Tommy Robinson GUILTY Started by Plutonium, 6th July 2019 16:39 in News & Current Affairs

Tommy Robinson has been found guilty of contempt of court.

Robinson interfered with the trial of men accused of sexual grooming in Leeds, by live-streaming a video from outside the court, and "aggressively confronting and filming" some of the defendants.

I think this verdict is correct. In England we have strict rules about non-interference with the course of justice to ensure that defendants have a fair trial. Robinson's actions endangered the trial being abandoned, at a cost of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money. It would also have defeated the object of Robinson's actions, since he presumably wanted to see the men convicted.

It's not about what you think of his political views, but his actions in this case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48887440

Plutonium said: ▲ Tommy Robinson has been found guilty of contempt of court. Robinson interfered with the trial of men accused of sexual grooming in Leeds, by live-streaming a video from outside the court, and "aggressively confronting and filming" some of the defendants. I think this verdict is correct. In England we have strict rules about non-interference with the course of justice to ensure that defendants have a fair trial. Robinson's actions endangered the trial being abandoned, at a cost of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money. It would also have defeated the object of Robinson's actions, since he presumably wanted to see the men convicted. It's not about what you think of his political views, but his actions in this case. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48887440

Is that the Tommy Robinson Fork Me is friendly with?

Plutonium said: ▲ I think this verdict is correct. In England we have strict rules about non-interference with the course of justice to ensure that defendants have a fair trial. Robinson's actions endangered the trial being abandoned, at a cost of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money. It would also have defeated the object of Robinson's actions, since he presumably wanted to see the men convicted.

The money is irrelevent to me, it's the fact that his actions could have seen those men get off scott free on a technicality. He's scum, he wasn't there to support the victims, he was there to push his own racist agenda and get publicity for Tommy.

I hope the pieve of shit gets the maximum sentence possible.

Fork Me said: ▲ The money is irrelevent to me

Maybe because you don't pay UK taxes?

Plutonium said: ▲ Maybe because you don't pay UK taxes?

No, because I think putting child molesters behind bars where they can't harm any more children is worth whatever it costs. The fact that, had the scum Robinson's stupid antics caused a mistrial, these scumbags could be free to abuse more children is way more important than the cost, whatever it is.

You can try and pathetically reduce this to "who pays taxes" however you want, but be aware, not everyone on this forum is as childish as you and Scrot.

Fork Me said: ▲ No, because I think putting child molesters behind bars where they can't harm any more children is worth whatever it costs. .

I don't believe this is your motivation.

It is rampant political correctness and the fear of the police and others of being accused of racism or Islamaphobia that allowed rampant child abuse to proliferate in the first place.

The police and other have even admitted it themselves.

England's rules in this area are extremely strict compared to America and possibly too strict.

Let's not forget the super injunction farce.

Fork Me said: ▲ No, because I think putting child molesters behind bars where they can't harm any more children is worth whatever it costs. The fact that, had the scum Robinson's stupid antics caused a mistrial, these scumbags could be free to abuse more children is way more important than the cost, whatever it is. You can try and pathetically reduce this to "who pays taxes" however you want, but be aware, not everyone on this forum is as childish as you and Scrot.

As I said myself, "It would also have defeated the object of Robinson's actions, since he presumably wanted to see the men convicted", which is obviously the main point. But we cannot ignore the financial aspect, trials costs huge amounts of taxpayers' money, money which could be spent on other things, and if the trial collapses because of an idiot like Robinson, that is simply money down the drain. That this doesn't matter to you because it isn't money you have paid, seems a reasonable point to me. However, you have, as usual, chosen to turn it into a petty personal issue, so hold a mirror to yourself and ask yourself who is really being childish here.

parsonstreet said: ▲ I don't believe ...

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you believe.

I post honestly, and if you want to reply based purely on you assuming otherwise then you are a total irrelevence to me.

Plutonium said: ▲ That this doesn't matter to you because it isn't money you have paid,

...and here we go again, another complete and utter tosser who can't argue against what I said so makes stupid and ikcorrect assumptions about my motives.

Whether or not I pay taxes in the UK is irrelevent to what I posted. I would have posted exactly the same if I still lived in the UK.

I repeat, and see if you can get it into your thick head this time, preventing children getting abused is way more important than the money spent. The money pales into insignificance. The fact they could have got off is not an "also" AFAIAC, it's the only important thing.

BTW, I refer you to my sig.