ChatterBank2 mins ago
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon Seems To Be In Trouble Again.
https:/
If the courts give you a direction it's probably best not to ignore it.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. 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.
-- answer removed --
Having seen the video I think it seems to give good evidence of his case. One would like to know the official reason it was banned. Granted it throws the spotlight on an individual that was given any benefit of doubt at the time, but (potential) testimony is testimony.
From what I have found via the Net, his argument is that it was released by others elsewhere. (Presumably implying it was now in the public domain ?) No doubt he will be claiming something like that to the court.
I don't see a justification for the claim that folk don't want to know the truth though.
Why were all the teachers made to sign a NDA?
Headmaster told he would lose his pension if he didn't sign. He wants to have his say but can't.
Why was the saint Jamal always in detention?
Why hasn't the numerous threats of rape against Baily's sisters and mother been investigated?
I could go on but you are not interested in any facts.
You along with other blind mice will be happy to see TR jailed even if he was speaking the truth and he will be jailed for a very lobg time. I have no doubt the shadow of Starmer is lurking being the judge.
The establishment want him away even if the have to supress the truth. That even if you don't like TR should bother you.
We have seen idiots sent to jail for being no more than idiots.
We have paedophiles not sent to prison because the jails are full of idiots.
The Times covered the story and mentioned a site where the documentary could be viewed, so it seemed reasonable to view it and to make up my own mind. The alternative is merely to parrot the newspaper headlines (obviously many of the contributors here took the latter option).
I found the claims credible - given the testimony of the people involved it would be difficult not to have. However, the statements were recorded secretly and one of them was very poorly recorded. It couldn't be broadcast in its current form and I doubt the people interviewed would ever agree to it (but it's out there, if you'd like to check your real prejudices against a possible miscarriage of justice).
hi clone
i have not been able to find any information about the teachers needing to sign NDAs. would you mind sharing where you learned that?
you will of course be aware that robinson did not claim that jamal hijazi was not a saint but claimed that he was attacking girls for which there is no evidence and a court found to be libelous... do you have evidence to the contrary?
Former staff members mention signing NDAs - although they do so without knowing they're being filmed (secret filming). A copy of council records shows the sums paid out.
A young girl claimed she had been threatened and attacked, but her version of events was not believed - despite school records showing her to be an exemplary student (the documentary evidence produced endorses this, as do comments by teaching staff featured in the documentary). I imagine clone's 'saint' reference is satirical, because the school records relating to her supposed assailant show him to be very far from a model student - his deceitfulness being a matter of record (and this is also borne out by those featured in the documentary). The question is, why didn't the court come to the same conclusion?
I watched the documentary some time ago and this is from memory, hopefully clone will supply more detail - but why not check it out for yourself, Untitled?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.