The most recent misrepresentation, and there have been several, this one being quite mild, was:-

"Indeed, he's on record on the site for defending the Police's actions in keeping this quiet.....amongst other institution defending statements on this issue....Essentially, because he wasn't there, he feels he can't comment. Even though it doesn't cause him much issue with anything else.

He even stated he'd heard about something about this 20 years ago."

It wasn't because "I wasn't there". It was because none of us were there, or party to all the information.

What I think you will actually find I said, if not directly in the post but in the follow ups, was that as no-one here knows what restrictions and instructions the Police or Authorities were working to we should not rush to judgement. What we don't know is if there was some wider overall strategic plan which demanded a softly softly approach. I also encouraged everyone to support our Police and to report anything they know to them. I also sympathised with them for trying to do a difficult job with reduced resources as a consequence of austerity. I have though always said that any criminal, from whatever background, should be pursued and prosecuted without fear or favour. If subsequent investigations have found shortcomings which suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, things could have been managed better then that's all for the good. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. This was all in the context of "Robinson" injecting himself onto the scene and being hailed as a folk hero for doing so. My remarks were primarily as the counter argument to that idea. I was indeed aware of a similar problem many years ago and know that the Police were also aware and dealing with it then. From what little I heard back then this was not simply in bringing the guilty to justice but in working together with social services and community leaders.

The most recent misrepresentation, and there have been several, this one being quite mild, was:-

"Indeed, he's on record on the site for defending the Police's actions in keeping this quiet.....amongst other institution defending statements on this issue....Essentially, because he wasn't there, he feels he can't comment. Even though it doesn't cause him much issue with anything else.

He even stated he'd heard about something about this 20 years ago."

It wasn't because "I wasn't there". It was because none of us were there, or party to all the information.

What I think you will actually find I said, if not directly in the post but in the follow ups, was that as no-one here knows what restrictions and instructions the Police or Authorities were working to we should not rush to judgement. What we don't know is if there was some wider overall strategic plan which demanded a softly softly approach. I also encouraged everyone to support our Police and to report anything they know to them. I also sympathised with them for trying to do a difficult job with reduced resources as a consequence of austerity. I have though always said that any criminal, from whatever background, should be pursued and prosecuted without fear or favour. If subsequent investigations have found shortcomings which suggest, with the benefit of hindsight, things could have been managed better then that's all for the good. We all make mistakes and can learn from them. This was all in the context of "Robinson" injecting himself onto the scene and being hailed as a folk hero for doing so. My remarks were primarily as the counter argument to that idea. I was indeed aware of a similar problem many years ago and know that the Police were also aware and dealing with it then. From what little I heard back then this was not simply in bringing the guilty to justice but in working together with social services and community leaders.

To be fair you also said there would be an enquiry and we should be patient and reserve judgment until it was made public. That would be now would it?

On the face of it yes, but I remain a little hesitant to be sure that we yet really do know everything.

I first heard the story via a BBC news report which featured an analysis by a journalist who is, I think, their "home affairs correspondent". I am sorry but I cannot remember his name. What he had to say was very interesting and quite forensic. I obviously don't have it verbatim but the gist of it was that when this problem was first identified the culture within the Home Office, and the Police, was very different to today and they were caught on the back foot. There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings. The BBC guy was not excusing anything but he attempted to put things into some context rather than attribute blame.

That has always been my attitude too. With hindsight we can see that the attitude was completely wrong but I see no point whatsoever in a festival of blame. It is essential that we learn and improve, but I don't believe anyone deliberately did anything that they thought was inappropriate at the time. It's the attacks on integrity that I object to. Not in discovering mistakes and introducing improvements. No-one should tolerate excuses, or protect any group. Justice for all in the UK must be our aim. How best to achieve it is the actual question.

When previous comments were made it was in the context of "Robinson's" trial and subsequent imprisonment. I was convinced, and remain convinced, he made things worse and not better by interfering with the course of justice which could have resulted in criminals walking scot free. He has a wider agenda than finding and punishing members of grooming gangs. He attacks a whole religion and his attitude has surfaced again in this thread. One poster has mentioned "muslims", and another "foreign" grooming gangs, when what is actually being discussed are criminals.

A regular poster here has been accused, by other than myself, of "playing the man and not the ball". In this thread, as in others, there are some pretty clear examples that this is true.

I could trawl back and find several examples of my comments being misrepresented but I won't dignify this kind of activity by joining in.

"Next time the reader hears" similar statements from this poster just remember "he has zero credibility on this issue".

"There was a prevailing attitude that the girls involved weren't so much victims as willing participants in vice rings"

Or perhaps they were directed to do this?

[Link]

Also, Tommy Robinson did not "interfere with the course of justice" and this was clearly stated by the judge in his case. He was jailed for contempt of court and breaching reporting restrictions and his reporting outside of the court was done after the rapists had been convicted (it was a sentencing hearing). Don't let the truth get in the way though.