2 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Miami lives in his own little world where he thinks everyone watches the same online shite as him, at exactly the same time, and therefore we all know the real meaning of the cryptic bollocks he posts, but we choose to ignore it because we've got hidden agendas. The old fella really isn't well.

I'm absolutely fine fella, I don't need distraction from the sad truth like some

Enjoy your evening, I'm off out 🍻 

54 minutes ago, miamiwhite said:

 

Justice is well and truly dead

This world is fucked up  .

On 22/10/2025 at 14:45, crawshawbooth said:

I have been reminded today of the interview in 1978 on BBC radio when Johnny Rotten called out Jimmy Saville and his like then got banned by the BBC

It was 30 + years before the rest of the world caught up

It's largely BS though.  He wasn't banned by the BBC and appeared on the channel several times after that interview.

In Plain Sight is worth a read.  Savile's victims knew what he was. Pretty much everybody else thought he was an oddball, weirdo or just a bit quirky. 

35 minutes ago, Duck Egg said:

It's largely BS though.  He wasn't banned by the BBC and appeared on the channel several times after that interview.

In Plain Sight is worth a read.  Savile's victims knew what he was. Pretty much everybody else thought he was an oddball, weirdo or just a bit quirky. 

John Lydon telling tall tales, never!

18 minutes ago, frank_spencer said:

John Lydon telling tall tales, never!

Nearly as big a bullshitter as Brian Blessed.

 

11 hours ago, burnden said:

 

What a cunt, let’s say he has been told that , if he has and is now withholding the details he is complicit in any cover up.

If he is being economic with the truth then he is a cunt.

There are now victims saying they will leave the process if Jess Philips is kicked out.

Dorries made a twat of herself on QT tonight by clearly not knowing enough to make any constructive points. She slagged off Jess Philips at a personal level and then said it should not be politicised.

Cleverley was part of the Govt that got the initial report on child exploitation and did nothing read up what professor Jay said about their response. 
 

Politicians are proving totally incapable of tackling this issue. 

Edited October 24, 2025Oct 24 by Ani

Clearly recommendations from the first one should have been implemented, and still should.

Nevertheless, it doesn't stop the first one from being inadequate, and deliberately evasive when it came to the specific issue of these grooming gangs.

Reportedly, the areas that were chosen as part of the study, (one of which was Durham) had little to no history of these serial, cultural rapes.

When there is a known issue, I wonder why the efforts where deliberately hampered from the very start.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Clearly recommendations from the first one should have been implemented, and still should.

Nevertheless, it doesn't stop the first one from being inadequate, and deliberately evasive when it came to the specific issue of these grooming gangs.

Reportedly, the areas that were chosen as part of the study, (one of which was Durham) had little to no history of these serial, cultural rapes.

When there is a known issue, I wonder why the efforts where deliberately hampered from the very start.

So if the first report was not actioned and in your opinion ‘inadequate and deliberately evasive’ you must agree that the Govt of the day really should shut the fuck up ? Their response was described by Prof Jay as ‘awful, inconsequential and insubstantial’. 
 

The report was not only focussed on the grooming gangs but child exploitation generally so obviously won’t all be based on areas where that was happening. So to say it was deliberately hampered is strange, but if you think that you are again making a point about the Tory track record on this. 
 

The first two proposed chairs for the enquiry were also rejected. 
 

Labour started to implement the findings of the enquiry but also commissioned Baroness Casey to audit the findings to see if there were any gaps as it was 7 years since is started, she then reported back that there was increased evidence of the cultural rapes and therefore the new wider enquiry was commissioned along with implementing the original findings. 

10 minutes ago, Ani said:

So if the first report was not actioned and in your opinion ‘inadequate and deliberately evasive’ you must agree that the Govt of the day really should shut the fuck up ? Their response was described by Prof Jay as ‘awful, inconsequential and insubstantial’. 
 

The report was not only focussed on the grooming gangs but child exploitation generally so obviously won’t all be based on areas where that was happening. So to say it was deliberately hampered is strange, but if you think that you are again making a point about the Tory track record on this. 
 

The first two proposed chairs for the enquiry were also rejected. 
 

Labour started to implement the findings of the enquiry but also commissioned Baroness Casey to audit the findings to see if there were any gaps as it was 7 years since is started, she then reported back that there was increased evidence of the cultural rapes and therefore the new wider enquiry was commissioned along with implementing the original findings. 

 Every one in the country is getting a little bit ahead of themselves , its as if we all believe there will a be a meaning full enquiry that will find who decided to sweep this "distasteful " episode in our cultural history under the carpet.

I believe it will lean slightly towards the words of the MP Naz Shah

"Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere need to shut their mouths "

Member of parliament no less , multiculturalism and diversity at its finest

3 minutes ago, crawshawbooth said:

 Every one in the country is getting a little bit ahead of themselves , its as if we all believe there will a be a meaning full enquiry that will find who decided to sweep this "distasteful " episode in our cultural history under the carpet.

I believe it will lean slightly towards the words of the MP Naz Shah

"Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere need to shut their mouths "

Member of parliament no less , multiculturalism and diversity at its finest

Labour MP did not say victims of grooming gangs should ‘shut their mouths’

https://fullfact.org/politics/naz-shah-grooming-gangs-quote/

Edited October 24, 2025Oct 24 by Cheese

20 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Labour MP did not say victims of grooming gangs should ‘shut their mouths’

https://fullfact.org/politics/naz-shah-grooming-gangs-quote/

However she did share and like the post that did say This. The Rat 

Says it was a post from an Owen Jones parody account. So whichever muppet posted it was creating a false narrative.

 She said it was a genuine accident & removed within minutes.

 Damage done though & now folk will make their own minds up on it.

Having witnessed domestic abuse as kid & with 20 years experience working on child abuse, violence against women and grooming, I find it hard to believe she believes the views expressed in that post.

Others will disagree though 

3 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Says it was a post from an Owen Jones parody account. So whichever muppet posted it was creating a false narrative.

 She said it was a genuine accident & removed within minutes.

 Damage done though & now folk will make their own minds up on it.

Having witnessed domestic abuse as kid & with 20 years experience working on child abuse, violence against women and grooming, I find it hard to believe she believes the views expressed in that post.

Others will disagree though 

😂😂 yes accidentally liked and then retweeted someone…..by mistake, like you do!

1 minute ago, London Wanderer said:

Says it was a post from an Owen Jones parody account. So whichever muppet posted it was creating a false narrative.

 She said it was a genuine accident & removed within minutes.

 Damage done though & now folk will make their own minds up on it.

Having witnessed domestic abuse as kid & with 20 years experience working on child abuse, violence against women and grooming, I find it hard to believe she believes the views expressed in that post.

Others will disagree though 

It's been shared on here as though she actually said it herself. Most people are just thick as fuck, and can't be bothered spending 30 seconds to check whether the obvious bullshit they're spreading is obvious bullshit.

Imagine being a MP and liking and sharing a post like that, then deleting it saying “it was accidental” Some thick as fuck people will believe her as well. 

9 minutes ago, royal white said:

😂😂 yes accidentally liked and then retweeted someone…..by mistake, like you do!

Not sure what your point is here

It happens.

 I find it hard to believe that someone who has spent their career fighting for victims of grooming and child abuse actually believes that.

 As it was removed pretty much immediately, I think that works in her favour. 
 

I might be wrong 

But I doubt we’ll ever know

13 minutes ago, Cheese said:

It's been shared on here as though she actually said it herself. Most people are just thick as fuck, and can't be bothered spending 30 seconds to check whether the obvious bullshit they're spreading is obvious bullshit.

Tbf re-sharing a post like that , you might as well be saying it yourself.

But yeah, the fact it was immediately removed helps in her argument she clicked the wrong thing.

 I’ll take the thicko label 😄

13 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Not sure what your point is here

It happens.

 I find it hard to believe that someone who has spent their career fighting for victims of grooming and child abuse actually believes that.

 As it was removed pretty much immediately, I think that works in her favour. 
 

I might be wrong 

But I doubt we’ll ever know

😂😂 of course it does 🤥

Was she an MP at the time? Because of she was - I can't for one moment believe she would risk her career and her seat by deliberately sharing something as inflammatory as that. 

If she did it before she was an MP then maybe (but still unlikely).

Occam's razor says it was probably unintentional. 

5 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Was she an MP at the time? Because of she was - I can't for one moment believe she would risk her career and her seat by deliberately sharing something as inflammatory as that. 

If she did it before she was an MP then maybe (but still unlikely).

Occam's razor says it was probably unintentional. 

She was suspended for anti semitic remarks, I wouldn’t put much past her. 

Edited October 24, 2025Oct 24 by royal white

6 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Was she an MP at the time? Because of she was - I can't for one moment believe she would risk her career and her seat by deliberately sharing something as inflammatory as that. 

If she did it before she was an MP then maybe (but still unlikely).

Occam's razor says it was probably unintentional. 

She was an MP at the time, but Occam's razor doesn't apply any more. Hence it being shared on here as if they were her own words, 8 years later.

Edited October 24, 2025Oct 24 by Cheese

33 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

It happens.

 As it was removed pretty much immediately, I think that works in her favour. 

tell that to Mike Graham

As it's Friday....and before I go out for dinner and a few drinks...

Will just throw the name of Sarah Champion into the ring

No doubt the retards will respond, though they need to know it's a thrice cryptic clue 

They'll respond twice 😘 x

23 hours ago, burnden said:

This world is fucked up  .

And still silence from the obsessed usual lefties 

No words needed