Just wow. I saw the letter being bandied about last night but was wary because I suspected it was a fake (would have been willing to stake money on it) but if it is true then this is through the looking-glass stuff.

And certainly adding weight to the notion that Brand is being attacked based on the content he is putting out rather than any genuine concerns for the alleged victims. Again, an idea I had been willing to dismiss.

But now?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

All you have down is repeat the playing down and mitigation of the scandal of pakistani-heritage paedophile gangs carrying out mass sexual abuse on children in several towns while the police were fully informed of what was going on. Your excuses for the police are pathetic.

Islamic 'culture' in their contempt for 'kafirs' and their appalling attitude to women and children in general certainly did, and does, contribute to the widespread presence of paedophile gangs throughout the country - the vast majority of which were, and are, composed of muslims with pakistani-heritage. Bit like terrorist gangs, although they tend to be represented by muslims from a great many islamic backgrounds, not just pakistani-heritage.

The reason I brought up the grooming gang issue was not to spark yet another discussion on it. It was to contrast the way that the right wing cohort here are condemning the media for exposing the allegations on Brand with that they displayed over the gangs, where they were in full support.

There are legitimate criticisms of the tabloid coverage of the grooming gangs, as there is of your comment above. The use of “pakistani-heritage” as a descriptor being one, when it is known that they comprised of a variety of ethnicities. I know full well what the enquiries into these matters have revealed and make no excuses for individual failures. Any defence I have made is the more general one that we cannot expect an under-resourced, under-funded police service to not make mistakes. We get the police service we deserve.

I want people to stop attaching unhelpful labels. Child groomers and terrorists are criminals. Their religion and any justification they claim as a motivation need to be binned as an irrelevant excuse and not encouraged by reference to it.

I was in Jerusalem for a few days 2 weeks ago, during which time I was exposed to the many cultures that exist side by side there. No-one treated me as a “kafir”, indeed the Arab section of the city was a more relaxed and pleasant environment than the Jewish one, but people generally get on ok. For sure there are different cultures but people, and especially the children, were happy.

Now perhaps we can return to the subject of this thread.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

The vast majority of the paedophile rape gangs were muslims and of pakistani-heritage. The police were informed of the activities of the gangs and turned a blind eye, it has nothing to do with alleged under-resourcing whatsoever.

You want us to stop “attaching unhelpful labels” – unhelpful to whom – the pakistani-heritage paedophile rape gangs? The activities of the grooming gangs and terrorist gangs have an intrinsic connection to what passes as their ‘culture’ and is very relevant.

You assertion that the different races and cultures in Israel “generally get on ok” is laughable but classic Wisbechian dissembling.

Politically Matov we are poles apart, but on this we have complete agreement.

Back on topic, I listened to a woman who was invited on to the Today Program to discuss her "experience". She explained that she was "only" 16 and Brand was 30. She claimed not have had the life experience to inform her ability to make a choice as to the giving of consent in a heart-tugging, bleating voice. There was no suggestion that he had invited her to his house to e.g. give her a leg up (so to speak) on her proposed media career. Indeed, there was no coercion alleged at all. Even my feminist wife was shouting at the radio on that interview. She willingly got in a car in order to go to a well known lothario's house of her own free will with the inevitable consequences.

30 year old men have been happily having it away with even happier 16 year old girls since time immemorial, so why was this case singled out?

Also, Parliament argued to the death the age of consent and arrived at the conclusion that changes in mental development meant that by that age girls had shifted from fancying their teachers and friends' dads. It was a "safe" age and remains so.

Questions not asked of the interviewee but ones directly relevant to issues of proper and valid consent.

1. Were you a virgin?
2. How many sexual partners had you before then?
3. What were their ages?
4. What did you think was the consequence of getting in the car?
5. Was the consequence more or less what you had thought it would be?
6. Did you enjoy yourself?
7. Was he emotionally or physically abusive/controlling?
8. Did he force himself in any way (other than the obvious)?

None asked. This was legal consensual intercourse. So why was the BBC steaming in suggesting some impropriety? Why had they given this revisionist, opportunist young woman the time of day?

Now I am a fierce defender of the BBC, as you know, but not in this case. The car and driver sent to pick this 16 year old girl up and take her to a house to have it off with a celeb was paid for by the license payer? Now, that is a story!

So far as I am aware no data has actually been collected on the ethnicity of the gang members so all you are doing is parroting the assumptions made in the tabloid headlines.

Likewise with the “blind-eye” assertion. That there were individual failures has been established but to suggest the police institutionally turned a blind eye has not. They seem to have been following a nationally devised softly softly approach. Which has since received criticism. Who should be held accountable, the police who had to deliver the policy or those who devised it?

The labels don’t help anyone, including the victims or those trying to bring criminals to justice. They are completely irrelevant to the crimes.

You can dismiss my personal observations if you wish. They were in another country but show that markedly different cultures can exist side by side and for friendly relations to develop on an individual level. The human spirit can always triumph over prejudice when allowed to.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.