Shamima Begum’s solicitor just tweeted this

[DesperateForSun]

At least there’s a place that will happily take her now

@IheartJKR

BME girls also introduced their friends as directed by their abusers. *@Ozanj*

Yes they did and a lot of them were treated like criminals because it was assumed they weren’t groomed in the same way as the white girls. The law only splits hairs about pedophillia and child murder when there’s a BME victim.

CuriousaboutSamphire sorry misread your comment

@Ozanj

This isn’t the oppression olympics. BME girls are most definitely the unheard voices of organised CSE in this country - most people don’t even realise that BME girls are targeted in the way white girls are/ were- which is exactly why I’m bringing it up here. But let’s not pretend that anyone gave a shit about the white girls. After spending the last week reading through all the children’s statements I can assure you no fucker prioritised any of the children abused and passed around.

The boyfriend model of CSE - and the gang organisation of it is COMPLETELY different to radicalization.

There are special rules for solicitors about social media comments www.sra.org.uk/sra/corporate-strategy/sra-enforcement-strategy/enforcement-practice/social-media-offensive-communications/. However here all he said was at least the Taliban might allow Begum to do there. I don't agree with his views on most things but I don't think he broke any rules.

[quote IheartJKR]@C8H10N4O2

There are different models of CSE, they are not one group. The 11 year old girl taken into the woods and gang raped by 7 men and then left covered in semen naked on the ground - did not have the same experience as Begum.[/quote]
We don't know exactly how Begum experienced being a Jihadi bride. We do know that violent sexual abuse has exactly been the experience of other girls including as young as 8.

All that aside - I find your suggestion that she wasn't abused enough to qualify for the oppression olympics you claim to decry further down the thread to be utterly disgusting.

What is the criteria than? How many men have to abuse her before she "qualifies"?

Fuck me, women really are blamed for everything.

Not in the slightest bit shocked

He has just posted a tweet explaining the irony:

"I can only assume that some people on twitter are being purposely dense - ' The Boys Are Back in Town' is a song about a criminal gang (The Quality Street Gang Manchester) who have returned following a sojourn.... this is controversial re the Taliban how exactly?"

@Meraas

He has just posted a tweet explaining the irony:

"I can only assume that some people on twitter are being purposely dense - ' The Boys Are Back in Town' is a song about a criminal gang (The Quality Street Gang Manchester) who have returned following a sojourn.... this is controversial re the Taliban how exactly?"

God, he's gaslighting now too.

Lighthearted memes are not appropriate in this situation, particularly ones that seem almost admiring.

If you Google him he was very scathing about Hebdo 'jokes'. Yet another knob who can dish it but can't take it.

@C8H10N4O2

Now you’re just making stuff up.
I never said any such thing.

There’s no point in me trying to explain my position if you willfully and deliberately misunderstand and Misquote me.

He has taken it down because it’s caused a discussion based on assumptions

And how did people jump to that ?

@Meraas

He has just posted a tweet explaining the irony:

"I can only assume that some people on twitter are being purposely dense - ' The Boys Are Back in Town' is a song about a criminal gang (The Quality Street Gang Manchester) who have returned following a sojourn.... this is controversial re the Taliban how exactly?"

Looking at his other tweets on the subject, that was pretty much how I read it.

@OhWhyNot

He has taken it down because it’s caused a discussion based on assumptions

And how did people jump to that ?

Yep. Because it was ill thought out and, given the pretty instant condemnation, misreading or not, it got it was not behaviour becoming etc.

He put the video of the song up in place of the tweet, marginally less likely to raise hackles.

I don't doubt he thought it was scathing and amusing. He has quite a lot of such posts on his Twitter feed. But if that's his blind spot, his employer will doubtless be forever reminding him of how such shit looks...

The more I think about this the more obvious it becomes that he did not mean it in a celebratory way at all and that some people are reacting based on his skin colour and their disagreement with his actions on behalf of Shamima Begum. That's not aimed at anyone in particular here but is just a reaction to the general outcry elsewhere as well as here. Not that I think he come across brilliantly online, but a quick bit of scrolling/Googling brings me to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely he's celebrating what happened over there this week or that he sees it as a trivial matter to laugh at. And leaving aside taste and rules around lawyers online, people are free to express themselves using sarcasm/sardonic humour/irony if they choose, even if others don't like it.

He's taking the piss surely?

@MrsBede

The more I think about this the more obvious it becomes that he did not mean it in a celebratory way at all and that some people are reacting based on his skin colour and their disagreement with his actions on behalf of Shamima Begum. That's not aimed at anyone in particular here but is just a reaction to the general outcry elsewhere as well as here. Not that I think he come across brilliantly online, but a quick bit of scrolling/Googling brings me to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely he's celebrating what happened over there this week or that he sees it as a trivial matter to laugh at. And leaving aside taste and rules around lawyers online, people are free to express themselves using sarcasm/sardonic humour/irony if they choose, even if others don't like it.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

After my initial WTF?!?! My main issue was with the lack of professional standards - I know they are quite strict for the legal profession, for fairly obvious reasons.

He's being spectacularly dense if he thinks people generally are aware of that one particular theory as to what that song is about. He's scrabbling to justify why he posted it.

As so many others have said, even if you give the benefit of the doubt and accept it was meant as some kind of social commentary or sarcasm, it is still an incredibly flippant and ill judged post. It is so bizarre for someone in a professional position to post in this manner about such a serious and horrific topic. B

I really don’t think he is bothered about raising hackles he doesn’t shy away from that

That so many have decided he supports the Taliban is a different matter

I am really shocked that a solicitor can get away with the insults that he's aimed at a trans person. If someone had said similar level abuse in a racial way, I'm pretty sure this guy would have taken an action against them.

The islamaphobia displayed by that trans person is just as sickening.

You should not have to explain or dissect a tweet - or read through his previous tweets to establish a meaning .

It is unprofessional and open to interpretation .

Very bad taste .

I find your suggestion that she wasn't abused enough to qualify for the oppression olympics you claim to decry further down the thread to be utterly disgusting

It would be utterly disgusting if that’s what she said. However, she didn’t. Try reading, not skimming

MrsBede
"The more I think about this the more obvious it becomes that he did not mean it in a celebratory way at all and that some people are reacting based on his skin colour and their disagreement with his actions on behalf of Shamima Begum. That's not aimed at anyone in particular here but is just a reaction to the general outcry elsewhere as well as here. Not that I think he come across brilliantly online, but a quick bit of scrolling/Googling brings me to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely he's celebrating what happened over there this week or that he sees it as a trivial matter to laugh at. And leaving aside taste and rules around lawyers online, people are free to express themselves using sarcasm/sardonic humour/irony if they choose, even if others don't like it."

Are they though ? A lawyer has to look after their client to their best ability whatever their own personal beliefs are - otherwise they are doing a bad job . So personally I would have thought it is best to NOT air your personal beliefs on line otherwise you are bringing your profession into dis-repute .

Its a bit like a barrister going on line and saying anyone who is found holding a knife is automatically guilty . You just would not do it.