Now being an investigative journalist there would be a point. It is in the public interest to know which prominent people were involved and if the President had sex with “vulnerable” young girls as a guest of Epstein. Prince Andrew and Clinton are on the radar and I remember something about a 13 year old accusing Trump of having sex with her. That vanished quickly and was not heard of again..but may reappear now that the Feds habe the contents of Epstein ‘s safe. Off you go Tommy, get the paedos..... The prosecutors are asking for more people to come forward with information.
Purely from a legal perspective (forget that this is TR for a minute) all the names of the accused in this case had already been reported and were openly available.Because exposing the cold molesters in the way he did at the time he did might have led to the case against them collapsing, it isn't difficult to comprehend
Why would Farage be at a protest in support of one of the appointments which prompted his resignation from the UK Party?How big were the crowds protesting? Was Farage there?
It is nothing to do with cultural sensitivities, like you've said the defendants had previously been reported, you've contradicted your own theory. The reason for the ban is the way the trials were arranged, have a look at the Independent story i linked earlier.Purely from a legal perspective (forget that this is TR for a minute) all the names of the accused in this case had already been reported and were openly available.
Some of the accused in this case were allowed to return to work (in the Kebab shop) where, it was alleged, many of the offences against the children took place, and was common knowledge in the community. The BBC colluded with the MET Police and waited outside Cliff Richards house so they could live report his arrest, they had been fed bullshit (proven).
The men in the TR case had huge amounts of evidence stacked against them including, witness testimony, D.N.A, phone records, social media records and even some confessions, why did they deserve anonymity, was it the same fear that allowed hundreds of children to be raped because the rape of children is bad, but a small price to pay against being called a racist (also admitted by the police and care workers).
So, reporting live, the arrest of, what is now proven to be an innocent man, Cliff Richard, would have had no influence on his trial? give me a fucking break, I'm afraid we are now at the point where the pressure to submit to bullshit cultural sensitivities are influencing, not just our police force, but our judicial system.
Here's the truth.
Infact what happened on Epstein Island is the same thing as I posted on another thread about Gloria Vanderbilt.
QMAP: [119] Jeffrey Epstein
Here's Epstein's black book with list of people who flew on Epstein's plane to Epstein Island.
Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book
Expect the name Rachel to pop up in the news down the line.
QMAP: [72] Rachel Chandler
QMAP: [#3155] Dig: RACHEL CHANDLER IS KEY
Purely from a legal perspective (forget that this is TR for a minute) all the names of the accused in this case had already been reported and were openly available.
Some of the accused in this case were allowed to return to work (in the Kebab shop) where, it was alleged, many of the offences against the children took place, and was common knowledge in the community. The BBC colluded with the MET Police and waited outside Cliff Richards house so they could live report his arrest, they had been fed bullshit (proven).
The men in the TR case had huge amounts of evidence stacked against them including, witness testimony, D.N.A, phone records, social media records and even some confessions, why did they deserve anonymity, was it the same fear that allowed hundreds of children to be raped because the rape of children is bad, but a small price to pay against being called a racist (also admitted by the police and care workers).
So, reporting live, the arrest of, what is now proven to be an innocent man, Cliff Richard, would have had no influence on his trial? give me a fucking break, I'm afraid we are now at the point where the pressure to submit to bullshit cultural sensitivities are influencing, not just our police force, but our judicial system.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say but Epstein and Trump are thick as thieves and he pretty much got away with the first lot of sex offences thanks to Trumps crony Alex Acosta.
I was reading that Acosta has also slashed funding to the department that tackles sex trafficking yesterday.
I didn't know that. In which case more bullshit from Trump with his comments saying we are in different times now and the authorities are more empowered to deal with these sort of crimes.
Amazing that some one who care so much about the victims of sexual abuse turned to a paedophile enabler for asylum
It wasn’t their anonymity to protect them it was to ensure they couldn’t claim miscarriage of justice. He put all that at risk by being in contempt of court. How would he have defended it if they had got off on a technicality ??? Stupidity is not a defence.Purely from a legal perspective (forget that this is TR for a minute) all the names of the accused in this case had already been reported and were openly available.
Some of the accused in this case were allowed to return to work (in the Kebab shop) where, it was alleged, many of the offences against the children took place, and was common knowledge in the community. The BBC colluded with the MET Police and waited outside Cliff Richards house so they could live report his arrest, they had been fed bullshit (proven).
The men in the TR case had huge amounts of evidence stacked against them including, witness testimony, D.N.A, phone records, social media records and even some confessions, why did they deserve anonymity, was it the same fear that allowed hundreds of children to be raped because the rape of children is bad, but a small price to pay against being called a racist (also admitted by the police and care workers).
So, reporting live, the arrest of, what is now proven to be an innocent man, Cliff Richard, would have had no influence on his trial? give me a fucking break, I'm afraid we are now at the point where the pressure to submit to bullshit cultural sensitivities are influencing, not just our police force, but our judicial system.
Ooo bit defensive. Cause they stand for the same things politically.Why would Farage be at a protest in support of one of the appointments which prompted his resignation from the UK Party?
It wasn’t their anonymity to protect them it was to ensure they couldn’t claim miscarriage of justice. He put all that at risk by being in contempt of court. How would he have defended it if they had got off on a technicality ??? Stupidity is not a defence.
It wasn’t their anonymity to protect them it was to ensure they couldn’t claim miscarriage of justice. He put all that at risk by being in contempt of court. How would he have defended it if they had got off on a technicality ??? Stupidity is not a defence.
Here's the truth.
Infact what happened on Epstein Island is the same thing as I posted on another thread about Gloria Vanderbilt.
QMAP: [119] Jeffrey Epstein
Here's Epstein's black book with list of people who flew on Epstein's plane to Epstein Island.
Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book
Expect the name Rachel to pop up in the news down the line.
QMAP: [72] Rachel Chandler
QMAP: [#3155] Dig: RACHEL CHANDLER IS KEY
Yeah, it was more to try and ensure justice rather than 'protect' the perpetrators. As you've said the evidence made it pretty much open and shut and their only hope was a mistrial or procedural mistake. SYL's actions gave them a potential loophole out, and had their names not been in the public domain what we may very well be talking about now is how SYL got a load of Muslim paedophiles off a prison sentence. How would his supporters feel about that?
Here's the truth.
Infact what happened on Epstein Island is the same thing as I posted on another thread about Gloria Vanderbilt.
QMAP: [119] Jeffrey Epstein
Here's Epstein's black book with list of people who flew on Epstein's plane to Epstein Island.
Jeffrey Epstein’s Little Black Book
Expect the name Rachel to pop up in the news down the line.
QMAP: [72] Rachel Chandler
QMAP: [#3155] Dig: RACHEL CHANDLER IS KEY
Dude. Wipe the Cheeto dust from your mouth would you? He’s on tape repeatedly saying he’s a friend.
Hahahahaha you’re a fucking QANON person. Jesus all credibility lost.
Aren't they Wotsits? At least keep the insults relevant and not too american!
Dude. Wipe the Cheeto dust from your mouth would you? He’s on tape repeatedly saying he’s a friend.
Hahahahaha you’re a fucking QANON person. Jesus all credibility lost.
Isn't QANON a spoof? Think it's a set up by some of the people involved with Anonymous.
Trump is American!
Isn’t it a far right conspiracy theory about some dark organisation conspiring against Trump?
there's a theory that it's a wind up though if it is it's got a life of its own now.
So is Friends but we don't need to be quoting that in public either!
So is Friends but we don't need to be quoting that in public either!
there's a theory that it's a wind up though if it is it's got a life of its own now.
Bit the Cheeto dust is from Trump, because he’s American.
I feel I’ve already spent too long explaining this.
It was a wind up originally, there’s lots of evidence of that. Then because literally anyone can post claiming to be part of it it’s gone off in all kinds of directions, see this:
It was a wind up originally, there’s lots of evidence of that. Then because literally anyone can post claiming to be part of it it’s gone off in all kinds of directions, see this:
I 100% agree with everything you said.That’s not forgetting that they actually didn’t have anonymity in the first place. As the OP acknowledges as did Tommy Robinson in court himself their names were already reported in the public domain through reporting previous to the media blackout while the trials were ongoing. Tommy Robinson in fact singled out the BBC as an example of it (despite claiming on a regular basis that the BBC is a traitor that doesn’t report stories like this) in court as part of his defence.
The media block out is such a basic and simple point in law that it’s to stop first trial being perceived as prejudicing the second trial and then the first and second trials not prejudicing the third. It’s no more complicated than that. It’s to unsure that justice is served and anyone interfering in that process to the detriment of justice wether they be Tommy Robinson or a BBC reporter needs the book throwing at them to make sure victims past, current and future get the justice that they deserve.
He’s a wholly selfish individual who couldn’t care about the victims anymore than the perpetrators. Here’s another point to consider. I believe that the victims now qualify for compensation because of the convictions. Tommy Robinson could have cost them not only justice but also financial compensation as the victims of a crime had the perpetrators walked free because of Tommy’s actions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?