Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse. As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming.
Just quoting this so it can be seen again...
You also agree that Robinson is as harmful as gangs of child rapists?
Some messed up people on this forum.
Yes, obviously that's what I and everyone else thinks. Point made.
Thats exactly what the poat you quoted said.
"As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming. "
So if you don't agree, why quote it to be seen later?
I can't just quote half a post, it looks disingenuous.
No I do not agree with the last sentence (I can't believe I have to clarify it) but the previous couple of sentences are bang on the money.
Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse. As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming.
Just quoting this so it can be seen again...
You also agree that Robinson is as harmful as gangs of child rapists?
Some messed up people on this forum.
Yes, obviously that's what I and everyone else thinks. Point made.
Thats exactly what the poat you quoted said.
"As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming. "
So if you don't agree, why quote it to be seen later?
I can't just quote half a post, it looks disingenuous.
No I do not agree with the last sentence (I can't believe I have to clarify it) but the previous couple of sentences are bang on the money.
There is undoubtedly a problem with gangs of men of Pakistani origin grooming girls from the care system. The issue here is power, kids in care are regarded as the lowest of the low and treated accordingly. Hence the police refusing to investigate because of the background of the victims. You'd hope that this particular lesson has been learned by the police and CPS, but I wouldn't hold my breath and expect them to go back to ignoring victims from that sort of background. As McBobbin points out, it's exactly the same sort of kids that the Yewtree cases were abusing. There are class actions going on from groups of care survivors (their word) from various childrens' homes because of the abuse that was tolerated or even arranged at the care homes in the 60s or 70s. I've no issue with Tommy Robinson using an alias, particularly as you rarely find white working class lads with double barrelled names. It's not like he isn't a public figure and, as he has pled guilty to this, he is clearly accountable. His issue is that he thinks Islam is the main problem and responsible for all this abuse. A couple of years ago he quit the EDL after talking to Muslims and accepting that demonising all muslims was just creating a siege mentality and that there were better ways of targetting the wrong uns. I took him at his word on this, and can remember commenting here and elsewhere to say fair play for actually learning. Since then, he's reverted to being just another right wing street fighter for whom Islam as a whole is the problem. This may have something to do with the growth of far right media in the US and Canada post Trump. There is now a very profitable career to be made by being a talking head there and I suspect that he had his eye on that when he committed contempt of court. He'll do his time and then come out and deny that he was really guilty and continue to claim that his free speech was curtailed. It doesn't matter about facts, because no one cares about them as the last few years have surely proved. He has an agenda, it's to promote a far right racist vision and he can't just denounce all races, but he can denounce muslims. He can say "Islam isn't a race"; but everyone knows he doesn't mean all muslims, he means Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Islam isn't monolithic any more than Christianity is. But if you attack all Muslims you create a siege mentality.
No, I wouldn’t say that is the issue here at all. Maybe in the wider issue of child abuse it is. My wife is social worker and believe me I know enough of the shit stains in ‘our community’.
But in this case the issue is not the victims. It is clearly the race of the accusers and the establishments desire to not offend the minority community, that has enabled this situation to evolve.
This thread has an interesting title but I really can't be bothered reading 13 pages.
What's it about (in one paragraph.)
Some mischievous scamp posted an alt-right piece about an arsehole on a suspended sentence who knowingly breached that sentence, deliberatly risked a mistrial of some evil scumbags and has ended up doing some porridge for it. There's a slight difference of opinion over his motives...
The reality is this is a war. These people are waging war on us. This has gone on for 1,400 years. This is nothing new. And the whole time while this goes on, the police leaders or political leaders want to invite more! They want to invite more!
Is this really what you think? Can you name how many times Islamic countries have invaded Britain? Or even tried? In 1400 years? I don't even understand where this line of thought is coming from, can you explain?
1625 1626 1640
At one time between 3/5000 English slaves were being held in Algiers. A lot of pubs in Cornwall and Devon are called the Turks Head as captured Arabs were swiftly beheaded.
So those were invasion attempts by Turkey (presumably)? Or were they attacks by pirates attempting to seize slaves who happened to be North African?
At the time all arabs/ Muslims were referred to as Turks. They based themselves on Helm island until dislodged by Cromwell. Maybe not a full on invasion but they would have stayed if they could.
I thought he was outside the court for the sentencing, if so how could he possibly jeopardise anything?
Unless the judge is looking out of the window and thinks "there's that Robinson bloke, I don't listen to what he says but I've decided he's a racist and I don't like the look of him so I'm going to not sentence these dirty bastards due up in front of me to anytbing more than litter picking"
Lets forget the fact that the backwards perverts who have been ruining the lives of children have been roaming free since beung found guilty. There's no way they could do a bunk or intimidate anyone or Even carry on with their revolting ways
I think the main problem here is that you're not clear on the legal facts. Firstly, it's nothing to do with the judge. It's to do with the jury, who have no legal training and can be swayed by media reporting on cases. Cases take days or weeks to resolve, and that's why Robinson's illegal reporting - which he freely admitted he knew was illegal - was so dangerous. It's been reported that he was performing his nonsense within earshot of jurors entering the building. There are to be three trials regarding this, one of which, separate to the one Robinson was outside of, is ongoing. Cases have to be tried within the bounds of established practice, and it's supremely important that things like reporting bans are adhered to. If enough reporting goes on to jeopardise the neutrality of a jury then the first thing the defence will do is move to have the case stayed. They won't need to grapple with the facts, with trying to defend the disgusting crimes the defendants are accused of, they'll just press the technicality. So - and let's be very clear on this - the 'backwards perverts' that Robinson's supporters are so very concerned about could have walked scot-free from their crimes based on his actions. That point can't be laboured enough; in an attempt to make his point Robinson strongly ran the risk of allowing criminals to get away with their crimes. He's just too stupid or selfish (or both) to understand that
And he knows it. It would suit his purposes to have these people get off on a technicality. He would then claim we treat Muslims different from everyone else and add more fuel to his racist fire.
This is something I probably get more frustrated about than I should. Islam is a religion, a doctrine, I'm pretty sure it isn't a race
The point he has been making, and if you listen to him and put aside your distaste of him, is that it isn't a competition. I hope we all agree that paedophilia is repugnant regardless of what ethnicity, skin pigmentation or fairy tale the perpetrators follow.
The bug difference is these animals who are grooming kids on an industrial scale are all followers of a medieval book, a book that states they are only following the word of the prophet. That on its own is insane, the bit that chills me the most is they are a group of pals, like me and my mates who go to football and have that in common, except their thing is concubines, child sex slaves. If one of my football pals suggested getting involved in something like that, or even hinted they were involved in something like that I'd be at best having a strong chat and at worst delivering a hiding.
At the end of these trials I've seen family members outside the courts screaming that the kids, the victims, are slags and were asking for it. The people screaming this are family members of the perpetrators! Does that not concern anyone?
Forget what they look like or what religion they day they follow, this is similar to the family and friends of that shithouse who was killed whilst burgling the home of 2 pensioners, that sort of shit.
I fully appreciate people don't like him for whatever reason, to a degree I don't as i think he encourages those who are simply bigoted to use him as a hero and like a lot of those who hate him, they aren't listening to what he is saying.
I respect anyone's right to an opinion and their right to disagree with me and him. What I can't take so seriously is people dismissing what he is saying purely because they don't like him.
Well said. Sadly too many on here happy to put the boot into Tommy Robinson than a nonce.
There is undoubtedly a problem with gangs of men of Pakistani origin grooming girls from the care system. The issue here is power, kids in care are regarded as the lowest of the low and treated accordingly. Hence the police refusing to investigate because of the background of the victims. You'd hope that this particular lesson has been learned by the police and CPS, but I wouldn't hold my breath and expect them to go back to ignoring victims from that sort of background. As McBobbin points out, it's exactly the same sort of kids that the Yewtree cases were abusing. There are class actions going on from groups of care survivors (their word) from various childrens' homes because of the abuse that was tolerated or even arranged at the care homes in the 60s or 70s. I've no issue with Tommy Robinson using an alias, particularly as you rarely find white working class lads with double barrelled names. It's not like he isn't a public figure and, as he has pled guilty to this, he is clearly accountable. His issue is that he thinks Islam is the main problem and responsible for all this abuse. A couple of years ago he quit the EDL after talking to Muslims and accepting that demonising all muslims was just creating a siege mentality and that there were better ways of targetting the wrong uns. I took him at his word on this, and can remember commenting here and elsewhere to say fair play for actually learning. Since then, he's reverted to being just another right wing street fighter for whom Islam as a whole is the problem. This may have something to do with the growth of far right media in the US and Canada post Trump. There is now a very profitable career to be made by being a talking head there and I suspect that he had his eye on that when he committed contempt of court. He'll do his time and then come out and deny that he was really guilty and continue to claim that his free speech was curtailed. It doesn't matter about facts, because no one cares about them as the last few years have surely proved. He has an agenda, it's to promote a far right racist vision and he can't just denounce all races, but he can denounce muslims. He can say "Islam isn't a race"; but everyone knows he doesn't mean all muslims, he means Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Islam isn't monolithic any more than Christianity is. But if you attack all Muslims you create a siege mentality.
No, I wouldn’t say that is the issue here at all. Maybe in the wider issue of child abuse it is. My wife is social worker and believe me I know enough of the shit stains in ‘our community’.
But in this case the issue is not the victims. It is clearly the race of the accusers and the establishments desire to not offend the minority community, that has enabled this situation to evolve.
Surely (hopefully) after Rotherham effort is being made to catch Pakistani pedophiles and sure that times have changed and common sense had prevailed? The blokes that Stephen was filming were under trial. Similar to how Saville's death led to yewtree and other celebrity nonces being sentenced.
Extremely clever to choose a subject where you literally cannot argue against the crime. And if you offer any dissenting view against what he's doing, you're instantly labelled a paedo or paedo sympathiser in a ludicrous strawman argument. He's a fucking louse. As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming.
Just quoting this so it can be seen again...
You also agree that Robinson is as harmful as gangs of child rapists?
Some messed up people on this forum.
Yes, obviously that's what I and everyone else thinks. Point made.
Thats exactly what the poat you quoted said.
"As much of a shitstain on the pants of humanity as the filthy turds involved in grooming. "
So if you don't agree, why quote it to be seen later?
I can't just quote half a post, it looks disingenuous.
No I do not agree with the last sentence (I can't believe I have to clarify it) but the previous couple of sentences are bang on the money.
Bold is your friend
Stop trying to offer support to posters and worm your way onto the top table
I personally accept there's paedophile groups, or gangs, operating of all religions, but these particular cases happen to be muslim and it happens to have been covered up. If there is evidence that there are groups within the CoE, let's spend the next 13 pages slagging them off, no probs. And then the following 13 pages after that slagging off the Catholic Church as we all know what's gone on and been covered up in that organisation. I just can't understand though, why people have to nit pick and come out with anecdotes, just because we happen to be talking about Muslims for the moment
I personally accept there's paedophile groups, or gangs, operating of all religions, but these particular cases happen to be muslim and it happens to have been covered up. If there is evidence that there are groups within the CoE, let's spend the next 13 pages slagging them off, no probs. And then the following 13 pages after that slagging off the Catholic Church as we all know what's gone on and been covered up in that organisation. I just can't understand though, why people have to nit pick and come out with anecdotes, just because we happen to be talking about Muslims for the moment
I posted a link to a Church of England ring 2 posts above. Please don't post 13 pages about them.
There is undoubtedly a problem with gangs of men of Pakistani origin grooming girls from the care system. The issue here is power, kids in care are regarded as the lowest of the low and treated accordingly. Hence the police refusing to investigate because of the background of the victims. You'd hope that this particular lesson has been learned by the police and CPS, but I wouldn't hold my breath and expect them to go back to ignoring victims from that sort of background. As McBobbin points out, it's exactly the same sort of kids that the Yewtree cases were abusing. There are class actions going on from groups of care survivors (their word) from various childrens' homes because of the abuse that was tolerated or even arranged at the care homes in the 60s or 70s. I've no issue with Tommy Robinson using an alias, particularly as you rarely find white working class lads with double barrelled names. It's not like he isn't a public figure and, as he has pled guilty to this, he is clearly accountable. His issue is that he thinks Islam is the main problem and responsible for all this abuse. A couple of years ago he quit the EDL after talking to Muslims and accepting that demonising all muslims was just creating a siege mentality and that there were better ways of targetting the wrong uns. I took him at his word on this, and can remember commenting here and elsewhere to say fair play for actually learning. Since then, he's reverted to being just another right wing street fighter for whom Islam as a whole is the problem. This may have something to do with the growth of far right media in the US and Canada post Trump. There is now a very profitable career to be made by being a talking head there and I suspect that he had his eye on that when he committed contempt of court. He'll do his time and then come out and deny that he was really guilty and continue to claim that his free speech was curtailed. It doesn't matter about facts, because no one cares about them as the last few years have surely proved. He has an agenda, it's to promote a far right racist vision and he can't just denounce all races, but he can denounce muslims. He can say "Islam isn't a race"; but everyone knows he doesn't mean all muslims, he means Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Islam isn't monolithic any more than Christianity is. But if you attack all Muslims you create a siege mentality.
No, I wouldn’t say that is the issue here at all. Maybe in the wider issue of child abuse it is. My wife is social worker and believe me I know enough of the shit stains in ‘our community’.
But in this case the issue is not the victims. It is clearly the race of the accusers and the establishments desire to not offend the minority community, that has enabled this situation to evolve.
You need to watch the BBC dramatisations then, because GM police did label the victims as slappers and use that as a reason not to investigate further.
These are often 13-15 year girls from deprived backgrounds who are initially lured in.by someone giving them attention, fags and booze. They are very easy to dismiss because of this combination. For a long time they were referred to as child prositutes rather than sexual assaults victims.
It is this general attitude that meant a lot of cases went uninvestigated. Race issues wouldn't have come up in most cases until somebody bothered to look beyond dismissing them as prostitutes.
There is undoubtedly a problem with gangs of men of Pakistani origin grooming girls from the care system. The issue here is power, kids in care are regarded as the lowest of the low and treated accordingly. Hence the police refusing to investigate because of the background of the victims. You'd hope that this particular lesson has been learned by the police and CPS, but I wouldn't hold my breath and expect them to go back to ignoring victims from that sort of background. As McBobbin points out, it's exactly the same sort of kids that the Yewtree cases were abusing. There are class actions going on from groups of care survivors (their word) from various childrens' homes because of the abuse that was tolerated or even arranged at the care homes in the 60s or 70s. I've no issue with Tommy Robinson using an alias, particularly as you rarely find white working class lads with double barrelled names. It's not like he isn't a public figure and, as he has pled guilty to this, he is clearly accountable. His issue is that he thinks Islam is the main problem and responsible for all this abuse. A couple of years ago he quit the EDL after talking to Muslims and accepting that demonising all muslims was just creating a siege mentality and that there were better ways of targetting the wrong uns. I took him at his word on this, and can remember commenting here and elsewhere to say fair play for actually learning. Since then, he's reverted to being just another right wing street fighter for whom Islam as a whole is the problem. This may have something to do with the growth of far right media in the US and Canada post Trump. There is now a very profitable career to be made by being a talking head there and I suspect that he had his eye on that when he committed contempt of court. He'll do his time and then come out and deny that he was really guilty and continue to claim that his free speech was curtailed. It doesn't matter about facts, because no one cares about them as the last few years have surely proved. He has an agenda, it's to promote a far right racist vision and he can't just denounce all races, but he can denounce muslims. He can say "Islam isn't a race"; but everyone knows he doesn't mean all muslims, he means Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Islam isn't monolithic any more than Christianity is. But if you attack all Muslims you create a siege mentality.
No, I wouldn’t say that is the issue here at all. Maybe in the wider issue of child abuse it is. My wife is social worker and believe me I know enough of the shit stains in ‘our community’.
But in this case the issue is not the victims. It is clearly the race of the accusers and the establishments desire to not offend the minority community, that has enabled this situation to evolve.
You need to watch the BBC dramatisations then, because GM police did label the victims as slappers and use that as a reason not to investigate further.
These are often 13-15 year girls from deprived backgrounds who are initially lured in.by someone giving them attention, fags and booze. They are very easy to dismiss because of this combination. For a long time they were referred to as child prositutes rather than sexual assaults victims.
It is this general attitude that meant a lot of cases went uninvestigated. Race issues wouldn't have come up in most cases until somebody bothered to look beyond dismissing them as prostitutes.
Surely we should take our information fromthe official reports, not a 'dramatisation'
I personally accept there's paedophile groups, or gangs, operating of all religions, but these particular cases happen to be muslim and it happens to have been covered up. If there is evidence that there are groups within the CoE, let's spend the next 13 pages slagging them off, no probs. And then the following 13 pages after that slagging off the Catholic Church as we all know what's gone on and been covered up in that organisation. I just can't understand though, why people have to nit pick and come out with anecdotes, just because we happen to be talking about Muslims for the moment
So why isn't all the anger directed at the police and the child protection services over the last 13 pages? Most of what I have read on this thread has been about Islam.
I personally accept there's paedophile groups, or gangs, operating of all religions, but these particular cases happen to be muslim and it happens to have been covered up. If there is evidence that there are groups within the CoE, let's spend the next 13 pages slagging them off, no probs. And then the following 13 pages after that slagging off the Catholic Church as we all know what's gone on and been covered up in that organisation. I just can't understand though, why people have to nit pick and come out with anecdotes, just because we happen to be talking about Muslims for the moment
So why isn't all the anger directed at the police and the child protection services over the last 13 pages? Most of what I have read on this thread has been about Islam.
I must have mentioned "the authorities" in 90% of my posts mate.
There is undoubtedly a problem with gangs of men of Pakistani origin grooming girls from the care system. The issue here is power, kids in care are regarded as the lowest of the low and treated accordingly. Hence the police refusing to investigate because of the background of the victims. You'd hope that this particular lesson has been learned by the police and CPS, but I wouldn't hold my breath and expect them to go back to ignoring victims from that sort of background. As McBobbin points out, it's exactly the same sort of kids that the Yewtree cases were abusing. There are class actions going on from groups of care survivors (their word) from various childrens' homes because of the abuse that was tolerated or even arranged at the care homes in the 60s or 70s. I've no issue with Tommy Robinson using an alias, particularly as you rarely find white working class lads with double barrelled names. It's not like he isn't a public figure and, as he has pled guilty to this, he is clearly accountable. His issue is that he thinks Islam is the main problem and responsible for all this abuse. A couple of years ago he quit the EDL after talking to Muslims and accepting that demonising all muslims was just creating a siege mentality and that there were better ways of targetting the wrong uns. I took him at his word on this, and can remember commenting here and elsewhere to say fair play for actually learning. Since then, he's reverted to being just another right wing street fighter for whom Islam as a whole is the problem. This may have something to do with the growth of far right media in the US and Canada post Trump. There is now a very profitable career to be made by being a talking head there and I suspect that he had his eye on that when he committed contempt of court. He'll do his time and then come out and deny that he was really guilty and continue to claim that his free speech was curtailed. It doesn't matter about facts, because no one cares about them as the last few years have surely proved. He has an agenda, it's to promote a far right racist vision and he can't just denounce all races, but he can denounce muslims. He can say "Islam isn't a race"; but everyone knows he doesn't mean all muslims, he means Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Islam isn't monolithic any more than Christianity is. But if you attack all Muslims you create a siege mentality.
No, I wouldn’t say that is the issue here at all. Maybe in the wider issue of child abuse it is. My wife is social worker and believe me I know enough of the shit stains in ‘our community’.
But in this case the issue is not the victims. It is clearly the race of the accusers and the establishments desire to not offend the minority community, that has enabled this situation to evolve.
You need to watch the BBC dramatisations then, because GM police did label the victims as slappers and use that as a reason not to investigate further.
These are often 13-15 year girls from deprived backgrounds who are initially lured in.by someone giving them attention, fags and booze. They are very easy to dismiss because of this combination. For a long time they were referred to as child prositutes rather than sexual assaults victims.
It is this general attitude that meant a lot of cases went uninvestigated. Race issues wouldn't have come up in most cases until somebody bothered to look beyond dismissing them as prostitutes.
Surely we should take our information fromthe official reports, not a 'dramatisation'
Because the dramatisation is a lot more accessible than countless dry reports/police records/legal papers, many of which would take a lot of digging (if not FOI requests) to get hold of,and hundreds of hours to sift through.
By all means do the heavy lifting, but the dramatisation went to great lengths to fact check using all those documents.
You need to listen to what he is saying and doing without prejudice. I know it's trendy and politically correct to hammer him however he is speaking and being listened to. The real danger is people dismiss it what he is saying as racist, because it isn't and he isn't a racist. That is lazy. Also it brings no parity to any debate or addresses any points he is raising, everyone rightly was disgusted when they watched the BBC programme about Rotherham and rightly so. Now that's faded from memory why are the media not attending the courts where the accused are standing trial and giving us updates of the days events? Why are we not as a nation saying treating kids this way is unacceptable?
I genuinely don't see how a man doing this is vilified.
I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long and people are still asking these questions.
1. There are reporting restrictions on the trial(s) concerned, which media organisations have to abide by.
2. Without the reporting restrictions there is a very real possibility that the trials could be prejudiced, and the accused could walk free. There are a series of trials, and all could be jeopardised.
3. This isn't a conspiracy, it's happened in other trials not related to the Pakistani or other Asian communities.
4. When these restrictions are in place media outlet prepare their 'packages' for when the final verdicts are reached and the restrictions are lifted. There will be plenty of coverage then.
4. There is a very real possibility that Mr Robinson's aim is to bring about the collapse of the trials, which would draw worldwide press attention, making it look like there's been a cover up by the government and/or the establishment - and also raising his profile. An invitation to the White House, interviews in the international right wing press for example. And yes, you could imagine demos and/or riots if the trials collapsed. Robinson isn't stupid, and he has an agenda.
[Just noticed the post I was replying to was much earlier on in the thread than I realised. Apologies if the thread has moved on since then. What I posted is still valid in its context however.]
Comments
No I do not agree with the last sentence (I can't believe I have to clarify it) but the previous couple of sentences are bang on the money.
But in this case the issue is not the victims. It is clearly the race of the accusers and the establishments desire to not offend the minority community, that has enabled this situation to evolve.
1626
1640
At one time between 3/5000 English slaves were being held in Algiers.
A lot of pubs in Cornwall and Devon are called the Turks Head as captured Arabs were swiftly beheaded.
So those were invasion attempts by Turkey (presumably)?
Or were they attacks by pirates attempting to seize slaves who happened to be North African?
On the religion pedophile link some pretty chilling stuff in this. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/chichester-paedophile-child-abuse-reverends-church-of-england-diocese-sex-offenders-a8270601.html
AFKA has spoken
These are often 13-15 year girls from deprived backgrounds who are initially lured in.by someone giving them attention, fags and booze. They are very easy to dismiss because of this combination. For a long time they were referred to as child prositutes rather than sexual assaults victims.
It is this general attitude that meant a lot of cases went uninvestigated. Race issues wouldn't have come up in most cases until somebody bothered to look beyond dismissing them as prostitutes.
By all means do the heavy lifting, but the dramatisation went to great lengths to fact check using all those documents.
But, you know, Tommy Robinson...grrrrrr *shakes fist in an angry manner*.
1. There are reporting restrictions on the trial(s) concerned, which media organisations have to abide by.
2. Without the reporting restrictions there is a very real possibility that the trials could be prejudiced, and the accused could walk free. There are a series of trials, and all could be jeopardised.
3. This isn't a conspiracy, it's happened in other trials not related to the Pakistani or other Asian communities.
4. When these restrictions are in place media outlet prepare their 'packages' for when the final verdicts are reached and the restrictions are lifted. There will be plenty of coverage then.
4. There is a very real possibility that Mr Robinson's aim is to bring about the collapse of the trials, which would draw worldwide press attention, making it look like there's been a cover up by the government and/or the establishment - and also raising his profile. An invitation to the White House, interviews in the international right wing press for example. And yes, you could imagine demos and/or riots if the trials collapsed. Robinson isn't stupid, and he has an agenda.
[Just noticed the post I was replying to was much earlier on in the thread than I realised. Apologies if the thread has moved on since then. What I posted is still valid in its context however.]
Your failure both includes, and extends beyond, snide, unfounded comments in the pursuit of sounding overly progressive and liberal.