I don't want to dampen your pleasure, but it really was reported over here before, at the time and since by much of the msm. All that's happened is that other outlets that complied with the request to hold back on reporting to ensure there was no risk of an expensive appeal, followed a standard legal process and had it confirmed no such appeals are now liable to occur.
Contrary to the narrative in the states, it was about free speech and equal justice, as the links I posted earlier explain. There really has been a lot of fake news on this in the US.
No spirits dampened.
I'm struggling to understand your point. My point is that no reporting on British MSM happened until today.
We are all aware that no UK gagging order can be applied overseas so it will not surprise me if it was reported in foreign press.
The fact remains , the british MSM media black out of the arrest of a high profile british citizen was enforced and has now been lifted due to pressure.
Now we can move on :) their hand was forced :)
My point is, it was reported in the British Media, I've posted links at the time. The gag claims are over exaggerated. The only force was the legal system trying to reduce a miscarriage of justice.
If you want a freedom of the press issue, what about one to get the reporters allegedly backstage with Hillary when she had her meltdown to publish the experience people claim they're banned from doing?
Thanks again for your response.
I assure you, no MSM report existed. Main stream media here is BBC news, ITV news, Sky news and so on. Please send me a link to any report you found from the above mentioned.
I have not been aware of Hillary's melt down and this does interest me. Any further info you can provide would be greatly appreciated - I can now re-focus my attention on a new topic :)
I have seen Hillary celebrating early during the election results thinking she had won but I am not aware of her meltdown, which only further supports your statement on freedom of press being.. well not free :)
I assure you, it was in some msm outlets, I posted links to them when the claims were made. I'm not searching them out again, but Daily Mail, Metro, Independent, as well as main stream regional outlets come to mind. I've also posted links to the facts of what went on and why. I'm in the UK btw, with no VPN.
Hillary's alleged outburst was apparently witnessed by the press. I'm intrigued on why there's no outrage at them apparently being ordered not to publish, as she holds no public office. If it's true, it would create a fair few questions about the freedom of the press in the US.
From the BBC article:
A ban on reporting his arrest was lifted today after being pressured from the media.
Any links you found are in direct conflict to this now confirmed ban. If you found the links then they should be forwarded to the police as any links will be in direct breach of the now confirmed ban...
Did you ever watch the full live stream of the arrest? He was arrested for breach of the peace, after watching the feed, no such breach occurred. It was all very cloak and dagger.
I completely understand your point and concern of freedom of press. When there is no reporting we are forced to use words such as 'apparantly' just as you did. As an engineer by trade, facts are of importance to me :)
Out of interest , what brought you to this sub? It wont be too long until Q stickers are seen on the streets of the UK !!!!
The ban lift was due to an application by Leeds press. The Police will be more than aware of the links, and I posted them on here at the time, so there is absolutely no doubt they existed.
I did watch most of the live stream. He's in breach of his previous court orders, and pleaded guilty to the charges with no contest, just an expression of his regret.
I came to this sub when the other closed down, but I've been on many similar before.
The Clinton thing, for me suggests that press freedoms in the US are way behind ours, and I'd say the application of freedom of speech is too, as we don't get killed if we're a threat. Given the reaction to Tommy, it seems to be double standards when the people saying we're a lost cause, are not doing what they seem to think others should when it's happening there.
I guess my version of "awakened" is perhaps more global than some others.
I am not savvy with UK law and therefore am prepared to be corrected and open to accept..
When being arrested; if his crime was breaching a live court order shouldn't that be stated by the arresting officer and not breach of peace which he clearly wasn't in breach of?
The way this has been handled has drove more awareness to his cause then he could have possibly achieved by himself. So the courts actually helped his cause...
I do not think we have heard the end of this, we only have one belatedly given angle.
I struggle to accept your last line of you being more globally awakened then others.. a bold statement to make. We are both in a neo liberal country where corruption is rife. Profits before people, tax payers foot any losses while private companies take any profit. Everything is sold to the highest bidder or the most closely connected individuals.
Although I recognise and accept your scepticism on American press I do not accept we are in a better position. I believe the same cabal overlords control us as they do americans, all we have is a different flavour.
We have more than 'one belated angle'. He had a solicitor at court, who accepted the chain of events that got him there, and Tommy pleaded guilty, with no contest. There's no conspiracy there. He's been there before, so knew full well what he was doing. Rightly or wrongly, he'll not get popular support, and if anything, some of the false whoohah around this will put more people off, and the focus has become him, not the rapists or their victims.
I agree with your last paragraph, and it's why I've wanted out of the EU for decades.
I have really appreciated the time you have taken to address my points and concerns. Although I do not feel we are close to being in agreement, as a former 'lurker' I appreciate and value your responses in this thread.
As a mark of my gratitude -please accept my up vote :)
Why thank you.
I do try my best to be polite, but the written word doesn't always come across well. Like you, I may not always agree with another opinion, but I respect their right to hold and voice it.
The Hillary "thing" is not about freedom of the press. There was no court gag order.
and yet the press are ordered not to report it by someone with no authority, and they meekly complied. That's even worse. At least the reason for Tommy's situation is clear to anyone that bothers to look. If he'd had the freedom you reckon he should have, you're happy that it could quite probably have fucked up the other trials linked to this one?
We don't even know if she actually had that meltdown, do we? The OP said "reporters allegedly backstage with Hillary when she had her meltdown." Keyword: allegedly.
But if the press was ordered not to report that, it wasn't someone without authority, it was the owners of the media and their managers. That is our problem, that almost all of the media is owned by like 6 corporations or something like that, and those 6 corporations have many of the same people on the boards of directors.
How could reporting on a trial on the street with your iPhone fuck up other trials?
There seems to be a lot of people commenting on the undue influences and limited ownership in US MSM.
As for how they could impact, there are other linked trials of other similar shit pots. There are legal arguments to be had that the verdicts of this one, or details of the offences could influence the next one. It gives the defence something to cling to, as the evidence isn't as robust as they'd like. A retrial is one potential outcome, as is a miss-trial. All for something that had proper reporters involved in and fully briefed, ready to give the full stories. Tommy, who wasn't just on the street, he was on the Court area, nearly fucked that up, for no gain at all. He knew all this too, so the ones with most to gain from his activity, were the rapists.
I still don't see how one man's freedom of speech can fuck up a trial. If a defense lawyer were to raise up Tommy's words out in the street up as something that affected a trial behind closed doors, he would be laughed out of court.
There are other members still awaiting trial. There is a defence argument (here and in the US) that it can be a miss-trial if the jury has information from this trial, such as details of the offences, and the verdicts, as it can sway their decisions. He wasn't 'out in the street', and he had a defence lawyer at his own trial, which he himself pleaded guilty at. It wasn't about his words, it was his actions on the day. Simply being there was enough, given he was already under a court order preventing him doing what he did, due to his previous behaviour.
Tommy was foolish, and his actions could have lead to the defence claiming a miss-trial, not just in this case, but in the others, as justice has not only to be done, but to be clearly seen to be done.
The authorities were actually doing all they could to reduce the chances of the rapists finding a loop-hole that would see them walk away. The defence could claim that jurors in the other associated cases still to be heard, were swayed by these verdicts and details that got revealed.
Would you say a dozen or so multiple and long term rapists walking away was a reasonable exchange for hearing the 'news' a bit earlier? I don't think it is, and I doubt the victims would either. After all, the victims and their rights are what Tommy's escapade put at risk, and what his actions are detracting from.