For those unaware, despite the (awesome) sounding acronym, a COBRA is a meeting in the Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms.
They generally involve people at the top of the decision tree for the involved parties. The meetings for the foot-and-mouth outbreak for example brought in the highest levels of MAFF.
There’s a lot of simmering anger, resentment and frustration in many communities in this country. It’s been building for years. The stabbing of those poor girls at their dance class by the son of Rwandan immigrants seems to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
This isn’t just the EDL (an organisation which disbanded more than a decade ago), this is thousands of English people who are furious. We can try and understand the sources of that fury, and then begin the work to resolve it, or we’ll keep getting these sorts of horrid outbreaks of ugly violence.
We don’t know the details yet. But, if this stabber was a white kid, we’d all be talking about mental health. Non-white kids of immigrants can also have mental health issue. But the worse of the country jump straight to racism, blaming the culture of the immigrant. If this lad grew up here, he has been surrounded by our culture. If there is mental health issues, it’s our fault it wasn’t caught in time. If he went mental for cultural reasons, we can’t wash our hands of that either. If we want assimilation, we can’t other people.
According to the article he was sent the images by another man, he repeatedly asked the man not to send underage images, and he didn’t keep the images or forward them. He was charged with making indecent images of children and pleaded guilty. Does this mean that anyone who is sent such images can be legally guilty of this, even if they don’t request or want the images and delete them right away? Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images? Or are there other considerations that go into making such a charge?
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.
Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”
I suppose the facts that he a) retained some of the images, b) didn’t report having received them and c) continued talking to the man has some bearing on his charges.
unitedkingdom
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.