-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK's so-called "grooming gangs" get international attention
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
He didn't follow the one rule, never be horny on main. No wonder he was easily found out if he's asking every random for a shag.
RagnarokIV
Battlebus imprisoning me \m/ >.< \m/
High standards for MPs these days
And he’s fucking illiterate. Incredible. “Shane you are not in UK at moment”
Putonahappyface
Gold Member
Last edited:
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
That's the trouble. The top tier are in on it, the rest are just useful idiots.
Wheeljack539
Member
Yep. Elites are full of people that like to do shit like that. pedophilia is forbidden fruit:
You also have women agreeing to eat shit (and stuff) from wealthy Arabs in Dubai:
This is what power does to you, you can do unspeakable shit to other people and get away with it because money = power.
Epstein and all his friends, P. Diddy, European elites (mentioned in video above), that motherfucker from BBC, etc.
Difference is, elites are hiding most of this stuff and it rarely sees the light of day. In this case people were talking about if for decades and many culprits were just regular guys without large amounts of money or connections. Instead, government and police protected them for whatever fucking bullshit reason they had.
It's not only a forbidden fruit but one to control and blackmail the "customers" too.
P:axMagellanic
Member
Great interviewer. Whole system is fucked, not a clue how to fix it TBH.
Urban
Member
Could someone please explain the dynamics of this topic and Tommy Robinson to me as a non-UK citizen?
From what I understand, he has been speaking about this issue for years and was labeled a racist because of it—or was he discredited for opposing certain groups?
What role does Keir Starmer play in this context?
And why did Parliament vote against revisiting this topic for further examination?
From what I understand, he has been speaking about this issue for years and was labeled a racist because of it—or was he discredited for opposing certain groups?
What role does Keir Starmer play in this context?
And why did Parliament vote against revisiting this topic for further examination?
lifa-cobex
Member
High standards for MPs these days
Mistake
Member
I guess Robinson got convicted of some minor stuff which they're using against him. He's also too blunt or brutish, which turns people off.
Tams posted on the vote thing
Last edited:
MisterFalcon
Member
That's a lot of presumptive victimhood on display.
"may be charged"
"may be convicted"
"may be sentenced to the theoretical maximum"
And then lie about the term which is, according to the article, " a term not exceeding six months"
"may be charged"
"may be convicted"
"may be sentenced to the theoretical maximum"
And then lie about the term which is, according to the article, " a term not exceeding six months"
ValiantInstance
Member
It shows how the media works for most people that this has taken so long to become an international scandal. I knew all the most harrowing stories 5 years ago.
ValiantInstance
Member
He is lower working class and has a criminal record, so it was incredibly easy for the BBC and the like to tar and feather him in order to sweep what he was pointing out under the rug.
Last edited:
“Presumptive victimhood” over absolutely insane authoritarian police state hell. No one should be interrogated by the police and threatened with a prison sentence over screenshotting a public tweet.
He hasn't been an MP since 2005 so not exactly these days. He was part of the Jewish Labour Movement but that's not a parliamentary position.High standards for MPs these days
His last time as a member of Parliment was 20 years ago when he was dropped because of 'serious allegations' so UK parliament did a stand up job of upholding good standards it seems. The reason Greg Hatfield can face charges is also because Ivor has likely filed a complaint and the tweets legitamacy might be under investigation, doesn't mean it's an authoritarian state if he was interviewed and may be charged for causing a nuisance or may face 6 months depending or severity using possibly fake/deleted tweets. I don't think the police care for the person they just arrested just because they were an MP in 2005. They're just doing their job of investigating complaints even from arrested suspects. What may happen is something different entirely depending on the results of the investigations/interviews.
Last edited:
Fully embraced Orwellian dystopia huh.
Tommy Robinson - Wikipedia
He's just a chancer pretending to be a football hooligan who was also called Tommy Robinson. Most of his arrests are for being a genuine criminal not just for speaking out against Islam. He's a bit of a twat even if 1 part of his behavior has merit.
Keir Starmer - Wikipedia
Keir was a lawyer for a human rights group so you know he's been using the law to let in and not deport wrong uns. He then became head of public prosecutions so any lenient sentencing is probably down to his fault. I don't know what specific cases he was involved with but if people are unhappy there probably many reasons.
Also don't know why Parliament want it hushed up but the current Government is Labour and the muslim abuses mainly happened in Labour controlled areas run by Labour councilors so at a guess it's because they don't want to arrest their dodgy mates.
I don't see what's Orwellian dystopia about a police interview under caution. It's simply an investigation of a reported offence. You can even decline to attend and not give your side of the story and the police would have to look into the offence in other ways or drop the investigation. The guy is playing victim here. You don't just get arrested and sentenced to 5 years in prison for simply taking a screenshot of a tweet and not breaking any laws. It would have to have an underlying offence like posting information known to be false about someone and usually even those aren't followed. The maximum isn't even 5 years if found guilty of anything it's 6 months and usually that doesn't happen with posting false info about people online. you're more likely to just get a fine.
Here is the law https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 and it being maximum 6 months for usually the worst offences that cause harm to people.
The guy is just trying to overblow a simple police interview/investigation to play victim about what may happen (which wouldn't even with his bullshit about a 5 year sentence)
SharpeFiona from LabourAgainstAntiSemitisim who filed the complaint may have nothing on him to begin with and was just trying to hurt somebody who was against Ivor due to her ties. The police investigating a complaint doesn't mean shit though, nothing has happened.
Last edited:
“There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, ‘Morning, boys, how’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, ‘What the hell is water?'”
Tams
Member
That doesn't change that getting interviewed by the police is not a pleasant experience for most. To maliciously force that on someone is rather nasty, especially when the accuser will likely to not be punished if you are found to not be worth pursuing.
Nor that the legislation is grossly vague and ambiguous.
Last edited:
Dr.Morris79
Gold Member
.
Last edited:
demented waffle
Gold Member
The fact that that was even investigated as a crime spells dystopia. The UK isn't a 1st world country anymore.
It's not forced though. An interview under caution is not mandatory to attend. It's just an interview you can decide to go to if you wish where they say "look we've had a complaint of you doing such and such what are your side of the events". Even though it may seem scary for somebody who hasn't dealt with police before they are not sentencing you to 5years imprisonment. They're there to investigate and listen to both sides of what they're investigating. They were likely trying to find the origin of the screenshots because Fiona Sharpe made a complaint of false information online about her colleague Ivor under that act. Nothing has happened to the guy, he was just questioned under caution.
demented waffle
Gold Member
Why was there an interview in the first place?
Because somebody called the police to make a complaint and possible offence and the police did their job of investigating the complaint.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Why is a screenshot of a post an offense in the first place?
Angry_Megalodon
Member
The police focusing on online opinions about crimes instead of investigating those crimes is all you need to know about the moral bankruptcy of the UK establishment.
In Spain, we have a similar situation about the illegal occupation of houses, where police are arresting the owners who try to evict those fuckers. It's infuriating to watch and solid evidence that the government is on the side of perpetrators.
In Spain, we have a similar situation about the illegal occupation of houses, where police are arresting the owners who try to evict those fuckers. It's infuriating to watch and solid evidence that the government is on the side of perpetrators.
demented waffle
Gold Member
Making a complaint over a screenshot. Dystopia. Even if they critisized, it should've been ignored.
Why are we defending Europe at this point?
demented waffle
Gold Member
Sadly, that happens in the US as well. Squators rights need to DIAF.
Donald mac Ronald
Member
Judging by his earlier posts. He seems more upset that none British people are shitting on the UK and he needs defend what's going on in the UK.
There is no defence here. UK is fully cooked at this point.
The sad thing is the CPS needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that tweets/Facebook posts caused riots/violence and they can't because it's near impossible prove it. So the police trick people even with the free lawyer present that if they admit they will get the more lenient sentence. Most people don't realise the UK doesn't have enough courts and lawyers to cover 1000s of trials for these offenses, so they would never make it to court in the first place.
You can also admit guilt at any point in your trial and get the reduced sentence, again people don't realise this.
I myself have been the victim of UK garbage policing.
I sent a polite email to someone I haven't spoken to in 5 months and had 4 police officers come to my house, arrest me and try and stitch me up.
If the police get a complaint that somebody is posting false information online about somebody that is offensive or indecent they must investigate it under that act. Especially if the person making the complaint can also make it appear like there is an underlying antisemitic nature to the malicious posts. There are antisemitic laws here too that make such things a hate crime. I'm not privy to what the exact complaint Fiona Sharpe filed but the police investigating the complaint and conducting the interview isn't Orwellian. It's simply due diligence and doing their job.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but filling a possible offence and the police ignoring it is not a good thing. Maybe that's what got us here in the first place.
Huh? Europe? I'm defending police doing their jobs.
demented waffle
Gold Member
Imagine a social media post as a hate crime. 2nd world.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Mate, it’s Orwellian. And clearly abused by many parties.
Last edited:
You go to an actual 2nd or 3rd world country and see your complaints be completed ignored and thrown out then talk about third world.
demented waffle
Gold Member
Speech as a crime isn't a crime in the first world. But yes, muh feelings over someone simply speak their minds over an issue. Assuming that speech isn't directly calling for violence. 2nd world.
Last edited:
Donald mac Ronald
Member
Complaints about posts online should be ignored. Unless it's inciting murder, terrorism or genuinely harassing someone.
Anything else and people need to grow up and deal with it.
Of course speech can be a crime, especially fabricated ones. What do you think defamation is?
demented waffle
Gold Member
2nd world. Defamation is a civil matter in 1st world countries.
Last edited:
demented waffle
Gold Member
Keep slobbering over those jackboots. lol
Define what "genuinely harrasing someone" is and how you can define this outside of just following written laws.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Maybe these rape victims should report the monsters by saying they posted things online. Seems more successful.
Has anybody been convicted? So why do you think it will be more successful outside of rhetoric and playing victim over a police interview?
Donald mac Ronald
Member
Calling someone a racial slur isnt harassing someone.
Harassing someone would be exactly as it sounds. You know continuously bombarding someone with messages etc.
Offline people say nasty things to people all the time. Then there's people who harass someone by going to their home and shit.
It's not hard to define harassment with existing laws. Our current laws allow the police to arrest and charge people for saying the n word on twitter. If racists want to be racists online, let them openly so it and embarrass themselves. We shouldn't be locking them up because we don't like what they say.
demented waffle
Gold Member
Instead of playing victim over a social media post?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Similar threads
- Locked