A reminder, readers, that we are still, technically, under notice [injunction] and thus we can neither name the victim, nor what happened last Friday to him, until proceedings are over.
However, the devil is in the details – the time limit of the injunction was left sufficiently vague, while being quite specific about who in the UK could or could not comment during this vaguely defined time – “publications” could not.
As this post now is reporting on those reporting on the reports on that incident last Friday which involved reporting on a trial – then at which point can things be legally reported and how much can? Never? None of it?
Is it turtles all the way down?
On Wednesday 11 January 2016, Melanie Shaw, the whistleblower on the horrific abuse of children which occurred at the then county council-run Beechwood Children’s Home in Nottinghamshire in the late 1980s, was given a two-year custodial sentence in a secret court hearing.
The nature of the charge against her is unclear and that information is refused when requested of court staff. The case took place late yesterday morning but it did not appear on any court lists until the hearing was past.
Melanie Shaw did not appear in person in court for this hearing, which was conducted by video link from her prison, as has also been the case with previous of her court ‘appearances’. She states that without fail, whenever in the past she has given testimony by such video link, she has been cut off on the pretext that “you were shouting”, which she denies.
The effect of this is to prevent her testimony from going on the court record, as well as to prevent her as defendant from hearing certain deliberations and assertions being made in the courtroom.
Familiar theme in the UK as to how justice is dispensed, no? You can read the rest of that at UK Column.
A betting man or woman might put money on this being all about cover-ups – about covering up the extent of the paedo gangs, both elite and Muslim – and still the revelations come, e.g. Telford.
The Sentencing Council for England
Not content to sentence babies to death, aiding and abetting rapists, and protecting Jihadi beliefs, the British have yet again confirmed that the elite want to turn the U.K. into a full Orwellian nightmare: The Sentencing Council for England and Wales wants to throw people who express thoughtcrime in jail (or “gaol” as they say) for up to six years:
“The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has drafted new guidelines proposing prison sentences of between 26 weeks and six years for social media posts deemed hostile toward a race, religion or sexual identity.
“The proposals have been made in relation to the Public Order Act, which prohibits all activities ‘intended or likely to stir up hatred’ against minority groups, including transgender people. Many of the examples in the document reference social media use.
Fairly clear, is it not? Now, back to the current case about which we are under injunction – just what can we, as a “publication” including blogs but not Twitter, write or not write?
Well, as mentioned, we cannot write about the current set of alleged perps and their trials in Leeds, except that they have been divided into three batches for trial, the last batch due to come up in September. This in itself can be written about because it affects our reporting injunction – just when can we begin reporting about these alleged scumbags?
Just when can we note that on Friday, they walked freely into court, not in custody and used foul language to two reporters? Is that not a matter of law too? No matter, we’re not allowed to report on that.
The judge who made the injunction – I have name and photo of him and of the other one, the woman – blindly lashed out that “no one can report on anything we’re doing behind closed doors” and would like to apply it to the world but they knew they couldn’t, so they termed it “the UK”. Judges inventing law on the hoof.
What, do they mean reporting from within the UK or by UK citizens? By UK residents? What? Who? We can’t tell you – I have the injunction right here beside me but it names the defendant and we can’t report the name of the defendant.
We can’t but Breitbart has certainly reinstated its article on it:
[10,949 comments at the time of writing this.]
Also, the Spectator has decided to go into print on it. At least, reading in bed at 5 a.m., Rod Liddle had a piece up, naming the victim currently languishing in Hull.
Between that time and me writing this at 05:33, the article has been taken down. So the injunction is still alive and kicking it seems.
All right, let’s go offshore. Rossa’s mother [contributor at N.O.] says that Gates of Vienna has covered it. We also know most of the American alt-press has covered it now, e.g.
Our Julia left a comment on the weekend:
Given that he’s currently trending above Harvey Weinstein on the UK Trending Twitter bar, I can only say ‘Bang up job, British Justice System, as we’ve come to expect of you’…
And of course, the anti-victim trolls are also out in force. What this cow does not appreciate is that, were it not for the victim we are not naming but she can if she wants, then there would be far less publicity for the cause of the grooming victims which, after all, this is mainly about.
I say “mainly” because the British Justice “System” is also very much on trial and they know it.
All right, so this Bank Holiday Monday, we continue not to name the victim but do point out that he was not allowed his own lawyer, that the whole arrest and trial took four hours maximum and he is now inside for an unstipulated number of months. We can’t stipulate the number between ten and sixteen because that would be reporting on proceedings.
Ian Hislop, who once said that “if this is justice, I’m a banana”, also pointed out that the judges are making up privacy law as they go along – you see that clearly here with the allegedly “stupid” Louise:
If they think this off-the-cuff, catch-all injunction is going to stop this getting out, then they’re more allegedly stupid than I thought. Do they really think we’ll let this go? Honestly?
This is about the British Justice “System” in general and about paedos allegedly being protected both above and in the Muslim community – this is a major topic in the UK and worldwide so no piddly injunction will stop it.
It will stop the actual naming and the actual reporting on the arrest and incarceration within the UK for some time but it most certainly will not stop the Americans, Canadians, Dutch, Swedish, Italians, French, Germans and the Abbott Campaign in Australia from reporting every lurid alleged detail.
If Bill Mitchell and Hannity know, then you can be sure DJT will also know. Have you noticed that Nigel Farage has said not one word, not even about the 4-6000 strong rally on Saturday? Strange, I thought Nige was concerned for the UK?
Remember, readers, in your comments, that you too are under injunction at this publication and not allegedly either.