To be fair, what is one to expect from Rotherham? I remember when Jamie Oliver went there on a crusade there a few years back to try and get them to stop shoving their faces with Walkers crisps and sausage rolls.

They don't care if they have a council complicit in 1400 cases of child abuse, so long as they have benefits to buy Fray Bentos and scratch cards. Actually, that pretty much sums up Labour's take on socialism.

Bradford is also a bastion of the Labour party, where suspended member Mohammed Shabbir retained his seat with an increased number of votes. If the party isn't full of anti-semites, then you can't say the same for their supporters.

True. I don't vote Labour, but you can smell a Tory racist a mile off.

1400 children raped, and your only retort is "gutter politics". Next you'll be saying the Labour run council had nothing to do with it.

p.s. I'm not a Tory.

You know them all individually and have asked them this question I take it?

The result of the election in Bradford just proved it.

You really do have to wonder what the opposition was doing/saying that meant there was an increase then. Something worse than antisemitism (like, cutting funding to community projects, campaigning for privatisation of schools and the NHS etc for example) most people do not vote on just one issue, and an philosophical issue at that, most people vote for what they think will make their lives better. Or do you only vote for candidates on pure religious grounds?
And if you are going to harp on about Rotherham, I will harp on about Richmond. Not that I think all Tory Councillors, police chiefs, PM advisers etc are pedophiles, but to show you there is a distinction between what a member of a particular party or group or profession do and what the whole group does.
Also, the fact that Labour have suspended so many people means that they are actively searching and dismissing them, and that they will not allow antisemitism within their ranks, what are the Tories doing about members who make anti-Islamic statements (e.g. the former candidate for London Mayor)?

Cutting funding for community projects is worse than anti-semitism.

I think we're done here.

Thankfully, not everyone who votes Tory, Labour or Lib Dem thinks the way you do. I would love a World where people like you are in a minority of one.

The rest of us rise above such a mentality...

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2016-...vent-as-mayor/

To an elderly person who relies on Meals on Wheels to eat, or a disabled person that relies on community nurses to go to toilet, or a librarian who relies on her job to pay her rent, yes, probably they are more immediate thoughts in the voting booth than what someone tweeted two years ago.

What I find ironic is that a large number of the people who defend Corbyn by saying that he has to meet with unsavoury characters in order to be an effective politician are the same people who will quite happily 'no-platform' speakers they don't like. A case in point is the UK National Union of Students, which for the uninitiated has become a rather unpleasant far-Left echo chamber that ostensibly supports Corbyn. Its LGBT officer recently refused to attend a debate alongside someone she saw as transphobic (an unfair accusation, but that's for another day), but woe betide anyone who suggests Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser when he meets with figures from Hamas and Hezbollah.

I saw the exact same issue with the NUS debated on The Wright Stuff, and the speaker concerned made a particularly bad job of defending herself.

What the NUS does isn't truly relevant, but I do see your point.

I don't like Corbyn in the slightest, but would you damn everyone who met with Gerry Adams in an effort to bring about a peace protest? I would damn everyone who funded the violence, but not those who sought to begin dialogue and a peace process.

To the best of my knowledge, Corbyn didn't fund violence. I know it's a fine line, but one that many people have to step on to reach a peaceful conclusion. Where I believe Corbyn has gone wrong throughout his career is he always goes for the 'raising awareness' and 'giving a voice to' ticket. I fail to see where his problem solving skills manifest, yet young voters persist in comparing him to Bernie Sanders, like some left wing Trans-Atlantic double act. Sanders has a very impressive political C.V. and voting history. He's head and shoulders above Corbyn on every level imaginable, particularly credibility.

And that council is gone.

Now there is a new council. Its ridiculous to hold them responsible for the actions of their predecessors, as tragic as they were.

Pedophiles are not pedophiles because they vote labour (despite the fact that apparently, if they vote tory, they can get far). Any attempt to mingle the two is gutter politics, as the implication is that the political views of pedophiles are in some way directly responsible for their actions. Were it so, how many senior Tory politicians should be in prison right now?

The council did not cause the abuse, nor were they the ones prowling the streets late at night looking for kids. They are guilty of their actions (or lack thereof) and their cowardice after the fact. They are not cowards because they are labour Councillors, they are simply cowards. There is absolutely nothing to indicate a Tory council would have acted any differently. In fact, considering the political leaning of the South Yorkshire Police, it might have been worse. So to mingle the fact of the event, with the political leaning of the council is exactly that, gutter politics.

I notice you have not yet condemned South Yorkshire Police, who were best placed to do something about it. Allegations have been made that they helped in the cover up. Yet, i hear little condemnation of them, and plenty of the council.

I fear you're not going to get that from our pet troll. He prefers to find South Yorkshire Police blameless of anything!

moving to Liverpool

Who do you think has authority over the police? They were a disgrace but the book has to stop with the local authority who were explicitly told what was going on three separate occasions. What's more they had authority over social workers, teachers and the health service, who also knew what was happening.

The reason no one said anything was due to the political mantras enshrined in the Labour party of Multiculturalism and Diversity. They banged on about it for so long that even the Tories took up that baton so now it's institutionalised into UK politics. This means positive discrimination against minorities and in Rotherham it meant that no one dared to say anything for fear of being branded a racist.

After such a scandal they should have been out. And in many other places they would have been. But the pastie babies of Rotherham would rather keep those responsible in power that hand out the free Greggs dummies. Makes you wonder what you'd have to do in order to get kicked out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-purpose.html

Ok. Can we have a similar breakdown of Richmond council and Police force's response to allegations of a pedophile ring in Elm Guest House now please, or does that count because the perpetrators were not muslims and the council was Tory controlled (and as it pre-dates Rotherham you can't blame the reds)

Whilst Rotherham took place 3 years ago, Elm Guest House happened 30 years ago. If a Tory council had been in control of Rotherham council then I'd equally wish for them to be voted out.

I'm sure in this case suppression of the Met Police evidence goes far higher than council level. And alleged involvement included MPs from all parties as well as police officers. The truth needs to come out here.

Indeed, so why all the hate? Why are you implying all labour members are anti-semites based on some members being expelled and all pander to muslims based on one town (where the police are equally to blame). But when it comes to westminster pedophile rings then it was ages ago and goes all the way up.... That makes it ok? That cabinet members, police chiefs etc knew, for decades, what was going on, that vulnerable children were being abused. You brought up Rotherham, I am just pointing out that things go very very very wrong on ALL sides of the political spectrum and that you can not label an entire party (or profession, or religion, or nationality, or skin tone) for the minority of evil people in their ranks. Labour expells anti-semites, they are taking action. Elm Guest House etc is much more appalling because, even now, very little action is being taken. The enquiry has been quietly ended.
Maybe, just maybe, not all lefties are bad. Maybe you shouldn't generalise, and maybe critisism of Isreal is not always anti-Semitic.

Couldn't agree more.

Actions have consequences, in this case a humiliating climb down by the PM and Defence Minister for the smearing of this man.
Its one thing when politicians hurl abuse at one another, quite another when a private citizen is defamed in Parliament by the Prime Minister.

Suliman Gani: David Cameron apologises to imam for Isis link as he faces pressure over Khan claims
PM and Defence Minister Michael Fallon both accused Mr Gani of sharing a platform with members of the Islamist group in the run-up to the London mayoral election


A spokesman for Mr Cameron said he was referring to the imam's support of "an Islamic State" GETTY

David Cameron has been forced to apologise to a former imam who he accused of supporting Isis - amid growing criticism about the party's conduct during the London Mayoral elections.

The Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons under Parliamentary privilege two weeks ago, said Suliman Gani, a Tooting Imam who has shared platforms with new London Mayor Sadiq Khan, “supports Isis”.

A Downing Street spokesman said Mr Cameron had been referring to reports that Mr Ghani supports "an Islamic state" rather than Isis specifically.

He said: "In reference to the Prime Minister's comments on Sulaiman Ghani, the Prime Minister was referring to reports that he supports an Islamic state. The Prime Minister is clear this does not mean Mr Ghani supports the organisation Daesh and he apologises to him for any misunderstanding."

The apology came after Defence Secretary Michael Fallon was forced to say sorry for repeating the claims in a radio interview last week. Mr Ghani had launched legal action against the MP.

A spokesperson for Mr Fallon said the Defence Secretary had been quoting BBC presenter Andrew Neil.

“He was unaware of the clarification and apology that the BBC had issued on Neil's claim,” the spokesperson told the Daily Mirror.

“Had he been aware, he would not of course have quoted him and as soon he became aware he put the record straight. He naturally apologises for this inadvertent error.”

Friends of Mr Gani issued a statement calling the claims against him false and “cruel and irresponsible in the extreme” and had launched a petition to make Mr Cameron apologise.

Mr Cameron said in Parliament of Sadiq Khan: "He stood on a platform with people who wanted an Islamic state.

"That is why his attempts to deal with antisemitism are utterly condemned to failure, because he won’t even condemn people who sit on platforms with people like that.”

Hours after Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn reminded the PM that Mr Gani was in fact a Conservative supporter, Mr Gani told Sky News he thought the allegations were "preposterous".

Zac Goldsmith's campaign for mayor attracted heavy criticism from members of his party and even his own family following the result last week for use of "smear tactics" to link Mr Khan, who is Muslim, with Islamist extremists.

The imam stressed he had never supported the terror group, saying: "I have openly condemned the barbarity and monstrosity of Isis."

Link

Attached Thumbnails

 

Mr Cameron is such a gobshite he almost makes Mr Blair look statesmanlike.