Reporting Bans.

I just wonder: It's patently clear that the reporting restrictions on Muslim Rape Gang trials have the effect of hiding the true nature of the problem.

I get that reporting on such cases if there is a reporting restriction in place would fall foul of the reporting restriction. Me: 1, TR: 0.

But... what if you were to be more general. For instance if You said at Leeds there are currently 40 trials with reporting restrictions.... Oxford has 20, Telford has 100.... etc. (Those figures being plucked out of thin air as examples, and in no way are the true numbers, even if by some mad coincidence I've stumbled on the correct numbers)...

Now, would reporting on the number of restricted cases come under contempt laws? If there were no specifics about what the case was about? Just the fact that each court had x number of restricted cases?

If a website called MRG-watch or something similar was set up, then the public would be aware of the number of restricted cases. They could then investigate further if they wished to see what each case was about if the information was public before the restriction came into force.

It's just that no-one could report about the specifics of the case.

Or does Tommy Robinson's court case change that now? Especially does it mean that even the numbers of cases cannot be discussed? Because that seems to be the fallout from the TR case: that peeved Justices will change the laws to suit their case and you may fall foul of them if they deem you to have slighted their authority.

After all, even the Police were prevented from asking for information about an absconder from the Leeds trial because of the reporting restrictions (because there is no limitation on the restriction even if it's the Police wanting to bring one of the defendants to justice).

Just musing in the back of my mind, as you do.....

True Journalism is Dead.

Today a Certain Mr Yaxley-Lennon attends court for sentencing regarding his conviction for contempt of court.

Much has been said about the twisting of the defendant's words and the blindness to the law society's own written advice elsewhere, so I won't ramble on about that.

But it's a damning sight to see the ranks of the press outside the Old Bailey awaiting the sentence, press that should be investigating and highlighting the huge number of rape gangs that are at work across the UK.

If the press can conveniently ignore the 1400 victims in Rotherham alone, can they really ignore the convictions in Rochdale, Oldham, Newcastle, Oxford, Telford, Canterbury, Bristol, Aylesbury, Peterborough and more?

Can they ignore the several upcoming court cases?

The real scandal, the juicy news that reporters should be going after is the blanket reporting ban on the numerous cases across numerous towns and cities across the UK. How can the judiciary arbitrarily ban ALL reporting across SEVERAL court cases?

I understand the judiciary's line that if the huge number of cases came to prominence, it would pervade the public's consciousness and would start to prejudice juries against any Muslim man brought before the courts.

But the Police's own intelligence suggests there are hundreds more gangs in play right now.

Hansard (the UK Parliament's own publication) states that there could be grooming gangs in at least 73 other towns and cities across the UK, but that "data is incomplete".  https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-05-14/debates/349FA275-CB65-45C0-87C7-EE16D1FD1B0A/GroomingGangs. 

Just when will the UK press wake up and realise this story is HUGE? When will they come to terms with the fact that thousands of young girls have been and continue to be raped by these gangs? When will the press report this? When will the authorities be shamed into acting to positively stop this activity, rather than covering it up? Why are they not shining a light on this and making sure that young girls don't fall into the same traps? Is the female youth of today so worthless that nobody cares whether they are pimped and raped at a young age?

Just where are the feminists on this issue? Why are they not up in arms? The Muslim community is a shining example of a Patriarchal system: men have sway over women and the culture and attitudes of the Males in that community are the sort that feminists should be screaming from the rooftops to oppose. But silence.

Where are our Government on this issue? You can see from the Hansard report above that they are aware? But where is the publicity? Where is the viewable positive action in combatting the issue?

Currently there are several new court cases in the pipeline regarding grooming gang underage rape in Rotherham. There are a number of ongoing investigations that will lead to further new court cases. That's just in Rotherham alone.

Then there are also a number of further investigations around the country regarding those 73 towns and cities. Those are the ones that are known and there is data for.

It's quite possible given the known data and extrapolating out, that there will be a grooming gang in every town and every city that has a Muslim Male population. Without positive action in investigating the issue and collecting data and intelligence on the issue we can only surmise. But what we can say is there is no evidence to the contrary.

THAT's the scale of the issue that the press, the pro-female activists, Parliament, the judiciary, the establishment don't want YOU to hear about.

Now if journalists won't ask the question, ask yourself why that should be...….

Project Veritas: Another Video Removed by YouTube? Alt-Tech Censorship.

Yesterday Project Veritas released a video containing information on Google's plans to steer the 2020 elections.

I've called this "Agenda 2020" for a long time now. Basically it started at a low level, but when the Data & Society report came out with the bullshit Alternative Influence Network of supposedly alt-Right activists (including the Leftist Tim Pool fer christsake) you knew the game was on.

And so it has come to pass. Once someone on the left could pool the non-mainstream thought influencers into a pot, that pot has been the subject of constant attack from alt-tech and the mainstream media.

From smear campaigns, de-monetising, de-platforming, and removal of videos, alt-tech has started a battle to remove alternative voices from the big social media online platforms.

All they have to do to justify censorship is to smear someone and classify them as objectionable or using hate speech so they fall foul of the good Samaritan clause of Section 230 of the US Communications and Decency Act.

Now Project Veritas has information supplied by insider whistleblowers from Facebook, Google and Pinterest showing there is a deliberate bias towards the left.

The latest video released yesterday regarding Google is the most blatant and damning. Videos of supposed Google executives blatantly admitting they want to avoid another Trump win in 2020. Admitting they skew search results by training their AI routines to bias search results in a certain way.

In one part of the video, a slide of a flow diagram that was for Google employees actually has the term "Editorial Decisions" in a decision box.

Now maybe it's just me, but didn't all of these big tech platforms successfully argue they weren't liable for what was on their platform because they didn't take editorial decisions?

It seems that the platforms have conveniently forgotten their deal forged in the supreme court of the US that removed their liability for libel and slander. Maybe the supreme court will have something to say about the level of contempt these companies have for the deal down not that long ago.

Last week's insider revelations from Pinterest got the video taken down from YouTube, ostensibly for a privacy violation. Eventually the video was reloaded but with some censoring of the material Pinterest complained about. The uncensored video is on Bitchute.

Now it looks like the same thing has happened to the video about Google. It has disappeared from project Veritas' YouTube channel. However it is still up on BitChute here.

The information is chilling. That big tech companies think they are big enough to sway the result of the 2020 Presidential election and that they have the gall to even consider it.

That tech companies are now actively involved in editing content despite going to the supreme court and testifying they didn't do any censorship. Instead they actively promoted the idea that they were just platform providers, much like a telephone company cannot be liable for the messages sent from person-to-person over the phone.

Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act is the legislation in play here. It offers big tech companies immunity from prosecution for slanderous and libellous material on their platforms, but also allows a moderate amount of censorship if they find material on their site that is Obscene, lewd, harassing or objectionable.

It's the definition around this "Good Samaritan" clause that the big tech companies are exploiting. It may well be that left-leaning big tech executives find Trump supporters and their views objectionable, but is it really what the good Samaritan clause was supposed to catch? I doubt that perfectly legitimate and legal viewpoints, as protected in the First amendment of the US Constitution are the things that the Supreme Court had in mind when it allowed this leeway.

I very much doubt that the Supreme Court envisioned the enabling of Big Tech companies to influence US elections my silencing dissenting voices and alternative viewpoints: the very essence of healthy political debate.

There is a very clear campaign to remove alternative voices. If something cannot be dredged up from years ago they can use to justify censorship under section 230, then something will be fabricated. I have seen a number of instances where an article for instance states a moderate (who cannot be touched under section 230) is having a discourse with the far right.  Then the same moderate in another article described as "associated with the far right" and then a further article maybe months later describes the same moderate as just plain "Far-Right". Guilt by association. The D&S report is a very clear road map that enables this sort of "smear by association".

Personally I think the line has been crossed. The revelations from the small number of whistleblowers shows that big tech have the intent to censor, to silence alternative voices and to bag themselves a political candidate that suits their agenda.

Personally I think it's time for the legislature to revisit section 230 and to allow freedom of political discourse online. And very importantly, the freedom from censorship by the big tech platforms when the big tech platforms themselves are accused of censorship.

And we Brits thought the Yanks didn't do Irony....