Strands #262 “For Our Furry...
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
More On Tommy Robinson.
48 Answers
https:/
/// Robinson’s offense was to film and name suspects in a grooming gang trial. This was illegal, and might have caused a mistrial, but, as his supporters point out, the British press has a long history of doing worse. Perhaps more convincingly, they also argue that had Robinson been a hard-left ‘activist’ rather than a ‘far-right’ bigot or racist, the left-wing press and the BBC that now assail him would be defending him as a fearless ‘citizen journalist’, talking ‘truth to power’. ///
How true is that?
And why is he in a high security prison, he should be in an open prison, if at all.
/// Robinson’s offense was to film and name suspects in a grooming gang trial. This was illegal, and might have caused a mistrial, but, as his supporters point out, the British press has a long history of doing worse. Perhaps more convincingly, they also argue that had Robinson been a hard-left ‘activist’ rather than a ‘far-right’ bigot or racist, the left-wing press and the BBC that now assail him would be defending him as a fearless ‘citizen journalist’, talking ‘truth to power’. ///
How true is that?
And why is he in a high security prison, he should be in an open prison, if at all.
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.
It was illegal and therefore prosecutable.
But, there is mitigation of sorts by way of even handedness. In as much as previous journalistic endeavours in ‘whistle blowing’. So if he is guilty then so is every other journalist that has ever reported on a case as it happens.
And of course there is the thing now of name and allow others to bravely come forward.
It’s swings and roundabouts.
Personally I think he should have filmed it all and when the court cases were over to publicise it far and wide.
But, there is mitigation of sorts by way of even handedness. In as much as previous journalistic endeavours in ‘whistle blowing’. So if he is guilty then so is every other journalist that has ever reported on a case as it happens.
And of course there is the thing now of name and allow others to bravely come forward.
It’s swings and roundabouts.
Personally I think he should have filmed it all and when the court cases were over to publicise it far and wide.
The natural inference to be derived from the apparent arbitrary nature of the reporting restrictions (look at Robinson going into court as a defendant and the crowds of mainstream "journalists" surrounding him, thrusting mikes in his face and asking aggressive questions in a tone clearly not designed to reduce his stress levels) is that this particular form of sexual violence is not under any circumstances to be seen as a pattern of behaviour whose causes need to be understood.
Most especially, the glaring correlation between the perpetrators and Muslim "community" must be suppressed. Or, when that correlation is unavoidably exposed as in the Andrew Norfolk Times revelations, then the merest hint that the correlation may have ideological causes must be suppressed.
Most especially, the glaring correlation between the perpetrators and Muslim "community" must be suppressed. Or, when that correlation is unavoidably exposed as in the Andrew Norfolk Times revelations, then the merest hint that the correlation may have ideological causes must be suppressed.
And there is no automatic right to a certain category of prison. Most offenders are received by one prison of whatever category and later placed elsewhere within the system (if there's room) Robinson and his supporters know that all too well yet spin the yarn for the gullible to swallow. Tiresome really.
//He's not a journalist. That was conceit and artifice on his part. Happy to see him rot.//
It may indeed be a conceit, Sparta. But you're not suggesting that the rules on reporting restrictions should be applied and punished differently to "citizen" journalists from "real" ones. Or are you?
There have been a few cases of mistrials, I believe, caused by prejudicial reporting (and you can imagine the massive cost of abondoning a possibly lengthy trial and re-scheduling it), but none of the journalists responsible have ever been jailed. The typical punishement is a fine of £20,000 or something, for which, I guess, the journalist's boss will pick up the tab.
It may indeed be a conceit, Sparta. But you're not suggesting that the rules on reporting restrictions should be applied and punished differently to "citizen" journalists from "real" ones. Or are you?
There have been a few cases of mistrials, I believe, caused by prejudicial reporting (and you can imagine the massive cost of abondoning a possibly lengthy trial and re-scheduling it), but none of the journalists responsible have ever been jailed. The typical punishement is a fine of £20,000 or something, for which, I guess, the journalist's boss will pick up the tab.
// I'll try the 'Someone has done something worse' defence next time I'm in trouble. //
and follow it up with examples: the germans killed all those jews or the japanese experimented on and killed American prisoners of war.
Tarmy filmed outside a court which I would think was lawful but then streamed it on the internet, which I would think was not.
and follow it up with examples: the germans killed all those jews or the japanese experimented on and killed American prisoners of war.
Tarmy filmed outside a court which I would think was lawful but then streamed it on the internet, which I would think was not.
Latest Posts
How it Works13 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
