The General Political Thread

[Voluble123]

So you agree with me, the reporting ban was there as is the judges right. No free speech was taken, the integrity of the trial was maintained. I don’t understand what football teams have to do with this but if you really want to bring that up, I used to have a season ticket before I ran out of money. And you support a championship club.

Although I suppose if you go and ask Hercules for another go at the playoff final then he’ll let you.

Im already in England mongo, also to clarify I agree  the reporting ban was something decided by the judge but i disagree about the free spech aspect because they should have the freedom to report on what is going on in communities around our country and the affect of muslim grooming gangs. They should be able to report whenever they want and at whatever point during the proceedings along as they release no new information. Journalists should not be limited on when and what they can report on. Then directly after when tommy was arrested, the judge put a reporting ban on tommys court case which to me, sounds like abusing his powers. P.S. Ill do a fund.me for you, £1 a week so you can buy a discounted water bottle and noodles at your local aldi.

The reporting ban was to prevent the trial being affected in any way. Tommy Robinson was live streaming to hundreds of thousands of people, getting in the faces of the defendents and goading them about "prison bags" and that was just the first 3 minutes. If somebody on a high profile criminal case (which these kind of bans are applied to) saw that it could affect the decision making process and create a bias amongst either a jury or a judge. That's why it's there, not to try and block out the free speech of anyone. Once the trial is over the ban would be lifted and Tommy would have been free to discuss the entire case in it's entirety and say whatever he wanted.

A go fund me would help considering you must have a lot of disposable income. I heard ticket prices are a lot cheaper in the lower leagues.

Correction, he was streaming to a few thousand people at best, but due to his arrest millions have seen it now to see what has happened to him. Also seeming you are confident that these bans are put onto high profile criminal cases, i need you to instantly tell me your sources and where you have seen this previously to use it in your response to me to jusitfy the judge using the reporting ban. Also in high profile criminal cases, i can say the opposite xD https://gyazo.com/0415e23bcb307cca8f0f338e0da3a6c1 https://gyazo.com/2048e5daef00911af1d4f0314aacbbd6  Here is one new and old example of high profile criminal cases not having reporting bans. So stop your bullshit about it being legit and it doesnt affect free speech and that having reporting causes biased amongst the jury or for the judge. So please enlighten me and show me these other high profile criminal cases the ban has been applied to which you are refering to when you said " (which these kind of bans are applied to)".

Actually I was taking a long time because I have other things to do than sit here refreshing 24/7 like you. The judiciary says this "The court may hear trials in private in exceptional circumstances where doing so is necessary to prevent the administration of justice from being frustrated or rendered impractical".

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/reporting-restrictions-guide-may-2016-2.pdf

There is your quote, source and reasoning. And Aston Villa are still fucking shite.

Yea you defo spent that whole time looking for a source xD Also it says trials in private in exceptional circumstances? This doesnt class as a exceptional circumstance in the sense of the outcome being affected by reporters reporting on common knowledge? Technically it is applicable but to me atleast, it doesn't qualify for a reporting ban as loads of people get done for grooming kids all the time, this is one of many scandals and this is the only one with a reporting ban as far as im aware. Now i am calling it quits here as we have progressed no where all day as you have a lack of understanding of common sense and the meaning of free speech and i find it highly annoying when you cant formulate any other point but the fact "he broke the law". Ye duh he did but its the stupidity of the law and how and why  it was applied and under what conditions it was applied for that has pissed ppl off. So yeah you can sit there thinking the law is perfect, not like laws change all the time or anything. Ok goodnight and you wont get another response of me so dont bother typing xoxoxo Good night Leftist puppet xoxox

[Toffee]

Actually I made my self a cheese buttie and ate it, would you like a picture of the plate?
A high profile case comes under exceptional circumstance. Oh and by the way, Harvey Weinstein isn't being tried in the UK so your point is mute. Free speech is fine, but to maintain the integrity of the court things have to be done so that the trial can proceed. If you really care about the result and justice then you would want the trial to go smoothly and without outside interference. You want to shame them, that's fine, but do it when they've actually been found guilty. Free speech doesn't allow you to take away the rights of others, and a right for every person on trial in the UK (guilty or not) is to a fair trial.

The fact that you use phrases like "leftist puppet" makes you look childish. It seems like it's a bit of a safety net phrase for you when you can't seem to formulate anything else to say other than "xD".

[Sgt.Winters]

South Africa seems to be doing good

[McPero]

South Africa seems to be doing good

1. Colonise South Africa.
2. Live there for few houndred years.
3. Get expelled from South Africa by 'native' population.
4. Convert to Judaism.
5. Claim land in Palestine.
6. Get land in Palestine.

[Edwin]

South Africa seems to be doing good

1. Colonise South Africa.
2. Live there for few houndred years.
3. Get expelled from South Africa by 'native' population.
4. Convert to Judaism.
5. Claim land in Palestine.
6. Get land in Palestine.

When you lose a war, you usually also lose some of your land. Looks like the Arabs should have accepted the 1948 Partition Plan!

[StevenChilton]

True, they had a reasonable offer on the table and walked away. Israel is clearly behaving badly though and the defeat in 1948 doesn't justify the continuing encroachment of Arab (not Palestinian, there's no such thing) land 70 years later.

[McPero]

South Africa seems to be doing good

1. Colonise South Africa.
2. Live there for few houndred years.
3. Get expelled from South Africa by 'native' population.
4. Convert to Judaism.
5. Claim land in Palestine.
6. Get land in Palestine.

When you lose a war, you usually also lose some of your land. Looks like the Arabs should have accepted the 1948 Partition Plan!

That pretty much 17th century mentality to think someone has to right to just take your land because he won a war. I don't think you would consider France taking half of England because French ruled it for ages a good deal.

[Toffee]

Point aside I welcome our new French overlords

[Edwin]

That pretty much 17th century mentality to think someone has to right to just take your land because he won a war. I don't think you would consider France taking half of England because French ruled it for ages a good deal.

I wouldn't consider it because there isn't an ongoing war between England and France as far as I'm aware of. The Arabs lost their land in a conflict they willingly took part in; just how delusional are you to think the Israelis should now withdraw from said land and gift it to a populace that has attempted to exterminate them on numerous occasions.

True, they had a reasonable offer on the table and walked away. Israel is clearly behaving badly though and the defeat in 1948 doesn't justify the continuing encroachment of Arab (not Palestinian, there's no such thing) land 70 years later.

Absolutely, the IDF are far from saints. I'm simply opposed to the all too common accusation that the Jews are the sole instigators of this never-ending conflict.

[Toffee]

I think it's a very complicated situation with bad things happening on both sides. The victims are innocent people who get caught in the middle.

[Theodin]

I think it's a very complicated situation with bad things happening on both sides. The victims are innocent people who get caught in the middle.

or get used as meatshields
or get paid to stand in the line of fire while being filmed

[Jakester]

I think it's a very complicated situation with bad things happening on both sides. The victims are innocent people who get caught in the middle.

or get used as meatshields
or get paid to stand in the line of fire while being filmed

[McPero]

That pretty much 17th century mentality to think someone has to right to just take your land because he won a war. I don't think you would consider France taking half of England because French ruled it for ages a good deal.

I wouldn't consider it because there isn't an ongoing war between England and France as far as I'm aware of. The Arabs lost their land in a conflict they willingly took part in; just how delusional are you to think the Israelis should now withdraw from said land and gift it to a populace that has attempted to exterminate them on numerous occasions.

True, they had a reasonable offer on the table and walked away. Israel is clearly behaving badly though and the defeat in 1948 doesn't justify the continuing encroachment of Arab (not Palestinian, there's no such thing) land 70 years later.

Absolutely, the IDF are far from saints. I'm simply opposed to the all too common accusation that the Jews are the sole instigators of this never-ending conflict.

I am not saying Israelis should leave Im just saying it should happen in the first place. Before 20th century Arabs had nothing to do with jews (they had some but thats about it),  after Israel was given land they started to try and exterminate them, just like Israeli Arabs, only they are better at it. I dont know what France and England being at war has to do with anything.

[Toffee]

Actually Jews had been in the Middle East for a long time. Even Jesus was born in the Middle East.

[Furrnox]

True, they had a reasonable offer on the table and walked away. Israel is clearly behaving badly though and the defeat in 1948 doesn't justify the continuing encroachment of Arab (not Palestinian, there's no such thing) land 70 years later.

Absolutely, the IDF are far from saints. I'm simply opposed to the all too common accusation that the Jews are the sole instigators of this never-ending conflict.

I don't think anyone here's been claiming that Hamas is innocent.

True, they had a reasonable offer on the table and walked away. Israel is clearly behaving badly though and the defeat in 1948 doesn't justify the continuing encroachment of Arab (not Palestinian, there's no such thing) land 70 years later.

What do you mean? The region their in was called Palestine since before the State of Palestine was founded.