The UK is now a fascist state and must be overthrown by force.

Well that is for the UK's courts to decide and it was the second time he did it when on suspended sentence for the first.

 

All governments are self serving and engage in corruption to serve themselves. Sadly, it is human nature.

 

Of course he did which I repeated more than once.

He was not the only one filming in this incident in fact his arrest was filmed by others.

The law in question protects no one in any way it is selectively enforced by the thought police. It is not strictly for the courts to decide it is something to be judged by other thinking people. Which is precisely what this thread is about. They knew about grooming gangs for over a decade but did little or nothing about them because they are overwhelming muslim. Yet anyone questioning or discussing this is immediately hit with full force of the law.

Robinson may be a shady character and he has broken the law but he is also trying to call attention to specific heinous injustices in UK law which place the UK in the category of a police state and not a modern civilized nation.

The british should be hanging their heads in shame.

As I keep mentioning he is only the latest of people to be treated outrageously by the UK. Canadians and other european commentators such as Lauren Southern have been banned from the UK because they are not pro muslim immigration. They wished to examine the UK policies of tolerance for radical muslim violence but this is not permitted.

Dankula narrowly avoided jail time and instead was slapped with a hefty fine merely for making a film about a dog imitating a nazi salute. In addition the UK government has ordered the removal of films about Robinson's arrest from UK websites.

While everyone gushed and got all tingly over Harry marrying a mixed race American the world ignored that the UK has become a totalitarian nightmare.

 

Unless the government fears the people, and not the other way around, the government will always become tyrannical in time. Only the threat of armed uprising will keep a government in check. Government will continue to become more and more restrictive until the people say "no more", and have the hard power in the form of weaponry to back it up. Soft power in the form of protests and petitions will change nothing. The brits condemned themselves to tyranny when they meekly agreed to disarm themselves.

 

Yes it is no coincidence.that thy were stripped of arms and then of freedom of speech

Yes it is no coincidence that the british people were stripped of weapons and then the freedom of speech.

Our first amendment is our most cherished one but exists only because of the second,

 

Discussing things which could make the trial null and void are not allowed. You cannot discuss things about a trial which can influence the outcome which it is not difficult to imagine Tommy was doing.

He was charged with contempt of court.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ooming-trial-edl-founder-latest-a8368821.html

That is what the court ruled he was guilty of and put in the gagging order so that this case would not have to be thrown out of court. If Robinson was saying as you appear to be suggesting that if these people got off it was because of some failure or prejudice of the court, then he certainly will have been acting in a way which could prejudice justice and was correctly arrested. He knew he was on a suspended sentence and that acting in the same way again would likely get him a prison sentence. No doubt that was what he wanted so that people like yourself could make posts like you have.

For having an Independent Judiciary and not allowing people to prejudice that, I do not think so.

What I get is that you do not like some people who go against British law receiving the appropriate punishment. Law is the law whoever is getting it. Just because you like their political position does not allow them to avoid the law which I am sure you would be very quick to see imposed on those you do not like.

No it is absolutely nothing to do with being pro Muslim. Indeed many Muslims have not been allowed entry either because of their support for Palestine and one Muslim was allowed in when half the Muslims in the UK had asked that he be not allowed.

What is annoying is that the UK has made it impossible for its citizens to do Universal jurisdiction to save Israelis from arrest when they enter the UK.

The UK has zero tolerance for this. I think they tend to keep neo nazis out and others who they can see are just trying to incite hate. Regardless of political opinion everyone thinks someone who has been kept out has been kept out because of the bias of the government - which most certainly should not be a reason for this.

Yes, I think probably the court was right that he was just using that as a mask. Had it not been he would I would think immediately have asked one or two of the celebs including Jews who were speaking up for him to support him in an appeal. Instead of this he got himself involved with Tommy Robinson and others - speaks for itself really. He had already got thousands of pounds on line from an appeal - he will have paid his fine out of that and have plenty left over.

Ok. RaeRaeb give the paper on the reason for gagging.

I didn't even watch it. You mean in the US? You have a problem with him marrying a mixed race woman?

 

The problem is, the UK is a compromised government filled with fascists. They are not serving the best interest of the UK people.

 

LOL he got off very very lightly as I can not see a US judge or a US court allowing him to disobey a direct order by the court not to film and only sentencing him to a few months given his past record.

 

He was videotaping in public, not inside the court house. You're justifying a police state, how shameful.

 

Yes you can discuss anything about a trial but not INSIDE the court. He was outside the court house in a public are and discussing nothing but was instead trying to learn about the trial. Such rules about discussing the trial do not apply outside. In fact the UK does not apply it to others in this specific case but only against one person who they deem politically unacceptable.

Once again I have already admitted he did indeed break the law and is responsible for his actions. But that is all irrelevant. The problem is the nature of the totalitarian law itself.

I never said I like his political position what you seem to ignore is that his political position is the basis for enforcing this law against him and that is the issue at hand. What ever his beliefs may be he has the right to them in a truly free society. The fact that he has no right to express them in the UK is a sound judgement of the UK and what it has become.

Yes they should hang their heads in shame no one threatened the judiciary. The law is being used to stamp out prejudice in general. Freedom of speech applies to prejudices as well as any other expression or freedom of speech means nothing as it did in the USSR and Still does in North Korea. the UK is emulating those nations by touting free speech while ignoring it and shredding it.


I have no problem whatsoever with anyone marrying who ever they want. My point was that the glamour and celebrity status of the royals blinds people to what the UK has become which is a backwards regressive nation unworthy of the term civilized. It was others on you tube and social media who made a big deal of Markle being mixed race. As far as I know she and harry are simply a couple in love and wish to be married. Good for them. But marrying a mixed race woman is seen by some as a sign of the UK becoming more progressive which the case of Robinson proves false.

Also they are not opposing neo nazis coming into their country they are opposing people with dissenting ideas. Lauren Southern is no neo nazi or even remotely close to one. Neither is anyone else they have banned or even Robinson.

Even if they were trying to silence neo nazis it only reflects the hypocrisy of the british government on free speech.

It applies to all even neo nazis or it means nothing.

 

It is not a light sentence at all it is a likely to be de facto death sentence. Currently in the UK the dominant prison gangs are muslim and they hate robinson.

The judge acknowledged this during the sentencing and stated Robinson knew the risks.

I find it cannot see a court or judge placing limitations of this type on a parolee. Just as an analogy in some states felons have the right to vote ( in others not ) I have never heard of a judge suspending a parolee's right to vote because it is a basic right in some states.

They specifically forbade him from exercising free speech because freedom of speech is precisely what the government opposes.

Incidentally they did sentence him for violating a court order but that was not what he was arrested for. He was arrested for breach of the peace which is unjustifiable. He was not part of an unruly crowd he was not inciting anyone or raising his voice he was simply filming.

 

Delete

 

So the UK prison system for some reason can not just lock him up in a cell by himself for 23 hours a day only allowing him out for an hour under supervision as would happen in the US with a similar prisoner?

The US keep child rapists and other low lives alive by not allowing them into the general population for that matter.

Not that it would be a great lost to human kind to have something bad happen to him but I see no reason that it should happen.

 

Nah let them stew awhile! Might help remind them of what they blead for in WW1.

 

[/QUOTE]
They can but there is no sign that they will.

In fact from what I have seen about that issue the UK legal system requires some sort of petition to the courts to get him segregated otherwise he is in general population.

I work in a prison and we do sometimes segregate pedophiles but not as often as you think. They are most commonly in general pop. We prevent inmate on inmate murder by controlling the movement and action of the inmates in general.

 

No, we can't. Even in reporting before trial our news are limited in what they can say.

It is to not allow things to be said which will prejudice the case. If this is allowed to happen it makes the case invalid and the accused goes free. Robinson known this.

Which remains if he was, as the court decided, involved in activity which could prejudice that case then he was correctly arrested and had they not arrested him and allowed him to carry on then the accused solicitor could have pleaded for no trial as he had prejudiced it. That would result in the accused going free. Robinson knows this.

His activity could have resulted in the accused being set free without trial and punishment due to him prejudicing the trial. Like I said in the UK there are very strict rules on this and even our news have to be very careful what they say and that they do not act in a prejudiced way before any trial they are talking about. This is Britain. This is British law and the reason for it is to give protection to ensure a fair and free trial.

One person's free speech can interfere with another person's freedom from fear and so on. I am not sure whether or to how much I agree with this law. However on free speech while going along with what you say about it being to keep out prejudice I think what Popper had to say on tolerance is relevant. You are asking for total tolerance to say whatever you want regardless of what this leads to

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25998-the-so-called-paradox-of-freedom-is-the-argument-that-freedom

Criticism of the liberals in 1930's Germany was that they kept trying to convince the nazis of their position. They felt that if they could touch the Nazis they would understand. They continued being tolerant of intolerance and that intolerance destroyed their tolerant society. This is something people have become aware of in study as to how Nazism got its grip on German society and certainly up until recently there has been a definite decision not to allow this to happen again.

In additions democracies have a responsibility to protect minorities against the majority due to everyone having equal rights in them.

Don't be ridiculous.

Neo nazis were the last I was aware of trying to come in from Poland. The concern was they would upset our Polish community. I said it seemed to be mainly those they believed were coming to incite hate which is against British Law.

No it allies to the belief that free speech has limits when dealing with intolerance and when needed to protect minorities. If free speech results in the destruction of the free society then the word free is inaccurate.

 

You would think that anyone given the task of being his legal representative would file any such needed request as a matter of course in his case.

Unless he is looking to be a martyr or thinking that anti Muslims prison gangs members will offer him protection.

In either case good luck to him.

 

Footnote for myself I like the idea that in the UK there are limits to how must your name can be drag into the mud before you are found guilty of a crime or not.

It always hit me as very unfair that a man can be charge with the crime of rape and his name can be on the front page of every newspaper in the US but the woman who file such charges ID is protected.

I recall when a very very famous magician was charge with rape on a private island he had flown the woman to of all things and his name was soil for months on end until it came out that the 'lady' was running a blackmail con on a number of men and was arrested herself for doing so.

 

I don't want the UK to get to the point where it can't be saved. I'd rather they start their mass demonstrations now and nip these open border scum in the bud. I promise you that one million angry British patriots will get the left to calm down a bit. It's time London and Birmingham stop dictating the UK's future.

 

Good luck

 

Yes we can and you are quite wrong.

Outside the court room we have endless commentary and discussions about media and others over any trial that captures ratings. Just for examples the cosby trial or the simpson trial there was no limit on what anyone outside the court room could discuss or talk or speculate about. This is why in some cases the jury is sequestered. They are sequestered because the court cannot control what others say about the trial.


Robinson said nothing what so ever to prejudice anyone he filmed and ASKED. Again that law fails the logic test and it is a selectively applied law only to a few which is why we have no such similar law here.

There is no reasonable way whatsoever for him to have prejudiced or influenced the trial which is why the law is an atrocity and being used to oppress free speech.

One persons freedom of speech cannot interfere with anyone;s freedom at all. There is no right to freedom from fear and can never be as fear is an emotion which everyone feels for one reason or another and it is an individual responsibility to control and live with it. I am not asking for total tolerance from others i am stating it is not free speech if government force is used to stop it. Yes the government MUST tolerate it and there is no excuse moral or otherwise for anything less. This is why hate speech is and should be protected in any nation which respects freedom of speech such as the USA. You may face serious social consequences for hate speech but the government cannot touch you for it. The brits have abandoned this principle and now their government is prosecuting thought crime.

Equal rights do not exist if governments are protecting the rights of minorities over the rights of others. By definition such protections are Unequal rights or special privileges.

I was being factual and accurate not ridiculous. The UK has become an orwellian, regressive nightmare regardless of how hot their latest princess is.

Minorities are not threatened by free speech and to claim they are is a lie. To use government force to police free speech in the name of tolerance for minorities is a massive exercise in hypocrisy as it violates the rights of the most persecuted minority in human history which is precisely who civilized governments should be protecting.

 

I admit i have not researched that specific detail yet but I believe it was requested that he be segregated and the request was ignored which is why some legal experts have said a special petition must now be accepted by the royal court which they may or may not ignore.

 

no, I am not. You are. You can keep saying the UK justice system is wrong where it is not the US justice system but that does not make you correct,

Right so Robinson was arrested to prevent this happening in this instance.

As I have already told you it is something which our media is very aware it has to pay attention to. If you are going to ignore everything I say and just repeat what you are saying, I will stop replying to you, not because you win but because it is a waste of time replying to a broken record who will not take in any information given.

That is in your view. The court felt differently. Given that you believe Uk courts are wrong to act as they do, to not allow people to prejudice a case which would mean it was unlikely to be able to get a fair trial it is irrelevant. You have already said that you believe anyone should say whatever they want any time. This communication is a waste of time because you are a closed book.

Here you are wrong

Well the UK believes in protecting it's minorities from people inciting others to hate or violence against them which would be expected to cause them fear - although I think the need to cause fear is an extra and restricted to Scotland. You can say what you like about them unless a reasonable person would expect that to cause fear. In England you just need to be inciting hatred or violence to be against the law. You can I imagine see why we keep some of your people out.

With reference to people excluded from Britain you were asking for tolerance towards the intolerant. A society which is tolerant towards the intolerant generally loses its freedoms to that intolerance.

Only excuse is to allow the intolerant in. The US apart from a brief spell in the 60's has not been a very tolerant society so possibly given that you benefit from white privileged you do not understand how that harms others.

Enjoy your authoritarian state.

and that was fairly effective for a while and probably punished people more than they were punished in the UK but it is now in danger of losing its effectiveness as you are in danger of moving into fascism.

No thoughts cannot be punished nor can desires. What can be punished is incitement to hate, incitement to violence or indulging in that violence yourself.

Wrong. The State gives minorities equal rights to safety by protecting them from the majority. Each person in a democracy has an equal right to that. We saw again in Nazi Germany what happened when the majority decided to take away those rights. I know the US has provision for this as I can remember Max Blumenthal speaking about it. They have a particular name but I cannot remember it. We also heard how during the election of Trump a very strange thing had happened in the US where saying things like 'mexican's are criminals/rapists' for example which would previously have been sufficient for someone to totally lose their vote, did not. As I said your previous 'social disapproval' has disappeared.

They allow people to know what is acceptable speech and what is not and they apply as much to a minority against the majority so are not unequal rights or special privileges.

You remain ridiculous even if you believe your foolery. You know precious little about the UK. I doubt you even know that Scotland has a different justice system to England.

maybe one day you should talk to some and see whether you are right.

To put this is to support your dubious personal view is a personal attack meaning you know your view is probably wrong.

No one 'polices' free speech. However if someone is noticed trying to incite hatred or violence they may be reported. The police would then need to decide if what they did fitted a crime.

Now what we have is you demanding people be tolerant of the intolerant. You claim social disapproval stops problems in the US. However that is no longer the case. As tolerance of intolerance leads to the destruction of tolerance and the destruction of the tolerant society that is where the US is headed.

That obviously suits you as you are supporting it. Thankfully there are many in the States who are working to stop this happening. I notice how 'tolerant' the right in the US is of them. Whatever happened to all those journalists who were arrested along with other innocent civilians, for reporting on protests soon after Trump was elected.

 

I never were wrong because they are not the USA. They are wrong because their law you cite fails the logic test and is strictly subjectively and selectively applied. That is fact you failed to address. It is an abusive law being used to silence dissent.

His arrest was predicated on that but as we have seen in recent history it was opinions which led to his arrest otherwise the other commentators and people filming would have been arrested as well.

You contradict yourself as making people feel fear is not the same as inciting hatred and mixing them up is merely excusing a police state which is what the UK is now.

I am not ignoring you I am correcting you the media can say whatever they please about any trial.

I am not wrong freedom does not in any way interfere with another person. My speech cannot harm you in any way shape or form.

A government which tolerates the intolerant never loses it's freedom you are in fact historically wrong and protecting racial or religious minorities ( or any other minority group ) violates the right of the most important and most oppressed minority making your view hypocritical and contradictory.

I stated fact not a view minorities are not threatened by free speech and to clam they are is a lie.

Yes social disapproval does stop such problems period you cannot demonstrate to the contrary. Which journalists do you mean who were arrested here? Name one.

 

Except that won't happen. The trial he was reporting on when he was arrested was 9 muslims who were charged with gang raping young girls. This has been going on in England for decades now, and nobody except Robinson even cared.

When an entire country can just sit back and watch as their women are kidnapped and gang raped for that long of a time, there's not going to be any mass demonstration.