Finnaldo Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, NorthfieldsFox said: ???? that was after the trial and it pertained to sensitive information that was disputed paddy Jackson and his accused were filmed everyday and picture in paper every day going into court we had live tweeting inside court , we had full reporting of non sensitive information we get NONE at this with Muslim Rape gangs why ??? Christ what a merry-go-round. -You're referring to an extremely well known rugby player, the same as Rolf Harris etc. They were public figures. Unless you can point to a non-Muslim civilian then your argument has no legs. -In this case, the gang was so large that it required multiple trials that were linked, with the last one due in September. Everyone in this case is allowed a fair trial (as is BRITISH TRADITION so I'm sure you'll love) and as such, reporting on one trial can affect a later one, in this case the trial in September, and therefore in large 'gang' cases it makes sense all reporting should be delayed until all trails are over. Comparing to a single, unlinked trial again has no comparison. -Possibly most importantly, our martyr and saviour Yexley-Lennon Christ wasn't dragged away Stasi-style with no context. He had been PREVIOUSLY WARNED not to do EXACTLY WHAT HE DID on a SUSPENDED SENTENCE. Any issues or discussions considering Islam in Britain, which many on here would agree has plenty to be addressed, will never ever be able to come to fruition whilst morons like Stephen continually go back to his old ways, potentially collapse entire trials DOING JUSTICE FOR WHAT HE STANDS AGAINST. It gives those on the hard left and soft right more excuses to sweep all issues under the rug and creates more tension in the streets. Edited 31 May 2018 by Finnaldo 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 5 minutes ago, Finnaldo said: -In this case, the gang was so large that it required multiple trials that were linked, with the last one due in September. Everyone in this case is allowed a fair trial (as is BRITISH TRADITION so I'm sure you'll love) and as such, reporting on one trial can affect a later one, in this case the trial in September, and therefore in large 'gang' cases it makes sense all reporting should be delayed until all trails are over. Comparing to a single, unlinked trial again has no comparison. A very important part of this that I forgot to mention. You can see from the Leeds court information, that there are multiple trials running on these cases at the same time. One is currently at the stage of jury retiring to consider verdict and the other just starting with their opening statements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboFox Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 A slight side step from the serious discussions happening, but every time Tommy Robinson is talked about, I can't help but visualise this video that typifies one of his loyal EDL followers. The absolute caricature of the English Nationalist, slurring far-right platitudes so muddled they could be taken straight out of an episode of Brasseye. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripeyfox Posted 31 May 2018 Author Share Posted 31 May 2018 Having served on a jury a few years ago, it is quite eye opening to see how great effort is made to give the defendant a fair trial and ensure the (alleged) victim is protected and also to try and make the experience as less of a trauma as possible (for the victim). It can be quite an intimidating experience for the jury as well and you are well lectured by the judge about the dangers of discussing the case with anybody else (including your fellow jurors - other than in you deliberations), or reading anything in the media, or trying to find things out about anyone connected with the case (for example searching for people involved with the case on social media). You try your best as a juror to listen to the evidence and decide on whether someone is guilty or not - and this is a significant plank of our justice - it is twelve normal people who decide - not the judge, or the police, or the government. It is just stupidity really for anyone to fall foul of the contempt of court law. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, stripeyfox said: Having served on a jury a few years ago, it is quite eye opening to see how great effort is made to give the defendant a fair trial and ensure the (alleged) victim is protected and also to try and make the experience as less of a trauma as possible (for the victim). It can be quite an intimidating experience for the jury as well and you are well lectured by the judge about the dangers of discussing the case with anybody else (including your fellow jurors - other than in you deliberations), or reading anything in the media, or trying to find things out about anyone connected with the case (for example searching for people involved with the case on social media). You try your best as a juror to listen to the evidence and decide on whether someone is guilty or not - and this is a significant plank of our justice - it is twelve normal people who decide - not the judge, or the police, or the government. It is just stupidity really for anyone to fall foul of the contempt of court law. The problem is that social media has made this all much easier to do, but it's only really people in the legal or journalism professions who actually understand it because they're trained in it. It's going to become a massive problem unless we start educating people better on how the legal system works. Edited 31 May 2018 by Voll Blau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Guiza Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 10 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: The problem is that social media has made this all much easier to do, but it's only really people in the legal or journalism professions who actually understand it because they're trained in it. It's going to become a massive problem unless we start educating people better on how the legal system works. It also doesn't help that the moment somebody is reported as being arrested or investigated they are already trending with folk already having played judge, jury and prosecution. I'm not for one moment suggesting that the alleged involved in the case he was reporting on are innocent, but the presumption of innocence is one of the most sacred factors of UK Law and it seemingly means nothing to so many. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 34 minutes ago, David Guiza said: It also doesn't help that the moment somebody is reported as being arrested or investigated they are already trending with folk already having played judge, jury and prosecution. Well yeah. Why would you be on trial if you weren't guilty. Not like determining that is the entire point of a trial... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthfieldsFox Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 Wow amazing how this discussion has developed gives a real insight to the huge problems we have created and need to address fascinating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnaldo Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 5 minutes ago, NorthfieldsFox said: Wow amazing how this discussion has developed gives a real insight to the huge problems we have created and need to address fascinating In what way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 2 hours ago, NorthfieldsFox said: Really ??? Paddy Jackson and his 3 mates on trial were they not entitled to a fair trial and no TV cameras outside their court case ? Pictures in paper everyday , was that supposed victim not entitled to justice ? Why do the accused in Muslim rape gang cases get such special protection ? Why werent the women protesting in Belfast about Jackson and His buddies arrested for breach of the peace ? please explain to me why the need to be different ? Thought it had been explained. Much better than me I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Footballwipe Posted 31 May 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 31 May 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, NorthfieldsFox said: Wow amazing how this discussion has developed gives a real insight to the huge problems we have created and need to address fascinating You're absolutely right. You being the embodiment of those who choose to ignore facts, rational explanation and the law encapsulates the issue the law faces in the modern day. People refusing to believe the truth because it doesn't fit with their narrative. Something like "oh, many thanks @Voll Blau for the insight" would've been a perfect reply for you, but you can't admit your wrong, so you'll keep ignoring people. Edited 31 May 2018 by Footballwipe 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_Loyal Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 13 hours ago, MattP said: The two Sikhs I knock around with mention this every single time it comes up. They aren't "Asian" grooming gangs at all, they are Pakistani/Bangladeshi grooming gangs. It's like calling the Comorra European rather than Italian or Sicilian. They are nearly always reported in the press as 'Asian grooming gangs' though, which is shocking really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovril Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Dr The Singh said: Didn't realise my Bhutan, Nepalese fellas were involved......they were predominantly Muslim and Pakistani, can we not tarnish the rest of Asia. By your own logic are you not tarnishing all Muslims and Pakistanis? Do you think we should refrain from naming their gender as well? Edited 31 May 2018 by bovril 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthfieldsFox Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 8 minutes ago, Footballwipe said: You're absolutely right. You being the embodiment of those who choose to ignore facts, rational explanation and the law encapsulates the issue the law faces in the modern day. People refusing to believe the truth because it doesn't fit with their narrative. Something like "oh, many thanks @Voll Blau for the insight" would've been a perfect reply for you, but you can't admit your wrong, so you'll keep ignoring people. But I’m not wrong , nor do I believe he is right but I respect his point I never abused him but look above at who is getting abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthfieldsFox Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 18 minutes ago, Finnaldo said: In what way? ?♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 20 minutes ago, Finnaldo said: In what way? In the way that it proves some people only see what they want and ignore explanations and facts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Voll Blau Posted 31 May 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 31 May 2018 1 hour ago, NorthfieldsFox said: But I’m not wrong , nor do I believe he is right but I respect his point I never abused him but look above at who is getting abuse Oh do fvck off. I'm talking matters of fact, and every single point you've made had been factually disproved in this thread before you entered it, and once again many times after you entered it. It's not a question of believing I'm right because these aren't matters of opinion. Every theory you've come up with, in flagrant disregard of the facts at hand, is easily disprovable bollocks. And yeah, I feel fully justified in giving you grief for it because you're acting like an ignorant prat. 6 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 Threads like this make me wish Lisoh hadn't left. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Finnaldo Posted 31 May 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 31 May 2018 3 minutes ago, NorthfieldsFox said: But I’m not wrong , nor do I believe he is right but I respect his point I never abused him but look above at who is getting abuse He is right. Factually, objectively right. Everything he, and everyone else in this thread who identifies with left or right politics, has shown you is British Law that has been practiced for hundreds of years regardless of skin colour, religion or any other factor you want to contrive. You've let the emotions you've invested in your stalwart political views block you from realising this is nothing out the ordinary for British Law and every time someone proves your point null you go deeper into this conspiracy nonsense. The one thing you're not wrong in is that this is a great insight, into how entrenched political doctrine on the left and right is distorting the public's view on the cold hard facts to the point they're willing to ignore streams of objective truths on the case in hand so they can stick to the political dogma they've clung so hard to. 9 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 (edited) The accused are not beig given special treatment. The victims are to ensure the trial is fair and not discontinued and started again or dismissed on a technicality. I do not have a law degree so am prepared to rely on those that do to get it right. I don;t think any verdict will satisfy the predjudiced ones. If the case is dismissed because of interferance they will say the trial was fixed. If they are found guilty and given a variert of sentences based on the severity of the crime committed they will say they are too lenient. Some of the witnesses will know the accused. Maybe family members. Others will not want their identities revealed. I would guess reporting is restricted (not entirely banned) would be the possibility of false reporting and speculation and identities. To report permission would have to be granted and special passes handed out. Obviously TR did not have the required credentials. Also filming within the vicinity of the court was prohibited by ANY member of the public. I have typed an essay which will be wasted on deaf ears. Edited 1 June 2018 by Rincewind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthfieldsFox Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 Here is another thought for those that can’t comprehend that the media narrative is being controlled , How come we haven’t had public open hearings after marchester or london terror attacks at which victims could speak ? After all It would allow the relatives of those slaughtered in Islamic terror attacks here in the UK to have public time to explain the loss and pain that they have suffered yet the Grenfell relatives have , which was also a tragedy have been (rightly so) given a public open platform to vent and explain their loss why are our victims of Terror not afforded this luxury ? simple question , wonder how simple the answer is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthfieldsFox Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 1 hour ago, Voll Blau said: Oh do fvck off. I'm talking matters of fact, and every single point you've made had been factually disproved in this thread before you entered it, and once again many times after you entered it. It's not a question of believing I'm right because these aren't matters of opinion. Every theory you've come up with, in flagrant disregard of the facts at hand, is easily disprovable bollocks. And yeah, I feel fully justified in giving you grief for it because you're acting like an ignorant prat. One mans facts are another mans propaganda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Finnegan Posted 31 May 2018 Popular Post Share Posted 31 May 2018 That famous bit of propaganda, the written law of the United Kingdom. 3 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 1 hour ago, NorthfieldsFox said: One mans facts are another mans propaganda No, the facts I've mentioned are facts. Still waiting for you to provide a specific example of a "draconian" reporting restriction currently in place... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 31 May 2018 Share Posted 31 May 2018 1 hour ago, bovril said: By your own logic are you not tarnishing all Muslims and Pakistanis? Do you think we should refrain from naming their gender as well? Really!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts