and Seth'd be like, whaaaaaaat? I'm totally just interested in the truth man!

[Scot Dutchy]

Seth was one of those who believed what he thought of anything was totally correct.

[rainbow]

Well, it's not clear yet what the judge's finding was -- was he found in contempt? For what exactly? If they say that he violated the no-publication order in the Muslim pedophile rapist case, then I'd like to see the order. I haven't been able to find it. The law refers to recording "the proceedings" (based on my reading), and I think it's a fair question to ask if "the public street" is part of the "proceedings."

Clearly you don't know how to use Google.

It isn't our job to teach you.

[Forty Two]

I think it's the whole "I just find it interesting" routine that puts people off 42.

I do find topics interesting. I also have no love for Tommy Robinson. The guy is irrelevant to my own country's politics, and he sounds like a nativist, racist, purveyor of right-wing identity politics. His assumption that the accused are guilty is, it seems to me, based on their religion and heritage, not any facts known to him. So, he's rather a scumbag, I would think.

However, issues of law, the British Contempt Law, the limits of free expression, the limits of government or court authority to squelch free expression and the media in light of other interests, etc., the nature of British constitutional law, and on and on, are all interesting issues. And, discussing them here is very educational. I've been educated, with certain folks here posting some great links and articles which I had not previously found (and I flat out said I was having trouble finding such items, and I asked for the very help they gave in finding the links). I wouldn't expect a Brit or Frenchman to have as quick access to American law and sources as I might have, so I'm not sure why I would be scoled for not finding the links others gave to me. That's the whole idea of an exchange of ideas - other people have stuff to add.

I don't sit in an echo chamber. Someone who thinks that this issue ought not be discussed is sitting in an echo chamber.

Try to imagine Seth arguing like he does but without any convictions.

Oh, I have plenty of convictions. But, saying "Tommy Robinson is a scumbag idiot, so whatever is done to him is justified and who gives a fuck about that jerkoff anyway?" is not a "conviction." A "conviction" is a commitment to an idea or point of view irrespective of the personality or defects in personality of the persons involved. A "conviction" would cause someone to defend an accused person, even if they are unsavory. A "conviction" would be a principle which one supports even if that conviction benefits someone who is a real dirtbag.

He's seen to be consistently taking a particular side in every issue, but according to him you're imagining things and he's really just fascinated by all these issues, and specifically how everyone seems to get them wrong in just this way every time. You'd be like dude, Seth, you're totally a right-winger, and Seth'd be like, whaaaaaaat? I'm totally just interested in the truth man!

Who cares if he's a "total right winger?" Are total right wingers wrong even if they are correct on an issue?

And, whether you or I, or anyone else, is a right winger, or left winger, doesn't mean anything in this discussion, unless it's an "activist" debate, where we're just trying to advance a cause and shut down the opposition. I don't do that. I hear out anyone who chimes in substantively on a topic.

I've actually begun to sympathize more with the court on this issue than I did initially. I think that overall, my principled objection lies mostly against the propriety of the British law in question which gives the court the power to do what it did in the first place under the circumstances here. The one key piece of data, however, that I don't have, and that I've yet to be able to find (and that could be my lack of research skills regarding British legal documents), is the actual order of the court restricting publication in the Muslim rapist ring case. I think that's key, because if that's the order Robinson is said to have violated, then it is important that we read it, and also see what the conduct was that the court said was specifically - very specifically - the violation. It's not enough for me to conclude that Tommy Robinson was a dick who was trying to muck up the trial by recording defendants on the street and talking about the case. Tommy robinson is a dick. Take that as read. Tommy Robinson was trying to bother the defendants, publicize their identities, etc. Take that as read. I still would like to see the order which supposedly restricts him from doing that, because when I read the law (contempt law section 4, specifically) it refers to recording "the proceedings." That's the bit I'm unclear on.

And saying I'm "unclear on it" is not "just asking questions" or just "finding it interesting." It's a statement that the media has not published all the relevant information. It's talking about the issue. That's what a orum discussion board is for.

[Forty Two]

Well, it's not clear yet what the judge's finding was -- was he found in contempt? For what exactly? If they say that he violated the no-publication order in the Muslim pedophile rapist case, then I'd like to see the order. I haven't been able to find it. The law refers to recording "the proceedings" (based on my reading), and I think it's a fair question to ask if "the public street" is part of the "proceedings."

Clearly you don't know how to use Google.

It isn't our job to teach you.

It's nobody's job to post anything here. You sound like an AtheismPlus-er. "It's not my job to educate you..." lol.

Dude, this is a forum for discussing political, current event, and news items -- it's nobody's "job" to post here. It's for people interested in discussing the topic to contribute, if they so choose, what they know, what they like to contribute, and what they might argue. Sometimes some people find different pieces of information and share them. It's not their "job" to teach - it's their desire to engage in discussion of a topical issue.

And the unmitigated arrogance in your post - and this is not the first time, and you're not the first person here who has posted such nonsense -- it's not my job to teach you. LOL. As if you have that capacity! You declare yourself the teacher? Please. You haven't "taught" anyone anything here. You carp. You bite. You snipe. You badger. You namecall. Just like one or two others.

Maybe I'm not so good at google. So? All the more reason for someone else interested in the conversation to contribute, if they so choose.

What do you think a discussion forum is for? Parroting your approved viewpoint? Making statements, and not discussing them? Not engaging in a give and take where various people provide information they find and discuss it?

Look, I really couldn't care less if you participate. I couldn't care less what you think your job is. This is a discussion forum for open discussion with people about various issues. In that context, your snipe against my google skills, and your declaration that your job is not to teach, is about the dumbest comment one can make. Congratulations.

[Forty Two]

Seth was one of those who believed what he thought of anything was totally correct.

"one of those...." lol.

[Tyrannical]

The despicable excuse for a human being deserves everything he gets.

As it happens he is on a suspended sentence for something similar - enough reason for an arrest.

Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. And their religion both allows and encourages concubinage / sexual slavery of non-muslims.
The only despicable people are the Muslims involved in this, and the Judges that attempt to keep this fact quiet.

Oh Rum, I wonder how many rapes this 'despicable human' prevented by educating young non-muslim girls.

Exactly none I suspect. The story is now public and you will see that he was held in contempt with good reason - you utter cunt.

If I'm an utter cunt, you're an udder cunt. Go Mooooooo yourself.

[Brian Peacock]

The despicable excuse for a human being deserves everything he gets.

From Hamlet:

Polonius: My Lord, I will give them all they deserve.

Hamlet: Good heavens, man, give them more than that! If you pay everyone what they deserve, would anyone ever escape a whipping? Treat them with honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more your generosity is worth. Lead them inside.

As it happens he is on a suspended sentence for something similar - enough reason for an arrest.

"Something similar"? Similar to peacefully livestreaming in a public place, outside a public trial, causing no uproar, and breaching no peace?

Another favorite of mine, A Man for All Seasons:

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

When our reasons for not caring about injustice is that the victim of said injustice does not deserve justice, and is an evil man who does not deserve the rights of an Englishman, then we are sacrificing the very principles on which the English common law, Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and sending Rumpole of the Bailey doing back flips in his fictional grave.

Here, some are expressing schadenfreude over the scumbag Tommy Robinson getting what he deserves. Yeah! Give the asshole what he deserves! Let him have it! Cut a road through the law to get at that Devil, Tommy Robinson.

When that law is down, however, there will be no place for the rest of us to hide, because Tommy Robinson's rights are our rights. A press blackout ordered by a judge over reporting the fact of the arrest of Tommy Robinson? So, they're going to do it - pick him up for livestreaming, peacefully, in a public place, and then tell everyone else it can't be talked about - we want no inquiry in to this, or the inquirers, too, will find themselves rooming with Tommy Robinson. Shut up, all of you!

No liberal can support what happened and still call himself a liberal.

Like anyone on probation, a suspended sentence or community service order, he was 'bound over'. Any infraction of the law when bound over, however minor, is considered a contravention of the conditions of the previous judgement. The idea that he's being persecuted simply for peacefully going about his everyday business, or that an otherwise peaceful pursuit is being criminalised, is a non-starter - filming, photography, or recording within the precinct of a court is regulated for clear and obvious reasons and he's subject to the same laws and legal conditionalities as everyone else, regardless of his political or religious views.

Well, it's not clear yet what the judge's finding was -- was he found in contempt? For what exactly? If they say that he violated the no-publication order in the Muslim pedophile rapist case, then I'd like to see the order. I haven't been able to find it. The law refers to recording "the proceedings" (based on my reading), and I think it's a fair question to ask if "the public street" is part of the "proceedings."

Oh my, it's all so jolly confusing eh?

Wiki: "Contempt of court, often referred to simply as "contempt", is the offense of being disobedient to or discourteous toward a court of law and its officers in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court."

Lehal guidance: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/c ... s-hearings

And let's not forget the context of the case rather than addressing this as if it's a one-off incident that just happened to some random dude out of the blue one day.

[Animavore]

You're giving this JAQ off too much credit.