Bullshit

There is a certain form of ignorance being expressed when comparing the Nazi pug incident to this. Not only was it for a different crime, it was in Scotland under Holyrood laws, which are known for being excessive in regard to alleged hate crimes. It was a distinct case with no parallel in England, Wales or NI. Scotland get away with having those laws because the place is about 97% white with no racial tensions as such, so the frequency of their use and subsequent media attention as to how authoritative they are went under the radar.

In regard to Tommy, my sympathies are limited. He's a convicted fraudster and thug that films himself attacking migrants. Bearing in mind that isn't relevant when considering the legality of what he did, see the judge's response:



Whilst a trial is ongoing, political pressure shouldn't be influencing the court and we have a responsibility to make sure that happens. He did break the law and he should have been removed from the premesis. But from what I've seen he was just filming outside so he could have been taken 500 yards down the street without an arrest being necessary.

Prove it.



Maybe if this was the first time he'd done it and if he didn't have a string of previous clashes with authorities over similar actions.
But as he was currently under a suspended sentence for doing the same kind of thing and I'd imagine the terms of his being paroled involved not doing the same shit he was put in prison for doing repeatedly before I'd say arrest and the lifting of the suspension of his sentence is just fine.

If you catch a bank robber under suspended sentence shoplifting he should go back to jail. You don't break the law when you've been let out of jail on the condition that you don't break the law.

As for the pug comparisons. I've largely ignored them as they're entirely different. Crown Court vs magistrates. Reporters mobbing him after the case was done not during it etc.

Churchill is turning over in his grave. Throwing reporters in jail like Hitler, what is the UK thinking?

He is not a reporter.

1. Tommy Robinson is not a journalist. He's a far-right moron posting shit on facebook.
2. You mean the same Churchill that outright banned a newspaper and who frequently sought to censor the press? You're probably right - he was a notorious racist.

alf-left partisan hack with the taqiya

Who? lol.

Also don't think that means what u think it means.

The court's own guidance document to the media blackout law says it should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and then only in the narrowest means, and only lists filming/photography/sketches within the courtroom or court building or court precincts. It lays out cases for automatic reporting restrictions- which this doesn't fall into, at least for the perpetrators as opposed to the victims. So this is a discretionary use of a media blackout on a politically toxic case under the court's arbitrary judgment as to whether media attention would taint the trial, which itself is a violation of free speech principles. But when the prohibition was stretched to apply to Robinson outside the building as he tried to keep at the both literal and figurative edges of the blackout, that's when you're coupling overzealous prosecution on one hand with discretionary protection on the other hand. Its two sets of standards, based on the political alignment and the content of his speech.

These are precisely the kinds of eroding edges of free expression that the US's first amendment is designed to safeguard against. Over here across the pond we err generously on the side of free speech and do not allow any argument of diffuse societal harms to overcome an individual's rights, only the direct infringements.

Point 1) could apply to pretty much any liberal journalist these days too. See below:

<Person> from <left wing garbage "news" site like Buzzfeed> is not a journalist. He's a far-left moron posting shit on the internet.