The Politics Thread 2019

[Bound 2 tease]

54 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

What law did he break?

As far as I can see he was reporting on information that was already available in the public domain?

Assuming that reporting outside court regarding sentencing, will the BBC reporters that reported from outside the court on his case be getting charged?

Tommy wanted to name and shame before the verdicts were in, which is against the law when a trial has not concluded .

 

 For those that feel sorry for him...

 Everywear Tommy goes, there is likely to be breach of the peace, and it is the the Police's duty to prevent these breaches of the peace, and if Tommy's the cause, he's the arrested.

That is his sole opus moderandi, cause trouble get noticed , get attention for himself. IMO  The police are shocking tolerant of the man.

 

He only wants to out those with brown skins, there are plenty of white peados out there , and as for his supporters DO YOU REALLY NEED TO TOLD THAT PEADOPHILA IS WRONG ?

[1967Ram]

On 09/07/2019 at 20:07, ketteringram said:

Who forms the next government? 

Labour, Lib Dem coalition I reckon. Maybe with Greens too.

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Bound 2 tease said:

Tommy wanted to name and shame before the verdicts were in, which is against the law when a trial has not concluded .

 

 For those that feel sorry for him...

 Everywear Tommy goes, there is likely to be breach of the peace, and it is the the Police's duty to prevent these breaches of the peace, and if Tommy's the cause, he's the arrested.

That is his sole opus moderandi, cause trouble get noticed , get attention for himself. IMO  The police are shocking tolerant of the man.

He only wants to out those with brown skins, there are plenty of white peados out there , and as for his supporters DO YOU REALLY NEED TO TOLD THAT PEADOPHILA IS WRONG ?

The BBC had already reported their names hadn't they? 

Re your last sentence do all Muslims have brown skin?

 

[McRamFan]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ongoing trial?

It was the day of sentencing wasn't it?

Why had the BBC already reported on the verdicts if it was an ongoing trial? 

There was a reporting ban on the trial.  There was three trials that where interlinked and it was quite complex, so the courts put a reporting ban in, until after the sentences had been handed out, which is unusual,  as its usually lifted after the jury decision.

There is plenty of information out there, you just need to dig deeper than the Tommy fan boi's.

Steven,  as already been mentioned, has now put the cases in jeopardy, and a gang of sexual predators could be released (correct at the time of writing, as they are still have been convicted and sentenced).  If that happens, all the victims will have lost out on justice.

[Boycie]

[eddie]

The insanity of the Brexiteer knows no bounds...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-royal-navy-warships-britain-eu-fishing-boats-a9002671.html

[1of4]

I dispair for our nation at times. When the parents of a young girl killed in a hit and run, are stopped by the court from reading out their impact statement in full because it might upset the driver of the car that killed their daughter. 

How have we as a society become more concerned about the feelings of a murderer than that that of the victim and thier family?

[Norman]

29 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

I dispair for our nation at times. When the parents of a young girl killed in a hit and run, are stopped by the court from reading out their impact statement in full because it might upset the driver of the car that killed their daughter. 

How have we as a society become more concerned about the feelings of a murderer than that that of the victim and thier family?

Depends if the murderer is at a high risk of self-harm or suicide. You have to think about the people who are now in charge of his care.

I'm not defending anything here. The murderer  will serve whatever our society and therefore the courts decide. He still has Human Rights. Someone is in charge of that person and decisons are therefore taken under law.

If it was me, i would let them read the statement. If i was in charge of someone who kept running into cell walls to split their head open because they couldn't deal with what they have done, then  i might choose not to let him hear it. Not yet, anyway.

I don't know anything of the case. But sometimes decisions might not seem what they are at first glance.

[G STAR RAM]

6 hours ago, McRamFan said:

There was a reporting ban on the trial.  There was three trials that where interlinked and it was quite complex, so the courts put a reporting ban in, until after the sentences had been handed out, which is unusual,  as its usually lifted after the jury decision.

There is plenty of information out there, you just need to dig deeper than the Tommy fan boi's.

Steven,  as already been mentioned, has now put the cases in jeopardy, and a gang of sexual predators could be released (correct at the time of writing, as they are still have been convicted and sentenced).  If that happens, all the victims will have lost out on justice.

Yet he went into the court on the morning and there was no mention of this reporting ban?

If there was a reporting ban how come the BBC had already reported on the verdicts? I may have missed it but when are their reporters in court?

I'm really not sure how him asking the people how they felt about their verdicts has put the cases in jeopardy. Maybe it's just that our supposed justice system is so weak, pathetic and worried about offending certain groups.

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yet he went into the court on the morning and there was no mention of this reporting ban?

If there was a reporting ban how come the BBC had already reported on the verdicts? I may have missed it but when are their reporters in court?

I'm really not sure how him asking the people how they felt about their verdicts has put the cases in jeopardy. Maybe it's just that our supposed justice system is so weak, pathetic and worried about offending certain groups.

There is no point arguing about this. Most the facts will be made up anyway.

I assume that Robinson is guilty as the courts found him to be so. I have more belief in the courts than alt-right posts on the facebook or the twitter.

People's opinions on Robinson are so boring. He is boring and so predictable. Fair play to him though, he's making a good living out of (faux) race hate. That is all that matters.

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

There is no point arguing about this. Most the facts will be made up anyway.

I assume that Robinson is guilty as the courts found him to be so. I have more belief in the courts than alt-right posts on the facebook or the twitter.

People's opinions on Robinson are so boring. He is boring and so predictable. Fair play to him though, he's making a good living out of (faux) race hate. That is all that matters.

I thought the courts originally found him not guilty but then decided they'd have another go? 

It's ok saying there's no point discussing it but this is free speech that is at stake, it should make absolutely no difference who is on trial.

Just to point out, Islam is not a race by the way.

[Sasha]

13 hours ago, eddie said:

If Margaret Thatcher had been PM, still a member of the Tory party or even alive, the country would not have contemplated such an example of collective delusionist insanity in the first place.

An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman went into a pub. The Englishman didn't like it so they all had to leave.

Well our freedom party well in the planning. Winners win losers lose. That's the way cookie crumbles. Never mind 

[Stive Pesley]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I thought the courts originally found him not guilty but then decided they'd have another go? 

No - they found him guilty and he went to prison. His lawyer then got him released on a technicality, and he was tried again. They still found him guilty

Bottom line is that a UK court found him guilty - it went through due process. Arguing that they are wrong is pointless. Ask any real journalist about the rules around reporting ongoing trials. They all know. It's journalism basics.

Ironic really that Sharia Law has nothing about "contempt of court" - so if we were under Sharia Law (as TR like to bang on about) he'd be a free man right now. But no - he thinks Muslims should abide by the UK legal system. He really can't have it both ways can he?

 

[Sith Happens]

19 hours ago, 1of4 said:

I dispair for our nation at times. When the parents of a young girl killed in a hit and run, are stopped by the court from reading out their impact statement in full because it might upset the driver of the car that killed their daughter. 

How have we as a society become more concerned about the feelings of a murderer than that that of the victim and thier family?

 

18 hours ago, Norman said:

Depends if the murderer is at a high risk of self-harm or suicide. You have to think about the people who are now in charge of his care.

I'm not defending anything here. The murderer  will serve whatever our society and therefore the courts decide. He still has Human Rights. Someone is in charge of that person and decisons are therefore taken under law.

If it was me, i would let them read the statement. If i was in charge of someone who kept running into cell walls to split their head open because they couldn't deal with what they have done, then  i might choose not to let him hear it. Not yet, anyway.

I don't know anything of the case. But sometimes decisions might not seem what they are at first glance.

It is a disgrace.

The guilty party was in a stolen car, doing 83 in a 30, ran 2 red lights, mounted the pavement and hit the poor little girl. Him and his passenger then ran away from the scene, going over her as she lay fatally injured.

He then fled abroad, before eventually coming back and pleading guilty.

He will serve less than 5 years provided he keeps his nose clean in Prison.

He should not only be made to listen to the full statement the parents wanted to read on court, he should be serving a lot longer. This wasn't a mistake it was a premeditated act.

Sadly Norman you are right, he does have Human Rights, but then the girl and her grandma had the right to walk on the pavement safely without being hit by this scumbag.

 

[G STAR RAM]

9 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

No - they found him guilty and he went to prison. His lawyer then got him released on a technicality, and he was tried again. They still found him guilty

Bottom line is that a UK court found him guilty - it went through due process. Arguing that they are wrong is pointless. Ask any real journalist about the rules around reporting ongoing trials. They all know. It's journalism basics.

Ironic really that Sharia Law has nothing about "contempt of court" - so if we were under Sharia Law (as TR like to bang on about) he'd be a free man right now. But no - he thinks Muslims should abide by the UK legal system. He really can't have it both ways can he?

 

"Leeds court, admitted that there had been an “administration process failure” that day and details of orders imposed on the case had not been posted outside courtrooms or logged on the computer system. Confirming that an internal inquiry had been launched to establish why orders had not been posted, she explained that all staff knew to tell anyone who asked that strict reporting restrictions had been imposed on the trial."

Think we all know that if this has been anyone other than TR, based on the above statement, this would never have even made it to court.

[ariotofmyown]

13 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I thought the courts originally found him not guilty but then decided they'd have another go? 

It's ok saying there's no point discussing it but this is free speech that is at stake, it should make absolutely no difference who is on trial.

Just to point out, Islam is not a race by the way.

Our grandfathers died fighting the original alt-right so we had the freedom to collapse complex trials.

I see Robinson as our Martin Luther King, bravely standing up for us oppressed white men. All we want is to say anything we like regardless of consequences.

[Norman]

32 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

 

It is a disgrace.

The guilty party was in a stolen car, doing 83 in a 30, ran 2 red lights, mounted the pavement and hit the poor little girl. Him and his passenger then ran away from the scene, going over her as she lay fatally injured.

He then fled abroad, before eventually coming back and pleading guilty.

He will serve less than 5 years provided he keeps his nose clean in Prison.

He should not only be made to listen to the full statement the parents wanted to read on court, he should be serving a lot longer. This wasn't a mistake it was a premeditated act.

Sadly Norman you are right, he does have Human Rights, but then the girl and her grandma had the right to walk on the pavement safely without being hit by this scumbag.

 

Those who have to control him in custody have a right to life. Those people's families have the right not to live in fear. If court dates or the mention of the crime itself is a trigger to violence, self-harm or suicide, would you have the same opinion?

Say he likes to assault staff when triggered by upcoming court dates. He likes to strap his razor blades to toothbrushes to slash their faces. Or maybe he just prefers to walk up behind staff and smack them. Maybe he has mental illnesses or learning difficulties that are yet to be understood or diagnosed that lead to this behaviour. Maybe he likes to throw buckets of poo on staff, or cut himself to the point his cell looks like a murder scene. 

If he does this because of upcoming court dates, or the inability to face his crime yet, what do you think his behaviour would be like after sentencing?

There may be a time and a place for that statement to be read to him. Just not now. Not everyone thinks and behaves like you, unfortunately.

Like i said, there will be a very good reason why that decision was taken.

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Our grandfathers died fighting the original alt-right so we had the freedom to collapse complex trials.

I see Robinson as our Martin Luther King, bravely standing up for us oppressed white men. All we want is to say anything we like regardless of consequences.

Well I can't speak for everyone but I certainly know what my grandad would say about something like this, so please don't use peoples grandparents to try and make a point.

I still await to hear from anyone how come the other reporters, who's reports he quoted from, have not been taken to court for breaching this 'reporting ban'? Maybe you can help me there?

I also still await to hear what TR says is so abhorrent or why we should not even discuss the issues he raises? I don't need you to answer this though because I already know the answer. 

Your last paragraph is just tripe I'm afraid and is just the ttypical sort of response given hence why these issues, which are important to many, cannot be discussed.

[McRamFan]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

I still await to hear from anyone how come the other reporters, who's reports he quoted from, have not been taken to court for breaching this 'reporting ban'? Maybe you can help me there?

There has been countless links been posted that relate to this, if you are unable, or carry on ignoring the facts it is pointless carrying on. 

[Sith Happens]

1 hour ago, Norman said:

Those who have to control him in custody have a right to life. Those people's families have the right not to live in fear. If court dates or the mention of the crime itself is a trigger to violence, self-harm or suicide, would you have the same opinion?

Say he likes to assault staff when triggered by upcoming court dates. He likes to strap his razor blades to toothbrushes to slash their faces. Or maybe he just prefers to walk up behind staff and smack them. Maybe he has mental illnesses or learning difficulties that are yet to be understood or diagnosed that lead to this behaviour. Maybe he likes to throw buckets of poo on staff, or cut himself to the point his cell looks like a murder scene. 

If he does this because of upcoming court dates, or the inability to face his crime yet, what do you think his behaviour would be like after sentencing?

There may be a time and a place for that statement to be read to him. Just not now. Not everyone thinks and behaves like you, unfortunately.

Like i said, there will be a very good reason why that decision was taken.

People should have to face up to what they have done. It that means having the details of their crime read out to them in court then so be it.

If all of what you say is possible, then facing the detail of what he did is hardly going to be the only trigger. If its considered possible that hearing the details of his crime is going to make him do all of those things, then he needs to be handled accordingly behind bars, they can't tick a box and say 'oh we let the poor mite off from hearing the gory details, he will be ok now, safe as houses i reckon'.

As you say there possibly was a good reason, or maybe there wasn't. We don't know.

To be honest as i said before the length of his sentence sickens me more, there were no mitigating circumstances here, it wasn't someone doing 38 in a 30 and hitting a child who has run into the road, if he doesnt do any of what you said he will be free in just a few short years.