I think the word and who journalist are has radically changed over the past decade (imo not for the better). It would be hard to argue that a YouTuber or blogger followed by millions and doing news pieces isn’t engaging in journalism.
Tommy Robinson is a piece of shit and is not a journalist in any meaningful sense of the word.
I think the word and who journalist are has radically changed over the past decade (imo not for the better). It would be hard to argue that a YouTuber or blogger followed by millions and doing news pieces isn’t engaging in journalism.
UK activist and journalist Tommy Robinson was arrested and is in jail after filming members of a child grooming gang outside a courthouse. The judge also ordered a media ban.
Good for him, he needs to be charged if anything happens to Tommy.
This is absolutely despicable and an attack on free speech and the media, he didn't do anything wrong yet he had 7 officers arrest him. England is once again attacking free speech and pandering to these radical extremists. This is very dangerous and a further erosion of free speech in England.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/0...ter-filming-outside-child-grooming-trial.html
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/28/tommy-robinson-arrested-7583101/
Who?
We got a SCOTUS that just voted along party lines to deny 60 Million workers their right to sue, but we are supposed to focus on what a court in the UK is doing instead?
It involves throwing Republican bums out.You know how this can be fixed right? Psst, it doesn't involve the SCOTUS.
It involves throwing Republican bums out.
To change the laws and reform the courts.Then what? That does nothing in itself. What was the basis for the decision? The answer would not be "Republican bums".
To change the laws and reform the courts.
The first part is the most relevant. "Changing the courts" to get the desired outcome based on something other than law? Not a fan.
For those who aren't informed, there were two laws which exist and the matter rested on which held precedent over the other. The Court was divided with good reason because of the ambiguity. The SCOTUS went with the older law The Federal Arbitration Act of 1925.
The solution? Dems in Congress create a new law that explicitly revokes the FAA and incorporates desired portions (if any) into new legislation. With new legislation the decision by the SCOTUS is moot. That involves balls and standing up to the Dems own corporate masters so I expect judges will be scapegoated.
Is this where we pretend where courts are packed with anything other than politicians in robes? Court is divided along strict party lines because of "ambiguity?" There is already a newer legislation. Conservatives chose to go with older law and push people into arbitration, when a newer law, which is the last word from Congress on the subject, allows employees to defend their interests collectively. And you think it's because of "ambiguity?"
There are two laws which are relevant. The newer law did not revoke the older and that newer law is old. So fix it. Making a law never removes an existing one unless that is explicitly done. It wasn't. When laws are revoked and new ones enacted the newer is in play. Conservative vs Liberal vanishes.
So upon winning fix the law. If Dems win Congress in the midterms, when do you think they'll fix this important issue?
Such an apologist. We've lived by the 1935 law for 83 years, but, uhh, let's roll back the clock to the time before the New Deal so that employers can have it the way it used to be. It'll all trickle down, right?
So you think it's completely coincidental that the court split Republican vs Democratic when deciding that an older law supercedes a newer one?There are two laws which are relevant. The newer law did not revoke the older and that newer law is old. So fix it. Making a law never removes an existing one unless that is explicitly done. It wasn't. When laws are revoked and new ones enacted the newer is in play. Conservative vs Liberal vanishes.
So upon winning fix the law. If Dems win Congress in the midterms, when do you think they'll fix this important issue?
I know you are planning for the Dems to fail already. This will be your justification, to distract and divert. You always do. Never once do I remember holding Dems accountable for something important for which they had control You are psychologically incapable.
I've explained the facts of the matter and that there was a legal basis for it. Do I like the outcome? No. You'll like it enough to excuse nothing being done. The harm of what happens is as important as it is to a Trump as long as those who can effect change are protected if they fail.
Personally, I hope the Dems do act and change the law if they have the power. When do YOU think they will, or will they not?
Can you answer that explicit question without pulling a Sanders and pointing at ANYONE else? We'll see.
So you think it's completely coincidental that the court split Republican vs Democratic when deciding that an older law supercedes a newer one?
I think they should change the laws and also add more seats to SCOTUS to improve decision making.I think that where the opportunity to take advantage of two laws that the one favored will be picked, right or wrong.
I'll ask you. Do you think that the Dems will change the laws once in power?
I''m diverting? You're already blaming Democrats for something over which they have no control.
None of it has a damned thing to do with the poor oppressed racist bastards in the UK, like the poor, poor martyred Tommy Robinson.
I think they should change the laws and also add more seats to SCOTUS to improve decision making.
They will change it, but SCOTUS rightwingers will try some new stunts, so court reform will still need to happen, barring vacancies.Thank god a straight answer. Will they change the law or let it ride?
They will change it, but SCOTUS rightwingers will try some new stunts, so court reform will still need to happen, barring vacancies.