Russian Vs Western Censorship And Propaganda

[Sheepy]

No it isn't ok but there's been a diversion called Ukraine,people still haven't forgotten though.

Well, they obviously think we have, with onset of Russophobia. 

[cromwell]

So is Boris by his own laws, but then that's OK. The difference being TR doesn't make the laws and has no faith in them either. Whereas Boris and crew say those laws are for you not us.

No it isn't ok but there's been a diversion called Ukraine,people still haven't forgotten though.

[Sheepy]

He's a common criminal, and not a very good one. 

So is Boris by his own laws, but then that's OK. The difference being TR doesn't make the laws and has no faith in them either. Whereas Boris and crew say those laws are for you not us. 

[Nick]

Thrown out by a judge.  [highlight]So are you saying, if a judge decides you don't have freedom of speech, that's that?[/highlight]  You're not even going to attempt to justify it?  As I say, I'm sure when Putin has people arrested, he also has fantastical justification.

Correct. If the judge says you don't report on anything from inside the court room you don't report it. If you do you go to jail, so how is Yaxley Lennon a political prisoner? He's a common criminal, and not a very good one. 

[Scott777]

Oh just f**k off.

We did this already and I'm f**king tired of explaining the truth. But I will again for the benefit of people like you who clearly have understanding difficulties.

I know the truth because I've seen the documents

How I've seen them is irrelevant. I have seen others in other cases where I was involved as a witness..... And one where I was a victim (of a crime utterly unrelated to anything like these)

In short....

The judge in a singularly nasty case where a person was standing trial with others ordered, as often happens in British courts, that no person present in the court could tell another outside it of any of the proceedings until he said they could.

He made NO order that anything be hushed up.

In fact he said the very opposite. He directed the media present to report the proceedings in full but ONLY after he issued a directive declaring when they could. And he stated categorically the day on which that order would be made.

The restriction he imposed, he said, was needed because, and he stated this in the order, that one of those accused here was also accused of similar illegal deeds at another place, at another time, in the company of and while conspiring with other men.

He actually gave the details of that trial in his order.

It was in the judges opinion (which is all that the law in question needs) a serious risk to the fairness of that second trial for the history of one of those in the dock for it to be made known,

BRITISH law requires that even if you have a dozen counts of murder rape and sodomy on your rap sheet, that while the judge and the briefs may know that, the jury MUST NOT because THEY have to pass a verdict based on the evidence germane to whatever you are in the dock for now. Only after the jury find you guilty can that rap sheet be used to determine how little you get in the holiday camp before you get let out to do it again.

The judges orders were that the moment the SECOND trial jury returned it's verdict, whether guilt or innocence, the verdict of BOTH not only could, but indeed MUST be reported.

Yaxley-Lennon, in full knowledge of the full content of the judges directive, sought to publish the guilt of those in the first trial prior to the start of the second trial, an act that threatened to detail the entire second trial of all the conspirators therein.

Yaxley-Lennon should have been jailed for Her Majesty's Pleasure for contempt and have been left to die in jail. Because his anarchic ways make him the enemy of the justice system and all who seek it's help.

John, it's not the first time you've been so catastrophically wrong.  In one thread on Covid, you made patently false claims about immunity, assuming only antibodies comprise adaptive immunity, completely omitting that memory cells also provide immunity without the need for antibodies.  In another thread, you exposed a lack of understanding of the calculations involved in specificity of PCR tests, despite proclaiming your expert certainty.

I read the court documents of the TR incident, many months ago, and the court ruled that the trial in question could not have been prejudiced by his reporting, contradicting your claim.  I suggest you get down off your high horse before its legs buckle under the weight of your grandiose delusions.

[cromwell]

Well, actually, yes.

But that wasn't what the judge said, was it.

But seeing as you ask, yes, if the decision is made to arrest you, convict you and take you out and shoot you, and that none of it can be reported on grounds of National Security, yeah I'm ok with that.

[johnofgwent]

Thrown out by a judge.  So are you saying, if a judge decides you don't have freedom of speech, that's that?  You're not even going to attempt to justify it?  As I say, I'm sure when Putin has people arrested, he also has fantastical justification.

Well, actually, yes.

But that wasn't what the judge said, was it.

But seeing as you ask, yes, if the decision is made to arrest you, convict you and take you out and shoot you, and that none of it can be reported on grounds of National Security, yeah I'm ok with that.

[johnofgwent]

You can ignore the fact that what TR reported on was already available knowledge, reported by the corporatist media.

Oh just f**k off.

We did this already and I'm f**king tired of explaining the truth. But I will again for the benefit of people like you who clearly have understanding difficulties.

I know the truth because I've seen the documents

How I've seen them is irrelevant. I have seen others in other cases where I was involved as a witness..... And one where I was a victim (of a crime utterly unrelated to anything like these)

In short....

The judge in a singularly nasty case where a person was standing trial with others ordered, as often happens in British courts, that no person present in the court could tell another outside it of any of the proceedings until he said they could.

He made NO order that anything be hushed up.

In fact he said the very opposite. He directed the media present to report the proceedings in full but ONLY after he issued a directive declaring when they could. And he stated categorically the day on which that order would be made.

The restriction he imposed, he said, was needed because, and he stated this in the order, that one of those accused here was also accused of similar illegal deeds at another place, at another time, in the company of and while conspiring with other men.

He actually gave the details of that trial in his order.

It was in the judges opinion (which is all that the law in question needs) a serious risk to the fairness of that second trial for the history of one of those in the dock for it to be made known,

BRITISH law requires that even if you have a dozen counts of murder rape and sodomy on your rap sheet, that while the judge and the briefs may know that, the jury MUST NOT because THEY have to pass a verdict based on the evidence germane to whatever you are in the dock for now. Only after the jury find you guilty can that rap sheet be used to determine how little you get in the holiday camp before you get let out to do it again.

The judges orders were that the moment the SECOND trial jury returned it's verdict, whether guilt or innocence, the verdict of BOTH not only could, but indeed MUST be reported.

Yaxley-Lennon, in full knowledge of the full content of the judges directive, sought to publish the guilt of those in the first trial prior to the start of the second trial, an act that threatened to detail the entire second trial of all the conspirators therein.

Yaxley-Lennon should have been jailed for Her Majesty's Pleasure for contempt and have been left to die in jail. Because his anarchic ways make him the enemy of the justice system and all who seek it's help.

[Scott777]

You are using the same excuse he used in court, an excuse that was thrown out.
He was jailed for ignoring a reporting ban: that means you don't report on anything concerning the case, unless you're Yaxley Lennon that is.

Thrown out by a judge.  So are you saying, if a judge decides you don't have freedom of speech, that's that?  You're not even going to attempt to justify it?  As I say, I'm sure when Putin has people arrested, he also has fantastical justification.

[Nick]

Well I'm glad I only LOOK stupid, and not ACTUALY stupid.  That's a relief.

[highlight]You can ignore the fact that what TR reported on was already available knowledge[/highlight], reported by the corporatist media.  Don't worry about it, if ONLY TR got locked up, just try to put it out of your mind.  Obviously anyone who gets locked up in Russia did nothing wrong, and Putin could never come up with a reason, like contempt for the state, or danger to public health or national security, or anything like that.  Russian arrests are NEVER justifiable like how TR and Assange were definitely justifiable, according to your rulebook.  Obviously, if anytime the US want to extradite someone, we don't need to justify it, just accept it, and lock em up.  Maybe you dropped a bit of fluff on the pavement, but if the US want to extradite you for it, and you get locked up in the meantime, that's just fine, because what the US decides is a reason to extradite, MUST always be good enough for us. 🤣

You are using the same excuse he used in court, an excuse that was thrown out. 
He was jailed for ignoring a reporting ban: that means you don't report on anything concerning the case, unless you're Yaxley Lennon that is. 

I suppose his other three jail sentences were wrong as well?

Assault, Using false docs to enter USA and Mortgage fraud?

[Sheepy]

No, Assange was a publisher. It was Manning and Snowden who supplied him with the files. The whole issue is being manipulated by some emails and the American argument is that Assange manipulated Manning and Snowden into breaking the law via correspondence. The problem, all publishers are going to ask for evidence when publishing information so what is going to happen next? The media can't communicate with their source? And that isn't even getting to the nitty-gritty that Assange didn't even operate in America.

I was talking about TR Assange knew by publishing what he did it would be war with the establishment, he took that chance thinking he could get them to back off, whereas we made them agree a referendum was binding which they are still trying to find ways around.

[B0ycey]

Well actually he broke the law, because free speech was being supressed by the law, a lesson maybe on how you learn to pick your battles. Not have them picked for you.

No, Assange was a publisher. It was Manning and Snowden who supplied him with the files. The whole issue is being manipulated by some emails and the American argument is that Assange manipulated Manning and Snowden into breaking the law via correspondence. The problem, all publishers are going to ask for evidence when publishing information so what is going to happen next? The media can't communicate with their source? And that isn't even getting to the nitty-gritty that Assange didn't even operate in America. 

[Sheepy]

You keep peddling this BS and you're just making yourself look stupid.

Yaxley Lennon is inside for contempt of court, he defied a court order, he broke the law. Nothing to do with free speech.

Assange is inside waiting the outcome of extradition proceedings. He comprised undercover agents lives. Again not free speech.

Well actually he broke the law, because free speech was being supressed by the law, a lesson maybe on how you learn to pick your battles. Not have them picked for you. 

[B0ycey]

Well I'm glad I only LOOK stupid, and not ACTUALY stupid.  That's a relief.

You can ignore the fact that what TR reported on was already available knowledge, reported by the corporatist media.  Don't worry about it, if ONLY TR got locked up, just try to put it out of your mind.  Obviously anyone who gets locked up in Russia did nothing wrong, and Putin could never come up with a reason, like contempt for the state, or danger to public health or national security, or anything like that.  Russian arrests are NEVER justifiable like how TR and Assange were definitely justifiable, according to your rulebook.  Obviously, if anytime the US want to extradite someone, we don't need to justify it, just accept it, and lock em up.  Maybe you dropped a bit of fluff on the pavement, but if the US want to extradite you for it, and you get locked up in the meantime, that's just fine, because what the US decides is a reason to extradite, MUST always be good enough for us. 🤣

Assange has done absolutely nothing wrong. His "so called" offence didn't even occur in America and given he was a publisher, if found guilty in America that would have serious repercussions for what information the media could publish there and how they could retrieve their information. For example, Watergate would not have been possible. I also doubt he could get a fair trail. He is so well known that you either support or are against wikileaks publishing secret illegal violation US reports. I don't think a jury would look at the facts and focus on the narrative they have been supplied with for years.

[Scott777]

You keep peddling this BS and you're just making yourself look stupid.

Yaxley Lennon is inside for contempt of court, he defied a court order, he broke the law. Nothing to do with free speech.

Assange is inside waiting the outcome of extradition proceedings. He comprised undercover agents lives. Again not free speech.

Well I'm glad I only LOOK stupid, and not ACTUALY stupid.  That's a relief.

You can ignore the fact that what TR reported on was already available knowledge, reported by the corporatist media.  Don't worry about it, if ONLY TR got locked up, just try to put it out of your mind.  Obviously anyone who gets locked up in Russia did nothing wrong, and Putin could never come up with a reason, like contempt for the state, or danger to public health or national security, or anything like that.  Russian arrests are NEVER justifiable like how TR and Assange were definitely justifiable, according to your rulebook.  Obviously, if anytime the US want to extradite someone, we don't need to justify it, just accept it, and lock em up.  Maybe you dropped a bit of fluff on the pavement, but if the US want to extradite you for it, and you get locked up in the meantime, that's just fine, because what the US decides is a reason to extradite, MUST always be good enough for us. 🤣