Protest outside 10 Downing demand release of civil rights activist Tommy Robinson

[Heathen Hammer]

lol you're right, he pleaded guilty! You got me! You're so wrong even Tommy doesn't agree with you! lol

Pleading guilty = judicial loophole, welcome to the world of the alt-right conspiracy.

His lawyer wasn't even present, and given UK doesn't really have rule of law at this point, it is safe to assume he did this under threat or pressure, probably both.

[Love Mountain]

His lawyer wasn't even present, and given UK doesn't really have rule of law at this point, it is safe to assume he did this under threat or pressure, probably both.

What kind of threat and pressure?

[removeduser_487563287433]

His lawyer wasn't even present, and given UK doesn't really have rule of law at this point, it is safe to assume he did this under threat or pressure, probably both.

lol mental. He literally live streamed for an hour, the facts of his crime are not in dispute, even by the football hooligan himself.

[Heathen Hammer]

lol mental. He literally live streamed for an hour, the facts of his crime are not in dispute, even by the football hooligan himself.

He wasn't committing crime that he was convicted for, as he wasn't present on court premises and didn't disclose any information that wasn't already on public domain. You'd know that if you actually bothered reading the thread as opposed to again doing your thing of repeating same debunked talking points.

[Aexodus]

lol mental. He literally live streamed for an hour, the facts of his crime are not in dispute, even by the football hooligan himself.

The rest of us just aren’t big fans of the fact that someone can be arrested for simply streaming themselves. That such a thing, as you say, is a crime.

[Supreme Archer]

"Civil Rights" activist?

[HannibalExMachina]

speaking of jokes, i would very much like to see the tommy supporters here provide some evidence his rights were infringed on. not just presumablies and such. i am not saying every law is just, but we could start with the authorities breaking actual laws in this case.

[Love Mountain]

The rest of us just aren’t big fans of the fact that someone can be arrested for simply streaming themselves. That such a thing, as you say, is a crime.

He wasn't. This has been addressed multiple times already, please stop repeating this absurdity.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The rest of us just aren’t big fans of the fact that someone can be arrested for simply streaming themselves. That such a thing, as you say, is a crime.

You guys have no clue about the case, which is bad, or you are being willfully ignorant, which is worse and explains why you feel you're the victims in everything: low effort lives not willing to look at your own shortcomings.

No, he was arrested for breaching reporting restrictions in order to ensure a fair trial on a case, which is a crime: contempt of court. He has pleaded guilty. These are the facts, and they remain facts whether you wish to be ignorant or not.

[Aexodus]

Why is it contempt of court when it’s a Muslim case, but fair game when it’s anyone else?

Why is reporting on it contempt of court in this case, but not in others.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Why is it contempt of court when it’s a Muslim case, but fair game when it’s anyone else?

Why is reporting on it contempt of court in this case, but not in others.

Ah here we go. The alt-right drips through...

It has nothing to do with it being a Muslim case, but had everything to do with the public profile of the case, and people like you chomping at the bit to try and prejudice the case. You may not like it but western values include a fair trial for all. That is important. Your football hooligan broke reporting restrictions and has pleaded guilty of his latest crime. These are the facts, and you nor he are victims.

[Aexodus]

America seems to do alright with having fair trials without these laws, and at this rate, it’s more culturally western than Britain. Which is worrying.

[removeduser_487563287433]

You really are determined not to learn anything, aren't you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gag_order#United_States

You need to stop being fed lies about alt-right idiots.

[Aexodus]

In the United States, a court can order parties to a case not to comment on it but has no authority to stop unrelated reporters from reporting on a case

As I said, Tommy Robinson would have walked free in America.

[removeduser_487563287433]

As I said, Tommy Robinson would have walked free in America.

Maybe he would! But this is not America, and we do take free trials without bias very seriously. Don't you people usually say like it or leave?

[Aexodus]

I am from here. It’s my country, and I’d rather see it improved than leave it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It is a just law - it prevents football hooligans like Tommy Robinson trying to prejudice cases. White people aren't the only people we give justice to in this country, mate. Like it or leave it.

[Love Mountain]

I am from here. It’s my country, and I’d rather see it improved than leave it.

I have no recollection of Jefferson saying this or it being a famous line of his. Jefferson argued for abolishing unjust authority. Civil disobedience was popularized by Thoreau.

[removeduser_487563287433]

lol good catch... it's a fake quote... https://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...ious-quotation

These guys really will just suck up anything without any scrutiny...

[Prodromos]

I'm pretty sure Jefferson's opinion on resisting tyranny was even more extreme than that quote, actually. That quote is likely paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

It's an ancient moral precept that unjust laws aren't laws at all. There is a right and a duty to, wherever possible, disobey an immoral law. Indeed, civil rights advocacy is usually illegal or so socially unpopular as to ruin the activist's life.