Tommy Robinson: Arrest and Gag order in the UK

[icehorse]

So far as I can see it is you that is introducing the term "racism" into the discussion, and then trying to pretend that your anti-muslim religious bigotry is somehow fair comment, just because it is not (at least overtly) racism. That won't wash.

As I recall it was someone else who first used the term racism in this thread, at this point I think that's neither here nor there, but if you think it's important, let me know.

But I will have to push back against this last post of yours. There are important distinctions to be made here. As I have already told you, I am a critic of Islam as a set of ideas, and I am specifically in disagreement with those Muslims who immigrate to a secular country and want to live in a theocracy. And such Muslims are a significant percentage of the Muslims living in Europe.

Please explain how that is not "fair comment"?

 

[exchemist]

Yes...your English criminal law is backwards, medieval and Orwellian.
It insults me as a jurist who studied law in a country where freedom of speech is an absolute value.

You British jail journalists

We acquit them. Read this


Belpietro acquitted over 'Islamic ********' headline (2)


The English judiciary has stooped very low...

If you were a half-decent jurist you would be arguing the pros and cons of the English law concept of sub judice, as you have have realised that was the principle of law involved in this case, i.e. the reason why Yaxley-Lennon was convicted of contempt of court.

But you do not so much as mention it. I conclude that either you are a poor jurist or a liar. I would further observe that the quality of your argument in general strikes me as a long way below the standard I would expect from a jurist.

 

[exchemist]

As I recall it was someone else who first used the term racism in this thread, at this point I think that's neither here nor there, but if you think it's important, let me know.

But I will have to push back against this last post of yours. There are important distinctions to be made here. As I have already told you, I am a critic of Islam as a set of ideas, and I am specifically in disagreement with those Muslims who immigrate to a secular country and want to live in a theocracy. And such Muslims are a significant percentage of the Muslims living in Europe.

Please explain how that is not "fair comment"?

I think it is both here and there as, firstly, you were trying to suggest I might be seen as racist and secondly that my attack on your bigotry was misplaced because you were not being racist.

If you want to start a civilised thread on the issues arising from immigration, even muslim immigration specifically, I shall be willing to take part.

But I will not let you get away with trying to make a hero out of this ar5ehole Yaxley-Lennon and smearing the English judicial system, which is what you have tried to do in this thread. You have been shown comprehensively wrong on both counts and I think a retraction is in order before this goes any further.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're assuming you know what knowledge I had when I made the OP. Since your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are strawman arguments.

So you drew conclusions about a series of events you knew very little about, made a bunch of unfounded assumptions and then started a thread defending the actions of a man without researching him, his actions, or the legality of them.

So the question still remains: why did you, despite an overwhelming barrier of ignorance, jump to the defense of a violent, bigoted criminal who committed a breach of court?

That you find the idea of cultural suicide absurd is neither here nor there, the perspective is valid enough to be coined and widely used.

By people who are easily manipulated by meaningless, emotive language rather than reason and sensible argument.

I have heard evidence that the authorities were aware of some of these rings for years before they started prosecution. So sure, now they're prosecuting them, why not a decade ago?

I'm not on the jury or in the police force, so I have no idea and neither do you. Are you suggesting the police force is complicit in protecting paedophiles? And in what way do you think Tommy Robinson potentially causing a mistrial and getting those men free on a technicality is helping?

Please reread the OP.

The OP in which you defend the illegal criminal actions of racist and attempt to paint him as a victim of censorship and Orwellian conspiracy? That OP?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes...your English criminal law is backward, medieval and Orwellian.
It insults me as a jurist who studied law in a country where freedom of speech is an absolute value.
You British jail journalists
We acquit them.

Tommy Robinson is not, and was never, a journalist. He was also in breach of a court order. As a jurist, surely you understand how making certain details of a case public ahead of time can potentially prejudice the case and lead to a mistrial. Or did you skip those lectures?

So...are you stating that Robinson would be allowed to write an article like that?
and by the way sub judice is unconstitutional here...it violates the right to information.
When savages rape girls...we have headlines for weeks

The fact that you don't understand the importance of due process or the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", or the importance of not prejudicing a case until there is sufficient information to arrive at an informed conclusion is not indicative of a weakness in the British legal system - just of your own ignorance and perverse desire for personal satisfaction ahead of actual justice.

For reference, here's what can happen when a media circus ensues around a case which hasn't yet completed:
Sheppard v. Maxwell - Wikipedia

 

[Estro Felino]

Tommy Robinson is not, and was never, a journalist. He was also in breach of a court order. As a jurist, surely you understand how making certain details of a case public ahead of time can potentially prejudice the case and lead to a mistrial. Or did you skip those lectures?

The criminal procedure here states hearings must be public...and btw...saying that the press can influence the judges (I presume you have the jury), it means those judges are incompetent and gullible.

Btw...can I have the access to the acts of that trials that sentenced Robinson.?
I want to see if there is the chance to call for the status of political refugee, and ask for Robinson's extradition to my counttry

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The criminal procedure here states hearings must be public...and btw...saying that the press can influence the judges (I presume you have the jury), it means those judges are incompetent and gullible.

I didn't say that. I say they prejudice a case - public opinion and news coverage can influence juries, testimony, make witnesses less inclined to testify, and has lead to many mistrials, including mistrials in the USA.

Btw...can I have the access to the acts of that trials that sentenced Robinson.?
I want to see if there is the chance to call for the status of political refugee, and ask for Robinson's extradition to my counttry

Because the welfare of racist, violent criminals is your top priority, I assume?

And since his arrest was not in any way political, but a result of him knowingly breaching a court order and potentially causing a mistrial, there is no basis for him to be granted political asylum. Why are you so keen to protect violent racists, anyway?

 

[Altfish]

I want to see if there is the chance to call for the status of political refugee, and ask for Robinson's extradition to my counttry

Please take him!!

They will be dancing in the streets if this comedy act cleared off.
Anyone who changes his name from Stephen Yaxley Lennon to Tommy Robinson because it sounds 'harder' needs to get a life.

 

[exchemist]

The criminal procedure here states hearings must be public...and btw...saying that the press can influence the judges (I presume you have the jury), it means those judges are incompetent and gullible.

Btw...can I have the access to the acts of that trials that sentenced Robinson.?
I want to see if there is the chance to call for the status of political refugee, and ask for Robinson's extradition to my counttry

Eh? If you knew any law you would know it is the jury that decides the verdict, you would appreciate that both jury and witnesses can be influenced by outside forces and you would know that the job of the judge is to prevent justice from being impaired by either of these possibilities.

Trials have been known to collapse due to intimidation of witnesses for instance - something that I suppose is unknown in mafia-ridden Italy . One glance at the EDL photograph I linked to would be enough to show anyone sensible that threats of violence are exactly what EDL and similar groups specialise in. (Note for instance the balaclavas with official EDL logo on them.) So, if you are a defence witness and these guys find out where you live....good luck!.

And jurors too can be influenced, even though they are advised not to go looking for media coverage about the case they are trying. More here (admittedly from 2010 but still highly relevant): BBC News - Do media reports influence juries?
Prejudicial live streaming, by a known violent bigot, in a case that already inflames strong feelings and makes the impartiality of the jury hard to maintain, is quite obviously something the judge would forbid during the course of the trial.

In this case the idiot in question, who is not a journalist, had already earned a suspended prison sentence for doing exactly this, in a previous court case. So now he repeats it. Quite rightly he is now imprisoned for two crimes of contempt of court, firstly enforcement of the previously suspended sentence, plus an extra prison term for the repeat offence.

If you knew any law I would not have to explain this to you, Musso.

 

[icehorse]

I think it is both here and there as, firstly, you were trying to suggest I might be seen as racist and secondly that my attack on your bigotry was misplaced because you were not being racist.

If you want to start a civilised thread on the issues arising from immigration, even muslim immigration specifically, I shall be willing to take part.

But I will not let you get away with trying to make a hero out of this ar5ehole Yaxley-Lennon and smearing the English judicial system, which is what you have tried to do in this thread. You have been shown comprehensively wrong on both counts and I think a retraction is in order before this goes any further.

Given that I feel you've mischaracterized my posts, I would say don't hold your breathe for a retraction. Again, please re-read the OP. This was about journalism and a question of the Brit's legal system. As I said earlier, I learned something about the Brit's legal system in this thread, once again, hooray for RF.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Given that I feel you've mischaracterized my posts, I would say don't hold your breathe for a retraction.

You have already previously admitted that your statements on this case were made largely without a lot of pertinent information, and your OP clearly omits several important details in this regard, thereby portraying this a the British judicial system attempting to silence a critic of Islam rather than a bigoted racist breaching a court order and knowingly engaging in an illegal act that could potentially jeopardize an ongoing trial. I would say any reasonable, rational person would recant such statements and post corrections.

Again, please re-read the OP. This was about journalism and a question of the Brit's legal system.

A question which has been fully answered and you have yet to acknowledge any further understanding of or shown any indication of having re-addressed the issue in light of further information coming to light which refutes your initial assessment.

As I said earlier, I learned something about the Brit's legal system in this thread, once again, hooray for RF.

Cool. Now are you going to recant your earlier defense of the illegal actions of a racist bigot and explain why you felt it necessary to portray them in the positive light in the first place?

 

[icehorse]

1 - So you drew conclusions about a series of events you knew very little about, made a bunch of unfounded assumptions and then started a thread defending the actions of a man without researching him, his actions, or the legality of them.

2 - So the question still remains: why did you, despite an overwhelming barrier of ignorance, jump to the defense of a violent, bigoted criminal who committed a breach of court?

3 - By people who are easily manipulated by meaningless, emotive language rather than reason and sensible argument.

4 - I'm not on the jury or in the police force, so I have no idea and neither do you. Are you suggesting the police force is complicit in protecting paedophiles? And in what way do you think Tommy Robinson potentially causing a mistrial and getting those men free on a technicality is helping?

5 - The OP in which you defend the illegal criminal actions of racist and attempt to paint him as a victim of censorship and Orwellian conspiracy? That OP?

(I numbered your points so that I could respond)

1 - I noticed a huge disparity on the "journalism" and I questioned the gag order. None of the three articles I read explained the gag order rules. The articles caught my attention because it strikes me that all over Europe, leaders have been following an extremely dangerous immigration policy, and few are admitting the problems it's caused.

2 - strawman

3 - I believe the claim of "cultural suicide" is quite defensible. And please dispense with the ad hominem attacks.

4 - see answer #1

5 - see answer #1

 

[icehorse]

Cool. Now are you going to recant your earlier defense of the illegal actions of a racist bigot and explain why you felt it necessary to portray them in the positive light in the first place?

I believe that the only thing I agree with Robinson on are the problems associated with mass immigration policies. I do not believe I have defended anything else with regard to Robinson.

And once again, from what I understand, the authorities have been extremely slow to take action on these enormous grooming rings that have been operating for years, perhaps decades? In that context, it seems quite reasonable for citizens, even racist, bigoted ones, to make a ruckus.

And again, don't conflate racism with bigotry. I would guess that you are bigoted concerning Neo-Nazis (as am I). And so I will say again, I am bigoted concerning Islamic fundamentalists - I strongly disagree with their opinions about how healthy societies ought to operate. This is healthy bigotry IMO. It means I have values that I stand for.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe that the only thing I agree with Robinson on are the problems associated with mass immigration policies. I do not believe I have defended anything else with regard to Robinson.

You regarded his arrest as "shocking" and characterized him a critic of Islam while omitting (deliberately or not) his history of racism, racial agitation, and the fact he was engaged in committing an illegal act.

And once again, from what I understand, the authorities have been extremely slow to take action on these enormous grooming rings that have been operating for years, perhaps decades? In that context, it seems quite reasonable for citizens, even racist, bigoted ones, to make a ruckus.

Since you had no idea of the details of the case, or the British legal system, I'm going to assume this is baseless nonsense on your part. You are not a part of the investigation, and you have no idea what is going on the in the court room, and I have absolutely no idea why you think Robinson's actions - which have potentially jeopardized the trial - are in any way justifiable, slow-moving investigation or no. Your insinuation that the British authorities have been deliberately slow in prosecuting these paedophiles is embarrassing and shameful.

And again, don't conflate racism with bigotry. I would guess that you are bigoted concerning Neo-Nazis (as am I).

Only if you deliberately broaden the definition of bigotry. I disagree with neo-nazis and oppose them, but I am not bigoted towards them. Also, this is irrelevant.

And so I will say again, I am bigoted concerning Islamic fundamentalists - I strongly disagree with their opinions about how healthy societies ought to operate. This is healthy bigotry IMO. It means I have values that I stand for.

Which has nothing to do with anything and doesn't answer my question. Why did you jump to defend a known criminal, racist bigot when they committed a criminal act? Just because their views partially align with yours?

So, you're just ignorant and biased, then?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

(I numbered your points so that I could respond)

1 - I noticed a huge disparity on the "journalism" and I questioned the gag order. None of the three articles I read explained the gag order rules.

You didn't research them. That's your fault. You also deliberately went to a right-wing site that you knew would interpret the story with an anti-Islamic bent and lended them credibility.

The articles caught my attention because it strikes me that all over Europe, leaders have been following an extremely dangerous immigration policy, and few are admitting the problems it's caused.

Which has literally nothing to do with this case.

2 - strawman

No, it isn't. You called his arrest "shocking" and have repeatedly tried to justify his illegal actions.

3 - I believe the claim of "cultural suicide" is quite defensible.

Then you're wrong.

And please dispense with the ad hominem attacks.

You clearly don't know what an ad hominem attack is.

4 - see answer #1

A lack of information is not an excuse to present a biased interpretation of events.

5 - see answer #1

See above. You've been caught spreading biased misinformation. Whether intentional or not, the right thing to do is own up to it. Are you going to do that?

 

[icehorse]

So, you're just ignorant and biased, then?

I think the ad hominem attacks speak for themselves, have a nice day.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think the ad hominem attacks speak for themselves, have a nice day.

Again, that's not an ad hominem attack. If someone displays traits that indicate (or flat-out admits) bias and ignorance, it is not an ad hominem to call them biased and ignorant. It WOULD be an ad hominem if we were debating an entirely unrelated subject and I pointed to this thread and said "This person clearly displayed bias and ignorance about this particular subject, so we shouldn't trust their judgement in this issue" or "This person has made argument x, but I have it on good authority that they pick their toenails with a spoon. Only an idiot would do that, therefore we can dismiss argument x."

I'm getting increasingly sick of people evoking the ad hominem fallacy without actually understanding it.

 

[icehorse]

Again, that's not an ad hominem attack. If someone displays traits that indicate (or flat-out admits) bias and ignorance, it is not an ad hominem to call them biased and ignorant. It WOULD be an ad hominem if we were debating an entirely unrelated subject and I pointed to this thread and said "This person clearly displayed bias and ignorance about this particular subject, so we shouldn't trust their judgement in this issue" or "This person has made argument x, but I have it on good authority that they pick their toenails with a spoon. Only an idiot would do that, therefore we can dismiss argument x."

I'm getting increasingly sick of people evoking the ad hominem fallacy without actually understanding it.

This all assumes that your opinions are the "correct" ones. That hasn't been established. Argue the ideas dude, it's that simple.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This all assumes that your opinions are the "correct" ones. That hasn't been established. Argue the ideas dude, it's that simple.

I would do, but you ignored my arguments and went straight to falsely accusing me of committing a fallacy. If it's simple to debate ideas, why are you so desperate to stop debating and start flinging false accusations?

 

[icehorse]

I would do, but you ignored my arguments and went straight to falsely accusing me of committing a fallacy. If it's simple to debate ideas, why are you so desperate to stop debating and start flinging false accusations?

when did I do that? and perhaps more importantly, when did I call you ignorant?