Sucks doesnt it. He was arrested, tried, and convicted for 13 months all on the same day, just for covering the trail of this child sex ring. Then a ban was placed on all media sources, from reporting this to the public. If we are not careful, this will be us not to long in the future.
Do always take with a pinch of salt anything you read unless it's direct from the horses mouth... context is everything and this doesn't look like a UK report, but one picked up somewhere and written elsewhere.. In actual fact my AMerican friends and the good people on here tell me all the time how biased and non-factual some of the reporting you guys have there is...We have our nut-job biased publications too but the mainstream press actually reports BOTH sides and is supposed to report unbiasedly, even if they are alligned with any particular party.
I do need to go look at the link but from just a glance it looks like a report not from the UK but based on someone's interpretation of it.. I'd say that you and I, and pretty much anyone sane and reasoning hates child abuse, we HATE those men who deliberately target young, vulnerable people and use them in this way... we all do - so there's no saying any of us are better or worse than anyone else on this but at the same time, while I am not defending anything here.. we DO have to remember that justice MUST be allowed to proceed unhindered and unbiased.. WE have a system here that means innocent until proven guilty... I think you guys have the same... so while NO ONE is defending this crime or those who perpetrated it - we do have to make sure the jury are not influenced either way before the trial.. Justice isn't justice otherwise.
OK two posts from me on this one... it's NOT a news report from UK, but based on a RIGHT WING report allegedly from the the UK, I've no reason to believe it didn't come from the UK, just it's not written anywhere in the mainstream here.. I did highlight in a prev pose on here that even we have our nut-job biased publications and sources here.. and in this report it does very much prove case in point as the source is quoted as a right wing organisation.. therefore NOT unbiased and definitely extremist. (whether one agrees with it or not it isn't mainstream)
And talking of bias... .there is much mention of Fox News... I don't know much about Fox News but I do know that it's continually highlighted as a very biased and alleged source of fake news... so I have concerns about the validity and accuracy of this 'report' - talking of which, we don't actually know that this happened... we only have this, by it's own admission right wing report...
As I mentioned we have a system here of innocent until proven guilty and I did highlight the very real need to ensure that the justice system is NOT influenced in any way.. justice must take its course and shouldn't be swayed by people harassing alleged criminals during trial or before trial..
That said.. and I really would hate anyone to take things the wrong way as I am just trying to be reasoning and reasonable on this... but we DO have a problem with islamic groups targeting and creating sex rings which actively seek and abuse young, vulnerable girls - often they will approach girls, befriend them, even claim to love them, be their boyfriend etc.. So no one is denying it happens, it's just a matter of making sure that justice is allowed to deal with these people.. and not interfering with that...
If you think about what I just said... you might ask how do I know there is a problem with child sex rings which are organised by muslims? Well because they ARE reported in the news here.. we DO have unbiased, FREE reporting.. and we KNOW there is and has been a problem... it is reported.. .including the names of who.. but AFTER justice has been done..
And on that point a very big thing I noticed and I am sure it wasn't intentional... but the whole point of this is that the criminal at the heart of the sex ring hadn't been jailed... we don't know the journalist has been, we don't know, if he has been jailed that it wasn't on an entirely different charge, but the alleged sex ring guy hasn't been convicted yet... so innocent until proven guilty...
I'd like to think that people reading this, if they do, will understand my intent is not to argue with anyone, and I don't want to have anyone mad at me.. I am literally just pointing out some relevant points.. we really cannot have someone vilified while a trial is ongoing. Once this guy is convicted it will then rightly be published in the news
Most likely the judges were pals with those involved..... Sir Jimmy Saville A tv star and well known English entertainer ,he was involved in alsorts of child welfare organization,homes for orphaned and unwanted children . He was involved in every institution that gave him access to young boys ,girls and any living person young or old.....no one knows how many saville rapped and abused.... They waited for Saville to die and then outed him..... The English government and police all knew what a evil pervert he was and both protected him..... In Hampsteads NW London Synagogue,the head Rabbi sexually assorted his own grand daughter about ten years ago.....it was in the press,but then covered up...
Cyril Smith a great big fat pig of a man and labour MP......He rapped and abused so many young boys and died before he could face the courts...every one knew what a pig the man was,yet no one said a word to condem him....
Laws were / are made to protect Royalty,Governing officials,the police and anyone rich and influential.... Harvey Weinstine could explain it better
Hello Nicey... just to add though that while it's definitely not right what happened, we do have to remember that it was back in the 60s and 70s and back then, pretty much everything was hushed up.. as a kid if you were molested and told your mum, you'd have been told not to be telling lies.. that was the culture back then :( And in that America was no different - a lot of really bad things were overlooked, glossed over ... including racism, and other nasties.. if you look at a lot of the progs we had on tv back then some of them were shockingly sexist, racist etc..
Having said that.. it's also true, here and elsewhere, is that there remains a SHOCKINGLY low conviction rate for rape and child abuse and the victim is often blamed and their past looked into and used to excuse rapists - which will again serve to dissuade people from reporting abuse and rape
PS in case anyone should wonder... I am vehemently against 3 things, child abuse, abuse of animals and abuse of women - those are the three things that make me lose my cool and I have said, and mean that if I saw anyone abusing a child, woman or animal I WOULD hit them and try to kill them... I wouldn't be able to help myself... but at the same time I have to remember that we can't turn vigilante.
This post was edited by Adaydreambeliever at May 30, 2018 1:16 PM MDT
He died in 2011 ....was knighted in 2012 and then things started to come out about the creep...
Rape is rape if you are male or female...for a child it would be far worse I would think....look up ho many men are raped in England by other men....you will be supprise do at how many there are.... Its surprising at how many babies are raped also....
How appalling not to be believed by your parents...There is no way my parents would not have believed me ...
The only thing that's not altogether clear is whether reporting restrictions of this nature are the norm in sexual abuse trials or whether this is the exception.
On the trial of cardinal Pell in Australia the press not only cannot report anything about the trial, they are not even allowed to report on the fact that they are banned from reporting.
I can accept that there should be limitations of reporting on ongoing child sexual abuse cases, the identity of the alleged victims being one of them but how the fcuk can there be a ban on reporting that you are banned from reporting. I think the reason in this case is that the prosecution wish to block any possible appeal (if found guilty) on the grounds of an unfair trial but it really is going to far to ban reporting on the actual ban. Try a search, there has been nothing since the reporting that there may be a ban, so it seems that the ban must be in place. So much for an open and fair trial with justice being seen to be done. https://newmatilda.com/2018/05/15/prosecutors-narrow-application-media-ban-cardinal-george-pell-trial/
I don't think that's the reason. A "postponement order", or temporary reporting ban, can be imposed under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 where publicity could endanger the right to a fair trial. This may occasionally be necessary because we don't have jury segregation like you do in America. It is not being covered up on account of the defendants' ethnic or religious background - 10 or 15 years ago it would be fair to say we were in a state of denial about the problem, but not any more.
Thriftymaid 