Neither did you. Where’s your evidence?
Grooming gangs
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
Soldato
Only lawyers need evidence.
Real men pull the trigger first, and ask questions later.
Caporegime
Evidence of what? They've been sentenced lol.
That’s a deft moving if the goal posts. Your were whinging about the BBC not providing any info on their most clicked/ viewed news stories to back up your vacuous claim that the the BBC was hiding stories. Yet you provide no evidence for this claim and state yourself that the BBC doesn’t provide any data. So really, you’re making things up aren’t you?
Caporegime
You want me to provide evidence of something that's not there? Are you ok? Lol
Tell you what, since you dispute it, show me the stats of bbc news articles by clicks on a daily basis.
Commissario
Well apart from the fact that they do have a "most viewed" section, and that it wouldn't exactly be a news website if they kept the same stories on the "front page" for a week.
Almost all news websites work in a similar way, because oddly enough people are looking for news on a daily basis, and one of the things about both broadcast news and the internet is that you can change the news order slightly more often than once a day at 10pm as you turn on the printing presses, and people tend to complain if you don't actually put update content on regularly.
Weird take, I've not seen anyone recently in this thread try to deflect from what happened to the children.
And there is nothing questionable about a news website putting an article that was reported the day before off the front page, as in case you missed it the sentencing was done on Friday (or even Thursday given the article was dated Friday) and people are complaining it wasn't on the front page of the website on Saturday, seemingly with no understanding or comprehension of why something that isn't "new" might get pushed back to make way for something else after a day or even less.
The BBC has space for about 7 items in the "headline" spot of it's news front page, at the moment the main one is about the early release of a prisoner charged with sexual assault, a triple murder in Luton, ADHD, Huw Edwards, a possible ban on England taking part in the Euro's if regulations change, something about Starmer, then below that are another 4 items without pictures, then it separates into various other bits.
Basically the News Front page is a limited set of current news items and links to the the narrower and more targeted news sections such as specific regions or subjects.
So an article about the sentencing of scum bags isn't likely to stay on the front page of the news section for long when for example there is a triple murder that happened and is being updated, or various other items where there is new information coming out. It's not being "hidden", it's not some conspiracy, it's that it's aged off the front page as it's the end of that court case, not an ongoing investigation or an on going case where it'll be pushed back to the top as it gets updated.
You can actually see it's rough relative position on the South Yorkshire page, where it looks like it's being pushed back by newer stories, which if you look at the ones posted in the last day you'll note they have things like "posted 10 hours ago" then the next one along might be "posted 12 hours ago", then "posted 1 day ago".
Last edited:
Caporegime
Well apart from the fact that they do have a "most viewed" section, and that it wouldn't exactly be a news website if they kept the same stories on the "front page" for a week.
Almost all news websites work in a similar way, because oddly enough people are looking for news on a daily basis, and one of the things about both broadcast news and the internet is that you can change the news order slightly more often than once a day at 10pm as you turn on the printing presses, and people tend to complain if you don't actually put update content on regularly.
Weird take, I've not seen anyone recently in this thread try to deflect from what happened to the children.
And there is nothing questionable about a news website putting an article that was reported the day before off the front page, as in case you missed it the sentencing was done on Friday (or even Thursday given the article was dated Friday) and people are complaining it wasn't on the front page of the website on Saturday, seemingly with no understanding or comprehension of why something that isn't "new" might get pushed back to make way for something else after a day or even less.
The BBC has space for about 7 items in the "headline" spot of it's news front page, at the moment the main one is about the early release of a prisoner charged with sexual assault, a triple murder in Luton, ADHD, Huw Edwards, a possible ban on England taking part in the Euro's if regulations change, something about Starmer, then below that are another 4 items without pictures, then it separates into various other bits.
Basically the News Front page is a limited set of current news items and links to the the narrower and more targeted news sections such as specific regions or subjects.
So an article about the sentencing of scum bags isn't likely to stay on the front page of the news section for long when for example there is a triple murder that happened and is being updated, or various other items where there is new information coming out. It's not being "hidden", it's not some conspiracy, it's that it's aged off the front page as it's the end of that court case, not an ongoing investigation or an on going case where it'll be pushed back to the top as it gets updated.
You can actually see it's rough relative position on the South Yorkshire page, where it looks like it's being pushed back by newer stories, which if you look at the ones posted in the last day you'll note they have things like "posted 10 hours ago" then the next one along might be "posted 12 hours ago", then "posted 1 day ago".
Yet even this website shows how many times a thread has been viewed...
Caporegime
Sentencing isn't news, yet they've run constant articles showing the sentences received by rioters?
it’s you that’s making an unsubstantiated claim not me. You’re the one saying the BBC buried the story and facetiously said that no one was reading another story about a ballerina. How did you come to that conclusion? Where are the facts to back up this claim? If you’re unable to provide the facts then either retract your statement or admit it was just opinionated nonsense.
Caporegime
How is it unsubstantiated when the ballerina story is page 1 and the other is a sub heading on the regional page? I can't help it if you're unable to see that on the BBC website.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,475
Man jailed 21 years on from raping 14-year-old girl in alley - after victim came forward to Rotherham sex abuse probe
Waleed Ali was previously convicted of raping and indecently assaulting another girl, 13, in the same alleyway in early 2003.news.sky.com
people still coming forward and getting results
Is this conviction a little concerning? I mean he probably did it. But he was only convicted on witness testimony and corroborating evidence. I wonder how strong the latter was.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
Yes, should be life or ideally death.
Soldato
Commissario
Sentencing is a one off news item per conviction...
The reason they've run "constant articles" in regards to the rioters is because there has been something like 1 or 2 convictions and sentences a day since the riots, meanwhile they've also reported from what I can tell the results of every court case involving the grooming gangs, the difference is the rioters cases are simple and in many cases very clear cut with guilty please and as such are basically running through the courts in days, whilst almost any rape case is much more complex and time consuming let along multiple linked cases involving multiple people and each of those cases can take weeks or months in court and massive amounts of preparation work.
It's almost like the BBC are reporting the convictions as they happen and the difference is the speed at which the cases are being reported is down to the speed at which the courts run.
Yes, and if I wanted I could turn it off in about 30 seconds for users. There are a load of other bits of information on the forums that aren't visible to the end users...
I'm not sure quite why this is something people are fixating on, I don't think I've seen a "view counter" on any major news site, however on the bbc news twitter feed the twitter views suggest that the tweet about the ballerina got nearly twice the views as the tweet about the sentencing in this case, which if that corresponds to how many people then clicked through gives an idea (I can't be bothered to log into facebook to check as I loathe the interface and find it actively hard to use for anything over a day old).
It's dwell time that's important for web-sites like BBC/newspapers did people read/scroll the article&others,
the guardian always arrogantly says how many articles I have read (in their opinion), if I read 50% I visited I'd have many regretted minutes.
For the televised judge ruling on rioters, has that been carried to grooming gangs - it should be,
not sure why televising the criminal receiving the ruling is not permitted, too, activity is already making a spectacle of the court like medieval attendance at corporal punishment,
and like question time in HofP not convinced judges behaviour/manner are unchanged.
the guardian always arrogantly says how many articles I have read (in their opinion), if I read 50% I visited I'd have many regretted minutes.
For the televised judge ruling on rioters, has that been carried to grooming gangs - it should be,
not sure why televising the criminal receiving the ruling is not permitted, too, activity is already making a spectacle of the court like medieval attendance at corporal punishment,
and like question time in HofP not convinced judges behaviour/manner are unchanged.
Soldato
Isn't Starmer trying to introduce a "Islamaphobia" bill which would make it illegal to disparage Islam or anyone who follows the religion.
For me, religion should NEVER have become a protected category, it shouldn't have become part of the Equalities act.
Equalities act & protected categories should only be for immutable characteristics. Religion is a CHOICE, it CAN be changed.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,475
You're confusing sentencing with conviction. My concern was that a conviction based on only witness testimony and corroborating evidence. I'm curious what the latter was. I do definitely think he did it, but I worry about the precedent it sets for others who maybe innocent
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,475
From my understanding most court cases and sentences are not filmed. The court and authorities have a duty of care to the defendant whether innocent or guilty. They aim to protect them from vigilante justice. This is why the Jamie Bulger killers had an awful lot of public money having their identities changed.
The rioting were an exception to the rule, to stop the immediate threat of rioting. And before anyone mentions 2 tier policing, note that the Bradford riots with ethnic minority rioters also got publically sentenced with long prison sentences. It's designed to send out a message and it works. Bradford had numerous riots before the large sentences were handed out circa 2001 and they never happened again after that as far as I know
Caporegime
Why not film to stop the immediate threat of rape? Or burglary? Or knife crime?