| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Something about "enough rope" comes to mind.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Agreed, David. Robinson has chosen to place his head in the tiger’s mouth, having been amply warned. Given the background, now, I can see why events have taken the course they have, and I don’t see any real threat to liberty here.
As I said recently re the CFMEU, someone may share some of your views,but if they do not share your values, they are not your friend, and their cause is not yours.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Quote: | Have you read the spin in the papers today, the judge stated that Tommy reading the names of the defendants was contempt of court and risked the trial collapsing.
Tommy read the list in the livestream from a BBC article which was already out in the public domain. The list of defendants is publicly available on the court bloody website! If you search google for that particular case you will find pictures and details of the suspects already printed by nearly every national UK newspaper. So what did Tommy do exactly that nearly every other reporter has not already done?
You have to ask yourself the question - why would one reporter outside a court case reading a charge sheet already publicly available across a number of sources suddenly risk collapsing the case?
Every single other case across England is public and reported on. You will never hear a judge stating that by the newspapers reporting on it they are in some way prejudicing the case.
Look at the pictures below of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris fighting their way through hundreds of reporters going into court on their sex charges. None of those reporters were arrested and there were no judges commenting to the press that the case will collapse. This just highlights Tommy’s sham conviction.
The BBC even worked alongside the police to get a helicopter above Cliff Richards house when they went to arrest him, he had not even been charged at the time! No outcry from judges then though?
Do not be fooled by the corrupt ruling elite and instead ask yourself why are these type of cases shrouded in secrecy when no other cases across the UK are? The answer is simple, the establishment do not want the public to know the full extent and horror going on across this country facilitated by that very same establishment for decades due to a fear of being called racist.
Tommy is exposing areas that the state would rather were swept under the carpet and for that they are trying to have him silenced or preferably murdered in prison by Islamic gangs.
Have you ever heard of another case where someone was arrested, tried, sentenced and transferred to prison all within the space of 3 hours? No, because it has never happened before.
To top it all off they then tried to cover it up and impose state censorship report restrictions so that no one would know what they had done. This just made the story global with thousands protesting over the weekend. They were left with no other option but to lift the restriction as it had caused outrage.
People who swallow this crap that the ruling elites and media trot out need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is time to make a stand, it is time for revolution. Whitehall, London June 9th 3pm. #FreeTommy |
https://www.facebook.com/thetommyrobinson/posts/1264337670368951 |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Since, for the reasons I explained yesterday, this simply won’t be the basis or the explanation for anything that has happened, what is the point of regurgitating it - were you just wanting to maintain your outrage come what may? |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If you ever go into the police control room in the Graet Southern stand as I did (trialling a bomb disposal robot) you would see a collage of about 100 photo. Well before the Commonwealth games. They were all of serial pest Peter Hore who disrupted funerals, sporting events etc. he may be dead now, i don;t care. But he has a lifetime ban imposed by the courts from entering any public major event in Melbourne, MCG, Tennis centre etc. The Police told me at the time if he is spotted anywhere on Yarra Park he was to be immediately arrested, be bought up in front of a judge asap, who would jail him for the length of the games for sentence violations.
The death threats he received from the "well known Sydney racing identies" over his disgraceful behaviour at T J Smiths funeral may have come to fruition.
But I am seeing what the British system is doing here. It is not what is being done but who is doing it.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You can well imagine the yank civil liberty idiots carrying on with NRA chanting in the background. My answer to them would be go and ask the prisoners of Gitmo have they faced a court yet. They haven't even be charged and some have been tortured.
This thug will be out before the afore mentioned people will be.
Any educated member of the media (and that includes the likes of Hinch) are taught where to draw the line. That the likes of Rebel Wilson and Geoffrey Rush have to take these bozos to the cleaners , and god forbid Alan Jones, shows how bad they have become.
They do some media studies crap at university but not the old fashioned cadetship where they learnt respect for court and police procedures. Most of them get a gig because they are a pretty face and ask the people to send in unsubstantiated stuff from members of the public and call it news.
It is actions like this idiot that will lead to some cultures women and children to NOT report domestic violence and inapproprite sexual predatory.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And thus we see, entirely as expected, that the outrage has been engendered by what the author (gently, in my view, since the reality of this sort of far-right, collective, militant stupidity is way worse) refers to as "co-ordinated transnational campaigns disseminating blatant falsehoods about our legal system and gaslighting the public".
When the judgment is available, as it will be, we will review and dissect it here and, of course, no one who needs to grapple with it will be in this thread discussing it - they will have moved on to helping propagate the next misinformation campaign.
God bless the internet. |
|
|
|
|
Pi 
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Most of that's reasonable, except for points 11 & 13, especially 13 and its not a complaint void of argument. Impartiality of judges has been questioned more than once and cases overturned for the same reason.
They would have been better to put him on remand and have the case heard at another time, then you don't get questions of impropriety.
Contempt of court is a specialist field, a court appointed defense is more likely to deal with general criminal matters.
All they have done is feed more controversy.
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nothing special at all about the law of contempt. It’s extraordinatily straightforward. The suggestion that any criminal barrister with 16 years’ experience at the Bar couldn’t deal with a simple matter like that is a bridge too far. |
|
|
|
|
Pi
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | Nothing special at all about the law of contempt. It’s extraordinatily straightforward. The suggestion that any criminal barrister with 16 years’ experience at the Bar couldn’t deal with a simple matter like that is a bridge too far. |
Actually there is a bit more to it than "simple" & straightforward.
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp209_contempt_of_court_summary.pdf
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Summary for non-specialists
47. Some parts of the law which deal with intentional contempt are unclear. Because
of this, we ask consultees whether legislation should be introduced to make the
law clearer.
Why would the UK law commission produce a paper for non specialists if it were not a specialty ?
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Are you serious or just trying to see if you can score cheap points? Every area of law has its own particular lacks of clarity. Try the law relating to sale and purchase of property for a trivial example (try googling “in personam exception to indefeasibility of title” and get back to me) but people without legal training deal with most of it.
What happened here was not obscure or difficult. Anyone who can stand in front of a court without gibbering could have dealt with this. A barrister with 16 years experience would do it in their sleep. |
|
|
|
|
Pi
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
The UK law commission advising non specialists is not 'cheap points' , . You getting upset for looking foolish is just you you getting upset for looking foolish 
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pi wrote: | ^
The UK law commission advising non specialists is not 'cheap points' , . You getting upset for looking foolish is just you you getting upset for looking foolish |
If that’s your take, it’s obviously a wind up. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
