9 ms·

A thousand times this. I'm not saying the UK is some shining beacon of how to run a country but I do think overall our governmental systems are pretty sensible.

by orf 8y ago

A thousand times this. I'm not saying the UK is some shining beacon of how to run a country but I do think overall our governmental systems are pretty sensible. I think being sensible might be a stereotypical English trait, but it's true. For example you have to comply with the spirit of a law, not the exact text. Also our QC's are pretty level headed and the same goes for our police force. Nobody is overly nitpicky about things, and when they are it's sensible. At least in my experience, YMMV. US could learn a lot if they looked outward, but I don't think that's in their nature.

refurb 8y ago
You mean like arresting people when they say something the gov't doesn't like? [1] I'll take a pass, thank you. [1]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...
- jboles 8y ago
  I'll gladly take that, and a government that generally tries to look after its citizens, over one that is downright hostile to and steals from citizens.
- orf 8y ago
  Couple of thousand fines in a city of 8,700,000 seems sensible to me. Not everyone values free speech quite as highly as the USA. It's important, sure, but it's not live or die. There are limits and spreading vile hate speech is one of them. I also like the complete focus on the free speech aspect, completely ignoring the "we actually deal with racists here" aspect. How narrow minded.
  - core-questions 8y ago
    Let's keep in mind here that there are many definitions of hate speech. In Canada, it's carefully defined as speech that actually incites people to a criminal act - so racism or other "vile speech" on its own doesn't qualify, you have to be actively making a credible threat or incitement to have others commit real actions.
  - seibelj 8y ago
    “Vile hate speech” can cut both ways unfortunately. Both of us agree that racism is a bad thing. But the American South during Jim Crow declared progressive speech as “hate speech” and tried to ban it.[0] So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t, or you may elect a government that decides what you say is hate speech. [0] “As we have seen, during the days of slavery and later segregation, laws suppressing free speech were often aimed at abolitionists and civil rights advocates, not at slave owners or Jim Crow advocates. This reflected social and political power in local states and communities where attitudes towards race were very different than today.“ https://www.hoover.org/research/harm-hate-speech-laws https://www.hoover.org/research/harm-hate-speech-laws
    - orf 8y ago
      > So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t The government cannot just arbitrarily expand hate speech to include something which is patently not hate speech. The courts would not uphold it, neither would the judiciary or the public at large.
      - abstrakraft 8y ago
        10 years ago, I would have argued the same about the gov't just arbitrarily expanding asset seizure laws, but here we are.
      - stordoff 8y ago
        If they made it law (which strictly speaking requires parliament, not the government), the courts _would_ uphold it.
      - steve_musk 8y ago
        Unless you get an extreme president who stacks the courts with extreme judges...
      - mlazos 8y ago
        So I would agree except judges are even elected in some places in the south. The judiciary is not always insular.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Couple of thousand fines in a city of 8,700,000 seems sensible to me. As someone who values free speech, even one fine is abhorrent.
    - orf 8y ago
      Do you speak for all people who value free speech?
      - DuskStar 8y ago
        I think that by his (and my) definition of "people who value free speech", yes he does - because that is a part of the definition. Everyone values speech they like. Valuing Free Speech means valuing the speech you don't like, too.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.
  - wetpaws 8y ago
    I would prefer being harrased and bullied rather than having to live in a country that has a legal power to punish me for what I say.
    - orf 8y ago
      > to punish me for what I say. But doesn't, unless you say something reprehensible that the society you live in agrees that you stepped way over the line.
      - wetpaws 8y ago
        I don't give a damnt about what society like or don't like. Tomorrow special sjw snowflakes could say that breathing or saying "hello" is harrasment.
    - arcticbull 8y ago
      You can absolutely get punished for what you say in the US -- freedom of speech was long ago recognized as anything but absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Obscenity (as defined in Miller v. California) is not protected by the constitution. You can't lie under oath. You can't deliberately tell lies about people (Libel). The First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government (Dennis v. United States). House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. And it's really not that different, is it?
- celticninja 8y ago
  But that's not criticising the government, you could call the government a bunch of cunts and no one is coming to arrest you. But if you harass an individual then that individual can use the government to prevent further harassment. This sort of malicious communication was illegal before the intern but now it is easier to commit it as you don't need to know where someone lives to send a letter, you can tweet them without leaving the house. In the past I imagine you had to do something pretty bad to get lots and lots of hate mail (takes a bit of effort to write the letter and send it ) but these days you could wear the wrong colour shirt and end up on the internets shit list and have your inbox or Twitter feed deluged in seconds.
hnaccy 8y ago
Didn't British police ignore the rape of a thousand children in one city alone?
- albertgoeswoof 8y ago
  No. Citation? And Fox News doesn’t count
  - hnaccy 8y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-st...
  - core-questions 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... Get a clue, man. Denying this kind of thing doesn't help anyone, even minority groups you might fear getting tarred by association. If you can ignore the rape of thousands of children because the political ramifications of it make you uncomfortable, you're part of the problem.
    - throwawayjava 8y ago
      Like 8/10ths of that wiki article is about various inquiries, at every level of government, all of which were either by or about the police. You have a very funny definition of "ignore". > If you can ignore the rape of thousands of children because the political ramifications of it make you uncomfortable, you're part of the problem. If everyone who disagrees with your framing "ignores child rape", you're part of the problem.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- orf 8y ago
  Rotherham, which you are likely referring to, was a complete failure of the system at every level and utterly unacceptable. It sparked 5+ inquiries, including a parliamentary one, numerous reforms and national outrage. I hope we learn from those mistakes. I never said England was perfect, and I'm not sure why this invalidates any of the points I've made. I could pick a few things that have happened in America that have not triggered universal outrage and a senate hearing. Like weekly school shootings.
galieos_ghost 8y ago
>UK Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online, covers up child-rape gangs, arrests people for reporting on those cover ups, and mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country. Your government took 1984 and used it as a blueprint. Your government see you as an actual human, they see you as their property.
- orf 8y ago
  What you have said is all spun propaganda, especially the health care bit. "Death panels" much? I suggest you visit sometime and expand your world view.
- stordoff 8y ago
  > Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening. > covers up child-rape gangs Mostly local government and the police, not central government (who organised an inquiry into it). > mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die For the NHS, _maybe_, and even then it is only limiting care on the very fringes. Nothing is stopping you going private. > regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country I assume you are referring to Ashya King, a child whom was moved from the country against medical advice (which is completely different to _you_ deciding to decline treatment--the decision is being made by the parents on behalf on the child). Furthermore, when the case was decided by the high court, it was ruled that the parents _did_ have the right to pursue that line of treatment: > Having considered the evidence, I concluded that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents’ proposal. In some cases, this court is faced with a dispute between medical authorities and parents who are insisting on a wholly unreasonable course of treatment, or withholding consent to an essential therapy for their child – for example, a blood transfusion. This is manifestly not such a case. The course of treatment proposed by Mr and Mrs King is entirely reasonable. [...] Both courses are reasonable and it is the parents who bear the heavy responsibility of making the decision. It is no business of this court, or any other public authority, to interfere with their decision. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/judgment-ashya-king-08092014.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/judg... I don't see how that supports the notion that the government can mandate your treatment.
tmmyrobinson 8y ago
Tommy Robinson Your press isn't even aloud to speak about him. The UK is dystopian
- orf 8y ago
  You mean the vile idiot who potentially ruined an ongoing trial by broadcasting sensitive details all over facebook directly outside the court, which was widely and thoroughly reported by the UK press? I would check where you are getting your facts from.
  - ra1n85 8y ago
    Your "media" was gagged - completely unable to speak about the arrest, sentencing, and secret imprisoning of one of your fellow citizens.
    - orf 8y ago
      Until that was immediately challenged and sensibly lifted 3 days later. It was only introduced as an extension to the already existing reporting restrictions on the trial that he broke. The judge quite sensibly didn't want that case, sure to get lots of attention, to rub off on his ongoing court case which has existing reporting restrictions. I'm also sure America could teach us a lot about gag orders though. Stick national security infront of it and then all freedom goes out the window?
      - ra1n85 8y ago
        >Until that was immediately challenged and sensibly lifted 3 days later. After he was sentenced and in jail. Love the coarse metric of British "sensibility"! Sounds like we need a "sensibility spectrum" to measure this all against. Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice!
        orf 8y ago
        > After he was sentenced and in jail. ... As he should be, for breaking a court order in the most ridiculous manner. Twice. > Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice! You are aware that you're commenting on a post about how a citizens freedom and property where taken without any due process? And how that happens a lot? And how it's legal? I feel like you're just looking to be triggered by something, and this man breaking two court orders gets you going, so we might as well end it here.
ra1n85 8y ago
I don't consider arresting and immediately sentencing an individual to 13 months in prison for broadcasting outside of a public trial to be sensible in the least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/29/conservative-outrage-after-anti-muslim-campaigner-tommy-robinson-secretly-jailed-in-britain/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d319870847cf https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/29...
- orf 8y ago
  I think your missing the context here, and falling for clickbaity anger inducing headlines. He had a previous suspended sentence for filming inside a court a couple of months earlier. He then thought "hey, you know what's a good idea? Disobeying a judge's direct no-reporting order (to maintain the integrity of the trial) literally right outside the freaking courthouse. I consider not giving him a slap on the wrist pretty sensible.
  - ssambros 8y ago
    «judge's direct no-reporting order» I can’t seem to be able to find a source that confirms that order actually existed. Do you happen to have a credible one so I can verify it isn’t fake news?
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Here's the sentencing remarks from the first case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt-of-court-in-open-court-at-the-crown-court-at-canterbury-yaxley-lennon/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-cont... Restrictions on what can be reported while a trial is happening are common, and not unusual in England. It should be obvious that you cannot, before someone has been convicted, call them a Muslim Paedophiles or Muslim child rapists, and you can't threaten to go round their house. After being convicted for contempt of court, and given a very clear warning not to do the samething again he does exactly the same thing again. For a good summary of the Yaxley Lennon situation there's this from a barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-... Here's what the judge says (but please do read the entire document): ---begin --- The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much. MR. KOVALEVSKY: Your Honour, may we extend our thanks for the patience with which you have heard us this afternoon. JUDGE NORTON: I am very sorry that we have gone on so late. Thank you very much for bearing with this rather lengthy case. Thank you both very much indeed for your help. Finally, can I just say this to Mr. -- I don't know whether it is Robertson or Robson who has just left the court, or indeed to anybody in the public gallery: I hope they have heard what I have said. There are real risks in publication and there are real risks in what is put online, and I hope that everybody will respect the judgment of this court and will not be tempted to do anything which might frankly, unwittingly or otherwise, either impede this trial or might land Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, or indeed themselves, in even more trouble.
jimmaswell 8y ago
Here are some things that would never happen in the US: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-called-police-because-boy-visited-ukip-website-on-class-computer-a6899641.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-calle...

by orf 8y ago

refurb 8y ago

You mean like arresting people when they say something the gov't doesn't like? [1] I'll take a pass, thank you. [1]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

jboles 8y ago
I'll gladly take that, and a government that generally tries to look after its citizens, over one that is downright hostile to and steals from citizens.
orf 8y ago
Couple of thousand fines in a city of 8,700,000 seems sensible to me. Not everyone values free speech quite as highly as the USA. It's important, sure, but it's not live or die. There are limits and spreading vile hate speech is one of them. I also like the complete focus on the free speech aspect, completely ignoring the "we actually deal with racists here" aspect. How narrow minded.
- core-questions 8y ago
  Let's keep in mind here that there are many definitions of hate speech. In Canada, it's carefully defined as speech that actually incites people to a criminal act - so racism or other "vile speech" on its own doesn't qualify, you have to be actively making a credible threat or incitement to have others commit real actions.
- seibelj 8y ago
  “Vile hate speech” can cut both ways unfortunately. Both of us agree that racism is a bad thing. But the American South during Jim Crow declared progressive speech as “hate speech” and tried to ban it.[0] So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t, or you may elect a government that decides what you say is hate speech. [0] “As we have seen, during the days of slavery and later segregation, laws suppressing free speech were often aimed at abolitionists and civil rights advocates, not at slave owners or Jim Crow advocates. This reflected social and political power in local states and communities where attitudes towards race were very different than today.“ https://www.hoover.org/research/harm-hate-speech-laws https://www.hoover.org/research/harm-hate-speech-laws
  - orf 8y ago
    > So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t The government cannot just arbitrarily expand hate speech to include something which is patently not hate speech. The courts would not uphold it, neither would the judiciary or the public at large.
    - abstrakraft 8y ago
      10 years ago, I would have argued the same about the gov't just arbitrarily expanding asset seizure laws, but here we are.
    - stordoff 8y ago
      If they made it law (which strictly speaking requires parliament, not the government), the courts _would_ uphold it.
    - steve_musk 8y ago
      Unless you get an extreme president who stacks the courts with extreme judges...
    - mlazos 8y ago
      So I would agree except judges are even elected in some places in the south. The judiciary is not always insular.
- refurb 8y ago
  Couple of thousand fines in a city of 8,700,000 seems sensible to me. As someone who values free speech, even one fine is abhorrent.
  - orf 8y ago
    Do you speak for all people who value free speech?
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      I think that by his (and my) definition of "people who value free speech", yes he does - because that is a part of the definition. Everyone values speech they like. Valuing Free Speech means valuing the speech you don't like, too.
iforgotpassword 8y ago
I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.
- wetpaws 8y ago
  I would prefer being harrased and bullied rather than having to live in a country that has a legal power to punish me for what I say.
  - orf 8y ago
    > to punish me for what I say. But doesn't, unless you say something reprehensible that the society you live in agrees that you stepped way over the line.
    - wetpaws 8y ago
      I don't give a damnt about what society like or don't like. Tomorrow special sjw snowflakes could say that breathing or saying "hello" is harrasment.
  - arcticbull 8y ago
    You can absolutely get punished for what you say in the US -- freedom of speech was long ago recognized as anything but absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Obscenity (as defined in Miller v. California) is not protected by the constitution. You can't lie under oath. You can't deliberately tell lies about people (Libel). The First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government (Dennis v. United States). House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. And it's really not that different, is it?
celticninja 8y ago
But that's not criticising the government, you could call the government a bunch of cunts and no one is coming to arrest you. But if you harass an individual then that individual can use the government to prevent further harassment. This sort of malicious communication was illegal before the intern but now it is easier to commit it as you don't need to know where someone lives to send a letter, you can tweet them without leaving the house. In the past I imagine you had to do something pretty bad to get lots and lots of hate mail (takes a bit of effort to write the letter and send it ) but these days you could wear the wrong colour shirt and end up on the internets shit list and have your inbox or Twitter feed deluged in seconds.

hnaccy 8y ago

Didn't British police ignore the rape of a thousand children in one city alone?

albertgoeswoof 8y ago
No. Citation? And Fox News doesn’t count
- hnaccy 8y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-st...
- core-questions 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploit... Get a clue, man. Denying this kind of thing doesn't help anyone, even minority groups you might fear getting tarred by association. If you can ignore the rape of thousands of children because the political ramifications of it make you uncomfortable, you're part of the problem.
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    Like 8/10ths of that wiki article is about various inquiries, at every level of government, all of which were either by or about the police. You have a very funny definition of "ignore". > If you can ignore the rape of thousands of children because the political ramifications of it make you uncomfortable, you're part of the problem. If everyone who disagrees with your framing "ignores child rape", you're part of the problem.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
orf 8y ago
Rotherham, which you are likely referring to, was a complete failure of the system at every level and utterly unacceptable. It sparked 5+ inquiries, including a parliamentary one, numerous reforms and national outrage. I hope we learn from those mistakes. I never said England was perfect, and I'm not sure why this invalidates any of the points I've made. I could pick a few things that have happened in America that have not triggered universal outrage and a senate hearing. Like weekly school shootings.

galieos_ghost 8y ago

>UK Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online, covers up child-rape gangs, arrests people for reporting on those cover ups, and mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country. Your government took 1984 and used it as a blueprint. Your government see you as an actual human, they see you as their property.

orf 8y ago
What you have said is all spun propaganda, especially the health care bit. "Death panels" much? I suggest you visit sometime and expand your world view.
stordoff 8y ago
> Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening. > covers up child-rape gangs Mostly local government and the police, not central government (who organised an inquiry into it). > mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die For the NHS, _maybe_, and even then it is only limiting care on the very fringes. Nothing is stopping you going private. > regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country I assume you are referring to Ashya King, a child whom was moved from the country against medical advice (which is completely different to _you_ deciding to decline treatment--the decision is being made by the parents on behalf on the child). Furthermore, when the case was decided by the high court, it was ruled that the parents _did_ have the right to pursue that line of treatment: > Having considered the evidence, I concluded that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents’ proposal. In some cases, this court is faced with a dispute between medical authorities and parents who are insisting on a wholly unreasonable course of treatment, or withholding consent to an essential therapy for their child – for example, a blood transfusion. This is manifestly not such a case. The course of treatment proposed by Mr and Mrs King is entirely reasonable. [...] Both courses are reasonable and it is the parents who bear the heavy responsibility of making the decision. It is no business of this court, or any other public authority, to interfere with their decision. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/judgment-ashya-king-08092014.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/judg... I don't see how that supports the notion that the government can mandate your treatment.

tmmyrobinson 8y ago

Tommy Robinson Your press isn't even aloud to speak about him. The UK is dystopian

orf 8y ago
You mean the vile idiot who potentially ruined an ongoing trial by broadcasting sensitive details all over facebook directly outside the court, which was widely and thoroughly reported by the UK press? I would check where you are getting your facts from.
- ra1n85 8y ago
  Your "media" was gagged - completely unable to speak about the arrest, sentencing, and secret imprisoning of one of your fellow citizens.
  - orf 8y ago
    Until that was immediately challenged and sensibly lifted 3 days later. It was only introduced as an extension to the already existing reporting restrictions on the trial that he broke. The judge quite sensibly didn't want that case, sure to get lots of attention, to rub off on his ongoing court case which has existing reporting restrictions. I'm also sure America could teach us a lot about gag orders though. Stick national security infront of it and then all freedom goes out the window?
    - ra1n85 8y ago
      >Until that was immediately challenged and sensibly lifted 3 days later. After he was sentenced and in jail. Love the coarse metric of British "sensibility"! Sounds like we need a "sensibility spectrum" to measure this all against. Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice!
      - orf 8y ago
        > After he was sentenced and in jail. ... As he should be, for breaking a court order in the most ridiculous manner. Twice. > Would really love to stack my freedom and property against that sturdy and immutable post of justice! You are aware that you're commenting on a post about how a citizens freedom and property where taken without any due process? And how that happens a lot? And how it's legal? I feel like you're just looking to be triggered by something, and this man breaking two court orders gets you going, so we might as well end it here.

ra1n85 8y ago

I don't consider arresting and immediately sentencing an individual to 13 months in prison for broadcasting outside of a public trial to be sensible in the least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/29/conservative-outrage-after-anti-muslim-campaigner-tommy-robinson-secretly-jailed-in-britain/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d319870847cf https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/29...

orf 8y ago
I think your missing the context here, and falling for clickbaity anger inducing headlines. He had a previous suspended sentence for filming inside a court a couple of months earlier. He then thought "hey, you know what's a good idea? Disobeying a judge's direct no-reporting order (to maintain the integrity of the trial) literally right outside the freaking courthouse. I consider not giving him a slap on the wrist pretty sensible.
- ssambros 8y ago
  «judge's direct no-reporting order» I can’t seem to be able to find a source that confirms that order actually existed. Do you happen to have a credible one so I can verify it isn’t fake news?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Here's the sentencing remarks from the first case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt-of-court-in-open-court-at-the-crown-court-at-canterbury-yaxley-lennon/ https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/committal-for-cont... Restrictions on what can be reported while a trial is happening are common, and not unusual in England. It should be obvious that you cannot, before someone has been convicted, call them a Muslim Paedophiles or Muslim child rapists, and you can't threaten to go round their house. After being convicted for contempt of court, and given a very clear warning not to do the samething again he does exactly the same thing again. For a good summary of the Yaxley Lennon situation there's this from a barrister: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-... Here's what the judge says (but please do read the entire document): ---begin --- The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much. MR. KOVALEVSKY: Your Honour, may we extend our thanks for the patience with which you have heard us this afternoon. JUDGE NORTON: I am very sorry that we have gone on so late. Thank you very much for bearing with this rather lengthy case. Thank you both very much indeed for your help. Finally, can I just say this to Mr. -- I don't know whether it is Robertson or Robson who has just left the court, or indeed to anybody in the public gallery: I hope they have heard what I have said. There are real risks in publication and there are real risks in what is put online, and I hope that everybody will respect the judgment of this court and will not be tempted to do anything which might frankly, unwittingly or otherwise, either impede this trial or might land Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, or indeed themselves, in even more trouble.

jimmaswell 8y ago

Here are some things that would never happen in the US: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-called-police-because-boy-visited-ukip-website-on-class-computer-a6899641.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-calle...