News10 mins ago
Can We Now Discuss This Case?
266 Answers
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.
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//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?//
Why? To get it stopped. Which it won't be if people think it's come to light (a bit late perhaps), but it's now all sorted. And, anyway, it's only ever been a few evil men in only a few places.
As for awareness, you weren't aware of Muslim rape gangs eight years ago, Jack, were you? It's only since the Andrew Norfolk exposé in the Times that they have become common knowledge. And still, even now, the scale of the problem is been down-played and the obvious correlating factor ignored.
The problem has been - I'll use a weasel word - "avoided" for decades. This is an instance of the cover-up (which is actually what it was and still is) from an impeccable source back in 2004:
https:/
The police sent seven (was that seven? Yes, seven) officers and one paddy wagon to arrest Robinson in order to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice or an expensive re-trial.
Why didn't the Rotherham/Rochdale/Bradford etc police show the same zeal and commitment arresting rapists?
Remember Telford? Only last March wasn't it? "Biggest rape scandal ever!" type headlines. All forgotten now. Plod though of charging fifteen men, but thought better of it.
Why publicise the trials, exactly? What is to be gained?//
Why? To get it stopped. Which it won't be if people think it's come to light (a bit late perhaps), but it's now all sorted. And, anyway, it's only ever been a few evil men in only a few places.
As for awareness, you weren't aware of Muslim rape gangs eight years ago, Jack, were you? It's only since the Andrew Norfolk exposé in the Times that they have become common knowledge. And still, even now, the scale of the problem is been down-played and the obvious correlating factor ignored.
The problem has been - I'll use a weasel word - "avoided" for decades. This is an instance of the cover-up (which is actually what it was and still is) from an impeccable source back in 2004:
https:/
The police sent seven (was that seven? Yes, seven) officers and one paddy wagon to arrest Robinson in order to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice or an expensive re-trial.
Why didn't the Rotherham/Rochdale/Bradford etc police show the same zeal and commitment arresting rapists?
Remember Telford? Only last March wasn't it? "Biggest rape scandal ever!" type headlines. All forgotten now. Plod though of charging fifteen men, but thought better of it.
////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 //
Though not if it has been decreed that publicity could have a detrimental affect on the trial. I think we would all like to see those guilty prosecuted and get what they deserve (though sadly we don't allow such punishments as they deserve).
And that aim should be shared by every decent person //
Though not if it has been decreed that publicity could have a detrimental affect on the trial. I think we would all like to see those guilty prosecuted and get what they deserve (though sadly we don't allow such punishments as they deserve).
By all means, make noise and publicity *between* trials, raise awareness, create an atmosphere where victims feel comfortable and protected enough to go to the Police.
But *don't* engage in the sort of behaviour (yes, Mr Yaxley/Lennon/Robinson, I'm looking at you) which has the potential to torpedo an ongoing trial, or result in successful appeals.
But *don't* engage in the sort of behaviour (yes, Mr Yaxley/Lennon/Robinson, I'm looking at you) which has the potential to torpedo an ongoing trial, or result in successful appeals.
//But *don't* engage in the sort of behaviour (yes, Mr Yaxley/Lennon/Robinson, I'm looking at you) which has the potential to torpedo an ongoing trial, or result in successful appeals. //
So Tommy Robinson was arrested and jailed just days after our new muslim Home Secretary takes office. For "jeopardising" the convictions of scores of alleged muslim paedophiles and rapists, to ensure that "justice" is seen to be carried out? Don't think so. This is patently a political move, designed to both send a message, and to gauge how much the British and the English in particular are willing to allow the undermining of public opinion to be driven underground and democracy corrupted. I do hope you listened to the YouTube video posted at 13:18.
So Tommy Robinson was arrested and jailed just days after our new muslim Home Secretary takes office. For "jeopardising" the convictions of scores of alleged muslim paedophiles and rapists, to ensure that "justice" is seen to be carried out? Don't think so. This is patently a political move, designed to both send a message, and to gauge how much the British and the English in particular are willing to allow the undermining of public opinion to be driven underground and democracy corrupted. I do hope you listened to the YouTube video posted at 13:18.
vetuste - // 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. //
That is an utterly pointless argument, and I am sure you know it.
Offering to excuse a lawbreaker because his lawbreaking is not as bad as another lawbreaker's is to infer that your subject is not as bad, and therefore should be excused.
It's utterly bereft of reason as a defence of any kind, and carries no weight in a debate whatsoever.
That is an utterly pointless argument, and I am sure you know it.
Offering to excuse a lawbreaker because his lawbreaking is not as bad as another lawbreaker's is to infer that your subject is not as bad, and therefore should be excused.
It's utterly bereft of reason as a defence of any kind, and carries no weight in a debate whatsoever.
Togo - // So Tommy Robinson was arrested and jailed just days after our new muslim Home Secretary takes office. For "jeopardising" the convictions of scores of alleged muslim paedophiles and rapists, to ensure that "justice" is seen to be carried out? Don't think so. This is patently a political move, designed to both send a message, and to gauge how much the British and the English in particular are willing to allow the undermining of public opinion to be driven underground and democracy corrupted.//
You really are clutching as straws now, in an attempt to shore up your defence of 'Tommy Robinson'.
The fact that the Home Secretary is a Muslim and recently elected is not anything to do with what has happened here.
Neither is this a 'political move' either.
I know that some people, bouyed up by hang-wringing ninnies spouting guff from the USA and Canada about 'suppression of free speech' and a 'political prisoner' would love to believe that the arrest of 'Tommy Robinson' is part of some global conspiracy to stifle free speech.
Let's look at it for what it is shall we?
A man with a big mouth and an undeserved sense of self-importance took it upon himself to break the law in respect of a media blackout around an ongoing trial.
The man was arrested, his suspended sentence was inforced, and he is in jail.
And that's all there is to it.
Any speculating about plots and supressions is so much attention-seeking hot air from people who have too much time on their hands, and an over-inflated view of how valid and important their views, and themselves, actually are.
Which is exactly what got 'Tommy Robinson' where he is now.
You really are clutching as straws now, in an attempt to shore up your defence of 'Tommy Robinson'.
The fact that the Home Secretary is a Muslim and recently elected is not anything to do with what has happened here.
Neither is this a 'political move' either.
I know that some people, bouyed up by hang-wringing ninnies spouting guff from the USA and Canada about 'suppression of free speech' and a 'political prisoner' would love to believe that the arrest of 'Tommy Robinson' is part of some global conspiracy to stifle free speech.
Let's look at it for what it is shall we?
A man with a big mouth and an undeserved sense of self-importance took it upon himself to break the law in respect of a media blackout around an ongoing trial.
The man was arrested, his suspended sentence was inforced, and he is in jail.
And that's all there is to it.
Any speculating about plots and supressions is so much attention-seeking hot air from people who have too much time on their hands, and an over-inflated view of how valid and important their views, and themselves, actually are.
Which is exactly what got 'Tommy Robinson' where he is now.
Togo - // Couldn't give a hoot for Robinson, but care deeply about the democratic and socio judicial systems of my Country. This is 1984 writ large and straight out of the "Miniluv" manual. //
In what way is this '1984'? - or indeed, any more difficult to understand than I have explained in my last post?
In what way is this '1984'? - or indeed, any more difficult to understand than I have explained in my last post?
A World view.
//Did the Daily Mail's lawyers have to check with the British government, which had placed a gag order on reporting about the arrest, to make sure that it was permissible to report on the protest, if not directly on the arrest itself?
It seems fair to say that the incident has shocked, outraged, and scared people around the world who, until now, had thought of the United Kingdom as a free country.
"Britain used to be a bastion of free speech. Today its leaders are behaving like North Korea and Saudi Arabia." – Geert Wilders, MP; The Netherlands
Meanwhile, Robinson remains in jail for daring to exercise his free speech, and what the mainstream media have won back is the right to resume repeating their lockstep lies about who he is and what he stands for.
The Mail made sure to describe the hundreds of protesters as "far-right." How did the Mail ascertain their politics? Does it not occur to the Mail that even if Robinson were far-right, which he is not, a British subject would not have to be far right to want to take in a protest against his shockingly rapid-fire arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment for the sole offense of reporting from outside a courthouse?
The Evening Standard also reported on the protest – and also labeled the participants "far-right." "The incident," wrote the Standard 's Tom Powell, "has triggered a furious reaction from his fans." In fact, it seems fair to say that the incident has shocked, outraged, and scared people around the world who, until now, had thought of the United Kingdom as a free country.
In America, for example, Robert Spencer warned that "the darkness of Sharia-compliant totalitarianism descends upon the UK." Thomas Lifson asked:
"Is Britain lost to the ranks of free nations? The land that bequeathed the world the Magna Carta and the 'mother of parliaments' is indulging in totalitarianism with its handling of Tommy Robinson, a famous political activist agitating about the threat of radical Islam, and attempting to report on the trial of a Muslim 'grooming gang' that allegedly preyed on young English girls, forcing them into prostitution."
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders declared solidarity with Robinson: "Britain used to be a bastion of free speech. Today its leaders are behaving like North Korea and Saudi Arabia."
At least the Mail and Standard ran stories about the protests. Other major British dailies did not.The Metro website, for its part, posted a story that made the Mail look objective: "The controversial nationalist and far-right commentator, real name Stephen Lennon, was posing as a 'reporter' when police officers approached him," wrote Olivia Waring in a piece headlined "Why Was Tommy Robinson Arrested?" In fact, Robinson was not "posing" as anything – he is a citizen journalist who at the time of his arrest was being watched live on Facebook by supporters around the world. Waring went on say that Robinson's supporters "abide by slogans like 'White Lives Matter.'" She also mentioned that Robin was a founder of the English Defence League, but omitted to acknowledge that he left the organization after it adopted a racist line of which he could not approve.//
Seems to me that the world watches with bated breath and bemusement at the demise of our freedom of speech. Even more so at the willing complicity, and approval of the methods employed, of some of our "citizens". Meehh.
//Did the Daily Mail's lawyers have to check with the British government, which had placed a gag order on reporting about the arrest, to make sure that it was permissible to report on the protest, if not directly on the arrest itself?
It seems fair to say that the incident has shocked, outraged, and scared people around the world who, until now, had thought of the United Kingdom as a free country.
"Britain used to be a bastion of free speech. Today its leaders are behaving like North Korea and Saudi Arabia." – Geert Wilders, MP; The Netherlands
Meanwhile, Robinson remains in jail for daring to exercise his free speech, and what the mainstream media have won back is the right to resume repeating their lockstep lies about who he is and what he stands for.
The Mail made sure to describe the hundreds of protesters as "far-right." How did the Mail ascertain their politics? Does it not occur to the Mail that even if Robinson were far-right, which he is not, a British subject would not have to be far right to want to take in a protest against his shockingly rapid-fire arrest, trial, conviction, and imprisonment for the sole offense of reporting from outside a courthouse?
The Evening Standard also reported on the protest – and also labeled the participants "far-right." "The incident," wrote the Standard 's Tom Powell, "has triggered a furious reaction from his fans." In fact, it seems fair to say that the incident has shocked, outraged, and scared people around the world who, until now, had thought of the United Kingdom as a free country.
In America, for example, Robert Spencer warned that "the darkness of Sharia-compliant totalitarianism descends upon the UK." Thomas Lifson asked:
"Is Britain lost to the ranks of free nations? The land that bequeathed the world the Magna Carta and the 'mother of parliaments' is indulging in totalitarianism with its handling of Tommy Robinson, a famous political activist agitating about the threat of radical Islam, and attempting to report on the trial of a Muslim 'grooming gang' that allegedly preyed on young English girls, forcing them into prostitution."
In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders declared solidarity with Robinson: "Britain used to be a bastion of free speech. Today its leaders are behaving like North Korea and Saudi Arabia."
At least the Mail and Standard ran stories about the protests. Other major British dailies did not.The Metro website, for its part, posted a story that made the Mail look objective: "The controversial nationalist and far-right commentator, real name Stephen Lennon, was posing as a 'reporter' when police officers approached him," wrote Olivia Waring in a piece headlined "Why Was Tommy Robinson Arrested?" In fact, Robinson was not "posing" as anything – he is a citizen journalist who at the time of his arrest was being watched live on Facebook by supporters around the world. Waring went on say that Robinson's supporters "abide by slogans like 'White Lives Matter.'" She also mentioned that Robin was a founder of the English Defence League, but omitted to acknowledge that he left the organization after it adopted a racist line of which he could not approve.//
Seems to me that the world watches with bated breath and bemusement at the demise of our freedom of speech. Even more so at the willing complicity, and approval of the methods employed, of some of our "citizens". Meehh.
Always good to quote your sources, Togo:
https:/
Another even-handed publication, I note. Meeehhhhh. LoL
https:/
Another even-handed publication, I note. Meeehhhhh. LoL
I can understand Toag not caring about Tommy L
by my god he doth protest a lot about it !
// Did the Daily Mail's lawyers have to check.........yap yap goes on far too long ......to make sure that they [could } report ..... on the arrest ? //
No I imagine they read the order and thought the game is up. Lawyers dont have to ring up their mothers and others if a document has long words in it. It was immediately appealed and the appeal was successful
llong exhausting post - those are3 the mainpoints arent they ?
Do you really think the Home Secretary looked up from his prayer carpet and hissed - shut tommy away and make sure no one knows where .....Abu Ghraib or Gitmo or somewhere ....
well you are entitled to your opinion
by my god he doth protest a lot about it !
// Did the Daily Mail's lawyers have to check.........yap yap goes on far too long ......to make sure that they [could } report ..... on the arrest ? //
No I imagine they read the order and thought the game is up. Lawyers dont have to ring up their mothers and others if a document has long words in it. It was immediately appealed and the appeal was successful
llong exhausting post - those are3 the mainpoints arent they ?
Do you really think the Home Secretary looked up from his prayer carpet and hissed - shut tommy away and make sure no one knows where .....Abu Ghraib or Gitmo or somewhere ....
well you are entitled to your opinion
Surely some of those defending TR and claiming a conspiracy are just posting this guff to wind people up... and it's working. Regardless of previous softly/softly /sweep under the carpet/play it down for fear of upsetting minorities approaches, the legal processes are progressing so there was no need for TR to play his games now and risk messing up the trials.
// social media was swamped demanding retrials. Over exposure by media did not hamper courts but brought justice for Damilola. //
There was a campaign for justice for Damiola, but that was after the first trial failed to get a conviction. It was not during the first trial, and the publicity was not to bring it to public attention, because the public were well aware of the acquittals.
Also, not sure it was social media pressure that brought about a retrial. Social Media was not widely used then. Facebook and Twitter didn’t exist when the second arrests were made in 2005. The national press campaigned for justice (as they had done with Stephen Lawrences killers earlier). But again, those campaigns were not during trials risking the cases having to be scrapped, and they were not breaches of reporting restrictions.
There was a campaign for justice for Damiola, but that was after the first trial failed to get a conviction. It was not during the first trial, and the publicity was not to bring it to public attention, because the public were well aware of the acquittals.
Also, not sure it was social media pressure that brought about a retrial. Social Media was not widely used then. Facebook and Twitter didn’t exist when the second arrests were made in 2005. The national press campaigned for justice (as they had done with Stephen Lawrences killers earlier). But again, those campaigns were not during trials risking the cases having to be scrapped, and they were not breaches of reporting restrictions.
Latest Posts
A Tory Thank You To Pensioner's
News42 mins ago
What Store Did Cliff Richard Open In...
Music48 mins ago
Animals & Nature48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles52 mins ago