[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Thunder Bolt]

A man has been charged with threatening Jess Philips.

Man charged following reports of threats towards Jess Phillips, Sky News understands

A 39-year-old has been charged with three counts of malicious communications. The messages involve three victims, including the Birmingham Yardley MP.

news.sky.com

 

[Machiavelli]

Not just the grooming gangs.

Cases like Archie Battersbee, the suppression of leaked coroner’s reports, and his mother Hollie Dance’s subsequent original attempted murder arrest (now a GBH charge - unrelated to Archie’s death) has been woefully undocumented, making two BBC news reports filed in the “Local News” sections.

As for the grooming gangs, they all received minimal press coverage given the scale of the offending (an estimated 1400 victims in two towns alone), and sources like the BBC buried several of the stories relating to the local authority’s conduct, as noted repeatedly in the inquiry chaired by Professor Jay.

The point was made that local authorities, the media, the police and even the judiciary were found to be extremely reticent when reporting such cases due to fears of being labelled racist, due to practically all of the offenders in these specific cases being of Pakistani origin. It’s all there in the report.

I'd be a little more cautious here. From what I can see (and you've brought it to my attention), Archie Battersbee along with his mother, Hollie Dance, is a very different case to the Pakistani grooming gangs.
Agree that the local authorities, and police have acted poorly and have conspired to achieve the opposite of reducing racial tensions (if this is what their aim was). The Rochdale case was a long time ago though, between 2008 and 2010. Oldham likewise was between 2011 and 2013. In terms of the media, these have been widely covered, including hard-hitting dramas, eg the excellent Three Girls (2017).
I'm currently watching C4 News and there's someone on from Survivors International who is very careful to talk about how wide-ranging this is in terms of perpetrators, mentioning the Church of England.

Now why all of a sudden is this such a big issue?

 

[jcdenton08]

Er, after the convictions started happening there wasn't. This is the really odd thing. Everything has been covered extensively in the media and the press.

The wider general public either absorbed it in context at the time or (unlikely) ignored it.

It's only fired up again due to Musk and his weird obsession with the Labour party. For balance he could equally go after the Conservatives.

Like a number of grifting conspiracy theorists, his strategy is to claim to expose things have already been exposed.

Robinson did the same outside court, claiming to "expose" things that were already being prosecuted.

Yaxley-Lennon’s argument, as I understand it, was that the case was in a media blackout under the judge’s orders, in order to ensure a fair trial and, as stated above, keep the peace. He’s rightly in prison now for reporting on the case in direct contempt of court.

The cases in Telford and Bristol were not under such restrictions from the judge but the media chose a near blackout anyway.

Probably related to this (posted from the Shropshire Local News desk) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-62149438.amp

 

[jcdenton08]

I'd be a little more cautious here. From what I can see (and you've brought it to my attention), Archie Battersbee along with his mother, Hollie Dance, is a very different case to the Pakistani grooming gangs.
Agree that the local authorities, and police have acted poorly and have conspired to achieve the opposite of reducing racial tensions (if this is what their aim was). The Rochdale case was a long time ago though, between 2008 and 2010. Oldham likewise was between 2011 and 2013. In terms of the media, these have been widely covered, including hard-hitting dramas, eg the excellent Three Girls (2017).
I'm currently watching C4 News and there's someone on from Survivors International who is very careful to talk about how wide-ranging this is in terms of perpetrators, mentioning the Church of England.

Now why all of a sudden is this such a big issue?

Absolutely, the church can **** right off too. I grew up C of E and was an altar boy until I was 11-12 - the vicar was subsequently convicted of historical child abuse some 20 years earlier. Some absolute scum in the world, and more needs to be done.

This is what happens when groups close ranks - the church, the police - nobody gets justice.

 

[ROSM]

Yaxley-Lennon’s argument, as I understand it, was that the case was in a media blackout under the judge’s orders, in order to ensure a fair trial and, as stated above, keep the peace. He’s rightly in prison now for reporting on the case in direct contempt of court.

The cases in Telford and Bristol were not under such restrictions from the judge but the media chose a near blackout anyway.

Probably related to this (posted from the Shropshire Local News desk) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-62149438.amp

Cases - especially those which may be linked to other trials are often not publicised if a) the information in court can't be reported without prejudicing a future trial on a different matter b) the information if reported would potentially lead to victims being identified.

One such example, I was due to be an expert witness in a case at the old Bailey. Whilst there waiting to be called I saw the 1st Jonathan king trial which wasn't reported on until after a second trial 6 months later.

In the end I wasn't needed for my trial as my evidence was uncontested

 

[clapham_gull]

As for the grooming gangs, they all received minimal press coverage given the scale of the offending (an estimated 1400 victims in two towns alone), and sources like the BBC buried several of the stories relating to the local authority’s conduct, as noted repeatedly in the inquiry chaired by Professor Jay.

I've got the report in front of me, where does it mention the media "burying" reports ?

Irrespective of that, for the last decade all the major news outlets have reported on the scandal and in significant detail the communities the perpetrators came from.

No holding back.

Over the last few days, Jess Phillips and Kier Starmer are now responsible and guilty of a cover up.

It's bizarre.

 

[The Clamp]

I've got the report in front of me, where does it mention the media "burying" reports ?

Irrespective of that, for the last decade all the major news outlets have reported on the scandal and in significant detail the communities the perpetrators came from.

No holding back.

Over the last few days, Jess Phillips and Kier Starmer are now responsible and guilty of a cover up.

It's bizarre.

Certain papers and politicians know the triggers to get thick, Brexity, dumbos all wound up.

 

[Springal]

Don’t forget this all started recently because of the trials in Oxford and transcripts from court being released, with horrific details.

If there was some Labour cover up or conspiracy why would they allow these to be released.

How the net closed on Oxford's grooming gang - BBC News

How did sex offenders at the centre of Oxford's depraved underworld finally come to face justice?

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[jcdenton08]

I've got the report in front of me, where does it mention the media "burying" reports ?

Irrespective of that, for the last decade all the major news outlets have reported on the scandal and in significant detail the communities the perpetrators came from.

No holding back.

Over the last few days, Jess Phillips and Kier Starmer are now responsible and guilty of a cover up.

It's bizarre.

I don’t think they’re responsible. I think a huge number of people varying from safeguarding agencies, the police, the CPS and others numbering hundreds of people are complicit in allowing these crimes to happen.

I think Musk et al are incorrigible for political point scoring over this issue and don’t blame Labour or Starmer one bit, in fact he did more as DPP to convict these criminals than before or since.

I’m angry about the crimes, not the rhetoric, and yes, I was just as angry at the time and said so. And yes, I am just as angry at incestual paedophiles, those who hide behind the cloth to offend, and everyone else who commits these offences regardless of skin colour or creed.

 

[clapham_gull]

Yaxley-Lennon’s argument, as I understand it, was that the case was in a media blackout under the judge’s orders, in order to ensure a fair trial and, as stated above, keep the peace. He’s rightly in prison now for reporting on the case in direct contempt of court.

The cases in Telford and Bristol were not under such restrictions from the judge but the media chose a near blackout anyway.

Probably related to this (posted from the Shropshire Local News desk) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-62149438.amp

Just to point out how ill-informed you are (with the rest of Twitter and its owner) Yaxley-Lennon’s current imprisonment has f*** all to do with grooming gangs.

As neither did his ones for mortgage fraud or entering the USA on a false passport.

 

[Berty23]

If it was football, I feel you would have a point. But this lady and victims need some sort of action, I am so disappointed with Keir, any real labour leader would have supported the rape victims, I also thought Jess would have had some fight for the victims.
Do you have empathy for these victims?

Genuinely interested in what is behind these comments.

Starmer was appointed to the role in November 2008. By 2010 cases were being reopened because he felt they had not been investigated properly. This really took off in 2011. Wasn’t 2009 when the focus was on Saville and the abuse cover up? Then he shifted it much wider. By 2012 the prosecutions were happening (which will always take time when so much information is needed from briefings/statements etc).

He also changed the rules so that witnesses were treated differently ie no longer assumed to be rubbish witnesses if they had “a past” etc. also introduced specialist units.

All of this recent coverage of “should have done more sooner” is because more has come to light since. At the time he would have been slated for ignoring saville or something else. These things take time. Starmer did loads in his role.

I have no idea how the media and especially the Tories are banging on about this now given we are more than 2 years since the child abuse independent investigation report and basically nothing happened.

Political points being made.

Musk the friend of Trump who himself was best friends for a decade with Epstein suddenly cares about child abuse? Nope.

 

[Guinness Boy]

A man has been charged with threatening Jess Philips.

Man charged following reports of threats towards Jess Phillips, Sky News understands

A 39-year-old has been charged with three counts of malicious communications. The messages involve three victims, including the Birmingham Yardley MP.

news.sky.com

Someone will be along soon to do the mental gymnastics that this is two tier policing while maintaining that Farage’s milk shake attacker should be hung.

 

[Berty23]

Not just the grooming gangs.

Cases like Archie Battersbee, the suppression of leaked coroner’s reports, and his mother Hollie Dance’s subsequent original attempted murder arrest (now a GBH charge - unrelated to Archie’s death) has been woefully undocumented, making two BBC news reports filed in the “Local News” sections.

As for the grooming gangs, they all received minimal press coverage given the scale of the offending (an estimated 1400 victims in two towns alone), and sources like the BBC buried several of the stories relating to the local authority’s conduct, as noted repeatedly in the inquiry chaired by Professor Jay.

The point was made that local authorities, the media, the police and even the judiciary were found to be extremely reticent when reporting such cases due to fears of being labelled racist, due to practically all of the offenders in these specific cases being of Pakistani origin. It’s all there in the report.

You know loads of this came to light because of the Times right? Wasn’t it Andrew Norfolk who did loads of this. The mainstream media reported it.

 

[Machiavelli]

Genuinely interested in what is behind these comments.

Starmer was appointed to the role in November 2008. By 2010 cases were being reopened because he felt they had not been investigated properly. This really took off in 2011. Wasn’t 2009 when the focus was on Saville and the abuse cover up? Then he shifted it much wider. By 2012 the prosecutions were happening (which will always take time when so much information is needed from briefings/statements etc).

He also changed the rules so that witnesses were treated differently ie no longer assumed to be rubbish witnesses if they had “a past” etc. also introduced specialist units.

All of this recent coverage of “should have done more sooner” is because more has come to light since. At the time he would have been slated for ignoring saville or something else. These things take time. Starmer did loads in his role.

I have no idea how the media and especially the Tories are banging on about this now given we are more than 2 years since the child abuse independent investigation report and basically nothing happened.

Political points being made.

Musk the friend of Trump who himself was best friends for a decade with Epstein suddenly cares about child abuse? Nope.

Thanks for this detailed response with clear dating.

 

[Berty23]

Thanks for this detailed response with clear dating.

You’re welcome. Some of the coverage reminds me of the film Sully about the pilot who landed a plane on the Hudson in an emergency.

The film is about how crash investigators set about “proving” pilot error by making decisions based on current knowledge rather than acting on the information available at the time. They proved that he did not have to land on the river as he could have got to an airport. The bloke was sent to trial about it. Eventually people proved that the only way he could have made it to the airport to land more safely were if he had reacted immediately and done that. This would have not given him time to do all the checks he was supposed to do as part of the safety protocol so if he had got to the other airport he would have done the wrong thing based on what was known at the time. Great film.

 

[jcdenton08]

You’re welcome. Some of the coverage reminds me of the film Sully about the pilot who landed a plane on the Hudson in an emergency.

The film is about how crash investigators set about “proving” pilot error by making decisions based on current knowledge rather than acting on the information available at the time. They proved that he did not have to land on the river as he could have got to an airport. The bloke was sent to trial about it. Eventually people proved that the only way he could have made it to the airport to land more safely were if he had reacted immediately and done that. This would have not given him time to do all the checks he was supposed to do as part of the safety protocol so if he had got to the other airport he would have done the wrong thing based on what was known at the time. Great film.

It’s a good film but the part you’re describing is fiction, in order to give the movie a good antagonist (in real life, the antagonists were a flock of birds). Sully in reality was supported from the beginning by the NTSB, and ran recreation scenarios as they do in every incident of this type in order to learn from possible mistakes and for future training, not to prove he made a mistake.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Genuinely interested in what is behind these comments.

Starmer was appointed to the role in November 2008. By 2010 cases were being reopened because he felt they had not been investigated properly. This really took off in 2011. Wasn’t 2009 when the focus was on Saville and the abuse cover up? Then he shifted it much wider. By 2012 the prosecutions were happening (which will always take time when so much information is needed from briefings/statements etc).

He also changed the rules so that witnesses were treated differently ie no longer assumed to be rubbish witnesses if they had “a past” etc. also introduced specialist units.

All of this recent coverage of “should have done more sooner” is because more has come to light since. At the time he would have been slated for ignoring saville or something else. These things take time. Starmer did loads in his role.

I have no idea how the media and especially the Tories are banging on about this now given we are more than 2 years since the child abuse independent investigation report and basically nothing happened.

Political points being made.

Musk the friend of Trump who himself was best friends for a decade with Epstein suddenly cares about child abuse? Nope.

Musk, Reform & the Tories are politicising sexual crimes trying to get rid of a democratic elected government. Musk already tried to encourage civil war in August.
Now, Jess Philips has been threatened & a man charged.

 

[Berty23]

It’s a good film but the part you’re describing is fiction, in order to give the movie a good antagonist (in real life, the antagonists were a flock of birds). Sully in reality was supported from the beginning by the NTSB, and ran recreation scenarios as they do in every incident of this type in order to learn from possible mistakes and for future training, not to prove he made a mistake.

Fair enough. Sorry. The point stands though. You can’t always judge actions at the time with things that we now know. How would people have reacted if high profile celebs “let off”

 

[clapham_gull]

One such example, I was due to be an expert witness in a case at the old Bailey. Whilst there waiting to be called I saw the 1st Jonathan king trial which wasn't reported on until after a second trial 6 months later.

I took an interest. Firstly (before my time) I'd heard rumors about him at my work place. Secondly when I was in my 20s he gave me a leering look as he passed me in his Rolls Royce, winding through the back streets of Soho.

At the end of the second trial, I clearly remember the news reporting firstly he had been acquitted and but secondly he been found guilty earlier.

I luckily know a few solicitors who explained this to me in great detail, because I was unaware of this nuance with large prosecutions.

The cases were split due to number of accusers and secondly if the decisions were reversed his defence could easily have used the excuse he has already been found not guilty for similar accusations.

The reverse is obviously true.

Wouldn't that be brilliant if we were taught all that at school ? Yaxley - Lennon would have been laughed at for all his antics.

I do have sympathy with detractors of our education system. My education was in the 70s/80s and I didn't get taught proper history until I went to University.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Genuinely interested in what is behind these comments.

Starmer was appointed to the role in November 2008. By 2010 cases were being reopened because he felt they had not been investigated properly. This really took off in 2011. Wasn’t 2009 when the focus was on Saville and the abuse cover up? Then he shifted it much wider. By 2012 the prosecutions were happening (which will always take time when so much information is needed from briefings/statements etc).

He also changed the rules so that witnesses were treated differently ie no longer assumed to be rubbish witnesses if they had “a past” etc. also introduced specialist units.

All of this recent coverage of “should have done more sooner” is because more has come to light since. At the time he would have been slated for ignoring saville or something else. These things take time. Starmer did loads in his role.

The point about treating witnesses differently was vital. Getting youngsters to give evidence in a hostîle courtroom was extremely difficult. Many girls refused to give evidence (which was why Savile wasn’t charged). No evidence, no trial.
Screens were introduced so the jury could see the witness but not the defendants.

Think of the bravery of Madame Pelicot who was determined to put the shame back on the men. A milestone.