Suella! Braverman!

Going back to ethnicity of grooming gangs….

BBC News – Twenty-one convicted in West Midlands child sex abuse inquiry
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-65189785

**** sake that makes grim reading.

Going back to ethnicity of grooming gangs….

Shhh, that undermines the narrative.

Shhh, that undermines the narrative.

Damn, you’ve seen through my cunning plan

**** sake that makes grim reading.

Doesn’t it just. What makes it even more depressing is that the whole issue is being cynically used as a piece of political grandstanding by these morally bankrupt shysters

I have just discovered that the chief crown prosecutor who prosecuted the Rochdale grooming gangs, Nazir Afzal, is of Pakistani parents and is a practicing Muslim.

The racists kept that quiet.

It’s almost as if you can get both good and bad Muslim/British Pakistanis, a bit like white Brits I guess. Who would have thought it?

I’m struggling to get my head round the 4D chess that’s going on here.

It’s a horrific case from what I heard on the radio on the way home and from the little I’ve read since – not that I’m going out of my way to read stuff. And of course ‘easy’ points could be scored by asking why the ethnicity of the convicted is not front and centre in the reporting of it, given this week’s pronouncements that we mustn’t shy away from confronting it.

That’s the bit I don’t get. Although the reporting has been kept secret because of the type and duration of the trials going on, I can’t believe that the PM, Home Sec, etc., and relevant advisors are not fully aware of what is going on and that it’s a white gang that did it. And consequently the obvious challenge that seems to be coming.

Is it some sort of trap they expect their critics to fall into that I can’t see. Are they taking aim at ‘Pakistani grooming gangs’ in spite of knowing this in some sort of attempt to appeal to their far right support? I just don’t quite get why they’ve been all over ethnicity of grooming gangs with this about to break?

^^ The “market” they are aiming for simply sees the facts they want to see. No 4D chess required.

“I can’t believe that the PM, Home Sec, etc., and relevant advisors are not fully aware of what is going on”

I can… Just like with the shooting of refugees in Rwanda that Cruella was pulled up on the other day on sky News, this government hasn’t got a scooby doo.

They don’t listen to advisors and Civil Servants, why would they when they’ve got Tommy Robinson and Paul Dacre on speed dial?

I also wonder if said advisors and Civil servants no longer bother to inform their masters of pesky little things like the facts, or the truth. Instead they just take the insults that are thrown in their direction and wait for their bosses to fall flat on their face.

If your bosses were constantly castigating you in front of the public, wouldn’t you keep mum if you knew there was a rotting banana skin waiting for your Cabinet Secretary a couple of steps down the road?

ethnicity of the convicted

It isn’t even that, it is the ethnicity of “suspects”, in other words innocent people in the eyes of the law, a point which as a lawyer Braverman understands very well.

We’re cracking down on grooming gangs by:

◽️Launching a new police Taskforce of specialist officers to tackle child abuse
◽️Introducing mandatory reporting for adults working with children
◽️Bringing in tough sentences for gang members
◽️Collecting ethnicity data of suspects

— UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) April 3, 2023

It might seem a small point but the use of the term “suspect” rather than “those convicted” will definitely have been deliberate so it makes me wonder why, ie, what was the thinking?

With regards to the latest grooming/ paedophile gang conviction, just an observation – there were a surprising amount of women involved, I suspect that the possibility of them having been abused as children is very high, as sadly is also the possibility of some of the men involved. As apparently it is often the case. It really does **** up people’s heads, the lasting damage is immense.

Those responsible should be relentlessly pursued and the victims provided with a appropriate and long-term support. Which of course costs money.

It isn’t even that, it is the ethnicity of “suspects”, in other words innocent people in the eyes of the law, a point which as a lawyer Braverman understands very well.

The words “as a lawyer” are doing a lot of lifting there!

Why?

I think the extent of her experience in the legal profession never made it past the office photocopier in a lawyers office.

She does have a Grant Shapps-esque capacity for building her part up though

Suella Braverman accused of faking contribution to law textbook when ‘all she was asked to do was photocopy’

Why

Binners beat me to it.

Yeah I knew about the alleged exaggeration of her contributions to a text book but she did qualify as a barrister. She would definitely be aware of the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

She would definitely be aware of the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

I think it’s very much a theoretical concept to her

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1643286329390669828?t=uSJxp0981p2w8Ot9CdzCiw&s=19

I’m struggling to get my head round the 4D chess that’s going on here.

The recent case has 7 victims – I guess there may be more. A conservative estimate is that there were 1,400 victims in Rotherham and 1,000 in Telford.

I think that you might have missed theotherjonv’s point mefty.

I didn’t get the impression that it was some sort of competition between this case and previous cases. Yes Rotherham involved far more people and was for a much longer period before the authorities put a stop to it.

But this latest case was apparently the largest ever child sex abuse case investigated by West Midlands Police. And the victims particularly young – the eldest 12 years old.

The very fact that so far only 7 victims have been identified actually probably makes it even worse imo. 7 children, the eldest 12, abused by 21 people for almost 10 years? FFS.

Hard as it might be to say one child abused 200 times must be worse than one child abused twice. The number of perpetrators is possibly even more of an issue than the number of victims, in my humble and completely non-expert opinion.

Anyway I understood theotherjonv’s point to be not about the severity of the case but the fact that Braverman would have aware that the story was about to break and yet banged on about Pakistani child abuse gangs.

I think Rishi Sunak was more careful than Braverman and didn’t mention “Pakistani” when talking about grooming gangs.

See “GollyGate” has come back to bite her in the arse.

In what way?

See “GollyGate” has come back to bite her in the arse.

Is she in a bit of a jam?

She claimed she had told the police not to bother with such minor nonsense and to get on with catching real criminals.  the police force deny this.

I know who I believe and its not Sue Ellen

Home Secretary told the Mail online she is "furious" the police intervened on golliwog displays in an Essex pub.

Yet it seems the highly racist landlord had posted Facebook images of the Golliwogs hanging in his pub, writing "they used to hand them in Mississippi years ago" pic.twitter.com/F9UxG9mDfu

— Sunder Katwala (@sundersays) April 10, 2023

welcome to the white Hart Lynching reenactment Night.

Another please shut with your racist shit letter

The Guardian has this quote from her.

She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”

I mean who hasnt stuck on a t-shirt from a far right group since it just happened to be handy?

She claimed she had told the police not to bother with such minor nonsense and to get on with catching real criminals. the police force deny this.

I know who I believe and its not Sue Ellen

I don’t think she did. Apparently a “Home Office source” made that claim, not Braverman. The police are saying that the Home Secretary hasn’t contacted them, which contradicts the Home Office source, not Braverman.

I don’t think she did. Apparently a “Home Office source” made that claim, not Braverman

Its being quoted as “source close to Braverman” which is a tad different to “home office source”.
Normal depressing journalism allowing the politician to make a claim but have a cutout in place in case they get shown to be lying. As in this case.

Its being quoted as

I guess it differs according to what article you read. I have read two articles which claimed that a Home Office source had told Sky News.

he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.

I took that as meaning that all his other tee shirts were in the wash.

Luckily I never get to a situation where the only clean tee shirts I have left available are neo-nazi ones.

That requires some advance planning mind.

I like to dress up my collection of ‘gollies’ in far right t-shirts

Doesn’t everyone?

Who wouldn’t want to clearly signal
their agreement with totally rational, considered and measured opinions such as this?

https://twitter.com/goldingbf/status/1645804265984888835?s=46&t=1lK7Dw1b6RqGJyvufO-trQ

What have I woken up to here!?

The Home Secretary’s husband has a far right t-shirt? As in “I’m not racist, my husband is Jewish” Braverman has racist supporting clothing in the house?

No, the pub landlady’s husband. But he only wore it because his robes (sorry, other T-shirts) were in the wash.

You know, the ones that Braverman was reportedly annoyed about the police getting involved in because they shouldn’t waste time on minor stuff. According to ‘a home office source’ or ‘a source close to SB’ depending what version you read.

I guess all depends on whether golly lynching and bantz about it on twitter are just minor stuff to you.

It’s the pub landlord claiming that he’s not racist who’s wearing the Britain First T-Shirt. Because don’t we all have t-shirts bearing far right slogans?

Looks like the Tories have got their real brain boxes in the press banging on about the small boats again, coincidentally on the same day the Britain First leader is accusing the RNLI of being people traffickers

Time to get real about who is on these migrant boats. We now learn that *19* terror suspects have come to the UK this way to claim asylum. This is a national security issue. ALL illegal boats should be turned back.

— Isabel Oakeshott (@IsabelOakeshott) April 11, 2023

Terror suspects are crossing the English Channel and living in a hotel near you. When are we going to wake up? pic.twitter.com/Mht1TdjTDM

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) April 11, 2023

If you were being cynical you could suspect that a similar approach to Brexit was being taken here. Where useful, non-official sources are used as outriders to throw extreme views and scaremongering out there, shifting the argument to the right, then these views are then echoed, slightly toned down, by the government.

I expect Suella will be announcing wave machines in the channel, Royal Navy submarines torpedoing migrant boats or landmines on the beaches by this afternoon, saying it’s needed to ‘combat terrorism’

Has some new data come to light, which is prompting all these claims? No sources seem to be immediately evident…

I don’t think there’s any new ‘information’. Its just more of this, ahead of the local elections…

Its literally all they’ve got left.

Suella has been surprisingly quiet for a few days now, but I’m sure that now her outriders have put this out there, she’ll be happy to pop up with some ‘solutions’ to the completely fabricated issue any moment now

That pub landlady has now replace the golliwogs display.

No sources seem to be immediately evident…

Unnamed “sources” have told the Daily Mail that 19 suspected terrorists have entered Britain posing as small boat migrants, do you need more than that?

Has some new data come to light, which is prompting all these claims?

Yes. They have noticed the local elections getting a day closer plus there are various mutterings that some tory mps will push back against Bravermans “small boats” bill.

That pub landlady has now replace the golliwogs display.

and put a sign up saying (paraphrasing) ‘we have a display of gollies* behind our bar, so unless that appeals to you prepare to be offended’

So that’s all OK now.

* pub landlady has caved in and won’t say wog any longer because some people find it offensive, even though she doesn’t. That’s nice of her