12 1 min 10 yrs

Did you know this was going on?

Forty seven (alleged) muslim paedophiles are currently standing trial for grooming, drugging and raping young British girls. Some who have attended the trial report the alleged victims are aged no older than 16 and some are as young as 10. It’s an unusual link but the corporate media has put a silence on it.

Someone doesn’t want you to know of the alleged horrors which have been happening across the north of England.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

12 thoughts on “47 (ALLEGED) MUSLIM PAEDOPHILES ON TRIAL IN LIVERPOOL

  1. Yes thats a link that is definitely unusual. Certainly seems to be something odd going on. MSM conspiracy? Could be.

    Worth keeping an eye on this story.

  2. “It’s an unusual link ”

    Why didn’t you link directly to the BNP sites rather than that strange google link?

  3. FO –

    So readers can take their pick. The BNP site is not alone in commenting on the story.

  4. The reason it’s been suppressed is due (so they say) to the men getting a fair trial and avoiding an appeal due to the media frenzy if this becomes national. A fair few patriot groups (EDL/BNP/Casuals/BFP) have held protests there and are aware of the process.
    A Casuals demo has been approved by the police in principle on the day of sentencing assuming the men are found guilty.

  5. They are vile and it does suggest a certain sickness within parts of the British-Pakistani community- a combination of extreme racism and misogyny.

    That said I don’t think the non-reporting is down to “the corporate media” covering it up, the case will explode if the verdict comes in as guilty.

    I know someone who works within the court service and so was aware of the Derby one that was going on last year way before the verdict. In that casethe number of alleged in that one meant that they were unable to report the case until after several trials had been conducted (which is itself an ordeal for the victim but that’s a separate issue).

  6. Ross –

    How many cases (apart from those in front of the secretive family courts) are not reported?

    A few of the links suggest that the police has asked the media not to report on the case for ‘community cohesion’ reasons. I suspect editors and journalists have had the thumscrews applied. If not, we’re supposed to believe that the type of person who’d hack Milly Dowler’s phone in a heartbeat is suddenly concerned to avoid strife over this.

    Quiet_Man suggests that the apparent reason is to avoid a media frenzy. So the police are happy arrest Harry Redknapp when accompanied by a prepped media crew, they’re happy to raid suspected drug dealer homes with BBC cameras in tow, but all of a sudden avoiding a media frenzy is the order of the day when a huge number of apparent muslim paedophiles are in the dock?

    It’s bullshit. It’s writing the rules as they go along to please political masters.

  7. It is indeed extraordinary to see the complete lack of coverage by either TV or national newspapers of a story which, in any other context than the Muslim area would have six-inch deep headlines on all editions of every newspaper, along with every TV news programme throughout the land.

    As for the so-called ‘community cohesion’ idea, of keeping the court case under wraps, I would refer the reader to the Bristol murder and the disgraceful headlines surrounding a totally-innocent neighbour, because he was an ‘oddball’. I will be looking forward to the huge coverage of all the defendants once the case is concluded, if the reports are correct and the trial is under ‘restrictions’.

    Looking at the whole saga from a disinterested viewpoint, I would reckon that the CPS have placed considerable pressure on both TV and newspapers not to repoert the very presence of such a case, because ‘it might soon blow over’. If that was the premise, whoever thought that the EDL and BNP would stay away from what is an open goal should be demoted to cleaner!

  8. Reporting restrictions are in place for very obvious reasons – and nothing to do with race and everything to do with prejudicing trials and being in contempt.
    Once verdicts on all 47 have been reached then restrictions will be lifted.
    For very obvious reasons (and nothing to do with mythical conspiracies or thumbscrews) you can’t report on linked cases until all have been heard.

  9. Geoff Watts –

    Yet we had daily updates from the Harry Redknapp trial. Some trials are even live-tweeted now. Why can most other trials not be prejudiced if reported on?

    Come on. Look, this isn’t even aboutr race, particularly. What this is about is the ruling class attempting to hide the undeniable and deliberate catastrophe of mass immigration, by alien savages, inflicted on the British people. They’re damned right to be scared. If the mass media reported daily from this trial the BNP wouldn’t be able to process the membership forms quick enough.

    That’s what it’s about.

  10. Because his trial wasn’t linked. You can report on most trials, but if trials are linked you can’t report until they are all over for fear of prejudicing the other trials.

    It isn’t a conspiracy so calm down.

  11. Pete

    If the authorities wanted to conspire to prevent news being reported on these events purely for ‘race relations’ and political convenience reasons wouldn’t it simply be easier not to have prosecuted the men in the first place ?

Comments are closed.