Reporting restrictions imposed…….but ONLY on Muslim Child Rape and Sex Abuse Trials

I am well into my eighth decade upon this earth. I have witnessed vast changes in the way in which we live, gather and transmit information, work, relax, enjoy, and indeed in the most basic ways imaginable, literally exist. I have watched, over the years, many changes in how we actually are ruled, how the Law is interpreted, how those laws have been twisted, biased and turned so that the suspects, those accused of heinous and terrible crimes; are given more protection than those they abused. Your ‘right to know’ has been abused, because the authorities wish to quieten the uproar which would have ensued if, in certain high-profile criminal cases featuring Muslim Sex Abuse of White girls, each day’s trial had been reported as the evidence was given, in open court, as has been the practice for, literally, decades. No transcripts of these cases have been released!

Reports from :-

Newcastle-on-Tyne

Rotherham,

Telford

Oxford

Huddersfield;

along with many, many more have THREE things in common.

They are:-

99% of all the perpetrators were Muslim Pakistanis or Muslim Bangladeshis

All the victims were white

All court cases, some with defendants so numerous that they had to be split into sectors, were slapped with severe and total reporting restrictions: punishable, if breached, with imprisonment for ‘Contempt of Court’

All cases, all reports, all accusations of grooming, of rape, of sexual activities with a minor. were routinely ignored, shelved, or pushed to the back of a deep drawer. Why? Because the implications were that, if taken seriously; as they should have been, the police and prosecuting authorities would be seen to be ‘racist’, or some other bullshit story! Because the accused were all Muslim, because they were all of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, it was felt that they could not be guilty of these heinous accusations, and thus the authorities would be seen as ‘RACIST’. So the white British girls and young women, without exception of working class origins, low intelligence, broken homes and usually of contact with Council Care, were routinely assumed to be ‘consenting’ to the behaviour which was wreaked upon their bodies and minds.

The Judiciary have colluded in this disgraceful multitude of crimes, because, by virtue of the routine statements that ‘reporting restrictions’ are placed almost without exception. No word of the trauma, the violence and the degradation which has been heaped upon these young ill-educated and misunderstood girls and women. If, routinely, the day’s evidence had been reported, as was normally the case in just about all trials excepting those with national security implications, there would have been a mass rising of angry British people, angered by what had been done to their own, and then we would see the true reactions of a British people, who for probably the first time, had been exposed to the truth of what our ‘lords and masters’ have allowed to swarm into our country, infesting their ghettoes, besmirching the very air with the garbage from the minarets. I remember the first trial days of the ‘Moors Murderers’ and in particular the day when the tape recording, made during the torture and subsequent death of Lesley Ann Downey, were played. The word had got out to the crowd awaiting the van which transported the two killers back to their prison cells of the savagery inflicted upon that innocent child’s body; and in the words of one seasoned reporter, “If they had managed to stop the van, both smirking killers would not have lasted two minutes!”

Am I inciting mob rule? The reader should make their own minds up. Are these crimes to be routinely ‘hushed up’; or should the great British public be allowed to make their own minds up as the standing and acceptability of a fair proportion of some 2,750,000 Muslims who have been allowed to legally infect this once clean, green and pleasant land?

Injunctions Unlimited………..whoever has the deepest pockets wins!!! ***UPDATED***

When the BBC showed a tv series entitled ‘Press’, it was a little surprising, mainly because of the BBC’s natural disposition towards the Guardian-edged sides of the media. The series depicted an ongoing mini-war between ‘The Herald’, a left-wing, socially responsible newspaper (modelled on The Guardian); and a ‘populist’ newspaper named ‘The Post’, modelled on the Sun. The editorial departments and journalists of both newspapers, together with their consciences (or lack of!) was explored when it came to various news stories which both publications were pursuing.. The Herald uncovers and writes of a powerful businessman’s sordid history in seducing vulnerable teenage girls; but is pursued by the businessman’s legal team. The Herald approached him for comment, but he went for an injunction banning the story, and pulping all the printed copies. The Post’s reporter, having stolen the idea from his flatmate, gets the full story, entitled ‘Sex Pest’ published on the front page, and gets away scot free in spite of the injunction because the ruthless Post editor does not ask the businessman for any comment.

Many enjoyed the small series, some thought it a touch trite, but it did mirror the real world of news publishing quite well. But what I wish to focus upon today is the legal term ‘injunction’, because, despite the long pause after the avalanche of injunctions from ‘footballing Slebs’ who cannot remember what marriage vows they actually took, a celebrity  ‘Same-Sex married’ homosexual who wanted to screw another, outside of that same ‘marriage’ amidst forty-odd gallons of olive oil, Mid-Eastern Uber-rich women who wish to gag the fools who have been gambling and whoring alongside her, and all the other sordid tales. Seems as though the Telegraph got wind of some upstanding ‘British businessman’ who was continually screwing around with the hired help, and then shutting them up with a legally-binding Non-Disclosure Agreement, (NDA) alongside a bundle of cash, (brown envelopes only). The Telegraph was preparing to publish, but the ‘businessman’ went to the High Court and obtained a preliminary injunction. It overturned a previous High Court ruling – which can now be reported for the first time – which found that publication of the allegations would be overwhelmingly in the public interest and would significantly contribute to debate in a democratic society. In the earlier High Court case, Justice Haddon-Cave, who is one of the country’s top terror judges, concluded that “in all the circumstances, the public interest in publication outweighs any confidentiality attaching to the information”.

So the Telegraph finds it is now gagged, alongside the five original owners of identical NDAs, issued by their boss whose actions can only be surmised, as anything printed would be a true Contempt of Court. I should of course ‘hedge’ the above statement by further stating that the injunction only applies to England and Wales; so if any Scots or Northern Irish with a wish for temporary immortality scopes around? The truth is out there somewhere, and if English MPs don’t have the guts to speak the truth to power, I am fairly certain  the Internet will deliver. After all, if Ryan Giggs, a man who not only slept with the odd whore or two, also carried on an eight-year affair with his brother’s wife; thought he was invulnerable by his use of the legals at Schillings, I reckon the Telegraph will not be waiting too long to sound the digital charge!

Until then, I leave you with this short statement:-

Secret Court + Secret Trial = Reichschancellery.02

UPDATED

In an unusual (for him) intercession, Lord Peter Hain upset Sir Philip Green’s shopping trolley by stating that the TopShop fashion mogul, famous for being based in tax-free Monaco, is also the person previously shrouded in a legal Injunction. The news was able to be spoken because of the ancient tradition of Parliamentary Privilege, meaning that whatever a Member of the Lords or Commons states on the floor of either House, cannot result in legal action against the speaker: and also meaning that we, the ordinary people, can now know about the abuse which this uber-wealthy man sought to conceal, with the power of his wallet.

I, for one, never ever thought that Peter Hain had any balls at all, but now we know he has a full pair.

I never ever thought I would write these words: Well Done Lord Hain!!!

U.S. Supreme Court might undo abortion law because of one simple lie!

America, unlike we here in Brexit-land, is a Republic; a nation built on law, with a written Constitution, which lists all those laws. This Constitution came into effect in 1789, which means that only 27 Amendments have been accepted and ratified by all the States in the 229 years since the Independence of America was won. Some state that, of the three pillars which make up the U.S. Government, the Presidency, or the Executive; is by far the most important, but I disagree, for the simple reason that that same Constitution limits the powers of all three pillars by the existence of the Supreme Court, which rules on the validity of the Law generated by the Congress, and also on the activities of the Executive, on the legality of how they interpret those Laws.

In our rather tightly-knit circle of sceptics, I tend to admire the writer who sits, or possibly sometimes kneels, behind the Archbishop Cranmer blogsite. I don’t always agree with the sentiments expressed within his postings. His allegedly-humorous postings under his mythical ‘Mrs Proudie’ just don’t ring my bell at all, but maybe thats just me. His caustic commentaries on the failings of the Archbishop of Canterbury delight many, he does produce some really jagged and wounding statements on the Anglican Church’s ability to tie itself in liturgical knots around the sexuality (or, indeed, otherwise) of many of its priests and bishops which are true classics: but I write of a post which mirrors one of my own from a few weeks ago, regarding the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford during the nomination hearings for the (now) Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh.

Cranmer’s theme is based around the holes which began to appear during the forensic queries posed by the unassuming Deputy Public Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, much as I also posited in my own page, that she was laying the groundwork for later allegations of perjury on oath. For those British readers whose knowledge of oath-taking is taken from news reports or news from Magistrates’ or Crown courts, the Americans take their oaths a damn sight more seriously than we do in this lack-a-daisical and semi-secular United Kingdom. Their oath is taken with one hand usually on a Bible, sometimes a New Testament; and even sometimes a Quran: but always ending with (variations) on “So help me, God!” They are stating that the God whom they believe in, will judge them on their ability to tell the truth, whether it is a Federal court, or a Senate Hearing.

It is my firm belief that the Democratic Party’s opposition to any of the nominees; never mind the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and the very personal attacks on his probity was the first and possibly the major mistake of that campaign. If they had kept their attacks solely within the nominee’s competence, within his past writings and judgements made over his entire legal life, they may have found several items which they could then lever open as a wedge to attack and possibly bring his nomination down on the Senate floor. But the viciousness of that campaign, which encompassed his very family and his friends, cause a backlash amongst many Americans who dislike the one thing which the Democrat’s campaign brought to the surface, which is, of course, negative campaign attacks without any proof offered up as a basis for their bellicosity. Mrs. Blasey Ford may well, as Judge Kavanaugh accepted during his testimony, have been assaulted at a party, or even at a pre-party party: she may well even believe, believed and continue to believe, that it was the young man who became the Nominated Associate Justice. But it was the lack of any back-up evidence whatsoever which quietly damned her testimony, even before the Prosecutor began that seemingly-innocuous series of questions which both ascertained that she didn’t even remember where the party was held, and laid the ground for a future case against Mrs. Blasey Ford of perjury. But it wasn’t the reply where she stated that she couldn’t remember where the party was held, or even how she travelled to and from that party which condemned the witness and those who sat behind her.

It was when she refused to answer a simple question. She had placed on record that she had a fear of flying, despite flying for both business and pleasure all over the globe. She was asked about the Committee’s offer to come to her in California, and she denied knowledge of it. Apparently she and everyone she knows were the only ones in the USA and much of the world who were unaware of the accommodation the Committee Chair Senator Grassley was prepared to offer. The offer had been routed through her attorney. Did they not pass it on? Because she would not answer, the whole world deduced that she had known about the offer

By making their attacks purely personal, in the hopes that the Nominee would simply quit before any further accusations be placed against both him and his family, the Democrats made a great mistake, because behind the Nominee stood the giant shadow of the President himself, and surely the first thing this President would have done upon choosing his Nominee would be to ensure that there would be no backing down, no quitters allowed. Because the prize, which of course does not even exist right now, but surely will emerge, is a challenge to the validity of one single case: Roe v. Wade; and as Cranmer accepts, and I agree, a Right-wing charted Supreme Court could simply overturn this basic decision, and send it back to the purview of the States’ judicial systems, because the Supreme Court deals with the Constitution, and the Law on a Federal level, and nowhere: NOWHERE, in that same Constitution is there a single word which gives a woman, even theoretically, the right to kill the child she carries within her body!

Strange, is it not, that the one thing which the Democrats feared above all; that being that the case of Roe v. Wade being challenged, could well come cascading down into a legal limbo because of a lie: because they pushed a witness to come forwards  and testify, under oath, that something happened thirty-five years ago which demonstrably could not be proven: and that witness was caught out in a statement of fact, the veracity of which was doubtful even before the question was asked?

If you want rainbow icing; do it yourself!

Readers will hopefully remember my post on the ‘gay cake’ saga, both in the United States, as well as here in the United Kingdom. Well, the UK Supreme Court has just ruled, as has been announced within the last hours, that  Ashers Bakery did not discriminate in any way by their refusal to bake a cake which was to hold an iced message supporting same-sex, or ‘gay’ marriage. The complainant wanted Ashers to bake and ice him a cake which was to speak a message supporting homosexual marriage, and Ashers Bakery stated that, in terms of their own religious beliefs, they would not go against the teaching by which they live, by completing the order.

The UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, supported the stance of the Christian bakers, upheld their defence that they did not discriminate against their customer because he was a homosexual, but that they were unable to produce a cake with a slogan which went against everything in which they believed.

Lady Hale stated:- Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.

The complainant, Gareth Lee, disagreed with the verdict, stating: I’m very confused about what this actually means. We need certainty when you go to a business. I’m concerned that this has implications for myself and for every single person. The original decision to turn down his order had left him feeling like a “second-class citizen”, he said.

Not at all, mate: what you are really saying is that you didn’t get your way this time, but you will no doubt try again with another baker, printer or confectioner, and drag them through the courts until you gain the verdict you bloody want!

A prominent gay spokesman, namely Peter Tatchell, whom I have always admired despite his sexual preferences, mainly because he speaks his mind; stated:- “This verdict is a victory for freedom of expression. As well as meaning that Ashers cannot be legally forced to aid the promotion of same-sex marriage, it also means that gay bakers cannot be compelled by law to decorate cakes with anti-gay marriage slogans. Although I profoundly disagree with Ashers opposition to marriage equality, in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be forced to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.

The ruling does not permit anyone to discriminate against LGBT people. Such discrimination rightly remains unlawful.”

Meanwhile, the bitterly upset Gareth Lee is considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Awww; diddums!

The ‘difference’ with Judge Kavanaugh was Senator Collins

The senior movers and shakers within the Democratic Party watched the end-game. They watched as their ever-so-carefully-coached female witness sadly spouted forth her testimony before the Senate Judicial Committee. They also watched as their plots fell apart. The witness, her voice cracking with emotion as she recalled the moments when she fought against the Nominee for the Supreme Court as she alleged he tried to rape her.  But she couldn’t quite convince the Senators as they sought to distinguish how she could clearly point that wavering, shaky finger at Judge Kavanaugh, the Nominee; when the alleged attempted rape took place. Yet she could not remember where the alleged party took place. Nor when it took place. Nor how she travelled to the party. Nor how she got home after the party. Nor who the other people were who attended this pre-party party. She stated that Brett Kavanaugh turned the radio up loudly to cover his actions, and her screams. She did not explain how she could hear over the noisy radio as the Nominee and his buddy laughed as they stumbled down the stairs from that bedroom.

As the Nominee himself accepted, “I understand and accept that she was probably assaulted; but I was not at that party, I did not assault her!” No equivocation, no ifs, and’s, or indeed but’s. The Democratic Senators gathered around that horseshoe-shaped bench obviously believed her; after all, she was their witness, the star of the show. This was immediately obvious from the smarmily creepy way they all welcomed her to the stand. The Republicans? Well, they had decided to give all of their allotted questioning time to a professional, to a female prosecutor, presumably because they obviously knew that a combined partisan battering by a majority of male Senators would not strike the note which was desired: that of unstitching the statements made by the witness, and of proving that she was lying, and was therefore guilty of perjury. She made inroads into the testimony of the witness, but, in the terms used by many legally-trained observers; she never laid a finger on the witness; but her telling queries in the areas of where the assault took place, as well as the strangely-adroit queries regarding the witness’ knowledge of polygraph testing; will stand up for later enquiries. No series of questions actually made a difference.

The Democratic Party activists really didn’t understand what their vile threats were doing inside the mind of the one woman who made that difference.

All the greasy words of praise emanating from the Democrat side of that bench, and the muted questions of the Republican Senators’ prosecutrix; pale into insignificance against the clarity, the honesty and the courage of Senator Susan Collins’ speech, when speaking on the Senate floor during the cloture debate. She deliberately explained why the allegations regarding the sexual conduct of the Nominee were not the basis for her decision; but instead the legal oversight history and the documented deliberations of that same Nominee were behind her decision to vote for the Nominee to become an Associate Justice of the United States’ Supreme Court.

Second only to Senator Collins’ speech, I would link to the four minutes and twenty six seconds of Senator Lindsey Graham’s blast, aimed directly at the Democratic Senators ranged against the Nominee. Now there is a man who speaks from the heart

All readers, I urge you to read the Senator’s speech, linked below. It is a masterpiece; and a true example of how Lawmakers should respond to a taxing decision. Readers, I give you: Senator Susan Collins:-

“Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”