Grooming gang scandal

[I'm With Stupid]

You’re getting your disinformation from somewhere, hope you find solace away from it, somehow.

We won 3-1 against Chelsea, and that’s a fact ;-)

179 posts on the forum so far. I'm not sure any of them have actually been about football. Long posting history on any thread that's a far right talking point though.

 

[KDB Fan]

I’d be genuinely interested as to where you go for your news, as maybe I’m missing something?

Perhaps the prism of how I view the world is too narrow.

Recommendations welcome @KDB Fan

There's not a single source where I go for my news and I think that's a better way of avoiding institutional biases.

On the topic of Starmer's credibility if that's what your question relates to, every single news outlet whether that's the BBC or GB News or even LabourList themselves will report that Starmer's broken multiple pledges (it would take me all day to list them) because that's just a fact. He's a compulsive liar and even though I might agree with some of the policy positions he eventually takes (for example not scrapping tuition fees), it doesn't change that he can't be taken on his word, which was my point to the previous poster. Especially in relation to his culpability on grooming gangs.

 

[KDB Fan]

179 posts on the forum so far. I'm not sure any of them have actually been about football. Long posting history on any thread that's a far right talking point though.

You're wrong. That aside though, I didn't realise there was a quota on how much you had to talk about football? I wonder how many of your 20,000 posts are about football too. Your last post was on 'aggressive farting' so not many by the looks of it ha

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

You're wrong. That aside though, I didn't realise there was a quota on how much you had to talk about football? I wonder how many of your 20,000 posts are about football too. Your last post was on 'aggressive farting' so not many by the looks of it ha

Who is your favourite city player?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

You're wrong. That aside though, I didn't realise there was a quota on how much you had to talk about football?

I dunno, I just thought that someone who joins a football forum might actually have some interest in football and want to discuss it occasionally. Your last post about City was in November ffs. No opinions about any of the recent signings. No opinions about our worst run of form in recent memory. It's almost as if you're only here to spread your far right bullshit, and actually have no interest in City or even football.

 

[blue for life]

Fixed

No protest from Tommy Ten Names?

 

[BridgyDids]

There's not a single source where I go for my news and I think that's a better way of avoiding institutional biases.

On the topic of Starmer's credibility if that's what your question relates to, every single news outlet whether that's the BBC or GB News or even LabourList themselves will report that Starmer's broken multiple pledges (it would take me all day to list them) because that's just a fact. He's a compulsive liar and even though I might agree with some of the policy positions he eventually takes (for example not scrapping tuition fees), it doesn't change that he can't be taken on his word, which was my point to the previous poster. Especially in relation to his culpability on grooming gangs.

Thanks for the answer mate.

Be good to get some of the sources you mentioned in general, as I may not be interacting with them.

Also, do you not think GBNews is a little biased too?

 

[KDB Fan]

I dunno, I just thought that someone who joins a football forum might actually have some interest in football and want to discuss it occasionally. Your last post about City was in November ffs. No opinions about any of the recent signings. No opinions about our worst run of form in recent memory. It's almost as if you're only here to spread your far right bullshit, and actually have no interest in City or even football.

Far right because I don't like child abuse being covered up or far right because I criticised your little idol? If it's any of the above, I think you need to do some self-reflection and maybe reflect upon who amongst us has the extreme views. Maybe reflect too on why it bothers you to such an extent that you'd take the time to go all the way back to November going through my posts.

On the City thing, I'll post when I want about them. It's none of your business how often I post about them although without forensically going through your 20,000 posts, you don't look like you post much about them either.

I have plenty of opinions about our worst run btw (less so the new signings) but it's up to me if I choose to air them or not. Hopefully you understand that concept.

 

[KDB Fan]

Thanks for the answer mate.

Be good to get some of the sources you mentioned in general, as I may not be interacting with them.

Also, do you not think GBNews is a little biased too?

BBC News, GB News, The Guardian, The Times, ITV, Sky News, basically all of the mainstream media.

Yep GB News is biased but so are all the news outlets. The BBC is one of the worst for me. They have the budget of a small country yet have failed time and time again to expose child abuse scandals whether that's Jimmy Savile, Hugh Edwards or, in this case, grooming/paedophile gangs or however you want to describe them.

It was The Times who broke the story and it went under the radar for years before the BBC were forced to accept that hundreds (almost certainly thousands) of children being raped was newsworthy. That was a scandalous failure but I still watch/read them but, as with any media outlet, take what they report (or don't report) with a pinch of salt.

 

[BridgyDids]

BBC News, GB News, The Guardian, The Times, ITV, Sky News, basically all of the mainstream media.

Yep GB News is biased but so are all the news outlets. The BBC is one of the worst for me. They have the budget of a small country yet have failed time and time again to expose child abuse scandals whether that's Jimmy Savile, Hugh Edwards or, in this case, grooming/paedophile gangs or however you want to describe them.

It was The Times who broke the story and it went under the radar for years before the BBC were forced to accept that hundreds (almost certainly thousands) of children being raped was newsworthy. That was a scandalous failure but I still watch/read them but, as with any media outlet, take what they report (or don't report) with a pinch of salt.

I’m pretty sure the grooming gangs story was all over the BBC after the Times broke it. In fact, the journalist won numerous awards for it?

If you listen to one of the latest Private Eye podcasts it goes into full depth on it.

 

[Vic]

BBC News, GB News, The Guardian, The Times, ITV, Sky News, basically all of the mainstream media.

Yep GB News is biased but so are all the news outlets. The BBC is one of the worst for me. They have the budget of a small country yet have failed time and time again to expose child abuse scandals whether that's Jimmy Savile, Hugh Edwards or, in this case, grooming/paedophile gangs or however you want to describe them.

It was The Times who broke the story and it went under the radar for years before the BBC were forced to accept that hundreds (almost certainly thousands) of children being raped was newsworthy. That was a scandalous failure but I still watch/read them but, as with any media outlet, take what they report (or don't report) with a pinch of salt.

Just an innocent question. How did GB News report on the white grooming gang in Glasgow?

 

[Rascal]

BBC News, GB News, The Guardian, The Times, ITV, Sky News, basically all of the mainstream media.

Yep GB News is biased but so are all the news outlets. The BBC is one of the worst for me. They have the budget of a small country yet have failed time and time again to expose child abuse scandals whether that's Jimmy Savile, Hugh Edwards or, in this case, grooming/paedophile gangs or however you want to describe them.

It was The Times who broke the story and it went under the radar for years before the BBC were forced to accept that hundreds (almost certainly thousands) of children being raped was newsworthy. That was a scandalous failure but I still watch/read them but, as with any media outlet, take what they report (or don't report) with a pinch of salt.

Hi there, hope you are well.

The BBC first reported about grooming gangs in 2011 and have continually done so.

'Thousands of children' sexually exploited by gangs

Thousands of children in England are being horrifically abused by gangs, the deputy children's commissioner says, as she launches an inquiry.

www.bbc.co.uk

The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12–> From January 2011, The Times covered the issue at that time, i cannot research if they did before that because of the Times firewall.

Research is your friend,

 

[meltonblue]

BBC News, GB News, The Guardian, The Times, ITV, Sky News, basically all of the mainstream media.

Yep GB News is biased but so are all the news outlets. The BBC is one of the worst for me. They have the budget of a small country yet have failed time and time again to expose child abuse scandals whether that's Jimmy Savile, Hugh Edwards or, in this case, grooming/paedophile gangs or however you want to describe them.

It was The Times who broke the story and it went under the radar for years before the BBC were forced to accept that hundreds (almost certainly thousands) of children being raped was newsworthy. That was a scandalous failure but I still watch/read them but, as with any media outlet, take what they report (or don't report) with a pinch of salt.

That’s just wrong.

 

[stonerblue]

I dunno, I just thought that someone who joins a football forum might actually have some interest in football and want to discuss it occasionally. Your last post about City was in November ffs. No opinions about any of the recent signings. No opinions about our worst run of form in recent memory. It's almost as if you're only here to spread your far right bullshit, and actually have no interest in City or even football.

Yep.

 

[KDB Fan]

Hi there, hope you are well.

The BBC first reported about grooming gangs in 2011 and have continually done so.

'Thousands of children' sexually exploited by gangs

Thousands of children in England are being horrifically abused by gangs, the deputy children's commissioner says, as she launches an inquiry.

www.bbc.co.uk

The first group conviction took place in 2010, when five men were convicted of sexual offences against girls aged 12–> From January 2011, The Times covered the issue at that time, i cannot research if they did before that because of the Times firewall.

Research is your friend,

The Times were the one to get the ball rolling on it being a systemic issue that questioned whether the police/councils/CPS were complicit in covering it up. The BBC have reported on the criminal trials and did reporting in the aftermath (and a dramatisation on it), but there's a big difference between reporting an event and uncovering a conspiracy. Even the BBC themselves accept it was The Times who uncovered the conspiracy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w69p2vz0lo

If the Times had the enormous budget of the BBC, who knows how many years earlier it could have been uncovered with major allegations dating back to the late 90s.

 

[KDB Fan]

Just an innocent question. How did GB News report on the white grooming gang in Glasgow?

I don't have a clue. With horror I'd imagine. Almost everyone in the country is horrified about the existence of grooming gangs but I think what makes a story even more horrific is when a crime like that is covered up. If there were attempts to cover up the grooming gang in Glasgow, I'd hope it'd be an even bigger news story in every UK news outlet like the Rochdale/Rotherham/Bradford grooming gangs should have been.

Thankfully, the recent coverage of grooming gangs is seeing some of the people who looked the other way arrested and that's an important step to righting the wrongs of what went on:

Access Restricted

 

[Vic]

I don't have a clue. With horror I'd imagine. Almost everyone in the country is horrified about the existence of grooming gangs but I think what makes a story even more horrific is when a crime like that is covered up. If there were attempts to cover up the grooming gang in Glasgow, I'd hope it'd be an even bigger news story in every UK news outlet like the Rochdale/Rotherham/Bradford grooming gangs should have been.

Thankfully, the recent coverage of grooming gangs is seeing some of the people who looked the other way arrested and that's an important step to righting the wrongs of what went on:

Access Restricted

I was hoping your familiarity with multiple news outlets would mean you could find GB News coverage of the Glasgow white grooming gang, because I couldn't.

Did you read the story you posted? The ex-coppers are not being investigated for looking the other way but for themselves committing sexual offences.

 

[BobKowalski]

Assumed this thread was about the Catholic Church. Alas, no.

 

[KDB Fan]

I was hoping your familiarity with multiple news outlets would mean you could find GB News coverage of the Glasgow white grooming gang, because I couldn't.

Did you read the story you posted? The ex-coppers are not being investigated for looking the other way but for themselves committing sexual offences.

I don't read every news story of every news outlet no, but I've just done a quick search on Google and the first link is this:

Seven members of child sex abuse ring jailed after preying on children in drug den

All seven of the convicted criminals will serve a jail term from eight to 20 years

www.gbnews.com

As for the other article, I assumed it was related to a failure to investigate but it just gets even more depraved and even more of a compelling reason for a national inquiry.

 

[BridgyDids]

The Times were the one to get the ball rolling on it being a systemic issue that questioned whether the police/councils/CPS were complicit in covering it up. The BBC have reported on the criminal trials and did reporting in the aftermath (and a dramatisation on it), but there's a big difference between reporting an event and uncovering a conspiracy. Even the BBC themselves accept it was The Times who uncovered the conspiracy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w69p2vz0lo

If the Times had the enormous budget of the BBC, who knows how many years earlier it could have been uncovered with major allegations dating back to the late 90s.

Someone has to uncover a cover up, to be able to report on it, and it shows to me, that you hold the BBC are held in good regard that you’d expect it would be them, and not the Times. The BBC never claimed to have uncovered it!

- link to the grooming gangs story (second half of the pod) I mentioned before, by truly independent journalists (shock - they go after all sides!)

Also - on a national enquiry (as the podcast mentions) - we had one, at great expense and time consuming. The previous government didn’t implement ANY of the recommendations from it.

So, I’d say, and I hope you’d agree, that it’d be better to do the recommendations of the last one, rather than waste tax payers money on a new one?