It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lifting of gag order in robinson case proves it was never about protecting child rape case

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

That's taking about by the failures of the system and individuals. Nothing in there says there was an organised cover-up. Given how daming the report is, if they did think there was a cover up I think they would have called it out explicitly.


You said my view on this was a wrong conspiracy

It says that no action was taken for years despite the fact these rapes were known

It says authorities suppressed reports detailing the truth

And as usual, you move goal posts and make excuses for this

It’s cool we get it

Who needs to hold these authorities accountable who allowed thousand of rapes to occur when there are important things like yelling about Tommy Robinson to do


No you have tried to claim there was a cover up and somehow connect thus to Robinson arrest.

The truth is its a completely made up fantasy of yours.


I did not say that.

I said that authorities do not want this embarrassment to be discussed to much

I showed how the authorities allowed these rapes to happen for years, and treated vict9ims with contempt, and supressed the facts.

You dont believe that, because you are not interested in truth.

Even when shown the government documents saying this, you deny it.

If children are raped so you can feel good denying reality, so be it, right?



Nobody denying what happened. Just pointing out that your interpretation of it is wrong which can be easily confirmed by reading the official report the linked to.

You are the one now moving the goal posts as your argument gets weaker and weaker.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

That's taking about by the failures of the system and individuals. Nothing in there says there was an organised cover-up. Given how daming the report is, if they did think there was a cover up I think they would have called it out explicitly.


You said my view on this was a wrong conspiracy

It says that no action was taken for years despite the fact these rapes were known

It says authorities suppressed reports detailing the truth

And as usual, you move goal posts and make excuses for this

It’s cool we get it

Who needs to hold these authorities accountable who allowed thousand of rapes to occur when there are important things like yelling about Tommy Robinson to do


No you have tried to claim there was a cover up and somehow connect thus to Robinson arrest.

The truth is its a completely made up fantasy of yours.


I did not say that.

I said that authorities do not want this embarrassment to be discussed to much

I showed how the authorities allowed these rapes to happen for years, and treated vict9ims with contempt, and supressed the facts.

You dont believe that, because you are not interested in truth.

Even when shown the government documents saying this, you deny it.

If children are raped so you can feel good denying reality, so be it, right?



Nobody denying what happened. Just pointing out that your interpretation of it is wrong which can be easily confirmed by reading the official report the linked to.

You are the one now moving the goal posts as your argument gets weaker and weaker.



No my interpretatiopn was right.

Here was my intial claim that i posted that the user said I was wrong about, and you agreed.


That’s not what I am saying

I am saying that as internal reports have shown

Authorities have known for at least three decades about these rape gangs in some cities

They went after social workers and police that spoke up about it

They treated victims like prosititutes

This has all been completed confirmed

The internal reports into Telford and rotterham showed that police were afraid of being called racist, and so they let the abuse go

The politicians were fearful of the same thing

The media didn’t d not report on these gangs much at all, although the were known about for thirty years

This ain’t a conspiracy it has been admitted by internal reviews, admissions from authorities and the few investigative journalists that covered it



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

From your op.
'
We have seen a concerted effort by the authorities, the press, and the politicians in the UK to ignore the child rape gangs.

I feel the judge wanted tommy # up, and didnt want anyone to report on this, not out of fear of jeopardizing the child rape case, but because they didnt want people to know they were jailing tommy in the way they did (in 4 hours, without his chosen lawyer there, sentenced to 13 years'

Just one example of your bizarre efforts to create a conspiracy theory.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

From your op.
'
We have seen a concerted effort by the authorities, the press, and the politicians in the UK to ignore the child rape gangs.

I feel the judge wanted tommy # up, and didnt want anyone to report on this, not out of fear of jeopardizing the child rape case, but because they didnt want people to know they were jailing tommy in the way they did (in 4 hours, without his chosen lawyer there, sentenced to 13 years'

Just one example of your bizarre efforts to create a conspiracy theory.


Where was I wrong.

I stated that we have seen an effiort by authorties, the press and politicians to ignore this problem. That is absolutely true.

Then I said I feel (as is its my opinion) that the judge wanted tommy shut up.

That is a perfectly reasonable opinion given the historical facts of authorities ignoring the child rape gangs, and going after whistle blowers that spoke up about it.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

From your op.
'
We have seen a concerted effort by the authorities, the press, and the politicians in the UK to ignore the child rape gangs.

I feel the judge wanted tommy # up, and didnt want anyone to report on this, not out of fear of jeopardizing the child rape case, but because they didnt want people to know they were jailing tommy in the way they did (in 4 hours, without his chosen lawyer there, sentenced to 13 years'

Just one example of your bizarre efforts to create a conspiracy theory.


Where was I wrong.

I stated that we have seen an effiort by authorties, the press and politicians to ignore this problem. That is absolutely true.

Then I said I feel (as is its my opinion) that the judge wanted tommy shut up.

That is a perfectly reasonable opinion given the historical facts of authorities ignoring the child rape gangs, and going after whistle blowers that spoke up about it.


The idea that the authorities want to cover it up would be far more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that we are talking about the trial of the alleged abusers.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again you are ignoring the facts. He was not jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


I watched an interview with Tommy's manager, who was at the trial, and he claims the judge stated quite explicitly that Tommy's suspended sentence had absolutely nothing to do with this latest conviction. So basically, yes he was jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

From your op.
'
We have seen a concerted effort by the authorities, the press, and the politicians in the UK to ignore the child rape gangs.

I feel the judge wanted tommy # up, and didnt want anyone to report on this, not out of fear of jeopardizing the child rape case, but because they didnt want people to know they were jailing tommy in the way they did (in 4 hours, without his chosen lawyer there, sentenced to 13 years'

Just one example of your bizarre efforts to create a conspiracy theory.


Where was I wrong.

I stated that we have seen an effiort by authorties, the press and politicians to ignore this problem. That is absolutely true.

Then I said I feel (as is its my opinion) that the judge wanted tommy shut up.

That is a perfectly reasonable opinion given the historical facts of authorities ignoring the child rape gangs, and going after whistle blowers that spoke up about it.


The idea that the authorities want to cover it up would be far more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that we are talking about the trial of the alleged abusers.


But you arr making a fallacious argument.

I firmly believe that the etremely wealthy in almost all countries get unfair treatment from the law.

Saying "Oh but bill cosby got found guilty, so that proves the wealthy do not get better treatment" is erroneous.

In the same way, the fact thatwe have historical proof from very recent times that authorities sought to supress stories of child rape gangs, and ignore them, and have gone after whistle blowers that talked about them,

I dont think saying "well there is a trial so that proves authorities wouldnt try to cover this up or silence it" really flies.

Especially given the gag order, and even the gag order placed on the tommy case intially, that would have had no bearing whatsoever on the child rape case, which is what this OP is about.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again you are ignoring the facts. He was not jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


I watched an interview with Tommy's manager, who was at the trial, and he claims the judge stated quite explicitly that Tommy's suspended sentence had absolutely nothing to do with this latest conviction. So basically, yes he was jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


He got 10 months for the new charge. 3 months was from the suspended sentence.

Neither was just for filming outside court.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The restrictions on reporting are to ensure a fair trial. Nothing to do with any cover up.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again you are ignoring the facts. He was not jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


I watched an interview with Tommy's manager, who was at the trial, and he claims the judge stated quite explicitly that Tommy's suspended sentence had absolutely nothing to do with this latest conviction. So basically, yes he was jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


He got 10 months for the new charge. 3 months was from the suspended sentence.

Neither was just for filming outside court.


No, the judge apparently stated that he would have given him the same sentence, previous suspended sentence or not.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

The restrictions on reporting are to ensure a fair trial. Nothing to do with any cover up.


Ok but then why, given that tommy said nothing non factual, did not say the men were guiilty, and did not reprot things in the case that werent public knowledge, was he hurting the trial.

Presumably by filming the defenants outside the court house.

Which leads us right back to the fact that as the videos I posted show, this has happened in other child rape cases.

So why was this treated differently?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again you are ignoring the facts. He was not jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


I watched an interview with Tommy's manager, who was at the trial, and he claims the judge stated quite explicitly that Tommy's suspended sentence had absolutely nothing to do with this latest conviction. So basically, yes he was jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


He got 10 months for the new charge. 3 months was from the suspended sentence.

Neither was just for filming outside court.


No, the judge apparently stated that he would have given him the same sentence, previous suspended sentence or not.


The reports I have read all say 10 and 3.



posted on Jun, 3 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: ScepticScot




Again you are ignoring the facts. He was not jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


I watched an interview with Tommy's manager, who was at the trial, and he claims the judge stated quite explicitly that Tommy's suspended sentence had absolutely nothing to do with this latest conviction. So basically, yes he was jailed for videoing outside the courthouse.


He got 10 months for the new charge. 3 months was from the suspended sentence.

Neither was just for filming outside court.


No, the judge apparently stated that he would have given him the same sentence, previous suspended sentence or not.


The reports I have read all say 10 and 3.



Correct, and the judge said he would have given him the 10 months regardless of the suspended sentence.
So 10 months for nothing, except they wanted to put a political inconvenience in jail to shut him up.

This is going to backfire massively. I didn't know much about the guy, but after this, I have researched him. I now know he is not a racist at all and his views are entirely reasonable. There are many people who will do the same and wonder why a person like this is being persecuted whilst child rapists have been allowed to carry on raping for years. Part of looking into the guy leads you to understand more about what he is trying to highlight - Muslim grooming gangs and child rapists. It's shocking.

I will now support Robinson financially also, as I am determined as anyone who actually cares should be to help expose the filth that is happening in our towns and the people in govt positions who have covered it up.


edit on 3/6/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Risking the mistral of accused child molesters is nothing? Robinson had been warned in court and acknowledged he understood the potential ramifications of his actions. He then carried on as before. And not to forget the minor point he pled guilty.

Since I know you have authored at least one thread before involving Robinson then not sure I believe your claim not to have known much about him.

If after researching him you don't believe he is racist and find his views reasonable then that just says more about you than him. Thankfully like him your views are in a small minority.

If Robinson really was trying to highlight child abuse then that is what he would be doing. Not hanging about trials of those already being prosecuted.


edit on 4-6-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Grambler

That's taking about by the failures of the system and individuals. Nothing in there says there was an organised cover-up. Given how daming the report is, if they did think there was a cover up I think they would have called it out explicitly.


You said my view on this was a wrong conspiracy

It says that no action was taken for years despite the fact these rapes were known

It says authorities suppressed reports detailing the truth

And as usual, you move goal posts and make excuses for this

It’s cool we get it

Who needs to hold these authorities accountable who allowed thousand of rapes to occur when there are important things like yelling about Tommy Robinson to do


I have seen this excuse before in other corruption issues in other organisations . They call it a "systems failure" .
However when they want to target something like the Catholic church, even though that church has new child protection systems in place for decades which fail safe and there are no rapes in decades compared to tens of thousands per year committed by the rest of the population, they don't seem to have any qualms about resurrecting dead clerics from the 1970s ( they have to go back that far usually and have the occasional one from the 80s or 90s) to depict this as a "coverup".
And if a single cleric today was even accused of a sex related crime ( whether or not he was guilty) "systems failure" would never be mentioned!
I have seen similar in the case of police forces. Rather than sack the Chief they put a committee on it and shout "systems failure" . Sadly in the few cases where corruption is highlighted by whistle blowers Government Ministers for Justice or Commissioners of Police may resign without the actual perpetrator of the corruption ( usually now retired on a fat pension) having to answer for anything .



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Risking the mistral of accused child molesters is nothing? Robinson had been warned in court and acknowledged he understood the potential ramifications of his actions. He then carried on as before. And not to forget the minor point he pled guilty.

Since I know you have authored at least one thread before involving Robinson then not sure I believe your claim not to have known much about him.

If after researching him you don't believe he is racist and find his views reasonable then that just says more about you than him. Thankfully like him your views are in a small minority.

If Robinson really was trying to highlight child abuse then that is what he would be doing. Not hanging about trials of those already being prosecuted.



1. WHERE did he plead guilty?
2. He did not "carry on as before" He went and did media training and he enquired at the court house wher the boundaries were and whether reporting restrictions were still in effect. They had no notices of restrictions ( which are required by court regulations) and they told him once he was below the front steps he was off court property. So he broadcast from there.
3. It does not matter whether a view is a minority or not. what matters is if it is true! Most of America believed WMD were in Iraq. Every Media outlet carried the story. But it was not true! Nor did Saddam support Islamic fundamentalism! Now Saddam was a nasty man but the reasons given for invading Iraq were not true! So where is your evidence anything from the last five years say showing a racist comment or racist behaviour from tommy Robinson?
4. You say "If Robinson really was trying to highlight child abuse then that is what he would be doing. Not hanging about trials of those already being prosecuted???????" Really? and how do you suggest he should do this highlighting?



posted on Jul, 22 2019 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Risking the mistral of accused child molesters is nothing?



How did he risk any mistrial? He did not quote anything which was not already in the public view. In fact the "defendants" took a motion to dismiss based on TRs video and the Judge Marsden and Prosecution agreed that it had no effect on the trial. They appealed the judgement and the appeal Judge also dismissed their claim! There was NO RISK of a mistrial and so the AG had to cook up three DIFFERENT charges for the same events. Two of them were bunkum and the third was the only one with any substance "molesting" the defendants as they went into court! But if you can get nine months ion prison for this then the BBC and other reporters should be getting 18 months. Also why is it being treated as a criminal offence when oit is contempt of court? why is TR being sent to Max Security?




top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join