0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Go back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest.
My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:25:08 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:23:47 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:22:21 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:21:06 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:15:46 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder? Ask the fecking public.Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.I'm asking you As I haven't outcried anything, I'm the wrong person to ask!Exactly.
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:23:47 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:22:21 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:21:06 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:15:46 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder? Ask the fecking public.Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.I'm asking you As I haven't outcried anything, I'm the wrong person to ask!
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:22:21 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:21:06 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:15:46 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder? Ask the fecking public.Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.I'm asking you
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:21:06 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:15:46 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder? Ask the fecking public.Still waiting to hear what you'd fill the front page with btw.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:15:46 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.Yes, it had coverage. But a fraction of the everhard murder.Also why no public outcry on the scale of the everhard murder?
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile.
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press.
I'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:26:35 pmGo back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest. QuoteMy point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.QuoteIt's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:15:46 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:12:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:07:45 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:02:59 pmQuote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 08:54:36 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. It sounds like you think that no other news story should have been deemed more important than the report of the conviction of someone who committed a murder that happened six months ago.Sounds like your saying it doesn't matter, and not worth reporting because the murderer didn't fit the right profile. It should have been reported. And it was. Quite rightly.It's you that's got a pencil up their arse about the size of the coverage not being big enough for your liking, despite there being only one new piece of information to tell. Go on, then, tell us how you would have filled a front page with just a guilty verdict about an old story.It's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring.Just don't understand the difference between the cases, that warranted the marked difference in outcry and press coverage.Lack of press coverage? I've just put 'lorraine cox newspaper reports' into Google. You do the same and then tell us all how little coverage it's had.I’ve just done that with ‘Glyn Wigley’.You are a ‘Countdown’ dark horse, aren’t you, Glyn?
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 09:14:15 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website. I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?I said it wasn't the lead story on either website, or the BBC, and it wasn't.My point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.
Quote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 08:48:28 pmQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on April 01, 2021, 07:45:32 pmI'm not sure what sort of personal standards you need to have to, without any evidence, accuse someone of deliberately lying on an issue as horrific and heartbreaking as this, but there you go.See the attached.Nope, checked again. it's never been the leading story of either newspaper you claim? The point yet again the double standards of the press. I said it was the lead UK story in the Guardian. The very attachment I posted shows it as the lead story in the UK News section of The Guardian website. I said it was the lead story on the Independent webpage. It was but it had slipped down a few hours later when I took that screen grab.You said it wasn't on the front page of either the Independent or Guardian site. This two screen grabs in that attachment are of the front pages of the Guardian and Independent websites.Wilts said it was carried on the BBC News page. You contradicted him. But it was and still is on the main BBC News webpage.I'll ask again. What precisely are you trying to achieve here?
Quote from: Glyn_Wigley on April 01, 2021, 09:28:18 pmQuote from: Getridorit on April 01, 2021, 09:26:35 pmGo back and re read it old lad, I've not contradicted myself in the slightest. QuoteMy point is the huge difference in coverage, and more so, the outcry between the Cox and everhard murders.QuoteIt's more the press coverage and lack of outcry 6 months ago that I'm referring. Literally the same. Put your glasses on old boy
Quote from: Bentley Bullet on April 01, 2021, 07:08:52 pmOf course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not. Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.Not true.This case recieved very little attention, it only really came to the public eye in contrast to the Everard case which had attracted such a high level of attention. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/26/criminal-death-black-sisters-didnt-cause-public-outcry-sarah/
Of course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not. Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.
you didn't answer the question chummy
You may be out of your depth here chum. I work with Immigration enforcement daily. Just because we have immigration laws saying persons are liable to deportation, it does not means this happens. Deportation only occurs when the host nation, in this case Iraq, is happy to take back a resident AND that resident consents to deportation. I have never known an Iraqi consent to being deported. Ever. Once they flee what is considered to be a worn torn country they effectively give up,their natural rights as a citizen. To return as a deportee with consent would effectively sign their own death warrant as they are treated like national traitors. It’s the same for Iran, Syria Eritrea and other countries . So once they get to the uk, they are effectively safe . As a developed country with humans rights we don’t subscribe to sending people back to effectively be tortured and killed. We are stuck with them. Until such time as any uk govt writes off some very draconian rendition laws. It won’t happen. Trust me.
Normal. I have to disagree with one of your points - this thread can’t possibly have descended into a personal slagging match because if it had, then admin would have taken down the offensive posts really quickly.
Quote from: belton rover on April 02, 2021, 10:05:26 amNormal. I have to disagree with one of your points - this thread can’t possibly have descended into a personal slagging match because if it had, then admin would have taken down the offensive posts really quickly.Maybe admin have better things to do than keeping an eye on childish behaviour 24 hours a day over grown men that should know better
Quote from: River Don on April 01, 2021, 09:24:08 pmQuote from: Bentley Bullet on April 01, 2021, 07:08:52 pmOf course, all murderers should be treated with equal contempt, and their victims should be given the same amount of sympathy and support, but they're not. Had the Murderer in this case been a White man, and the victim a Black girl, social media would have been flooded with outrage far more than it is, and that includes this forum.It is as though some people are frightened to comment on this particular act of evil in fear of being called a racist.Not true.This case recieved very little attention, it only really came to the public eye in contrast to the Everard case which had attracted such a high level of attention. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/26/criminal-death-black-sisters-didnt-cause-public-outcry-sarah/What do you mean not true? Just because you search the web and find an example in the Telegraph that is contrary to what is a common attitude on social media these days, doesn't mean my post is not true! My post is, sadly, absolutely true!