Posted on 10/28/2019 3:37:25 AM PDT by Cronos
Umar Zaman, 31, and Samuel Fikru, 32, have both been found guilty of two counts of rape.
Four other men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were found guilty of 12 sexual offences including rape, rape of a child under 13, arranging the commission of a child sex offence and trafficking.
They will be sentenced on November 1.
The conclusion of the trial at Leeds Crown Court today, is part of Operation Tendersea - a series of linked trials, all relating to the same police investigation into the systematic sexual exploitation of young and vulnerable girls in the Huddersfield area between 2004 and 2010.
...Michael Quinn from the CPS said: “This case involved the cynical exploitation of a number of young girls by a group of predatory men in the Huddersfield area.
“These men deliberately targeted vulnerable children. The men cynically groomed and exploited children for their own sexual gratification, drawing them into a dark and sordid world in which they had little or no control over their lives.
“Sometimes the abusers used threats and violence to achieve their objective, sometimes plying the girls with alcohol or drugs. The victims were unable to make truly free or informed choices about anything they did with these men.
“Throughout, the men cared only for themselves and viewed the girls as objects to be used and abused at will.
(Excerpt) Read more at yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk ...
Interesting phrase “can’t be named for legal reasons”. As in “worked for intel and name redacted”? Is that why it was allowed to go on for so long? Jeffrey Epstein’s cousin (spiritually)?
Under British law, this Judge is guilty of Islamophobia.
That’s correct, so I am wondering why the guy is doing it? 😁👍
“Four other men, who cannot be named for legal reasons,”
Not a problem at all, I can guess the first name of at least three of them with near 100% accuracy...
Pedophiles of the world unite!
>>Four other men, who cannot be named for legal reasons, were found guilty of 12 sexual offences including rape, rape of a child under 13, arranging the commission of a child sex offence and trafficking.
Name them all. They broke the law and have been convicted.
Muhammed Al Dirka?
Just following the ways of Mohammad, lowly kufir!
their names were Umar Zaman, 31, with Banaris Hussain, 36, and Samuel Ujris.
Yup
Usually for one of two reasons. Either they're under age, or they're facing further trials for related offences, which could be prejudiced if names are revealed now. In this case almost certainly the latter. (In fact that was exactly the basis of Robinson's contempt of court conviction, since he published names at an earlier trial in this same Huddersfield series).
Probably more likely they’re also involved in another gang rape. They all have “reporting restrictions” during trial.
It’s all part of hiding from the public the true scale of what is going on...heaven forbid the public be able to be aware.
The systematic rape of English girls by Islamic rape gangs cannot be exposed. It would hurt “community cohesion”. They claim it “protects the integrity of the trial”. BS. Secret courts. Gag orders on arrests. This is KGB-like.
No, it's standard practice in the UK, which has stronger rules than the US on contempt of court and prejudicing court proceedings. And contrary to the widespread myth here, these trials have been comprehensively reported in the British media - in fact it was British media reports and investigations which first brought them to the attention of FR.
I’m from the UK. I keep close tabs on what is going on there via many friends and family. Their “contempt of court” restrictions are a joke. Ask the average Brit “how many rape gang trials are going on RIGHT NOW?”. They have no idea. So called “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws are subjectively applied. The media only reported on the topic once they had NO CHOICE because it was becoming obvious. They’re still complicit in keeping the scale of the problem quiet.
Sorry, you’ve bought the “big lie” about “prejudicing future trials”. It’s a bunch of BS to hide the problem. In the US we can’t use “convicted of a similar prior crime” as evidence of guilt in a current case.
Tommy Robinson wasn’t found guilty of revealing “unknown names” and “prejudicing a trial” - he read the names of people reported by the BBC, that was his source. It was public domain information, which the “reporting restrictions” allow for. His “contempt of court” conviction was based on newly made-up reasons that NOBODY has ever done prison time for. 1 - He might have “caused anxiety” of defendants walking into court by asking them a question about “how they felt about their verdict” (which had already been determined, why were they still on the streets?). 2 - He called for vigilantes to “find where they live and work” - based on his video, which said no such thing. That the court LIED about the evidence in hand was disgusting - he was talking about how the MEDIA will find Tommy supporters and harass them, asking why they don’t do the same to these rapists. It was quite clear. 3 - They CHANGED the rules around reporting what was already in the public domain. They basically said, “we’re adding some ‘buts’ to the current guidelines” and convicted him retroactively. When he was arrested they also put a GAG ORDER on his arrest. The UK media weren’t even allowed to report on it! They only caved because of the international attention - considering he was arrested during a LIVE STREAM.
You seem to believe the BS reasons the UK authorities give for these rules. This isn’t about “a nuanced means of maintaining trial integrity” - this is about hiding the scale of the problem and maintaining “public cohesion”. You live in a “collectivist” culture. One where the “best interests of the collective” is considered to be more important than the rights of the individual - all decided by those up high. Here in the USA we believe that the rights of the individual are in the best interests of the collective - but individual rights come FIRST.
The UK is a police state. Free speech is gone. Speech laws that can be interpreted subjectively and applied selectively to intimidate and silence those the state doesn’t like.
I suggest you read the full transcript of the High Court judgement which upheld the conviction. This is nothing to do with ‘the authorities’. Government has no power over the courts. The government is accountable to the courts, not the other way round. There is no conspiracy of silence. It was traditional investigative reporting by the BBC which first exposed the disgraceful original Rotherham cover-up. Much has changed since then.
Who told you that? The BBC?? You’re being incredibly naive. I heard Mr. Robinson talk about the grooming gangs over a decade ago. He was also released on appeal as his arrest and imprisonment last year was found to be “flawed” - only to have the new charges, as I described, applied - where NOBODY ELSE has ever gone to prison for.
Please don’t tell me you still listen to the BBC! They’re just a propaganda arm of the State - which is selling out working class people. That you believe in some holy separation between the State and the courts and don’t see the changes in law, and to whom they’re applied, tells me you’ve become distant to the reality of what is going on over there.
FACT: I knew about the grooming gang problem YEARS before Rotherham being covered by the BBC. You’ve been lied to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.