Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Was he, or was he not born in Cardiff? Yes he was.

Was he raised as a Christian? Yes he was.

Was he 17, and therefore a minor, at the time of the attack? Yes he was.

Is it illegal for the police to publish the name, ethnicity, religion etc of a minor? Yes it is.

For what it's worth, given the truth in the 4 lines above this and TTR having mentioned the rumours on "social media" being the cause of the rioting, it's perfectly understandable that the police didn't mention, IF they even knew in the first couple of days, him being radicalised as they KNEW it would lead to riots by the very people who ended up rioting. Any failure to release information will have been bound by 2 things. 1. The Law not allowing that sort of information about a minor to be published and 2. the wish to try to prevent rioting.

So, those getting anti about "not being told the truth" should remember that UK Law prevented any and all personal information being published and that, following the Law, in an attempt to prevent a riot, is exactly what a Government/the Police should do.

Far, far too reasonable, sensible and factual that, MA. There is also the whole matter of sub judice which certain people appear to have conveniently forgotten.

[Andy_Faber]

Far, far too reasonable, sensible and factual that, MA. There is also the whole matter of sub judice which certain people appear to have conveniently forgotten.

Not sure it?s been forgotten rA, the post which Sith started this conversation with related to a Farage interview which, if you follow the paper trail, relates to a suspected/rumoured (depending on which side of the fence you sit) legal device which may or may not (ditto) exist, and which again may or may not (ditto) relate to the Southport incident. TTR is under orders not to reveal (on here) any more than he has already under threat of sanction (remember, the ones you don?t agree with). Since then he?s stayed the right side of the line.

One thing I?d be interested in, and this is also addressed at MA: the use of super injunctions appear to be another tool that protect the ?haves? from the ?have nots?. Are you in favour of their existence?

[MadAmster]

Was a super injunction used in relation to the Southport murders or was it the Law that protects minors? I thought the latter but will gladly accept being proven wrong.

The idea of a super injunction is not one with which I disagree. There may be issues which shouldn't, initially, be reported on. Why? Matters of National Security for one, I'd go along with. Matters pertaining to Court cases which might prevent a fair trial is another.

What I would emphasise though is that they should, IMO, rarely be used and should need to be issued by a panel of High Court judges, not by a single judge/magistrate and never by a government of whatever flavour.

[Andy_Faber]

Was a super injunction used in relation to the Southport murders or was it the Law that protects minors? I thought the latter but will gladly accept being proven wrong.

The idea of a super injunction is not one with which I disagree. There may be issues which shouldn't, initially, be reported on. Why? Matters of National Security for one, I'd go along with. Matters pertaining to Court cases which might prevent a fair trial is another.

What I would emphasise though is that they should, IMO, rarely be used and should need to be issued by a panel of High Court judges, not by a single judge/magistrate and never by a government of whatever flavour.

the issue brough up by Siths post, if true, DOES affect HMG. On balance unlikely to be true because 'rumours of super injunctions' have become fashionable on the net simply because they can be neither confirmed nor denied. I agree with them when used for 'good', they seem to have become the preserve of the well to do wanting to hide indiscretions - but again, who knows for sure?

[ramAnag]

Not sure it?s been forgotten rA, the post which Sith started this conversation with related to a Farage interview which, if you follow the paper trail, relates to a suspected/rumoured (depending on which side of the fence you sit) legal device which may or may not (ditto) exist, and which again may or may not (ditto) relate to the Southport incident. TTR is under orders not to reveal (on here) any more than he has already under threat of sanction (remember, the ones you don?t agree with). Since then he?s stayed the right side of the line.

One thing I?d be interested in, and this is also addressed at MA: the use of super injunctions appear to be another tool that protect the ?haves? from the ?have nots?. Are you in favour of their existence?

Sorry AF, no criticism (of you) intended, but a combination of ifs and maybes and the frankly hopeless current state of the forum (??!!?) make your post slightly difficult to understand and I genuinely don’t know what you mean about TTR and sanctions. I very much doubt he knows more than anyone else, if he does it’ll be a first.

What I would say is that Parliamentary rules suggest, ‘The sub judice rule prevents MP’s or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case.

This has regularly been the case in the past and I don’t know why Farage and Co. have such difficulty understanding it.

P.S. That’s another five minutes spent correcting the ridiculous question marks that the site incorrectly inserts.

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry AF, no criticism (of you) intended, but a combination of ifs and maybes and the frankly hopeless current state of the forum (??!!?) make your post slightly difficult to understand and I genuinely don?t know what you mean about TTR and sanctions. I very much doubt he knows more than anyone else, if he does it?ll be a first.

What I would say is that Parliamentary rules suggest, ?The sub judice rule prevents MP?s or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case.

This has regularly been the case in the past and I don?t know why Farage and Co. have such difficulty understanding it.

P.S. That?s another five minutes spent correcting the ridiculous question marks that the site incorrectly inserts.

Ill try to be clearer. Siths op related to rumours of a super injunction. TTR was in danger of being too specific about the detail of the rumour on the forum. I asked him to stop, he stopped. He knows I?ll sanction him if he oversteps the mark

[ramAnag]

Ill try to be clearer. Siths op related to rumours of a super injunction. TTR was in danger of being too specific about the detail of the rumour on the forum. I asked him to stop, he stopped. He knows I?ll sanction him if he oversteps the mark

Okay, thanks. I know little of the rumours and, as previously suggested, strongly suspect those who are sh1t stirring on here know no more.
Find myself in agreement with MA, and yourself…although your phase about being ‘used for good’ seems a tad naive as it depends upon who’s defining ‘good’.
I suspect the Parliamentary rules I quoted pretty much cover it anyway.

[Trickytreesreds]

Sorry AF, no criticism (of you) intended, but a combination of ifs and maybes and the frankly hopeless current state of the forum (??!!?) make your post slightly difficult to understand and I genuinely don’t know what you mean about TTR and sanctions. I very much doubt he knows more than anyone else, if he does it’ll be a first.

What I would say is that Parliamentary rules suggest, ‘The sub judice rule prevents MP’s or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case.

This has regularly been the case in the past and I don’t know why Farage and Co. have such difficulty understanding it.

P.S. That’s another five minutes spent correcting the ridiculous question marks that the site incorrectly inserts.

You say whether I know more than you?
Probably (staying the right side of the line here) have seen more things on line that give more than a little credence, as to the accusations been thrown about.
MA is focussing on the accused only. The crux of the matter is how the sorry incident has come to be. I have seen so called documents that has names on them, that incriminates certain individuals.
If these are true, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, if there is a super gagging order in place, that means even parliament cannot discuss it and they cannot be prosecuted for what is said in chamber.

If the stories are true, then it will seriously put several senior figures up against the wall for a firing squad.

[Trickytreesreds]

RA will love this one.

So I get to bash the Tories today. Sunak it has been revealed, had no intention of lowering immigration. He kept the balls in the air with his Rwanda stories, yet all the time allowing

Quoting Braverman=

“We had issued 1.1 million work and study visas, we had never done that before.”

“So this was totally at odds with our manifesto pledge, and an undermining of the Brexit referendum vote in 2016.

“I made all of these points to Rishi Sunak, he promised me that he would support me in the measures that would be needed.

“It became quickly apparent that those were false promises.”

Quoting Jenrick

Mr Jenrick added that he came to conclusion that many others in Cabinet were merely interested in “symbolic” policy, recounting one meeting in late November when he looked around the Cabinet room and felt he was the only person there “genuinely pressing for a policy that would work.”

“I left that meeting, I walked out into Downing Street, and at that point I knew that I’d have to resign.”

So seeing as Starmer is doing feck all either, expect the political rhetoric to go more right, just like Europe.

[ramAnag]

You say whether I know more than you?
Probably (staying the right side of the line here) have seen more things on line that give more than a little credence, as to the accusations been thrown about.
MA is focussing on the accused only. The crux of the matter is how the sorry incident has come to be. I have seen so called documents that has names on them, that incriminates certain individuals.
If these are true, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, if there is a super gagging order in place, that means even parliament cannot discuss it and they cannot be prosecuted for what is said in chamber.

If the stories are true, then it will seriously put several senior figures up against the wall for a firing squad.

You really do need to read more carefully. I didn’t mention you knowing more than me or v/v. I said ‘it’ll be a first if you know more than ANYONE else’, before explaining some relevant parliamentary sub judice rules.
You throw so many accusations around as part of your crusade to discredit anyone who disagrees with you that I’ve long since learned to take little notice.