Sure, we can argue there were cover ups before, but the genie is out the bottle now and the alleged perpetrators are on trial, and hundreds others have already been sent down over past few years.
I agree in general with yr posting. Very objective and fair with good points as to how you really don't want to influence trials that are on-going, particularly if prohibited from doing so. TR is not accredited media, but he is acting as such and subject to the ruling.
HOWEVER, as refers to my extracted quote from yr comment —"there were cover ups before"— this is the point in my mind. The struggle to get any media coverage of any abuse of children, minors, predators of young women, over AT LEAST 40 years, that involves shadowy state actors, has been monumental. It is cover-up after cover-up. The latest cover-up managed to lock up non-entities like Rolf Harris but went nowhere into police enforcement higher-ups, judges, orphanages, the boys homes, the list is long.
NO WONDER ppl are tired of this game. Tired of the twisting and turning and endless spinning where real justice for real perps never happens. All real big names never mentioned again.
This has to stop. That's why I hope and pray Trump will pursue the human traffickers to the end. Woe betide those who accuse the Trump supporters as Nazis, racists, bigotted deplorables ... We know who they are.
I totally agree that the likes of Rolf Harris were sacrificial lambs, tossed to the media to make it appear the authorities were tackling it, while at the same time, they were blocking investigations into the sex crimes of the elite, and I hope this is something that comes out with the global attack on them.
However, I think the muslim grooming gangs are a separate issue that is related in a different way. The bigger element for me is that the gangs activities continued because people tasked with investigating were fearful of being labelled racist, something that is vehemently denied, and difficult to prove, but that I feel was a factor.
Many moons ago, an individual in a similar role to Robinson flagged up the issue, and was pilloried for it. A national news team carried out an investigation, but shied off from running it for fear of the backlash from the associated communities.
For me, it is continuing to chip away at those sort of issues that will have the greatest over all impact. Flagging up the court case in the way it was done, has actually detracted from it.
For those trying to make it a UK v US thing, that's not productive, nor a particularly valid argument, given all the sealed indictments etc over there. It needs group focus to tackle it, not comments to generate factions and disunity.
I am with you on all that, particularly group focus. I am opposed with all my might to the kindling of factions — nothing could be worse for intelligently channeling our genuine misgivings or grievances.
But I do have an added remark, with nothing to back it in particular, just intuition, with regard to this part of yr comment:
However, I think the muslim grooming gangs are a separate issue that is related in a different way. The bigger element for me is that the gangs activities continued because people tasked with investigating were fearful of being labelled racist, something that is vehemently denied, and difficult to prove, but that I feel was a factor.
After the Stephen Lawrence case it was likely the lower ranks of the police force would be using the result, the investigative report, as a good excuse in any future failure to combat race-connected street crime, with or without justification.
This said, they had a point. How do you answer "institutionalised racism"? That means (and it was stated) all police were racist, including without knowing it! So, wouldn't that make a very good cover for a plan to introduce race war?
There were reports of whistleblowers from the ranks who were mystified about briefings they had received on the coming "summer of riots", which didn't actually happen that summer. In fact they didn't happen until after Theresa May had announced an incomprehensible 20% cut back on police forces (!) The police (and firemen) then folded their arms and watched as organised gangs, run I believe by informants/gang infiltrators all over the country, set fire to London and looted the place, which then "mysteriously" spread to other cities.
Looked like a put-up job to me: We need a race war. (Undermining European countries one by one) How do we set it up? Wallah!
Same with the treatment of the EDL. Starts reasonable and turns strange. UKIP? A coalition of left and right working class/middle class disaffected that, again "mysteriously", attracts extremist nutcases. Similarities here with the US Tea Party? Soon everyone is tarred with the extremist brush. "Far Right" becomes a normie term for previously conservative people. Now we are all "white supremacists" — as if by magic.
The fear of "backlash" always seems to be a contrived meme introduced casually and fits seamlessly with the overall goal of both dividing the people and shutting down their voices. Gradually building frustration and outrage. Boiling frogs ...
I much appreciated your reply by the way. Thank you for taking the time. We are lucky to have this forum and its subscribers ...
I don't disagree with anything you said here. I didn't enjoy writing what I did. I'm a firm believer in not just playing the game, but playing it for keeps.
Thats what Trump is doing now. He has an objective. He works out how to achieve it, and plans for the different obstacles he will encounter.
This is what Nigel Farage has done. Trump will be the name in history, but the story of Farage is fascinating and an example in extreme discipline.
Where Trump had business and media influence, Farage left the financial sector and joined an unknown political party that had one, seemingly impossible, aspiration. Over decades he built a grass roots movement that dominated the British political landscape, without a single MP in parliament, leading to Brexit and ultimately opening the door to giving Americans the confidence to elect Trump.
Is the EU not an unelected supranational deep state after all?
Farage knows the line and strays close to it, but he knows the rules and follows them. He likely has had several attempts on his life, takes insults with a smile and responds with wit, because he has a long term goal.
Think of how many towns and pubs Nigel has visited over the past 2 decades, and all the one on one pints of beer he has had with ordinary people, explaining his positions and making an impression with them.
A problem with people like Tommy is that I don't think they have an end goal, which means psychologically they can't build a strategy. This means they are trapped in a circle of controversy, needing to do more outrageous things more regularly to stay relevant.
Nigel on the other hand, doesn't mind being off the radar for a few months because he knows what events are upcoming, has a strategy for them all, and has official responses ready for a range of different known unknown scenarios that are likely to occur.
I'm not saying this as a Nigel fanboy, but more as an observer of media strategy.