Is Tommy Robinson the bravest man in the UK?

[Estro Felino]

The truth will out.

THE TRUTH A Revolutionary Act Tommy Robinson's Court Appeal

The truth is no defence in modern Britain.

Tommy would not be convicted by a jury of his peers.

Instead of protecting one of their citizens, the British authorities are determined to punish him.

Political Islam is using the political elites of this country to do its dirty work.

I don't understand. Everyone knew it would end like that. He should have asked for asylum earlier...in Italy he knows Manocchia, the editor of the most outspoken newspaper here.

 

[ChristineM]

A law does not equate a just law. Keep that in mind.

Also keep in mind your argument applies to illegals. Legalism is not the same as justice.

Keep in mind he knowing broke reporting restrictions with the possibility of forcing a trial to be abandoned. He broke english law

 

[Shad]

Keep in mind he knowing broke reporting restrictions with the possibility of forcing a trial to be abandoned. He broke english law

Yes he broke the law. That does not mean the law is just. At time people force the issue of unjust laws by breaking those very laws.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes he broke the law. That does not mean the law is just. At time people force the issue of unjust laws by breaking those very laws.

The law applies to him just as it applies to anyone else. In england an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Trying to influence that to show guilty until proven guilty is illegal. He knows that and flouted the law for his own political agenda.

 

[Shad]

The law applies to him just as it applies to anyone else. In england an accused is innocent until proven guilty. Trying to influence that to show guilty until proven guilty is illegal. He knows that and flouted the law for his own political agenda.

I favour jury sequestration over media blackouts.

Of course he flouted it. He is a 1A advocate.

 

[ChristineM]

I favour jury sequestration over media blackouts.

So get the law of england changed

 

[Altfish]

The press coverage of the case you mean? Just for clarification as Tommy has had a number of charges against him over the years. If so I disagree about it being just. Sequester the jury instead. 12 people face some discomfort instead of silencing global media.

It has always been the law in the UK; we are surprised by the way lawyers and the like in the US give interviews.
There was an embargo on press coverage, every outlet from the right wing Daily Mail to the left leaning Guardian obeyed this restriction. SYL thought he knew better and flaunted the law; he is now reaping his reward.

 

[Shad]

So get the law of england changed

Im not a citizen of the UK. I am just posting an opinion.

 

[Shad]

It has always been the law in the UK;

So? Argument from tradition

we are surprised by the way lawyers and the like in the US give interviews.

So?

There was an embargo on press coverage, every outlet from the right wing Daily Mail to the left leaning Guardian obeyed this restriction. SYL thought he knew better and flaunted the law; he is now reaping his reward.

Again I disagree and think there is a better alternative.

 

[ChristineM]

Im not a citizen of the UK. I am just posting an opinion.

Fair enough. It is not the opinion of most English people or the press (for the most part) respect the law of the land in which they live.

 

[Altfish]

So? Argument from tradition

No, an argument from 'It isn't a surprise. SYL despises EU laws and wants our sovereignty back. It looks like he despises UK laws too.

So?

Just saying

Again I disagree and think there is a better alternative.

Which is?

 

[Shad]

No, an argument from 'It isn't a surprise. SYL despises EU laws and wants our sovereignty back. It looks like he despises UK laws too.

Wrong. "It has always been the law in the UK;" is an appeal to tradition. It has always been that way is the classic example. You are not arguing why the law is needed or if it is still suitable in the present.

Which is?

Jury sequestration

 

[Notanumber]

It says a lot about the modern day UK when we have to rely on the media from another country to carry out honest and truthful reporting of a court case.

What has happened to our once free press?

 

[Shad]

Fair enough. It is not the opinion of most English people or the press (for the most part) respect the law of the land in which they live.

Sure. Press has to run a business after all. Tommy has less to lose than a major corporation that could have their license pulled. The actions of a corporate reporter could be costly for their co-workers not just themselves. Alternatively as per the post 453 Rebel can take risk with it's business while say CNN, FOX, MSNBC may not. Rebel is already on the outside looking in while other news media are established with local/regional staff, departments, contractors, etc.

 

[Shad]

It says a lot about the modern day UK when we have to rely on the media from another country to carry out honest and truthful reporting of a court case.

What has happened to our once free press?

This is more reflective of legacy media vs internet media. The business model is different as are some of methods used. Thus new sources of media are not beholden to the circus legacy is now tied to.

 

[Notanumber]

This is more reflective of legacy media vs internet media. The business model is different as are some of methods used. Thus new sources of media are not beholden to the circus legacy is now tied to.

United Kingdom establishments do not like citizen reporters. I wonder why that is.

I believe this point was brought up during the so-called trial.

 

[Altfish]

Wrong. "It has always been the law in the UK;" is an appeal to tradition. It has always been that way is the classic example. You are not arguing why the law is needed or if it is still suitable in the present.

Ok, but that wasn't my point when I posted that.
The contrary argument is, I don't like the law then it is ok to break it... it isn't.
You lobby Parliament for a change of law.

Jury sequestration

We already have that.

 

[Altfish]

United Kingdom establishments do not like citizen reporters. I wonder why that is.

I believe this point was brought up during the so-called trial.

The UK do not like citizens who ignore the instructions of judges.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure. Press has to run a business after all. Tommy has less to lose than a major corporation that could have their license pulled. The actions of a corporate reporter could be costly for their co-workers not just themselves. Alternatively as per the post 453 Rebel can take risk with it's business while say CNN, FOX, MSNBC may not. Rebel is already on the outside looking in while other news media are established with local/regional staff, departments, contractors, etc.

He may have less to lose (other than his liberty) but like everyone else, he is subject to the law of the land he is in.

Yaxley Lennon us not a reporter.

 

[Notanumber]

Ok, but that wasn't my point when I posted that.
The contrary argument is, I don't like the law then it is ok to break it... it isn't.
You lobby Parliament for a change of law.


We already have that.

How long did it take the authorities to do anything regarding helping those thousands of rape victims?

You have far more misplaced optimism about the establishment than Joe public has. They have taken note of the state of play.