Switch Theme:

Epstein is dead.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
[DCM]
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Yes, I think Jimmy Savile established how much better the British are than us.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/14 05:19:33


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

TheOpposition wrote:
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.

But there was a cover up. This includes the police arresting the victims even when the the child rapist were caught quite literally with their pants down. This includes the media consciously not reporting it.
https://independencedaily.co.uk/why-labour-is-also-to-blame-for-the-rape-gangs/


Fascists aren't really a reliable source on Pakistani communities or Labour's policy.

This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race

This is what I really don't understand. Are you saying that they thought young girls were pretending to be raped to make Pakistani men look bad?


No, but there seemed to be an assumption on the part of the police that young, poor, and mostly addicted girls were unreliable witnesses and were embellishing events or claiming consensual acts were coercive. It was bad cops doing a bad job - but there was no cover up, which is why it all came to light the minute it was investigated properly.

Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein.

Its being portrayed as celebrity gossip while in America we are calling it out as as prince Andrew touching an underage girl and hanging out with a child molester.


The British press doesn't, as a whole, go in for performative outrage. Some papers do, the Express and the Daily Mail, particularly, but those are also the papers that are Royalist to the core (well, a little less supportive of Harry now he's married a mixed-race woman). Even those, when they really get on their outrage horse (like on the issue of the Rotherham scandal, for instance) aren't as vitriolic-for-money as the US news outlets. That's just how it is. After the Grenfell disaster, which saw pretty much universal amazement and fury, both the fire itself and the fallout were treated relatively calmly in print, but no one here would be in any doubt as to how angry people were.

The Queen isn't going to be heckled

She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.


It's too political for her to say anything (also a convenient excuse for her, but it is). In any case, that doesn't really factor into how the UK as a whole reacts to public figures' involvement in crimes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/14 06:39:59


 
   
Made in gb
Sniping Hexa




Luton, UK



You're just quoting 'some guy's' website, dude. Some guy with a clear political agenda from the rest of his articles.

As said before, it wasn't a cover up, it was just shoddy policework that came to light pretty quickly once it was known about. In my experience the people who think it's a cover up are the ones that tie it in to Tommy Robinson being arrested for 'reporting on the trial', so if you're heading down that route next then let me head you off at the pass by saying that a) Tommy Robinson isn't a journalist, he an anti-Islam activist (and street thug) and b) he was arrested for endangering the legitimacy of the trial - ie if he'd carried on then the lawyers for the defendents could have got them off on a technicality. Given that we all want to see child-rapists brought to justice, preventing Robinson giving them a loophole out of it was a good thing.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Robinson knew exactly what he was doing and would have loved to see them get off so that he could whip up his base with cries of "look, laws don't even apply to Muslims whatever they've done". As it is he's got his supporters out claiming he's a political prisoner and should be freed etc.

“Good people are quick to help others in need, without hesitation or requiring proof the need is genuine. The wicked will believe they are fighting for good, but when others are in need they’ll be reluctant to help, withholding compassion until they see proof of that need. And yet Evil is quick to condemn, vilify and attack. For Evil, proof isn’t needed to bring harm, only hatred and a belief in the cause.” 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



Glasgow

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, I think Jimmy Savile established how much better the British are than us.


I'm not sure what this is meant to mean? Who's claiming British people are better than folks in the US? A couple people have said that British media is more calm than that of the US (but then so is everywhere I've experienced) but that's quite a different thing. In any case, what does an example of a bad person mean for the rest of a society? Should we all have just responded to TheOpposition's implication that British people just don't care about crimes against young people with 'Sandy Hook established how much better the US is than us'?
   
Made in ch
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





funny man, yea its good having jokes to get us through the dystopian world we live in.

I try.

I mean it's either that or Burning and pillaging southern germany, northern italy or the vogesen.
And that kinda has fallen out of fashion for us.

Jokes aside, papers here stated that the prison was under staffed, and not propperly watching over him.

Seems that now all attention is on that Maxwell.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost.) 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




TheOpposition wrote:
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.

But there was a cover up. This includes the police arresting the victims even when the the child rapist were caught quite literally with their pants down. This includes the media consciously not reporting it.
https://independencedaily.co.uk/why-labour-is-also-to-blame-for-the-rape-gangs/


Might want to check your sources there. That's a right-wing website with a pretty obvious anti-Labour agenda, hence the high-quality piece of journalism you've linked to.

TheOpposition wrote:
This was because the police and other authorities assumed that each complaint was motivated by race

This is what I really don't understand. Are you saying that they thought young girls were pretending to be raped to make Pakistani men look bad?


There were a lot of failings in these cases, which have already been discussed here. The main point is that there wasn't a cover-up or grand conspiracy, there was incompetence and prejudice which was rightly called out when it came to light. There was a good amount of coverage of the cases in question, with stories looking at both the gangs involved and the conduct of the police.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheOpposition wrote:
Here's a bunch of news outlets across the political spectrum, including some that really love the royals, making a deal out of Prince Andrew's connections to Epstein.

Its being portrayed as celebrity gossip while in America we are calling it out as as prince Andrew touching an underage girl and hanging out with a child molester.


This is at least partially down to the fact the British press tends to wait for the result of any trials before condemning people. That's due to the way reporting of court proceedings works in the UK, which tends to spill over to how we report on court cases in foreign countries. Prince Andrew hasn't exactly come out of this with his reputation intact. Up until this story broke I'd be surprised if anyone even mentioned Andrew in the press in any context other than a brief aside in the last 5 years. Now his reputation is pretty much in the gutter in the court of public opinion but I don't think you'll see any sort of vitriolic attacks against him until anything's been proven in court.

TheOpposition wrote:
The Queen isn't going to be heckled

She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.


We tend to expect adults to take responsibility for their own actions. Andrew has been accused, but not convicted of anything so far, and while the allegations aren't looking good, the idea that the Queen should get involved would seem odd to most Britons. Andrew is quite capable of making a statement himself. Should a conviction actually come about I would be surprised if there wasn't a statement of some kind from the royals.
   
Made in gb
Highlord of Terra






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Slipspace wrote:

TheOpposition wrote:
The Queen isn't going to be heckled

She could have her son account for what he has done, she could say something, she does nothing, she is a part of it.


We tend to expect adults to take responsibility for their own actions. Andrew has been accused, but not convicted of anything so far, and while the allegations aren't looking good, the idea that the Queen should get involved would seem odd to most Britons. Andrew is quite capable of making a statement himself. Should a conviction actually come about I would be surprised if there wasn't a statement of some kind from the royals.


The Queen has no case to answer, and this shall not fairly be put on her door, not that it wont stop people trying.
First Her Majesty has nothing to do with any allegations and was not reportedly present and is not a witness.
Also this is a case in the US, even if there was a way to call the Queen to testify, and at most the US could only request a statement there is no legal means to do even that.
The US statutory rights forbids authorities from compelling a mother to turn testimony on her own son or cooperate in his apprehension. AFAIK this doesnt just apply to children it is for life.
I am certain that if noises in the direction were due to be uttered they would be hedged off this way.

Anyway Andrew only has a case to answer if a case is presented, one hasn't except in the media. AFAIK there was a settlement to the allegations at the time including Epstein and Andrew, so unless fresh evidence emerges that ends the matter. What this generally means is that Andrew will not be resurfacing anytime soon. Age of Consent in Florida is 18 which is unusually high, and Giuffre was well within consent range elsewhere. I would not call Andrew a 'paedo' in any case as she was 17. Incautious idiot though. If she was any younger though, or someone younger makes an accusation this will be VERY hard to live down, and rightly so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/14 12:38:49


n'oublie jamais

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord of Terra






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Slipspace wrote:
TheOpposition wrote:
I suspect the that you are not getting the whole story, which is why you don’t understand the reaction. I assume you are referring to the cases in Rotherham and Oxfordshire? There was no cover up, there was a failure to investigate properly.

But there was a cover up. This includes the police arresting the victims even when the the child rapist were caught quite literally with their pants down. This includes the media consciously not reporting it.
https://independencedaily.co.uk/why-labour-is-also-to-blame-for-the-rape-gangs/

Might want to check your sources there. That's a right-wing website with a pretty obvious anti-Labour agenda, hence the high-quality piece of journalism you've linked to.


The trouble we have is just because only the alt right media covers certain stories doesnt mean they are untrue.

There is a case to answer:



There was a lot of pandering going on, some of it breaks the surface indirectly and leaves a trail. It is harder to garner evidence as the primary sources, the press, still do not fairly report these issues, and under New Labour were actively gagged.

A good example was the Islamification of schools in the Birmingham area. I knew as a flat fact it was going on back in 2007-8 from reliable eye witness testimony of gross discrimination. However there wasn't a peep in the press. As soon as Cameron rose to power in 2010 there was a string of police breakthroughs and the story hit the press. This was entirely due to a change of government not any development of evidence. Now from this we can summise that there were some race relations issues that were being swept under the rug. This doesn't of itself prove that New Labour or successive governments put a lied on the rape gang incidents but it highlights that there was a similar mechanic going on.

Add to that the grass roots news from places like Rotherham itself. I cant say much about this because the evidence could be dismissed as hearsay, just as planned. However what can be fairly discussed is how the public enquiries into Rotherham stalled before reaching anyone high enough to be properly called to account. Police collusion should be followed by high level indictments, which has not been the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal


The third piece of evidence to look at is the handling of the case which got Tommy Robinson into so much trouble. Now because it was Tommy Robinson reporting it it has to be Neo-Nazi lies yes? Not quite, though you would be encouraged to think this.
Tommy Robinson wanted to cover the Huddersfield Grooming Gang trial in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang

Now a press gagging order had be placed on the trial despite Robinson having nothing to add other than what could be reported as a journalist. Gagging restrictions are fair when a child is giving testimony, which Robinson respected, or if official secrets are involved. The judges claim that media involvement could prejudice a defence is not valid, or at least not any more valid as it would to any other case being presented in court. For that reason the gagging order was quashed by a counter suit raised by journalists, who feared a precedent, though a specific separate restriction was placed on Robinson. So in the end you could report the trial, but the press stayed away, except for Robinson who was under a bespoke gagging order, and turned up anyway.
In either case the press did as was asked and did not adequately report on the Huddersfield Grooming Gang trial, so its ramifications except with regards to Robinson went unreported.
Now i don't credit Robinson with much smarts here, it would have suited his cause better to stay away and explain why he is gagged and have a proxy film events for later release after the trial.
However he didn't do much wrong, yes there was a gagging order on the trial, but why would press coverage hamper justice anyway in the case of the Huddersfield grooming gang when it would not in the case of the Soham murders, or for that matter in the case of Robinson himself whose own trial gained more press attention than the grooming gang did for a far less serious offence. Public trial has risks but this is something civic society has always accepted, the only time it has meaning to say that press scrutiny would effect a trials fairness is if a celebrity is in the dock, and in such rare cases full press coverage is given anyway. As with Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris, Craig Charles and Ken Dodd, and the first three of those alleged offences were sexual in nature.
We get a glimpse of what was up in a very brief press briefing after the trial before the local authorities backed away with a clean pair of heels.

Remembering a brief comment by a police spokesperson outside the court, which sadly I cannot find on YouTube, where the police apologised for not understanding the seriousness of the allegations. How do police not understand the seriousness of child rape allegations of girls as young as 11? Personally I think that the gagging order was to prevent rise to these questions, and in turn the issues were not relevant to police because they were conditioned by political correctness and inclusiveness dogma not to appear to be targeting minorities with police investigations.

Now the alt-right are not helping, but sometimes they have been the only ones talking and that of itself is troubling. Tommy Robinson should go away but is far more sinned against than sinning, which is the wording Johnny Rotten used to describe the treatment he received from the BBC whwn he tried to expose Jimmy Saville two decades before his crimes were exposed. Now in Savilles case the reasons for sweeping child rape under the carpet were different, but still political.


n'oublie jamais

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
 
   
Made in gb
[MOD]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury




you just cannot help yourselves can you eh ?

The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
Space could be filled with vampires, but we would never know, because telescopes use mirrors
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: