Especially not when its for reporting to the public things that are of public interest! Thats the time we should scrutinise most, and instead we see the least amount of effort from those that claim to stand for freedom of speech.
-
-
Replying to @jonsaxon67 @G_S_Bhogal
I'm scared if a person is put in jail this quickly for reporting truth, and that half the population justify it without any further information (or that "well, he broke the law... I was told" is enough to calm everyone down - its a testament to identity politics)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
Put in jail for reporting truth? Not sure where you got that idea from. Despite what the populist right are saying, Tommy broke real actual laws, notably section 41 of the CJA 1925. The 1st time he broke this, he was let off with a suspended sentence. The 2nd time, he was jailed.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I didn't say he was put in jail because he wrote truth. He was put in jail for reporting something that was true (as in, not for telling a lie or misreporting, just reporting reality). Are you saying you don't see the strange quickness/severity/lack of transparency here?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
He wasn't jailed for reporting something that is true. He started arguments with the defendants outside court, filmed them, and broadcast tendentious opinions about the case, which presumed the guilt of the defendants, to over 250,000 Facebook followers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
He wasn't jailed for starting an argument - that was his arrest reason (and boy many reporters are in trouble if calling something out to defendants in enough to get one arrested). Do you not even notice how biased this is? Test it without taking sides.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
Journalists would not be able to get away with what Tommy did. They might call out questions to a defendant after a verdict has been reached, but never as they're on their way to a hearing when there is a reporting restriction in place.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Give me another example of swiftness and severity (10 months - exclude the suspension) and media ban. Then add that it was not even claimed to be lying or misleading anyone. Then add that it was not violent in any way. Did you even think of looking at comparisons?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67
I can't exclude the suspension because that's the whole point of his swift and severe sentence. He was jailed *last year*, but the judge suspended the sentence -- until Tommy repeated the crime. Once again, this article will answer all your questions. https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
OK. I tried to fight your bias, you chose to stick to it. You claim its all just the law - I claim its not even close to the way "the law" goes for others. You choose not to understand that trivial point. I'm done.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'd love for you to provide evidence to prove me wrong.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
No, you wouldn't. You have ignored all my comments that didn't fit your narrative. You have defined the term "evidence" to mean "that which proves MY point". You claim "fact" to things that are "reported" or "claimed". I can't get through your bias.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonsaxon67 @G_S_Bhogal
Unawareness of potential bias makes it bullet proof.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.