Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
History / Lessons learned - Totalitarian Socialism
« Last post by Libertas on June 05, 2018, 07:39:26 PM »
I found this interesting, things to keep in mind, as in "don't let it happen"!

https://shalamov.ru/en/library/34/1.html

For example...

https://www.oathkeepers.org/total-gun-confiscation-genie-cant-put-back-bottle/

Not on my watch!
92
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by Libertas on June 04, 2018, 09:48:29 AM »
Frankly I don't give a damn about Tommy's faults because the official government Star Chamber decision to bring Islamic Invaders in and cover up their vicious crimes that include rape, assualt and murder and to blame it all on anyone who points it out or merely thinks the truth about Islam negates ANY moral authority any asshole of The State thinks they have.  Short of civil war nothing can save Britain from becoming part of the European Caliphate...same for the rest of Western Europe or Sweden.

And Pan is right about NR Cuck's!

I don't read their articles - I didn't have time to dig deep & this one, which I came across via Twitter, gave me the summary I wanted to be able to better understand this issue - which sort of weirds me out what with the refusal of governments to call Islam what it is.

The government has put the noose around everybody's neck and handed the pulling end to the Islaminals and is persecuting any who bitch about it... beyond weird...is full-on Evil!!!
93
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by Pablo de Fleurs on June 04, 2018, 09:39:35 AM »
Frankly I don't give a damn about Tommy's faults because the official government Star Chamber decision to bring Islamic Invaders in and cover up their vicious crimes that include rape, assualt and murder and to blame it all on anyone who points it out or merely thinks the truth about Islam negates ANY moral authority any asshole of The State thinks they have.  Short of civil war nothing can save Britain from becoming part of the European Caliphate...same for the rest of Western Europe or Sweden.

And Pan is right about NR Cuck's!

I don't read their articles - I didn't have time to dig deep & this one, which I came across via Twitter, gave me the summary I wanted to be able to better understand this issue - which sort of weirds me out what with the refusal of governments to call Islam what it is.
94
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by Libertas on June 04, 2018, 07:11:34 AM »
Frankly I don't give a damn about Tommy's faults because the official government Star Chamber decision to bring Islamic Invaders in and cover up their vicious crimes that include rape, assualt and murder and to blame it all on anyone who points it out or merely thinks the truth about Islam negates ANY moral authority any asshole of The State thinks they have.  Short of civil war nothing can save Britain from becoming part of the European Caliphate...same for the rest of Western Europe or Sweden.

And Pan is right about NR Cuck's!
95
Entertainment / Re: Trap's Movie Thread
« Last post by patentlymn on June 03, 2018, 05:26:50 PM »

I rented the DVD Unlocked (2017)  Noomi Rapace. I thought it was very good but some critics panned it. It is a thriller with lots of plot twists.
96
Entertainment / Re: Trap's Movie Thread
« Last post by patentlymn on June 01, 2018, 06:16:53 PM »
I didn't.

I did not. I put it on my list. I may wait until it is free on Amazon Prime, if ever.

Made me think of Admiral: Roaring Currents 2014, not anime, a kick butt Koran naval battle movie. Not free on Amazon Prime either.  The CGI are often like a video game, if you want to be picky, still a great movie IMO. #1 in Korea that year.
Admiral: Roaring Currents 2014
Subtitles and Closed Captions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChKlHb5hU48

Also, just an anime music video. It is the gateway drug from ACOC that got me ulimately hooked on trance music. Long story.  Every Time We Touch, by Cascada. There are countless anime versions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0FU4N9eHfw





97
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by patentlymn on June 01, 2018, 05:41:55 PM »
The original contempt hearing and suspended sentence was because Tommy did something the judge did not like, not because the judge told Tommy not to do something and Tommy did it.

Judges issue gag orders to parties to a case in the US but they are in writing and specific.

What bothers me most about this case is the reporting and comments indicate we are entering a post literate and post analytical age. I could be wrong in my opinions but I keep searching for anything IN WRITING to see what Tommy did wrong and cannot find much, except as noted above. Commentators mention 'the law' without citing or quoting the law and cite the previous court rulng without quoting that.

on edit:
if there was a previous written ban on reporting on the grooming cases I wish the media would cite to that or quote it.


 I watched the entire video AND read the previous court transcript. Tommy did nothing proscribed in the previous court hearing. There were no conditions on his suspended setence as the previous judge SAID there were no conditions. If the judge had said Tommy shall not report on the trials until all three parts were finalized then Tommy would have been in contempt, right or wrong. If the judge had said Tommy shall not photograph any defendant anywhere on the street then Tommy would be in contempt, right or wrong. The Judge did not say these things. The statute cited does not say these things. People are photographed outside courthouses every day.

In the home of English common law Tommy ran afoul of some secret unwritten law he was not aware of.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/tommy_robinson_and_the_british_press.html
June 1, 2018
[size=150]Tommy Robinson and the British press[/size]
By Anne-Christine Hoff
Unlike the judge who delivered his 13-month sentence, I watched Tommy Robinson's entire Facebook Live stream on the Muslim grooming gangs trial outside Leeds Crown Court.  It is a little over an hour long and very enlightening.
...

Caelan Robertson, the cameraman for Tommy Robinson, was interviewed by InfoWars.  He is now legally allowed to talk about the court ruling.  There are many astounding aspects to Robinson's court ruling, but to me, the most disturbing of them all is that the judge admitted that he had not watched Robinson's Facebook [full] livestream video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G3O7kSS2e4
98
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by Pandora on June 01, 2018, 05:38:10 PM »
TPTB want Robinson shut up about muslims and their raping tendencies and the judge has done what he could to shut him up.
99
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by patentlymn on June 01, 2018, 05:33:46 PM »
Here is the long video of Tommy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbNWJZMyJz4

OK, I know I get dragged down into details. I watched the longer video above so you don't have to.
I did that because I was reading that Tommy was prejudicing their right to a fair trial, apparently now from people who don't know the details.  I thought I would see theother side of this issue. I am madder now than before I learned the details.

In the video he catches a few defendants on video. He does so on the street, not on court property. A few make sexual comments about his mother and wife.  He uses the word 'alleged" lots  just like the press does in the US. A few times he says they might not be guilty and are presumed innocent. The trial is broken into three parts because of the large number of defendants. This is part 2. Tommy does not report on the verdict of part 1 because he cannot. He says he will not report on the verdict of part 2 either.

Around 49:20 he notes that when he went to court the court house outside was  filled with photographers and press.  I guess the court had no problem with that or try to throw all the press photographers in prison, likely becuase that is not the law in the UK.

Around 52:00 - 55:00 he describes the previous case where the judge gave him the 3 month suspended sentence.

My summary.
1. In the previous case the judge used all sorts of weasel words I underlined above to say what the statute might mean and then said it did not matter because the courts jurisdiction for contempt of court extended to the entire precinct of the court.  The judge did not cite any case law to support contempt for photographing people on the street.

2. The previous court did not say he could not photograph defendants any where outside the court.

3. The previous court did say what he could not do and Tommy did not do any of those things, unless the judge was saying Tommy could not say bad things about Muslim rapists anywhere, period, until the trial was over. 

4. The judge is power mad and did it because he could.
100
Radical Islam/GWOT / Re: Tommy Robinson
« Last post by patentlymn on June 01, 2018, 05:29:46 PM »
I posted elsewhere (another site)  on this. Forgive me for obsessing on this story.  Sometimes I get carried away.  i am still waiting for the transcript of the recent court hearing where Tommy got sentenced.

Most of the 'news' stories on this apparently have not read the original court transcript or listened to Tommy's hour long video.  They write about 'the law' but never cite anything written.  if I am wrong I stand corrected. It is the MSM the upsets me, then the power mad judge in second place.

It seems that the judge in the first hearing is not limiting Tommy's speech about the defendants in particular but about Muslims in general. ???

The judge in the recent hearing said (according to Tommy's camera man) that he based his 13 month sentence on what Tommy did outside his court house, not on anything he did earlier or the suspended sentence, referenced below.

This is the trasncript of the earlier court proceeding. It seems that Tommy was not filming defendants  then only himself but 'tried' to film defendants?  The 'ban' may have been on reporting on any cases while saying bad things about Muslims? i do not know how that works in the UK. The rush to jail him seems inapropriate, given the inability to defend himself in the second matter.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/coc-yaxley-lennon-20170522.pdf
...

 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.


[In the transcript above the judge notes that Tommy had been given conflicting instructions by court personnel about what was permissible.  That may have been a reason for the suspended sentence.]


The starting point, as we have discussed in the
course of this case, has been section 41 of the
Criminal Justice Act 1925, which makes it an offence
to take any photograph in court.

...
 and there appears to me to be at
least grounds for supposing that it is correct that it
is an offence under section 41 "to take or attempt to
take in any court" by which that means not only the
courtroom but also the building and the precincts,
any
photograph, irrespective of who that is a photograph
of,
...
It seems to me, therefore, that on a reading of
section 41 that you have committed an offence under
that section. But, whether you have or have not, and
even if I am wrong that you have, there are the wider
summary powers of the court to deal with contempts
which are in the face of the court as that has been
defined in its wider sense.

...
I find that this was the commission of an
offence under section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act
1925, but even if I am wrong about that I do find
clear evidence of contempt of court in this case, for
the reasons that I have given.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]