Rupert Lowe’s rape gang enquiry, report published

It shows that Zia needs to be racist to remain in post.

Yes, it seems to be those on the right politically that have been better at calling it out. People like Reform's Zia Yusuf don't seem to have any of the squeamishness of those on the left when it comes to this issue.

Shows that it doesn't need to become a racist football if everyone is treated without fear or favour.

@oldtiredcyclist thanks for the link.

The footage had been supplied by production company RDF Media and the BBC had no idea it had been edited out of sequence, a joint statement from the BBC and RDF said.
"This assembly was never intended to be seen by the public or the press," the statement continued

Oh yes, sure. The article goes on to say:
The trailer was shown to journalists at a press launch of the BBC's autumn schedule.
How many people must have been involved in showing the trailer. If it wasn’t meant to be shown then that shows utter incompetence by whoever was in charge of the content.
Of course they deliberately showed it to make trouble. Just like the Trump Panorama.

Ex Home secretary and born into a Pakistani family, Sajid Javid, received much criticism, when he called out the Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46684638

But, but, but - the BBC never do anything wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6294472.stm

Yes, the msm just want to bury anything that puts ethnic minorities in a bad light. If it was the other way round, white British men abusing Muslim girls, the msm would be all over it. The BBC would never stop talking about it because it would suit their agenda.

It's crazy because it's not racist to highlight this issue. Some Muslims have called it out, although admittedly not many. The behaviour of the msm has meant people have lost faith in them.

Maybe before the by election it could be seen as not neutral for the BBC say to publish a report commissioned by Lowe. But they should be reporting on it now.

I also see that there was a motion about it in Parliament on 16th June that has so far only been signed by 4 MPs - Rupert Lowe himself, 2 Conservative MPs and 1 Independent MP.

The motion was That this House notes the publication of the independent Rape Gang Inquiry Report, established to examine the organised sexual exploitation of children across the United Kingdom; pays tribute to the survivors, whistleblowers, parents, campaigners and professionals who gave evidence; expresses profound concern at testimony detailing decades of rape, trafficking, violence, murder and abuse, alongside repeated failures by police forces, local authorities, social services, health bodies and successive Governments to protect vulnerable children; further notes the Inquiry's findings regarding the scale of organised child sexual exploitation and the institutional reluctance to confront its causes and characteristics; believes that many victims were failed not only by their abusers but by the very institutions charged with their protection; calls on His Majesty's Government to formally engage with the Inquiry's findings and recommendations, to provide a full written response to Parliament, to publish a timetable for action, and to set out which recommendations it intends to implement; and urges the Government to demonstrate that no consideration of political sensitivity, community relations, or fear of causing offence will ever again take precedence over the protection of children.

I can find almost no reporting on this anywhere in the media. Why is that?

And it was quite obvious that the clumsy letters would find their way onto social media/into the media in general.

This is what we should expect from the BBC. Impartial factual reporting. Much as Trump is detested he deserves his speech to be reported without manipulation.

The BBC also did it at a photoshoot in which Annie Leibovitz was photographing the Queen. This was a long time ago but they have history.

At the autumn launch, BBC1's channel controller, Peter Fincham, added: "Annie Leibovitz gets it slightly wrong and the Queen walks out in a huff."
The footage received wide coverage across the media today, appearing on the front pages of several newspapers, including the Sun, the Guardian and the Times.
However, it has emerged that the scene where the Queen was complaining to an aide was actually filmed on her way to the sitting

So, at the ministry of justice (hahaha) there is no one that can put together a letter explaining to victims that the perpetrator’s of crime levelled against them might potentially be winning big by being released early in a way that isn’t ‘clumsy’? Why not? Are they all thick? Do you not think before sending the letters out the MoJ should have found someone external that does possess a braincell to cast an eye over the letters? Being that the victims are the most important people in it all?

Fucking appalling.

Of course our thoughts are for the victims but it's just the Ministry of Justice sending out clumsily worded letters. They will be sending out tens of thousands of these letters informing victims of all sorts of crime about the changes so they can be prepared to object to release.

Have you no concerns for the victims who are receiving these letters?
The fact that there is a possibility of these animals being released, is an absolutely horrendous thing to behold.

That maybe true but it is more distress and suspence for the victims.

This is just a routine message informing victims that the Sentencing Act 2026 reduced the earliest release date from to 33%. This replaced the temporary 40% & standard 50% release thresholds. Whether they are assessed as fit for release is another matter entirely. None of these men will be released at 33% of their sentence any more than they would have been released after 40%.

FFS.

This unbelievable. I thought the early release scheme excluded violent offenders.
From Sammy Woodhouse on X

Due to the Sentencing Act 2026, Arshid Hussain – the man who abducted and raped me as a child, and who did the same to dozens of other children – is being considered for early release. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison in early 2017 and was described as one of the most dangerous men in the UK. He was later convicted of further offences.

His brother, Basharat Hussain, is also being considered for release.

I honestly can’t put into words how disgusted I am with the British government.
https://x.com/i/status/2067986940373131624

Also Fiona Goddard
https://x.com/i/status/2067509725931999328

Many victims/survivors or child sexual abuse and rape got this letter this week saying their abusers are being assessed to be released after serving just 33% of their sentence. Ive had message after message from people deverstated after recieving it. By the end of this year, 100's or rapists and pedophiles could be released onto our streets.
This is how kier starmer plans to tackle VAWG........ by letting more sexualy violent men back onto the streets after serving just a slap on the wrist for some of the worst crimes imaginable

Shows how clueless and biased they are. They think everyone thinks like them and hates Trump and won't mind if his speeches are edited to make him look even worse than he is.

Why on earth did the BBC go to such lengths to manipulate his speech in that way? His own words in the order he actually said them would have given viewers a truthful honest account.

This is what we should expect from the BBC. Impartial factual reporting. Much as Trump is detested he deserves his speech to be reported without manipulation.

Yes it was possible to distort the speech and that’s what the BBC did. But that’s not the point, the point is misinformation/disinformation and people not feeling they can trust anyone on all sides. It makes people very easy to manipulate.

Is it possible to distort Trump’s speech? I mean, I can barely understand what the fruitloop says most of the time now. Although, he did indeed incite insurrection back when he was slightly more lucid. Poor man, needs to be in a suitable care home.

I can see his lawyers point. Panorama made it look like Trump incited an insurrection when actually he did incite an insurrection.

There is, at least, perceived misinformation on all sides.

I'm not going to go all professional commentator and opine (with faux authority) about every possible area.

There are some areas of definite misinformation because verified evidence to the contrary exists (e.g. mistakenly thinking that MMR causes autism). Without ripping up free speech so that only people with sufficient expertise may discuss those topics, we're always going to be facing misinformation here.

Some things are a matter of opinion and espousing those views will always be viewed as misinformation by others.

I'm not holding up his politics for everyone to follow but the rigour and depth with which Mehdi Hassan approaches his interviews (giving or receiving) is exemplary. No-one gets away with unevidenced assertions or faulty logic with him. That's how to counter misinformation but it must be hard/expensive or more would surely do the same.

I love the lame attempt to paint me as some sort of Trump fan.