What has happened to the UK

[Vixen]

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?

Incorrect. It is much less than that.

Population by ethnicity
Ethnic group Population (2011) Percentage of total population
Asian or Asian British: Indian 1,451,862 2.3
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 1,174,983 1.9
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 451,529 0.7
Asian or Asian British: Chinese 433,150 0.7

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...ome..69i57.23334j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[Vixen]

No, you are right, you called it an "illegitimate act"; I apologise for skim reading.

Why is protecting the rights of victims not to be identified, and protecting the rights of defendants to a fair trial an "illegitimate" act?

Just to jump in. All the law prevents is the identification of the defendants, witnesses and victims.

Simply seeing them walk into court isn't illegal?

If it is imperative for them to maintain anonymity, it is incumbent on the court to transport them in darkened vans.

Obviously, Robinson is a scum bag and no doubt his aim was to publish his pictures, but he hadn't actually done so as of the the time of the arrest...?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Ah. I see.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Getting back to the topic, what has happened to the UK is that it has remained a state in which the rule of law is in effect, presumption of innocence is seen as an important part of the justice system, and incitement to vigilante action is strongly discouraged. So, basically, nothing's happened to it.

Dave

Exactly, it remains a police state trampling the free thought of a human.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Just to jump in. All the law prevents is the identification of the defendants, witnesses and victims.

Simply seeing them walk into court isn't illegal?

If it is imperative for them to maintain anonymity, it is incumbent on the court to transport them in darkened vans.

Obviously, Robinson is a scum bag and no doubt his aim was to publish his pictures, but he hadn't actually done so as of the the time of the arrest...?

I think it is weirder than that. The court can simply prevent a person with no relation to anyone involved from talking about what they see on a public street? It is like the men in black.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Privacy laws are taken very strictly here, in comparison to the 'open slather' approach favoured by the USA

I wanted to talk more about this notion that it is a privacy issue.

In this instance, this is about person X traveling in a public place and person Y observing and reasoning a conclusion about X, then photographing them, in a public place.

It is a right of privacy to not have that happened? Will we eventually need Harrison bergeron style chips in our brains to stop making observations about people entering a building?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Exactly, it remains a police state trampling the free thought of a human.

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

 

[BobTheCoward]

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

There isn't a difference.

 

[Vixen]

Exactly, it remains a police state trampling the free thought of a human.

In regimes around the world, throughout history, this has always been one of the worst crimes as far as the state is concerned.

Why do you think pot was banned?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Good, progress. Now, in the future I ask that you please refrain from stating your own opinions as facts.

I don't do this.

Yes, you do.

There isn't a difference.

It is your opinion that there is no difference between thinking something and announcing it to a group of followers. It is a fact that the two are, nevertheless, different. And it is also a fact that Robinson was punished for the latter rather than the former.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes, you do.



It is your opinion that there is no difference between thinking something and announcing it to a group of followers. It is a fact that the two are, nevertheless, different. And it is also a fact that Robinson was punished for the latter rather than the former.

Dave

Of course it is my opinion. You are supposed to learn to stop writing, "my opinion is...my conclusion is...." Somewhere in highschool.

 

[zooterkin]

Exactly, it remains a police state trampling the free thought of a human.

 

[Mojo]

Here’s a news report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-44287640

 

[Matthew Best]

And here's a good summing up of the issues:

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/

 

[Filippo Lippi]

What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know.

From a barrister in the English courts, not... someone who clearly isn't that thing

 

[Andy_Ross]

A retweet

With some of the comments on Tommy Robinson and Rosanne, it seems that the word “martyr” now means “moron who is introduced to the concept of accountability as their ******* fans get rage boners online”. Good to know."

 

[turingtest]

Of course it is my opinion. You are supposed to learn to stop writing, "my opinion is...my conclusion is...." Somewhere in highschool.

Is it or is it not a fact that Robinson was arrested for an action (essentially, from the excellent article linked above by Filippo Lippi, interfering with an effort by your "Police State" to assure that some accused defendants' right to a fair trial weren't actually trampled), and not merely a thought?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Is it or is it not a fact that Robinson was arrested for an action (essentially, from the excellent article linked above by Filippo Lippi, interfering with an effort by your "Police State" to assure that some accused defendants' right to a fair trial weren't actually trampled), and not merely a thought?

I didn't accuse anyone of arresting someone for merely a thought.

 

[BobTheCoward]

What on earth happened to poor Tommy Robinson? 10 Things You Should Know.

From a barrister in the English courts, not... someone who clearly isn't that thing

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.

 

[turingtest]

I didn't accuse anyone of arresting someone for merely a thought.

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).