What has happened to the UK

[Andy_Ross]

As someone tweeted

"First they came for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon but I didn't speak out because I don't assault the police

Then they came for Andrew McMaster but I didn't speak out because I'm not a fraudster

Then the came for Tommy Robinson and I didn't speak out because I'm not a far-right thug"

Reminds me of Half Man Half Biscuits Turn a Blind Eye

... “sometimes it’s best to turn a blind eye”

 

[Lothian]

The British decided a few years ago that they were not going to let Germany and Sweden beat them in the race to become Europe's first Islamic ********. That's what happened to the UK.

No, we decided we were not going to let Germany and Sweden overtake us in pedantry on illiteracy. I correct this post on behalf of all the citizens of the UK.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Tommy Robinson takedown

To prove to the public that he is not a political extremist, Lennon has taken to showing up at opponents’ houses at night, banging on their door, looking through their letterboxes and shining lights through the windows.

“If you’re a journalist and you think your office or your home is a safe space …. It’s not,” he declared ominously in a recent video. "

https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/rese...my-robinson-far-right-islamophobic-extremist/

 

[KDLarsen]

Various rightwing extremists over here, have already jumped on the fact that Robinson was charged with Breach of the Peace instead of contempt, as evidence his arrest was entirely political.

 

[Dabop]

Various rightwing extremists over here, have already jumped on the fact that Robinson was charged with Breach of the Peace instead of contempt, as evidence his arrest was entirely political.

Unless they went to his house to arrest him specifically, the average policeman wouldnt be aware of any court restrictions. If he had kept quiet and not been disturbing the peace, he would have gone home. He was obviously causing a scene, was told to stop being a nuisance, refused to do so and was then arrested for what he was indeed arrested for ie breaching the peace...
After his arrest and during processing, a background check would have been made and his suspended sentence would have been revealed
Now he will have to face court again for that charge of breaching the peace- which he may or may not be found guilty of, and if he is, another sentence may be be handed down (it will then either be served concurrently, consecutively or be suspended)
However he will not be released again immediately, as his suspended sentence from a previous conviction means that should he be stupid enough to do something to get arrested for, that suspended sentence immediately goes into effect, and he stays in the slammer until the length of the suspended sentence is served.

Quite simple really- nothing political about it- he was already convicted and was given a suspended sentence- thats the judge being nice and giving him a second chance to stay out of jail... he then went and blew that second chance- go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200... even a child can figure it out...

 

[Worm]

Which is exactly what he wanted to happen.

He enjoys playing the martyr, and demonstrating to his followers that the system is out to get him.

 

[Dabop]

And he demonstrates to anyone with half a functioning brain that he is a troublemaker who got his comeuppance LOL
The system worked exactly as it is supposed to, anyone stupid enough to think he is a martyr probably needs instructions on how to get dressed in the morning...

 

[BobTheCoward]

Great fun watching (through quotes) a couple of Americans who have clearly never set foot outside their country, and probably not even their own state, giving us all the benefit of their knowledge of a country they have never visited, and haven't got the first clue about. ****-stirring is the usual term for this behaviour.

Regardless of how wrong your assumptions are, philosophy is not nation specific.

 

[GlennB]

Regardless of how wrong your assumptions are, philosophy is not nation specific.

And yet it can vary from nation to nation. This seems to leave you needing to define 'philosophy' in such a manner that the outcome is of some use.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And yet it can vary from nation to nation. This seems to leave you needing to define 'philosophy' in such a manner that the outcome is of some use.

A) it doesn't follow that philosophy is different from nation to nation.

B) it certainly doesn't follow that outcome should be some.factor.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

 

[lomiller]

A) it doesn't follow that philosophy is different from nation to nation.

B) it certainly doesn't follow that outcome should be some.factor.

It doesn’t follow from what?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It doesn’t follow from what?

If I understand correctly

Rights are different from Laws
Different countries grant their citizens different rights

Therefore

Everyone but BtC is wrong

Just because.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If I understand correctly

Rights are different from Laws
Different countries grant their citizens different rights

Therefore

Everyone but BtC is wrong

Just because.

A government designating something a right is no more authoritative than a government designating global warming doesn't exist.

 

[Lothian]

If I understand correctly

Rights are different from Laws
Different countries grant their citizens different rights

Therefore

Everyone but BtC is wrong

Just because.

In the UK we have laws and rights which we get from Europe, eg the Human rights act. The rights can be brought into our law but we can also claim direct effect if the UK has not implemented the rights properly into UK legislation.

 

[lomiller]

A government designating something a right is no more authoritative than a government designating global warming doesn't exist.

False. Government has the power to enforce a right, it does not have the power to change the way the universe physically functions.

 

[BobTheCoward]

False. Government has the power to enforce a right, it does not have the power to change the way the universe physically functions.

Of course government can choose to enforce a right. But their declaration that they are enforcing a right doesn't mean that is a right.

 

[lomiller]

But their declaration that they are enforcing a right doesn't mean that is a right.

How so? If the government doesn't enforce it all you have is an opinion that it should be a right, you don't actually get to do it.

 

[fuelair]

No, he had been found guilty of interfering with a trial. there are still several ongoing linked trials. His actions put them at risk of being declared mistrials.
His actions identified members of a jury and they came under pressure via emails, tweets and facebook postings from his supporters.

He was given a suspended sentence rather than being sent direct to prison.
That came with conditions which he deliberately broke by doing exactly the same thing again.
He was taken back in front of the Judge who according to law sent him to prison for breaking the terms of his sentence and contempt of court.

He did it deliberately, he made sure it was all filmed by his supporters as he was arrested and put in to the police van.
think he was disappointed he didn't get sent down at the trial, he had to go back and do it again to make sure he got to prison.
Now he is a hero of the far right. It's his 'Beer Hall' moment.

Probably like other racist ******* conservatives trying to cause mistrials and general **** for their idiot reasons. May they all burn in a big firepit!!!!!

 

[BobTheCoward]

How so? If the government doesn't enforce it all you have is an opinion that it should be a right, you don't actually get to do it.

That is a feature of a right, not a bug. All philosophical statements on rights is an opinion. It is a view or judgement, but through a logical process.