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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
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 can dig out scores of these influential people....
Rape within marriage wasn't even technically possible in the UK until recently. Women used to be unable to own property, or vote... Islam doesn't need Tommy fucking Robinson. It needs feminism.
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 can dig out scores of these influential people....
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 can dig out scores of these influential people....
What a shit argument. One could argue that it's a defeatist argument served up by someone completely unable and incapable of accepting the actual words of influential scholars, clerics and professors.
It's as if you genuinely think you know their religion better than them. Classic case of an argument from ignorance.
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 can dig out scores of these influential people....
What a shit argument. One could argue that it's a defeatist argument served up by someone completely unable and incapable of accepting the actual words of influential scholars, clerics and professors.
It's as if you genuinely think you know their religion better than them. Classic case of an argument from ignorance.
So what about other "influential" scholars, clerics and professors who say that the Quran doesn't condone rape? (Fully expecting you to ask me to provide proof but Google is your friend, there are plenty of articles written in reputable newspapers around this).
Your argument also ignores the fact that it is illegal under Islamic law (and therefore God's law) to rape. It is a serious offence under their law as it is under our laws in this country.
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
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. "
I hope that “then marry such women as seen good to you, two and three and four” refers to the number of wives.....not their ages?
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. "
I hope that “then marry such women as seen good to you, two and three and four” refers to the number of wives.....not their ages?
fear not, I think Mohamed's wife was at least 9...
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. "
I hope that “then marry such women as seen good to you, two and three and four” refers to the number of wives.....not their ages?
fear not, I think Mohamed's wife was at least 9...
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.
Not by me it hasn't. As soon as they said it was he was in breach of his bail conditions I thought, well that's that then. But I still don't go with the line that he was jeopardising the cases against the accused and, if he was, well so was mainstream media throughout the trials of those prosecuted as a result of Operation Yew Tree and specially the BBC in relation to the Cliff Richard investigation, seeing as he wasn't even charged (I know there was a court case against the relevant constabulary's PR lady and a BBC reporter and not too sure how that panned out, but my point is, no one has been up in arms about that).
Moving on, I only joined the discussion because of the rank hypocrisy of posters calling him out for going by alias's (yes, I know I do on forums, but I'm not the one with a problem with others doing so.), when he's got a fuckin good reason to do so, unless, as I've said before, some of you think he and his family deserve to be rooted out and exposed? I also went on to say that he's on record as meeting up with keyboard warriors who have abused him and his family online and he has politely asked for their reasons for doing do, but all those I have seen have folded in half.
My main point still stands though - he's acting on his own "lived experiences" and has never backed down in trying to tackle things that he feels is wrong in HIS community and, for that, I think he's got a lot of bollocks.
If you wanna form an educated opinion on him, as Carto said, best read the book.
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.
Not by me it hasn't. As soon as they said it was he was in breach of his bail conditions I thought, well that's that then. But I still don't go with the line that he was jeopardising the cases against the accused and, if he was, well so was mainstream media throughout the trials of those prosecuted as a result of Operation Yew Tree and specially the BBC in relation to the Cliff Richard investigation, seeing as he wasn't even charged (I know there was a court case against the relevant constabulary's PR lady and a BBC reporter and not too sure how that panned out, but my point is, no one has been up in arms about that).
Moving on, I only joined the discussion because of the rank hypocrisy of posters calling him out for going by alias's (yes, I know I do on forums, but I'm not the one with a problem with others doing so.), when he's got a fuckin good reason to do so, unless, as I've said before, some of you think he and his family deserve to be rooted out and exposed? I also went on to say that he's on record as meeting up with keyboard warriors who have abused him and his family online and he has politely asked for their reasons for doing do, but all those I have seen have folded in half.
My main point still stands though - he's acting on his own "lived experiences" and has never backed down in trying to tackle things that he feels is wrong in HIS community and, for that, I think he's got a lot of bollocks.
If you wanna form an educated opinion on him, as Carto said, best read the book.
His own book? Mate you should read mine, then you would be up in arms as to why I have not been canonised...
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
The two collages are supposed to underline the MSM being 'islamophobic' but how on earth is that relevant to my point? Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
The two collages are supposed to underline the MSM being 'islamophobic' but how on earth is that relevant to my point? Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
The two articles (from the main stream media) do not link me to a site where I can find information on cases that have been tried, convicted and not been reported in the main stream media. You suggested that I get the information that you have from the NCA. I asked you where, you cannot show me.
Article 2 says the investigation could take "years", so it's ongoing.
My post on page one, which as I have already said took me two minutes to find, lead to national news outlets reporting on cases in Rotherham, Leeds, Newcastle, Burton and Huddersfield. Add to that the one in Kent that got Y-L in trouble in the first place, it's a fair start. If you can show me other places where trials have been held and then not reported on, I am willing to take a look. So far you have not been able to do so.
You have not produced one shred of evidence for your claim mate, nothing.
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
The two collages are supposed to underline the MSM being 'islamophobic' but how on earth is that relevant to my point? Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
The two articles (from the main stream media) do not link me to a site where I can find information on cases that have been tried, convicted and not been reported in the main stream media. You suggested that I get the information that you have from the NCA. I asked you where, you cannot show me.
Article 2 says the investigation could take "years", so it's ongoing.
My post on page one, which as I have already said took me two minutes to find, lead to national news outlets reporting on cases in Rotherham, Leeds, Newcastle, Burton and Huddersfield. Add to that the one in Kent that got Y-L in trouble in the first place, it's a fair start. If you can show me other places where trials have been held and then not reported on, I am willing to take a look. So far you have not been able to do so.
You have not produced one shred of evidence for your claim mate, nothing.
Howells is on the ropes here......I think you should give him a dead leg as well.
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
What? Apart from stuff like the BBC 1 one and half hour documentary entitled The Betrayed Girls or the multi-award winning three-part BBC docu-drama called Three Girls which got a TV audience circa 8mn for all three parts? That sort of no coverage you mean? Or didn't they show those on TF1?
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
What? Apart from stuff like the BBC 1 one and half hour documentary entitled The Betrayed Girls or the multi-award winning three-part BBC docu-drama called Three Girls which got a TV audience circa 8mn for all three parts? That sort of no coverage you mean? Or didn't they show those on TF1?
Yeah, imo, people would like honest reporting on the news, rather than Coronation Street type dramatizations
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
What? Apart from stuff like the BBC 1 one and half hour documentary entitled The Betrayed Girls or the multi-award winning three-part BBC docu-drama called Three Girls which got a TV audience circa 8mn for all three parts? That sort of no coverage you mean? Or didn't they show those on TF1?
Yeah, imo, people would like honest reporting on the news, rather than Coronation Street type dramatizations
Leave it out mate - most of them would rather read about Ant n Dec than real life at the best of times, a docu-drama, billed as based on real life events will get it out there to a lot more people than News at Ten...
And I refer you to my post on page one too.
It's just not true that there is no coverage now. It was true in the past, no denying that, but it's all over now (as the Stones once sung).
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
What? Apart from stuff like the BBC 1 one and half hour documentary entitled The Betrayed Girls or the multi-award winning three-part BBC docu-drama called Three Girls which got a TV audience circa 8mn for all three parts? That sort of no coverage you mean? Or didn't they show those on TF1?
Yeah, imo, people would like honest reporting on the news, rather than Coronation Street type dramatizations
Leave it out mate - most of them would rather read about Ant n Dec than real life at the best of times, a docu-drama, billed as based on real life events will get it out there to a lot more people than News at Ten...
And I refer you to my post on page one too.
It's just not true that there is no coverage now. It was true in the past, no denying that, but it's all over now (as the Stones once sung).
I don't see enough coverage and I'm always trying to get me moneys worth from the Beeb. And you gotta be honest, jokes aside, a 90 minutes documentary and a dramatization doesn't constitute coverage does it? Even if it is covered on the news... Jesus wept
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
The two collages are supposed to underline the MSM being 'islamophobic' but how on earth is that relevant to my point? Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
The two articles (from the main stream media) do not link me to a site where I can find information on cases that have been tried, convicted and not been reported in the main stream media. You suggested that I get the information that you have from the NCA. I asked you where, you cannot show me.
Article 2 says the investigation could take "years", so it's ongoing.
My post on page one, which as I have already said took me two minutes to find, lead to national news outlets reporting on cases in Rotherham, Leeds, Newcastle, Burton and Huddersfield. Add to that the one in Kent that got Y-L in trouble in the first place, it's a fair start. If you can show me other places where trials have been held and then not reported on, I am willing to take a look. So far you have not been able to do so.
You have not produced one shred of evidence for your claim mate, nothing.
Ok, 'mate'
For you to just render the facts within those two articles as insufficient, a bit like the way you failed to respond to the collage thing, is a cop out that simply suits your narrative. For someone who has exhausted so much time and energy on this thread this morning you are resorting to a surprisingly meagre tactic by just dismissing things you don't want to hear.
You even conceded yourself that investigations are ongoing, will you be big and brave enough to come back if the findings are published on the NCA official website? I somehow doubt you would, but still, enjoy your 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?
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
The two collages are supposed to underline the MSM being 'islamophobic' but how on earth is that relevant to my point? Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
The two articles (from the main stream media) do not link me to a site where I can find information on cases that have been tried, convicted and not been reported in the main stream media. You suggested that I get the information that you have from the NCA. I asked you where, you cannot show me.
Article 2 says the investigation could take "years", so it's ongoing.
My post on page one, which as I have already said took me two minutes to find, lead to national news outlets reporting on cases in Rotherham, Leeds, Newcastle, Burton and Huddersfield. Add to that the one in Kent that got Y-L in trouble in the first place, it's a fair start. If you can show me other places where trials have been held and then not reported on, I am willing to take a look. So far you have not been able to do so.
You have not produced one shred of evidence for your claim mate, nothing.
Howells is on the ropes here......I think you should give him a dead leg as well.
A Dead leg? in a boxing ring? That's cheap, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you @Greenie .
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
What? Apart from stuff like the BBC 1 one and half hour documentary entitled The Betrayed Girls or the multi-award winning three-part BBC docu-drama called Three Girls which got a TV audience circa 8mn for all three parts? That sort of no coverage you mean? Or didn't they show those on TF1?
Yeah, imo, people would like honest reporting on the news, rather than Coronation Street type dramatizations
Leave it out mate - most of them would rather read about Ant n Dec than real life at the best of times, a docu-drama, billed as based on real life events will get it out there to a lot more people than News at Ten...
And I refer you to my post on page one too.
It's just not true that there is no coverage now. It was true in the past, no denying that, but it's all over now (as the Stones once sung).
based on = it happened, they were caught and are now in prison.
how does that let people know that there is currently a large gang of nonces, all out on bail, currently knocking about in their neighbourhood?
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.
Yes, and what does that shoddy collage of rags have to do with anything?
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
You were the one who mentioned main stream media. They are the main stream media, are they not, so kind of relevant to your claim? I think it's a fair question to ask, given their track record. Can I ask you again for the link to the National Crime Agency where you get your information from please?
The two collages are supposed to underline the MSM being 'islamophobic' but how on earth is that relevant to my point? Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
The two articles (from the main stream media) do not link me to a site where I can find information on cases that have been tried, convicted and not been reported in the main stream media. You suggested that I get the information that you have from the NCA. I asked you where, you cannot show me.
Article 2 says the investigation could take "years", so it's ongoing.
My post on page one, which as I have already said took me two minutes to find, lead to national news outlets reporting on cases in Rotherham, Leeds, Newcastle, Burton and Huddersfield. Add to that the one in Kent that got Y-L in trouble in the first place, it's a fair start. If you can show me other places where trials have been held and then not reported on, I am willing to take a look. So far you have not been able to do so.
You have not produced one shred of evidence for your claim mate, nothing.
Ok, 'mate'
For you to just render the facts within those two articles as insufficient, a bit like the way you failed to respond to the collage thing, is a cop out that simply suits your narrative. For someone who has exhausted so much time and energy on this thread this morning you are resorting to a surprisingly meagre tactic by just dismissing things you don't want to hear.
You even conceded yourself that investigations are ongoing, will you be big and brave enough to come back if the findings are published on the NCA official website? I somehow doubt you would, but still, enjoy your day
The collage thing was self explanatory I thought. You are claiming that main stream media are not covering some stories about muslims up to no good. I was pointing out that they are normally more than happy to expose muslims up to no good (or not in some cases). So I am asking why, suddenly you think they are not doing so? I think it is because there is no more to report than they already have. I am asking you to prove me wrong. You have not done so.
I have not dismissed anything I don't want to hear, because, as yet you have not provided me with a shred of evidence to back up your claim that there are court cases involving muslim grooming gangs that have been concluded, that have not been reported in the MSM. Nothing.
I don't quite understand the comment about coming back if the findings are published on the NCA website? What findings?
Thing is, what do people like you and Tommy Robinson hope to achieve through all this? We're all pals, you can be honest.
Before these grooming gangs were exposed, the authorities were in complete denial and most folk were clueless to what was going on, while people at the forefront of trying to get justice for the victims were laughed at and called things like, err "racists and facists" (maybe by you, or maybe not). Now it appears there is a general acceptance that there is a problem in SOME parts of SOME communities and prosecutions are happening, but there is little to no coverage on mainstream media whether it before, during or after the trials have taken place. While one couldn't turn the Tele or radio on during any of the Yew Tree trials without it being mentioned (and rightly so).
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
What? Apart from stuff like the BBC 1 one and half hour documentary entitled The Betrayed Girls or the multi-award winning three-part BBC docu-drama called Three Girls which got a TV audience circa 8mn for all three parts? That sort of no coverage you mean? Or didn't they show those on TF1?
Yeah, imo, people would like honest reporting on the news, rather than Coronation Street type dramatizations
Leave it out mate - most of them would rather read about Ant n Dec than real life at the best of times, a docu-drama, billed as based on real life events will get it out there to a lot more people than News at Ten...
And I refer you to my post on page one too.
It's just not true that there is no coverage now. It was true in the past, no denying that, but it's all over now (as the Stones once sung).
based on = it happened, they were caught and are now in prison.
how does that let people know that there is currently a large gang of nonces, all out on bail, currently knocking about in their neighbourhood?
Comments
I am clearly saying that the MSM should report on sentencing far more frequently to deter not only the animals committing these acts but also the rouge reporters like TR and rebel media from sticking their oar in and turning up at courts up and down the country.
But the fact is stunts like this will only increase TR's audience not just in Great Britain but across the world. If you have a problem with with someone calling for more balanced exposure from the nations press instead of TR and his camera phone then that's your problem.
I can dig out scores of these influential people....
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2016/islamic-scholar-muslims-can-rape-legitimately-ow
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2016/islamic-scholar-muslims-can-rape-legitimately-ow
Definitely an unbiased opinion from that site.
What a shit argument. One could argue that it's a defeatist argument served up by someone completely unable and incapable of accepting the actual words of influential scholars, clerics and professors.
It's as if you genuinely think you know their religion better than them. Classic case of an argument from ignorance.
It's as if you genuinely think you know their religion better than them. Classic case of an argument from ignorance.
So what about other "influential" scholars, clerics and professors who say that the Quran doesn't condone rape? (Fully expecting you to ask me to provide proof but Google is your friend, there are plenty of articles written in reputable newspapers around this).
Your argument also ignores the fact that it is illegal under Islamic law (and therefore God's law) to rape. It is a serious offence under their law as it is under our laws in this country.
Also how did you manage to fuck up the quoting?
I hope that “then marry such women as seen good to you, two and three and four” refers to the number of wives.....not their ages?
Moving on, I only joined the discussion because of the rank hypocrisy of posters calling him out for going by alias's (yes, I know I do on forums, but I'm not the one with a problem with others doing so.), when he's got a fuckin good reason to do so, unless, as I've said before, some of you think he and his family deserve to be rooted out and exposed? I also went on to say that he's on record as meeting up with keyboard warriors who have abused him and his family online and he has politely asked for their reasons for doing do, but all those I have seen have folded in half.
My main point still stands though - he's acting on his own "lived experiences" and has never backed down in trying to tackle things that he feels is wrong in HIS community and, for that, I think he's got a lot of bollocks.
If you wanna form an educated opinion on him, as Carto said, best read the book.
Where does it show any of them papers reporting prosecutions of organised gangs working together to commit this evil on such a vast scale?
Here are two links, both cite the NCA.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/20/rotherham-sexual-abuse-victims-rises-to-1510-operation-stovewood
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rotherham-grooming-gangs-1500-victims-investigation-police-national-crime-agency-pakistani-white-a8219971.html
I spose people like TR would like everyone to acknowledge there was (is) a problem and recognise that they wrong to vilify those who have campaigned for justice for all these years, even after the authorities turning a blind eye.
Article 2 says the investigation could take "years", so it's ongoing.
My post on page one, which as I have already said took me two minutes to find, lead to national news outlets reporting on cases in Rotherham, Leeds, Newcastle, Burton and Huddersfield. Add to that the one in Kent that got Y-L in trouble in the first place, it's a fair start. If you can show me other places where trials have been held and then not reported on, I am willing to take a look. So far you have not been able to do so.
You have not produced one shred of evidence for your claim mate, nothing.
And I refer you to my post on page one too.
It's just not true that there is no coverage now. It was true in the past, no denying that, but it's all over now (as the Stones once sung).
For you to just render the facts within those two articles as insufficient, a bit like the way you failed to respond to the collage thing, is a cop out that simply suits your narrative.
For someone who has exhausted so much time and energy on this thread this morning you are resorting to a surprisingly meagre tactic by just dismissing things you don't want to hear.
You even conceded yourself that investigations are ongoing, will you be big and brave enough to come back if the findings are published on the NCA official website? I somehow doubt you would, but still, enjoy your day
A Dead leg? in a boxing ring?
That's cheap, but I wouldn't expect anything else from you @Greenie .
how does that let people know that there is currently a large gang of nonces, all out on bail, currently knocking about in their neighbourhood?
I have not dismissed anything I don't want to hear, because, as yet you have not provided me with a shred of evidence to back up your claim that there are court cases involving muslim grooming gangs that have been concluded, that have not been reported in the MSM. Nothing.
I don't quite understand the comment about coming back if the findings are published on the NCA website? What findings?
*Edited to include the words "some stories".