Sir Keir Starmer Under, Fresh...
News5 mins ago
Tommy Robinson Sentenced To 9 Weeks In Prison But Will Serve Up To One Half Of That Period.
306 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Prof //If the media did its job properly (and especially Broadcast Media) Tommy Robinson would have no role to play.//
The media know better than to break the Sub Judice rule.
https:/
The media know better than to break the Sub Judice rule.
https:/
// His assets aren't as a result of his current activity. He opened a tanning salon in Luton. //
Tommy Robinson has never owned a tanning shop in Luton. But Tommy Lennon (his step father) did. He was a Director of tanning@Unit2 (Luton) Ltd, but that company went out of business in 2013.
A new Tanning Studio called Minushka Tan, catering for the local Eastern Europeans took over the premises and run by a Miss Anna Zaworska and a Miss Ewa Czyzewska.
Tommy Robinson has never owned a tanning shop in Luton. But Tommy Lennon (his step father) did. He was a Director of tanning@Unit2 (Luton) Ltd, but that company went out of business in 2013.
A new Tanning Studio called Minushka Tan, catering for the local Eastern Europeans took over the premises and run by a Miss Anna Zaworska and a Miss Ewa Czyzewska.
Naomi //I’m happy that he keeps this appalling on-going problem in the public eye. I can’t understand why others would rather he didn’t//
I think some people consider that it is more about himself keeping in the public eye and that he believes that he is most likely to provide the salvation to the problem.
It has become very personal to some. They resent him full stop irrespective of the key messages he puts out.
Whatever the positive aspects of his discourse it is considerably overshadowed by his actions and methods.
Attitudes towards him won't change but he won't change either so this will remain a battle of wills between one trying to speak out and the other desperate to silence him.
Not an appetising situation.
I think some people consider that it is more about himself keeping in the public eye and that he believes that he is most likely to provide the salvation to the problem.
It has become very personal to some. They resent him full stop irrespective of the key messages he puts out.
Whatever the positive aspects of his discourse it is considerably overshadowed by his actions and methods.
Attitudes towards him won't change but he won't change either so this will remain a battle of wills between one trying to speak out and the other desperate to silence him.
Not an appetising situation.
AOG - // What I fail to understand is the fact that one can violently protest regarding the behaviour of the Government or close roads to protest regarding Climate Change.
But if one chooses to protest regarding the behaviour of certain ethnic minorities, one is labelled a fascist, a neo Nazi, a racist, an Islamophobic, or Xenophobic.
One could also be arrested for Hate Speech or inciting racial hatred. //
Your inference - and it is one you have made previously, is that other people who break the law are allowed to escape without retribution, but 'Tommy Robinson' is singled out simply because he " ... chooses to protest regarding the behaviour of certain ethnic minorities, one is labelled a fascist, a neo Nazi, a racist, an Islamophobic, or Xenophobic. //
That is a seriously over-simplistic view of a situation skewed in order to bolster your support for 'Tommy Robinson'.
The fact is this - even though 'Tommy Robinson' loves to paint himself as the heroic martyr fighting against a fascist state determined to stifle his right to free speech, the reality is that he is a career criminal, and his latest escapades have landed him in court because he broke the law.
Any government or climate change protestors who have broken the law and been arrested, will have been dealt with, but because they lack the grandstanding self-aggrandising attitudes of 'Tommy Robinson', their cases do not make news as he does.
This implies that they escape, and he does not, due to a simple willingness on the art of the state to persecute 'Tommy' and not others, which is simply not true.
As has been pointed out endless times by myself and others on this and other threads, 'Tommy Robinson' is hoist by hos own petard. His endless arrogance and contempt for the law has landed him in jail - again - and so it will continue, as long as his causes, such as they were, recede into the distance, eclipsed by his own self-developed sense of delusion that he is far more influential and important than he actually is.
But if one chooses to protest regarding the behaviour of certain ethnic minorities, one is labelled a fascist, a neo Nazi, a racist, an Islamophobic, or Xenophobic.
One could also be arrested for Hate Speech or inciting racial hatred. //
Your inference - and it is one you have made previously, is that other people who break the law are allowed to escape without retribution, but 'Tommy Robinson' is singled out simply because he " ... chooses to protest regarding the behaviour of certain ethnic minorities, one is labelled a fascist, a neo Nazi, a racist, an Islamophobic, or Xenophobic. //
That is a seriously over-simplistic view of a situation skewed in order to bolster your support for 'Tommy Robinson'.
The fact is this - even though 'Tommy Robinson' loves to paint himself as the heroic martyr fighting against a fascist state determined to stifle his right to free speech, the reality is that he is a career criminal, and his latest escapades have landed him in court because he broke the law.
Any government or climate change protestors who have broken the law and been arrested, will have been dealt with, but because they lack the grandstanding self-aggrandising attitudes of 'Tommy Robinson', their cases do not make news as he does.
This implies that they escape, and he does not, due to a simple willingness on the art of the state to persecute 'Tommy' and not others, which is simply not true.
As has been pointed out endless times by myself and others on this and other threads, 'Tommy Robinson' is hoist by hos own petard. His endless arrogance and contempt for the law has landed him in jail - again - and so it will continue, as long as his causes, such as they were, recede into the distance, eclipsed by his own self-developed sense of delusion that he is far more influential and important than he actually is.
sanmac - // And keep in mind that muslums wallow in delight over these type of threads since it proves to them how they are splintering and dividing our society. I seem to recall an adage that says "divide and conquer" and that describes their invasive techniques and machinations quite well. //
If you seriously think that any Muslims - be they criminals or not - waste their time 'wallowing' over the machinations of a small number of debaters on the Answerbank, then you follow in 'Tommy Robinson's footsteps, in having a distorted view of the importance, reach, and impact of the platform you are using.
If you seriously think that any Muslims - be they criminals or not - waste their time 'wallowing' over the machinations of a small number of debaters on the Answerbank, then you follow in 'Tommy Robinson's footsteps, in having a distorted view of the importance, reach, and impact of the platform you are using.
Professormaisie,
// 'shut your trap in the interests of diversity' rule. //
Sub-Judice has been around for centuries.
The St. James’s Evening Post was prosecuted in a 1742 case. A Long long time before diversity became an issue. It is part of British and most Commonwealth Law, and was only superseded on these shores by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act.
// 'shut your trap in the interests of diversity' rule. //
Sub-Judice has been around for centuries.
The St. James’s Evening Post was prosecuted in a 1742 case. A Long long time before diversity became an issue. It is part of British and most Commonwealth Law, and was only superseded on these shores by the 1981 Contempt of Court Act.
sanmac - // This site is only one very small example of the results of their divisive agenda. //
Al Qaeda formed over thirty-one years ago, if extremist Muslim groups, of which they are the most powerful and far-reaching, are supposed to be operating a 'divisive agenda', then maybe it's time to tell them that they are failing - spectacularly!!
Al Qaeda formed over thirty-one years ago, if extremist Muslim groups, of which they are the most powerful and far-reaching, are supposed to be operating a 'divisive agenda', then maybe it's time to tell them that they are failing - spectacularly!!
Sanmac,
The only division here is whether people should go to prison after they have been proven to break the law, after a fair trial.
Those muslims were convicted despite Tommy Robinson’s best efforts to undermine the trial. Robinson was convicted because of his ignorance of the law concerting journalism and fair trials.
The only division here is whether people should go to prison after they have been proven to break the law, after a fair trial.
Those muslims were convicted despite Tommy Robinson’s best efforts to undermine the trial. Robinson was convicted because of his ignorance of the law concerting journalism and fair trials.
"That's true - but that is the nature of AB debate - other relevant areas are explored as the debate unwinds, that's how it works." Yes, that's true and that is what I implied but really didn't think that it necessary to further embellish. We are all aware of the fact that the resultant posts go off in many tangents.
Gromit, my information concerning Tommy Robinson’s assets came from the BBC and I provided a link. Where does yours come from?
It’s clear that the criticism – much of it positively vitriolic - aimed at Tommy Robinson does not emanate solely from his having broken the law – to claim so is utterly disingenuous - but from a concerted effort to deflect criticism from Islam and from those who follow Islam. That is precisely why the media has taken to referring to grooming gangs as ‘Asian’ rather than Muslim – and it’s a very slippery slope. The most serious crimes and the most foul of criminals have somehow been eclipsed by the wilful demonization of someone who has the courage to speak out in support of the victims of what can only be described as a filthy and despicable mind-set.
It’s clear that the criticism – much of it positively vitriolic - aimed at Tommy Robinson does not emanate solely from his having broken the law – to claim so is utterly disingenuous - but from a concerted effort to deflect criticism from Islam and from those who follow Islam. That is precisely why the media has taken to referring to grooming gangs as ‘Asian’ rather than Muslim – and it’s a very slippery slope. The most serious crimes and the most foul of criminals have somehow been eclipsed by the wilful demonization of someone who has the courage to speak out in support of the victims of what can only be described as a filthy and despicable mind-set.
Let's take the principle charge on which Robinson was convicted: that his reporting was prejudicial to a fair trial.
I read some official guidelines the other day on prosecutions for contempt of court on those grounds. One guideline is that the evidence that the reporting would be prejudicial has to be "substantial", and another that the prejudice, if determined, has itself to be "substantial". The worst case of "prejudice" would be the declaration of a mistrial, wouldn't it?
So here's a simple question: have breeches of reporting restrictions led to the abandonment of court cases and convictions for contempt of court.? Well, I know the answer to that one: yes, quite a few.
And here's another question: how many of those convictions have resulted in journalist being imprisoned? That's not so easy to answer, because I've looked, but, so far have failed to find a single example.
Oh, here's a third: what, in the eyes of the Law, makes Tommy Robinson so special?
I read some official guidelines the other day on prosecutions for contempt of court on those grounds. One guideline is that the evidence that the reporting would be prejudicial has to be "substantial", and another that the prejudice, if determined, has itself to be "substantial". The worst case of "prejudice" would be the declaration of a mistrial, wouldn't it?
So here's a simple question: have breeches of reporting restrictions led to the abandonment of court cases and convictions for contempt of court.? Well, I know the answer to that one: yes, quite a few.
And here's another question: how many of those convictions have resulted in journalist being imprisoned? That's not so easy to answer, because I've looked, but, so far have failed to find a single example.
Oh, here's a third: what, in the eyes of the Law, makes Tommy Robinson so special?
Latest Posts
Family & Relationships11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.