Lorraine Cox Murder.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

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.

Yes. Exactly why I said you should ask the public.

[Getridorit]

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.

Literally the same. Put your glasses on old boy

[drfchound]

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.

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?

I just did that too Belton.
On the table it shows, what does a type P indicate?
Just asking.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

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.

You used a capitalised DISINFORMATION footer in your response to an entirely correct post that I had made.

That is reprehensible behaviour on any topic, but wrongly implying that someone who you disagree with is deliberately lying on a topic like this is simply disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

Literally the same. Put your glasses on old boy

How can they be the same when Everard wasn't murdered six months ago? You started off whinging about the conviction not getting as much coverage today as Everard did, and then when I pointed out there was very little new to report today it suddenly became about the press coverage six months ago. Then when BST came back, it was all about today's reportage again. The same, eh?

[Bentley Bullet]

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.

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!

[SydneyRover]

It's hardly suprising that the murder of a woman or anyone for that matter cannot hold the front page for any length of time when around 4 women are murdered each week.

[normal rules]

I’m going to refresh my thoughts on this. Firstly I’m slightly saddened that this post has degenerated into a personal slagging match between some of the more high profile users of this forum. There seems to be a pattern forming in this regard. Is it just banter or something more sinister. The former i hope.

This murder from 1 sep last year in Devon  I initially commented on was truly horrific. It would have been highly reported last year in the South West, i have no doubt. I have heard nothing of it until today though and i generally keep up to date with such things. It’s my job.

So when I read the headlines about this today I was shocked. I was taken aback at the absolute horrific nature of her death and dismemberment and disposal. Then I was angry. All the recent media and public outcry over murder in London and close to home in Hull and yet this particular murder has gone nationally un noticed. And I’m not talking about now upon conviction, I’m talking about 6 months ago when it was committed. I want to know why. It has been eluded to already. The offender victim relationship perhaps does not fit with the political narrative that the media are currently subscribing to. Illegal immigrant of colour kills white indigenous female and then cuts her body up before dumping it in a Nearby alleyway and woods. This did not make the national news At the time . This did not attract widespread protest 6 months ago about foreign national murderers being in this country illegally. This murder could and should have been avoided.

And before anyone suggests that this murder went to trial and as such things would have been kept out of the public domain so as not to frustrate justice, ask yourself how the current kidnap and murder involving The copper has unfolded?

And I speak as a person who has been involved in murder enquiries for some years. Many women are sadly murdered every year in this country. The vast majority are domestic murders with partner suspects. Up and down cases with little or no aggravating circumstances. The fact that this was an illegal entrant, the fact she was cut up I. The manner she was and disposed of . This is a high profile murder that should have had the highest profile media and public attention. It wasn’t. And for that I am shocked, saddened angry and disgusted.
I’m unsure who to blame. The govt? The media? The justice system? Or maybe this is just an endemic issue we now find ourselves in as a society. Due to political correctness and the fear of speaking out. I just down know. All I know is I am very pissed about it.

Lastly, this maggot will go to prison at our expense, and at some point he will be let out and no doubt given a different identity. Housed in a bland estate miles away from Exeter, given a meaningless job and a pair of new trainers. His life will go on. He will never be deported.
He is not the first, he won’t be the last. And I talk from experience.

[SydneyRover]

Maybe plug-in 'September 2020 and Lorriane Cox murdered' to google and see what comes up NR.

[normal rules]

Sydneyrover, Sarah Everard is a household name .

Lorraine Cox wasn’t until recently.  The fact that you have had to google her name to see if it was reported confirms this to me. With the greatest respect, did you have any knowledge of this case until recently?

This may have been publicised At the time. But there was no huge public outpouring of grief and anger and protest as a result of her murder at the time.

Im afraid google threads do not translate to public feeling or widespread national knowledge.

[SydneyRover]

''This murder from 1 sep last year in Devon  I initially commented on was truly horrific. It would have been highly reported last year in the South West, i have no doubt. I have heard nothing of it until today though and i generally keep up to date with such things. It’s my job''

If the general public don't click then the story gets shunted down the page, it goes for all news and is a problem created by google and other online behemoths taking most of the revenue thereby forcing news outlets to generate revenue by clickbait.

I just counted at least 6 national outlets reporting on it in 09/2020

[SydneyRover]

by the way I'm not saying this is right/correct but just how it is.

[normal rules]

And to put some very basic numbers to this. If you google Lorraine cox murder, it comes back with 1.5 million thread hits. If you google Sarah Everard it comes back with over 4 times this amount. Why?
A police officer (and I use this term loosely) and uk resident  committing a kidnap and murder of a woman attracts more social recognition and interest in this country than an illegal immigrant who  should not even be here and as such was an avoidable murder.
Both cases are tragic. One could and should have been prevented.
Sarah Everard was murdered.
Lorraine Cox was murdered and failed by our Home Office.

[SydneyRover]

Does a failed asylum seeker = an illegal immigrant?

Akim Mangori ''failed asylum seeker liable liable to deportation''

''Deportation is a statutory power given to the Home Secretary. Under section 3(5) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person who is not a British citizen (referred to here as 'a foreign national') is liable to be deported from the UK if the Home Secretary deems it to be 'conducive to the public good'.''

[normal rules]

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.

[SydneyRover]

you didn't answer the question chummy

[Glyn_Wigley]

https://awhsolicitors.co.uk/articles/immigration/uk-deportation-rules/

[normal rules]

you didn't answer the question chummy

To apply for asylum means he must have crossed the threshold with immigration as an illegal. This could mean he was either a clandestine entrant or he came here initially legally but overstayed his welcome or broke rules such as working or being deceitful.

Either way, to be an applicant for asylum means he has a status where he is an illegal immigrant. He either came here illegally, or by virtue of his conduct once here he has become illegal.

[SydneyRover]

You are calling him an ''illegal immigrant'' is that accurate? he may be or not which is why I asked.

Here's a simpler definition

''Illegal immigrants in the UK include those who have:

entered the UK without authority
entered with false documents
overstayed their visas
worked or studied on a tourist visa/ non-immigrant visa waiver
entered into forced or fraudulent marriage[8][9][10]
had their marriages terminated or annulled''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=The%20most%20significant%20change%20in,ranging%20between%2044%2C000%20and%20144%2C000.

[belton rover]

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.

[wilts rover]

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.

Well they were deported and repatriated under Labour - must be the soft on crime Tories

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11816974

[Filo]

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.

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

[belton rover]

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.

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

I’d like to think so too. But a clamp down is a clamp down.

[River Don]

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.

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!

I didn't have to search very far it was only on the TV news the other day.

Black families were making the point that the murder of black women generally goes unnoticed by the media in this country and they contrasted the  response to this case with the Everard case.

It's ironic you're saying it would be higher profile whilst at the same time there is a group bringing to attention the reality that the media  generally don't pay much attention to the murder of black people.

[Bentley Bullet]

Do you HONESTLY think if a Black woman had been murdered by a White policeman the media reaction would have been less than it was in the Everard case? If you do you are kidding yourself. The reaction would have been much, MUCH more if that was the case.

[River Don]

That's just your personal opinion BB,

I do think the Everard thing was for some reason a particularly high profile case. Possibly because he happened to be a policeman but I don't see why that was particularly significant when he's gone criminally insane.

I also I think it was because she was a middle class lady with friends and family who were organised and were able to kick up a massive fuss.

Murders these days genereally don't get as much attention as they used to, this one was unusual.

[Bentley Bullet]

Of course it is my opinion, and it is an easy opinion to have simply because it is absolutely true. Probably that is why you didn't answer the question.

Of course the Everard case received so much media attention because it was a policeman that did it.

Of course she got more media attention because she was middle class, probably for the same reason why the McCann's got more media attention than the Needham's when their child went missing.

Of course murders these days generally don't get as much attention as they used to. These days they generally only get media attention if they suit a particular agenda.

[River Don]

To answer your question BB yes, I honestly think there would have been less attention. I'm not saying it wouldn't have been headline news but I don't think it would've been the top story.

Because there would not have been the same sense of outrage, generated by friends and family.

[Bentley Bullet]

Ok, then all I can say is I absolutely and completely disagree with you. I think you are unequivocally wrong.