High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

originally posted by: Grambler
Haven’t read the whole thread

This line stuck out to me though from the op

The case was then referred back to Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, who announced in March that it was in the public interest to bring fresh proceedings.
Speaking after the latest verdict, Mr Cox said the court's decision reflected the seriousness of posting online material which risks prejudicing legal proceedings.

"I would urge everyone to think carefully about whether their social media posts could amount to contempt of court," he added

www.bbc.com...

All of you people celebrating, that posted on ats before Robinson’s hearing that you knew he was guilty

Remember, the stage is being set for you to also be arrested for your social media posts as well

I will stand up for your right to free speech, but you will have no one but yourself to blame if your social media posts land you in jail

Very good point. The creep of this sort of censorship usually starts at cranks like Robinson. People dismiss it because they don’t like the guy, but by the time it comes for them it’s too late.

a reply to: jd0Fengland

You're out, your in, your back in then out again ffs.

You better not get me pregnant. LoL

Mistakes get made ya silly sausage, and i was one day out, its not like i got my week mixed up..........again.

Say something relevant or at least be interesting, essentially crap or get off the pot fruitloop! x

a reply to: MickyKnox

I think we all ken what he did wrong just fine thanks ya very much.

It was outside a court, it was not his first Rodeo, and it was for nothing more than Tommy kudos.

How come he was bumping his gums about Muslim pedophiles anyway, instead of just pedophiles?

Because that seems to me to be a rather pertinent question.

Does he refer to our own homegrown variety of beast by there religious orientations?

Nope!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox

I think we all ken what he did wrong just fine thanks ya very much.

It was outside a court, it was not his first Rodeo, and it was for nothing more than Tommy kudos.

How come he was bumping his gums about Muslim pedophiles anyway, instead of just pedophiles?

Because that seems to me to be a rather pertinent question.

Does he refer to our own homegrown variety of beast by there religious orientations?

Nope!

If gangs of child abusing Catholics were trafficking in the children of your community would you fault someone for campaigning against it?

a reply to: MickyKnox

They would simply be trafficking in the children, their faith would be neither here nor there, which is exactly my point.

Unless of course, it turned out to be a shower of Priests.........and that has been known to happen in the past with children's homes and the like unfortunate as the case may be.

The Catholic/Protestant issues in this nation are pretty much dead these days, especially now there are ""others"" to point the finger at and scream abuse, sad but true to a degree.

Brexit may change that all the same, at least in Ireland.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MickyKnox


The Catholic/Protestant issues in this nation are pretty much dead these days, especially now there are ""others"" to point the finger at and scream abuse, sad but true to a degree.

Except maybe 4 times a year.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Out in force the day, could not get a bus into town. LoL

But as long as they behave themselves i suppose.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

Out in force the day, could not get a bus into town. LoL

But as long as they behave themselves i suppose.

Speaking of busses.

news-sky-com.cdn.ampproject.org... amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fnews.sky.com%2Fstory%2Fi-do-lo ve-my-job-parking-warden-puts-ticket-on-tommy-robinson-support-bus-11757680

a reply to: ScepticScot

"404. That’s an error." on the link.

news.sky.com...

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.

He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.

Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.

No it doesn't. It happens all the time.

Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.

Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.

He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.

Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.

I dunno, one can be released on appeal and have the conviction later upheld..back to the klink!

a reply to: vonclod

That's it in a nutshell.

Perfectly illustrated for all to see.

Appeal just means they are looking at the safety of the conviction, and if found to be so, you end up back in the clink or get charged again, which is what happened to Tommy.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ScepticScot

"404. That’s an error." on the link.

news.sky.com...

Cheers

a reply to: ScepticScot

LoL

Get the gist now anyways.

a reply to: andy06shake

I'm not studied in UK law, but that is how it works in many places.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.

He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.

Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.

No it doesn't. It happens all the time.

Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.

Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.

He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.

Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.

I dunno, one can be released on appeal and have the conviction later upheld..back to the klink!

For filming a video.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.

He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.

Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.

No it doesn't. It happens all the time.

Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.

Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.

He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.

Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.

I dunno, one can be released on appeal and have the conviction later upheld..back to the klink!

For filming a video.

For breaching reporting restrictions as explained to you multiple times.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.

He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.

Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.

No it doesn't. It happens all the time.

Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.

Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.

He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.

Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.

I dunno, one can be released on appeal and have the conviction later upheld..back to the klink!

For filming a video.

For breaching reporting restrictions as explained to you multiple times.

That’s the legalese you guys keep repeating. Yet all he did was shoot a video.

a reply to: MickyKnox

I can't make any comment on whatever Tommy did, I haven't really followed it to make a personal judgement.

I was just pointing out the mechanism of how someone might be released on appeal, to then be ordered back into custody, based on the failure of the appeal. Or, breaching conditions, which seems to be the case here.

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: MickyKnox
Jesus. Weren’t the same charges dismissed only months ago? If so, that’s some legal system you got there.

He was released from prison August last year as the appeal court found technical flaws in how his care has handled. (Basically rushed when it didn't need to be)

He went back to court and was found guilty again.

I don't see anything wrong with that part of our legal system.

Tried twice for the same crime? That flies in the face of human rights.

No it doesn't. It happens all the time.

Not to in countries who care about human rights.

“"No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

But I guess the UK didn’t care about this option provision.

“This optional protocol has been ratified by all EU states except three: Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.[10] In those member states, national rules governing double jeopardy may or may not comply with the provision cited above.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Double jeopardy laws would never have applied in this case as he wasn't found innocent. The same circumstances could apply in the US.

Oh, for some reason I thought he already went to jail for it.

He did.

He was released on appeal due to flaws in handling of the case.

The case was then retried and he was found guilty again.

At no point has he been found innocent and retried.

Double jeopardy applies also to those who were convicted and did time.

I dunno, one can be released on appeal and have the conviction later upheld..back to the klink!

For filming a video.

For breaching reporting restrictions as explained to you multiple times.

That’s the legalese you guys keep repeating. Yet all he did was shoot a video.

If I drive the wrong way down a one way street at 120 after downing a bottle of Talisker then all I am doing is driving my car.

Law still might take a legitimate interest.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: MickyKnox

I can't make any comment on whatever Tommy did, I haven't really followed it to make a personal judgement.

I was just pointing out the mechanism of how someone might be released on appeal, to then be ordered back into custody, based on the failure of the appeal.

I appreciate that, but I was merely pointing out that it is unjust to convict someone and punish them twice for the same crime. I don’t believe we need laws and mechanisms to inform us what is right and wrong, only a conscience.