Tommy Robinson: Arrest and Gag order in the UK

[ImmortalFlame]

when did I do that?

A couple of posts above.

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

I never said you did.

 

[icehorse]

I never said you did.

Right, so you call me ignorant, but I try to stick to the ideas. Again, if you disagree with my arguments, please explain that. But you know nothing of my relative ignorance or expertise on this topic. And - for the sake of discussion - let's say that you have far more expertise on this topic than I do. In such case, it should be easy for you to refute my claims. Claims should stand or fall on their own merit - it should not matter who makes them.

So let me ask you this, where do you stand on Europe's recent mass immigration policies? I think it's suicide, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts. And I also believe that this question is germane, because context is everything.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right, so you call me ignorant, but I try to stick to the ideas.

You admitted to being ignorant earlier when you chalked up your characterizations of this case due to a lack of information.

And you've NOT been sticking to the ideas. When I pointed out the facts of the case you attempted to shift the discussion away from it and tried to make it about immigration policy - something that is completely and utterly irrelevant to Tommy Robinson's arrest and the reasons for it.

Again, if you disagree with my arguments, please explain that. But you know nothing of my relative ignorance or expertise on this topic.

You've already said that there is a lot about this situation you were ignorant of.

And - for the sake of discussion - let's say that you have far more expertise on this topic than I do. In such case, it should be easy for you to refute my claims. Claims should stand or fall on their own merit - it should not matter who makes them.

I have refuted them. And I never attacked you personally. Stop trying to distract from the fact that you have yet to retract your actions in support of a racist bigot and your (intentional or otherwise) misrepresentation of this story.

So let me ask you this, where do you stand on Europe's recent mass immigration policies? I think it's suicide, but I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts. And I also believe that this question is germane, because context is everything.

I'm not going to let you change the subject until you acknowledge your mistakes and retract your statements in the OP. You don't get to squirm away that easily.

 

[icehorse]

I have refuted them. And I never attacked you personally. Stop trying to distract from the fact that you have yet to retract your actions in support of a racist bigot and your (intentional or otherwise) misrepresentation of this story.

The original OP was about journalism and the Gag order. In this thread, I learned a lot about the UK's legal system's ability to issue gag orders. That has already been acknowledged.

In the OP I did not paint Robinson in a good light. You paint him in a worse light, and you might be correct, but THAT is beside the point. His CURRENT actions should stand or fall on their own merit. Sometimes thugs get it right!

As for my "misrepresentation" of the story. What YOU have to understand is that from the perspective of the US legal system, the idea that a judge could gag journalists in general from reporting on an arrest is preposterous. I'm still shocked that this is legal in the UK - it strikes me as quite dystopian. Look at the title of the OP again - "Gag order" is right there in the title.

And I will also reiterate that in this situation, ANYONE who is making a ruckus over how the UK authorities have failed to deal with these massive grooming gangs is doing a good thing for the UK. If only thugs have the courage to protest against the authorities on this matter, then Go Thugs!

In other words, my support of Robinson's protests IN THIS MATTER are in no way me supporting racism and bigotry, so you can stop with that bit of illogic.

I might go further and say that if you claim I'm being racist, then you don't understand the context of the story at all, and even if we allow you to twist the definition of "racism" in this case, you'd still be guilty of "soft bigotry".

 

[exchemist]

The original OP was about journalism and the Gag order. In this thread, I learned a lot about the UK's legal system's ability to issue gag orders. That has already been acknowledged.

In the OP I did not paint Robinson in a good light. You paint him in a worse light, and you might be correct, but THAT is beside the point. His CURRENT actions should stand or fall on their own merit. Sometimes thugs get it right!

As for my "misrepresentation" of the story. What YOU have to understand is that from the perspective of the US legal system, the idea that a judge could gag journalists in general from reporting on an arrest is preposterous. I'm still shocked that this is legal in the UK - it strikes me as quite dystopian. Look at the title of the OP again - "Gag order" is right there in the title.

And I will also reiterate that in this situation, ANYONE who is making a ruckus over how the UK authorities have failed to deal with these massive grooming gangs is doing a good thing for the UK. If only thugs have the courage to protest against the authorities on this matter, then Go Thugs!

In other words, my support of Robinson's protests IN THIS MATTER are in no way me supporting racism and bigotry, so you can stop with that bit of illogic.

I might go further and say that if you claim I'm being racist, then you don't understand the context of the story at all, and even if we allow you to twist the definition of "racism" in this case, you'd still be guilty of "soft bigotry".

Then I suggest you start another thread, this time to argue that the English law of sub judice, restricting the reporting of ongoing court proceedings where the judge considers it advisable, is oppressive. It's a point of view.

 

[Augustus]

What YOU have to understand is that from the perspective of the US legal system, the idea that a judge could gag journalists in general from reporting on an arrest is preposterous. I'm still shocked that this is legal in the UK - it strikes me as quite dystopian. Look at the title of the OP again - "Gag order" is right there in the title.

The first gag order was related to the 'grooming' court case, presumably as the judge didn't want media coverage to prejudice the case. Reporting restrictions on criminal cases generally have a legal rationale behind them and breaches have in the past led to mistrials at great public expense.

The gag on his arrest was related to the gag on the trial. If you reported on the arrest, you would likely breach the gag on the initial trial.

It was lifted when it was widely reported anyway meaning the gag became counterproductive due to the speculation he had been arrested for no reason.

 

[icehorse]

The first gag order was related to the 'grooming' court case, presumably as the judge didn't want media coverage to prejudice the case. Reporting restrictions on criminal cases generally have a legal rationale behind them and breaches have in the past led to mistrials at great public expense.

The gag on his arrest was related to the gag on the trial. If you reported on the arrest, you would likely breach the gag on the initial trial.

It was lifted when it was widely reported anyway meaning the gag became counterproductive due to the speculation he had been arrested for no reason.

This seems like an accurate summary, thanks.

That said, this idea of cascading gag orders seems like a really, really bad idea. I understand that what the judge did was legal in Britain. That doesn't make it correct, only useful. It strikes me that the idea of gag orders, let alone cascading gag orders has to be rethought.

And to any Brits who want to tell me to stay in my lane, sorry, not gonna do that.

 

[exchemist]

This seems like an accurate summary, thanks.

That said, this idea of cascading gag orders seems like a really, really bad idea. I understand that what the judge did was legal in Britain. That doesn't make it correct, only useful. It strikes me that the idea of gag orders, let alone cascading gag orders has to be rethought.

And to any Brits who want to tell me to stay in my lane, sorry, not gonna do that.

As I have previously pointed out, the public are still admitted to court, and can make whatever notes they like, for reporting however they like (subject to the normal laws of the country), once a verdict has been reached.

You are welcome to your opinions on the merits or demerits of the sub judice principle. This is used in a number of jurisdictions, including many English-speaking Commonwealth countries whose legal systems are based on English law, and Israel:

Sub judice - Wikipedia

If you would like to start a thread to argue the pros and cons, I'm sure a number of people will participate. I can see there are arguments to be had either way.

 

[Augustus]

That said, this idea of cascading gag orders seems like a really, really bad idea. I understand that what the judge did was legal in Britain. That doesn't make it correct, only useful. It strikes me that the idea of gag orders, let alone cascading gag orders has to be rethought.

They are only temporary, until the trial is complete, then the details can be reported. It's really just setting an embargo date on the news.

Assuming there is a legitimate legal reason for the embargo, it's a choice between whether or not it is more important for the public to find out a couple of days earlier, or to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.

 

[icehorse]

They are only temporary, until the trial is complete, then the details can be reported. It's really just setting an embargo date on the news.

Assuming there is a legitimate legal reason for the embargo, it's a choice between whether or not it is more important for the public to find out a couple of days earlier, or to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Fair trials for defendants are not negotiable - agreed. But gag orders seem like an extremely dangerous approach. They defang one of our most potent tools to fight a government or government agency that's going down a bad path.

 

[exchemist]

Fair trials for defendants are not negotiable - agreed. But gag orders seem like an extremely dangerous approach. They defang one of our most potent tools to fight a government or government agency that's going down a bad path.

Not really, if everything can be reported openly the moment the verdict is reached, which is the case as we have explained.

The sole advantage in reporting as the trial is going on is that someone without locus standi in the case can try to influence the proceedings - which is obviously highly undesirable for the administration of justice.

 

[Shad]

Fair trials for defendants are not negotiable - agreed. But gag orders seem like an extremely dangerous approach. They defang one of our most potent tools to fight a government or government agency that's going down a bad path.

The gag order was put in place as the jury was not sequestered. It is an alternative used often in many cases. The government has already been exposed prior to the gag order. Social services laughing at victims, ignoring their claims completely, fear of police action lest the racist label is applied, etc, etc. Sure the government is doing some damage control but consider the following. Would you rather see a temporary gag order with a conviction or have the defendants get off on a mistrial? I am sure there will be a lot to talk about after the trial regardless of the reason(s) why any individual is interested.

*I think the defendants are guilty hence my wording above. I have no interest in discussing it. So imagine alleged in the above if you disagree*

 

[icehorse]

Not really, if everything can be reported openly the moment the verdict is reached, which is the case as we have explained.

The sole advantage in reporting as the trial is going on is that someone without locus standi in the case can try to influence the proceedings - which is obviously highly undesirable for the administration of justice.

I don't think we can really say what the "sole advantage" is. For example, reporting on an ongoing trial might alert the population to similar criminal activities they might witness. There are any number of such examples.

 

[icehorse]

Would you rather see a temporary gag order with a conviction or have the defendants get off on a mistrial?

Well this seems to be the main defense of the use of gag orders. To me it feels like a false dilemma, in other words there must be other approaches we could take. For example, off the top of my head, jury sequestering seems like a better option over all.

 

[exchemist]

I don't think we can really say what the "sole advantage" is. For example, reporting on an ongoing trial might alert the population to similar criminal activities they might witness. There are any number of such examples.

That's a pretty weak argument. For a start, the charges made and the names of the accused are always in the public domain, so the public will know the nature of the alleged crime and who has been charged. Furthermore it is quite a stretch to claim that waiting a week or two for the trial to finish before reporting the full details will materially affect the alerting of the public to the risk of similar crimes. (In any case if the police thought there was a high risk of similar offences they would alert the public on their own initiative. They often do this with new types of fraud scam for example.)

If you can think of any other reasons why it is important for the public to have reporting of the trial in real time, please provide them, because I struggle to think of any.

I realise you do acknowledge having learnt more about English criminal law in the course of this thread and I appreciate your willingness to do that. What I suggest you might think about now is whether that extremist website Gatestone, that you got the original misleading story from, is really a good place to get your information from in future.

 

[exchemist]

Patriots from all over Europe are showing their solidarity towards such a great hero.
Alternative fuer Deutschland and PVV in the NL..especially.

Heil Hitler!

 

[icehorse]

If you can think of any other reasons why it is important for the public to have reporting of the trial in real time, please provide them, because I struggle to think of any.

- I'd say that "news" in general is important, correct?
- I'd say that any curtailment of free speech ought to come under the harshest of scrutiny, and be avoided at all costs.
- Given the authority's past performance concerning these grooming gangs, we'd be naive to trust that they'd alert us to scams and such.

As for Gatestone being "extremist", they are clearly advocacy journalists, and they don't try to pretend otherwise. They are primarily pro-Israel and anti-theocracy. If that makes them extremists, then we need more extremists.

 

[exchemist]

- I'd say that "news" in general is important, correct?
- I'd say that any curtailment of free speech ought to come under the harshest of scrutiny, and be avoided at all costs.
- Given the authority's past performance concerning these grooming gangs, we'd be naive to trust that they'd alert us to scams and such.

As for Gatestone being "extremist", they are clearly advocacy journalists, and they don't try to pretend otherwise. They are primarily pro-Israel and anti-theocracy. If that makes them extremists, then we need more extremists.

No in general most news is trivial and is provided to satisfy curiosity of readers or viewers.

"Advocacy" is a very polite terms for what Gatestone does. You've seen for yourself how they misled you, and yet you want, still, to trust them. This is irrational behaviour and supports my earlier diagnosis that you are bigoted and looking for reinforcement of your beliefs rather than correct information.

P.S. Gatestone (and you) hyperventilate about denial of free speech concerning sub judice in English law and yet not a peep about sub judice as used in the law of Israel.
This suggests the argument is fake and merely a rhetorical tool, in the service of a thoroughly mendacious Likudnik narrative about Europe and islam.

 

[icehorse]

No in general most news is trivial and is provided to satisfy curiosity of readers or viewers.

"Advocacy" is a very polite terms for what Gatestone does. You've seen for yourself how they misled you, and yet you want, still, to trust them. This is irrational behaviour and supports my earlier diagnosis that you are bigoted and looking for reinforcement of your beliefs rather than correct information.

P.S. Gatestone (and you) hyperventilate about denial of free speech concerning sub judice in English law and yet not a peep about sub judice as used in the law of Israel.
This suggests the argument is fake and merely a rhetorical tool, in the service of a thoroughly mendacious Likudnik narrative about Europe and islam.

I'm happy to admit that my "agenda" is that of a secular humanist, and that I am bigoted against people who think theocracy is a good idea.

When I google "bigotry" I get:

intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

 

[exchemist]

I'm happy to admit that my "agenda" is that of a secular humanist, and that I am bigoted against people who think theocracy is a good idea.

When I google "bigotry" I get:

I'm happy to admit that my "agenda" is that of a secular humanist, and that I am bigoted against people who think theocracy is a good idea.

When I google "bigotry" I get:

OED has the following, which is the sense in which I am using it: " The condition of a bigot; obstinate and unenlightened attachment to a particular creed, opinion, system or party."