Further delays to Lee Rigby Woolwich murders trial.

Freeborn
reply to post by bastion

 

I understand a lot of what you're saying.....but the people of this country have a right to know that legal proceedings are ongoing but for whatever reasons they can not be reported on in detail at yet.

Also media guidelines aren't to glorify cases like that as they can cause race war, make martyrs out of the (alleged) murderers and inspire copycats.

Reporting FACTS isn't glorifying anything - it's the sensationalist approach used by parts of the media that makes martyrs or villains out of those involved.

Plus the last thing you want is the trial being thown out and the bastards not being punished because of contempt.

I agree with that entirely and I think I touched upon that a couple of times.

The locations and times are known to the press but they're not going to be revealed to the public for fear of a terrorist attack, or EDL-types beating up jurors and storming courts again causing the case to be thrown out.

Why would EDL 'beat up jurors'?
Surely it's Islamic extremists who'd wish to halt the trial or get maximum exposure from it?

And it's too late, Nick Griffen and BNP along with some other protesters were there on Monday and Thursday - not too sure about yesterday.
Anyone can find out very easily if they know where to look

edit on 23/11/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity

That right no longer exists, we have secret courts and diplock courts (trial without jury) for most terrorism trials.

According to the journalists at the trial what they're saying is so sick it would cause major threats to national security.

The EDL beat up some jurors and barristers at a muslim grooming gang in Liverpool trial because they mistook them for defendants so the whole thing had to be thrown out.

But equally, if the names of the jurors or witnesses were made public I imagine A Shabab or Al Queda would place a bounty on them and their families heads.

bastion
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

From what I gather the secrecy is in place as their are ongoing investigations into other terrorists.groups and reporting on these would give them the heads up to destroy evidence or launch immediate attacks.

It's worth mentioning he was approached by MI5 to work for them months before and his friend that appeared on BBC News/Newsnight was arrested after announcing that - so chances are there's a major investigation and infiltration of terrorist cells going on meaning they can't release the info.

Yes indeed, I learned that soon after the actual incident, but with the history of false flags, it begs the question who are the real culprits and who are just pawns or "weapons" or "tools" to achieve a larger goal.

My contention is that racial and religious divide is actively being sought by the MSM, so I dont think that preventing that is a valid reason.
I would conclude that with the level of government complicity in so called "staged events" it would very much be a matter of "national security" to keep the details from ever coming out.

Often times its the so called "MI5/MI6 Infiltrators" that are the biggest instigators.
It happened with Haroon Aswat. Source
It happened in Northern Ireland. With government death squads.

reply to post by bastion


I could never describe myself as a legal expert in any shape or form but if a trial could compromise national security or ongoing investigations couldn't the accused be remanded until a later date? But then again that could have serious legal and civil liberties ramifications I suppose - just thinking out loud.

What we have at present just breeds suspicion and mis-trust - but that may indeed be preferable to the alternatives.
No easy answers or solutions.

According to the journalists at the trial what they're saying is so sick it would cause major threats to national security.

Who deems what the public should or shouldn't know? - again, a fine balancing act.
But ignorance, in all shapes and forms, breeds fear and suspicion.

They're remanded at the moment.

Completely agree that to the average person it would appear like a cover-up but there's hundreds of legal guidelines in place for fair trials, stopping civil unrest, national security etc..

For example stories like this have been published: www.express.co.uk... within guidelines so there isn't a total blackout. Thouogh pre-trial reporting is a very rare occurrence as it can reveal witnesses, spies, what evidence is an isn't admissible in court and can easily break right to fair trial. There's also likely to be weeks of discussion about what can and can't be mentioned in cases as complex as this as civil liberties, public interest and justice all need to compromise with each other - it's far from a perfect system.

The reporting conditions are always set by the presiding judge. There should be a copy of these somewhere I'll see if I can find them.

Just read this on the BBC News site;

www.bbc.co.uk...

The presiding Judge has stated that the trial will start 'in the next few days'.
The report also gives a very brief summary of the hearings that occurred last week.
It seems that 'Legal Submissions' are ongoing as the trial is listed today 'For Mnetion'.

Thanks to Bastion I now have a bit more of an understanding of the legal technicalities and procedures surrounding these procedures.
Obviously justice has to be done but it's a fine balancing act achieving that whilst ensuring the non-prejudicial nature of the hearings and the integrity of other ongoing investigations.

It seems reports of a news blackout and associated suspicions were unfounded - full reporting of the trial on BBC News website.

www.bbc.co.uk...
www.telegraph.co.uk... l
www.theguardian.com...

I do not wish to stir things up, but below is a video made about the incident, by a respected (IMO) independent person (s) who as a result of a complaint later made about the video, had his whole TV show pulled from the air.

www.richplanet.net...

The video in question is on the second TV screen down. I will hold my council on the content of the video, most of you will be aware of Nick Kollerstrom from his work into 7/7.

I realize this does not add to the title of the thread, but it does provide an opportunity to anyone who has not watched this piece, to perhaps learn a little more.

reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum


I wasn't aware that Richplanet had been pulled.
Didn't agree with a lot of the theories presented but the few times I'd watched it I thought they's made at least a decent attempt to explain their theories in a rational and reasoned manner.
And it's important that all such events are examined and scrutinised from every angle regardless of how 'out there' it may seem to many.

There's undoubtedly many questions relating to this case that need answering. Perhaps it's best to wait and see what occurs during the trial - the trial which in the video you link to Nick Kollerstrom states his belief that it wouldn't happen.

An interesting perspective nonetheless and one that we should bear in mind when listening to the details of the trial and the evidence presented etc.

reply to post by Freeborn


Yes, I have to concede, it is not the most "convincing" attempt RDH made to further investigate an incident. NK looked decidedly ill and "doddery"

Nevertheless, I certainly found it interesting and will wait too for the results of the trial. Didn't NK allude to there not being a public trial? and not a trial full stop?

I remember the outrage than ensued after the events, and in honesty was surprised it stopped where it did, so can completely understand the need for there to be a controlled approach to the court proceedings in order for them to get it right first time, without undue disruption.

It is a circus surrounding a staged affair. The murder never happened. It was
another SandyHook, Aurora, Boston marathon etc.

what a load of bs nick and rich are saying its all crap

i used to watch richplanet tv so im glad its been pulled

back on the main part of this thread can you believe those two

are pleading not guilty

i hope they rot in hell to put it as nice as possible

maryhinge
what a load of bs nick and rich are saying its all crap

So are you saying that all of the video is a load of crap or just selected bits?
If it is a load of crap as you say could you make an effort to point out why you think it may be a load of crap?

Information is valuable, not all of it turns out to be correct, but it is still information. I for one do not feel as if I know enough about the incident to be able to declare the content of the video to be a load of crap. You obviously are confident that you do.

OneFreeMan
It is a circus surrounding a staged affair. The murder never happened. It was
another SandyHook, Aurora, Boston marathon etc.

No, I dont think so. The difference here is that there is video evidence, and a load of witnesses.
Its good to see that the trial is now getting the media attention it deserves.
Looks like it wasnt mentioned before because it was just the preliminaries.
Now the trial has started properly its very much mainstream news, thank god.

Im back to where I was when it first happened. I think maybe they were just a pair of psychopaths, but I totally disagree with the way they were given airtime in all the papers and on teatime tv. That never happens, and the backlash of showing the gory details had people storming mosques and the hate was everywhere.

reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum


they boasted that this is what happens in their mother land and we should see this

well were they not british for a start

and another point was that there was plenty of witnesses

also there is cctv footage of them running him over (good bless )

then dragging his body on the car to hack at him like a cattle for slaughter

then dragged in to the road to behead him

and im quite sure in this time he would have bled out ans thats why in my opinion theres not much blood

on the road

come on for christs sake they admitted it before they attacked the police and were shot

why they saved then IDK because if it was a scam they would surely have let them die

but thats my opinion

Mufcutcakeyumyum

maryhinge
what a load of bs nick and rich are saying its all crap

So are you saying that all of the video is a load of crap or just selected bits?
If it is a load of crap as you say could you make an effort to point out why you think it may be a load of crap?

well how could they stage a brutal slaughter in broad daylight with cctv and many witnesses

they did say they did it when interviewed before the police came and were covered in lees blood

may i ask you why you beleive it was a staged event and how and who filmed the cctv and where did they

film it

OneManArmy

OneFreeMan
It is a circus surrounding a staged affair. The murder never happened. It was
another SandyHook, Aurora, Boston marathon etc.

No, I dont think so. The difference here is that there is video evidence, and a load of witnesses.
Its good to see that the trial is now getting the media attention it deserves.
Looks like it wasnt mentioned before because it was just the preliminaries.
Now the trial has started properly its very much mainstream news, thank god.

Im back to where I was when it first happened. I think maybe they were just a pair of psychopaths, but I totally disagree with the way they were given airtime in all the papers and on teatime tv. That never happens, and the backlash of showing the gory details had people storming mosques and the hate was everywhere.

edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmFri, 29 Nov 2013 15:38:56 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

I suggest you look into Chris Spivey's take on things OneMan.
I agree completely and independently.

See through the fog.

reply to post by maryhinge


Hi, first my apologies for being absent in a reply for so long, have been away.
I have not said that I thought it was a staged event, I said I would hold my council, mainly due to the fact that I have not been able to take in all of the information from both sides of that particular fence.

I do think there are lots of things left unanswered as has been alluded to. Like another poster also, I have read Chris Spivey's take on it and if you brush aside the expletives etc, he makes some sound, rational points which I would leave to anyone to decide on.

I have come across this today though, an article by the Guardian. In particular, watch the video, and consider that if the car was indeed travelling at 30 to 40 miles per hour as witnesses say, how on earth could the vehicle end up like it did in the well circulated pictures; ie around the RH pole of the road sign. I mean, the car has not hit your man yet, and it is virtually alongside the sign, it would have had to have travelled sideways. Anyway, just putting it out there for a second opinion:

www.theguardian.com...

And if you want to indulge the Spivey piece:

www.chrisspivey.co.uk...

PS, some pretty gruesome images within it so caution if you are not too keen on that sort of thing, one particular picture took me by surprise.

reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum


Thanks for the update etc.

I have chosen not to comment on the trial proceedings until the trial is over. I think it would be far too easy to give an emotional response without considering ALL the evidence presented.

I think Chris Spivey presents a deliberately sensationalist approach designed to provoke an emotional response and on first reading I got the impression his use of graphic imagery is deliberately intended to shock people into a certain viewpoint.
But there are undoubtedly questions that require answering and only upon completion of the trial will we see if these questions have been answered or are still relevant.

I share the revulsion, anger and outrage that has been expressed over this murder, I just wonder if 'national security' and related issues will prevent ALL the relevant details being presented in open court.

But I think it's worth pointing out; not everything is a conspiracy and not every 'terrorist attack' is a false flag - maybe this was simply a case of two radicals who, for whatever reasons, chose to murder a man in such a brutal way in public.

Freeborn
reply to post by Mufcutcakeyumyum

 

Thanks for the update etc.

I have chosen not to comment on the trial proceedings until the trial is over. I think it would be far too easy to give an emotional response without considering ALL the evidence presented.

I think Chris Spivey presents a deliberately sensationalist approach designed to provoke an emotional response and on first reading I got the impression his use of graphic imagery is deliberately intended to shock people into a certain viewpoint.
But there are undoubtedly questions that require answering and only upon completion of the trial will we see if these questions have been answered or are still relevant.

I share the revulsion, anger and outrage that has been expressed over this murder, I just wonder if 'national security' and related issues will prevent ALL the relevant details being presented in open court.

But I think it's worth pointing out; not everything is a conspiracy and not every 'terrorist attack' is a false flag - maybe this was simply a case of two radicals who, for whatever reasons, chose to murder a man in such a brutal way in public.

Michael Adebolajo sounds like a very intelligent man, my personal opinion, and its just an opinion is that he was terribly mentally affected by the torture he recieved, and also seriously brainwashed by radical muslims to become a killer.
Most of what he says about the establishment is spot on, and I think his association with the ideas he expresses and the psychotic killing of lee rigby paints "conspiracy theorists" in a very bad light purely by association. It seems that he sees himself as a soldier in a war, hence the not guilty plea. I fear that this case will harm the truth movement and paint truthers as "terrorists".

reply to post by Freeborn


Well said, I agree.
On many levels, it is probably for the best to wait and see what happens and out of respect if nothing else leave this alone until a verdict is reached.

I agree not everything is a conspiracy, indeed many things are not. Sometimes knowing nothing is better than knowing a little, or at least thinking you know a little.

I just get outraged at radical racial hate comments made on social networks by people who want to be seen as part of the majority, saying things they know very little if anything about, and sometimes talking complete BS. Hard to keep quiet sometimes.