How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
Happens increasingly often - is reported when a terrsm suspect appears from Belmarsh. I recall it happening in proceedings to continue remanding someone in custody.
I suspect that there's no legislation allowing it in this rather unusual legal process.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The terror-related cases are covered under emergency powers, for terrorism-related crime only.
Frankly, if the old fuck could be allowed to testify by link, I still wouldn't want him to. he needs to be in the courtroom.
I'd be pretty surprised if a magistrate's court went down the video link process - mainly because it doesn't seem at all practical and would set a bizarre precedent...
I'm not saying that he is not guilty but you seem awfully certain the he is guilty before he has even be tried.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Whether he's a paedophile or not, he's still an old cunt who's done no favours for British Jewry, with his Zionism in high places. He's guilty alright - guilty of being a despicable human being whose support for the state of Israel has influenced UK foreign policy in the Middle East.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
So do I.
Hmm...
So are you saying that because this man is a Zionist, he should be automatically convicted of child sex abuse offences?
Not sure how that leaves the majority of the population of Israel to be frank...
teqniq
DisMembered
Heh, looks like the judge is having none of it
Judge threatens to arrest Lord Janner after non-appearance in court
Judge threatens to arrest Lord Janner after non-appearance in court
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Don't be an idiot. While Janner's support for Israel is something of a red herring in this case, the exceptionalism he and his advisors are trying to make use of here is not so different from the arguments he has tried to make in the past in order to excuse Zionism from being held to the same standards of humanity as the rest of us.
It is only you who is saying that "because this man is a Zionist, he should be automatically convicted of child sex abuse".
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I suppose the fact that the contempt in question is entirely in line with the argument his lawyers have been making all along makes it look somewhat more...premeditated.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
It does seem to me that his lawyers are making things worse for him...unless they have reason to believe that producing him has the potential to somehow be even more catastrophic.
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
I do always wonder when judges condemn people for waiting (for example) to change their plea until the last moment because they're mainly just acting on solicitor's advice.
Not sure about this one though, whether it's indeed him wailing "I don't want to go".
Not sure about this one though, whether it's indeed him wailing "I don't want to go".
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm not saying anything of the sort, and attempts to imply that I am, are your usual clumsy clodhopping.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Heard on the radio he'll be allowed in through a side door and only has to stay for 40 seconds. Should feel at home, it'll be like visiting the Lords each day to get his £200.
Wait a second...
You are exactly saying that his advocacy of Zionism corresponds to the denial of child sex offending.
That is exactly your argument and it is egregiously specious on many different levels.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
No, he suspended himself a few months ago (but then contacted them to extend his suspension rather than cease to be a member, iirc - can't remember the detail 100%).
How does his Zionism correspond to child abuse?
Or is he just an appalling person who needs to be punished by virtue of his Zionism, regardless of the child abuse claims that have lit him up as an appalling person by virtue of his Zionism?
Please do enlighten us as to your considered views.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I posted this earlier in the thread in terms on how his mental capacity seems to have a Guinness like tendency to come and go:
"So, if I've got the timeline right on Milord Jannerrapecunt:
Rapes kids - forever
Writes book - 2008
Diagnosed with alzheimers - 2009
Dec 2012 - delivers speech in Lords
Dec 2013 - house raided
Oct 2014 - 'on leave'
March 2014 - has mental capacity to pass his mansion to the kids, one of whom is linked to the DPP
April 2015 - Milord will not be charged, due to mental capacity
April 2015 + a few days - It's okay, I'm fine! Can I come back to work?"
And given that we are now in a (kind of) trial, I'll add the word 'allegedly' to all that.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think my argument was abundantly clear, and the only reason you have chosen to pretend to yourself that it isn't is because you were dying to use "egregiously specious" on the thread.
Which, incidentally, I am nicking as my tagline forthwith.
Can you stop this? It doesn't make you look clever, it makes you look like a pretentious sixth former.
Similar threads
- Poll
