Tommy Robinson

[takno]

Surely there may have been things in the past that he (Lennon) has done which may have been questionable, but the fact is this - without him raising such an issue and a sensitive one at that, how long could it have been before someone higher up found out that their own daughter had been raped by some big bearded male of Asian descent, but would have been told to keep quiet about it as they would have been labelled as racist by the Liberal left?

My mates father is a Labour supporter, yet he fully agrees to what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has done to expose the grooming gangs. So its not all a “far right” thing as many are lead to believe but a thing that affects the whole political spectrum.

I heard about the first case before I'd ever even heard of Yaxley-Lennon because it was widely covered in the media. I've also heard of other cases since, usually at the end of the sequence of trials because it's not the sort of case where you want to mess the trials up by reporting on them while they are happening, like Yaxley-Lennon did.

Your rather vivid racist imagery demonstrates that whatever Y-L did, it wasn't to expose any of his followers to the truth of the matter. You appear to have paid literally zero attention to what actually happened in these cases, and frankly don't have any understanding of them at all. This dumb focus on bearded muslims is not only bad for bearded muslims, it's bad for the victims who won't be protected from actual predators because they've been told by idiots like Y-L that they should be worrying about big bearded asians.

I'm glad that your mate's father is a Labour supporter, but to be fair around 40% of the electorate are, and plenty of them are completely wrong about lots of things. Again, if his takeaway is that Y-L actually exposed something that was being covered up then he's as wrong about it as you are.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So I spoke to a friend earlier who has travelled quite a bit of the world, and he tells me that the legal system in the US would allow people to go as far as even film trials in the court rooms and everything because of differing laws compared to the UK where Tommy was strictly forbidden to broadcast the trial. This may explain why some of his American supporters see this as a free speech issue, because of the fact that their system allows different things compared to ours. Naturally some people here in the UK will have ignored this anyway or been totally oblivious to the fact our system works differently to the American's.

But what's even worse is that he also tells me that lawyers will use absolutely anything they can in a trial, and that if the lawyers can use the issue of Tommy's inappropriate actions as reason to suggest prejudice jury, and by extension not being able to get a fair trail (now this is me not being able to remember his exact words so I could be a little wrong), then that would allow the people being tried to go free, thus leaving little girls who've been affected by the grooming gang without justice and leaving perpetrators without punishment if they are truly guilty.

If what I'm told is true and the lawyers are able to convince the court that their defendants cannot get a fair trial, then I suppose Tommy's supporters will be a bit displeased at his actions for disrupting the process and thus allowing the grooming gangs they despise to be let off the hook for what they did, right? Nah, I'm not holding my breath either, it'll probably just be because of bias courts who want Islam to rule the world and wipe out the white man for some kind of Jewish-Muslim co-conspiracy. That is if this person I know and have mentioned is anything to go by (he's not directly supported him, but if there's any conspiracy theory he'll go right along with).

 

[bnm]

Man down the pub was it?

Or man in the mirror?

 

[DarloRich]

So I spoke to a friend earlier who has travelled quite a bit of the world, and he tells me that the legal system in the US would allow people to go as far as even film trials in the court rooms and everything because of differing laws compared to the UK where Tommy was strictly forbidden to broadcast the trial. This may explain why some of his American supporters see this as a free speech issue, because of the fact that their system allows different things compared to ours. Naturally some people here in the UK will have ignored this anyway or been totally oblivious to the fact our system works differently to the American's.

You seem surprised that different countries have different laws! I doubt the law in America would go as far as allowing "anybody" to film in court but they do routinely televise court cases. It doesn't matter what a bunch of clueless yanks think in any event. it is our laws that count, not there. Yaxley-Lennon knew he wasn't to film in the court "precincts" but he did anyway. He was warned by the judge who imposed his suspended sentence that he would go to prison if he did. All of this is available on the internet for people to read.

But what's even worse is that he also tells me that lawyers will use absolutely anything they can in a trial, and that if the lawyers can use the issue of Tommy's inappropriate actions as reason to suggest prejudice jury, and by extension not being able to get a fair trail (now this is me not being able to remember his exact words so I could be a little wrong), then that would allow the people being tried to go free, thus leaving little girls who've been affected by the grooming gang without justice and leaving perpetrators without punishment if they are truly guilty.

Does a lawyer doing their job come as a surprise to you? Do you have any understanding of criminal process and procedure? They would do exactly the same if a trial you part of was deemed to be prejudiced.

If what I'm told is true and the lawyers are able to convince the court that their defendants cannot get a fair trial,

I wish people understood more about our legal system. It isn't some kind of clever lawyers tricks that causes trials to potentially collapse because of prejudice. They have come very close on several occasions to doing just that because of actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon trying to help. There were tweets from one of the prosecutors indicating the battle they had to defeat that argument in a similar case he tried to help.

 

[yorkie]

I'm going to add to this, however this is from a neutral point of view ....

Anyone who has read your posts in this area of the forum will know you are anything but neutral on such matters. It is absolutely preposterous to claim you are posting from a "neutral point of view". I won't attempt to destroy your argument as I see DarloRich has already done so.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Anyone who has read your posts in this area of the forum will know you are anything but neutral. It is absolutely preposterous to claim you are posting from a "neutral point of view". I won't attempt to destroy your argument as I see DarloRich has already done so.

Even before I posted I read through every single post that was made before I posted mine, which in regards to this thread alone was posted as neutral as possible and with as much evidence as possible to back up what I'm saying.

 

[DarloRich]

Even before I posted I read through every single post that was made before I posted mine, which in regards to this thread alone was posted as neutral as possible and with as much evidence as possible to back up what I'm saying.

You haven't presented any evidence - you have presented alt right conspiracy theory nonsense as "evidence". You have presented the words of the leader of a failed far right political party as gospel. They are not. They are so wide of the mark as to be almost parody. They are preposterous. There is no conspiracy, there is no Orwellian jailing, there is no attack on free speech.

What there is just a cheap common criminal on a suspended sentence who was sent to jail for a crime he pleaded guilty to. The judge who convicted him previously gave a very clear warning as to what would happen if Yaxley - Lennon came before the court again for a similar offence while under a suspended sentence. He acknowledged the warning and still carried on regardless. He was rightly jailed for the offence he pleaded guilty to. That is the truth.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

You seem surprised that different countries have different laws! I doubt the law in America would go as far as allowing "anybody" to film in court but they do routinely televise court cases. It doesn't matter what a bunch of clueless yanks think in any event. Yaxley-Lennon knew he wasn't to film in the court "precincts" but he did anyway. He was warned by the judge who imposed his suspended sentence that he would go to prison if he did. All of this is available on the internet for people to read.

I'm not so much surprised a country has different laws more so than I am theorising why many Americans seem to think this is a free speech issue, even though here in the UK it is illegal to film the court precincts. The information may be available to them but sometimes people miss this stuff. If the protesters in London weren't deliberately ignoring the information of him pleading guilty then they were certainly unaware of the whole story. That obviously shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone really given some of the people we're talking about.

Does a lawyer doing their job come as a surprise to you? Do you have any understanding of criminal process and procedure? They would do exactly the same if a trial you part of was deemed to be prejudiced.

Again, it doesn't surprise me that the lawyers will do what they do, and it is obviously innocence until proven guilty. But this adds more concerning implications of Tommy's publicity stunt. If him doing what he did, no matter the reasons he may have done it, could be enough to deem prejudice trails and potentially allow rapists to go free and leave the little girls without justice, then it seems the outcome is worse than we thought. Honestly, with this new information, I think it was a wrong call to suggest the man was doing it out of an act of stupidity. If his plan was to have these people go free so he can carry on doing all these publicity stunts for personal gain then he was actually pretty smart and had a clear understanding of the legal system. Course he's been to prison several times, so I'd be surprised if he didn't.

I wish people understood more about our legal system. It isn't some kind of clever lawyers tricks that causes trials to potentially collapse because of prejudice. They have come very close on several occasions to doing just that because of actions of people like Yaxley-Lennon trying to help. There were tweets from one of the prosecutors indicating the battle they had to defeat that argument in a similar case he tried to help.

This information about the law is all new knowledge to me at the moment, and I had to exercise caution and open myself to being potentially wrong. Since what I've been told seems to be the case, I can now have a better understanding. Honestly, it seems quite lucky that we've still had these trails going on despite Robinson's continuous insistence on acting like some kind of crusader of justice. If these trials are deemed prejudice, then I just hope for Tommy Robinson's sake he doesn't have people in the pen wanting to have a little chat with him. I know some of us on the outside would think he has some serious answering to do, and I personally would like to know why he thought getting in the way of a fair trail and the course of justice was a price to pay for his publicity stunts.

It obviously shouldn't have taken so long for these trails on grooming gangs to happen, but he's not helping in the slightest by consistently breaking the law and getting in the way all the time. If he truly wants this problem dealt with, then he needs to keep his trap shut and let the system do it's job, but he's demonstrated that he's either incapable of learning or is just completely uninterested and needs some way to make a living by reporting on problems that he's constantly making worse by getting in the way all the time. All I can hope for is that him being in prison will allow a proper trial without disruption.

 

[AlterEgo]

Even before I posted I read through every single post that was made before I posted mine, which in regards to this thread alone was posted as neutral as possible and with as much evidence as possible to back up what I'm saying.

It’s amazing it still turned out to be a load of piffle then isn’t it?

 

[SteveP29]

It obviously shouldn't have taken so long for these trails on grooming gangs to happen

It does take a very long time to collate the evidence and arrange the trial. There may have been a few people who were being tried in these cases who were already being tried for other crimes, those all need to be sorted first. Since we're dealing with young children in the cases we're talking about, sometimes it takes months for social workers et al to get those children to speak, to tell all about what happened.

I know that's his name. It's no different to, for some examples, the people who used to insist on calling Tony Benn "Anthony Wedgwood Benn." Or Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. Or calling George Osborne "Gideon".

It serves no purpose.

The difference is that the names you quote are given names of these people. Robinson is a pseudonym, so there is a purpose

 

[DarloRich]

This information about the law is all new knowledge to me at the moment, and I had to exercise caution and open myself to being potentially wrong. Since what I've been told seems to be the case, I can now have a better understanding. Honestly, it seems quite lucky that we've still had these trails going on despite Robinson's continuous insistence on acting like some kind of crusader of justice. If these trials are deemed prejudice, then I just hope for Tommy Robinson's sake he doesn't have people in the pen wanting to have a little chat with him. I know some of us on the outside would think he has some serious answering to do, and I personally would like to know why he thought getting in the way of a fair trail and the course of justice was a price to pay for his publicity stunts.

The kids got it!

It obviously shouldn't have taken so long for these trails on grooming gangs to happen, but he's not helping in the slightest by consistently breaking the law and getting in the way all the time. If he truly wants this problem dealt with, then he needs to keep his trap shut and let the system do it's job, but he's demonstrated that he's either incapable of learning or is just completely uninterested and needs some way to make a living by reporting on problems that he's constantly making worse by getting in the way all the time. All I can hope for is that him being in prison will allow a proper trial without disruption.

These trials are massive and incredibly complex and difficult to investigate & prosecute. It takes a long time to gather, asses and present the evidence. That is before you consider the difficulties in gathering information from abused, damaged and emotionally fragile children and young people who will be distrustful & suspicious of authority thanks in part to the activities of their groomers and, often, in part to their past history of interaction with the authorities.

 

[Jonny]

While I find Tommy Robinson's actions very questionable, I think he has a point about abuse of the rules around secrecy. After all, there were plenty of reports of the trials of Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, etc. and no-one was prosecuted for contempt of court. Also, the defendants happen to be of a certain religion whose literature (of the same provenance as their holy book) records the de facto founder of that religion as consummating a marriage with someone who could be considered to be too young.

The mainstream media has in the past, when convictions have occurred in similar circumstances, chosen to focus instead on the convicted defendants' ethnicity, which is a red herring given that the majority of adherents of the religion in question in the UK happen to be from ethnic minorities, but said religion covers all races.

 

[SteveP29]

While I find Tommy Robinson's actions very questionable, I think he has a point about abuse of the rules around secrecy. After all, there were plenty of reports of the trials of Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, etc. and no-one was prosecuted for contempt of court. Also, the defendants happen to be of a certain religion whose literature (of the same provenance as their holy book) records the de facto founder of that religion as consummating a marriage with someone who could be considered to be too young.

The mainstream media has in the past, when convictions have occurred in similar circumstances, chosen to focus instead on the convicted defendants' ethnicity, which is a red herring given that the majority of adherents of the religion in question in the UK happen to be from ethnic minorities, but said religion covers all races.

As already noted upthread, Rolf Harris' case was a single person with media reporting having no effect on other on going cases.
The trial Robinson 'reported' on had multiple other connected cases and defendants and sentencing could be influenced by the reporting of previous sentences in these connected cases

 

[takno]

While I find Tommy Robinson's actions very questionable, I think he has a point about abuse of the rules around secrecy. After all, there were plenty of reports of the trials of Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, etc. and no-one was prosecuted for contempt of court. Also, the defendants happen to be of a certain religion whose literature (of the same provenance as their holy book) records the de facto founder of that religion as consummating a marriage with someone who could be considered to be too young.

The mainstream media has in the past, when convictions have occurred in similar circumstances, chosen to focus instead on the convicted defendants' ethnicity, which is a red herring given that the majority of adherents of the religion in question in the UK happen to be from ethnic minorities, but said religion covers all races.

Whilst the ethnicity of the defendants was pretty obvious their religion was not, and I don't have any particular reason to believe that they were any more Muslims than I am Church of England.

There are cases like these where the perpetrators are non-Asian non-Muslim around the country every year. There is absolutely no reason to believe that being a muslim makes you more likely to be involved in such cases, or that people involved in these cases are more likely to be muslim.

Lots of marriages across the world were consummated at what we would regard as a shockingly young age in the middle ages. Why even our own royalty were marrying kids all the time. In that respect the world has moved on and improved. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there's some kind of sneaky cult of muslims trying to bring child marriage back, any more than there is to think everyone with a diamond jubilee tea-towel wants to emulate the marriage which led to Margaret Tudor falling pregnant with Henry VII at the age of 12.

 

[tony_mac]

The mainstream media has in the past, when convictions have occurred in similar circumstances, chosen to focus instead on the convicted defendants' ethnicity, which is a red herring given that the majority of adherents of the religion in question in the UK happen to be from ethnic minorities, but said religion covers all races.

It's not actually a red herring, there is a cultural issue which makes their heritage relevant. There are many differing cultures across the (muslim) world, they don't all have the same beliefs and behaviours.
But it's easier for some people to believe that Islam generally supports child abuse, based, for example, on texts from 1500 years ago.

 

[AlterEgo]

Whilst the ethnicity of the defendants was pretty obvious their religion was not, and I don't have any particular reason to believe that they were any more Muslims than I am Church of England.

I'm afraid that if you had to bet that someone called Shabir Ahmed, Mohammed Sajod, Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, and so on, was a Muslim or CoE don't tell me for one second you wouldn't put money on the former.

There are cases like these where the perpetrators are non-Asian non-Muslim around the country every year. There is absolutely no reason to believe that being a muslim makes you more likely to be involved in such cases, or that people involved in these cases are more likely to be muslim.

There is no evidence to suggest that people who are Muslims are somehow "more susceptible" to being paedophiles because of their religion. The fact is, in Rotherham, as is the case in many cities in Britain, Asian (and Muslim) men are heavily involved in the night economy. They make up a significant portion of taxi drivers, fast food retailers, etc. The deputy children's commissioner said in 2012 Asians are 7% of the population but commit 33% of organised child abuse. This is a shocking statistic but may be because the background of these men simply coincides with easy access to young and vulnerable girls.

 

[WelshBluebird]

but may be because the background of these men simply coincides with easy access to young and vulnerable girls.

Of course, that kind of critical thinking is exactly what the likes of Tommy Robinson and those who follow him lack.

 

[takno]

I'm afraid that if you had to bet that someone called Shabir Ahmed, Mohammed Sajod, Kabeer Hassan, Abdul Aziz, and so on, was a Muslim or CoE don't tell me for one second you wouldn't put money on the former.

There is no evidence to suggest that people who are Muslims are somehow "more susceptible" to being paedophiles because of their religion. The fact is, in Rotherham, as is the case in many cities in Britain, Asian (and Muslim) men are heavily involved in the night economy. They make up a significant portion of taxi drivers, fast food retailers, etc. The deputy children's commissioner said in 2012 Asians are 7% of the population but commit 33% of organised child abuse. This is a shocking statistic but may be because the background of these men simply coincides with easy access to young and vulnerable girls.

I might well guess that they were from a muslim background, but I doubt I'd be inclined to put any money on their personal religion either way. The reason for mentioning the CofE was to point out that a huge proportion of the country identify as CofE but it has little meaningful impact on their lives beyond attendance at the odd wedding or funeral. There is a significant group of "Muslims" in the same situation, so one can't conclude much from a nominally a high correlation between self-declared religion and ethnicity. At the end of the day it's still completely racist to assume that they are somehow driven by an inferred religious fervour just because they have a skin colour and name which are 100% determined by their parents.

Absolutely agree that the night economy (and particularly the after-hours night economy) has certainly been a common factor in some of the recent cases, and far more likely to be causative than some wild theory about religion.

 

[AlterEgo]

At the end of the day it's still completely racist to assume that they are somehow driven by an inferred religious fervour just because they have a skin colour and name which are 100% determined by their parents.

I agree - there is a lot more to Asian child sex gangs than just "they're paedos cause they're Muslims". It's not much different to suggesting Catholics are paedos because priests have a high incidence of offending in that area - it's all about the high incidence of access to vulnerable young people.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There's still an awful lot of ignorance about this case, clearly.

Contempt of court laws are NOT a "liberal cover-up". Even if someone is the absolute scum of the earth (upon being found guilty) they deserve a fair trial. More importantly though, the victims of these crimes deserve justice that can't be undone by lawyers on a technicality because some idiot published evidence that may have tainted a jury.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

At the end of the day it's still completely racist to assume that they are somehow driven by an inferred religious fervour just because they have a skin colour and name which are 100% determined by their parents.

The original names of them are determined by parents, but some Muslims when they convert to Islam do adopt Arabic names. This is by no means a requirement in the scripture unless the original name is offensive in some way or another to the religion. I also think there's some kind of Islamic identity thing when it comes to changing names, since the Quran itself is written in Arabic, though of course not every convert does this practice. Skin colour though does not at all determine one's religion, even if a particular ethnic group might be of said religion. Fact is, someone could well be an Arab atheist or white Muslim in theory, so you are right on that part.

I agree - there is a lot more to Asian child sex gangs than just "they're paedos cause they're Muslims". It's not much different to suggesting Catholics are paedos because priests have a high incidence of offending in that area - it's all about the high incidence of access to vulnerable young people.

Has there not been suggestions of some kind of cultural ideals though among the alleged groomers? This may or may not be related to their respective religions of course.

 

[takno]

Has there not been suggestions of some kind of cultural ideals though among the alleged groomers? This may or may not be related to their respective religions of course.

There have been lots of suggestions and innuendo, all of it backed up by essentially no evidence. That's the problem here - this idiot gets sent to prison, pretends it's some kind of free speech issue, and suddenly a load of people start believing the utter bilge he's been spouting for years.

 

[Bromley boy]

There is no evidence to suggest that people who are Muslims are somehow "more susceptible" to being paedophiles because of their religion. The fact is, in Rotherham, as is the case in many cities in Britain, Asian (and Muslim) men are heavily involved in the night economy. They make up a significant portion of taxi drivers, fast food retailers, etc. The deputy children's commissioner said in 2012 Asians are 7% of the population but commit 33% of organised child abuse. This is a shocking statistic but may be because the background of these men simply coincides with easy access to young and vulnerable girls.

I think there are statistics to show that, while involvement in night time economy is a factor, that still cannot account for the over representation of Asian (as in Pakistani, Bangladeshi) men in grooming gangs.

It is far too simplistic to blame religion, but culture is most definitely a factor (of course religion forms a key part of the culture of the men concerned).

I think it is now widely accepted that the liberal establishment in the U.K. has a history of covering up the links between culture and grooming, even denying that they exist at all (as happened in Rochdale), presumably because they are afraid of causing offence or being called racist. This blind spot gives Tommy Robinson and the far right the oxygen to survive and needs to be addressed, in my view, if these groups are not to gain more ground in the future.

The below article is quite thought provoking.

https://quillette.com/2018/03/14/britains-grooming-gang-crisis/

Responses to the crisis are contentious because most of the perpetrators are British Asians; specifically British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Child abuse is not uniquely or largely a problem of particular demographics but grooming gangs – that is, multiple offenders exploiting women they have met, manipulated, and abused outside their homes – are 84 percent Asian, and this does not mean Chinese, Korean, Japanese, or Indonesian (other perpetrators have been Somali, Romani, Kosovan, Kurdish, and white British.)

To some extent, this fact has been influenced by the disproportionate amount of British Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who make their living in the night-time economy, driving taxi cabs and working in restaurants, which gave the perpetrators access to girls, and hours away from home. This is not the sole factor, though, as other nations with significant night-time economies do not have comparable street grooming crises.

Some have pointed the finger at Islam. I support the criticism of Islamic texts where appropriate but think this factor can be over-egged. Quite apart from being abusively adulterous, these criminals drank, did drugs, and made their victims have abortions. These were not, in other words, devout Muslim men. Yet Taj Hargey of the Oxford Islamic Congregation has observed that “the view of some Islamic preachers towards white women” and “an attitude where women are seen as nothing more than personal property” might have been contributing factors in the stew of thought processes that characterised these men, along with provincial machismo, clannish contempt, and degenerate sexual appetites.

Has there not been suggestions of some kind of cultural ideals though among the alleged groomers? This may or may not be related to their respective religions of course.

Indeed. Culture and religion are seperate (albeit closely linked) and it’s too simplistic to blame it on religion alone.

 

[takno]

I think there are statistics to show that, while involvement in night time economy is a factor, that still cannot account for the over representation of Asian (as in Pakistani, Bangladeshi) men in grooming gangs.

It is far too simplistic to blame religion, but culture is most definitely a factor (of course religion forms a key part of the culture of the men concerned).

I think it is now widely accepted that the liberal establishment in the U.K. has a history of covering up the links between culture and grooming and denying that they exist at all (as happened in Rochdale), presumably because they are afraid of causing offence or being called racist. This blind spot gives Tommy Robinson and the far right the oxygen to survive and needs to be addressed, in my view, if these groups are not to gain more ground in the future.

The below article is quite thought provoking.

https://quillette.com/2018/03/14/britains-grooming-gang-crisis/






Indeed. Culture and religion are seperate (albeit closely linked) and it’s too simplistic to blame it on religion alone.

I don't think that there is widespread acceptance that the "liberal establishment" has any such history, although it's certainly a line the Times is keen to peddle. The article you quote from expresses the absolute minimum possible doubt required to make it seem vaguely objective, but really just peddles a predetermined line with very little analysis. In particular it failed to challenge the outrageous underlying figure of 84% which comes from a very dodgy dossier. https://medium.com/@Reg_Left_Media/grooming-gangs-quilliam-the-myth-of-the-84-percent-cc834b57fcf3 provides a fairly effective rebuttal.

In summary thousands of children were sadly groomed and abused over the 12 year period in question, this includes abuse by family members and friends, people grooming online, teachers and various professionals, or people groomed by strangers they met locally and not subsequently abused by a gang. A small number of these were abused by perhaps a dozen gangs with a somewhat similar MO. A number of studies have chosen to define just those gangs and their MO as a complete class of perpetrators even though there are only perhaps 200 people in total. The 84% report further ramps it up by picking a rather arbitrary subset of those crimes. They seem to end up with a figure of less than 100% because even those groups are actually ethnically mixed.

The 84% figure is in essence a figure which has been massaged out of thin air to support an argument which its authors wanted to make in support of their pre-existing antipathy to the "liberal establishment".

I have no objection to acknowledging that the perpetrators in these specific cases were primarily Asian, and that we have a long and regrettable history as a society of minimising the experiences of marginalised children. I think that prejudices also naturally play into these problems - in this case the assumption that abusers are middle-aged men is as likely to have played a part as some inherent belief that Asians cannot be challenged.

What I fundamentally object to is the demand that I accept lies about the "liberal elite" told by a bunch of reactionaries in support of their agenda for dragging the country kicking and screaming back into the last century.

 

[tony_mac]

I think it is now widely accepted that the liberal establishment in the U.K. has a history of covering up the links between culture and grooming, even denying that they exist at all (as happened in Rochdale), presumably because they are afraid of causing offence or being called racist. This blind spot gives Tommy Robinson and the far right the oxygen to survive and needs to be addressed, in my view, if these groups are not to gain more ground in the future.

While I think 'covering up' is a slightly harsh term, in essence this is correct. Professor Jay's Rotherham report mentions that the fear of being seen as racist was partially driven by the prevalence of overt racism at the time.

Culture and religion are seperate (albeit closely linked) and it’s too simplistic to blame it on religion alone.

Indeed, not all Islam communities are the same culturally, just as not all Christian communities are. For example, the child abuse that was covered up by Catholic priests shouldn't be an excuse to blame Christianity itself for the problems.
Similarly, there are millions in the same communities who have done nothing wrong and should not find themselves on the wrong side of snide accusations.

 

[Bromley boy]

I don't think that there is widespread acceptance that the "liberal establishment" has any such history,

Keep in mind the conclusions of the official Jay report into Rotherham, as mentioned by @tony_mac above (and other cases since). This report explicitly cited the conclusion I stated above: the child protection officials involved in the case in question were stymied by their concerns about being seen as “racist”.

The article you quote from expresses the absolute minimum possible doubt required to make it seem vaguely objective, but really just peddles a predetermined line with very little analysis. In particular it failed to challenge the outrageous underlying figure of 84% which comes from a very dodgy dossier. https://medium.com/@Reg_Left_Media/grooming-gangs-quilliam-the-myth-of-the-84-percent-cc834b57fcf3 provides a fairly effective rebuttal.

I don’t think that article is an effective rebuttal at all (from a Google’s search one of the authors is an LSE professor, which says it all ). In fact I would treat it with a great deal of caution. It includes “quotes” from Homer Simpson (!), Dan Brown and the partner of the known far right extremist who perpetrated the Finsbury Park attack. It also becomes somewhat shrill and histrionic towards the end and starts ranting about Lynchings in America which is of scant relevance to the topic at hand.

As one of its conclusions it states:

1. There are zero “child-grooming” cases in the UK. There is no offence of simply “child-grooming”.

This is a nonsensical, circular, argument and smacks of denial. There is no specific offence of “child grooming”, but what does that really mean when it is now an observed phenomenon? Much like the arguments on this forum about zero hour contracts, upskirting etc. These are clearly real and present issues in society. The law is reactive and slow to develop, and is an ass at times, but using the current criminal law as an excuse to argue that a widely reported criminal activity doesn’t exist is patently ludicrous.

I could write a far more extensive rebuttal but a. I have neither the time nor the inclination, and b. It wouldn’t be appropriate on a discussion forum.

Perhaps we can agree that we have both cited biased articles, but the Jay report into Rotherham (hopefully!) provides something with a little more objectivity and supports my assertion above.

The 84% figure is in essence a figure which has been massaged out of thin air to support an argument which its authors wanted to make in support of their pre-existing antipathy to the "liberal establishment".

I think we have a clear choice to make.

We are continually told that we now live in a “multi-cultural” society. Much as with knife crime in London, which is overwhelmingly perpetuated by those of black-Caribbean descent, we can either acknowledge that cultural differences exist and that certain cultures are pre-disposed to certain criminal behaviours, and think about how we can address that, or we can continue to flatly deny these differences exist and give further oxygen to the far right.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Bromley boy]

For example, the child abuse that was covered up by Catholic priests shouldn't be an excuse to blame Christianity itself for the problems.
Similarly, there are millions in the same communities who have done nothing wrong and should not find themselves on the wrong side of snide accusations.

Undoubtedly true.

But, as a society, surely we shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge that Catholic priests are statistically more likely to abuse children than other demographics?

Only once we’ve done that can we then start to consider why that might be and how we can prevent it from happening in future.

 

[takno]

Keep in mind the conclusions of the official Jay report into Rotherham, as mentioned by @tony_mac above (and other cases since). This report explicitly cited the conclusion I stated above: the child protection officials involved in the case in question were stymied by their concerns about being seen as “racist”.



I don’t think that article is an effective rebuttal at all (from a Google’s search one of the authors is an LSE professor, which says it all ). In fact I would treat it with a great deal of caution. It includes “quotes” from Homer Simpson (!), Dan Brown and the partner of the known far right extremist who perpetrated the Finsbury Park attack. It also becomes somewhat shrill and hystrionic towards the end and starts ranting about Lynchings in America which is of scant relevance to the topic at hand.

Perhaps we can agree that we have both cited biased articles, but the Jay report into Rotherham (hopefully!) provides something with a little more objectivity and supports my assertion above.
I think we have a clear choice to make.

We are continually told that we now live in a “multi cultural” society. We can either acknowledge that cultural differences exist, and that certain cultures are pre-disposed to certain behaviours, and think about how we can address that, or we can continue to flatly deny these differences exist and give further oxygen to the far right.

Be careful what you wish for.

If you're writing a takedown of a frankly absurd report which dresses itself in a false cloak of objectivity, there's nothing wrong with including some illustrative quotes from reasonably modern culture. It's making the article a better read, and the article clearly doesn't depend on those things to make the sound well-reasoned argument that it does. As to the remainder, re-stating why the original report is so dangerous isn't particularly irrelevant.

Your pretended objectivity is of course supported here by your trademark sneering attitude to anything that doesn't support your narrow world view. In this case we apparently should listen to the unreferenced statements of a small pressure group and some guy who doesn't even live in the country, but a professor pointing out the complete lack of academic validity is to be ignored because he is employed by a top university which doesn't meet your prejudices.

The Jay report suggested that there was a minor concern of accusations of racism, and a far larger problem of the police and specific other individuals not being interested enough in the well-being of the children. Even the minor concern was largely raised after the event by people with a clear motive to think up an excuse for why they didn't lift a finger to help. A slow lacklustre response by a poorly run social services team and indifferent police is not a cover-up, and has nothing to do with a "liberal elite".

 

[Bromley boy]

If you're writing a takedown of a frankly absurd report which dresses itself in a false cloak of objectivity, there's nothing wrong with including some illustrative quotes from reasonably modern culture. It's making the article a better read, and the article clearly doesn't depend on those things to make the sound well-reasoned argument that it does. As to the remainder, re-stating why the original report is so dangerous isn't particularly irrelevant.

I’m afraid I disagree. I don’t think the article you’ve cited holds together well enough to be given any credence at all. I’m no expert at all on these matters, but could certainly write a lengthy rebuttal myself. But what’s the point when I note you’ve not even addressed the substantive rebuttal I made to one of its conclusions?!

Your pretended objectivity is of course supported here by your trademark sneering attitude to anything that doesn't support your narrow world view.

Of course, just because I don’t agree with you, I just have a “sneering attitude” and a “narrow world view”. I’m actually glad when the personal insults begin. I immediately know I’ve won the argument.

I’ve never pretended to be objective in these matters. Are you saying you are?

In this case we apparently should listen to the unreferenced statements of a small pressure group and some guy who doesn't even live in the country,

What relevance does someone’s country of residence have to the validity of their arguments? Perhaps you could explain?

a professor pointing out the complete lack of academic validity is to be ignored because he is employed by a top university which doesn't meet your prejudices.

Don’t make the mistake of assuming university professors are in any way objective, even when it comes to academic matters (the best ones I had certainly weren’t).

In any case it was more of an inside joke. Those of us who studied at the University of London know about the reputation the LSE has. Trust me on this, I was at the institution directly over the road.

Everyone knew.

The Jay report suggested that there was a minor concern of accusations of racism, and a far larger problem of the police and specific other individuals not being interested enough in the well-being of the children. Even the minor concern was largely raised after the event by people with a clear motive to think up an excuse for why they didn't lift a finger to help. A slow lacklustre response by a poorly run social services team and indifferent police is not a cover-up, and has nothing to do with a "liberal elite".

That’s fine - you crack on, carry on denying the issue, ad infinitum. I assure you it won’t go away. In doing so, it is you that is giving the oxygen of survival to the far right, not me.

 

[bnm]

“sneering attitude”...

I immediately know I’ve won the argument.

Brilliant! Almost in the same sentence.

You might know it. Others disagree.