What has happened to the UK

[Azrael 5]

A local reporter iN leeds was in court and tweeted happenings https://twitter.com/StephanieFinneg/status/1001524662369705984

And naturally his followers responded in the way they know best https://t.co/H1VnDBgfoN

 

[Garrison]

A local reporter iN leeds was in court and tweeted happenings https://twitter.com/StephanieFinneg/status/1001524662369705984

And naturally his followers responded in the way they know best https://t.co/H1VnDBgfoN

It is ironic that they are complaining he didn't get the benefit of the very same reporting restrictions he was in court for breaking.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why do people keep getting sucked in by Bob? All he wants is to make every thread he posts in about him and he has yet again succeeded.

I think you must be mistaken. This thread is about an egotistical ******** who thinks he can decide what the law should be and compel everyone else to conform to his distorted world view, not about Bob.

Dave

 

[RolandRat]

I've seen comments from this idiots supporters comparing him to Rosa Parks. Absolutely hilarious. Must be a confusing time for them poor hard done by racists.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think you must be mistaken. This thread is about an egotistical ******** who thinks he can decide what the law should be and compel everyone else to conform to his distorted world view, not about Bob.

Dave

Indeed.

 

[mikado]

More than"don't." I see it as systematic human rights abuses. The gap between us is pretty wide.

How is protecting victims and making sure the charged get a fair trial an abuse of human rights? Or don't theirs count?

 

[BobTheCoward]

How is protecting victims and making sure the charged get a fair trial an abuse of human rights? Or don't theirs count?

There are plenty of posts discussing that. You shouldn't give one poster that kind of question constantly. It isn't productive.

 

[fuelair]

I think you must be mistaken. This thread is about an egotistical ******** who thinks he can decide what the law should be and compel everyone else to conform to his distorted world view, not about Bob.

Dave

A real shame he doesn't accidentally run into a bullet...…….

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A local reporter iN leeds was in court and tweeted happenings https://twitter.com/StephanieFinneg/status/1001524662369705984

And naturally his followers responded in the way they know best https://t.co/H1VnDBgfoN

Wait a minute.

The Leeds Live and Huddersfield Examiner editor Wayne Ankers tweeted that the “vile abuse” Finnegan was receiving for doing her job was “beyond belief”.

Wayne Ankers? W. Ankers?

Just checking. No, nothing funny about that at all. I have a very great friend in Rome called Wayne Ankers.

 

[Azrael 5]

Wait a minute.

Wayne Ankers? W. Ankers?

Just checking. No, nothing funny about that at all. I have a very great friend in Rome called Wayne Ankers.

An unfortunate name which T R followers have used to their advantage.

 

[arthwollipot]

We have an inalienable right to publish and read prejudicial material if we are not interacting with the trial itself.

We have it period. If a reporter gets to attend a trial, and publishes anyway, that is their right. I'm fine with them not being allowed back, but they have a right to not be punished for it.

There are no "inalienable" rights. Every so-called "right" can be aliened by a government that doesn't recognise them.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There are no "inalienable" rights. Every so-called "right" can be aliened by a government that doesn't recognise them.

Violation does not equal alienation.

 

[arthwollipot]

Violation does not equal alienation.

Your rights don't exist separate from the legal structures that recognise them. You may think you have the right to freedom of expression, but the government that imprisons you for seditionism doesn't give a flying rat's guts what you think. You may rant and scream "I have rights!" all the way to the gallows, and it will help you not even remotely.

 

[dann]

But these rights are human!!!. (You are right, of course: There is no such thing!)

The Business about Human Rights

 

[BobTheCoward]

Your rights don't exist separate from the legal structures that recognise them. You may think you have the right to freedom of expression, but the government that imprisons you for seditionism doesn't give a flying rat's guts what you think. You may rant and scream "I have rights!" all the way to the gallows, and it will help you not even remotely.

Nothing about rights means they have to be helpful. They simply exist. They don't have to possess anything more than being a philosophical construct.

 

[dann]

They don't "simply exist". Human rights are what your state decides they are until it changes its mind.

 

[BobTheCoward]

They don't "simply exist". Human rights are what your state decides they are until it changes its mind.

As said repeatedly, I disagree.

 

[Planigale]

We have an inalienable right to publish and read prejudicial material if we are not interacting with the trial itself.

We have it period. If a reporter gets to attend a trial, and publishes anyway, that is their right. I'm fine with them not being allowed back, but they have a right to not be punished for it.

I am not sure you know the meaning of inalienable. There is no right to publish prejudicial material to a trial because the publishers cannot prevent that material interacting with the trial. In theory if the publishers were able to effectively restrict access then they would not be restricted in publishing. As has been said (excepting certain reporting restrictions particular to a trial e.g. anonymity of minors and rape victims), reporting on the trial and evidence given therein is free.

This is an example of a conflict of rights, between absolute free speech (in this case being regarded as equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theatre), and right to a fair trial. Because the latter may result in permanent loss of rights of an individual, temporary restrictions on rights of others are justified.

The right is alienated.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am not sure you know the meaning of inalienable. There is no right to publish prejudicial material to a trial because the publishers cannot prevent that material interacting with the trial. In theory if the publishers were able to effectively restrict access then they would not be restricted in publishing. As has been said (excepting certain reporting restrictions particular to a trial e.g. anonymity of minors and rape victims), reporting on the trial and evidence given therein is free.

This is an example of a conflict of rights, between absolute free speech (in this case being regarded as equivalent to shouting fire in a crowded theatre), and right to a fair trial. Because the latter may result in permanent loss of rights of an individual, temporary restrictions on rights of others are justified.

The right is alienated.

They are not justified. Therefore, that is a rights violation, not an alienation.

People do have a right to prejudice a trial. The government has an obligation to carry out a fair trial.

 

[Mojo]

They are not justified. Therefore, that is a rights violation, not an alienation.

People do have a right to prejudice a trial. The government has an obligation to carry out a fair trial.

So in your world the government has an obligation to violate peoples’ rights. Glad we’ve got that cleared up.