You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread
March 29 2024 3.40pm

Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 208 of 470 < 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 >

 

View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 17 Jan 20 12.31am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The most recent misrepresentation, and there have been several, this one being quite mild, was:-

"Indeed, he's on record on the site for defending the Police's actions in keeping this quiet.....amongst other institution defending statements on this issue....Essentially, because he wasn't there, he feels he can't comment. Even though it doesn't cause him much issue with anything else.

He even stated he'd heard about something about this 20 years ago."

It wasn't because "I wasn't there". It was because none of us were there, or party to all the information.

What I think you will actually find I said, if not directly in the post but in the follow ups, was that as no-one here knows what restrictions and instructions the Police or Authorities were working to we should not rush to judgement. What we don't know is if there was some wider overall strategic plan which demanded a softly softly approach. I also encouraged everyone to support our Police and to report anything they know to them. I also sympathised with them for trying to do a difficult job with reduced resources as a consequence of austerity. I have though always said that any criminal, from whatever background, should be pursued and prosecuted without fear or favour. If subsequent investigations have found shortcomings which suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, things could have been managed better then that's all for the good. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. This was all in the context of "Robinson" injecting himself onto the scene and being hailed as a folk hero for doing so. My remarks were primarily as the counter argument to that idea. I was indeed aware of a similar problem many years ago and know that the Police were also aware and dealing with it then. From what little I heard back then this was not simply in bringing the guilty to justice but in working together with social services and community leaders.

To be fair you also said there would be an enquiry and we should be patient and reserve judgment until it was made public. That would be now would it?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jan 20 12.38am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Next time the reader hears about a court case where a foreign grooming gang from a 'protected' group has raped vulnerable girls....I want you to remember this post.

It will remind you of how actions that led to the continuance of rapes over many years can be defended via a combination of excuses.

This is how certain sections of the socially liberal middle class treat the children of the working class.

They wouldn't talk this expediency for their own.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2020 2.31am)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View cryrst's Profile cryrst Flag The garden of England 17 Jan 20 6.03am Send a Private Message to cryrst Add cryrst as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

The most recent misrepresentation, and there have been several, this one being quite mild, was:-

"Indeed, he's on record on the site for defending the Police's actions in keeping this quiet.....amongst other institution defending statements on this issue....Essentially, because he wasn't there, he feels he can't comment. Even though it doesn't cause him much issue with anything else.

He even stated he'd heard about something about this 20 years ago."

It wasn't because "I wasn't there". It was because none of us were there, or party to all the information.

What I think you will actually find I said, if not directly in the post but in the follow ups, was that as no-one here knows what restrictions and instructions the Police or Authorities were working to we should not rush to judgement. What we don't know is if there was some wider overall strategic plan which demanded a softly softly approach. I also encouraged everyone to support our Police and to report anything they know to them. I also sympathised with them for trying to do a difficult job with reduced resources as a consequence of austerity. I have though always said that any criminal, from whatever background, should be pursued and prosecuted without fear or favour. If subsequent investigations have found shortcomings which suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, things could have been managed better then that's all for the good. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. This was all in the context of "Robinson" injecting himself onto the scene and being hailed as a folk hero for doing so. My remarks were primarily as the counter argument to that idea. I was indeed aware of a similar problem many years ago and know that the Police were also aware and dealing with it then. From what little I heard back then this was not simply in bringing the guilty to justice but in working together with social services and community leaders.

In 2004-5 there wasnt austerity as blair was in charge throwing money around like he had an orchard of these trees we hear so much about.
Austerity started in 2010 when the tories won the election (or did they win, I mean they got more votes but did they win?)
That's a matter of opinion I guess!
Anyhow the first reports to the police were back then. How was there a lack of manpower?
It was a lack of guts to do the right thing as they were scared to upset muslims and still are now tbh.
Geez wissy you write some toot.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 17 Jan 20 8.39am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

In 2004-5 there wasnt austerity as blair was in charge throwing money around like he had an orchard of these trees we hear so much about.
Austerity started in 2010 when the tories won the election (or did they win, I mean they got more votes but did they win?)
That's a matter of opinion I guess!
Anyhow the first reports to the police were back then. How was there a lack of manpower?
It was a lack of guts to do the right thing as they were scared to upset muslims and still are now tbh.
Geez wissy you write some toot.

I haven’t heard “toot” used in that context for years. Nice one!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Jan 20 9.43am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

To be fair you also said there would be an enquiry and we should be patient and reserve judgment until it was made public. That would be now would it?

On the face of it yes, but I remain a little hesitant to be sure that we yet really do know everything.

I first heard the story via a BBC news report which featured an analysis by a journalist who is, I think, their "home affairs correspondent". I am sorry but I cannot remember his name. What he had to say was very interesting and quite forensic. I obviously don't have it verbatim but the gist of it was that when this problem was first identified the culture within the Home Office, and the Police, was very different to today and they were caught on the back foot. There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings. The BBC guy was not excusing anything but he attempted to put things into some context rather than attribute blame.

That has always been my attitude too. With hindsight we can see that the attitude was completely wrong but I see no point whatsoever in a festival of blame. It is essential that we learn and improve, but I don't believe anyone deliberately did anything that they thought was inappropriate at the time. It's the attacks on integrity that I object to. Not in discovering mistakes and introducing improvements. No-one should tolerate excuses, or protect any group. Justice for all in the UK must be our aim. How best to achieve it is the actual question.

When previous comments were made it was in the context of "Robinson's" trial and subsequent imprisonment. I was convinced, and remain convinced, he made things worse and not better by interfering with the course of justice which could have resulted in criminals walking scot free. He has a wider agenda than finding and punishing members of grooming gangs. He attacks a whole religion and his attitude has surfaced again in this thread. One poster has mentioned "muslims", and another "foreign" grooming gangs, when what is actually being discussed are criminals.

A regular poster here has been accused, by other than myself, of "playing the man and not the ball". In this thread, as in others, there are some pretty clear examples that this is true.

I could trawl back and find several examples of my comments being misrepresented but I won't dignify this kind of activity by joining in.

"Next time the reader hears" similar statements from this poster just remember "he has zero credibility on this issue".

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 17 Jan 20 10.34am Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

On the face of it yes, but I remain a little hesitant to be sure that we yet really do know everything.

I first heard the story via a BBC news report which featured an analysis by a journalist who is, I think, their "home affairs correspondent". I am sorry but I cannot remember his name. What he had to say was very interesting and quite forensic. I obviously don't have it verbatim but the gist of it was that when this problem was first identified the culture within the Home Office, and the Police, was very different to today and they were caught on the back foot. There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings. The BBC guy was not excusing anything but he attempted to put things into some context rather than attribute blame.

That has always been my attitude too. With hindsight we can see that the attitude was completely wrong but I see no point whatsoever in a festival of blame. It is essential that we learn and improve, but I don't believe anyone deliberately did anything that they thought was inappropriate at the time. It's the attacks on integrity that I object to. Not in discovering mistakes and introducing improvements. No-one should tolerate excuses, or protect any group. Justice for all in the UK must be our aim. How best to achieve it is the actual question.

When previous comments were made it was in the context of "Robinson's" trial and subsequent imprisonment. I was convinced, and remain convinced, he made things worse and not better by interfering with the course of justice which could have resulted in criminals walking scot free. He has a wider agenda than finding and punishing members of grooming gangs. He attacks a whole religion and his attitude has surfaced again in this thread. One poster has mentioned "muslims", and another "foreign" grooming gangs, when what is actually being discussed are criminals.

A regular poster here has been accused, by other than myself, of "playing the man and not the ball". In this thread, as in others, there are some pretty clear examples that this is true.

I could trawl back and find several examples of my comments being misrepresented but I won't dignify this kind of activity by joining in.

"Next time the reader hears" similar statements from this poster just remember "he has zero credibility on this issue".

I understand the blame component up to a point but the main issue remains; whether, as claimed by a senior police official, the decision was made not to fully investigate the whole situation because of the demographic involved. If so that is a shameful abrogation of responsibility. These were young and vulnerable girls who were abandoned and have had their lives ruined for some kind of political expediency. And they are still being ignored.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
W12 17 Jan 20 10.54am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

On the face of it yes, but I remain a little hesitant to be sure that we yet really do know everything.

I first heard the story via a BBC news report which featured an analysis by a journalist who is, I think, their "home affairs correspondent". I am sorry but I cannot remember his name. What he had to say was very interesting and quite forensic. I obviously don't have it verbatim but the gist of it was that when this problem was first identified the culture within the Home Office, and the Police, was very different to today and they were caught on the back foot. There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings. The BBC guy was not excusing anything but he attempted to put things into some context rather than attribute blame.

That has always been my attitude too. With hindsight we can see that the attitude was completely wrong but I see no point whatsoever in a festival of blame. It is essential that we learn and improve, but I don't believe anyone deliberately did anything that they thought was inappropriate at the time. It's the attacks on integrity that I object to. Not in discovering mistakes and introducing improvements. No-one should tolerate excuses, or protect any group. Justice for all in the UK must be our aim. How best to achieve it is the actual question.

When previous comments were made it was in the context of "Robinson's" trial and subsequent imprisonment. I was convinced, and remain convinced, he made things worse and not better by interfering with the course of justice which could have resulted in criminals walking scot free. He has a wider agenda than finding and punishing members of grooming gangs. He attacks a whole religion and his attitude has surfaced again in this thread. One poster has mentioned "muslims", and another "foreign" grooming gangs, when what is actually being discussed are criminals.

A regular poster here has been accused, by other than myself, of "playing the man and not the ball". In this thread, as in others, there are some pretty clear examples that this is true.

I could trawl back and find several examples of my comments being misrepresented but I won't dignify this kind of activity by joining in.

"Next time the reader hears" similar statements from this poster just remember "he has zero credibility on this issue".

"There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings"

Or perhaps they were directed to do this?

[Link]

Also, Tommy Robinson did not "interfere with the course of justice" and this was clearly stated by the judge in his case. He was jailed for contempt of court and breaching reporting restrictions and his reporting outside of the court was done after the rapists had been convicted (it was a sentencing hearing). Don't let the truth get in the way though.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
W12 17 Jan 20 12.34pm

This should trigger a few:

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jan 20 12.42pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by W12

"There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings"

Or perhaps they were directed to do this?

[Link]

Also, Tommy Robinson did not "interfere with the course of justice" and this was clearly stated by the judge in his case. He was jailed for contempt of court and breaching reporting restrictions and his reporting outside of the court was done after the rapists had been convicted (it was a sentencing hearing). Don't let the truth get in the way though.

If that was what Brown's home office did it is disgusting. It fits in with a certain type of person however and these rapes continued for many years because of their culture of appeasement and 'sensitivity'. They are yet to face the punishment they all deserve.

Also totally correct on Robinson, what happened is frequently misrepresented by those who swallow and repeat propaganda against him.


Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Jan 2020 12.43pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 17 Jan 20 12.47pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by W12

This should trigger a few:

[Link]

Great news!

We all know there are issues with Robinson but this man has been treated appallingly.

His enemies should realise that their viewpoint is contested and Robinson is popular all over the world.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View kingdowieonthewall's Profile kingdowieonthewall Flag Sussex, ex-Cronx. 17 Jan 20 1.19pm Send a Private Message to kingdowieonthewall Add kingdowieonthewall as a friend

A mother of one of the abused young girls was on radio 4 yesterday.
A very interesting listen.
I guess it can still be found online / podcast etc.
Basically she said 15 years ago when it was occurring she was swept away as an idiot & general annoyance.
Social services blanked her & eventually police ignored her.
she wants those that failed called to task, although mostly they are dead or retired now.
On a positive note, she commented that the new commissioner had supplied her with a wealth of info & 'the ball was rolling'
Worst part of the piece was about one of the scum getting a 13 year old pregnant(having been at her since 11yrs)
he got only 3 years.
on his release the girl bumped into him in a supermarket.
He had another very young girl with him....

 


Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents?
Then leave home, get a job & pay your own bills, while you still know everything.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Wisbech Eagle's Profile Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 17 Jan 20 1.32pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

I understand the blame component up to a point but the main issue remains; whether, as claimed by a senior police official, the decision was made not to fully investigate the whole situation because of the demographic involved. If so that is a shameful abrogation of responsibility. These were young and vulnerable girls who were abandoned and have had their lives ruined for some kind of political expediency. And they are still being ignored.

I am not certain where any instructions to go softly softly, if there were any, might have come from or what thinking might have laid behind them. That's why I think the blame game is so pointless. It achieves nothing at all except hot air and reams of internet anger. I doubt now they are now being "ignored" although I also doubt that all have been identified and helped, due to the resource issues that the Police and Social Services currently face. If people here really want to make a difference perhaps they could direct their advice to their MP and suggest the government spend more money in these areas.

By the way I know what "Robinson" was actually convicted of, but throughout that whole episode the concerns being expressed by the relevant authorities were the implicit dangers of anyone doing what he did. That the Judge looking at the specific details of the individual case came to his conclusion is not really relevant.

Al Capone was convicted of tax fraud but everyone knew he was a gangster. No propaganda involved.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 208 of 470 < 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Grooming Gangs + Tommy Robinson Thread