Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tommy Robinson jailed

Options
1…9293959798…143

Comments

  • Options
    #2822
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    and the first 4 months of that 13 months were a previous 4 months suspended sentence that was activated when he offended again. Dont depend on an individual newspaper report to tell you everything.

    I believe 9 months is still too long for this.

    Compare it to the sentences given for other crimes.

    I'm not defending Tommy.


  • Options
    #2823
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    I believe 9 months is still too long for this.

    Compare it to the sentences given for other crimes.

    I'm not defending Tommy.


    what sentence would be appropriate for somebody who repeatedly, publicly, breaks the law solely to promote himself and in the process threatens to jeopardise the trials he claims to be so concerned about?


  • Options
    #2824
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,255 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    There's a lot of talk about Tommy's panorama exposé, can someone give an exact quote about what is so damming about it?


  • Options
    #2825
    GinAndBitter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 746 ✭✭✭GinAndBitter


    That documentary he done is actually worth a watch, panorama was defo gonna be a hatchet job. They approached former employees of his offering money to tell lies about him, make up stories etc. That guy John Sweeney is in gonna be in a series bit of bother, he's on camera getting pissed and using multiple racist and homophobic slurs. Laughing about people paying the TV licence while he pissed 250 quid against the wall in one afternoon.


  • Options
    #2826
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,971 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Cienciano wrote: »
    There's a lot of talk about Tommy's panorama exposé, can someone give an exact quote about what is so damming about it?

    Presumably, it exposes things about Stephen that he and his admirers would rather it didn't. That alone will make it worth watching.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2827
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    GinAndBitter wrote: »
    That documentary he done is actually worth a watch, panorama was defo gonna be a hatchet job. They approached former employees of his offering money to tell lies about him, make up stories etc. That guy John Sweeney is in gonna be in a series bit of bother, he's on camera getting pissed and using multiple racist and homophobic slurs. Laughing about people paying the TV licence while he pissed 250 quid against the wall in one afternoon.

    So someone went undercover with racists and said racist stuff.

    Wow, how dare he.


  • Options
    #2828
    GinAndBitter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 746 ✭✭✭GinAndBitter


    Grayson wrote: »
    So someone went undercover with racists and said racist stuff.

    Wow, how dare he.

    He wasn't undercover though , and you dont even know who he spoke to.


  • Options
    #2829
    GinAndBitter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 746 ✭✭✭GinAndBitter


    Cienciano wrote: »
    There's a lot of talk about Tommy's panorama exposé, can someone give an exact quote about what is so damming about it?

    There is a lot in it, you should watch it if you have a spare hour. I thought it was gonna be a load of crap but it was a lot better than I thought.


  • Options
    #2830
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what sentence would be appropriate for somebody who repeatedly, publicly, breaks the law solely to promote himself and in the process threatens to jeopardise the trials he claims to be so concerned about?

    The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

    I don't think you're being fair if you think there wasn't a political angle to his conviction. He is considered dangerous, even though he is just speaking and sharing information.

    My angle on all this is I believe in free speech. I think it is vital if we want freedom. That means you should be allowed report on a criminal case.


  • Options
    #2831
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,342 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

    Your timeline seems wrong.

    The contempt incident occurred in May 2018, but the trials were still ongoing in September 2018.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2832
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

    I don't think you're being fair if you think there wasn't a political angle to his conviction. He is considered dangerous, even though he is just speaking and sharing information.

    My angle on all this is I believe in free speech. I think it is vital if we want freedom. That means you should be allowed report on a criminal case.


    THAT trial may have gone to sentencing but there were OTHER linked trials that had not. You seem to have the same deep understanding that tommy does.


  • Options
    #2833
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,458 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The trial was already finished. The only thing left was the sentencing.

    I don't think you're being fair if you think there wasn't a political angle to his conviction. He is considered dangerous, even though he is just speaking and sharing information.

    My angle on all this is I believe in free speech. I think it is vital if we want freedom. That means you should be allowed report on a criminal case.

    Do you think he should be able to pick and choose which laws he should follow?


  • Options
    #2834
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    THAT trial may have gone to sentencing but there were OTHER linked trials that had not. You seem to have the same deep understanding that tommy does.

    Could be. Not sure why you're being so aggressive though. Do you talk like this in real life? Why can't you remain civil and not get overly emotional? I'm just discussing my attitude to free speech and talking to each other.


  • Options
    #2835
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Do you think he should be able to pick and choose which laws he should follow?

    Yes, obviously I think that. He should be able to choose which laws apply to him. This includes killing people and jaywalking.


  • Options
    #2836
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Could be. Not sure why you're being so aggressive though. Do you talk like this in real life? Why can't you remain civil and not get overly emotional? I'm just discussing my attitude to free speech and talking to each other.


    free speech is not absolute. Free speech has restrictions. One of those is where that speech jeopardises the administration of justice. Tommy thinks he is above all of that. That he should be free to shout whatever he wants on street corners with no consequences to himself. For some reason best known to yourself you agree with him.


  • Options
    #2837
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    free speech is not absolute. Free speech has restrictions. One of those is where that speech jeopardises the administration of justice. Tommy thinks he is above all of that. That he should be free to shout whatever he wants on street corners with no consequences to himself. For some reason best known to yourself you agree with him.

    Free speech is absolute. It has no restrictions. It includes things you don't like.

    Look at the US for example - the only thing you're not allowed do is a call to violence. For example, "To all my fans, please go to X's home and kill them".

    Everything else is fair game, including hate speech.

    What you're talking about is not free speech. The UK does not have free speech. I think it should.


  • Options
    #2838
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Free speech is absolute. It has no restrictions. It includes things you don't like.

    Absolutely no restriction. Non at all. Ok.
    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Look at the US for example - the only thing you're not allowed do is a call to violence. For example, "To all my fans, please go to X's home and kill them".

    Everything else is fair game, including hate speech.

    Ohh. Except for those restrictions.

    ok.....


  • Options
    #2839
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Could be. Not sure why you're being so aggressive though. Do you talk like this in real life? Why can't you remain civil and not get overly emotional? I'm just discussing my attitude to free speech and talking to each other.

    That's not aggressive. If he had've called you a twat, that would have been dismissing. If he's called you a fcuking twat, that might have been aggressive. But he did neither.

    Although the irony of you whinging about free speech and then complaining about someone proving you wrong. Get over yourself.


  • Options
    #2840
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Grayson wrote: »
    Absolutely no restriction. Non at all. Ok.

    Ohh. Except for those restrictions.

    ok.....

    Yes, the US does not have free speech, they have almost free speech.

    Why are you trying to argue?


  • Options
    #2841
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Grayson wrote: »
    That's not aggressive. If he had've called you a twat, that would have been dismissing. If he's called you a fcuking twat, that might have been aggressive. But he did neither.

    Although the irony of you whinging about free speech and then complaining about someone proving you wrong. Get over yourself.

    Free speech doesn't mean you can't complain about things.

    It also doesn't mean speech has no consequences.

    It is rather silly to think someone who believes in free speech is not allowed comment on someone being aggressive.

    What you're saying doesn't even make sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2842
    Boggles
    Registered Users Posts: 39,865 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    So wants Hate Speech as an absolute?

    Winges and accuses someone of talking emotionally?

    Have I that right?

    That's enough of the internet for me today.

    Fook that.


  • Options
    #2843
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Boggles wrote: »
    So wants Hate Speech as an absolute?

    Winges and accuses someone of talking emotionally?

    Have I that right?

    That's enough of the internet for me today.

    Fook that.

    I've no idea what you're talking about.


  • Options
    #2844
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Free speech is absolute. It has no restrictions. It includes things you don't like.

    This is wrong and just conveys a lack of understanding. So far wrong that i think it justifies my earlier attitude to you.

    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Look at the US for example - the only thing you're not allowed do is a call to violence. For example, "To all my fans, please go to X's home and kill them".

    Everything else is fair game, including hate speech.


    Again this is very wrong.


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    What you're talking about is not free speech. The UK does not have free speech. I think it should.




    It has the same free speech as any other democratic country.


  • Options
    #2845
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    This is wrong and just conveys a lack of understanding. So far wrong that i think it justifies my earlier attitude to you.

    Again this is very wrong.

    It has the same free speech as any other democratic country.

    You don't understand what free speech is.

    The UK does not have free speech.

    Not all democratic countries have the same levels of restrictions.

    The UK and Germany, for example, have difference laws on which speech is and is not allowed.

    If you're going to be one of those people on the internet who can't admit they're wrong, and want to argue with strangers, I have no interest in that.


  • Options
    #2846
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    Ah I knew I recognised your username (ohnonotgmail). You don't think antifa are doing anything wrong. You have extreme left political views. I'm checking out of this conversation with you right now.


  • Options
    #2847
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,971 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    The UK does not have free speech.

    Can I get a source please?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #2848
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    You don't understand what free speech is.

    The UK does not have free speech.

    Not all democratic countries have the same levels of restrictions.

    The UK and Germany, for example, have difference laws on which speech is and is not allowed.

    If you're going to be one of those people on the internet who can't admit they're wrong, and want to argue with strangers, I have no interest in that.


    No, i understand perfectly what free speech is. and it is not absolute. Anywhere. If tommy had done the same thing in germany he would have faced the same consequences.


  • Options
    #2849
    OMM 0000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,733 ✭✭✭OMM 0000


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Can I get a source please?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#United_Kingdom

    It includes restrictions on things which could be deemed offensive or indecent.

    That alone is anti-free speech, as what the hell is the definition of offensive or indecent?


  • Options
    #2850
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Ah I knew I recognised your username (ohnonotgmail). You don't think antifa are doing anything wrong. You have extreme left political views. I'm checking out of this conversation with you right now.


    Well clearly you dont know me as i do not have extreme left political views. The problem with you, and others here, is that if you dont completely agree with a gob****e like tommy you must be left wing. The reason i dont agree with anything that tommy does is not because i am left wing it is because i am not a complete ****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2851
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,458 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    OMM 0000 wrote: »
    Yes, obviously I think that. He should be able to choose which laws apply to him. This includes killing people and jaywalking.

    Well you did say
    A judge decided no media should be allowed report on a Muslim gang who had been raping children for decades.

    Tommy disagreed with this, so he filmed outside the court, after the criminals had already been convicted for their crimes.

    This was illegal (as the judge had banned media covering the case), but Tommy felt the public had a right to know about these pedophile gangs.

    He was arrested for the filming, and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

    You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.

    That's the gist of it.

    Regardless of your opinion on Tommy, a reasonable person should be able to see this is the court system being draconian.

    You admit that he broke the law, what is your issue with him being convicted?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement