Activist in the UK Jailed for Reporting on Child Sex Abuse Gangs

[Route 45]

I did. It said he was convicted of contempt of court. It also said details are murky. Probably a bit more to this story. So, the headline is misleading... but better for controversy and clicks.

And you don't think British sources are running the same story? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html

*edit*

Perhaps it stems from his suspended sentence for...filming in a court? Ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson spared jail for contempt of court | Daily Mail Online

I guess you are right. It's completely acceptable, in a western society, to jail citizens for social media posts and for filming in public in order to protect the sensibilities of third world immigrants who have no intentions of assimilating to the their host nation's culture and norms.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I guess you are right. It's completely acceptable, in a western society, to jail citizens for social media posts and for filming in public in order to protect the sensibilities of third world immigrants who have no intentions of assimilating to the their host nation's culture and norms.

I don't recall saying that, but that's an easier thing to argue against vs you don't actually have the facts yet, the media doesn't have the facts and admits it's "murky", but sells you the controversy anyway.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, because I've nothing better to do at the moment, I looked up the original court findings. It's apparently been the law in England since 1925 that you can't transmit images of those involved in an active court proceeding.

has been section 41 of theCriminal Justice Act 1925... that particular section is reproduced in some ofthe more commonly used practitioner books such asArchbold or Blackstones, ..."no person shall take orattempt to take in any court any photograph, or with aview to publication make or attempt to make in anycourt any portrait or sketch of any person, being ajudge, juror or witness or party to the proceedings",

Most of the cases that come before the highercourts do involve the taking of photographs of jurorsor of defendants,

Itis pejorative language which prejudges the case, andit is language and reporting - if reporting indeed iswhat it is - that could have had the effect ofsubstantially derailing the trial.

So this certainly isn't a new law, isn't in response to any particular group's "sensibilities" but their courts find it grounds for a mistrial in the UK, it maaaay just be there's a bit more than "we've covering up misdeeds and suppressing reporting". If that would fly in the US, we've got significantly more protection for filming defendants when they aren't in the court. I'm honestly not sure on the laws on trying to film or publish info on jurors. And of course we all know judges can ban cameras from courtrooms.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, because I've nothing better to do at the moment, I looked up the original court findings. It's apparently been the law in England since 1925 that you can't transmit images of those involved in an active court proceeding.







So this certainly isn't a new law, isn't in response to any particular group's "sensibilities" but their courts find it grounds for a mistrial in the UK, it maaaay just be there's a bit more than "we've covering up misdeeds and suppressing reporting". If that would fly in the US, we've got significantly more protection for filming defendants when they aren't in the court. I'm honestly not sure on the laws on trying to film or publish info on jurors. And of course we all know judges can ban cameras from courtrooms.

C'mon, what are you doing inserting pesky facts and citing law?

 

[long coat]

That law said "in any court". He was outside.

 

[Cameramonkey]

That law said "in any court". He was outside.

Yes, but see below.

So, because I've nothing better to do at the moment, I looked up the original court findings. It's apparently been the law in England since 1925 that you can't transmit images of those involved in an active court proceeding.







So this certainly isn't a new law, isn't in response to any particular group's "sensibilities" but their courts find it grounds for a mistrial in the UK, it maaaay just be there's a bit more than "we've covering up misdeeds and suppressing reporting". If that would fly in the US, we've got significantly more protection for filming defendants when they aren't in the court. I'm honestly not sure on the laws on trying to film or publish info on jurors. And of course we all know judges can ban cameras from courtrooms.

He was busted for filming those involved who were coming and going from the courthouse.

 

[searpinski]

The "teacher" should be hung. That said, this certainly isn't unique to the UK.

I saw this in the news a little while back A man raped a 5 year old and get 90 days of house arrest right here in the good ol' USA: https://wsvn.com/news/us-world/cali...-of-house-arrest-for-rape-of-5-year-old-girl/

I can't imagine why that plea was accepted unless it was an incredibly weak case. Reports conflict if he has to register as a sex offender, apparently he won't in this case but has another case from the late 90s so that he may have to based on that one.

I saw that too. That is certainly not the sentence I would recommend. I'm in favor of the death penalty for child rape.

 

[BluedSteel]

I think we can just write off the UK.

I am genuinely surprised [and somewhat disappointed] that you hadn't already. As for me, I like to check the BBC home page at least a couple of times a week. Ergo, I wrote them off long ago. Even before they were "officially" caught covering up the Islamic rape gangs operating in plain sight of their neighborhoods (So far everyone appointed to oversee the investigation of the cover-up has resigned before giving a report). Somewhat after teachers started resigning en mass because schools were being systematically taken over.

Want a good laugh? First check out the Ministry of Defense's report on how much (that's British for how little) of the force is actually fit for duty. Then read the few stories where soldiers/sailors talk about how hard they worked to pad the figures. I particularly liked to story of how RAF mechanics took a part that "fell off" a Typhoon jet and used it to 'repair' another fighter so it could be used for joint 'air superiority' patrols with coalition forces. For some reason that story has been taken down. The good news is that the situation can be "spun" to show that they've made great improvements over the last five years. Back then they couldn't even train new pilots in simple one engine Cessnas. Because the Propellers . . . Fell Off.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pilot-training-halted-after-raf-planes-lose-propellers-in-flight-z3d7zgq9d6n

God may or may not save the queen. But it's pretty obvious the rest of them are screwed.

 

[jamil]

Just came across this. Seemed like an appropriate place for it.

[video=youtube_share;wE5vcuGOrIw]http://youtu.be/wE5vcuGOrIw[/video]