Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect

The UK Brave Space For Shitposting and Other Opinions Thread

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

If it's from Robinson's crew BTW don't bother, they don't have a fucking clue what they are on about legally speaking (as their utter genius in getting themselves banged up clearly demonstrates), or for that matter, on any other subject.

 

PS - Keep in mind that Robinson's trial receives the same protections from the press as any other, whether the defendant likes it or not.

 

I haven't the foggiest idea who Tommy Robinson is, except in the context of this case.

The point is that Robinson's trial is over, so it shouldn't need a gag order. Why did they send one, then?

 

Here's an interesting critique of the gag order from someone I've never heard of before. Seems to be more detailed than what I've seen in American media (because the Brits can't talk about it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WaPo free is bugged for me on that article.  :(

 

Interesting article @Sturgeon but I can't say I agree with most of it, the judge's reasoning seems pretty damned sound to me;  It's not all about Robinson (except perhaps inside his demented little skull).....Why would any sane member of the judiciary let a known racist provocateur (it was this mob's videos that got Trump in trouble a while back) endanger another, vastly more significant, on-going trial with 49 defendants & 700 charges?  Robinson's case was solely related to this other trial and thus widespread reporting of it would likely be as prejudicial as Robinson's own ranting.

 

One other thing has occurred to me though.....The 49 defendants in the 'Grooming' trial very likely present a serious radicalisation risk for the future IMHO.....The offences they've been charged with place them in a very, very unpopular class of prisoner, they are mostly Muslims, so who are they likely to turn to for protection from the wrath of the general prison population?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Robinson's case was solely related to this other trial and thus widespread reporting of it would likely be as prejudicial as Robinson's own ranting.

 

How so? What's compromising about reporting that he was convicted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

What's compromising about reporting that he was convicted?

 

The risk of influencing the jury in the other trial is sufficient.....Do you think that the press (or the comments sections) would restrict themselves to reporting the facts?  All of them?

 

The British judiciary can be very pragmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

The risk of influencing the jury in the other trial is sufficient.....Do you think that the press (or the comments sections) would restrict themselves to reporting the facts?  All of them?

 

The British judiciary can be very pragmatic.

 

Um... But there's already a separate gag order for the other trial, right? So they already can't talk about it. Why is the second order necessary?

 

And all this seems fallacious to me anyway, especially in the internet age when any Brit can go online and read international news media talking about it. But I accept that the legality of it is different over there (just don't go trying to act like you've got free speech at the same time!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet I seem to be able to say what I want, both online and in person publically, without repercussions.....Strangeness indeed!  :o

 

I wonder if not being a racist prick about it might be a factor?  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Why is the second order necessary?

 

I refer the gentleman to my earlier statement:

 

12 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The British judiciary can be very pragmatic.

 

You and I both know that at least somebody would use the excuse that the gag order for the first trial didn't cover the second to produce prejudicial reporting.....Robinson would just love the trial to collapse so he could point the finger at the judiciary, this is his MO.  Look at his pathetic bleats in the last couple of lines in the Wiki article, claiming he had no idea he might prejudice the trial.  The cunt was convicted and received a suspended sentence (which he is now serving) for exactly that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

I refer the gentleman to my earlier statement:

 

 

You and I both know that at least somebody would use the excuse that the gag order for the first trial didn't cover the second to produce prejudicial reporting.....Robinson would just love the trial to collapse so he could point the finger at the judiciary, this is his MO.  Look at his pathetic bleats in the last couple of lines in the Wiki article, claiming he had no idea he might prejudice the trial.  The cunt was convicted and received a suspended sentence (which he is now serving) for exactly that!

 

I am gonna be honest, this mindset is so alien that there's very little connection I can make with it. Basically, you are describing to me how your government is prone to spontaneous and flagrant outbursts of inarguable tyranny "just because", and that it is just business as usual for judges to act on their own fiat because they feel like it. And it kinda sounds like you're fine with that, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

Not only that, but the Robinson case gag order has already been recalled, so clearly it wasn't such a risk after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude.....Our misunderstanding seems broader than that, in the UK the judiciary is an entirely separate branch of the state, this is nothing to do with the government whatsoever.  The judges are not acting on their own fiat, they are doing their job, which is to interpret and apply British law (including statutes sent to them by the government).

 

6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Not only that, but the Robinson case gag order has already been recalled, so clearly it wasn't such a risk after all.

 

He's out of the way and the message has been well & properly sent.....Job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Dude.....Our misunderstanding seems broader than that, in the UK the judiciary is an entirely separate branch of the state, this is nothing to do with the government whatsoever.

 

I realize that by the UK's definition they are not, but let's not keep up the pretense here. They have legal right to order people thrown in jail, that's pretty "governmental" to me.

 

8 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The judges are not acting on their own fiat, they are doing their job, which is to interpret and apply British law (including statutes sent to them by the government).

 

You say that as if they by definition cannot rule inappropriately. Because this seems obviously inappropriate to an American who isn't used to judges just making up the rules as they go along.

 

9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

He's out of the way and the message has been well & properly sent.....Job done.

 

Judges intimidating the press? What a healthy and free system you have over there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Yet I seem to be able to say what I want, both online and in person publically, without repercussions.....Strangeness indeed!  :o

 

I wonder if not being a racist prick about it might be a factor?  ;)

 

That's not freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

They have legal right to order people thrown in jail, that's pretty "governmental" to me.

 

 

Sorry no, that's a judicial power in the UK.....If the government want people locked up they make a case and present it to the judiciary for resolution (It's actually the same in the US I believe).

 

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

You say that as if they by definition cannot rule inappropriately. Because this seems obviously inappropriate to an American who isn't used to judges just making up the rules as they go along.

 

This is what the appeal system and the layers of superior courts are for (this too is the same in the US).

 

12 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Judges intimidating the press? What a healthy and free system you have over there.

 

Would you prefer the press intimidate the judiciary?  :o

 

If so Trump's fucked!  :lol:

 

11 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

That's not freedom of speech.

 

From my perspective much of what you consider free speech could alternatively be thought of as behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians may have hacked our elections, but WE hacked the ROYAL WEDDING.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/06/01/british-commentator-who-dominated-royal-wedding-coverage-exposed-as-tommy-from-new-york/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.200040868253

 

 

ExBuitmg.jpg
'British' commentator who dominated royal wedding coverage exposed as Tommy from New York Thomas J. Mace-Archer-Mills, ne Thomas Muscatello, grew up an hour north of Albany, N.Y. The Italian American then moved to Myrtle Beach, S.C., for college, where he studied politics and history. Soon, he started to work in real estate and gave himself a hyphenated last name, adding DeLaCroix to the end to give himself a boost in business with French Canadian clients. And somehow, in 2018, he and his latest, triple-barreled last name appeared in a number of media reports, on TV and radio, offering commentary on the royal wedding.
 
The self-described expert on the British monarchy spoke in a posh British accent and all. The best part: It seems that until this week, no one quite realized that the 38-year-old is not actually a Brit. The Wall Street Journal revealed Thursday that Mace-Archer-Mills, who spoke about British people in the first person, is from Upstate New York. The royal family commentator and staunch defender of the British monarchy has appeared in some of Britain's most reputable outlets, including the BBC and the Economist. He also serves as chairman of the British Monarchist Society and Foundation, which he founded in 2012. But it seems most British viewers and producers didn't pick up on his fake, posh accent, which he allegedly honed during a high school production of “Oliver!” and through visits to Britain. “I found where I'm supposed to be and who I am supposed to be,” Mace-Archer-Mills told the newspaper, explaining that he feels more connected to Britain than the United States. He even found an elderly British man who agreed that Mace-Archer-Mills could call him his grandfather.
 
He met him outside Buckingham Palace as a teenager. He often appeared in a bow tie, tweed jacket and cap. Speaking to a Norwegian TV channel just ahead of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's wedding in May, the American emphasized “keeping integrity, keeping formality and making sure that the traditions and heritage that we have as British people remain at the forefront.” Mace-Archer-Mills, whose latest last name is a concoction of relatives' and friends' surnames, is also the author of two books of cocktail recipes. The first is called “To The Queen … A Royal Drinkology” and the second “Their Majesties’ Mixers — When They Reign, They Pour.”
 
He also launched a new cryptocurrency called the Royal Coin. One of his high school teachers, Jim Miller, told the Wall Street Journal that during his production of “Oliver!,” Mace-Archer-Mills was “able to learn and duplicate a British accent and the appropriate mannerisms for his character, again all from his own research.” On the British Monarchist Society and Foundation's website, his biography says that he “has worked hard to incorporate like-minded people to be a part of this much-revered society within the United Kingdom, in which cumulatively, under Thomas’ direction, brings British traditions to the next level.” His father told the Wall Street Journal that as a child, “he told me, ‘Dad, someday I want to move over there and be part of what’s going on.' " Well, that he certainly did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

The Russians may have hacked our elections

 

Nope, that was probably us.....Probably working on your behalf, but definitely no Russians (unless they live in the US & work for the DNC).  ;)

 

If Tommy dominated the British coverage of events, I certainly didn't notice him.....Not that I watched much of it TBH, only what couldn't otherwise be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×