Have you watched the videos? You appear to be condemning without reviewing evidence.

May 28, 2018 at 2:53 AM | Pcar

No. You are condemning without evidence. Try reading the links provided by IDAU 1:02 am. If the "3rd Case" collapses, who will be blamed?

My interest in this concerns putting an end to the culture that has allowed this sort of crime to carry on for decades (centuries?) whether it involves any religious faith, school, institution etc. Jimmy Saville and Cyril Smith got away with it too.

Discrediting victims and witnesses has always been the tactic of Social Services, Police and Defence Lawyers. If the victims, particularly those under 16, had been plied with drink/drugs, which they had willingly taken to obliviate their own misery, having willingly gone to the perpetrators, their hazy memories of what happened, when, and who did it, may be exposed in Court whether a month, year, or decade later.

As some of the victims and witnesses may still be at risk as vulnerable adults, in these cases, and perhaps many more that you do not know about (but you can be sure the perpetrators DO KNOW the names of their vjctims) who is being put at risk if the boundaries of reporting restrictions become blurred?

Delingpole "Better a cocker spaniel as Prime Minister than Theresa May"
here
Well - she's always been a 'remainer ' and she is making a pig's ear' of her self appointed task of leading the UK anywhere ..perhaps except for going up the creek without a paddle.

Stewgreen,

Thanks for the link.

Countryfile last night

A homage to HM The Queen and green Windsor Castle and Park. I thought damming of rivers was regarded as non-green as it stops the passage of migrating fish amongst other nasty side-effects. On the other hand as long as she isn't getting a wodge of taxpayer cash then it's up to her what she does with her bit of river. I was mildly puzzled by the desire to replant trees to an old OS map of the area. Other than nostalgia for a bygone era why not plant them where it suts the current layout and land usage. Again her park she can do what she wants with it.

Fake news from the MSM is exposed. What Kim and Moon were really concerned about at their historic meeting.- exposed here in an exclusive on the spot capture by KFM.here

stewgreen
Under anti terrorism legislation, the Police can seize the phone of someone once they are arrested. They can download anything they like, including all contacts and details.

What is the significance of the duration of his imprisonment?

Whether you do, or don't know how he could have prejudiced a trial that has not started, how can you state it wouldn't?

Pcar, yes. Reasons can now be found to blame the collapse of a future trial on those not directly connected to the case..

tomo:

Where reporting is allowed, it is limited to what the jury hear (i.e. no arguments before the judge where the jury is not present). The BBC are thus not influencing the jury, because they have heard the argument in court (and been able to evaluate the expressions on witnesses and defendants to aid in deciding on whether there is truth or bluster from the defence). What the BBC appear to be doing is using selective reporting to influence their readership, since this is the only article they have produced naming the defendant that I can find. In short, they are producing propaganda, not balanced news.

That particular day of the trial was also reported by Breitbart, which puts some different background context - and also reports on the case of Girl B, reported in more detail by the Rotherham Advertiser, who also had a report on Girl A's allegations earlier. They make no mention of the lurid allegation about her lying.

So should we slam the Rotherham Advertiser for not reporting the "made it up for the EDL and compensation" allegation? Perhaps they had no-one in the press gallery that day, because the BBC had nabbed their seat. Perhaps they judged allegation to be false, and therefore not worth reporting. Who decided who gets to sit in the Press gallery, and were they tipped off to get the BBC a seat?

Many questions, and probably more I've not thought of. FWIW I find the Rotherham Advertiser reporting the best: I am going on the basic factual tone they adopt, reciting words spoken in court, and offering more detail than the others.