Not terrorism specifically but a major sex-case in England was pc'd, police was just too scared to act. Afraid of pcQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Printable View
Not terrorism specifically but a major sex-case in England was pc'd, police was just too scared to act. Afraid of pcQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You are referring to Rochdale. There is a TV series on it (3 episodes) called Three Girls recently. I would recommend watching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
For those located in the UK, can access it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...es-1-episode-1
One of the bigger reported failings was apparently more to do with Victim Blaming (Poor, Council Dwelling, 'Scum of Society') than the PC-ing of accusations against the Pakistan-British perpetrators, though there might be elements of that too.
This isn't that case though. Nor is it operationally related. Or strategically. There have been other sex case cover ups too, involving the BBC entertainment wing among other institutions. But these institutions have largely been cleaned up, and I'm confident enough that further cases will be dealt with competently. So, what does your cited example have to do with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Same point, political correctnessQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Do you have any evidence that PC attitudes factor into this particular case?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Plenty in fact, CNN even staged a protest with figurantsQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
At least one of the two Barking ones was a second gen, coming to the UK as a kid after his parents claimed asylum from Pakistan (from what?). The Ireland one is a first gen, claiming asylum fro Morocco (from what?).
Probably from Islamist extremists....Life is irony writ large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But they didn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
CNN asked Police to transplant a select number of protesters away from the main protest to a secluded area where they set up their cameras - the actual protest happened and the people on camera were protesters - claiming CNN staged the protest is grossly misrepresenting what is a very common practice by News agencies (protests are often loud and not conducive to interviews/filming).
The only thing CNN did wrong was to not clearly state this is what they had done - and lets be honest here the press are all guilty of not disclosing stuff like that (Fox and the interview with that private detective a few weeks ago is a good example)
Sure, tney just suddenly apeared
sigh lets try this again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
They didn't just appear - they were part of an actual protest with a lot more protesters - there are plenty of still pictures of the full protest if you look.
CNN decided they didn't want to film at the protest location due to lighting and sound issues. They set up their cameras away from the protest and asked the Police to move a select group of the protesters (an Islamic Mothers group) to their location so they could be filmed. The group agreed to be moved and the Police obliged. This happens all the time with protests.
CNN's mistake was not making it clear they had moved the protesters which is a pretty big Ethics breach but isn't staging a protest by a long shot.
You will just have to excuse me for simply not buying it, As I don't
Muslims not seen protesting - “Why aren’t you guys denouncing terrorism?”
Muslims seen protesting - “Aha, a staged protest!”
Only Frag believes in the conspiracy theories necessary for the second line. And speaking from Dutchland, he's hardly well placed to speak for Brits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
It was staged, you will know that laterQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
So they weren't there to protest the London attack?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
no they were figurants
Ah, so they were faking outrage for the benefit of the press, and CNN exploited it for their own agenda?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Frags:
By definition, all protests are "staged" even if spontaneous. It is a form of public speech.
Staged does not automatically equate with insincere.
Again, strong and stable.
Looks like the protest wasn't real at all, we will hear later I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
for pete sake Frag you are always on at us to fact check...
http://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/
Your wrong - it was not fake - your sources are peddling their own propaganda which you are swallowing whole
At least in matters of Brexit he thinks he is. Now it is in matters of terrorism as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You must have missed the memo on snopes being a liberal propaganda rag that just spreads the globalist agenda like the failing New York Times. If you can't find the info on Fox News, InfoWars or Breitbart then your link is most likely useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
For consideration, maybe they meant really well and just didn't want anybody to get hurt. There is a line between reporting and being talking dolls though, you just can't be both and expect to be taken serious
CNN failed
Frags gets all his info from a few select blogs and social media. Diversifying is a danger to his bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Not my fault they are more riable than official mediaQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
except when they are easily proven wrong... like now... :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Of course they can be wrong, but blogs are independant. You know it can be wrong. But msm has lost it's credibility to being taking for granted, I simply don't trust them. This CNN-item reeks more than a littleQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Quite telling as well, that the usual suspects have not opened a new thread about the Tehran terror attacks yet.
Time to insert a nice link: http://theantimedia.org/us-reaction-isis-attack-iran/
Quote:
Conversely, when a terrorist attack rocked London this week, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May swiftly pushed us to believe that the cause of that terrorist attack – and the previous one in Manchester — had nothing to do with British foreign policy, but instead, was rooted in a deep, evil ideology that hates us for who we are. Apparently, ISIS hates us for our “values” and our “democracy”; and Western foreign policy shares no role in creating the conditions for these brutal attacks to occur.
How long can this narrative realistically hold now that we see that the Islamic Republic of Iran is also the victim of ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks? Does ISIS also hate Iran for its “values?” Iran’s “freedom?” Iran’s “democracy?”
[...]
There’s a reason why Donald Trump’s popularity surged last year when he claimed that, if elected, he would focus more on America and less on expensive and costly wars in the Middle East. There’s a reason, too, why England’s Jeremy Corbyn is surging in popularity — he is the only one speaking the truth about the root causes of terrorism and the proper way to address it.
[...]
Comparatively, in the most recent terrorist attacks in the U.K., the attackers have vocalized a clear link between British foreign policy and their decision to launch an attack on British soil, as has all too often been the case in the past.