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.
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake
Damn dude, sorry for my following comments. But if this were happening in my neck of the woods I would be supporting Robinson will all of my might, even if he did violate some stupid #(*&*#*&$( ordinances. Those ordinances appear to be protecting both the gangs and the politicians who appears to be very very reluctant in prosecution. Now why would they be going so easy on these grooming gangs? I wonder, who are the gangs intended recipients?
Along with many others, I just don't understand your condemnation of this fellow. Even if he is a spot light seeking jerk, I can't find fault with this particular reporting episode of exposing the turning a blind eye or maybe even enterprise corruption. These politicians will continue to succeed with their scams until the populace stands up and tells them they will not comply with these BS ordinances and demand action.
But I guess if the politicians actually cared the invasion would have never occurred in the first place. Or maybe it is all by designed and everything is linked.
Actually, i think rather a few of us would like to see the Police and social workers responsible for the cover-ups swinging from a tree.
A judge used a rare legal power to dismiss a jury and take the case on himself after jurors said they were offered bribes outside the courtroom.
Mr Justice Goss made the nearly unprecedented decision during the trial of four men accused of killing an elderly pensioner in an alleged 'crash for cash' insurance scam.
The judge told the defendants and their counsel he felt he could continue with a fair trial for the defendants and will give the verdicts next Monday.
It would be the second Crown Court case in England and Wales to be heard by a judge alone under seldom-used powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force in July 2007.
The first time the power was used was a case concerning four men accused of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004, in which the judge said jury "tampering" was a "very significant" danger.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: ClovenSky
What invasion?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake
Damn dude, sorry for my following comments. But if this were happening in my neck of the woods I would be supporting Robinson will all of my might, even if he did violate some stupid #(*&*#*&$( ordinances. Those ordinances appear to be protecting both the gangs and the politicians who appears to be very very reluctant in prosecution. Now why would they be going so easy on these grooming gangs? I wonder, who are the gangs intended recipients?
Along with many others, I just don't understand your condemnation of this fellow. Even if he is a spot light seeking jerk, I can't find fault with this particular reporting episode of exposing the turning a blind eye or maybe even enterprise corruption. These politicians will continue to succeed with their scams until the populace stands up and tells them they will not comply with these BS ordinances and demand action.
But I guess if the politicians actually cared the invasion would have never occurred in the first place. Or maybe it is all by designed and everything is linked.
Robinson's actions could have resulted in child abusers walking free. Something He was well aware off.
Supporting Robinson means you are supporting someone who cared more about his own self promotion and agenda than convicting child abusers.
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: ScepticScot
Have you researched into how often this actually happens in the UK? Would that be jury tampering?
Here is an article about jurors being offered bribe money and the judge simply dismissed the jury, then took the case on himself.
Judge in 'crash for cash case' dismisses jury and takes case on himself after jurors were offered bribes outside the courtroom
A judge used a rare legal power to dismiss a jury and take the case on himself after jurors said they were offered bribes outside the courtroom.
Mr Justice Goss made the nearly unprecedented decision during the trial of four men accused of killing an elderly pensioner in an alleged 'crash for cash' insurance scam.
The judge told the defendants and their counsel he felt he could continue with a fair trial for the defendants and will give the verdicts next Monday.
It would be the second Crown Court case in England and Wales to be heard by a judge alone under seldom-used powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force in July 2007.
The first time the power was used was a case concerning four men accused of an armed robbery at Heathrow Airport in 2004, in which the judge said jury "tampering" was a "very significant" danger.
So this jury tampering sounds like a very very rare occurrence, or am I missing something here?
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake
Did he report on the police excusing Muslim gang abuse long before Rotherham came to light?
Yep
But hey, I’m sure many British’s peoples dislike of the guy who smeared him as racist think it was worth it for all those gangs he warned about to rape who knows how many more girls after he warned of it
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake
Damn dude, sorry for my following comments. But if this were happening in my neck of the woods I would be supporting Robinson will all of my might, even if he did violate some stupid #(*&*#*&$( ordinances. Those ordinances appear to be protecting both the gangs and the politicians who appears to be very very reluctant in prosecution. Now why would they be going so easy on these grooming gangs? I wonder, who are the gangs intended recipients?
Along with many others, I just don't understand your condemnation of this fellow. Even if he is a spot light seeking jerk, I can't find fault with this particular reporting episode of exposing the turning a blind eye or maybe even enterprise corruption. These politicians will continue to succeed with their scams until the populace stands up and tells them they will not comply with these BS ordinances and demand action.
But I guess if the politicians actually cared the invasion would have never occurred in the first place. Or maybe it is all by designed and everything is linked.
Robinson's actions could have resulted in child abusers walking free. Something He was well aware off.
Supporting Robinson means you are supporting someone who cared more about his own self promotion and agenda than convicting child abusers.
And supporting those who talked about tommy before his trial ended means you are supporting people who could have let him off the hook
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: andy06shake
Damn dude, sorry for my following comments. But if this were happening in my neck of the woods I would be supporting Robinson will all of my might, even if he did violate some stupid #(*&*#*&$( ordinances. Those ordinances appear to be protecting both the gangs and the politicians who appears to be very very reluctant in prosecution. Now why would they be going so easy on these grooming gangs? I wonder, who are the gangs intended recipients?
Along with many others, I just don't understand your condemnation of this fellow. Even if he is a spot light seeking jerk, I can't find fault with this particular reporting episode of exposing the turning a blind eye or maybe even enterprise corruption. These politicians will continue to succeed with their scams until the populace stands up and tells them they will not comply with these BS ordinances and demand action.
But I guess if the politicians actually cared the invasion would have never occurred in the first place. Or maybe it is all by designed and everything is linked.
Robinson's actions could have resulted in child abusers walking free. Something He was well aware off.
Supporting Robinson means you are supporting someone who cared more about his own self promotion and agenda than convicting child abusers.
And supporting those who talked about tommy before his trial ended means you are supporting people who could have let him off the hook
Already covered why you are wrong.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake
Did he report on the police excusing Muslim gang abuse long before Rotherham came to light?
Yep
But hey, I’m sure many British’s peoples dislike of the guy who smeared him as racist think it was worth it for all those gangs he warned about to rape who knows how many more girls after he warned of it
Smearing would suggest it isn't true.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: andy06shake
Did he report on the police excusing Muslim gang abuse long before Rotherham came to light?
Yep
But hey, I’m sure many British’s peoples dislike of the guy who smeared him as racist think it was worth it for all those gangs he warned about to rape who knows how many more girls after he warned of it
Smearing would suggest it isn't true.
Yep just like those racist who reported in Catholic sex scandals