 |
| Daniel Sandford |
Further to Sue's comment on the previous post, Daniel Sandford's own "careful" choice of language was actually very "careless" on Monday's News at One. He said:
The prosecution say that Darren Osborne had become obsessed also with events in Rochdale, where Muslim men were accused of abusing young women.
As Sue notes, these nine Muslim men were actually convicted of abusing young women.
And actually, the victims weren't "young women" either. They were children, including girls as young as 13.
Good spot Sue! Sandford is condemned by his own mouth. I hope someone with more patience than me can put in a complaint about that. And yes! Young women!!! If migrants at Calais supposedly aged 17 and under (as believed by the credulous BBC) are described as "children" why doesn't Duplicitous Daniel describe the victims of the gangs as children? His agenda is clear, his MO is clear, and he has been found out. Well done Tommy!
ReplyDeleteRelated to this...I hope Craig and Sue are aware that Amber Rudd's proposals could make sites like this illegal soon. It would be quite easy to label a site like this "Islamophobic" because you are publicising the views of "Far Right" Tommy Robinson...that will be enough for the site to be taken down. This is the dystopian future we are wandering into...or maybe marching as far as Rudd and May are concerned. There is not a single voice in government who support free speech. Even people like Jacob Rees-Mogg are mealy mouthed on the subject. I can't actually think of a single person in Parliament who understands the free speech principle and lobbies for it. That should really frighten us. When I view US media I see there are a lot of people who understand the principle, embodied in their First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteFreedom in the UK is in intensive care but the people in charge of the ward want to rip out the oxygen tube.
I suspect the Osborne case is skewed such that it was after he watched a documentary critical of Islam that he became so enraged as to carry out a random attack against a crowd of Muslims.
ReplyDeleteConclusion which must be drawn;
No broadcaster must ever allow any discussion to stray into direct or implicit criticism of Islam for fear of such an attack happening again.
Of course had Osborne engaged in an attack on the police or security services, there would have been a host of left-wing apologists claiming he was "suffering" with many "mental health ishoos" and should be released as soon as possible....