Surely the media should not be covering or reporting the words of the admitted killers of this man? What benefit is there (other than the obvious - it's a good story)? It can only provoke other loonies to admire and follow him. This is what's wrong with the media. Who cares about phone tapping or paparazzi? No self discipline; printing this good story will probably lead to another murder by another loony.

The continual coverage of 9/11 (which as Noam Chomsky continues to point out was a shocking and terrible event but is dwarfed by the carnage the US has visited elsewhere) enabled Bush /Blair to kill innumerable Afghanis & Iraqis who had never harmed us.

Not sure how your self-censorship would work JK. The real problem is our media has become totally irresponsible. The hacking scandal is both a symptom and example.

we are doomed as a race. I think.

Do you believe in the New World Order Hedda ?

andrew wrote:
Do you believe in the New World Order Hedda ?

the NWO began with Reaganism / Thatcherism.. a new style of corporate fascism that is destined to eventually fail but could bankrupt the world (2007 merely a prelude)

the evidence is there- in the USA corporations are treated as 'people'. Eisenhower warned against it.

the bastards like David Icke and Co stuff up any understanding of the new power structure (corporations) with their insane Illuminati / Jewish / Pedo Rings crap.

that of course is his job. ( Unknown by most is that Icke himself was busted in the US in an FBI sting.)

don't take my word for it- 2 US billionaires, lefty George Soros and right wing Warren Buffett continually warn about the rampant capitalism/fascism that could easily implode.

China sits waiting patiently.

Although I agree with JK that the media reporting is offensive to most of us, we cannot allow media censorship, and everyone should have the right to express their views in the correct forum.
Today's reporting from the Court does give Michael Adebolajo's view that he acted as a soldier, and was participating in a war. Some will agree with this view, many like myself will not, but his view does indeed give some understanding to his actions.
Although very different circumstances, the same view is being given by supporters of Sgt Alexander Wayne Blackman who claim that his murder of the Taliban captive in Afghanistan was OK because it was war. It wasn't, and he deserves his sentenced.

And where's Richard Dawkins and his band of brave atheists? If there's a kindly little country vicar they're right there mocking him for his delusions, but when an Islamist talks of killing people for their imaginary ruler this bunch of debunkers seem to have gone on their holidays.

Locked Out wrote:
There are times - and I utterly loathe admitting this - when I agree 100 percent with ITK's points. This is one of those rare occurrences, and I refer to his comments on the other thread. We exported the whirlwind of our foreign policy. We shouldn't cry when we reap the bitter results. We've bombed countless weddings, targeted - whether by accident or design - civilians with reckless abandon. And we have redesigned our language in order to turn "resistance" into "insurgency" and "Mujaheddin" into "Taliban".]
And if Hitler had ever invaded this country we'd perhaps not view "improvised explosive devices" as such a heinous concept {of course, being British, we were honest enough to call them "landmines", even though we were just as unconcerned about who actually trod on them as anyone intent on maiming people as anyone else who's ever viewed blowing people apart as being a good thing as anyone ever has been. And, apparently, there is enough support in the upper echelons of the army for shooting prisoners for them to utter cries of "clemency" in the case of the only British soldier {so far} to have been convicted of this clear and barbaric breach of international convention.
Rigby was clearly killed by someone who cares as little for human life on British streets as we do about human life on Afghan or Iraqi streets. Or countless others, as history shows.

I am not alone (but I never really thought I was)

I'm for the initial post...........but that's what sets us apart from villainy.......we offer a full trial with the right to defend yourself....which is what is being reported.

Problem is, this trial, if you equate it to the historical abuse trials being discussed here, will suffer all the same accusations and reasoning about fair trial, evidence, the system, prosecution by media etc......

They are innocent until proven guilty, they have admitted murder minutes after the event, but deny murder?

That's the system

Yes; the jury should hear it but nobody outside should hear a word of the justification.

...and that also goes against the perceived system of 'fair trial'? ......although I guess NI trials and certain terrorist trials have been behind closed doors or restricted reporting, so that's possible.

I just wonder if the best system for this is to let right minded people hear the defence for themselves and let us trust that it actually doesn't sound plausible or right.......I'm not sure radicalisation can be brought about by open discussion, it's more driven by closed doors and secrecy and grooming. This reporting , I'm hoping won't be supported in 'the community'.......let's trust them?

but that goes against the idea of open courts.

the real problem...and JK is surely knows this...is selective reporting on a case by the media that skewers what is heard.

Yes - it's the media reporting which offends me but I don't see why "open courts" need to hear everything (my defence was ignored - for the very good reason that it was boring... "I didn't do it"). As long as the jury hear it (not that I have any faith in juries), justice is considered observed. Whether Mrs Brown in Cornwall reads it is neither here nor there (except in Cornwall).