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

[L'Emmerdeur]

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.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[mistermack]

Hmmmm.



Impressive stuff.


For you.

At least you avoided writing anything stupid, for a change.

[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.

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.'

Well, what you believe is not determinative, and reasonable persons can differ. His history is not the issue. It's what he said at the time that's the issue. If something is fair and accurate, then a person's history of producing unfair and inaccurate reports on other occasions doesn't make the fair and accurate reporting unfair and inaccurate.

And, I've repeatedly quoted the sections of the law in their entirety. Not every bit of the referenced law is necessarily going to be a successful defense for Robinson. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the discussion. You've added the bit about my intent for including that provision. All I did was quote the entire section. Again, I'm not arguing in defense of Robinson. I've been clear on this. My interest is in the application of the law.

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.

Indeed, which is an issue that I have with the law, and also the fact is that we don't know what the judge chose to ban, or how he crafted the order.

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've not indulged in any fantasy that he produced a fair and accurate report. I've indulged in the reality that we don't know what the judge's order on publication actually said. And, we don't.

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.

The media have reported a lot of stuff, and articles differ in detail and specificity. Also, journalists are notoriously bad at accurately reporting legal issues (probably second only to scientific issues in their inability to accurately report).

Well, one question is the British legal definition of "precincts." Another would be whether the order of publication in this case refers to precincts or proceedings. And, another is whether the precincts of the court refers to being out on the street (maybe it does, but it's not at all clear to some non-Brits, because we don't have a law like this). And, well, "falsehood" is not something one can rely on the media to declare, as we may want to look at exactly what was said, and exactly what is claimed to be "false."

Discussing these issues is not a defense of Robinson. There is nothing wrong with exploring the issues, as it is an important issue of law and current events.

There is nothing disingenuous about my discussion.

I disagree. See above.

Well, looking above, nothing you said demonstrates that I've been disingenuous, and I'm telling you I haven't. Is there something wrong with discussing issues, even if they have (to people more familiar with a legal issue or system) have ready answers? Have a declared anyone to be "wrong?" Have I said that you're wrong?

You seem to think that discussing the issue means I'm defending Robinson. I think you're reaction to constantly be politically partisan about issues is clouding your judgment here.

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?

I've addressed it. What is it you are on about?

It's all very well to wish to see a particular document. Good. We agree. Nothing wrong with that.

"The media coverage has made clear..." -- no it is not clear. First, it was almost non-existent and speculative because of a media coverage "blackout." That caused part of my inability to get an answer, because for the first time period the court said nobody could publish about it. There were like two or three articles available, and others were taken down. Then the articles were all over the place, some appearing partisan, on both sides, and it wasn't at all "clear" what happened, and what the law was that was being applied.

"42 repeatedly referred to the phrase fair and accurate reporting ..." -- not any more than you did, quoting the law. There was no implication made by quoting the law. Whatever purpose you think I had for quoting the law is made up in your own mind, probably because you're like a broken record in your attacks on me. Just leave me be. Nobody forces you to discuss this issue. If you know it all, just post the explanation and have done with it. I've received links from people and I thanked them for it - the links to the application of contempt law, the links to better articles on the facts all helped to elucidate this issue very well for me. I appreciate your contributions too. The only think I resent is your constant harping on this idea that I'm up to some nefarious plan to trick you.

"Note the bolded phrase above... and another bolded phrase....[quoting 4(1)]" == right, me too. I quoted that entire passage, 4(1) and 4(2) both, and I discussed both. I didn't leave anything out for you to "note" to me later. If anything is disingenuous it is your suggestion that I've left something out in my post, which you then supplied, showing that my posts were not honestly portraying the statute. I quoted the whole thing. You added nothing, other than your implication that I'm being disingenous.

[pErvinalia]

Hmmmm.



Impressive stuff.


For you.

At least you avoided writing anything stupid, for a change.

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.

[Brian Peacock]

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.

It's not as simple as merely defining what contempt is. To know if a person has been disobedient to a court order, one would need to read the court order and determine if the conduct complained of was, in fact, disbedient of a court order to which the party punished was afforded actual or constructive legal notice. The judge in the Muslim rape gang case had, as I understood it, issued an order restricting publication under the Contempt law.

Also, saying "let's not forget the context..." is certainly a relevant statement. But, it tells your reader nothing, since you've not specified what you think the important context is, and why it justifies a criminal sanction.

The actus reus of common law criminal contempt is an act or omission which creates a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. However, it is not necessary that the proceedings are actually prejudiced, and conduct which indicates a wilful defiance of or disrespect to the court, or which challenges or affronts the authority of the court as the guardian of the rule of law will suffice. The mens rea is an intention to interfere with the administration of justice. However, following Solicitor General v Cox [2016] EWHC 1241 (QB), this intention can be inferred from the circumstances. It is sufficient proof of the necessary mens rea that the act was deliberate and either in breach of the criminal law or a court order which the person knew of. It is not necessary that the contemnor should know what the criminal law prohibits before he can be found to have committed contempt.

So, the necessary mens rea (mental state) is "deliberate" plus either a breach of the criminal law, or breach of a court order. Here, it is said he breached a court order. Thus, the express terms of the court order are important. I do not think it's alleged that he breached the criminal law in filming outside the court on the street. If I'm wrong about that, I'm happy to admit it, but the articles written by journalists are imprecise in their descriptions.

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. This provision is aimed at postponement of publication rather than a permanent ban - R (Press Association) v Cambridge Crown Court [2012] EWCA Crim 2434. It is most likely to be appropriate where there are due to be subsequent trials of the same offence, and reporting the outcome of the first trial might prejudice the jury in the later ones e.g. in the Victoria Station murder trials.

The need for precision in formulation of orders is set out in the Practice Direction Contempt of Court Act 1981 (1983) 76 Cr App R 78 and in the Reporting Restrictions Guide.

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 – s.4(1). A further defence applies to publications made as or as part of a discussion in good faith of public affairs or other matters of general publication interest if the risk of impediment or prejudice is merely incidental to the discussion – s.(5).

So, section 4(2) empowers to the court to enter a publication order, but those orders can vary from case to case, and whether someone has breached such an order depends on the exact wording of the order, and the conduct complained of. 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.

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.

[pErvinalia]

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.'

Well, what you believe is not determinative, and reasonable persons can differ. His history is not the issue. It's what he said at the time that's the issue. If something is fair and accurate, then a person's history of producing unfair and inaccurate reports on other occasions doesn't make the fair and accurate reporting unfair and inaccurate.

Absolutely. It would be like saying a history of paedophilia convictions and behaviours should play no part in determining the intentions of a paedophile hanging around a school repeatedly.

[pErvinalia]

...

[Forty Two]

Errr... intention has nothing to do with whether a statement is "fair and accurate." If Hitler tells you that Rachel Maddow is a host on MSNBC, that statement is both fair and accurate, even though he's one of the worst people that ever lived.

[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).

[pErvinalia]

Errr... intention has nothing to do with whether a statement is "fair and accurate."

Ok. I think I jumped into this conversation a bit prematurely.

[Forty Two]

No problem. I think some folks are trying to find a way to make me out to be a Britain First, EDL affiliate.

[pErvinalia]

They're really not. I think the broader point being made is that you are missing the forest for the trees.

[Brian Peacock]

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.

Nope. This issue isn't about Islam, it's about the alleged systematic grooming and abuse of young women and minors and the courts duty to ensure the operation of justice. White supremacist groups like the EDL and Britain First would like us to believe that Islam is (and thus all Muslims are) materially culpable in the commissioning of this alleged crime and you seem quite keen on supporting that moral injunction, even if only on the basis of a principle which licenses 'free speech' that discriminates on the basis of religion, ethnicity, and/or skin tone.

Personally I think you've been suckered by the 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' argument because you think opposing white supremacist and far right politics is the preserve of the left - whom you oppose. The questions you have to ask yourself are: do you want to see society divided, segregated and governed on the grounds of religion, ethnicity, and/or skin tone, and if not; what lies at the root of any inclinations you may have to support or defend those who do?

[pErvinalia]

He (42) appears to genuinely be an ideological liberal. So I'd say he's defending the idea of free speech and limiting the power of the state/judiciary. How and why he wound up an ideological liberal is another question, but I think it's reasonable to ask that question and even speculate on the reasons why. As you've probably heard me say before, I think most ideological liberals are actually conservatives deep down, and (selective) liberalism is just a more palatable facade.

[Brian Peacock]

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?