Can We Now Discuss This Case?

[anotheoldgit]

ABSpareEditor

I don't know if this was the story that we can't debate on, but according to the Daily Mail reporting restrictions were lifted this afternoon.

[Barmaid]

Tambo he was represented by a very senior criminal barrister at the hearing.

[anneasquith]

I may be wrong , but that is not the first time b.m. has posted that information !!!!

[Ellipsis]

> There were allegedly a thousand rape victims (although this number has been described as an exaggeration by the local police chief), and apparently two hundred suspected perpetrators. We heard that twenty men had been charged and were facing trial. Do you know what has happened to that case?

Dunno, sounds a bit complicated. Maybe it's taking a while to sort out ...

The last time I did jury service, the trial I was supposed to be on got delayed every day for two weeks and then I went home having not heard a single word of a case. (That's our justice system for you). So you can imagine how long a case involving 1000 victims, 200 perpetrators and 20 defendants would take to put together ...

[anneasquith]

Do you have a link for those numbers E ?

[vetuste_ennemi]

//I'm permanently bemused by the number of people who view a desire to see the 'due process' of the legal system carried out correctly and at best cost to the Taxpayer as some sort of defence of Rapists of any kidney.....//

That isn't the argument, Jack. The argument is that Muslim rape gangs have been allowed to prey on the most vulnerable members of our society for decades.

[Ellipsis]

Is the E me, anneasquith? If so, I was quoting vetuste_ennemi at 14:09 .

[vetuste_ennemi]

//Do you have a link for those numbers E ?//

Of course not, Anne. I'm a liar.

The numbers for Rotherham (which are not[i contested) is 1,500 victims and three hundred suspects. When Andrew Norfolk brought this to light (belatedly initiating serious investigations into some of these gangs) he observed that official papers going back ten, I repeat [i]ten], years named many of the suspects. Of, course, Norfolk, like me, could be a liar.

[jackthehat]

No, v-e.

It is precisely the argument used too many times on AB when someone tries to inject a bit of common-sense into a debate like this.

And *this* one is about Yaxley/Lennon/Robinson and *not* the abhorent actions of those preasently on trial.

[ummmm]

V- e should stop trying to use italics.

[Gromit]

Please remember that the reporting restriction were lifted on the Tommy Robinson Trial. The restrictions on the grooming trial(s) are still in place, and we should avoid mention that, as it will be Contempt of Court.

[vetuste_ennemi]

/Or, you know, committing contempt of court, outside a court, whilst on a suspended sentence for contempt of court, in addition to his previous convictions for mortgage fraud, travelling on a false passport, ABH, drug offences... //

Yes, Spathiphyllum, an all-round bad egg.

What he hasn't done yet - as far as I know - is rape a twelve year old girl and brand his name on her backside, or nail a girl's tongue to a table.

Of course, when he gets bored with the contempt of court stuff he may get round to that.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//And *this* one is about Yaxley/Lennon/Robinson and *not* the abhorent actions of those preasently on trial//

It's the (alleged?) "abhorrent actions" which is the context, Jack. The Luton grooming gangs were one of the reasons which led to the formation of the EDL.

The main purpose of Robinson's activism is to give these crimes the maximum publicity. The purpose of our politicians, the judiciary and the mainstream media appears to be the opposite.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//The main purpose of Robinson's activism is to give these crimes the maximum publicity//

And that aim should be shared by every decent person (amongst whom I'm sure you include yourself), shouldn't it, Jack?

And that irrespective of what you think of Robinson.

[jackthehat]

I rather think you'd have to have been living in a hole in the ground *not* to be aware of the activites of certain groups of men.
Why publicise the trials, exactly? What is to be gained? Additional publicity will have no effect on the sentencing and until sentence has been pronounced mainstream journalists are prevented from reporting much.

[-Talbot-]

The restrictions on the grooming trial(s) are still in place, and we should avoid mention that, as it will be Contempt of Court


Yes we should... We'll everyone except you.

[anotheoldgit]

jackthehat

/// I rather think you'd have to have been living in a hole in the ground *not* to be aware of the activites of certain groups of
men. ///

Certain groups of men?

Being extremely careful not to describe those 'certain groups'.

[jackthehat]

I was.......