ancapailldorcha wrote: » Have you any proof of this?
tritriagain wrote: » In fairness im no fan of Tommy but this is well documented.
tritriagain wrote: » https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9253250/Rochdale-grooming-trial-Police-accused-of-failing-to-investigate-paedophile-gang-for-fear-of-appearing-racist.html
Complaints to social workers and the police were ignored because they were "petrified of being called racist", former Labour MP for Keighley Ann Cryer said.
Assistant Chief Constable Steve Heywood acknowledged that officers could have dealt with the case "better than we did". But he denied that the girl's complaints had been "brushed under the carpet" because officers were reluctant to confront the issue of race. "At the time we did what we thought was best," he said. "We have learned a lot of lessons.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Is that it? Some MP decided to shift the blame instead of taking responsibility? Here's what the Assistant Chief Constable said (in the same link):
kowloon wrote: » Watched the video, and while they do look like a bunch of football hooligans the ending seems a little suspicious. It's dishonest buttering the guy up off camera and playing nice until you have enough footage. I think you need to be completely square with these people or you only lend credence to their 'biased liberal media' claims.
moonage wrote: » The difference is that brown paedos (Muslims) were allowed to get away with their abuse for decades because the authorities didn't want to be seen as racist. This enabled the abuse to be carried out in a very highly organised, systematic manner on a massive scale and nothing was done about it.White paedos, by contrast, were dealt with as the law required and were locked up.
moonage wrote: » The difference is that brown paedos (Muslims) were allowed to get away with their abuse for decades because the authorities didn't want to be seen as racist. This enabled the abuse to be carried out in a very highly organised, systematic manner on a massive scale and nothing was done about it. White paedos, by contrast, were dealt with as the law required and were locked up.
moonage wrote: » White paedos, by contrast, were dealt with as the law required and were locked up.
piplip87 wrote: » So did anybody watch his expose of the BBC ? Was it a load BS as expected
rgossip30 wrote: » The video with subtitles is to be released soon difficult to hear ,heads will roll at the bib and hope not hate.Interesting to see those that make Panorama slobbering.urm urm.
Canis Lupus wrote: » Anyone translate this for me?
batgoat wrote: » Meanwhile it really sums up the type of people at Tommy marches when you see this. Justifications from certain people shortly I imagine.https://twitter.com/Davidpoucherxo/status/1099322206759411713?s=19
GinAndBitter wrote: » Desperation stuff from you BatGoat. Is this all you could find? No violence or racism videos anywhere?? The behaviour of your buddies from the far left was much worse in Rooskey last week, no condemnation from you on that one though.
batgoat wrote: » I actually do know a few people in the dreaded Rooskey event. A counter protest against a group led by a racist conspiracy theorist. Meanwhile for example during the free Tommy event, numerous people were arrested and a bus was blockaded because the driver was wearing a headscarf.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tommy-robinson-protest-bus-blockade-woman-driver-headscarf-trump-latest-a8447536.html By the way, the main reason Tommy Robinson made this 'documentary is because Yaxley is facing his own Panorama documentary in the near future according to BBC.
Chris_Heilong wrote: » It is sicking the amount of abuse of power the media have and how they try to influence the poor gullible readers/listeners who do not know any better, at least if nothing else what Tommy has shown how low some of these so called reporters can be.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » How exactly have the legal system been heavy handed towards convicted criminal Tommy Robinson?
OMM 0000 wrote: » A judge decided no media should be allowed report on a Muslim gang who had been raping children for decades. Tommy disagreed with this, so he filmed outside the court, after the criminals had already been convicted for their crimes. This was illegal (as the judge had banned media covering the case), but Tommy felt the public had a right to know about these pedophile gangs. He was arrested for the filming, and sentenced to 13 months in prison. You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court. That's the gist of it. Regardless of your opinion on Tommy, a reasonable person should be able to see this is the court system being draconian.
OMM 0000 wrote: » . You will be hard pressed to find anyone getting 13 months in prison for contempt of court.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Whether tommy disagreed with the initial reporting ban is irrelevant. That is not his decision to make. If he was in any way intelligent he would realise why the reporting ban was in place and obey it like every other journalist. He claims to be a journalist so he should be held to the same standards as other journalist. He also was not jailed for 13 months for that contempt alone. He had a suspended sentence of 4 months for a previous contempt that was activated. So his sentence should have been a MINIMUM of 4 months. His sentence was only set aside for procedural matters. He was guilty of contempt. If any actual journalist had committed the same contempt they would have been treated the same. They wouldn't because they are not as thick as Tommy who is only interesting in generating publicity for himself and getting gullible fools to send him money on the back of that..
OMM 0000 wrote: » I said he was sentenced to 13 months in prison, I didn't say he spent 13 months in prison. You can read the prison sentence here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-jailed-contempt-court-facebook-live-video-stephen-yaxley-lennon-a8374121.html First sentence: Tommy Robinson has been jailed for 13 months for breaking contempt of court laws with a Facebook Live video.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » and the first 4 months of that 13 months were a previous 4 months suspended sentence that was activated when he offended again. Dont depend on an individual newspaper report to tell you everything.