I'll just put this here...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/far-right-hero-is-a-convicted-paedophile-z6pb87rr2q5

Someone making a guilty plea does not a guilty person make.

[quote=leon1122 post_id=20603 time=1528591638 user_id=70]
Robinson wasn't harassing or attacking anyone, nor was he disrupting the court proceedings.
[/quote]

Stephen "Tommy Robinson" Yaxley-Lennon is not a journalsist. He is a nasty little fascist scumbag.

Some facts about these cases:

1: He plead *guilty* to the crimes he was charged with. So all these idiots claiming he's innocent don't seem to realise he admitted his guilt.

2: He has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the trials of paedophile gangs, in a way that is likely to let the paedophiles get free.

3: Yaxley-Lennon is a founder member of the English Defence League - which is full of paedophiles and sex criminals. Here is an example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defence-league-leigh-mcmillan-jailed-paedophile-old-bailey-a8231231.html

4: "Freedom of speech" obviously does not stretch to allowing people to ignore court judgements, and to risk allowing alleged paedophiles off the hook for their crimes by deliberately and knowingly undermining the criminal cases against them.

I rest my case.

Which is ironic given that one of the great classics of the literature of the USA is the book "To kill a Mockingbird". But then I suppose most people have given up reading anything longer than a tweet or Facebook post. So I shouldn't be surprised.

The point I am making sweetypie Leon is that vigilantes and lynch mobs are not a solution to an imperfect judicial system & we've got a mass murderer in jail who proves that point.
It's a curious cultural mythology in that gun infested nation, the USA, that of the vigilante who takes the law into his own hands and uses violence, often extreme violence to resolve a great Injustice. Just quietly, I think it really only happens in fictional movies.

Jousting generally interrupts court proceedings so I can absolutely understand their position on the matter.

I saw the jou cut off of thread title.

Immediately assumed UK Government was arresting Jousters

Are you seriously comparing an independent journalist with a mass murderer? Robinson wasn't harassing or attacking anyone, nor was he disrupting the court proceedings.

I think I've got those acid types the right way around. I recall that a most important thing when diluting a strong acid with water is not to add the water to the concentrated acid, but to carefully mix small.amounts of the concentrated acid into the diluting water

Well I have to go by what I've experienced and seen. And it's a fact, the worst mass in the State in which I live is ( I think it's John ) Bunting who was a self appointed Pedophile Hunter. As I posted .. Google.. Snowtown murders .. bodies in the barrels​. Ironically it was their lack of knowledge of chemistry that in part led to their discovery. They put the bodies in plastic barrels filled with acid.. but chose the wrong type of acid.. Nitric acid, which tended to preserve the bodies. Hydrochloric acid or Sulphuric acid would have been much more effective.
Twas rather chilling when we watched the movie Snowtown on DVD & I made a comment about the wrong type of acid & Her Imperiousness, my lovely Fire Breathing MemSahib casually and disdainfully replied that she wouldn't make such an amateurish mistakes​.

[quote=Octavious post_id=20586 time=1528549521 user_id=71]
@ majormitch

The problem with that attitude is that a great number, if not all, professions come with a culture and an accepted way of doing things that can be inefficient, damaging or dangerous.
[/quote]

Lawyers and mainstream journalists come to mind.

@ majormitch

The problem with that attitude is that a great number, if not all, professions come with a culture and an accepted way of doing things that can be inefficient, damaging or dangerous. Through formal training that culture is passed on from one generation to the next, and it is often only because of pressure from outside that the culture is changed. Look at British doctors before the NHS and the overwhelming majority thought it was an extremely bad idea. Politicians imposed a change and now the overwhelming majority think the NHS is essential. More obvious examples include pretty much every military ever.

As attractive as it is to point at those with experience within a profession and defer to their judgment, history has taught us again and again that to rely on this principle is a mistake.

So please excuse my scepticism with regard to the effectiveness of vigilantes & lynch mobs.

The most infamous mass murderer, Bunting, in my home state is a self appointed Pedophile Hunter. Google "Snowtown murders".

Risible is how I would describe the notion that an opinionated self promoting media "agent provocatuer" with NO professional qualifications or experience in the field of child protection or the Law can be seen as having more credibility than those who do have relevant professional qualifications and experience.

Somehow I doubt you've seen his coverage. If you had, you'd know that he was not only abiding by the conditions set out by the judge to avoid triggering his suspended sentence, but also reporting remarkably professionally on proceedings.

It's not like the guy walked into the courtroom and livestreamed everyone in there and badgered the jury about how guilty the latest gang of paedophile rapists are like you try to make out.

It’s important to note that he wasn’t charged simply for being there, as you pointed courtroom journalists tend to be present to report on proceedings (per the OJ trial). He was charged for the way he conducted himself in his “reporting.”

You can’t film US Supreme Court proceedings, a lot of courts prohibit live tweeting, etc. Live streaming court proceedings with large viewership and commenting with a presumption of guilt the whole way (court journalists cover evidence presented and say something allegedly happened unless proven absolutely true) is a massive no-no in terms of conduct, otherwise known as contempt of court.

This isn’t some special British impediment to free speech. I’ll bash a violation of free speech any day of the week, but this ain’t it.

[quote=TrPrado post_id=20136 time=1527971839 user_id=65]
Contempt of court isn't a free speech issue. Trying to influence juries in his way is an impediment to justice, and every country has laws against it. Any courtroom reporter from any country knows this sort of thing.
[/quote]

I believe in the US they sequester the jury, not the entire country, when reporting might influence the outcome.

The media circus is allowed to rage around, for instance, the O.J. Simpson trial, but the jury is kept in isolation for the duration of the proceedings so their judgment is not affected.

Contempt of court isn't a free speech issue. Trying to influence juries in his way is an impediment to justice, and every country has laws against it. Any courtroom reporter from any country knows this sort of thing.

"The right to a fair trial is paramount," is it?

Then maybe you'll do me a favour and explain how the government telling Tommy's lawyer that he was going to be released so that they didn't travel up to defend him so that he had to rely on an incompetent public defender in the juryless secret trial he was put through is in any way "fair".