What has happened to the UK

[Andy_Ross]

I don't think it extends beyond the government. The court can't disclose it, bit a reporter who figures it out can disclose.

Not in the UK. You are liable to prosecution if you divulge the identity of victims in rape and sexual assault trials and also if the victim is a minor.
Also if the defendant is a minor their identity is protected unless restrictions are lifted by the Judge which has happened on a few rare occasions.

 

[catsmate]

I find it disturbing that a judge can dictate what news the press can and cannot report in Great Britain.

Civilised countries still value the concept of fair trials.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Not in the UK. You are liable to prosecution if you divulge the identity of victims in rape and sexual assault trials and also if the victim is a minor.
Also if the defendant is a minor their identity is protected unless restrictions are lifted by the Judge which has happened on a few rare occasions.

Which is why I was replying to a question specific about the US.

 

[Agatha]

Wow, the UK is an awful country.

In what sense?

For having grooming gangs (Muslims or not) intent on committing paedophilia? Sadly common in many countries.

For prosecuting those gangs in a series of semi-linked cases? I would have thought it was the mark of a civilised country to do so.

For giving victims of sexual crimes the right to anonymity and taking action against those like Robinson who would seek to break that anonymity? I cannot fathom why this is seen as awful.

 

[fuelair]

He was arrested for breach of the peace and incitement. I suppose we'll have to wait for more information before reaching a conclusion. But saying that, Tommy Robinson is a violent scumbag who belongs behind bars

Or, better, scavaged.

 

[fuelair]

In what sense?

For having grooming gangs (Muslims or not) intent on committing paedophilia? Sadly common in many countries.

For prosecuting those gangs in a series of semi-linked cases? I would have thought it was the mark of a civilised country to do so.

For giving victims of sexual crimes the right to anonymity and taking action against those like Robinson who would seek to break that anonymity? I cannot fathom why this is seen as awful.

Always consider the source in these matters.

 

[BobTheCoward]

For giving victims of sexual crimes the right to anonymity and taking action against those like Robinson who would seek to break that anonymity? I cannot fathom why this is seen as awful.

That one. That is the awful part.

 

[fuelair]

I do not know why, but I always have much trouble following BtC's comments - very hard to read them - close to impossible. Might need better glasses...........................

 

[Agatha]

At the risk of derailing the thread, what public interest is there in knowing that (say) a particular eight year old girl was raped, as opposed to her having anonymity which she can choose to break if she wants to? How does having her name, age, address and school bandied about in the press help the child recover from that ordeal, or help her to live as normal a life as she can?

What sort of prurient person needs to know the name of a child victim of sexual abuse anyway? Isn't it enough that to know their age and gender?

The UK protects victims of crime. That's not awful, it's civilised.

 

[fuelair]

He was also breaking the conditions of his suspended sentence from the last time he did it.
That is contempt of court.

Police and Judges take it very seriously when you ignore the conditions of your sentence.
He was taken back before the judge and put in to custody.

When he comes out he will be on license and if he does it again before the license expires he will be whisked back inside again.

He is doing it to get arrested, he makes sure his cronies are there to video it all and make a fuss. 'Help I'm being repressed' He is a Nazi **** stirrer.

I believe you misspelled the struck out word - it is spelled eater......

 

[Giz]

For having grooming gangs (Muslims or not) intent on committing paedophilia? Sadly common in many countries.

From Muslim-run think-tank Quilliam report:

‘84 per cent of ‘grooming gang’ offenders were (South) Asian, while they only make up seven per cent of total UK population and that the majority of these offenders are of Pakistani origin with Muslim heritage.’

For giving victims of sexual crimes the right to anonymity and taking action against those like Robinson who would seek to break that anonymity? I cannot fathom why this is seen as awful.

But wasn’t he taking photos of the perpetrators, not the victims?

 

[zooterkin]

That one. That is the awful part.

Because?

 

[fuelair]

I find it disturbing that a judge can dictate what news the press can and cannot report in Great Britain.

In most countries they can. We are special - but trumpf is certainly working to change that. Like some other real presidents here did - ultimately with little success.

 

[fuelair]

I'm fascinated that despite the previous posts having made clear that this is NOT why he's behind bars, you continue to push the lie that suits your purpose. Of course, this is common behavior for you.

 

[Strawberry]

From Muslim-run think-tank Quilliam report:

‘84 per cent of ‘grooming gang’ offenders were (South) Asian, while they only make up seven per cent of total UK population and that the majority of these offenders are of Pakistani origin with Muslim heritage.’



But wasn’t he taking photos of the perpetrators, not the victims?

If pics of the offender are not allowed that either means the victim can be identified through connection with him, eg family member, or his anonymity is needed to ensure a fair trial for another defendant.

Either way, this guy was being stupid. He's either invading the privacy of a victim of child sexual abuse, or he's risking the collapse of another, similar, trial.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because?

It is stopping someone from speaking about something they are not a party to and merely made an observation in public. It is criminalising the most basic act of speech. It is no different than punishing people for saying, "the cat that walked by is orange."

 

[BobTheCoward]

At the risk of derailing the thread, what public interest is there in knowing that (say) a particular eight year old girl was raped, as opposed to her having anonymity which she can choose to break if she wants to? How does having her name, age, address and school bandied about in the press help the child recover from that ordeal, or help her to live as normal a life as she can?

What sort of prurient person needs to know the name of a child victim of sexual abuse anyway? Isn't it enough that to know their age and gender?

The UK protects victims of crime. That's not awful, it's civilised.

It is none of your business what my interest is.

 

[Agatha]

But wasn’t he taking photos of the perpetrators, not the victims?

Alleged perpetrators, witnesses (who may well be victims) and jurors.

 

[Agatha]

It is none of your business what my interest is.

I didn't ask for your interest, I asked what the public interest is.

It is not analogous to saying "the cat that walked by is orange", it's analogous to saying "the child that walked by is a rape victim". Everyone can see a cat's colour (obviously except for blind or colour-blind people) but nobody can see the history of a child's involvement with a crime.

Try again for a better analogy, or explain why you think that victims of rape should be identified.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If pics of the offender are not allowed that either means the victim can be identified through connection with him, eg family member, or his anonymity is needed to ensure a fair trial for another defendant.

Either way, this guy was being stupid. He's either invading the privacy of a victim of child sexual abuse, or he's risking the collapse of another, similar, trial.

There was real concern that his behaviour and actions would lead to a mistrial.
There was even a suggestion that some of his gang were trying to directly influence the jury.