Gone- But Not Forgotten

[PoliticalChic]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

What of Tommy's right to a fair trial?
Tommy Robinson

Did I mention that England is gone from the pantheon of nations that stand for individual freedom?

Oh....right......that is the premise of the thread.

What did the court get wrong ?

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

Why have you made defending the rape of children your very raison d'etre?

I think you need to find a more healthy hobby..

Show me where I have done that dickhead.

You mean besides those dozens of threads you have initiated about the issue and countless hundreds of postings of yours in threads such as this?

Healthy people respond to hearing about the rape of children with empathy for the victims and loathing for the perps. Somehow, the wiring in your head has gone wonky as the reverse is true.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

What of Tommy's right to a fair trial?
Tommy Robinson

Did I mention that England is gone from the pantheon of nations that stand for individual freedom?

Oh....right......that is the premise of the thread.

What did the court get wrong ?

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

Why have you made defending the rape of children your very raison d'etre?

I think you need to find a more healthy hobby..

Show me where I have done that dickhead.

You mean besides those dozens of threads you have initiated about the issue and countless hundreds of postings of yours in threads such as this?

Healthy people respond to hearing about the rape of children with empathy for the victims and loathing for the perps. Somehow, the wiring in your head has gone wonky as the reverse is true.

Where have I shown support for rapists ? Just one posting will do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

What of Tommy's right to a fair trial?
Tommy Robinson

Did I mention that England is gone from the pantheon of nations that stand for individual freedom?

Oh....right......that is the premise of the thread.

What did the court get wrong ?

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whether Britain, or internationally, the Left has a strangle hold on freedom, specifically free speech.


"UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

• In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its 'values' are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.
  
  
• Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, "Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law".
  
  
• Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN's agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to "media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants" should be stopped."
  
  
• UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

[Dogmaphobe]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

Why have you made defending the rape of children your very raison d'etre?

I think you need to find a more healthy hobby..

Show me where I have done that dickhead.

You mean besides those dozens of threads you have initiated about the issue and countless hundreds of postings of yours in threads such as this?

Healthy people respond to hearing about the rape of children with empathy for the victims and loathing for the perps. Somehow, the wiring in your head has gone wonky as the reverse is true.

Where have I shown support for rapists ? Just one posting will do.

In this very thread.

You revel in delight that people are being jailed for opposing the rapes.

Why have you devoted yourself to defending Muslims raping children, Tommy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tommy Robinson is a victim to the same attempts by the Left:

"The new action plan plays straight into the OIC's decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as 'hate speech'. In the wake of the launch of Guterres' action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan "to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia" at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN."
UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What of Tommy's right to a fair trial?
Tommy Robinson

Did I mention that England is gone from the pantheon of nations that stand for individual freedom?

Oh....right......that is the premise of the thread.

What did the court get wrong ?

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

Why have you made defending the rape of children your very raison d'etre?

I think you need to find a more healthy hobby..

Show me where I have done that dickhead.

You mean besides those dozens of threads you have initiated about the issue and countless hundreds of postings of yours in threads such as this?

Healthy people respond to hearing about the rape of children with empathy for the victims and loathing for the perps. Somehow, the wiring in your head has gone wonky as the reverse is true.

Where have I shown support for rapists ? Just one posting will do.

In this very thread.

You revel in delight that people are being jailed for opposing the rapes.

Why have you devoted yourself to defending Muslims raping children, Tommy?

Nobody has been jailed for opposing the rapes. What are you on about ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did I mention that England is gone from the pantheon of nations that stand for individual freedom?

Oh....right......that is the premise of the thread.

What did the court get wrong ?

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

A citizen speaking their mind has no influence on the outcome of a trial.
I'm certain that there'd be plenty of free speech on the other side.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

None.


Only classical liberalism, and conservatism.

 

[jillian]

Same old bomb pic he has had for decades.

He began the war on Terror, and was responsible for 911. This pos.

If you think that is true, you are insane

Get your head out of your Jew-hating butt

 

[Tommy Tainant]

What did the court get wrong ?

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

A citizen speaking their mind has no influence on the outcome of a trial.
I'm certain that there'd be plenty of free speech on the other side.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

None.


Only classical liberalism, and conservatism.

You have media blackouts on trials in the US. Google it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

America doesn't believe in kings and queens and royalty. We beat the shit out of Britain and made our own country.

Britian has gained far more from us than we did from them, LIKE FREEDOM. They would be speaking German right now if it were not for the United States. And believe me, they know it, too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

A citizen speaking their mind has no influence on the outcome of a trial.
I'm certain that there'd be plenty of free speech on the other side.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

None.


Only classical liberalism, and conservatism.

You have media blackouts on trials in the US. Google it.

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

Many times Fascists.....er, Democrats, are in charge.

 

[Capri]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

What of Tommy's right to a fair trial?
Tommy Robinson

He has just had a fair trial. There were no stupid fucks outside trying to intimidate anyone.

Obviously, you didn't watch the video...
There's no question that he did NOT get a fair trial.
There were, in fact, people outside trying to intimidate him (though what their intentions were is subjective).
The intimidation you ascribe to Robinson consisted only of his asking defendants how they were feeling.
Please watch the video before replying.

The court found that he was encouraging a lynch mob. That is illegal in the UK and possibly is in the US.

What the court found is public record. That the court found he was encouraging a lynch mob doesn't mean he got a fair trial. He didn't encourage a lynch mob. He reported on a child-rape gang. hat people want to lynch child-rapists after learning of them doesn't make reporting on them encouraging a lynch mob.

What did the court get wrong ?

The verdict.

Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

The contempt conviction for Robinson was overturned.

Nobody has been jailed for opposing the rapes.

Tommy Robinson was jailed for reporting about rapists.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

The 2nd and the 5th.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

His right to free speech does not over ride anyones right to a fair trial. Magna Carta. Fuck him the whining little prick.

What of Tommy's right to a fair trial?
Tommy Robinson

He has just had a fair trial. There were no stupid fucks outside trying to intimidate anyone.

Obviously, you didn't watch the video...
There's no question that he did NOT get a fair trial.
There were, in fact, people outside trying to intimidate him (though what their intentions were is subjective).
The intimidation you ascribe to Robinson consisted only of his asking defendants how they were feeling.
Please watch the video before replying.

The court found that he was encouraging a lynch mob. That is illegal in the UK and possibly is in the US.

What the court found is public record. That the court found he was encouraging a lynch mob doesn't mean he got a fair trial. He didn't encourage a lynch mob. He reported on a child-rape gang. hat people want to lynch child-rapists after learning of them doesn't make reporting on them encouraging a lynch mob.

What did the court get wrong ?

The verdict.

Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

The contempt conviction for Robinson was overturned.

Nobody has been jailed for opposing the rapes.

Tommy Robinson was jailed for reporting about rapists.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

The 2nd and the 5th.

Why was the verdict wrong ?
He knew that he was breaking the law and he carried on offending.
Open and shut case.

BTW - his initial conviction was overturned because the process was wrong not the verdict. There is a difference.

And today he starts another spell at HM pleasure. Lets hope he learns to respect our laws.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

1. "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



Free speech.....the British courts need to learn from America.

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

A citizen speaking their mind has no influence on the outcome of a trial.
I'm certain that there'd be plenty of free speech on the other side.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

None.


Only classical liberalism, and conservatism.

You have media blackouts on trials in the US. Google it.

Tommy believes that a little Fascism never hurt anyone.

I've been telling you for YEARS now that stupid fucks like you who are NOT in leadsership but actively support this shit are ALWAYS the first layer of human fertilizer when eradicated by your new Bosses. Why?

First, you betrayed your country and can't be trusted.

Second, you're really fucking stupid for believing this would turn out better for you so you have no business contributing to the gene pool.

You'll cry "but but but I was there for you!" as they drag you off

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yes I was asking what the British court got wrong. Incidentally contempt is an offence in the US as well.

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

A citizen speaking their mind has no influence on the outcome of a trial.
I'm certain that there'd be plenty of free speech on the other side.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

None.


Only classical liberalism, and conservatism.

You have media blackouts on trials in the US. Google it.

Tommy believes that a little Fascism never hurt anyone.

I've been telling you for YEARS now that stupid fucks like you who are NOT in leadsership but actively support this shit are ALWAYS the first layer of human fertilizer when eradicated by your new Bosses. Why?

First, you betrayed your country and can't be trusted.

Second, you're really fucking stupid for believing this would turn out better for you so you have no business contributing to the gene pool.

You'll cry "but but but I was there for you!" as they drag you off

He has made an intentional decision to facilitate the rape of children.

What better way to ensure British children continue to suffer rape at the hands of their Muslim masters than by creating such a climate of intimidation that one cannot possibly oppose the rapes without getting punished for it?

The powers that be are going after Tommy Robinson because they see him as the figurehead. The intent is clear to all concerned, however -- go with the status quo or we will punish you, too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Free speech is the most basic indicator of liberty.


I'm for liberty, not judges.

A fair trial is as important. Or do you not think so ?

A citizen speaking their mind has no influence on the outcome of a trial.
I'm certain that there'd be plenty of free speech on the other side.

Now....which of these political views allows for free speech?

Communism, Fascism, Modern Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism?

None.


Only classical liberalism, and conservatism.

You have media blackouts on trials in the US. Google it.

Tommy believes that a little Fascism never hurt anyone.

I've been telling you for YEARS now that stupid fucks like you who are NOT in leadsership but actively support this shit are ALWAYS the first layer of human fertilizer when eradicated by your new Bosses. Why?

First, you betrayed your country and can't be trusted.

Second, you're really fucking stupid for believing this would turn out better for you so you have no business contributing to the gene pool.

You'll cry "but but but I was there for you!" as they drag you off

He has made an intentional decision to facilitate the rape of children.

What better way to ensure British children continue to suffer rape at the hands of their Muslim masters than by creating such a climate of intimidation that one cannot possibly oppose the rapes without getting punished for it?

The powers that be are going after Tommy Robinson because they see him as the figurehead. The intent is clear to all concerned, however -- go with the status quo or we will punish you, too.

I'm pretty sure the average British "Male" is as pussified as TommyTaint and there will likely be no blowback should Taint's Muzzy friends kill Robinson in prison