Gosh. A year ago I wrote about the case of the Israeli tourists who had allegedly gang-raped a 19-year-old British girl in Cyprus. It caused quite a stir both here in the UK and in Israel.
The outcome of the trial was thus:
“She (the English girl) has now been found guilty of “public mischief”, a crime that is punishable by a prison sentence of up to a year and by a fine equivalent to £1,500.”
Whereupon the boys were allowed to return home. Yes, and now it’s deja vu all over again, again.
I wrote about this case the time, so I won’t go over it all again. Please do read that post. It’s quite comprehensive if I say so myself. At the time I wrote:
"The way the media keeps emphasising “Israeli”. Compare this with the way the media collectively obscured the ethnicity of the ‘men’ involved in our homegrown grooming gang scandal. Notice the language - that they refer to the Israelis, whose ages, as reported, range from 15 to 20 - as ‘men’, yet the girl is described as a ‘teenager’ or a ’nineteen-year-old.’"
Now the case is back in the news because the verdict has been appealed and retrospectively overturned. The girl has been vindicated by the Cypriot court, and it looks as if the whole case is going to be reviewed and perhaps turned on its head.
Last night GB News’s Mark Steyn aired an impassioned interview with ex-police woman Maggie Oliver who is well known for her dogged pursuit of the police’s systematic cover-up of the ongoing grooming gang scandal. (Scroll to about 10:09)
Contrast this with Nana and Mercy’s interview with the human rights barrister Dr. Charlotte Proudman on GB News this morning (11:16 AM) featuring her “always believe the woman” approach to all allegations of rape, her very special subject. So the young lady in question is contemplating some sort of retrial, after which the “Israeli men” might go to prison. (Scroll to 11:16)
All I want to do here is to ask the good Dr. Proudman if she couldn’t possibly have squeezed in another couple of dozen mentions of the nationality of the “men.” It cannot be emphasised enough that they were Israelis and came from Israel, just in case the audience might have missed it the first, second, and third time their nationality was revealed. The audience could also have mistakenly assumed the alleged rapists were 'men' rather than teenagers and a 20-year-old.
The fact that the accused were both Israeli and men is something that can never be stated loudly and frequently enough, is it? Someone might get the wrong impression and we can’t have that, can we?
(I’m being sarky by the way.)
Post a Comment