Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.

Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.

All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.

Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.

It was Tommy Robinson's actions specifically that were prevented, was it not? The public gallery was still open, other news sources could report on the trial?

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.

I find it strange that trials, witnesses and juries can be live recorded and shown on air. You are allowed to report on cases but is undertaken in a controlled way. We don't allow videos inside court because of the risk that it can influence the decision made (for example if EDF worked out who was one of the jurors and then camped outside their house protesting as you are allowed to go home at the end of a day. There was a temporary blackout during his trial as there was considerable concern that by reporting on it, that it could risk the fairness of the trial. It was lifted when a load of gak was being spread about the case and the judge decided that this was likely to result in a potential worse effect on the court case than not allowing reporting.

Exactly. The court process is open - there's usually a public viewing area (some courts are closed if sensitive enough), press is allowed to report, full transcripts are available. There's no live video footage or any tolerance for anything that can be regarded as intimidating or biasing the jury (a group of the public).

Robinson wasn't jailed for reporting the court case; he was jailed for intimidating the jury. Something he was in trouble for previous.

Ironically; he (his family?) have asked people not to attend his hearing for concerns that they'll bias it.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

But eventually the penny will drop that we're not getting a special deal, and someone will need to disappoint a lot of the public.

Don't you mean all the public? One side because they want to stay in, the other side because they want to get out of everything?

Some people, somewhere, will be happy with whatever result. I think May's main goal here is to find an option that upsets the least people.
I'm starting to suspect things that the Tory party has come out with recently and back-peddled on (fox hunting, tax changes for self-employed) etc have been exercises to test the water for upsetting people, to see how far they can push the public with impunity.

But then, the option I can see that upsets the least people is to run a 2nd referendum and hope it's a clear (60%+) win for Remain.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.

All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?

That would be up to courts to decide. I couldn't for obvious reasons state whether they were illegal or not. It would appear that for news articles (e.g. White Dwarf) then after 20 years it would be OK. The difference is that at the moment Scribd is exempt from the copyright infringement because users upload the articles not Scribd itself. The new laws would require, dependent on their resources, to try and scan for potential copyright infringement material and remove it (and they would be potentially acting illegally by not doing this).

I have some mixed views on these sort of things. I do see the point that in some cases companies can be losing income if they are still selling a product and you can get it free then this should be looked at. However for products no longer made I think that it can be excessive - for example if the Man O War rules were available on Scribd then I see no harm here. GW as a company does not lose money from these items being freely available.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.

All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?

They are, the point is scribd will be forced to check for copyright before anything is uploaded there.

Right now scribd will only put something down after someone complains about something. Per proposed law they will be supposed to know it was copyrighted material before (or at least make a conscious effort to try to find out).

As if there was a reliable way of knowing something uploaded by a random user contains copyrighted material or not. Without this, the law is worthless or worse, ripe for abuse.

Again, conservatives make up the most of UK MEPs and appear to be going to vote yes, let them know you're against it.

jouso wrote:


They are, the point is scribd will be forced to check for copyright before anything is uploaded there.

Right now scribd will only put something down after someone complains about something. Per proposed law they will be supposed to know it was copyrighted material before (or at least make a conscious effort to try to find out).

As if there was a reliable way of knowing something uploaded by a random user contains copyrighted material or not. Without this, the law is worthless or worse, ripe for abuse.

Again, conservatives make up the most of UK MEPs and appear to be going to vote yes, let them know you're against it.

Or the sites will move to a country where the legislation doesn't hold. They tried similar actions before when illegal streaming became prevalent. In the end they gave up and legal streaming became prevalent.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
Scribd for example might have difficulties for example as even from a wargaming perspective there are a lot of White Dwarf articles etc.

All those scanned documents on Scribd are already falling foul of existing copyright law, aren't they?

That would be up to courts to decide. I couldn't for obvious reasons state whether they were illegal or not. It would appear that for news articles (e.g. White Dwarf) then after 20 years it would be OK

Again, something to be tested in law, but I would have thought that White Dwarf articles aren't "news" (other than the new releases sections"). They'd be works of fiction, or technical documentation, but they're original content, not simply reporting on something that's happened elsewhere.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


Again, something to be tested in law, but I would have thought that White Dwarf articles aren't "news" (other than the new releases sections"). They'd be works of fiction, or technical documentation, but they're original content, not simply reporting on something that's happened elsewhere.

The wording in the Directive is 'press publications' rather than 'news' which is defined as

‘press publication’ means a collection composed mainly of literary works of a journalistic nature which:
(a) may also include other works or subject-matter;
(b) constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine;
(c) has the purpose of providing the general public with information related to news or other topics; and
(d) is published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider;

and in item 33 of the background

The press publications to be covered are those whose purpose is to inform the general public and which are periodically or regularly updated. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites.

I think hence WD would be covered as it a magazine of special interest, it is regularly updated, provides the general public on the topic of GW wargaming and is produced under editorial responsibility.

Herzlos wrote:

Robinson wasn't jailed for reporting the court case; he was jailed for intimidating the jury. Something he was in trouble for previous.

Ironically; he (his family?) have asked people not to attend his hearing for concerns that they'll bias it.

Technically he was jailed for contempt of court. He was told last time he did the same thing, that this is what would happen if he did it again. He did it again.

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:
I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.

Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
...

Got to ask, for someone who stated that you don't follow our politics, have no links and seemingly little interest in our politics or judicial system, where did you source your information for the formation of your opinions regarding Mr Yaxely-Lennon's arrest and detention?

 r_squared wrote:


Got to ask, for someone who stated that you don't follow our politics, have no links and seemingly little interest in our politics or judicial system, where did you source your information for the formation of your opinions regarding Mr Yaxely-Lennon's arrest and detention?

Trump's twitter following of EDL perhaps....

Also on a slightly amusing item from PMQs today after MP Maclane's (SP?) (second or third) question that was pre-prepared on BAE ships TM stated that we are leaving the UK.... Not sure that was the "Will of the People".

Now I know that Wrexit was likely to result in the break up of the UK, but so soon....?

In other blathering answers she was asked about bus services and carried on blindly about the NHS. I can see why she never gets anything agreed at Cabinet, she doesn't answer anything put to her!

 r_squared wrote:

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:
I usually don't follow English politics. None of my family living abroad live in England, its not on my list of countries I want to visit nor do I plan to retire there. I have no strong feelings or opinions about Tommy Robinson. However Englands growing Orwellian nature troubles me. England is like the blood bank of of ideas, constitutional monarchy, socialism and free market capitalism got their start in England and from there were later spread to the whole world. We should all be concerned that this form of Authoritarian HIV will be spread to Europe and North America.

Democracy cannot function when the government can pass judgement and decide men's fate in secrecy. Tommy Robinson had every right to live stream the outside of a trial because the British people have a right to now about the trial.. His actions not only would have been legal in the United States but many other nations as well. I have a lot of friends who have studied and done business in liberalized Asian Communist nations like China and Vietnam. If they were having a trial like this in China they wouldn't care less if people know about it. You'll get in trouble if you try to undermine the power of the politburo but in a lot of ways their more open about what they do then governments in the west.
...

Got to ask, for someone who stated that you don't follow our politics, have no links and seemingly little interest in our politics or judicial system, where did you source your information for the formation of your opinions regarding Mr Yaxely-Lennon's arrest and detention?

I'd be interested in this also, as what you have been told is utter garbage.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1014431972662358021

salient thread about Russia and the EU.

Incredible thread!

..sure you will all be astonished to learn that Esther McVey was lying when she made her comments about universal credit



She is, of course, very very sorry and apologised to the house


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-44715588/esther-mcvey-on-national-audit-office-and-universal-credit



I guess she is technically not fit for her work, which is a bit of a rum do eh ?

Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.

How? If I was a juror I don't see how seeing Tommy with a phone would prevent me from being fair. What I find bizarre is how so many brits are more concerned about the rights of this rape gang as opposed to the rights of their victims.

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

Sorry but no. The trial was ongoing and Robinsons actions could potentially influence the jury and so subvert the course of justice.

How? If I was a juror I don't see how seeing Tommy with a phone would prevent me from being fair. What I find bizarre is how so many brits are more concerned about the rights of this rape gang as opposed to the rights of their victims.

If you start downing rights of one group you lose them for all. Rights either apply to all or none. The moment you start removing rights from some group you end up in slippery slope that means NOBODY actually has those rights.

If you start downing rights of one group you lose them for all. Rights either apply to all or none. The moment you start removing rights from some group you end up in slippery slope that means NOBODY actually has those rights.

You just made my point. Tommy Robinson was merely filming in public yet has been deprived of liberty. Even if you can make the case that it was right to arrest him he certainly shouldn't go to prison for what it looks like to be investigative reporting.

But beside that you didn't answer my question. I am will ask it again why is so much attention be given to the rights of these rape gangs when the rights of their victims were ignored for so long? Personally i'm not much of believer in police. Cops exist for active shooters. The community should be the ones to deliver justice as has been the norm for most of human history.
Oh also can someone explain to me why their called Asian as opposed too Pakistani, I know Pakistan is part of Asia but no one calls Russians or Israelis Asian.

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:
How? If I was a juror I don't see how seeing Tommy with a phone would prevent me from being fair.

Your lack of empathy or understanding isn't the issue though. Mr Yaxley is unfortunately an influential individual in some areas, and some people (not you apparently, but whatever you don't see is immaterial) might have a problem with their face splashed all over the alt-right parts of social media with "look who let the rapists off!". Jurors cannot do their duty in some sensitive cases if they have to worry about outside influences to the trial.

What I find bizarre is how so many brits are more concerned about the rights of this rape gang as opposed to the rights of their victims.

People everywhere should be concerned about the rights of the accused to a fair trial. A fair trial isn't what Yaxley, the EDL, Britain First et al are interested in though. They want the whole case politicised so that the 'establishment' can be shown to be covering up 'sharia crimes' and that 'right thinking people' (sic) are justified in taking matters into their own hands etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

You just made my point. Tommy Robinson was merely filming in public yet has been deprived of liberty.

He wasn't 'merely' doing that. Ultimately what he was doing was exactly what he achieved, trying to stoke a culture war by highlighting the accused in the trial receiving protection they shouldn't be entitled to for some reason.

Even if you can make the case that it was right to arrest him he certainly shouldn't go to prison for what it looks like to be investigative reporting.

Well, he had a suspended sentence, so that's the very definition of what should have happened to him. If the courts warn someone not do to something or they'll receive punishement x, and they do it anyway and don't receive punishment x, then the courts have just undermined themselves and why should anyone bother listening to them again?

But beside that you didn't answer my question. I am will ask it again why is so much attention be given to the rights of these rape gangs when the rights of their victims were ignored for so long?

Both sides have rights. The law doesn't pick a side and deny the other side rights, it seeks to pursue justice and the accused should be protected too (until such time as they are no longer accused but guilty).

Personally i'm not much of believer in police. Cops exist for active shooters. The community should be the ones to deliver justice as has been the norm for most of human history.

The police don't deliver justice, courts of law do (or try to. it is staffed by humans and humans make mistakes). The community and mob justice is a historic horror show, let's not go back there.

Oh also can someone explain to me why their called Asian as opposed too Pakistani, I know Pakistan is part of Asia but no one calls Russians or Israelis Asian.

In the UK 'Asian' is shorthand for people from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc) as that's where most Asian migration has come from (due to Empire). In the US 'Asian' usually refers to East Asian descent for the same reason.

lack of empathy

How do I lack empathy?

jurors cannot do their duty in some sensitive cases if they have to worry about outside influences to the trial.

In America everything outside the courthouse is fair game. If this happened in the US the worst he would get would be a ticket.

People everywhere should be concerned about the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

You have people on this thread who want him to have a violent prison experience.

or understanding

I have real world school and work experience with this very subject. I know more than you.

Now for the third time can someone please answer my as why their is a lack of outrage over these rape gangs that the UK government covered for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

He wasn't 'merely' doing that.

[youtube]
Some guy walking around talking to himself. Seems pretty tamed compared to the Casey Anthony trial.

[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVcz_kKcbbc[youtube]

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:
[
How do I lack empathy?

If you can't see how people can be intimidated then you potentially lack empathy. Or understanding. Or something, anyway.

In America everything outside the courthouse is fair game. If this happened in the US the worst he would get would be a ticket.

That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.

You have people on this thread who want him to have a violent prison experience.

Sure, and they're wrong too. You aren't actually answering any points though, just playing 'whataboutism' and trying to equivocate people debating your frankly abhorrent views as being equally abhorrent.

You do realise you're debating against the concept of a fair trial, right? And the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

or understanding
I have real world school and work experience with this very subject. I know more than you.

Despite posting you know nothing about UK politics and have no interest in the UK you have school experience with the UK legal system? For someone who know more than me, you sure act like you're just copy/pasting alt-right twitter feeds.

Now for the third time can someone please answer my as why their is a lack of outrage over these rape gangs that the UK government covered for.

Aaaaaand we're going deeper into the rabbit hole. I thought at the start you were a sadly misinformed US poster, but you're just trying to Yaxley the thread. Cheerio, fella.

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

If you start downing rights of one group you lose them for all. Rights either apply to all or none. The moment you start removing rights from some group you end up in slippery slope that means NOBODY actually has those rights.

You just made my point. Tommy Robinson was merely filming in public yet has been deprived of liberty. Even if you can make the case that it was right to arrest him he certainly shouldn't go to prison for what it looks like to be investigative reporting.

Investigative reporting... . Turning up at a court case where the accused are already in custody, where you can report on the case (but not record, depending on the judge's determination) isn't investigative journalism.

We have certain rules that protect everyone's individual rites. The point of jury is to determine someone's guilt. Until that time they are innocent. There have been cases where people accused, incorrectly and found innocent, of child rape or molestation and then subsequently assaulted or driven from their homes and/or into police protection because some people didn't believe the outcome and thought that a kangaroo court and vigilante justice is the way to go. A child that might be involved (on either side) has a right to anonymity. The jury do not need to feel fear that if they find someone accused of child rape might be subsequently branded as "paedophile lovers" by EDF nutcases because of that decision. If the jury feel threatened and it is deemed they were biased by either fear, or otherwise influenced by reporting on TV (again I note that people can go home at the end of each day) then that can result in the collapse of the trial regardless of the rest of the case and whether that person really did do the criminal act.

But beside that you didn't answer my question. I am will ask it again why is so much attention be given to the rights of these rape gangs when the rights of their victims were ignored for so long? Personally i'm not much of believer in police. Cops exist for active shooters.

The US and UK/EU police have different drivers. There is a tiny amount of gun crime in the UK (relatively). We'd need about 20 police people if it was just to stop gun crime. I once had a conversation with an American and their view was that in the US the police were there to enforce the laws by any suitable means but in the UK the police's role was to protect the populace.

The community should be the ones to deliver justice as has been the norm for most of human history.

That's why we have a jury system under strict rules. If it is done by mob rule, then you only get vigilante attacks without any consideration of the evidence.

Oh also can someone explain to me why their called Asian as opposed too Pakistani, I know Pakistan is part of Asia but no one calls Russians or Israelis Asian.

Perhaps because they weren't all from Pakistan?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:


Now for the third time can someone please answer my as why their is a lack of outrage over these rape gangs that the UK government covered for.

Now I know I don't like the Tory government, but no one in UK government was 'covering for the rape gangs'.

It was a catalogue of failures over many years that are too numerous to really go into detail, but briefly came down to:-

Lack of communication between the police and the local council and other bodies.
Lack of accountability in these organisations and oversite
Lack of acknowledgement that these things could happen
Lack of acceptance that known troubled children were being exploited and an approach that they were "crying wolf".

That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.

In most countries everything outside the courthouse is fair game. England seems to be one of the few nations where the government quite literally has a secret police that are able to charge and detain people in secret. I think its obvious why the best fiction about omnipresent despotic governments such as 1984 and 40k come out of the UK.

Sure, and they're wrong too. You aren't actually answering any points though, just playing 'whataboutism' and trying to equivocate people debating your frankly abhorrent views as being equally abhorrent.

You do realise you're debating against the concept of a fair trial, right? And the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' ?

I concede the point.

Despite posting you know nothing about UK politics and have no interest in the UK you have school experience with the UK legal system? For someone who know more than me, you sure act like you're just copy/pasting alt-right twitter feeds.

Real world experience reporting and covering demonstrations some of them violent and requiring police intervention. This is not one of them. Take my word i've seen demonstrations go bad and people get hurt as opposed to some crazy guy talking too himself outside a courthouse

alt-right

I get the sense calling someone alt right in the UK is like what calling someone socialist is in the US.

 Imperial Air Mage V601/20 wrote:

That's great, but he's not in America and appealing to the US justice system doesn't particularly interest me anyway.

In most countries everything outside the courthouse is fair game. England seems to be one of the few nations where the government quite literally has a secret police that are able to charge and detain people in secret. I think its obvious why the best fiction about omnipresent despotic governments such as 1984 and 40k come out of the UK.

Are you sure you aren't confusing these books with reality instead. So to humour me and everyone else here. Could you provide evidence of a UK secret police that is detaining people in secret? I am intrigued.

Man with suspended sentence does the thing he was told not to do so that he wouldn't go to jail, does the thing and is arrested now equals secret police.

Can anyone else smell Gammon?

 Whirlwind wrote:
Could you provide evidence of a UK secret police that is detaining people in secret?

If he could provide evidence, they wouldn't be secret, duh.

It's important to know what's really going on.

Man with suspended sentence does the thing he was told not to do so that he wouldn't go to jail, does the thing and is arrested now equals secret police.

A media blackout, a trial and sentence carried out without the jury of ones peers, this is the very definition of secret police.

Lack of communication between the police and the local council and other bodies.
Lack of accountability in these organisations and oversite
Lack of acknowledgement that these things could happen
Lack of acceptance that known troubled children were being exploited and an approach that they were "crying wolf".

Its comments like this that give credence to alt right conspiracy theories. These crimes were tolerated because labor wanted votes. This has been documented time and time again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Despite posting you know nothing about UK politics and have no interest in the UK you have school experience with the UK legal system?

I do have an interest which is that this form of tyranny may be spread to where I live. I stated that I don't usually follow UK politics because ultimately this is not my fight regardless of how I feel about it morally. I state this because we live in a time where people adopt pet causes that in the end they don't care about to seem trendy.

Right to a fair trial is tyranny?