I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
If it's true, and it is a very big if, where do you get the information from then? How can I be party to these secrets?
But the point is still being missed by those defending Yaxley-Lennon. He has accepted himself that he was arrested and imprisoned for contempt of court. Had he "reported" in exactly the same way from a pub up the road, his point would have been made, his followers would have seen it and he would be happily reading the Daily Mail in his kitchen drinking his coffee right now. The idea that the activities of these gangs is a big secret has been blown out of the water by - for example - the several links I provided earlier in the thread.
After all, he is not actually exposing anyone, as Friend or Defoe points out. They are already in court, they have been exposed, the CPS has decided there is enough evidence to secure a conviction, the only thing that Yaxley-Lennon could possibly have achieved by his action (apart from his desire to continue his cult status and keep himself in the news) was to see child rapists and groomers walk scott free on a technicality.
All those "Free Tommy Robinson" idiots need to realise this. He pleaded guilty and he knew the result of that would be a prison sentence. Why are people trying to get someone released who pleaded guilty to the charges against him? Whatever next?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Because if the press reported on every instance, there would be no space left for other news? Not every murder gets into the news. Not every death from drunk driving. Not every rape.
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
If it's true, and it is a very big if, where do you get the information from then? How can I be party to these secrets?
A man whose opinions and views are far more valid than those of all the non Muslim, white men on here, gives his tuppence worth. Whilst digesting you must remember that, as a non Muslim, any argument you have against him is irrelevant as it's not your lived experience (that's how it works, right?).
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Because if the press reported on every instance, there would be no space left for other news? Not every murder gets into the news. Not every death from drunk driving. Not every rape.
No. If the press reported on every instance along with the sentence given on each occasion then perhaps that would deter these animals from doing it in the future?
Don't pretend that the press struggle with capacity. Its 2018, there are all kinds of social media platform they can use as well as their web pages which are updated throughout the day.
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Because if the press reported on every instance, there would be no space left for other news? Not every murder gets into the news. Not every death from drunk driving. Not every rape.
No. If the press reported on every instance along with the sentence given on each occasion then perhaps that would deter these animals from doing it in the future?
Don't pretend that the press struggle with capacity. Its 2018, there are all kinds of social media platform they can use as well as their web pages which are updated throughout the day.
To quote Ben Goldacre, 'I think you'll find it's not as simple as that'
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Because if the press reported on every instance, there would be no space left for other news? Not every murder gets into the news. Not every death from drunk driving. Not every rape.
Good point, the newspapers are too busy condemning members of the House of Lords
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
If it's true, and it is a very big if, where do you get the information from then? How can I be party to these secrets?
Erm, national crime agency perhaps?
Would appreciate a link to the information please?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Because if the press reported on every instance, there would be no space left for other news? Not every murder gets into the news. Not every death from drunk driving. Not every rape.
No. If the press reported on every instance along with the sentence given on each occasion then perhaps that would deter these animals from doing it in the future?
Don't pretend that the press struggle with capacity. Its 2018, there are all kinds of social media platform they can use as well as their web pages which are updated throughout the day.
To quote Ben Goldacre, 'I think you'll find it's not as simple as that'
Go on then, at least explain why you think that?
Take a quick look at the instagram,twitter or facebook, accounts for your media outlet of choice and see how often these platforms are updated within 24 hours. That is before you even log onto their website. Also, look at some of the absolute shite they post then ask yourself if it's not simple to report on something as serious as this.
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
It's up to the media what they chose to report or otherwise, unless there are reporting restrictions put in place by the courts to ensure the judicial process is upheld. Like in this case and like what he chose to ignore on top of his already suspended sentence. He knew exactly the purpose of these reporting restrictions, and that he had already been held to be in contempt on a previous occasion...yet went ahead anyway. How people are defending his actions is beyond me tbh.
You're clearly also trying to suggest there's an agenda at play within the wider, legitimate media but the truth is our papers would have nothing but reports of prosecutions if every case was covered. Are you including the local press in your definition of MSM btw because I'm pretty sure (reporting restrictions aside) these cases would get covered locally. They certainly would anywhere I've ever lived.
A man whose opinions and views are far more valid than those of all the non Muslim, white men on here, gives his tuppence worth. Whilst digesting you must remember that, as a non Muslim, any argument you have against him is irrelevant as it's not your lived experience (that's how it works, right?).
He is quite right. I totally agree, it's been a disgraceful cowardly cover up. However he doesn't defend Yaxley-Lennon, or his actions, he uses the words "...nefarious purposes" to describe his activities.
Please don't keep equating condemnation of Yaxley-Lennon, and his own self-confessed error, with support for Pakistani (because it is almost uniquely Pakistani) muslim rapists. I don't think anyone on here is supporting them in any way shape or form, in fact, just the opposite - he is being condemned for allowing the possibility that they would get let off on a technicality.
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Because if the press reported on every instance, there would be no space left for other news? Not every murder gets into the news. Not every death from drunk driving. Not every rape.
No. If the press reported on every instance along with the sentence given on each occasion then perhaps that would deter these animals from doing it in the future?
Don't pretend that the press struggle with capacity. Its 2018, there are all kinds of social media platform they can use as well as their web pages which are updated throughout the day.
To quote Ben Goldacre, 'I think you'll find it's not as simple as that'
Go on then, at least explain why you think that?
Take a quick look at the instagram,twitter or facebook, accounts for your media outlet of choice and see how often these platforms are updated within 24 hours. That is before you even log onto their website. Also, look at some of the absolute shite they post then ask yourself if it's not simple to report on something as serious as this.
Without getting into details, but if you're into that sort of stuff prison won't be a deterrent. Likewise the death sentence doesn't prevent crime.
A man whose opinions and views are far more valid than those of all the non Muslim, white men on here, gives his tuppence worth. Whilst digesting you must remember that, as a non Muslim, any argument you have against him is irrelevant as it's not your lived experience (that's how it works, right?).
He is quite right. I totally agree, it's been a disgraceful cowardly cover up. However he doesn't defend Yaxley-Lennon, or his actions, he uses the words "...nefarious purposes" to describe his activities.
Please don't keep equating condemnation of Yaxley-Lennon, and his own self-confessed error, with support for Pakistani (because it is almost uniquely Pakistani) muslim rapists. I don't think anyone on here is supporting them in any way shape or form, in fact, just the opposite - he is being condemned for allowing the possibility that they would get let off on a technicality.
Where have I equated that? Can you give me access to this secretive information that hasn't revealed itself on this thread?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
It's up to the media what they chose to report or otherwise, unless there are reporting restrictions put in place by the courts to ensure the judicial process is upheld.
Exactly, perhaps they should choose to report on something as serious as this more frequently?.
Like in this case and like what he chose to ignore on top of his already suspended sentence.
I purposefully wrote 'when all is said and done' so where does suspended sentence come into it?
He knew exactly this purpose of these reporting restrictions, that he had already been held to be in contempt on a previous occasion...yet went ahead anyway. How people are defending his actions is beyond me tbh.
Absolutely, yet I haven't defended his actions, have I? and it's a damn shame his young family have been let down by him because of his actions, but again, how does that come into it? I am talking about the MSM not Robinson
You're clearly also trying to suggest there's an agenda at play within the wider,
Yes, clearly.
legitimate media but the truth is our papers would have nothing but reports of prosecutions if every case was covered. Are you including the local press in your definition of MSM
No, becuase I am talking about the mainstream which reaches millions as opposed to the ayrshire post
btw because I'm pretty sure (reporting restrictions aside) these cases would get covered locally. They certainly would anywhere I've ever lived.
A man whose opinions and views are far more valid than those of all the non Muslim, white men on here, gives his tuppence worth. Whilst digesting you must remember that, as a non Muslim, any argument you have against him is irrelevant as it's not your lived experience (that's how it works, right?).
He is quite right. I totally agree, it's been a disgraceful cowardly cover up. However he doesn't defend Yaxley-Lennon, or his actions, he uses the words "...nefarious purposes" to describe his activities.
Please don't keep equating condemnation of Yaxley-Lennon, and his own self-confessed error, with support for Pakistani (because it is almost uniquely Pakistani) muslim rapists. I don't think anyone on here is supporting them in any way shape or form, in fact, just the opposite - he is being condemned for allowing the possibility that they would get let off on a technicality.
Where have I equated that? Can you give me access to this secretive information that hasn't revealed itself on this thread?
Sorry BBW - not fair on you. I have seen and had it suggested to me elsewhere. Apologies, but it does happen. Obviously not by you.
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.
Got a source for that bit in bold? Fairly sure the Quran says that rape is forbidden.
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.
Got a source for that bit in bold? Fairly sure the Quran says that rape is forbidden.
Koran 4:3
You're welcome.
It says no such thing
I now suggest you seek out Muslim scholars and clerics for the interpretation for the times we live in. Best to get the interpretations from scholars in Islamic countries that use Islamic Law.
A man whose opinions and views are far more valid than those of all the non Muslim, white men on here, gives his tuppence worth. Whilst digesting you must remember that, as a non Muslim, any argument you have against him is irrelevant as it's not your lived experience (that's how it works, right?).
He is quite right. I totally agree, it's been a disgraceful cowardly cover up. However he doesn't defend Yaxley-Lennon, or his actions, he uses the words "...nefarious purposes" to describe his activities.
Please don't keep equating condemnation of Yaxley-Lennon, and his own self-confessed error, with support for Pakistani (because it is almost uniquely Pakistani) muslim rapists. I don't think anyone on here is supporting them in any way shape or form, in fact, just the opposite - he is being condemned for allowing the possibility that they would get let off on a technicality.
Where have I equated that? Can you give me access to this secretive information that hasn't revealed itself on this thread?
Sorry BBW - not fair on you. I have seen and had it suggested to me elsewhere. Apologies, but it does happen. Obviously not by you.
No worries. People do, wrongly, make that equation.
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
It's up to the media what they chose to report or otherwise, unless there are reporting restrictions put in place by the courts to ensure the judicial process is upheld.
Exactly, perhaps they should choose to report on something as serious as this more frequently?.
Like in this case and like what he chose to ignore on top of his already suspended sentence.
I purposefully wrote 'when all is said and done' so where does suspended sentence come into it?
He knew exactly this purpose of these reporting restrictions, that he had already been held to be in contempt on a previous occasion...yet went ahead anyway. How people are defending his actions is beyond me tbh.
Absolutely, yet I haven't defended his actions, have I? and it's a damn shame his young family have been let down by him because of his actions, but again, how does that come into it? I am talking about the MSM not Robinson
You're clearly also trying to suggest there's an agenda at play within the wider,
Yes, clearly.
legitimate media but the truth is our papers would have nothing but reports of prosecutions if every case was covered. Are you including the local press in your definition of MSM
No, becuase I am talking about the mainstream which reaches millions as opposed to the ayrshire post
btw because I'm pretty sure (reporting restrictions aside) these cases would get covered locally. They certainly would anywhere I've ever lived.
Just to make it crystal clear. You are not suggesting that the government/judiciary is "covering up" stories, just that MSM is not reporting it?
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
It's up to the media what they chose to report or otherwise, unless there are reporting restrictions put in place by the courts to ensure the judicial process is upheld.
Exactly, perhaps they should choose to report on something as serious as this more frequently?.
Like in this case and like what he chose to ignore on top of his already suspended sentence.
I purposefully wrote 'when all is said and done' so where does suspended sentence come into it?
He knew exactly this purpose of these reporting restrictions, that he had already been held to be in contempt on a previous occasion...yet went ahead anyway. How people are defending his actions is beyond me tbh.
Absolutely, yet I haven't defended his actions, have I? and it's a damn shame his young family have been let down by him because of his actions, but again, how does that come into it? I am talking about the MSM not Robinson
You're clearly also trying to suggest there's an agenda at play within the wider,
Yes, clearly.
legitimate media but the truth is our papers would have nothing but reports of prosecutions if every case was covered. Are you including the local press in your definition of MSM
No, becuase I am talking about the mainstream which reaches millions as opposed to the ayrshire post
btw because I'm pretty sure (reporting restrictions aside) these cases would get covered locally. They certainly would anywhere I've ever lived.
Just to make it crystal clear. You are not suggesting that the government/judiciary is "covering up" stories, just that MSM is not reporting it?
These threads are always full of accusation and implication and rarely if ever contain any resolution.
I propose the following:
- Defender Of The Crown Tommy Robinson be forced to dress as a Beefeater for the rest his days, on pain of exile
- The police be allowed to continue their work smashing rape gangs away from the troublesome glare of the media
- More Islamic role models to enter the limelight, in effect 'normalising' Islam, which will have the cultural effect of reforming UK Islam from within (n.b. I do agree that pockets of it need to reform - where I disagree is how it can reform)
I understand that the trial should never be jeopardized. But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
Suppose there are not?
Ok, wrong choice of word. There are. Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
It's up to the media what they chose to report or otherwise, unless there are reporting restrictions put in place by the courts to ensure the judicial process is upheld.
Exactly, perhaps they should choose to report on something as serious as this more frequently?.
Like in this case and like what he chose to ignore on top of his already suspended sentence.
I purposefully wrote 'when all is said and done' so where does suspended sentence come into it?
He knew exactly this purpose of these reporting restrictions, that he had already been held to be in contempt on a previous occasion...yet went ahead anyway. How people are defending his actions is beyond me tbh.
Absolutely, yet I haven't defended his actions, have I? and it's a damn shame his young family have been let down by him because of his actions, but again, how does that come into it? I am talking about the MSM not Robinson
You're clearly also trying to suggest there's an agenda at play within the wider,
Yes, clearly.
legitimate media but the truth is our papers would have nothing but reports of prosecutions if every case was covered. Are you including the local press in your definition of MSM
No, becuase I am talking about the mainstream which reaches millions as opposed to the ayrshire post
btw because I'm pretty sure (reporting restrictions aside) these cases would get covered locally. They certainly would anywhere I've ever lived.
Just to make it crystal clear. You are not suggesting that the government/judiciary is "covering up" stories, just that MSM is not reporting it?
Quite clearly not. Go and take a lie down, eh?
So you are saying that the newspapers that brought us headlines like these, have suddenly decided not to report on factual events that they could legitimately use to condemn their usual targets? Unique.
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.
Got a source for that bit in bold? Fairly sure the Quran says that rape is forbidden.
Koran 4:3
You're welcome.
"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course. "
Not sure whatever way you read that it equals rape but whatever floats your boat pal.
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.
Got a source for that bit in bold? Fairly sure the Quran says that rape is forbidden.
Koran 4:3
You're welcome.
"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course. "
Not sure whatever way you read that it equals rape but whatever floats your boat pal.
Now go and look for the ENTIRE verse and not an excerpt from it that serves only to distort it's meaning. Also seek out the interpretations of Islamic scholars and then come back to me and criticise the floating capabilities of my boat.
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.
Got a source for that bit in bold? Fairly sure the Quran says that rape is forbidden.
Koran 4:3
You're welcome.
"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course. "
Not sure whatever way you read that it equals rape but whatever floats your boat pal.
Now go and look for the ENTIRE verse and not an excerpt from it that serves only to distort it's meaning. Also seek out the interpretations of Islamic scholars and then come back to me and criticise the floating capabilities of my boat.
Actually that it verse 4:3, so why don't you come back to me with proof rather than dodging and accusing followers of a religion of supporting rape.
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.
Got a source for that bit in bold? Fairly sure the Quran says that rape is forbidden.
Koran 4:3
You're welcome.
"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course. "
Not sure whatever way you read that it equals rape but whatever floats your boat pal.
Now go and look for the ENTIRE verse and not an excerpt from it that serves only to distort it's meaning. Also seek out the interpretations of Islamic scholars and then come back to me and criticise the floating capabilities of my boat.
Actually that it verse 4:3, so why don't you come back to me with proof rather than dodging and accusing followers of a religion of supporting rape.
Where have I said 'followers' support rape? I've highlighted that the religious book, and it's most senior scholars advocate rape. Huge difference but not one I'd expect you to get as your modus operandi is to paint any criticism as being against all followers, despite the context of the argument that is put to you.
Comments
But when all is said and done why do the press fail to report on convictions given to these animals?
I'm not talking about the few exceptions that google throws up, but there are supposedly thousands of victims within this country, why is it that a small proportion are reported on by the press?
There are.
Now tell me, why is it ok for the MSM to report only on a fraction of convictions?
Also, we all love a bit of LBC.....
If the press reported on every instance along with the sentence given on each occasion then perhaps that would deter these animals from doing it in the future?
Don't pretend that the press struggle with capacity.
Its 2018, there are all kinds of social media platform they can use as well as their web pages which are updated throughout the day.
Go on then, at least explain why you think that?
Take a quick look at the instagram,twitter or facebook, accounts for your media outlet of choice and see how often these platforms are updated within 24 hours.
That is before you even log onto their website.
Also, look at some of the absolute shite they post then ask yourself if it's not simple to report on something as serious as this.
You're clearly also trying to suggest there's an agenda at play within the wider, legitimate media but the truth is our papers would have nothing but reports of prosecutions if every case was covered. Are you including the local press in your definition of MSM btw because I'm pretty sure (reporting restrictions aside) these cases would get covered locally. They certainly would anywhere I've ever lived.
Btw, the Koran says some shitty things eh? Bit like that time in the Bible when Noah got pissed and shagged his daughters
Please don't keep equating condemnation of Yaxley-Lennon, and his own self-confessed error, with support for Pakistani (because it is almost uniquely Pakistani) muslim rapists. I don't think anyone on here is supporting them in any way shape or form, in fact, just the opposite - he is being condemned for allowing the possibility that they would get let off on a technicality.
Quite clearly not.
Go and take a lie down, eh?
I propose the following:
- Defender Of The Crown Tommy Robinson be forced to dress as a Beefeater for the rest his days, on pain of exile
- The police be allowed to continue their work smashing rape gangs away from the troublesome glare of the media
- More Islamic role models to enter the limelight, in effect 'normalising' Islam, which will have the cultural effect of reforming UK Islam from within (n.b. I do agree that pockets of it need to reform - where I disagree is how it can reform)
- Improved services for vulnerable children
Now go and look for the ENTIRE verse and not an excerpt from it that serves only to distort it's meaning. Also seek out the interpretations of Islamic scholars and then come back to me and criticise the floating capabilities of my boat.
Actually that it verse 4:3, so why don't you come back to me with proof rather than dodging and accusing followers of a religion of supporting rape.
Where have I said 'followers' support rape? I've highlighted that the religious book, and it's most senior scholars advocate rape. Huge difference but not one I'd expect you to get as your modus operandi is to paint any criticism as being against all followers, despite the context of the argument that is put to you.
Nice try, son.