Just because you don't agree doesn't mean the comment is daft...

And YES it has everything to do with suppression of the freedom of the press.

National security I agree when it comes to telling the enemies when we are going to attack. Non reporting on Islamic crime to stop tensions rising is pathetic, especially when far right attrocities are nearly always reported.

Your views and comments are a danger to our society, and should be acted on at every opportunity.

So Maple, now you have heard both sides on that....where do you stand on this issue?

I think Park's response perfectly sums up how I feel about it personally.

It's documented fact that Police and institutions knew about these crimes for many years previously and Robinson had been talking about them...even mentioned on Newsnight.

Yet it wasn't until the Times took the leap that anything happened......but this had been something no one had wanted to touch for years.....due to accusations of racism, which is definitely suppression.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jun 2019 12.53pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You cannot say on one hand that you agreed with this news not coming out.....and then say there was no suppression.

Your attitude would have been the attitude of the kind of people in charge of these matters......that's why this information didn't become available and no action took place to stop these rapes for donkey years.

It's entirely due to fear over being called racists and negative reactions that this course of inaction happened.

So you claiming no suppression is pure disingenuous nonsense....there was suppression both by the Police, the institutions and the press....and indeed the attitude you promote towards this was criticised by the judge.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jun 2019 1.01pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Wrong again! The press should report everything that is viable. There's definitely a black out when it comes to reporting certain Islamic crimes, and if the press are deciding to pick and choose what they report,on the basis of tension then it is no longer free.
Unless, of course you'd like to live in Russia where what you are saying happens on a regular basis.

And what about an apology for calling someone's comments daft. Bit above you is that?

Edited by Park Road (10 Jun 2019 1.10pm)

The subject is the freedom of the press and not the term "suppression". If this happened then the press exercised voluntary restraint. In doing so they would have also decided to suppress publishing the story but as the decision was their's no-one was suppressing them.

As I said criticism of the roles of everyone involved, made with hindsight, is perfectly valid, whether by you or a Judge. What isn't valid is to suggest that this means that press freedom was compromised. It wasn't.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

How do you know the decision was theirs?

You are just making things up as they come along. You have no idea who makes the decision.
You should have stuck to the "I was talking to some editors, farmers, trump supporters," like you normally do to explain your outrageous and damaging views.

I'll repeat, your dangerous views are either ill informed or you are a fantasist.

I'm going for the latter

Edited by Park Road (10 Jun 2019 1.38pm)

Twisting or putting words in my
Mouth doesn't make you right.
You're wrong and that's it.

As for you not wanting to apologise just shows your arrogance.

Only big men apologize,little insignificant narciccist, like you and Trump make excuses

If you actually read what I have written then you know that I don't know if that is indeed what they did. All I have said is that IF they did do that, and they took that decision themselves, then there was no threat to press freedom. If they had been instructed to do so, which I very strongly doubt because such an instruction would of itself become front page news, then press freedom would have been grossly compromised.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I think you are getting confused. Press freedom is the topic. Everything else is just context.

This isn't about whether any individuals, or institutions, deserve criticism after reviews and with the benefit of hindsight.

I supported the Police and the authorities taking their decisions at the time they did, without the benefit of hindsight as I am quite sure that they did so because they believed it to be then the best course of action open to them.

I have no more idea than anyone else whether the media decided to co-operate with the Police and exercise voluntary restraint so that the problem could be solved quietly and without raising alarms.

All I have said is if they did do that then it is not an issue of press freedom. It doesn't mean it cannot be criticised.

Only if evidence of any instructions being given to the media not to cover the story emerge could any press freedom issues come into play. I don't think that is very likely as I think the media would quickly cry foul if anyone tried to do that.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

These rapes happened for well over a decade. They occurred in many multiple locations within the country. I find your attitude towards this naive in the extreme.

I've really said all I wish to on this matter. Our words stand as our positions.

Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jun 2019 2.18pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)