-
@salacious-crumb and freeing TR protects a history how?
As you rightly point out, British history and culture has evolved and changed over hundreds of years through the changing face of it's people. Why are this group so averse to change? Is it because they want everyone to be just like them? And why are they campaigning to free someone whose stirring nearly cost them the justice they seek.
No one does 'White Riot' quite like Engerlaaand!
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
Sorry @Rembrandt, I understand you are passionate about the underlying message but this is plain dumb and totally twists reality.
TR broke the law and admitted it. His actions almost derailed the very convictions he is arguing for so extra stupid on his part.
The authorities are currently doing everything they can to get justice for those girls, including strict enforcement of court reporting so as not to ruin the prosecution.
I don't deny that originally there were system failings and that needs dealing with to stop it happening again. That is well understood by the police.
There was no need for TR to doing what he did except for promoting his own underlying agenda of being anti-islam. This 'protest' smacks of being a group of football hooligans that believe that being British means fitting some image they hold of themselves and without grasp of reality.
How much diversity is in that crowd? Not much.And you know that how?
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
His actions almost derailed the very convictions he is arguing for so extra stupid on his part.
This I still need to see evidence for. The details were already publicly available and he was reading from the bbc article. I agree he may have crossed a line without realising it but the punishment is far in excess of what the crime was. Still waiting to hear his lawyers defence but at this point it is almost irrelevant people have woken up and are standing up. Black Lives Matter kicked off after a fake story of an unarmed 'Michael Brown' being killed with his hands up, the 2011 London riots had a similar fake narrative, I don't see this as being much different whatever the truth may eventually be.
I don't deny that originally there were system failings and that needs dealing with to stop it happening again. That is well understood by the police.
As Razbra said, evidence suggests more to the contrary. Telford which could be the largest child-rape scandal yet, it only broke this year because of a tabloids investigation (and generally avoided by most mainstream outlets) but had been going on for decades. Authorities turned a blind eye or were involved on some level.
How much diversity is in that crowd? Not much.
Ah the old 'Equality of outcome' argument. If a crowd looks like it is white then therefore it must be purposely excluding other races or is racist.
In your mind what would the colour % distribution (and lets be honest you are only looking at skin colour here) have to be to make this crowd have a valid point?
The UK is 90% white. These muslim rape-gangs didn't care much for today's diversity targets and went for almost exclusively white 'non believer' children as per their religious texts. That alone could account for why you're only seeing 'white' people. To be fair to the child rapists they did also target Sikh kids, the Sikh community have also been very actively involved in these demonstrations often doing speeches at these events.
This isn't a skin colour issue. Its about one specific section of society which is getting preferential treatment over British citizens based off of their religion and a political fear to offend that religion. The end result of that attitude is rape, torture and murder of British citizens and slander and prison for those who dare to call it out as it is.
There is some pretty scary footage of protesters chasing police just coming through, the next rally is in a months time and could very well be bigger. Will be interesting what the government does.
-
@rembrandt What exactly are the current protests hoping to achieve? Is it to draw attention to the ongoing and historic abuse cases and the apparent reluctance to address them? Or is it securing freedom for TR?
If it’s the latter, you know that boat has sailed, right? I’ve said before I don’t like the way this was handled at all, but really TR should have taken some legal advice in advance. He should have been advised there was a possibility of being charged with criminal Contempt of Court and that a decision to charge him on that count was solely at the judge’s discretion, independent of what he was originally arrested for. Contempt falls within the jurisdiction of the judge. They decide whether to charge, they decide guilt and they decide the sentence. There’s no requirement for evidence beyond a summary of facts because by definition the judge is deciding for themselves in their own case. There’s no real defence apart from “innocent contempt”, which is saying you didn’t know the case was active, which obviously isn’t the case here, otherwise why was TR there? Then an admission of guilt and it’s over. There is no appeal, obviously, because what would you appeal in such a situation where there are no points of law to argue? Someone really should have told him he was taking a mad risk.
-
Almost a fair post @Rembrandt but i take exception to a couple of things.
Firstly, Tommy's sentence is harsh. But it's harsh because he was already on a suspended sentence. Once you take that into account, it's not harsh.
Secondly:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
Its about one specific section of society which is getting preferential treatment over British citizens based off of their religion and a political fear to offend that religion. The end result of that attitude is rape, torture and murder of British citizens and slander and prison for those who dare to call it out as it is.
This is just not true. Who is getting preferential treatment?
And the last sentence is simply taking 2 different points, putting them together and ignoring everything else to paint an extreme picture which is unrepresentative of the 2 facts.
-
@jc said in British Politics:
@rembrandt What exactly are the current protests hoping to achieve? Is it to draw attention to the ongoing and historic abuse cases and the apparent reluctance to address them? Or is it securing freedom for TR?
If it’s the latter, you know that boat has sailed, right? I’ve said before I don’t like the way this was handled at all, but really TR should have taken some legal advice in advance. He should have been advised there was a possibility of being charged with criminal Contempt of Court and that a decision to charge him on that count was solely at the judge’s discretion, independent of what he was originally arrested for. Contempt falls within the jurisdiction of the judge. They decide whether to charge, they decide guilt and they decide the sentence. There’s no requirement for evidence beyond a summary of facts because by definition the judge is deciding for themselves in their own case. There’s no real defence apart from “innocent contempt”, which is saying you didn’t know the case was active, which obviously isn’t the case here, otherwise why was TR there? Then an admission of guilt and it’s over. There is no appeal, obviously, because what would you appeal in such a situation where there are no points of law to argue? Someone really should have told him he was taking a mad risk.
If TR knew all about this and did it anyway he's an idiot and doesn't deserve protests. The law is the law. Hopefully the actual facts will come to light soon.
There must be some kind of comparative case here. Is this the standard punishment when something similar has happened? That is obviously important in TR's case.
-
@jc said in British Politics:
@rembrandt What exactly are the current protests hoping to achieve? Is it to draw attention to the ongoing and historic abuse cases and the apparent reluctance to address them? Or is it securing freedom for TR?
I guess that would depend on the protester. I would imagine a combination of both. From my personal point of view its definitely the former and to a lesser extent the creation of political pressure to help with the latter, if not freedom itself at least a much less severe punishment (which could also even be him doing his full sentence but not in a general population which would see him attacked or killed). In an ideal world proper legal representation should accomplish that and awareness of the case will also add to the legal funds at disposal.
I believe that the public awareness of the Dankula case (Nazi pug guy) helped, if not in the minimal sentence handed down then the support for him to fund his fight to appeal the conviction to help prevent the same situation happen to others. Dankula summarises it well here:
-
@majorrage It's an additional 10 month sentence added to the suspended 3 month sentence. From what I understand he followed the rules provided to him following the previous conviction (not filming on court property, not filming in the court, only providing publicly available information). I accept that maybe this doesn't exonerate him but will be very curious to see what his legal team says. There is also the element of him not being given access to his own lawyer.
The impression of preferential treatment is for those that follow islam who seem to have added protections and are held to a lesser standard than non-islamic brits at the expense of safety for all British people.This is evidenced by the acceptance of returning jihadis, authorities historical and continual covering up of the child-rape gangs, zero prosecutions for FGM, the allowance of hate-preachers and prosecutions for hate-speech towards Islam. If you like I can provide sourcing for all of this if any of it doesn't ring true.
Of all that I've listed I'd grant you that it is indeed possible that I have just been exposed to extreme examples of the prosecutions for hate speech toward islam and that could be painting a false narrative. This is a very difficult area to prove because generally specific details aren't available ie "Man arrested for offensive tweet" but we don't know what he said. There is a big difference between a credible threat of violence and someone sending a mean meme about Mohammed. There is however a very real misrepresentation of anyone calling out problems in islam as being racist/nazi/far-right/extremist in order to shutdown conversations that really need to be had.
-
@Rembrandt you made me curious, where did you get the 90% figure for white UK? And weren't those photos from London anyway?
-
@bones said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt you made me curious, where did you get the 90% figure for white UK? And weren't those photos from London anyway?
That figure was on my UK residency “exam” too. It’s was only 70% in London.
-
Speaking of preferential treatment
Anybody spot anything wrong with this? Hint..the policewomen is NOT a muslim.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
Speaking of preferential treatment
Anybody spot anything wrong with this? Hint..the policewomen is NOT a muslim.
I think those fullas in Britain are being taken for a ride.
There's being accomodating and fair hosts and then there's taking one up the arse.
That picture is one of those
-
As for the Robinson protests, I think it is more designed to make it a hassle for left wing activists in govt to attack people protesting against Islam and for free speech.
Govts take the path of least resistance, and for quite awhile that has been bending the knee to far left activists and Neo Marxists. The fear of being called a racist was high, so they turned the other way.. proof.. the rape gangs. The govt and its proxies were scared of the left wing mob, so they avoided it.
If you get thousands in the street protesting against the hate speech laws and selective justice... next time it is govt nature to avoid a repeat. -
@siam said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
Speaking of preferential treatment
Anybody spot anything wrong with this? Hint..the policewomen is NOT a muslim.
I think those fullas in Britain are being taken for a ride.
There's being accomodating and fair hosts and then there's taking one up the arse.
That picture is one of those
This is NZ.And I think the NZ police should never change the uniform because of the people they are visiting ask for it. Whats next I demand she wear a big bird costume?
-
@baron-silas-greenback
Oh god, that's me "chopped" (80's teen vernacular)I'm embarrassed. Fuck.
The fundamental law and order institution in the country plays dress up, why again?
Probably to show support for Women by wearing the most anti-women's rights symbol there is.
Apologies people of Britain, as you were.
I knew there's a reason I should stay out of these threadsI'm off to bask in the tyranny of a Military Dictatorship - far less stressful than these modern democracies!
-
@bones said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt you made me curious, where did you get the 90% figure for white UK? And weren't those photos from London anyway?
To be fair that was just a cursory google search, I see 2011 census data has it at 87.1%, so nearly 90% would be more accurate. You could argue for bumping it higher for Gypsy/Traveller who most likely look white which is another 1%. If you are just looking superficially at a racial breakdown of a crowd of people without talking with them you might even identify some mixed race folk as white also.
Photos are from London but the issues have broken out mostly outside of London (well the scandals that have broken anyway) hence people arriving in from around the country in order to protest . Living in London when these scandals broke I didn't really hear much at all, there were some articles in tabloids but certainly the prevailing attitude amongst my social and work group was that these tabloids were racist liars. London is a bubble. As I said though this is all irrelevant, the apparent skin tone of a crowd does not add or remove validity for what they are protesting about.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
Sorry @Rembrandt, I understand you are passionate about the underlying message but this is plain dumb and totally twists reality.
TR broke the law and admitted it. His actions almost derailed the very convictions he is arguing for so extra stupid on his part.
The authorities are currently doing everything they can to get justice for those girls, including strict enforcement of court reporting so as not to ruin the prosecution.
I don't deny that originally there were system failings and that needs dealing with to stop it happening again. That is well understood by the police.
There was no need for TR to doing what he did except for promoting his own underlying agenda of being anti-islam. This 'protest' smacks of being a group of football hooligans that believe that being British means fitting some image they hold of themselves and without grasp of reality.
How much diversity is in that crowd? Not much.And you know that how?
The amount of reports/scorn/changes/arrests and investigations since the Telford case.
Police are fully in support of law changes to help them combat the problem because basically they have problems bringing charges and making prosecutions under current law. These scum operate cleverly. To make out like they simply grab and rape and are therefore subject to laws designed to combat that is misleading. These gangs operate with degrees of separation and in many cases by the time they get hold of their victims there is consent. The law doesn't cover coerced consent.
The now Home Secretary is also fully behind pushing for changes to address this.If the protests and uproar were simply to push the govt to move quicker on the fixes then fair enough. Instead they play the tune that there is a system complicit in protecting 'non-British' to the detriment of British. There may have been elements of that (avoiding racial profiling) compounding a poor systemic approach a number of years ago but that is now well understood and reported on.
I just don't agree with this opinion that it is only the efforts of TR and supporters that is addressing this issue. I believe TR is simply using this issue to push his xenophobic agenda and his efforts place at risk the very prosecutions he is trying to achieve. He wants to highlight the race/religion side over the behaviour side when the solution in a just society is to have laws based on actions and not motives.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
Sorry @Rembrandt, I understand you are passionate about the underlying message but this is plain dumb and totally twists reality.
TR broke the law and admitted it. His actions almost derailed the very convictions he is arguing for so extra stupid on his part.
The authorities are currently doing everything they can to get justice for those girls, including strict enforcement of court reporting so as not to ruin the prosecution.
I don't deny that originally there were system failings and that needs dealing with to stop it happening again. That is well understood by the police.
There was no need for TR to doing what he did except for promoting his own underlying agenda of being anti-islam. This 'protest' smacks of being a group of football hooligans that believe that being British means fitting some image they hold of themselves and without grasp of reality.
How much diversity is in that crowd? Not much.And you know that how?
The amount of reports/scorn/changes/arrests and investigations since the Telford case.
Police are fully in support of law changes to help them combat the problem because basically they have problems bringing charges and making prosecutions under current law. These scum operate cleverly. To make out like they simply grab and rape and are therefore subject to laws designed to combat that is misleading. These gangs operate with degrees of separation and in many cases by the time they get hold of their victims there is consent. The law doesn't cover coerced consent.
The now Home Secretary is also fully behind pushing for changes to address this.If the protests and uproar were simply to push the govt to move quicker on the fixes then fair enough. Instead they play the tune that there is a system complicit in protecting 'non-British' to the detriment of British. There may have been elements of that (avoiding racial profiling) compounding a poor systemic approach a number of years ago but that is now well understood and reported on.
I just don't agree with this opinion that it is only the efforts of TR and supporters that is addressing this issue. I believe TR is simply using this issue to push his xenophobic agenda and his efforts place at risk the very prosecutions he is trying to achieve. He wants to highlight the race/religion side over the behaviour side when the solution in a just society is to have laws based on actions and not motives.
There is no law against having sex with 12 year olds?
British Politics