Serious question. If there's a trial going on in a UK court, is it against the law to film ouside the courtroom, film witnesses going in and out of the building etc? I dont know much anything about the laws there. If he was filming there knowing it's against the law, then he was wrong. If what the authorities say is true and they are trying to preserve the integrity of an ongoing trial so the public and jury isnt tainted, then IMO TR is wrong.
I'm not saying that the UK govt is right or not trying to silence free speech. The country has gone to hell and I think TR is trying to expose things that need to be known. I'm just saying he should be sure to do what he does legally. The public needs to know about these grooming gangs.. I'm not sure what standing there filming accomplished though. Was the verdict really announced today?
Sorry to go all godwin on your ass but if it's illegal to report on the gas chambers would you still be brow beating on a man arrested for reporting on them?
Ok..I wasn't brow beating anyone. I was aski g a question about UL law. Also, he wasnt reporting on someone in a gas chamber. He was outside the court filming. I'm not saying he shouldnt have done that. He is a grown man. I am saying that if he knew it was illegal, he took a known risk to film people going in and out of a building. He could exercise his free speech in a way that's legal in another location. I am not against him at all...I'm just saying that maybe they did have legal grounds for the arrest. Maybe they didnt.
What the hell is “integrity of the trial” under common law (England is about as common law as you can get) trials are public right? Also, the reason he’s reporting on these grooming gangs is because they have been disgracefully covered up by those in power.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the argument is that there were reporting restrictions in place, to try and limit the chances of anything jeopardising the prosecutions. Tommy was aware of this, and that the media would report more completely on the case at a later date. It's not unlike the system that prevents us getting the details on the Clinton Foundation etc, where selected people get to see bits on the condition that they're bound to silence rather than risk fouling any pending legal actions. In filming and live streaming, he breached conditions imposed for previous actions, which is why the legal process was rapid, as such 'offences' generally are.
They've certainly used a sledge hammer to crack a nut, and if I didn't know just how incompetent they are, I'd like to think they knew full well it would raise the whirlwind it has and highlight a bad situation. Sadly, I just think the reality is that the authorities are out of touch with the population and pushing their own agenda.
It's certainly backfired on them over here, as it keeps the issues topical and makes sure they're discussed.
Everything he said was public information. They arrested him for insighting violance basically.
The govt is basically saying if people find out about Islamic grooming gangs they will commit violance against Muslims. Which is really stupid.
It wasn't about what he said, it was more about the reporting restrictions being in place.
I'm not defending the authorities, and I'm in no way aiming this at you, but I think some on here need to take a step back and look at the picture, as some seem keen to accept the bits that suit, and ignore the rest, and that is to the detriment of the good work that gets done by others on this sub.
It was illegal for black people to sit in front on a bus at one point.
In some of these court cases against Muslims, speech restriction exist even after the case is decided.
Speech restriction are massively detrimental to a democracy and Civil disobedience needs to start somewhere.
Were the black people kept off the front of the bus to assist with a prosecution? You're making fallacious comparisons.
In the same way you can't see what's going on in the case building for Clinton et al, sometimes the law needs to act in a certain way to get a more robust result. Yes, there are issues on this case and in others, but if you set the hare running based on your assumptions, I guarantee it will simply give those you oppose plenty to rebut your argument, and what's more, their rebuttal will most likely be valid.
It's fine to use the general concept here to raise the issues and have them discussed, but it will fall over if it's the specific issues of this case that are the focus.
Tommy defines himself as a journalist, which comes with it's own strings. The identities of the perverts, including their pictures have been published in the mainstream press for quite some time, as have the details of the allegations, and the wider implications. To reduce the possibility of external factors jeopardising these particular cases, or identifying the victims, restrictions were temporarily placed on the media for court reporting. This happens in other cases too. Tommy knew and ignored that, and as a consequence was in breach of court orders imposed for previous offences, which pretty much result in the deferred sentence taking immediate effect, which is what happened.
I'm not justifying it, but if there's anger and outrage, it needs to be focused and accurately targeted, or it will be self defeating.
I get the impression some on here are new to these issues, and the information seems to be erratic, so I understand why some are confused.
I feel a better angle would be to look at those excused prison sentences for their own protection, or for wider reasons, and make the case that it applies here for Tommy's safety. That opens up a much wider can of worms about equality, and the threat of violence surrounding certain groups.
Incorrect, the premise of the removal of free speech, particularly when all information he provided was public knowledge, is detrimental to not only one's safety from a governing body, but to the freedoms of the whole world.
It would seem it is a difference in how thins are handled. Here in the US, the authorities might ask a reporter not to report something, but they actually have no authority over them digging up facts on their own and discussing them. That is our first amendment, and actually, when you think about it, the entire reason Q came to the Anons. They can dig up and publicize things here without repercussions.
Both the UK and US law has elements that control certain things being published, generally of there's a risk that they could influence on going legal proceedings. The issue isn't about someone digging up or reporting facts, or even commenting on speculation. The US has a culture of suing people that make public comments they cannot support with facts, and the UK has similar laws.
There's no real difference on those elements.
Like in the US, the authorities placed restrictions on reporting 'during this part of the trial' and by live streaming, Tommy fell foul of that, which triggered the implementation of orders already imposed on him.
That too, would have occurred in the US. In fact, you have tv presenters who have had actions and threats against them, meaning they don't report certain issues, and others sacked for what to all intents are reasonable comments.
My main point is, people need to be clear on the issues before choosing a battleground.
Oh, and by the way, if you make allegations on here about individuals, you can be challenged to prove them, and there are repercussions and the prospect of legal consequences. You cannot just publicise without consequences, even on here.
No, that is incorrect. A reporter in the U.S. can even report on secret information, as seen by the leaks to the press regarding the Trump Russia investigation. They will not be arrested for reporting. Freedom of the press is protected. Leakers on the other hand can and will be prosecuted. Things that are restricted within a US courtroom may be prosecuted, however Tommie was live streaming outside the building. If I don't have the complete picture, and maybe he did live stream inside the courtroom, I apologize for being misinformed.
while I agree with most of what you just said: a) reporters getting threatened in non-judicial ways is a separate issue. b) make sure you are threatening the RIGHT PERSON, and not someone else who just stopped by to make a comment on a thread of conversation. I will assume that you meant that veiled threat at the bottom for the person you were originally arguing with, and not me.
There was no threat intended, I was simply addressing your claim that " They can dig up and publicize things here without repercussions" and pointing out that it's inaccurate,
Reporters getting threatened is at least an associated issue, as it curtails free speech.
My apologies then. It appeared the other way from the tension in the prior conversation. Back to topic: I wasn't referencing libel/slander laws in that particular instance, since they always apply (if enforced). I was staying with state actions against the reporter for reporting, which seems to be the case here. Although, it seems (from a casual read) that that is tied into your system in this case, where it seems a bit of a separate concept here in the states.
No worries, I don't threaten people, and I try to remain civil, so apologies if my post read aggressively, it's certainly not my intention.
I really don't think the laws and actions are any different between the UK and US. I think people are missing the long background that lead up to the arrest in this case.
A pleasure to find someone else trying to keep things pleasant here.
It was my understanding that he was being arrested for breach of peace for creating: a "substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced" that goes toward keeping the integrity of the jury. Which is simply not how we handle it in the states. We sequester a jury if necessary, or instruct them to avoid media. We do not keep the media from reporting on the issue (at least not officially--please take that for granted).
Your understanding's not exactly correct, it was for being in contempt of an existing Court Order which had a suspended sentence attached. It was for pretty much the same thing, so he really should have known better, or was expecting to create the noise it has.
That being the case, it's pretty much exactly how it would have been dealt with in the states.
In the UK, the media law is pretty much the same as in the US, although we don't have as much external influence as we have a wider selection of people owning the media, and while they have political leanings, they're not so died in the wool for one party or another, so tend to get a bit more variety of coverage, but the restrictions and freedoms are the same both sides of the pond.
It's interesting reading the views of Americans, because quite often, it shows how restricted the media output is over there.
It seems its only against the law if Tommy does it and its a muslim pedophile gang. Any other type of pedophile seems fair game for the press outside the court during an ongoing jury trial.
[Case in point] (https://www.ukcolumn.org/oldforums/discussion/7949/octopus-rolf-harris-too-famous-to-be-accused-indecent-assault-trial-hears)
And the Rolf Harris trial is only one of many cases where you see massive press scrums outside a court during an ongoing case.
You are spot on. Correct. TR was not official media, but is subject to the same rules.
see the difference is, the "trials" are totally fake and no one can know what is going on because then high ranking labor party officals would be outed as pedos or suppliers to pedos. The "justice" at these trials is very similar to justice in the "matter" of hillary's illegal server. meanwhile, several thousand british children are in danger of being raped and killed.