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

[Forty Two]

A judge can hold you in contempt for anything that happens in and around the court building. There is no requirement for any written complaint. It does not have to do with any case. The judge is lord and master. I have seen a sheriff in the Sheriff's Court in Edinburgh fining a man for litter. When the man told him to FO he was gaoled for week. When I was on duty in the High Court the judge told us that any one causing any problem just to verbally report them to him and he would deal with them. They have absolute power.

Well, sure, the judge has contempt powers, but under the law, generally, jailing for telling a judge to "fuck off" is contempt in the presence of the court which the court has the power to punish on the spot. Judges do not have the power to simply fine or imprison members of the public by mere fiat, because they think the person has done something wrong. Contempts outside the presence of the court have to involve conduct which is violative of a court order (in which case, it's the specific conduct set forth in the order which is proscribed), or a criminal law which sets forth conduct which is prohibited (not mere criminal laws of general application). They do not, however, have "absolute" power. They have a shitload of power, but "absolute" is is rather an overstatement. In the case of Robinson, what they're talking about is a violation of the court's publication order. Maybe he violated it, but nobody here has posted the order. I've been looking for it.

[Rum]

You really are the pits. Cunts like him have no place in civilised society. Education is the responsibility of the schools. Not some right wing mental fuckshit of a human being. But of course that flew away over your head.

The real disgusting human beings are those that allow Islamic child sex slavery. Schools, politicians, and the police are silent on it. It should be mandatory as part of sex education to warn girls of Islamic pedophiles since their 'religion' sees nothing wrong with it. Robinson is a national hero, not just of the UK but to all of Europe.

#NotMeToo

If you think your fellow cunt has any interest other than stirring up racial hatred and discord you are even stupider than I thought. He takes the same tactic as Hitler did with the Jews - inventing an enemy for potential followers to unite against and persecute and blame for their misfortunes. That is his only aim and that is the game he has been playing.

Every local authority in the country now has an anti-child exploitation strategy in place - by law- as a means of dealing with these dreadful men. The men are breaking the law and the law is dealing with them - there have been a number of prosecutions in case you hadn't noticed. The men may have no respect for their victims and hold reprehensible views about women - but the same could easily be said about traditionally Christian men - and we won't even start on what priests have been up to over the centuries.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to fall for the tactics of this sort of right wing hatred. I guess you must be that dumb after all.

[Forty Two]

That all looks like a good reason to be distrustful of religions. Muslims, traditional Christians, priests... it's all the same shit. There is never much of a problem with ripping on priests and Christians when it comes to this sort of thing, but let someone rip on Islam, and it's beyond the pale.

Don't we, as atheists, think Islam is oppressive, cult-like, and a very poor guide for moral behavior? Given a chance, it will seek theocratic government and try to infect secular government.

Good people will do good things, and evil people will do evil things, but to get good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Religion gets people to cut bits off of each others genitals, and call it good.

. I was called a “white slag” and “white c***” as they beat me.

They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten.

Fear of being killed, and threats to my parents’ lives, made it impossible for me to escape for about a year. The police didn’t help me.

Experts say that grooming gangs are not the same as paedophile rings. It’s something that central Government really needs to understand in order to prevent more grooming gang crime in the future.

In November 2017, the Swedish government held a meeting where they stated that: “Sexual violence is being used as a tactic of terrorism”, and as such, it was recognised as a threat to Sweden’s national security.

The link between terrorism and rape undertaken by Islamist gangs was not being ignored. They called for counter-extremism education. This sounds like a balanced and intelligent governmental response to me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ro ... 61831.html

Tommy Robinson is a giant asshat, for sure, but Islam is full of shit, false, oppressive, and downright awful. Not just some Islam. Almost all of it. Just about every bit of it, except for, perhaps, the Islam that is so watered down that it's not really Islam at all. Like Christianity. Nobody gives a fuck about Christians who are Unitarian-Universalists. The big issue is the orthodox, the fundamentalist, the evangelical. They suck ass, and their religion sucks ass.

[pErvinalia]

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!

And it's hard to take 42 seriously when he says in the post you were responding to here that "it hasn't been repeated", "it" being the reason for him being jailed - that is, filming within a court precinct. It was mentioned by at least 4 and probably more members, some of them multiple times.

[Rum]

There is no doubt that there is a cultural element of traditional Islam which is oppressive towards females. Men (and women) who hold those views are to be challenged and if they break the law they should be prosecuted. The problem comes when the religion is identified with a whole people and they are labelled 'the enemy' because of the attitudes of one section. Dealing with the issues with the law as they arise ensures that it is clear that vulnerable young people are protected by the law and have no need to resort to other means. It also ensures a greater sense of social cohesion - you don't want a percentage of the population to be in the position of being made to feel they are the enemy of the rest. Traditional Islam is being eroded in this country - there are also a lot of non-practicing Muslims compared to a generation ago - and a lot of successful mixed marriages.

Let the law deal with criminality and let each of us challenge outdated attitudes as and when we can - that's my view.

[pErvinalia]

You really are the pits. Cunts like him have no place in civilised society. Education is the responsibility of the schools. Not some right wing mental fuckshit of a human being. But of course that flew away over your head.

The real disgusting human beings are those that allow Islamic child sex slavery. Schools, politicians, and the police are silent on it.

I'm pretty sure you'd find that schools, and particularly politicians and the police aren't silent on child sex slavery (when it happens). Oh, wait on, you are only talking about a specific group of offences. Those committed by Muslims. I guess you must be OK with non-Muslim child sex slavery then. You've been awfully quiet about it...

It should be mandatory as part of sex education to warn girls of Islamic pedophiles since their 'religion' sees nothing wrong with it.

My kids have been educated well on the issues of stranger danger, by both their mum and dad, and also their school. I don't think it's necessary to distinguish between different ethnicities (or whatever) of pedophiles. That would seem to complicate the issue needlessly. Unless one was a scared racist man-child...

[Rum]

I can think of one not too far away from here..

[pErvinalia]

Tyrannical is like a walking cliche. Basically when I think of the average person who reads the Daily Mail, I think of Tyrannical.

[Rum]

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

[pErvinalia]

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's all very well to wish to see a particular document, as Forty Two does. However, the media coverage of this case has made clear that the judge's order was for a temporary blackout of press coverage of the trial (known as a 'postponement order'). There is no doubt that 'Robinson' was violating that order, and in fact was disseminating false information on his Facebook feed.

Robinson, of Oakley Rise, Wilstead, Bedford, filmed himself as he read out the defendants' names and the charges they face - some of which were wrong - and confronted them as they arrived at court.

[source]

That Forty Two has repeatedly referred to the phrase 'a fair and accurate report of a legal proceeding held in public' as if it were applicable to what 'Robinson' was engaged in appears disingenuous to me. Nor is it necessarily true that even a 'fair and accurate report' would be allowable in a particularly sensitive case, as this one is. Per a source that I linked for Forty Two previously:

Section 4(2) empowers the court, where it appears to be necessary for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in those proceedings, or in any other proceedings pending or imminent, to order that the publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings, be postponed for such period as the court thinks necessary for that purpose.

[Bold mine. -L'E]

Note the bolded phrase above. Also note the actual wording of 4(1), with another bolded phrase:

Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published contemporaneously and in good faith.

[Bold mine. -L'E]

It is clear that even a 'fair and accurate report' can be subject to a postponement order, per section 4(2).

Guidelines in place in the UK state that a judge can postpone, but not prohibit, the publication of otherwise “fair and accurate reports.” The overarching principle in place is to avoid the publication of anything which “creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to the administration of justice” if it is published during a trial.

[source]

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've found an excellent take-down of the bullshit narrative that has been pushed by right-wing media, as well as a detailed examination of the legal issues here:

'What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know.'

It can now be reported that Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the English Defence League, convicted fraudster, sometime-football hooligan and self-reinvented free speech advocate, was on Friday 25 May 2018 imprisoned for 13 months for contempt of court after livestreaming a broadcast, including footage of participants in a criminal trial, outside Leeds Crown Court.

Some people will have seen reference to this on social media; others may have had the plight of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – to use his real name – drawn to their attention by the hordes of protestors storming London over the May bank holiday weekend. But there has not, until today, been mainstream coverage of the case due to a reporting restriction – what is known as a “postponement order” – that forbade publication of these facts until after the conclusion of the trial upon which he was purporting to “report”.

While, as we’ll see below, the reasons for the postponement order appear sound, the consequence of preventing fair and accurate reporting by responsible journalists was that there was no factual counterpoint to the selective and inaccurate details of Yaxley-Lennon’s situation that were inevitably flooded through social media by his knuckle-dragging cheerleaders, not least his racists-in-arms across the pond. Thus sprung a (largely unchallenged and unchallengeable) narrative of Tommy The Brave being arrested outside court for no reason and imprisoned in secret by the deep state, culminating in petitions for his release and a Nazi-themed march on Downing Street.

[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.

I don't know why you think I'm being disingenuous in quoting the law, and attempting to discuss the legal definition of "proceedings" and the extent of the publication order (which we've not seen). There is nothing disingenuous about my discussion.

I've not defended Robinson as a good person. I've stated quite the opposite. I've not defended his racism, nativism, or conduct in any way. I've not minced words when I criticized him personally. Whatever you think is disingenuous, I think, is something you're imagining I'm thinking, rather than having anything to do with what I wrote. A healthy disdain for Robinson does not require one to simply take whatever a court does as a given, or accept any law as well-written and properly applied. That's what's been talked about here, among other things.

[L'Emmerdeur]

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.

You've repeatedly referred to the language regarding a 'fair and accurate report' as if it were relevant to what 'Robinson' was doing, and as if it had bearing on the contempt charge. This I find disingenuous. Given his history, I don't believe that a reasonable person would seriously entertain the idea that he was producing a 'fair and accurate report.'

The law is clear, as noted above, that even 'fair and accurate report(s)' can be banned by the judge for the duration of the trial. In descriptions of this story we have multiple references to section 4(2) in which that provision is laid out; it is apparent that even if we choose to indulge in a fantasy in which 'Robinson' was producing a 'fair and accurate report,' he would have been in violation of the postponement order and therefore subject to a contempt charge.

I don't know why you think I'm being disingenuous in quoting the law, and attempting to discuss the legal definition of "proceedings" and the extent of the publication order (which we've not seen).

The media have reported that the postponement order applied to any coverage of the trial (per section 4[2]). I fail to see what question you might have. 'Robinson' was standing in the precincts of the court, disseminating falsehoods about the defendants to his Facebook audience.

There is nothing disingenuous about my discussion.

I disagree. See above.

I've not defended Robinson as a good person. I've stated quite the opposite. I've not defended his racism, nativism, or conduct in any way. I've not minced words when I criticized him personally. Whatever you think is disingenuous, I think, is something you're imagining I'm thinking, rather than having anything to do with what I wrote. A healthy disdain for Robinson does not require one to simply take whatever a court does as a given, or accept any law as well-written and properly applied. That's what's been talked about here, among other things.

OK. Care to address the substance of what I presented in my post above, and reiterated in this post?

[mistermack]

I think the judge is bending the intention of the law to suit his own political leanings.
He's pretending that the chance of a fair trial is being compromised, because the jurors MIGHT get access to this stuff.
Even though he has the power to forbid jurors from looking, and forbidding them from allowing anything in print to influence their decision. In other words, he has no faith at all in the chances of a jury acting in a fair manner.
In reality, he's trying to influence what the public reads. It's not really the jury he's aiming his censorshit at.

A judge fiddling the law to his own ends. Makes you feel confident doesn't it?

Of course, it's stuff like this that makes everything you read suspect. You have to ask yourself, is this the end product, after the facts have been massaged by those in power? And the answer is probably yes, if it's at all important or controversial.