What has happened to the UK

[BobTheCoward]

But you did use the whole thing as an example of "a police state trampling the free thought of a human." So it seems that your opinion is one that is not founded on facts. No, you don't need to always state when something is merely your opinion; but something I learned in high school (actually even before that) is the common definition of broad "opinion" as something everyone has, while fact-based opinion is something rarer, if not as fragrant (if you catch my drift).

I don't follow. Saying something is being trampled seems like it is clearly an opinion.

 

[turingtest]

I don't follow. Saying something is being trampled seems like it is clearly an opinion.

One that in this case is so clearly unfounded in fact that it doesn't matter whether you admit it's only an opinion or claim it as fact. You're splitting irrelevant hairs over an offering of yours that nobody needs to see or should care about because it's completely useless to anyone but you.

 

[turingtest]

This piece is stupid. Of course a fair trial is important.

If I wish to conduct a vital meeting in privacy, I don't hold it in public and shoot onlookers. If the government wants a fair trial, it is incumbent on them to do it without arresting anyone who just so happens to be in public seeing it.

To say that this is about a fair trial misses the point. This is about arresting bystanders for that fair trial when a non invasive solution is available.

You either didn't read the article thoroughly or you just didn't understand it. Do you really think, after reading it, that Robinson was arrested only because he "just so happen[ed] to be in public seeing it"?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You either didn't read the article thoroughly or you just didn't understand it. Do you really think, after reading it, that Robinson was arrested only because he "just so happen[ed] to be in public seeing it"?

And then sharing his deductions with others.

Regardless, if the government doesn't want him doing that perfectly reasonable activity, then they should conduct their business in a more secure manner.

 

[turingtest]

And then sharing his deductions with others.

In a way that threatened the rights of defendants to a fair trial. I guess that's just not very important, as one of those actual, real-life consequences your philosophy needs to sneer at.

Regardless, if the government doesn't want him doing that perfectly reasonable activity, then they should conduct their business in a more secure manner.

It seems to me that they were doing in as secure a manner as possible without actually conducting a trial as a "Police State" would. Seriously- if they had the trial in more secrecy, with no spectators at all, wouldn't that better fit your rather apocalyptic yammerings? You damn the state for doing what they did, in as open a manner as possible with due regard to defendant's rights (something I'd think you'd be sensible of), and you'd damn the state if they did it any other way. You have an agenda that goes beyond what you frame as "principle" and straight into never-never land- you're never wrong because there's never a way to determine if you are.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In a way that threatened the rights of defendants to a fair trial. I guess that's just not very important, as one of those actual, real-life consequences your philosophy needs to sneer at.



It seems to me that they were doing in as secure a manner as possible without actually conducting a trial as a "Police State" would. Seriously- if they had the trial in more secrecy, with no spectators at all, wouldn't that better fit your rather apocalyptic yammerings? You damn the state for doing what they did, in as open a manner as possible with due regard to defendant's rights (something I'd think you'd be sensible of), and you'd damn the state if they did it any other way. You have an agenda that goes beyond what you frame as "principle" and straight into never-never land- you're never wrong because there's never a way to determine if you are.

He wasn't a spectator to the trial. If he were, that might have changed things.

 

[MikeG]

Loving the complete confusion between "gubmint" and "judiciary" involved in this ridiculous argument ("the government doesn't want him doing something"........no, the judge doesn't want him doing something to wreck the trial. Nothing to do with the government). Presumably in the good ol' US of A you can do what the hell you like to interrupt a trial and deprive someone of justice, no matter what a judge says, and suffer no consequences.

Oh, and he (Robinson) pleaded guilty to contempt of court. Does that count for anything?

 

[turingtest]

He wasn't a spectator to the trial. If he were, that might have changed things.

I don't like doing this, Bob- but it seems like the only response left-

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't like doing this, Bob- but it seems like the only response left-

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/659695b0dd6ad9ca43.jpg[/qimg]

What do you mean? I have no objection to require people spectating the trial from yelling out in the room. I also have no problem banning the guy from the room. But if you don't want him seeing people outside and saying that, then the court needs to find a method that doesn't involve silencing people in the public.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Oh, and he (Robinson) pleaded guilty to contempt of court. Does that count for anything?

No. That makes no sense. Of course you can be guilty of an unjust law. Women plead guilty for breaking terrible laws in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean those laws are just.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, it was a good thread while it lasted.

 

[fuelair]

Utter rubbish, obviously. It's actions, not thoughts, that are subject to the rule of law. Thinking "These people should be rounded up and lynched" is perfectly legal; saying, to a large number of people who you know pay attention to you, "These people should be rounded up and lynched" is not. And don't pretend you can't tell the difference; nobody believes you.

Dave

Last line is certainly true!!!!!!!

 

[I Am The Scum]

If the government wants a fair trial, it is incumbent on them to do it without arresting anyone who just so happens to be in public seeing it.

You should familiarize yourself with the case.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You should familiarize yourself with the case.

I am. He was outside in a public place, he observed others in a public place and made inferences. And he talked about those. It is difficult to describe a more basic human right than his activity.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I am. He was outside in a public place, he observed others in a public place and made inferences. And he talked about those. It is difficult to describe a more basic human right than his activity.

He was filming in a space where filming was restricted.

 

[Darat]

I am. He was outside in a public place, he observed others in a public place and made inferences. And he talked about those. It is difficult to describe a more basic human right than his activity.

No he wasn't.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems like a better way to ensure impartiality of trials is to sequester the jury, not muzzle the entire news media, but maybe that's just an American-centric view. Not very keen on the idea of trials occurring that are hidden from the public view.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No he wasn't.

The BBC source I am using says he was outside a government building. Nothing in the charges inply the place is not public.

Regardless, outside a government building is a public place, no matter what the government declares. The government declaring public spaces as under their demesne is another thing us crazy libertarians are not going to support.

 

[Worm]

Seems like a better way to ensure impartiality of trials is to sequester the jury, not muzzle the entire news media, but maybe that's just an American-centric view. Not very keen on the idea of trials occurring that are hidden from the public view.

They are not hidden from public view. The reporting of them is temporarily restricted to try and ensure an impartial trial.

 

[Mojo]

Seems like a better way to ensure impartiality of trials is to sequester the jury, not muzzle the entire news media, but maybe that's just an American-centric view. Not very keen on the idea of trials occurring that are hidden from the public view.

The whole idea is that the trials aren’t hidden from public view. There are just restrictions on what can be published while the trial is still continuing.

It has been suggested in the thread that trials should be Hidden from public view so that participants cannot be identified. See if you can spot who did that.