Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Robinson Sued
// Lawyers representing a Syrian boy who was attacked at school have served a legal letter at Tommy Robinson’s home in an attempt to sue him for defamation.
The anti-Islam activist posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in the months before the incident, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. //
One of the drawbacks of accepting £millions in donations from gullible far right but jobs, he is now worth suing.
The anti-Islam activist posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.
The suspect, a 16-year-old boy, has been summonsed to court for alleged assault.
The teenager had shared numerous posts from Mr Robinson’s Facebook account in the months before the incident, as well as from Britain First and other far-right accounts. //
One of the drawbacks of accepting £millions in donations from gullible far right but jobs, he is now worth suing.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This from Gromit: "Robinson has exposed no one. The Grooming crimes were being prosecuted after extensive police investigations"
And this from Ummmm: "It wasn't TR who originally exposed them"
And JF thinks that the first time Robisnon mentioned grooming gangs was when he was arrested outside a Leeds court last year (actually Robinson was talking about it in 2009 when he founded the English Defence League).
I'm sure these posts were written in good faith, but the posters are wrong.
Although there had been a number of prosecutions (rarely reported by the national media) for grooming crimes across the country, but especially in the Midlands and the North, the police, it seems, didn't think to look a pattern, or consider that the obvious common factors might be relevant. It was the British National Party and later the EDL who pointed out that these gangs consisted almost exclusively of Muslim men, and that their victims were almost exclusively non-Muslim under-age girls.
This was undeniably true, but denied it was. As late as 2010 the British Council of Muslims and Unite against Fascism produced an election pamphlet attacking the BNP for spreading "racist myths about 'Asian' men grooming white girls".
I have posted this video before. It's Andrew Norfolk (no friend of Tommy Robinson and the EDL whom he categorises in the clip as the "far-right" with a "poisonous and divisive agenda") talking about the cover-up (not a word he uses, by the way) and what led him to his award-winning Times exposé in 2010:
And this from Ummmm: "It wasn't TR who originally exposed them"
And JF thinks that the first time Robisnon mentioned grooming gangs was when he was arrested outside a Leeds court last year (actually Robinson was talking about it in 2009 when he founded the English Defence League).
I'm sure these posts were written in good faith, but the posters are wrong.
Although there had been a number of prosecutions (rarely reported by the national media) for grooming crimes across the country, but especially in the Midlands and the North, the police, it seems, didn't think to look a pattern, or consider that the obvious common factors might be relevant. It was the British National Party and later the EDL who pointed out that these gangs consisted almost exclusively of Muslim men, and that their victims were almost exclusively non-Muslim under-age girls.
This was undeniably true, but denied it was. As late as 2010 the British Council of Muslims and Unite against Fascism produced an election pamphlet attacking the BNP for spreading "racist myths about 'Asian' men grooming white girls".
I have posted this video before. It's Andrew Norfolk (no friend of Tommy Robinson and the EDL whom he categorises in the clip as the "far-right" with a "poisonous and divisive agenda") talking about the cover-up (not a word he uses, by the way) and what led him to his award-winning Times exposé in 2010:
Good point, well made, so it did not need the non sequiturs at the beginning. Tommy Robinson could have spoken about grooming gangs all his life but his actions outside the court, after being warned on a previous occasion, could have led to a mistrial and was not what led to that particular gang being prosecuted.
Adults have sought opportunities to abuse children forever. The laws on grooming came about because previous legislation was not sufficiently protective. Police have, for decades, trod a careful path between investigating crimes and being proactive in preventing them. While I generally support them in that task, I also reserve my right to be free from unnecessary and intrusive state action.
If a police officer finds a child under the influence of alcohol and in the company of an undesirable adult, she is not necessarily to establish at that moment that a crime has occurred. No matter how uncomfortable the public finds that truth, the imposition of a police state to prevent the possibility of crime would be intolerable.
Odd though it might sound, we have the right to break the law and the right to be held accountable for our actions. Sexual abuse is a public debate about where lines should be drawn. Outside a court building during a trial is the wrong place for that debate, irrespective of how long you have been angry about it or how incensed you feel.
Adults have sought opportunities to abuse children forever. The laws on grooming came about because previous legislation was not sufficiently protective. Police have, for decades, trod a careful path between investigating crimes and being proactive in preventing them. While I generally support them in that task, I also reserve my right to be free from unnecessary and intrusive state action.
If a police officer finds a child under the influence of alcohol and in the company of an undesirable adult, she is not necessarily to establish at that moment that a crime has occurred. No matter how uncomfortable the public finds that truth, the imposition of a police state to prevent the possibility of crime would be intolerable.
Odd though it might sound, we have the right to break the law and the right to be held accountable for our actions. Sexual abuse is a public debate about where lines should be drawn. Outside a court building during a trial is the wrong place for that debate, irrespective of how long you have been angry about it or how incensed you feel.
Some of the 'community' are still in denial, vestute. This happened last week.
https:/
https:/
Gromit > Robert Shillman, founder and chairman of the Nasdaq-listed multinational Cognex, helped to pay Robinson’s high-five-figure salary, in the latest example of American cash flowing into the British hard right.
Ah yes,the Boston chap who stated that America's right to free speech was under threat.He also stated he wasn't anti-Islam.
Something doesn't add up,why would he bankroll Robinson?!
Ah yes,the Boston chap who stated that America's right to free speech was under threat.He also stated he wasn't anti-Islam.
Something doesn't add up,why would he bankroll Robinson?!
Robinson came to fame (or infamy) on the grooming gang issue.
We have a sex scandal of enormous proportions: organised gangs of Muslims in dozens of British cities trafficking under-age girls for sex.
The number of victims is extraordinary: 1,400 hundred (recently revised to 1,500) in Rotherham alone (Rotherham has a population of little more than 250,000, only 4% or 5% of which is Muslim).
The abuse in Rotherham had been known about for at least ten years. The local council and child welfare services had the names of hundreds of child victims, and at least a hundred names (in Telford with a similar demographic it was three times that number) of alleged traffickers. This before a single prosecution was brought.
Ditto for cities and towns across England.
Before the Andrew Norfolk exposé in 2010 the only[i people who apparently knew about this and were talking about it were shaven-headed tattooed thugs waving the Union flag.
Now, thanks to Mr Norfolk and the Times, we know a lot of the facts. What, then, might you expect the reaction of normal, decent people be?
Outrage? Yes?.
How do we stop it? Yes?
How, why and [i]by whom] was it covered up? Yes?
And how do we explain the correlation between these crimes and a specific cultural group? Yes?
Oh, and lest we forget:
How might tattoed thugs react when they hear about a twelve-year girl old being gang-raped with impunity by Pakistanis?
Why are so many people on this thread interested only in this last and most trivial question and so incurious about the important ones?
We have a sex scandal of enormous proportions: organised gangs of Muslims in dozens of British cities trafficking under-age girls for sex.
The number of victims is extraordinary: 1,400 hundred (recently revised to 1,500) in Rotherham alone (Rotherham has a population of little more than 250,000, only 4% or 5% of which is Muslim).
The abuse in Rotherham had been known about for at least ten years. The local council and child welfare services had the names of hundreds of child victims, and at least a hundred names (in Telford with a similar demographic it was three times that number) of alleged traffickers. This before a single prosecution was brought.
Ditto for cities and towns across England.
Before the Andrew Norfolk exposé in 2010 the only[i people who apparently knew about this and were talking about it were shaven-headed tattooed thugs waving the Union flag.
Now, thanks to Mr Norfolk and the Times, we know a lot of the facts. What, then, might you expect the reaction of normal, decent people be?
Outrage? Yes?.
How do we stop it? Yes?
How, why and [i]by whom] was it covered up? Yes?
And how do we explain the correlation between these crimes and a specific cultural group? Yes?
Oh, and lest we forget:
How might tattoed thugs react when they hear about a twelve-year girl old being gang-raped with impunity by Pakistanis?
Why are so many people on this thread interested only in this last and most trivial question and so incurious about the important ones?
As previously, good points and well made, but with elements I would describe differently. Grooming was not my first encounter with TR, for example, but there are more significant alternatives.
There is a commonly held belief that anything not in the 'papers is not known about. You say the abuse in Rotherham was known about for at least ten years, so journalists and thugs were not the only ones talking about it. I don't know specific details of the children or families involved in the grooming gangs, but I know of many others. The public only usually hear about any of them when there is a court case, but those are the tip of the iceberg.
One well-known case was Peter Connolly, who was killed by his mother, her partner or both. The question asked so often is "Since police/ social workers/ health visitor saw this child x times in y weeks, why did they never realise there was something wrong?"
The clue is in the question. My children saw the health visitor at the clinic when we went, and she came to our house a tiny number of times. My children never met a police officer or social worker except socially. In the Connolly case, as in so many others, professionals see the children as often as they can, to get the evidence they will need in court.
Turn the story round and look at it from the opposite side. There has been a story on the site today about a child with a rare disorder. His parents noticed unexplained bruises on his arms, leading to the eventual diagnosis. I don't have the link, but it was something about 4000+ people testing for a tissue match for transfusions.
A young child with unexplored bruises is generally a concern due to risk of abuse. If details were made public and thugs decided they had a right to deal with it, I hope the public would be outraged. Even abused children have a right anonymity. Publishing their details widely does not protect those children.
The horrific case on the Isle of Bute: few people living there would have been ignorant of the killer's identity; few away from the area need to know to keep their children safe. Disclosure is of no use to the vast majority. Hundreds of ex-offenders are now living in the community. How many of us could recognise every single resident of a medium-size city, since that's the kind of number we would need to know. And that's only convicted offenders, not first timers or the as yet uncaught.
Another recent example, the girl murdered in Haroldhill. The earliest comments here were asking for the colour of the attacker. I doubt they were all Liam Neeson doing research. But why does it matter? The police need information. If you don't bother to mention a white man in a car nearby, you could have helped the getaway driver escape, or an ex-boyfriend who set up the killing.
Many crimes are committed by many people. Sexual abuse is still more likely to be carried out by a family member or trusted friend. If the public perception is that only non-whites commit crime, that simply creates hiding spaces for white offenders.
If I buy a green coat, it might be so that I can get close to wildlife, or walk in the woods without standing out. It does not indicate a hatred of red coats. The colour of alleged offenders is not the critical fact. The evidence of guilt or innocence is actually the core issue. Is it less offensive if a group of white men rapes a Pakistani girl?
Thugs have no more nor no less right to know about victims of crime than anyone else, but they have shown they cannot be trusted to handle it responsibly.
There is a commonly held belief that anything not in the 'papers is not known about. You say the abuse in Rotherham was known about for at least ten years, so journalists and thugs were not the only ones talking about it. I don't know specific details of the children or families involved in the grooming gangs, but I know of many others. The public only usually hear about any of them when there is a court case, but those are the tip of the iceberg.
One well-known case was Peter Connolly, who was killed by his mother, her partner or both. The question asked so often is "Since police/ social workers/ health visitor saw this child x times in y weeks, why did they never realise there was something wrong?"
The clue is in the question. My children saw the health visitor at the clinic when we went, and she came to our house a tiny number of times. My children never met a police officer or social worker except socially. In the Connolly case, as in so many others, professionals see the children as often as they can, to get the evidence they will need in court.
Turn the story round and look at it from the opposite side. There has been a story on the site today about a child with a rare disorder. His parents noticed unexplained bruises on his arms, leading to the eventual diagnosis. I don't have the link, but it was something about 4000+ people testing for a tissue match for transfusions.
A young child with unexplored bruises is generally a concern due to risk of abuse. If details were made public and thugs decided they had a right to deal with it, I hope the public would be outraged. Even abused children have a right anonymity. Publishing their details widely does not protect those children.
The horrific case on the Isle of Bute: few people living there would have been ignorant of the killer's identity; few away from the area need to know to keep their children safe. Disclosure is of no use to the vast majority. Hundreds of ex-offenders are now living in the community. How many of us could recognise every single resident of a medium-size city, since that's the kind of number we would need to know. And that's only convicted offenders, not first timers or the as yet uncaught.
Another recent example, the girl murdered in Haroldhill. The earliest comments here were asking for the colour of the attacker. I doubt they were all Liam Neeson doing research. But why does it matter? The police need information. If you don't bother to mention a white man in a car nearby, you could have helped the getaway driver escape, or an ex-boyfriend who set up the killing.
Many crimes are committed by many people. Sexual abuse is still more likely to be carried out by a family member or trusted friend. If the public perception is that only non-whites commit crime, that simply creates hiding spaces for white offenders.
If I buy a green coat, it might be so that I can get close to wildlife, or walk in the woods without standing out. It does not indicate a hatred of red coats. The colour of alleged offenders is not the critical fact. The evidence of guilt or innocence is actually the core issue. Is it less offensive if a group of white men rapes a Pakistani girl?
Thugs have no more nor no less right to know about victims of crime than anyone else, but they have shown they cannot be trusted to handle it responsibly.
JF85, // Thugs have no more nor no less right to know about victims of crime than anyone else, but they have shown they cannot be trusted to handle it responsibly.//
Responsibly? Young girls were systematically abused and that abuse was ignored for years by people in authority but who appear to have shared a similar school of thought to Labour’s Naz Shah who thinks that, for the sake of diversity, victims should keep their mouths shut. There is one glaringly obvious common factor in all of these cases, that being that the perpetrators were overwhelmingly Muslim – and ‘thugs’ are ostracized for doing the right thing in speaking out? Why?
Responsibly? Young girls were systematically abused and that abuse was ignored for years by people in authority but who appear to have shared a similar school of thought to Labour’s Naz Shah who thinks that, for the sake of diversity, victims should keep their mouths shut. There is one glaringly obvious common factor in all of these cases, that being that the perpetrators were overwhelmingly Muslim – and ‘thugs’ are ostracized for doing the right thing in speaking out? Why?
Naomi,in general,some folk have a very strange set of priorities.Far easier to attack the man simply because of who he is and because he has a different view to them that no matter how correct he may be on a particular issue(s),he will be dismissed as a major blot on the landscape.
I mean,he can't possibly be right about anything just because his style and approach is considered morally repugnant.
I mean,he can't possibly be right about anything just because his style and approach is considered morally repugnant.
Ag, but does he have a different view to them? I would hazard a guess that not one poster here would say grooming gangs should be ignored – and yet are up in arms because the man who is speaking out has become someone that it’s de rigueur to vilify. Some people need to question their priorities – and their principles.
"My God spath, if some of us are 'barmy' what the hell are YOU with you pathetic ramblings ???"
I'm not sure but at least i don't want a convicted criminal as our PM especially one known as Tommy Robinson how ridiculous.
If you think he's shown good qualities to be in politics then you've only focused on half his media reputation.
I'm not sure but at least i don't want a convicted criminal as our PM especially one known as Tommy Robinson how ridiculous.
If you think he's shown good qualities to be in politics then you've only focused on half his media reputation.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
