British political prisoner Tommy Robinson freed

[eastcoast_bsc]

Tommy Robinson was jailed and put in solitary confinement for holding a live Facebook feed outside a British court. Apparently this is considered a high crime in Britain.

Like Mr. Robinson or not, he should be afforded the right to free speech.

The Brits locked him up in 24 hour a day solitary confinement with his cell purposely situated across from a prison Islamic mosque. He was subject to urine and feces being thrown in his cell on a daily basis.

 

[Tom 1]

Tommy Robinson was jailed and put in solitary confinement for holding a live Facebook feed outside a British court. Apparently this is considered a high crime in Britain.

Like Mr. Robinson or not, he should be afforded the right to free speech.

The Brits locked him up in 24 hour a day solitary confinement with his cell purposely situated across from a prison Islamic mosque. He was subject to urine and feces being thrown in his cell on a daily basis.

Hmmm what’s your source on this? There’s a fair bit of sensationalist, and inaccurate, reporting on this out there. Mr Robinson was jailed because he ignored an injunction not to publish information relating to 3 ongoing and linked trials, the 3 trials are linked to one case and the leaking of information before they are concluded could easily lead to the whole case collapsing on a technicality. He was not jailed just for posting a FB video outside a court, the questions (still outstanding) relate to the content of this video and whether or not they breach this ruling. Stories about his treatment while in custody are absurdly exaggerated and should be taken with a pinch of salt, to put it mildly.

 

[MariaJLM]

Sounds sensationalist tbh. Do you have a source?

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Hmmm what’s your source on this? There’s a fair bit of sensationalist, and inaccurate, reporting on this out there. Mr Robinson was jailed because he ignored an injunction not to publish information relating to 3 ongoing and linked trials, the 3 trials are linked to one case and the leaking of information before they are concluded could easily lead to the whole case collapsing on a technicality. He was not jailed just for posting a FB video outside a court, the questions (still outstanding) relate to the content of this video and whether or not they breach this ruling. Stories about his treatment while in custody are absurdly exaggerated and should be taken with a pinch of salt, to put it mildly.

The fact is that the news was all over the internet. Free countries allow free citizens not involved in the particular trial the right to speak.

Gag orders usually apply to those directly involved in the case from speaking to the press.

Could it be the substance of the case was the real issue, being that it involved groups of Muslims raping children?

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Hmmm what’s your source on this? There’s a fair bit of sensationalist, and inaccurate, reporting on this out there. Mr Robinson was jailed because he ignored an injunction not to publish information relating to 3 ongoing and linked trials, the 3 trials are linked to one case and the leaking of information before they are concluded could easily lead to the whole case collapsing on a technicality. He was not jailed just for posting a FB video outside a court, the questions (still outstanding) relate to the content of this video and whether or not they breach this ruling. Stories about his treatment while in custody are absurdly exaggerated and should be taken with a pinch of salt, to put it mildly.

Here is the problem, you ask me to produce facts but the facts are readily available. Mr. Robinson was not directly involved in the trial and should be afforded the right of free speech.

I just read several pieces in the British media and they all preface his name with the title "right wing activist" or "anti Muslim" activist. Talk about prejudicial journalism.

When was the last time anyone here read a major news source calling anyone a left wing activist ?

You know why, the major news sources are for the most part left wing.

Let's be honest, the British govt doesn't like this guys message and so they will arrest him for sneezing in public. The hope is to pile up various charges and put him away.

Not sure if my friends across the pond are aware but the free world is looking askance at Britain and wondering what is going on. Not just this trial but at a compilation of breaches of civil liberties.

 

[MariaJLM]

I'm just skeptical of some of your claims because I have quite a few friends in the UK. They have told the story very differently.

 

[Tom 1]

Here is the problem, you ask me to produce facts but the facts are readily available. Mr. Robinson was not directly involved in the trial and should be afforded the right of free speech.

I just read several pieces in the British media and they all preface his name with the title "right wing activist" or "anti Muslim" activist. Talk about prejudicial journalism.

When was the last time anyone here read a major news source calling anyone a left wing activist ?

You know why, the major news sources are for the most part left wing.

Let's be honest, the British govt doesn't like this guys message and so they will arrest him for sneezing in public. The hope is to pile up various charges and put him away.

Not sure if my friends across the pond are aware but the free world is looking askance at Britain and wondering what is going on. Not just this trial but at a compilation of breaches of civil liberties.

There’s plenty of ‘left wing activist’ epithets in the UK press, e.g Jeremy Corbin is a regular piñata for some of the tabloids. In the UK those kind of terms might be seen as pejorative, depending on the audience, but largely they’re just descriptive. Tommy Robinson knew full well he was breaching a court ruling, that he had been made fully aware of and knew more or less what the consequences would be. The whole thing seems to be another in a string of fairly clumsy publicity stunts.
There are people in the public eye in the UK who speak out against the problems Tommy Robinson and others seem to be trying to address (not very well). The problem with TR and the BNP etc is that they are just angry but they don’t really know why or what to do about it, so they just keep staging things like this that get them in the press and win some sympathy, but don’t actually address anything important.

 

[Tom 1]

The fact is that the news was all over the internet. Free countries allow free citizens not involved in the particular trial the right to speak.

Gag orders usually apply to those directly involved in the case from speaking to the press.

Could it be the substance of the case was the real issue, being that it involved groups of Muslims raping children?

Yes, the substance of the case is the issue - the aim of the court ruling making speaking about the case before it is concluded in a public forum was to avoid giving the defence team a technical angle to get any of the 3 trials thrown out of court, which would lead to the accused going free, a very real possibility - as the judges know and Tommy Robinson either doesn’t, or does know, but doesn’t care. Quite understandably in my view the judges were a little annoyed at some character thinking he could ignore their careful approach to getting a successful outcome and solve the case with a pointless FB post, so him being arrested for contempt of court is hardly surprising.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Yes, the substance of the case is the issue - the aim of the court ruling making speaking about the case before it is concluded in a public forum was to avoid giving the defence team a technical angle to get any of the 3 trials thrown out of court, which would lead to the accused going free, a very real possibility - as the judges know and Tommy Robinson either doesn’t, or does know, but doesn’t care. Quite understandably in my view the judges were a little annoyed at some character thinking he could ignore their careful approach to getting a successful outcome and solve the case with a pointless FB post, so him being arrested for contempt of court is hardly surprising.

It is surprising in countries that have a free press.

Britain clamps down on free speech under the guise of hate speech laws. Google "Britain free speech" there are many articles.

Here is one article from an Australian journalist .

After a thoroughly enjoyable 16 months of travel, including a year writing for the Spectator in Sydney, I recently returned home to the UK. ‘Beast from the East’ aside, I was happy to be back. However, it quickly became clear that the political mood had changed.

A conscious, concerted clampdown on free expression and open debate is underway in Britain. I’ve now seen it with my own eyes. It’s a disturbing picture indeed. The examples of repression are numerous. You’re about to see only a few.

Considering the deliberate mainstream media blackout, let this article serve twofold. Firstly, as a final wake-up call for Brits, irrespective of political persuasion. Secondly, as a warning to my Australian friends.

Freedom of Association:

This month alone, three journalists have been detained upon their entry to the UK. As none of them has a history of engaging in or encouraging violence, the British government has inhibited their freedom of movement based on an ideological value judgement.

Martin Sellner and Brittany Pettibone — On 9 March, Pettibone and Sellner, two journalists from the USA and Austria respectively, were detained upon arrival at Heathrow Airport. They were handcuffed, separated and transported to a detention centre, where they were held for three days before their deportation. Their crimes? Sellner had planned to deliver a talk on free speech, at the invitation of UKIP. When this was cancelled, for the second time, following violent threats from the left, he instead planned to deliver the address at ‘Speakers Corner’. This world-famous spot of free expression, In London’s Hyde Park, has always been open to all. Tens of thousands have said their piece there – including Marx, Lenin and … wait for it … George Orwell.

Pettibone was deported after she acknowledged her plan to interview Tommy Robinson, an anti-Islam activist, British citizen and free man, who has never been convicted of a politically motivated offence.

Lauren Southern – Just days later, independent Canadian journalist Lauren Southern was detained while trying to gain entry to the UK via Calais. She was asked if she was a ‘Christian Extremist’. Despite her insistence that this was ludicrous, she was declared ‘A threat to the fundamental interests of society and to the public policy of the United Kingdom’. Southern was deported and prohibited from entering Britain indefinitely.

While March 2018 has been a particularly oppressive month, it is indicative of a long-term trend. Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Michael Savage have all faced bans in response to their critique of Islam.

Senior Labour MP Chris Bryant has even demanded that President Trump be blacklisted for: ‘Supporting and condoning fascism and far-right activity.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/03/britains-free-speech-crisis/

 

[Tom 1]

It is surprising in countries that have a free press.

Britain clamps down on free speech under the guise of hate speech laws. Google "Britain free speech" there are many articles.

Here is one article from an Australian journalist .















https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/03/britains-free-speech-crisis/

This case with TR isn’t a free speech issue - cases like this where there’s a potential for media exploitation minimal coverage is essential to ensure the case doesn’t collapse, it wouldn’t be among the first trials to be successfully dismissed by a ‘trial by media’ argument. TR is of course aware of that, but is still playing the goat, clearly unconcerned about the hours of investigative and legal work that have gone into what will hopefully be a successful prosecution. He has nothing useful to add and should get out of the way and let the adults get on with the real work.

There is indeed a problem in the UK with free speech, but this case has nothing to do with it. The idea that there is some shady government conspiracy behind this is just utter stupidity.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

This case with TR isn’t a free speech issue - cases like this where there’s a potential for media exploitation minimal coverage is essential to ensure the case doesn’t collapse, it wouldn’t be among the first trials to be successfully dismissed by a ‘trial by media’ argument. TR is of course aware of that, but is still playing the goat, clearly unconcerned about the hours of investigative and legal work that have gone into what will hopefully be a successful prosecution. He has nothing useful to add and should get out of the way and let the adults get on with the real work.

There is indeed a problem in the UK with free speech, but this case has nothing to do with it. The idea that there is some shady government conspiracy behind this is just utter stupidity.

It absolutely is a free speech issue. Free speech is free speech, you may not like the message but too bad.

If the government is worried about the media tainting the jury then they could simply sequester the jury.

I am am convinced as are many outside of Britain the the British government is trying to silence Mr. Robinson.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

[Tom 1]

It absolutely is a free speech issue. Free speech is free speech, you may not like the message but too bad.

If the government is worried about the media tainting the jury then they could simply sequester the jury.

I am am convinced as are many outside of Britain the the British government is trying to silence Mr. Robinson.

I’m afraid you’ve bought into the enormously over-simplified view being peddled by the press online and in print about this and similar issues, the kind of emotion laden nonsense that deals in sensation rather than fact. You can understand this issue more by finding out about it from more reliable sources, if you want to. The UK government couldn’t give 2 hoots about TR and the like, if you think they sit around fretting about what he might say then you have bought into a delusional view of what is actually happening in the world, one that is unfortunately increasingly widespread.

 

[Anhelyna]

One of the problems is - what is the man's real name ? He is known by more than one - he has used passports in the name of other people so he can travel in countries where he was banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I’m afraid you’ve bought into the enormously over-simplified view being peddled by the press online and in print about this and similar issues, the kind of emotion laden nonsense that deals in sensation rather than fact. You can understand this issue more by finding out about it from more reliable sources, if you want to. The UK government couldn’t give 2 hoots about TR and the like, if you think they sit around fretting about what he might say then you have bought into a delusional view of what is actually happening in the world, one that is unfortunately increasingly widespread.

I suppose the reliable sources you speak about are the same ones that preface Mr. Robinson's name with pejoratives such as "right wing extremist" and "anti Muslim" . So wonder the Guardian newspaper posts pleas begging for money, no one is reading them anymore.

It is not oversimplified. The same tactics were used by the British government during the Irish Catholic civil rights struggles in Northern Ireland during the 70's , 80's and into the 90's.

There is a long history of Britain imprisoning those they disagree with without due process.

One doesn't have to agree with Mr. Robinson to see he is being targeted by the British government .

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say

 

[MariaJLM]

One of the problems is - what is the man's real name ? He is known by more than one - he has used passports in the name of other people so he can travel in countries where he was banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

No wonder he's being targeted then. That sort of thing is outright illegal.

 

[Tom 1]

I suppose the reliable sources you speak about are the same ones that preface Mr. Robinson's name with pejoratives such as "right wing extremist" and "anti Muslim" . So wonder the Guardian newspaper posts pleas begging for money, no one is reading them anymore.

It is not oversimplified. The same tactics were used by the British government during the Irish Catholic civil rights struggles in Northern Ireland during the 70's , 80's and into the 90's.

There is a long history of Britain imprisoning those they disagree with without due process.

One doesn't have to agree with Mr. Robinson to see he is being targeted by the British government .

No, just serious press, I’m not a particular fan of the Guardian either, but there are plenty of alternatives that don’t stoop to the level of emotion led reporting.
There’s nothing here to indicate any state level involvement, that is pure fantasy. TR was jailed for contempt of court for breaking a blanket ban - not one directed at him but at anyone thinking of interfering in the successful prosecution of the case - because he was already under a caution for pulling off a similar stunt not long before. People who break the law are dealt with by local law enforcement and judges make decisions about what happens next, and there are options for appeal etc etc. What gives you the idea that the state is involved, at government level?

The comparison with ‘the troubles’ is an odd one, what do you think the parallels are? Again that whole history is a complex one, one which you guys, our cousins over the water, tend to have rather romantic, Hollywood style ideas about. Although I’d agree that the fault largely lies with the English, ultimately, I’ve yet to meet someone outisde of the UK & Ireland who has any balanced understanding of it.

 

[The Grouch]

If you ever get the chance watch a film entitled "in the name of the father" it a true story of the guilford four... thats the reality of what our (british) justice system is like. Innocent men and women, known to the authorities to be innocent thrown into prison for 15 yrs... "in the name of the father" excellent film!!

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

If you ever get the chance watch a film entitled "in the name of the father" it a true story of the guilford four... thats the reality of what our (british) justice system is like. Innocent men and women, known to the authorities to be innocent thrown into prison for 15 yrs... "in the name of the father" excellent film!!

I watched that interview the other day. It was on point.
He is right about the solitary confinement ( social deprivation ) causing PTSD.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, where was the due process.

 

[The Grouch]

In the u.k there we are a parlmentary democracy. We have the right to vote to elect a person to represent us in parlament and that is it.

The Government, that is the cabinet is not the peoples Government its her majesties Government. The judges are her majesties judges the police, the army and all major centers of power belong to the queen. The Queen is above the Law. The law is made for the people to follow.

So when the police arrest you, the judges judge you and the prison (her majesties prison) in prisons you lawfully or unlawfully it really makes no difference, you are detained at her majesties pleasue. They may choose to follow the law give you fair trial etc but they really dont have to because they represent the crown and above the law.

For example a person may go to court for theft and under the law it is ascribed a 2 yr prison sentance the judge decides to be gentle and give 12 months. This person is being detained accroding to the law

In the u.k we do not have life sentences under the law our longest sentance i believe is 25yr and that is described as a life sentance although most life sentances is 15yr.

However a judge may continue to detain you under her majesties pleasure indefinatly. That is he is not going to detain you according to the law but CONTINUE to detain you at her majesties pleasure.

 

[Tom 1]

However a judge may continue to detain you under her majesties pleasure indefinatly. That is he is not going to detain you according to the law but CONTINUE to detain you at her majesties pleasure.

Er, what? What are you basing that on? Where a person has been given a life sentence with a minimum mandatory duration - e.g ‘so and so will serve a minimum of 15 yrs’, then at the end of that period the case will undergo review and might be extended, for specific reasons. However if you think that judges in the UK can keep anyone detained for any reason for as long as they want, you’re simply wrong.