Starmer’s chronicles

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Just to add some enhanced optics on the above

Nazir Afzal was Chief Prosecutor in North West England from 2011 to 2015 and does appear to be a very respected individual. It is, therefore, important to read behind the explosive headline in the publication Politicalite: "GORDON Brown’s Labour Government allegedly urged Police Forces across the UK ‘not to investigate’ grooming gangs," to see what Mr Afzal actually sad in his interview with the BBC.

According to Altnewsmedia Nazir Afzal made the comment when he was interviewed on the Radio 4 PM programme on 19th October (2018). What he said was this: "back in 2008, the Home Office sent a circular to all police forces in the country stating: "as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for police officers to get involved in." This was quoted correctly by Politicalite. However, when questioned about whether the Metropolitan Police had received such a letter the London Mayor's office stated: "Without further details the Met Police is unable to identify the Home Office circular from 2008 referred to nor the letter in question. Therefore, they cannot state whether any investigations were closed down in response to the letter or whether any order in the letter was later rescinded." Similarly, in response to a FOI query, West Mercia Police said there was,"No specific recorded information held." Furthermore, a search of the words "informed Choice" finds nothing on https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk.

In the International Business Times Nazir Afzal writes....
"The term "child prostitute" was used to describe victims and the Home Office in a circular to police in 2008 used that term and spoke of girls making an "informed choice" to engage in this behaviour"

However, there is no mention of an instruction saying that police shouldn't get involved. Indeed, his IBT article goes on to state: "Following the case, everyone including the prime minister chose to respond to the lessons learnt. I was commended in parliament and in the media."

So, what of the publisher of the explosive headline about Gordon Brown's Government?
their support us page claims ...."Politicalite is the truly independent news site that reports the unreported news by the people for the people, but we are under attack by the Establishment who are trying to censor real news written by the people for the people." The search bar at the top of the page contains individual links to Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage. An overview of its contents clear shows that its editorial stance is to support Robinson, Farage and, indeed, Donald Trump.

Perhaps a cellarful of salt would be in order when reviewing their stories.

It was publicly stated on Radio 4(the recording is included in the link) by somebody who should be considered a reliable source.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

He isn't wrong that there might be a case for another inquiry if someone can suggest a new scope not covered in the 2022 one.

He is wrong about freeing Tommy Robinson or calling for the King to dissolve Parliament.

Tommy Robinson is only in prison because he contravened a contempt of court order.

Nothing he has presented or reported is incorrect, as far as I can tell.

He’s not been sued for libel!

Douglas Murray says the same things as Tommy Robinson, some times going further, he never gets vilified, because he has a posh accent.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Tommy Robinson is only in prison because he contravened a contempt of court order.

Nothing he has presented or reported is incorrect, as far as I can tell.

He’s not been sued for libel!

Douglas Murray says the same things as Tommy Robinson, some times going further, he never gets vilified, because he has a posh accent.

Yes, he is in prison for contempt of court.

He was sued for libel and lost as far as I can see. It was after that in which in which he repeated the disproven crimes that got him the jail time for contempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_...ult_libel_case

16-year-old boy, believed to be the attacker, who was interviewed by police and given a court summons, had shared numerous social media posts by Robinson.[204] On Facebook, Robinson subsequently posted a screenshot of a message from a mother saying her daughter had been bullied and he accused the refugee of being the bully. However, the mother responded on Robinson's Facebook page informing him this was false.[206] Robinson also made a false allegation using a photo stolen from a news article on a teenage cancer patient.[207]

These events forced the refugee's family to relocate because "the level of abuse the children have received has become too much".[208] The family decided to move elsewhere in West Yorkshire.[209] Robinson may have breached court orders preventing the naming of the alleged perpetrator in several videos on Facebook and Instagram, including one that was viewed more than 150,000 times. A lawyer said in doing so Robinson had "compounded" the refugee's suffering, adding "many people on social media having viewed Mr Yaxley-Lennon's [Robinson's] lies believed them and expressed their outrage toward [the refugee]."[210]

On 22 July 2021, Robinson was found to have libelled the boy and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs,[218] which were understood to amount to a further £500,000. An injunction was also granted to stop Robinson from repeating the libel.[219] Robinson, who represented himself during the four-day trial, said he was "gobsmacked" by the costs the victim's lawyers were claiming, which he said included £70,000 for taking witness statements. He added: "I've not got any money. I'm bankrupt. I've struggled hugely with my own issues these last 12 months ... I ain't got it."[218] In January 2022, an independent insolvency expert was appointed by Robinson's creditors (who include the schoolboy and the boy's lawyers – owed an estimated £1.5m in legal costs) to find any assets or money that Robinson could be hiding.[17]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Tommy Robinson is only in prison because he contravened a contempt of court order.

Nothing he has presented or reported is incorrect, as far as I can tell.

He’s not been sued for libel!

Douglas Murray says the same things as Tommy Robinson, some times going further, he never gets vilified, because he has a posh accent.

Yes, Yaxley-Lennon was sued for libel. He then repeated the libel and is in prison for contempt of court. He isn’t a folk hero. He’s subject to the same laws as the rest of us. The Contempt of Court Act is indeed draconian - every trainee journalist is lectured on it in detail because it can land you in jail very quickly. ‘Tommy Robinson’ will however have had this very clearly explained to him before he chose to do what he did.

As for Elmo presenting things correctly, well amongst many basic constitutional misunderstandings he’s opined on today is the idea that the King can just dissolve Parliament, without advice, thereby making his failure to ‘rescue’ us by doing so some inexplicable failing of Royal duty.

Also I am no fan of Farage but it's a pleasing part of UK politics that even he and Reform want nothing to do with him: https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1875252893928058938

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yes, he is in prison for contempt of court.

He was sued for libel and lost as far as I can see. It was after that in which in which he repeated the disproven crimes that got him the jail time for contempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_...ult_libel_case

I stand corrected, regarding the libel.

In regards to libel, I was thinking around his reporting and film (which I haven’t seen) regarding grooming gangs.

I thought his contempt was around “reporting” on some of the accused regarding grooming gangs.

---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Yes, Yaxley-Lennon was sued for libel. He then repeated the libel and is in prison for contempt of court. He isn’t a folk hero. He’s subject to the same laws as the rest of us. The Contempt of Court Act is indeed draconian - every trainee journalist is lectured on it in detail because it can land you in jail very quickly. ‘Tommy Robinson’ will however have had this very clearly explained to him before he chose to do what he did.

As for Elmo presenting things correctly, well amongst many basic constitutional misunderstandings he’s opined on today is the idea that the King can just dissolve Parliament, without advice, thereby making his failure to ‘rescue’ us by doing so some inexplicable failing of Royal duty.

I didn’t say he was a folk hero.

The grooming gang situation needs a proper national enquiry, looking at all the various ones.

Rotherham, Halifax, Huddersfield, Telford, Rochdale, Oldham and any and all others.

This is what has sprung this. Jess Phillips, Minister for Women and heckled and berated at her election by Muslim men has rejected government support for such and enquiry.

Quite disgusting really.

Originally Posted by Pierre

This is what has sprung this. Jess Phillips, Minister for Women and heckled and berated at her election by Muslim men has rejected government support for such and enquiry.

Quite disgusting really.

I think an inquiry might be the wise thing to do to help people avoid a sense of a cover-up and just politically.

But realistically I am not sure what would be different from the one they had in 2022 which also looked into exploitation of children by criminal networks. It wasn't especially about Rochdale because a separate inquiry was had into that.

As has been pointed out it might be better if Labour implemented all its recommendations. The previous government, who also rejected the called-for inquiry, didn't implement any of them despite how angry they are now: https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-rec...endations.html

Those were specifically about children exploited by gangs, there are more recommendations in the main report.

Again I am not against a new one if there is a remit that was not covered by the above but those calling for it should tell us what that remit is.

Originally Posted by nomadking

It was publicly stated on Radio 4(the recording is included in the link) by somebody who should be considered a reliable source.

And has been pointed out, facts (the Circular he mentioned) contradict what he said, so whilst he may be "considered a reliable source" normally, in this instance, he isn’t - he was repeating what he had been told by others, and what they told him was incorrect.

[nomadking]

Far too many awkward questions to be answered with an inquiry.
Eg Why are they referred as "Asian gangs", when the common factor is Islam(eg groups of Somalis, especially in the Netherlands). How did the gangs form so easily with friends, neighbours, workmates. How did they easily find others wanting to abuse in other town and cities that the girls were trafficked to. IMO they aren't paedophiles as such, it's just girls that happened to be young and could be controlled easily.


Other types of gangs are where the primary motive is being paedophiles which don't form easily, and postcode gangs, where the motives are not sexual at all.

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And has been pointed out, facts (the Circular he mentioned) contradict what he said, so whilst he may be "considered a reliable source" normally, in this instance, he isn’t - he was repeating what he had been told by others, and what they told him was incorrect.

He himself received a copy of the document. He was speaking first hand. Three years earlier, a police officer (DC Tony Crookes of South Yorkshire Police) also made the claim.
Link

6. To ensure good record management practice, the Crown Prosecution Service operates a
schedule of retention and destruction of records. We only hold records when they have value
and wil dispose of them when it is not proportionate for them to be retained. The retention
schedule identifies and categorises different class of records and defines how long they should
be retained for. The schedule in operation in 2008 states that administrative files should be
held for 5 years and then destroyed if no longer required. A memorandum from the Home
Office would likely have been considered as an administrative file and would have been subject
to this schedule of destructions.

He himself received a copy of the document. He was speaking first hand. Three years earlier, a police officer (DC Tony Crookes of South Yorkshire Police) also made the claim.

From my previous post…

Nazir Azfal

Dozens of police officers told me Home Office Circular 17/2008 on child abuse had supporting guidelines (issued by whom I don’t know) which referred to children making an “informed choice”

Never seen it (I’m not police) & certainly no Minister would have needed to agree it

Your last quote refers to a CPS FOI request, not to the actual Home Office Circular referred to, which is still available on the Home Office website archives, and has been referred to, and quoted from, many times in this thread.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

that was a yawnfest

Thank you - coming from you, that means a lot…

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

From my previous post…



Your last quote refers to a CPS FOI request, not to the actual Home Office Circular referred to, which is still available on the Home Office website archives, and has been referred to, and quoted from, many times in this thread.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------



Thank you - coming from you, that means a lot…

I've been having trouble sleeping, but slept like a log last night, your talent is such that it could put a glass eye to sleep, remember facts are our friends

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

From my previous post…



Your last quote refers to a CPS FOI request, not to the actual Home Office Circular referred to, which is still available on the Home Office website archives, and has been referred to, and quoted from, many times in this thread.

---------- Post added at 10:01 ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 ----------



Thank you - coming from you, that means a lot…

Copies sent to:
Chief Officers of Police (England Wales and Northern Ireland), Clerks to the Police Authorities, the Chief Clerk of the Crown Court, the Chief Crown Prosecutor, the Clerk to the Justices, Association of Chief Police Officers (England Wales and Northern Ireland), LA Chief Executives, Director of Education, Director of Children’s social care, Chief Executive Regional Health Authority

2008 is after much of it had gone on. Not sure the circular is that relevant, as it seems to revolve around parental care, which is not where the problems were.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 ----------

The term "informed choice" is used in the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) 2008 Act. It is used in connection with whether somebody has a mental disorder and cannot make an "informed choice". Is that where the confusion comes from?
Link

7.19.Part 4 covers offences designed to give protection to persons with a mental disorder. The offences cover situations where the victim is unable to agree to sexual activity because of a mental disorder which impedes their capacity to make an informed choice, or where it might appear that the victim had agreed to the sexual activity but because of a mental disorder which makes them vulnerable to inducements, threats or deceptions, or because they are in a relationship of care, their consent was not or could not be deemed to have been freely given.

Find it difficult to believe that dozens of police officers would've lied about it.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by nomadking

2008 is after much of it had gone on. Not sure the circular is that relevant, as it seems to revolve around parental care, which is not where the problems were.

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 ----------

The term "informed choice" is used in the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) 2008 Act. It is used in connection with whether somebody has a mental disorder and cannot make an "informed choice". Is that where the confusion comes from?
Link


Find it difficult to believe that dozens of police officers would've lied about it.

what would be in it for them?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Find it difficult to believe that dozens of police officers would've lied about it.

They did for Hillsborough.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

They did for Hillsborough.

Indeed. Here’s what was finally established at the 2016 inquest. They’re human, just as capable of being lazy, prejudiced or outright liars as anyone else, especially when their reputation’s on the line.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-35473732