• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tommy Robinson Arrested For Filming Child Grooming Gang

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Hayabusa Rider said:
I can already envision what Republicans will attempt. I was wondering about their opposition and you've provided your opinion. Props on that. Not many can it seems.
Click to expand...
Just wait until sh!t starts hitting the fan on this decision. Effectively it's a green light for corporations to steal employee wages, since arbitration is rigged against the employees, and it's not cost effective to contest each case individually without class action status. It's only a matter of time before the corporations take it to its logical extreme and we have a massive scandal. Democrats should run against the right wing SCOTUS, it's going to be a winner for them.
 
Victorian Gray said:
The issue is not whether or not he's a journalist. The issue is, he knowingly broke the law and was duly arrested for doing so.
Click to expand...

Only thing that bugs me about this, then, is how he caught their attention in the first place. A guy standing on the street using his cell phone actually stood out to them, and presented itself as cause to arrest him? I'm either getting too damn old for this world and/or am simply not aware of just how provocative his presence was.
 
Jaskalas said:
Only thing that bugs me about this, then, is how he caught their attention in the first place. A guy standing on the street using his cell phone actually stood out to them, and presented itself as cause to arrest him? I'm either getting too damn old for this world and/or am simply not aware of just how provocative his presence was.
Click to expand...

Look up the guy's history/background. He knew exactly what he was doing when he did it. He wants to be a martyr for the cause and he succeeded. He plead guilty and got 13 months. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 
Jackass got 13 months. Enjoy the porridge.

EDL founder Tommy Robinson jailed for contempt of court

"Tommy Robinson, the founder of the far-right English Defence League, has been jailed for 13 months for contempt of court.

The 35-year-old’s sentence can be revealed after a judge lifted reporting restrictions on the case on Tuesday. The case had been widely discussed on social media, where rightwing activists claimed that the restrictions amounted to state censorship.

Robinson was arrested on Friday after broadcasting an hour-long video over Facebook from outside Leeds crown court. In the video he made comments that risked causing a trial to collapse.

Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court. He was arrested, charged and sentenced within five hours.

A court order is in place to prevent any reporting of the details of the trial in question. Another court order preventing reporting of Robinson’s arrest and the subsequent court proceedings was lifted on Tuesday after a challenge by Leeds Live and the Independent.

The restriction was put in place temporarily to prevent reporting on the Robinson case prejudicing the outcome of the first trial. It was lifted after a judge heard submissions that the order was already being widely violated by members of the public online.

Robinson attempted to film defendants entering the court and spoke about the case. The video was viewed more than 250,000 times."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/29/edl-founder-tommy-robinson-jailed-13-months
 
Yet another epic thread backfire on the OP. And yet again tied to race with the usual suspects coming in and trying to defend a guy who violated probation, court orders, and threatened to have the integrity of a trial undermined thus letting child groomers go free.

This is a trend.

giphy.gif
 
senseamp said:
We got a SCOTUS that just voted along party lines to deny 60 Million workers their right to sue, but we are supposed to focus on what a court in the UK is doing instead?
Click to expand...
If you do not protest the violation of the rights of others, why should anyone protest when they violate yours ?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I knew it. I absolutely called it. Not only did you ignore the question but you went with "poor Tommy" as your strawman. Something over which the Dems have no control? You invented that, naturally. The question was explicitly about once they acquire control. Andy By God Jackson, you think they won't, do you?

Once in power will the Dems change the laws, revoking past ones as well, and make this right.

One word answer. Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Once they gain control? You mean the Presidency, the HOR & a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?

That's pretty far out, don't you think?

But you're going for the they're just as bad routine as if that mitigates this ideologically driven decision from the SCOTUS.
 
Jhhnn said:
Once they gain control? You mean the Presidency, the HOR & a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?

That's pretty far out, don't you think?

But you're going for the they're just as bad routine as if that mitigates this ideologically driven decision from the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Since you have decided to channel Sarah Sanders, I'll have to go with "no", they won't even try, unless you would care to man up and answer the question.

Here, I'll work this like I might for a legalistic pre-teen.

  1. "Given that the Democrats gain control of at least one part of Congress, will they attempt to legislate in order to explicitly revoke old law and replace it as to remedy the issue of forced arbitration, Yes or no?
  2. "If Democrats gain control of Congress in its entirety, will the Dems in Congress do the above and also pass it? Yes or no"
  3. The above is intended to elicit your opinion on the above two questions with a binary answer. It does not bind you to be correct after the fact as that would demand a certainty no one can provide. Only a "Yes" or "No" is a proper answer. Any addition or diversion is hereby deemed to be tantamount to an answer of "NO" to both questions. If you can put faith in your chosen then neither should anyone else.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Since you have decided to channel Sarah Sanders, I'll have to go with "no", they won't even try, unless you would care to man up and answer the question.

Here, I'll work this like I might for a legalistic pre-teen.

  1. "Given that the Democrats gain control of at least one part of Congress, will they attempt to legislate in order to explicitly revoke old law and replace it as to remedy the issue of forced arbitration, Yes or no?
  2. "If Democrats gain control of Congress in its entirety, will the Dems in Congress do the above and also pass it? Yes or no"
  3. The above is intended to elicit your opinion on the above two questions with a binary answer. It does not bind you to be correct after the fact as that would demand a certainty no one can provide. Only a "Yes" or "No" is a proper answer. Any addition or diversion is hereby deemed to be tantamount to an answer of "NO" to both questions. If you can put faith in your chosen then neither should anyone else.
Click to expand...

If Congress didn't intend to overrule an old law, why did they write a new one?
 
Jaskalas said:
Only thing that bugs me about this, then, is how he caught their attention in the first place. A guy standing on the street using his cell phone actually stood out to them, and presented itself as cause to arrest him? I'm either getting too damn old for this world and/or am simply not aware of just how provocative his presence was.
Click to expand...

Uh, its not like they don't know who the guy is. He's gone out of his way to make himself a bit of a celebrity. Plus, they do have cameras and are very likely using facial recognition tech, especially in areas around court houses since there's a higher probability of something occurring there.

Plus, I mean, sure, if you ignore that the judge told this fuckin dipshit specifically not to do what he did for a reason (maybe because he's prone to doing that?), sure maybe you could be bugged and surprised that he happened to end up doing it. I don't know, maybe they'd be on the lookout for him doing it? Nah...
 
Jhhnn said:
If Congress didn't intend to overrule an old law, why did they write a new one?
Click to expand...

I assume you concede? Very well.

Civics 101- When a new law is created it does not of itself repeal old statutes. This is why you see at the beginning of statutes "Repealed- Sections such and such paragraph something or other"

Did the newer law revoke the Federal Arbitration Act? That would also be a yes or no. If repealed then the SCOTUS could not have considered it.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
Uh, its not like they don't know who the guy is. He's gone out of his way to make himself a bit of a celebrity. Plus, they do have cameras and are very likely using facial recognition tech, especially in areas around court houses since there's a higher probability of something occurring there.

Plus, I mean, sure, if you ignore that the judge told this fuckin dipshit specifically not to do what he did for a reason (maybe because he's prone to doing that?), sure maybe you could be bugged and surprised that he happened to end up doing it. I don't know, maybe they'd be on the lookout for him doing it? Nah...
Click to expand...


Dude was live streaming on FB. He wasn't trying to hide, he wanted to be a "martyr"
 
umbrella39 said:
Zero fucks given as per usual OP...
Click to expand...

STFU You worthless POS. This guy was arrested then sentenced on the same day for filming meanwhile the rapists who raped little children get a trial while this guy goes right to jail. His supporters are already marching on the streets demanding his release.
 
Incorruptible said:
STFU You worthless POS. This guy was arrested then sentenced on the same day for filming meanwhile the rapists who raped little children get a trial while this guy goes right to jail. His supporters are already marching on the streets demanding his release.
Click to expand...

So, of you read his history, you realize this is not accurate. He was given a trial for his original offense, sentenced, then a judge commuted his sentence for 18 months as long as he didn't reoffend in those 18months, and now when he did, he got tossed back in the slammer.
 
Incorruptible said:
STFU You worthless POS. This guy was arrested then sentenced on the same day for filming meanwhile the rapists who raped little children get a trial while this guy goes right to jail. His supporters are already marching on the streets demanding his release.
Click to expand...


Apparently you don't understand what happened. He was under court order to not pull that stunt AGAIN and the fucktard did it anyway. Are you defending people that violate terms of commuted sentence now?
 
Incorruptible said:
STFU You worthless POS. This guy was arrested then sentenced on the same day for filming meanwhile the rapists who raped little children get a trial while this guy goes right to jail. His supporters are already marching on the streets demanding his release.
Click to expand...

Are you fucking stupid?

He was ordered not to do this again. Why? Because his actions could help THE ACCUSED by creating the appearance of bias in a criminal trial that can be used on appeal to FREE the fucking child rapists.
 
ch33zw1z said:
So, of you read his history, you realize this is not accurate. He was given a trial for his original offense, sentenced, then a judge commuted his sentence for 18 months as long as he didn't reoffend in those 18months, and now when he did, he got tossed back in the slammer.
Click to expand...

Well, yeh, but he's like totally innocent, man.
 
Amused said:
Are you fucking stupid?

He was ordered not to do this again. Why? Because his actions could help THE ACCUSED by creating the appearance of bias in a criminal trial that can be used on appeal to FREE the fucking child rapists.
Click to expand...

Seriously, he just had to wait until the trial was over, but I guess then he wouldn't get so much attention on his "journalism" feed
 
Incorruptible said:
STFU You worthless POS. This guy was arrested then sentenced on the same day for filming meanwhile the rapists who raped little children get a trial while this guy goes right to jail. His supporters are already marching on the streets demanding his release.
Click to expand...

Ah and here comes the pocket pussy Etough guy! Make me STFU you America hating 3rd world twat... When you sack up come back for some more...
 
Incorruptible said:
STFU You worthless POS. This guy was arrested then sentenced on the same day for filming meanwhile the rapists who raped little children get a trial while this guy goes right to jail. His supporters are already marching on the streets demanding his release.
Click to expand...

You do understand, I hope, that you are carrying water for someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a modern Nazi. Have fun with that.
 
ElFenix said:
the two laws are about different stuff. it's the intersection of them that's the problem.
Click to expand...

It's the GOP beating down the little guy with the technicality of Catch22.

It's all ideological, of course. Multinational corporations now have more leverage over the little guy. It'll all trickle down. MAGA like it's 1925.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top