nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Tommy Robinson jailed

[Deleted User]

Apparently according to Lauren Southern, Tommy has been sentenced to 13 months but there is a UK wide embargo on reporting.

Anyone else got any info?

Edit. Not too sure about the authenticity of the embargo. I'm assuming that it's for this https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-arrested-leeds-court-child-grooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html?amp

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ancapailldorcha

OMM 0000 wrote: »

The UK does not have free speech.

Can I get a source please?

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.

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?

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 ****.

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?

WinnyThePoo

This is just hilarious. Free speech merchants are great craic.