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

[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.'

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.

His history is indeed relevant. There is no evidence that he's ever produced a 'fair and accurate report' previously, and there is no reason to expect that he would now. When this story was first being discussed, you brought that phrase forward as part of what appeared to be an attempt to support the 'reporter unfairly prosecuted!!' narrative that was being pushed by right-wing media.

Perhaps you were completely ignorant of 'Robinson's' history but if not, to bring that phrase into play was disingenuous, given 'Robinson's' history. This isn't a court of law, where we have to assume 'innocent until proven guilty'; 'Robinson's' history of rabble rousing, agenda mongering and dishonesty can legitimately be taken into account in how we approach the topic. In my view, to ignore that history in the context of discussing his actions is disingenuous. On the other hand, to jump into discussion of a topic without knowing anything about the main player and without attempting to remedy that ignorance is simply foolish.

Perhaps I've mistaken a foolish approach for a disingenuous one. If so, I suppose I'm guilty of misunderstanding, and of overestimating your level of discernment.

And, I've repeatedly quoted the sections of the law in their entirety.

You are mistaken, but that's my fault: I gave you a link to a CPS guide, rather than the actual statute. In this post, in citing section 4(1), you quoted the source that I supplied, which neglected to include a rather important phrase. The version found on that page:

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).

The actual wording:

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.

The omitted phrase tells us that even a 'fair and accurate report' can be in violation of a postponement order, as delineated in 4(2). In a subsequent post, that is explained. That explanation remains un-refuted.

Again, I'm not arguing in defense of Robinson. I've been clear on this. My interest is in the application of the law.

Do you believe that the law was applied incorrectly by the judge in this case?

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.

Do you think that the multiple reports which tell us that the judge charged 'Robinson' under section 4(2) are all inaccurate?

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).

Section 4(2) is unambiguous. Unless you're claiming that multiple reports which tell us that the charge against 'Robinson' was based on that law are inaccurate, there isn't any reasonable question regarding this.

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.

Those issues may be of interest to you, but given that section 4(2) explicitly provides the court with the ability to order the postponement of any reports, they are irrelevant in regards to whether 'Robinson' was improperly prosecuted or not.

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.

Ah, when you sarcastically brought this case up as 'problematic', it had nothing to do with your own partisan opinions, eh? No doubt you heard about it from an unbiased source rather than some right-wing blog or news outlet.

My disgust with 'Robinson' is elicited by his dishonesty and white nationalist rabble rousing; if you choose to view that as partisanship that's your problem not mine.

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?

This sort of thing is why I sometimes believe that you're being disingenuous. You have now addressed relevant points from that post, but had not when I asked you to do so.

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.

By now it is pretty well established what law he was charged under. Such was the case at the time I wrote that post, to anybody who doesn't insist on a knee-jerk 'FAKE NEWS!' response to mainstream media.

"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.

My replies to you on this site are based on my experiences with your writing, just as the reverse is true. This is a site for discussion, and I'll post what I please, just as you do. To be perfectly clear: I think your attempts at tone-policing what I write are laughable.

"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.

I've addressed this above.

[L'Emmerdeur]

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.

I appreciate what you've said, and I consider you a perceptive and intelligent person as well.

As for mistermack, that GIF still covers the extent of my response to him.

[pErvinalia]

"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.

My replies to you on this site are based on my experiences with your writing, just as the reverse is true. This is a site for discussion, and I'll post what I please, just as you do. To be perfectly clear: I think your attempts at tone-policing what I write are laughable.

He has a real problem with taking responsibility for what he writes.