Tommy Robinson: Arrest and Gag order in the UK

[icehorse]

Yet again you avoid the questions I ask and dredge up tired strawmen in their place. Rather than explaining HOW his actions in this case help, you simply assert that he IS helping (in some vague, undefined way) and standing up for "values" (that are equally vague and undefined).

I'm not strawman-ing you. What I am doing is debating what the most useful context should be.

I thought I'd been clear on this point, but maybe not. IMO (and Douglas Murray's), most of Britain has behaved deplorably over the last few decades in regards to looking the other way concerning these mass-rape gangs. So for he sake of discussion, let's say that Robinson is a racist thug. That shouldn't matter if he's shining daylight on a topic that has been in desperate need of daylight shining for decades now.

As for values, I think that not allowing 1000s of girls to be raped by immigrants is a value I'm happy to admit to. Is that unambiguous enough, I don't want to be vague.

Where in this article does it state that grooming gangs are "run in the name of Islam"?

Is there any doubt in your mind that these rape-gangs are overwhelming populated by Muslim immigrants?

How have his actions done either? Do you think he could have done either or both of these things without jeopardizing an ongoing trial that could put an entire paedophile ring behind bars? If so, ask yourself why his actions in this case are defensible.

Did you read the Douglas Murray article. I think Murray put it well. Robinson was ham-handed. But British society has been far, far, far more ham-handed.

So ask yourself if British society's inactions are defensible.

To me, British society is the real culprit here, and because Robinson is easy to hate, society has yet another reason to distance themselves from the real problem. This is the point I thought Murray made so well. What are your thoughts on this point?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not strawman-ing you. What I am doing is debating what the most useful context should be.

I thought I'd been clear on this point, but maybe not. IMO (and Douglas Murray's), most of Britain has behaved deplorably over the last few decades in regards to looking the other way concerning these mass-rape gangs. So for he sake of discussion, let's say that Robinson is a racist thug. That shouldn't matter if he's shining daylight on a topic that has been in desperate need of daylight shining for decades now.

As for values, I think that not allowing 1000s of girls to be raped by immigrants is a value I'm happy to admit to. Is that unambiguous enough, I don't want to be vague.



Is there any doubt in your mind that these rape-gangs are overwhelming populated by Muslim immigrants?



Did you read the Douglas Murray article. I think Murray put it well. Robinson was ham-handed. But British society has been far, far, far more ham-handed.

So ask yourself if British society's inactions are defensible.

To me, British society is the real culprit here, and because Robinson is easy to hate, society has yet another reason to distance themselves from the real problem. This is the point I thought Murray made so well. What are your thoughts on this point?

Still not allowed to make prejudicial comments about active trials.

 

[icehorse]

Still not allowed to make prejudicial comments about active trials.

Yes I get that. But do you get the outrage that people are experiencing based on how the authorities have grossly mishandled the entire mass-rape gangs situation?

 

[Estro Felino]

That article is one of the funniest, most ridiculously manipulative and clearly biased things I've ever read.

Are you sure it isn't a parody?

Il Giornale is one of the most prestigious newspapers here, read at national level...
I know, truth hurts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not strawman-ing you. What I am doing is debating what the most useful context should be.

I asked you a specific question, and rather than answer it you conflated my questions with a bunch of irrelevant questions - that's strawmanning. Rather than answering the question put to you, you replace the questions with other, erroneous questions.

I thought I'd been clear on this point, but maybe not. IMO (and Douglas Murray's), most of Britain has behaved deplorably over the last few decades in regards to looking the other way concerning these mass-rape gangs.

Which is baseless nonsense, of course. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Tommy Robinson's actions or this case in particular.

So for he sake of discussion, let's say that Robinson is a racist thug. That shouldn't matter if he's shining daylight on a topic that has been in desperate need of daylight shining for decades now.

But it does matter if the only reason he's doing it is to promote racist ideals, and it also matters that him doing is actually jeopardizing the prosecution. Yet again, you try desperately to justify his actions without regard for what his actions were and their actual consequences. Why?

As for values, I think that not allowing 1000s of girls to be raped by immigrants is a value I'm happy to admit to. Is that unambiguous enough, I don't want to be vague.

So how is earning paedophile rings a mistrial justifiable, then?

Also, I find it very telling that you specify "immigrants" here. Are you suggesting it's okay for them to be raped by natives? Are you suggesting all paedophile rings are comprised of nothing but immigrants?

Is there any doubt in your mind that these rape-gangs are overwhelming populated by Muslim immigrants?

If you cannot understand the difference between "populated by Muslims" and "formed in the name of Islam", that's a serious problem on your part.

Did you read the Douglas Murray article. I think Murray put it well. Robinson was ham-handed. But British society has been far, far, far more ham-handed.

In what way is prosecuting people for committing and offence "ham-handed"?

So ask yourself if British society's inactions are defensible.

Since this is just baseless nonsense, I feel no need to answer any such imaginary scenario. The REAL issue is: Why do you think it's defensible to jeopardize a paedophilia trial just to push a bigoted, anti-Muslim agenda?

To me, British society is the real culprit here,

How convenient. The problem isn't the racist, bigoted criminal who did something patently stupid that jeopardized putting alleged paedophiles in prison - it's society. Sure.

and because Robinson is easy to hate,

For a reason.

society has yet another reason to distance themselves from the real problem.

The real problem being putting paedophiles in prison, which is what the courts and the police were trying to do, and what Robinson's actions have jeopardized.

This is the point I thought Murray made so well. What are your thoughts on this point?

It's blatantly asinine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Il Giornale is one of the most prestigious newspapers here, read at national level...

Which is even funnier.

 

[icehorse]

The real problem being putting paedophiles in prison, which is what the courts and the police were trying to do, and what Robinson's actions have jeopardized.

I'll let you get the last word in, because it's clear we can't actually discuss this issue.

The larger point here, the one you won't address, is that this trial is too little too late. Of course Robinson's actions in regards to this trial - one of dozens of such trials that SHOULD have started decades ago - were probably counter-productive. But it's quite defensible that his actions in this instance and across the last several years have helped win the larger war.

I leave you to your strawmans and narrow focus.

 

[Augustus]

The larger point here, the one you won't address, is that this trial is too little too late. Of course Robinson's actions in regards to this trial - one of dozens of such trials that SHOULD have started decades ago - were probably counter-productive. But it's quite defensible that his actions in this instance and across the last several years have helped win the larger war.

It seems you are conflating several different and unconnected issues anchored around an initial misconception about a legal 'cover up'.

TR was arrested for breaching a court order, and this court order was not related to trying to 'cover up' sex offences by Asian gangs, but to ensure a fair trial. The fact that he pled guilty shows it wasn't some principled issue of freedom of speech, but a misjudgement of what he thought he could get away with tiptoeing around the edges of a legitimate injunction.

Whether or not authorities have been negligent in dealing with historical sex offences has nothing to do with the issue of TR or 'gag orders'. It tends to relate to incompetent local politics, local policing and poor social work in local authorities.

By trying to discuss all of these issues as if they are one and the same problem it creates an impediment to productive discussion. You'd have a better chance of progress by discussing the issue outwith the flawed framework created by the misunderstanding present in the OP.

 

[icehorse]

It seems you are conflating several different and unconnected issues anchored around an initial misconception about a legal 'cover up'.

TR was arrested for breaching a court order, and this court order was not related to trying to 'cover up' sex offences by Asian gangs, but to ensure a fair trial. The fact that he pled guilty shows it wasn't some principled issue of freedom of speech, but a misjudgement of what he thought he could get away with tiptoeing around the edges of a legitimate injunction.

Whether or not authorities have been negligent in dealing with historical sex offences has nothing to do with the issue of TR or 'gag orders'. It tends to relate to incompetent local politics, local policing and poor social work in local authorities.

By trying to discuss all of these issues as if they are one and the same problem it creates an impediment to productive discussion. You'd have a better chance of progress by discussing the issue outwith the flawed framework created by the misunderstanding present in the OP.

I like Douglas Murray's perspective which is something like: "The authorities (and the media), tend to attack the secondary issue and avoid the primary issue." In this case, Robinson is the secondary issue.

While I'm not going to defend the OP as the best one ever, and while I'd agree that the goalposts have shifted a bit, I think the larger point stands: It's not about Robinson, it's about how the authorities have mis-handled so many aspects of this long standing problem, up to and including the gag order. The authorities are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

 

[Augustus]

I like Douglas Murray's perspective which is something like: "The authorities (and the media), tend to attack the secondary issue and avoid the primary issue." In this case, Robinson is the secondary issue.

TR was the primary issue in the OP. He was arrested for breaking the law and it had nothing to do with his ongoing activities against Islamic immigration. He broke a law, and later pled guilty.

Some people in America misunderstood the reporting restrictions on the case as saw it as some part of a nefarious cover up and spun it that way.

It's not about Robinson, it's about how the authorities have mis-handled so many aspects of this long standing problem, up to and including the gag order. The authorities are rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Still seems like you can't escape your initial anchor that the temporary reporting restrictions (or more devious sounding 'gag orders'), which are a standard part of the British legal system, are somehow connected to a giant, nefarious state organised coverup to hide the truth from the masses. That the purpose of the 'gag order' was to stop TR uncovering the truth that they so dearly wanted to be hidden.

They are a procedural decision of an independent presiding magistrate, and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims, rape gangs or how completely unconnected local authorities in different parts of the country handled other criminal cases.

The rest of the things you discuss happened in diverse local authority areas and were presided over by multiple different local authorities and involve numerous different circumstances. They were not part of a central government conspiracy, and they were nothing to do with the decision of one magistrate presiding over an ongoing court case.

This is why you can't get a reasonable discussion by ramming everything into the same box and insisting it's all related when it isn't.

When you talk about rearranging chairs, what does that even mean? Who is doing this? The judge who has nothing to do with the things you are complaining about? The diverse local authorities who have nothing to do with this case or the 'gag order'?

 

[icehorse]

When you talk about rearranging chairs, what does that even mean? Who is doing this? The judge who has nothing to do with the things you are complaining about? The diverse local authorities who have nothing to do with this case or the 'gag order'?

I would start by asking you if you read Murray's article, and what you thought about it?

 

[Augustus]

I would start by asking you if you read Murray's article, and what you thought about it?

what article?

 

[icehorse]

what article?

copied from post #197:

Tommy Robinson & ‘Grooming Gangs’: Britain Persecutes Journalist | National Review

 

[Augustus]

copied from post #197:

Tommy Robinson & ‘Grooming Gangs’: Britain Persecutes Journalist | National Review

It basically agrees with what I said.

The facts are both more prosaic and depressing. Robinson would not now be in jail if he had not once again accosted defendants in an ongoing trial outside the courthouse. He had been told by a judge last May not to do this and yet he did this again. It isn’t the worst thing in the world (it isn’t child rape, for instance), but it is an offense to which Robinson understandably pleaded guilty. More important, the trial that was coming to a close last Friday is just one part of a trial involving multiple other defendants. It is certainly possible that Robinson’s breaking of reporting restrictions at the Leeds trial could have prejudiced those trials. To have caused the collapse of such a trial would have been more than a blunder; it would have been an additional blow to victims who deserve justice.

 

[icehorse]

It basically agrees with what I said.

The facts are both more prosaic and depressing. Robinson would not now be in jail if he had not once again accosted defendants in an ongoing trial outside the courthouse. He had been told by a judge last May not to do this and yet he did this again. It isn’t the worst thing in the world (it isn’t child rape, for instance), but it is an offense to which Robinson understandably pleaded guilty. More important, the trial that was coming to a close last Friday is just one part of a trial involving multiple other defendants. It is certainly possible that Robinson’s breaking of reporting restrictions at the Leeds trial could have prejudiced those trials. To have caused the collapse of such a trial would have been more than a blunder; it would have been an additional blow to victims who deserve justice.

I just reread the OP. Could it have been better written? Of course. But my hope was to focus on the gag order as an idea, and the press's various approaches to reporting.

I'd also say that I could have done a much better job of reviewing the bigger issue, of which this trial is only one battle.

I'm curious to hear your comments on the bigger points in Murray's article - the war, not this battle.

 

[Augustus]

I just reread the OP. Could it have been better written? Of course. But my hope was to focus on the gag order as an idea, and the press's various approaches to reporting.

Which is what I see as the problem because they are completely unconnected, as reflected in Murray's article.

If you want to discuss theoretical aspects of the British legal system that relate to ensuring a fair trial it is best to do so directly rather than by shoehorning it into a broader question involving TR, Asian sex gangs, establishment failings and other things that just confuse the issue.

I'd also say that I could have done a much better job of reviewing the bigger issue, of which this trial is only one battle.

I'm curious to hear your comments on the bigger points in Murray's article - the war, not this battle.

Better to start a new thread then where you make a case that isn't intertwined with a misconception that leads people to discuss the misconception rather than what you want to discuss.

There's at least 3 different issues you are trying to discuss in this thread, best to focus on 1 clear issue.

 

[icehorse]

There's at least 3 different issues you are trying to discuss in this thread, best to focus on 1 clear issue.

Point taken, and I'm thinking about a new thread.

And I'd still like to hear what you think about the Murray article

 

[Estro Felino]

@icehorse
Tommy has been released

YEAAH

 

[Augustus]

@icehorse
Tommy has been released

YEAAH

Pending retrial...