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.

 

Dozens of reporters film defendents outside of pedophile trials in UK; no arrests

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Dear God, how many times do people have to point out to you that his charges are from a previous crime, and he was trying to commit a similar crime!!!!!! REALLY try and read links that have been provided by posters to show you how silly your arguments are!!
That dog with no teeth analogy is soooo fitting!!




edit on 1-6-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Double post.
edit on 1-6-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting




Hey op you are all freedom of speech what about pedos? Would you defend their freedom of speech?.


Well if you read the Gramblers views in this and other recent thread you woudn't make such a stupid statement.

You've been here long enough just use the Posts function under the members name, or is that too much hard work?

Way to go we see your agenda



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Step 1 type in google
"why didn't UK police prosecute child groomers earlier"

Step 2 copy and paste this into address bar the following if above step too complicated

www.google.com.au... bwKHYToD5MQBQgmKAA&biw=832&bih=483

Step 3 Read at your pleasure and answers will appear in your mind

Step 4 Think before attacking OP or not

Your choice



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

Grambler's post summarized



England has prevented justice in the cases of the children and attacked the people reporting the crimes.


What do we do about that now when the testimony is the camera was not on the victims was it?



It's funny, because that's not what he wrote because if it was, that would be the topic of this discussion instead of it being about his hero Stephen Christopher Yaxlet-Lennon and how his case differs from the examples he provided.

Perhaps someone should post that discussion in its own thread so we can talk about it? But please remember Yaxley-Lennon was the one who came close to preventing the children getting justice with his idiotic actions, something he seems to realise now if one poster is correct

Plus I don't really understand the last sentence...

edit on 1/6/18 by djz3ro because: to fux the quote...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

LOL but he was already famous and infamous - so you're having an each way bet - LOL



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

I am so tired of the name calling and insinuation about me on this

So if Tommy is my hero

I guess your hero is the rapists

So all of your posts are defending you heroes the child rapists

Man are you disgusting



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed




pleasure of visiting the fine establishment of law in your country, whether it be UK, U.S or OZ it's all similar.


"fine establishment of law" You've got to be kidding.

Here; this sheds a bit of light how "contempt of Court" is used to silence the little man

quadrant.org.au...



Contempt of Court? Well That Depends…

Three federal ministers recently were given the rounds of kitchen by Victorian judges, who declined to lock them up for alleged contempt. No doubt, through gritted teeth, the politicos resented their humiliation, but they should have rejoiced. Little people are granted no such indulgence judge III

Contempt charges are almost always an exercise in judicial muscle. You are a gnat, a court will say, who has attacked the very foundations of the legal system that protects us all. And should you happen to be charged you’ll almost certainly be paraded, humiliated and spat out by judges claiming to act more in sorrow than anger. The problem is that some punished for contempt are lower-hanging fruit than others.

Legal precincts have always had their crews of cranks and angries, pushing traffic fines to extreme appeals, spending hours reading up obscure Privy Council judgments, busting to beat the system. Noble enough in the exercise of accessing a citizen’s right to seek justice, and courts indulge them to a point. But eventually the more bothered of them get charged with contempt for what are usually nothing more than cumulative and forlorn outbursts against what they regard as The System.....


Ian Munro-Meeks spends his working days in the belly of the court system.





posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
[Yes it is damning.

Now imagine you were from one of these towns and watched your daughters and friends daughters be raped, and the police not only do nothing, but treat you with contempt for speaking up.

You would probably want to speak up and protest.

And you would then nbe called a racist, told to shut up, and harrassed by the police.



This is how your OP should have read as it would have led to a much healthier discussion.

It is disgusting that this has happened and a full and proper investigation needs to be carried out and legislation put forward to stop this happening again. Safeguarding our youth is far more important than tiptoeing around criminals of ethnicity so you dont get hauled over the coals for offending someone.
edit on 1/6/18 by djz3ro because: fixing the quote...



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
To the OP. This is another thread that demonstrates an inability to understand law in England, all revolving around some guy called Tommy Robinson. Reporters outside courts in the UK are allowed, and do report. It's what usually happens.

This may help people challenged with English law and Robinson

We have a quaint tradition in England and Wales that trial by media should be avoided, and that trial on evidence heard in court is the fairest way to determine a person’s guilt.

Deny ignorance...


If your jurors are to incompetent to seperate the facts presented in a trial from hearsay media allegations than I fear deeply for your people.

These laws are always passed on the pretext of protecting a victim, when the only one's being protected are the criminals, I'm sorry suspected criminals. I wouldn't want to sway anyone's opinion with my right to free speech.


edit on 1-6-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

"identify" being a key word.

If this was not a closed trial the victims are already seen inside court and outside by the public.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
It has already been explained to you on another thread.

The difference between Tony Robinson and other protesters is that Tony Robinson was on a SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
It is like US probation. You do not have the same rights and privileges when serving a suspended sentence.

But as I said it had already been explained to you so you are obviously lost in your own echo chamber.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: djz3ro

No where is the law does it mention anything like needing a press pass.

In addition it seems quite likely one of gthe dozens of people outside the trials of Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter I posted dint have press passes, yet I didnt see the police checking everyone for press passes to make sure they didnt have to arrest anyone.

You are just adding stipulations because you dont like him, and so want to justify his imprisonment.


I'm spitballing because i know a little about the Press (I nearly chose that career path) I don't know Yaxley-Lennon but I call it like I see it.

The real difference, that you seem to be ignoring, is that your hero was on a suspended sentence for committing a similar crime before. Only an imbecile would do what he did and think he could get away with it.

In the UK you are innocent until proven guilty and you cant be found guilty if some neanderthal does something, he believes to be noble, and gets the case canned. I bet the rape gang were backing him to the hilt, no case, they walk...
edit on 1/6/18 by djz3ro because: spelling



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

BINGO - good summary



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




If your jurors are to incompetent to seperate the facts presented in a trial from hearsay media allegations than I fear deeply for your people.


This is what happens in America, the jurors and from a lot of these threads lately, some American posters lap it up, and are lead by a media focused on hearsay, popularity and who has the most influence or money. Thats why we have these laws in Great Britain, so justice can be severed by an unbiased jury, the laws my not be perfect but at least we try. Remember the OJ trial, one of many?


edit on 1-6-2018 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

www.abc.net.au...


Former British prime minister Sir Edward Heath would have been questioned by detectives over child abuse allegations if he was still alive, police say.

Officers have been investigating sex abuse claims against Sir Edward, who died in 2005 aged 89.

Their report released on Thursday said: "There is sufficient suspicion to have interviewed Sir Edward under criminal caution regarding his suspected involvement in child sexual abuse."

Police looked at 42 allegations and said there was sufficient suspicion to have questioned Sir Edward about seven of them.

They included the alleged rape of an 11-year-old boy and alleged indecent assault on a 10-year-old boy.

Chief Constable Mike Veale of Wiltshire Police said the seriousness of the allegations made it imperative for police to investigate.

"There have been many views expressed as to whether the police should investigate alleged offences committed by a deceased suspect," he said.

"I believe this was the right moral, ethical and professional thing to do." He said, "a significant number of people" had made complaints about Sir Edward


Would have should have.....

Police admit they should have......

Notice they still call him "Sir", Knighthood never revoked

And to rub salt into wound




Edward Heath fixed it for Jimmy Savile to receive OBE and attended Paedophile Information Exchange meetings

www.mirror.co.uk...

Its disgusting and reprehensible



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Isurrender73




If your jurors are to incompetent to seperate the facts presented in a trial from hearsay media allegations than I fear deeply for your people.


This is what happens in America, the jurors and from a lot of these threads lately, some American posters lap it up, and are lead by a media focused on hearsay, popularity and who has the most influence or money. Thats why we have these laws in Great Britain, so justice can be severed by an unbiased jury, the laws my not be perfect but at least we try. Remember the OJ trial, one of many?



Remember the right Rolf Harris and Gary glitter trials?

Oh that’s right they had media outside them like the USA does



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Tommy didn’t call your hero’s, the child rapists guilty

He merely reported on publicly available details and filmed, like all of the media did for the two trials I posted



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Isurrender73



If your jurors are to incompetent to seperate the facts presented in a trial from hearsay media allegations than I fear deeply for your people.



This is what happens in America, the jurors and from a lot of these threads lately, some American posters lap it up, and are lead by a media focused on hearsay, popularity and who has the most influence or money. Thats why we have these laws in Great Britain, so justice can be severed by an unbiased jury, the laws my not be perfect but at least we try. Remember the OJ trial, one of many?


Please name one case where the jurors in America were swayed by the media?

What you say "sounds" good, "feels" good, but is devoid of any facts. Like I previously stated; If your jurors are that incompetent your legal system is in serious trouble.

Don't be blinded by fine sounding argunents that play on your emotions but rather keep your mind focused on the facts. The law is not based on emotions, but facts.


edit on 1-6-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


It happens one or twice here and usually after trials but before sentencing, America is a completely diffrent ball game!!



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join