-
@jegga said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
This thread worth a read
Heavy left leaning bias in his assessment there. I note that he doesn't even address the prison transfer when talking about corruption/conspiracy.
Nothing to see here, he was treated fine! Laughable.
There'll be a few people agreeing with Wagner here I think unfortunately.
A lot of those types also argued the original trial was fine and that he pleaded guilty.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback You made an assertion but won't back it up, not just with reportable facts but even with your opinion why. You seem to feel that just because yours is a negative it is beyond question. Filming on court property was not made up nonsense, that actually related to a previous contempt of court conviction, filming in Canterbury Court actually, i got two of his convictions mixed up. Not difficult, he's had three in less than two years. But you jump on that slight error in an attempt to discredit everything else rather than actually debate what's in front of you.
Yeah except only one of us is declaring he is guilty whilst at the same time time making fundermental mistakes.
My assertion that he is currently legally innocent is correct. Your assertion that he is technically guilty is bullshit.
And he has not been in convicted 3 times. At least try and get your facts right. Do you know it means when a conviction is quashed?Well, what I actually said was "it seems TR was technically guilty" rather than (sound the trumpets( declaring he is guilty. And do try and get things right he has been convicted three times, 2 in relation to Canterbury Court and one in relation to Leeds court. The latter has been remitted to be heard again.
The question that you seem intent on avoiding, after calling me out on it, was whether or not TR broke the second contempt of court order. The order was not to report on those particular trials while they were ongoing and he clearly did so. That is fundamental.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback You made an assertion but won't back it up, not just with reportable facts but even with your opinion why. You seem to feel that just because yours is a negative it is beyond question. Filming on court property was not made up nonsense, that actually related to a previous contempt of court conviction, filming in Canterbury Court actually, i got two of his convictions mixed up. Not difficult, he's had three in less than two years. But you jump on that slight error in an attempt to discredit everything else rather than actually debate what's in front of you.
Yeah except only one of us is declaring he is guilty whilst at the same time time making fundermental mistakes.
My assertion that he is currently legally innocent is correct. Your assertion that he is technically guilty is bullshit.
And he has not been in convicted 3 times. At least try and get your facts right. Do you know it means when a conviction is quashed?Well, what I actually said was "it seems TR was technically guilty" rather than (sound the trumpets( declaring he is guilty. And do try and get things right he has been convicted three times, 2 in relation to Canterbury Court and one in relation to Leeds court. The latter has been remitted to be heard again.
The question that you seem intent on avoiding, after calling me out on it, was whether or not TR broke the second contempt of court order. The order was not to report on those particular trials while they were ongoing and he clearly did so. That is fundamental.
He was not technically guilty, you haven't explained the technical part, I am starting to think that is just your mealy mouthed way of saying he is guilty.
No I don't think he broke the contempt of court order. You do, that's fine, a trial will sort it out, not you trumpeting about him being 'technically guilty'.
You seem to think that the quashing of that conviction means that he is still guilty, he isnt at this stage, pretty fundamental stuff. Pretty weird that you seem to have been brainwashed so thoroughly that the concept of innocent until proven guilty has become irrelevant.You want to take a bet on how many criminal convictions Robinson currently has on his record for the last 2 years? You do realize that his conviction doesn't stand dont you? Apparently not. All your posts have a theme of Robinson being a guilty man before his court case is even settled.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
This thread worth a read
Seriously MR? How is it a good thing when a court fucks up royally and doesn't grant due process? If TR hadn't gone through a lengthy and very costly appeal process (while he rotted in jail for 2 months) this awesome system would have failed him.
It's like saying there is no problem with a factory when QC discovers a massive fault.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
This thread worth a read
Seriously MR? How is it a good thing when a court fucks up royally and doesn't grant due process? If TR hadn't gone through a lengthy and very costly appeal process (while he rotted in jail for 2 months) this awesome system would have failed him.
It's like saying there is no problem with a factory when QC discovers a massive fault.
To be fair I dont think that is what he was saying. I think he is supporting the claim that is was a cock up not a conspiracy. He isnt denying the cock up element, but the cause of the cock up.
Which is a ludicrous IMO but still... -
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback You made an assertion but won't back it up, not just with reportable facts but even with your opinion why. You seem to feel that just because yours is a negative it is beyond question. Filming on court property was not made up nonsense, that actually related to a previous contempt of court conviction, filming in Canterbury Court actually, i got two of his convictions mixed up. Not difficult, he's had three in less than two years. But you jump on that slight error in an attempt to discredit everything else rather than actually debate what's in front of you.
Yeah except only one of us is declaring he is guilty whilst at the same time time making fundermental mistakes.
My assertion that he is currently legally innocent is correct. Your assertion that he is technically guilty is bullshit.
And he has not been in convicted 3 times. At least try and get your facts right. Do you know it means when a conviction is quashed?Well, what I actually said was "it seems TR was technically guilty" rather than (sound the trumpets( declaring he is guilty. And do try and get things right he has been convicted three times, 2 in relation to Canterbury Court and one in relation to Leeds court. The latter has been remitted to be heard again.
The question that you seem intent on avoiding, after calling me out on it, was whether or not TR broke the second contempt of court order. The order was not to report on those particular trials while they were ongoing and he clearly did so. That is fundamental.
He was not technically guilty, you haven't explained the technical part, I am starting to think that is just your mealy mouthed way of saying he is guilty.
No I don't think he broke the contempt of court order. You do, that's fine, a trial will sort it out, not you trumpeting about him being 'technically guilty'.
You seem to think that the quashing of that conviction means that he is still guilty, he isnt at this stage, pretty fundamental stuff. Pretty weird that you seem to have been brainwashed so thoroughly that the concept of innocent until proven guilty has become irrelevant.You want to take a bet on how many criminal convictions Robinson currently has on his record for the last 2 years? You do realize that his conviction doesn't stand dont you? Apparently not. All your posts have a theme of Robinson being a guilty man before his court case is even settled.
So. Still nothing. Instead of one question which you cannot answer, let me then ask you two questions which might be easier.
- Did the previous contempt of court order ban him from reporting on those trials whilst proceedings were still ongoing?
- Did he then report on said trial when proceedings were still ongoing?
If you're still struggling, let me give you a clue. The answer to both is not "no".
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback You made an assertion but won't back it up, not just with reportable facts but even with your opinion why. You seem to feel that just because yours is a negative it is beyond question. Filming on court property was not made up nonsense, that actually related to a previous contempt of court conviction, filming in Canterbury Court actually, i got two of his convictions mixed up. Not difficult, he's had three in less than two years. But you jump on that slight error in an attempt to discredit everything else rather than actually debate what's in front of you.
Yeah except only one of us is declaring he is guilty whilst at the same time time making fundermental mistakes.
My assertion that he is currently legally innocent is correct. Your assertion that he is technically guilty is bullshit.
And he has not been in convicted 3 times. At least try and get your facts right. Do you know it means when a conviction is quashed?Well, what I actually said was "it seems TR was technically guilty" rather than (sound the trumpets( declaring he is guilty. And do try and get things right he has been convicted three times, 2 in relation to Canterbury Court and one in relation to Leeds court. The latter has been remitted to be heard again.
The question that you seem intent on avoiding, after calling me out on it, was whether or not TR broke the second contempt of court order. The order was not to report on those particular trials while they were ongoing and he clearly did so. That is fundamental.
He was not technically guilty, you haven't explained the technical part, I am starting to think that is just your mealy mouthed way of saying he is guilty.
No I don't think he broke the contempt of court order. You do, that's fine, a trial will sort it out, not you trumpeting about him being 'technically guilty'.
You seem to think that the quashing of that conviction means that he is still guilty, he isnt at this stage, pretty fundamental stuff. Pretty weird that you seem to have been brainwashed so thoroughly that the concept of innocent until proven guilty has become irrelevant.You want to take a bet on how many criminal convictions Robinson currently has on his record for the last 2 years? You do realize that his conviction doesn't stand dont you? Apparently not. All your posts have a theme of Robinson being a guilty man before his court case is even settled.
So. Still nothing. Instead of one question which you cannot answer, let me then ask you two questions which might be easier.
- Did the previous contempt of court order ban him from reporting on those trials whilst proceedings were still ongoing?
- Did he then report on said trial when proceedings were still ongoing?
If you're still struggling, let me give you a clue. The answer to both is not "no".
I directly answered your question. And the answer to at least one of those new questions is actually no. And I would argue both are no. Educate yourself.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
This thread worth a read
Seriously MR? How is it a good thing when a court fucks up royally and doesn't grant due process? If TR hadn't gone through a lengthy and very costly appeal process (while he rotted in jail for 2 months) this awesome system would have failed him.
It's like saying there is no problem with a factory when QC discovers a massive fault.
I read it thst he says there was a fuck up snd many, including himself, were wrong.
He also says that he’s glad there is a process to catch this so when people fuck up, things are rectified.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
This thread worth a read
Seriously MR? How is it a good thing when a court fucks up royally and doesn't grant due process? If TR hadn't gone through a lengthy and very costly appeal process (while he rotted in jail for 2 months) this awesome system would have failed him.
It's like saying there is no problem with a factory when QC discovers a massive fault.
I read it thst he says there was a fuck up snd many, including himself, were wrong.
He also says that he’s glad there is a process to catch this so when people fuck up, things are rectified.
Fair enough. My bad. But he does for some strange reason claim that TR hates liberal democracy. That's not only a bizarre claim but a clear indication of where this guy stands in relation to TR.
I would also question whether this was just simply an error, you know, one of those things that happens all the time and is no big deal. Politics clearly played no part in this whatsoever.
But I'll go back to the claim that this is a good ruling. No it is in fact a farking shocking ruling. A good ruling would have been if TR had been found to have been given due process and that this was simply enforcing the law. The fact that this ruling revealed a series of monumental fuck ups is highly disturbing. There is nothing good about that.
-
Got to love the Fern. All this arguing and it looks like nobody has actually read the judgement. So here you go, fill your boots:
Sorry, upload didn’t work, how do I upload a PDF? Edit, found a direct link
What jumps out is:
-
Contempt proceedings are rare in the Crown Court, and usually only for disruption. The judge made an error in applying the applicable procedure . It stemmed from the fact that he (the judge) had actually stopped the jury’s deliberations and felt therefore that there was a degree of urgency about dealing with the contempt as he needed to get the jury back on track. He erred in that TR offered to delete the post, and did so, which the CoA says removed the urgency and should have caused the judge to refer the contempt to the Attorney General, as had happened in Canterbury. TR did know about the order because he referred to it in his video and it’s quoted in the transcript.
-
The Leeds contempt wasn’t a breach of a Canterbury order, there was a specific order in place at Leeds. It was a postponement order, because this was trial one of three trials. The judge was equally worried about the immediate effect on trial two, which was imminent.
-
The judge and courts (both) made an error in issuing a conviction certificate for Canterbury, then compounding it by ids suing a conviction for Leeds. In fact it seems contemnors are not convicted, and have the same rights and privileges as a prisoner on remand. These were not granted to TR as he was listed as convicted.
-
The contempt charge was also lacking because it required the judge to specifically point to the actually contempt, which he didn’t. This meant that there was confusion about what exactly TR was admitting to.
There’s plenty more, but it looks like a judge who didn’t know how to deal with the contempt rather than a conspiracy.
-
-
I'd love to see any evidence of this, beyond the fact of him being moved from a prison where about 7-8% of the prison identified as Muslim to a prison where about 30% identified as muslim. It's a serious question and I'm not trying to wind you or anyone else up, but my googling leads me to sources citing infowars, which starts the alarm bells ringing.
-
@siam said in British Politics:
@gt12 Solitary confinement for 13 months for contempt of court?
An admission that he was in solitary confinement is enough for me to recognize some silly buggers going on here mate.
Solitary confinement or protective custody?
-
@siam said in British Politics:
@gt12 Solitary confinement for 13 months for contempt of court?
An admission that he was in solitary confinement is enough for me to recognize some silly buggers going on here mate.
How is that evidence of a conspiracy? I thought you said that the story was that they wanted him dead?
-
@kirwan said in British Politics:
That’s not the full picture though, where is the justification for moving prisons and his treatment while in there?
He’s clearly being harassed by the police, prison system and the government.
Until he’s PM you’ll never be satisfied.
-
@kirwan oh, I agree that he’s been treated badly, and possibly illegally. And the pattern looks dodgy as fuck. But the court end at least looks incompetent rather than prejudiced, which in itself is far from comforting. The big problem is that, as with the LS and SM talk over here, the right is seen as hard to sympathise with. People don’t generally think this could happen to them just as easily.
British Politics