-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Robinson Wins Contempt Of Court Challenge
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
The UK woke up!
Hardly. He is freed on bail because the judge in the trial made a technical error. He has to face a new trial.
His contempt of court was for preduducing a fair trial by standing outside a court where a trial was going on and posting live FB videos, As one journalist said, "Us journalists have to tread very carefully in such cases or we would all be in jail for contempt of court."
You speak from ignorance,
Is that what you call it? Euphemism much.
Don’t you mean he now actually gets a trail?
AKA going against the flow and asking for accountability.
What powers this guy must have to reach through walls! Don’t you mean prejudices a “fair” trail by standing outside and reporting about the “fairness”.
Yes, that is where trails usually happen.
Ah, the dastardly crime of reporting live and informing the people.
Pound sand. I put a news article up and added nothing of my own opinion. You speak from lies and paranoia. You are a very weak man, Mr. Kent.
Last edited:
Last time I checked, personal attacks weren't allowed on this board. Everything David said was correct. Why do you take issue with it....and him as a person?
Nope. The UK is the same as it was yesterday. One individual has ordered a retrial. We will see what that trial brings
No. Truth.
He has had a TRIAL (as we call it here). The trial has today been found to have been conducted without all the potential evidence being ventilated.
No. AKA potentially jeopardizing the trial of men accused of rape and sex abuse of children and letting the guilty go free and unpunished. Is that what you want?
Again, it's TRIAL. Part of our legal process.
Again, it was the (now alleged) crime of jeopardizing a fair trial for the defendants and this enabling the guilty rapists to go free
Last edited:
Pot (Mr. Kent) meet kettle (
Pot (Mr. Kent) meet kettle (Mr. Curtis). Last time I checked, posting an article without comment did not equal "speak[ing] from ignorance."
I stand by what I said. I posted an article with no personal opinion at all. I was the one who was attacked.
You brits seem to have some awful thin skin about this.
You weren't attacked: your OP title was challenged and shown to be inaccurate - Yaxley-Lennon has not 'won' anything except a retrial; his guilt or innocence have yet to be proven. When correctly challenged you called David a 'very weak man'. Explain how that is not a personal attack.
Nope. I called him a weak man because he got personal. There was no cause to being the word “ignorance” into the discussion. The news source could have been challenged without it.
I stand by what I said. I’m sorry Tommy Robinson throws you guys into such hyper cataleptics.
I stand by what I said. I’m sorry Tommy Robinson throws you guys into such hyper cataleptics.
My turn to speak from ignorance - what was this technical error? I thought summary offences were fine and dandy under English law, so what did this judge do wrong? It looks like the UK bowed to internal political and Brownback pressure to me.
And for good measure, here’s a BBC article that says exactly what I did.
Tommy Robinson bailed after appeal win
Tommy Robinson bailed after appeal win
Would I have been speaking from ignorance if I led with the BBC article?
LOL
LOL
Apparently the judge should have adjourned the case and given Robinson a chance to prepare his defence. This seems a little odd to me since Robinson pleaded guilty, but in Britain the judiciary is independent of the government, so even if the Gov't wanted to bow to pressure, it couldn't.
This from the BBC.
"The case that brought Robinson to Leeds related to grooming and the second of three trials involving 28 men. The third trial is due to start in September.
Footage, filmed by Robinson on a mobile phone and broadcast on social media, saw him discussing the criminal trial that was subject to reporting restrictions.
The video, lasting about an hour-and-a-half, was watched 250,000 times within hours of being posted as a Facebook Live."
If the jury in the trial had watched that video, it might have prejudiced the members against the defendants. If that had happened a mistrial might have been declared and the rapists might have got off. As it is, they have been given long prison sentences. Robinson is at best a very stupid man.
The problem as I see it is our cousins across the pond don't comprehend that the First Amendment freedom of speech is foundational. No American court will try and stop someone from reporting from outside a courthouse. Simply put, the US doesn't have UK style "reporting restrictions" on the press.
Don't believe it. Free speech is dead in the UK. Any evidence to the contrary is just a blip that will vanish quickly.
No remorse when the highest judge said that an individual was trambled by the legal system?
Why would I express remorse? I haven't done anything wrong.
So how do you prevent the sort of sub judice interference with the administration of justice which could result in the innocent being jailed or the guilty going free as referred to by Martin in his post?
Last edited: