Elon Musk bought Twitter.

[Guy Smiley]

He's going to attract a lot of this sort of thing.

https://newsthump.com/2025/01/05/palpat ... elon-musk/

Billionaire Elon Musk has said The Galactic Empire needs a new leader as Emperor Palpatine ‘doesn’t have what it takes’.

Mr Musk, who is rumoured to be lining up a 100 million credit donation to the Galactic Empire, made the comments after Palpatine distanced himself from calls to free bounty hunter Boba Fett from prison.

“Palpatine is holding back the Empire,” Musk told us. “Boba Fett is an ally and should be released from incarceration immediately.

“I thought we were on the same page, but this past week has shown me that Palpatine just isn’t cut out for the job.

“If it wasn’t for Palpatine I think the first Death Star would still be operational. That’s how much of a terrible job he’s doing. Who gives the go ahead to put a tiny opening into the design that could destroy an entire space station? What a moron.
NewsThump Hoodies

“Luckily, my Department of Galactic Efficiency will be up and running soon enough.”

Tensions between Musk and Palpatine have been rising ever since the Tesla CEO posted ‘Free Boba Fett’ on Twitter.

“Boba Fett is not what we need right now,” insisted Emperor Palpatine. “I’ve got a great idea. If he loves Boba Fett why doesn’t he marry him?”

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Farage can maybe get 20% of the vote, but to have a shot at power he needs to get that over 30% and he can't do that if enough of middle England thinks he's a Tommy Robinson supporter. He already needs people to hold their noses and skip past there are a lot of UKIP/Reform who overtly or otherwise support Yaxley-Lennon, which is to say hold various extreme/racist/homophobic positions. Wanting to get that next 10-15% of the vote is what's driving frog face, but he's learning the nice way you can't just assume you'll keep your base. An interesting strategy from the man who says he wants to be PM mind, presented with a challenge from Musk he's opted for run silent, run deep in the hope the problem goes away without him needing to act

Also rather odd in all this is we did have an inquiry, one that returned a list of recommendations back in 2015 maybe 2016? And the Tories presented with a list that many involved in the various sectors thought good ideas did nothing with it, and Rayner in saying it wasn't for HMG to determine the need for a further report didn't exactly clarify if Labour would enact the recommendations already on the table. The politics says it's much more important to drive a sense of outrage than to seek sensible progress, which perhaps is depressing more than it's odd

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

[JM2K6]

I don’t think social media has polarised society so much as revealing existing polarisation which has been exacerbated by a decline in living standards

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

[Sandstorm]

I don’t think social media has polarised society so much as revealing existing polarisation which has been exacerbated by a decline in living standards

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Yup, 100% agree

[dpedin]

Farage can maybe get 20% of the vote, but to have a shot at power he needs to get that over 30% and he can't do that if enough of middle England thinks he's a Tommy Robinson supporter. He already needs people to hold their noses and skip past there are a lot of UKIP/Reform who overtly or otherwise support Yaxley-Lennon, which is to say hold various extreme/racist/homophobic positions. Wanting to get that next 10-15% of the vote is what's driving frog face, but he's learning the nice way you can't just assume you'll keep your base. An interesting strategy from the man who says he wants to be PM mind, presented with a challenge from Musk he's opted for run silent, run deep in the hope the problem goes away without him needing to act

Also rather odd in all this is we did have an inquiry, one that returned a list of recommendations back in 2015 maybe 2016? And the Tories presented with a list that many involved in the various sectors thought good ideas did nothing with it, and Rayner in saying it wasn't for HMG to determine the need for a further report didn't exactly clarify if Labour would enact the recommendations already on the table. The politics says it's much more important to drive a sense of outrage than to seek sensible progress, which perhaps is depressing more than it's odd

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

We all suspect that National Enquiries are just a way of kicking things into the long grass and leave for others to clear up whilst in the interim allow those guilty to destroy evidence, forget what was said, flee, move on to screw someone else or die. They take years, cost a fortune, have no powers to convict and in many ways delay criminal prosecutions. Grenfell, Covid, Post Office enquiries etc have had little impact on actually holding people to account and allowed the previous Tory Gov to avoid having to actually take real actions to hold folk to account or make significant improvements in the situation. The police have said that they will not prosecute anyone criminally responsible in the Post Office scandal until after the Enquiry has reported ie 2027 - meanwhile the last Gov didn't even set aside funding to pay for the huge compensation bills, hence the financial black hole! It took a TV series to make anything happen with the PO debacle, Covid and Grenfell enquiries have failed to make a single iota of a difference for the victims, to hold those responsible to account or ensure remedial actions.

Surely the single most important thing at the moment is to stop digging the hole any deeper and to start taking actions to fill it in again! As a pretty good starter let's implement the 20 recommendations from the Jay Report even if that is difficult and expensive. Alternatively lets have another National Enquiry, wait 5 years for it to report and have even more victims of child abuse at the hands of predominately family members and, as research has found, group-based CSE offenders who are most commonly white (Ref Home Office Report, Group Based Child Sexual Abuse, 2020 prefaced by Priti Patel).

It is hard to believe this whole episode isnt anything other than a targeted effort by Musk, jumped on by the Tories and Reform to try and destabilize Starmer and the current Gov. Now the right wing owned press, which is about 80% of the press, have jumped on the lynching bandwagon and will go on at this for some weeks now. The more moderate media, such as the BBC, have fallen once again into the trap of letting the right wing drive the news agenda and instead of rigorous and studied journalism respond with the we must hear both sides of the story etc. Sorry folks but we are all being manipulated by a media driven by billionaires who own social media, press and some of our political parties. In the interim the Trump family are off to visit Greenland, a land with very little apart from huge reserves of minerals and rare metals.

[Sandstorm]

Sorry folks but we are all being manipulated by a media driven by billionaires who own social media, press and some of our political parties.

I don't think this is news to anyone anymore.

[Paddington Bear]

I don’t think social media has polarised society so much as revealing existing polarisation which has been exacerbated by a decline in living standards

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Sure, but 99% of outrage goes nowhere. For something to succeed and cut through on social media it has to tap into something real and already existing.

[Paddington Bear]

Farage can maybe get 20% of the vote, but to have a shot at power he needs to get that over 30% and he can't do that if enough of middle England thinks he's a Tommy Robinson supporter. He already needs people to hold their noses and skip past there are a lot of UKIP/Reform who overtly or otherwise support Yaxley-Lennon, which is to say hold various extreme/racist/homophobic positions. Wanting to get that next 10-15% of the vote is what's driving frog face, but he's learning the nice way you can't just assume you'll keep your base. An interesting strategy from the man who says he wants to be PM mind, presented with a challenge from Musk he's opted for run silent, run deep in the hope the problem goes away without him needing to act

Also rather odd in all this is we did have an inquiry, one that returned a list of recommendations back in 2015 maybe 2016? And the Tories presented with a list that many involved in the various sectors thought good ideas did nothing with it, and Rayner in saying it wasn't for HMG to determine the need for a further report didn't exactly clarify if Labour would enact the recommendations already on the table. The politics says it's much more important to drive a sense of outrage than to seek sensible progress, which perhaps is depressing more than it's odd

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

The Jay report includes recommendations such as having a cabinet minister for children and enhanced DBS checks - not sure that changes whether justice has been done in relation to the grooming gangs, or indeed that it will prevent organised child abuse in future. Ultimately the punishments on offer for child rape and/or complicity in it have not matched the crime, and this will run and run unless and until it does.

As ever the British state sees a major problem and offers a minor, technical process-based committee made remedy, that still somehow takes years to implement it

[dpedin]

I don’t think social media has polarised society so much as revealing existing polarisation which has been exacerbated by a decline in living standards

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Sure, but 99% of outrage goes nowhere. For something to succeed and cut through on social media it has to tap into something real and already existing.

Do you mean real and existing prejudices, bigotry, racism, sexism or xenophobia?

I suspect all it does is support a vicious downward spiral of all the above, often against the majority view in that given population and evidence that shows the contrary. As George Orwell said “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

[dpedin]

Farage can maybe get 20% of the vote, but to have a shot at power he needs to get that over 30% and he can't do that if enough of middle England thinks he's a Tommy Robinson supporter. He already needs people to hold their noses and skip past there are a lot of UKIP/Reform who overtly or otherwise support Yaxley-Lennon, which is to say hold various extreme/racist/homophobic positions. Wanting to get that next 10-15% of the vote is what's driving frog face, but he's learning the nice way you can't just assume you'll keep your base. An interesting strategy from the man who says he wants to be PM mind, presented with a challenge from Musk he's opted for run silent, run deep in the hope the problem goes away without him needing to act

Also rather odd in all this is we did have an inquiry, one that returned a list of recommendations back in 2015 maybe 2016? And the Tories presented with a list that many involved in the various sectors thought good ideas did nothing with it, and Rayner in saying it wasn't for HMG to determine the need for a further report didn't exactly clarify if Labour would enact the recommendations already on the table. The politics says it's much more important to drive a sense of outrage than to seek sensible progress, which perhaps is depressing more than it's odd

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

The Jay report includes recommendations such as having a cabinet minister for children and enhanced DBS checks - not sure that changes whether justice has been done in relation to the grooming gangs, or indeed that it will prevent organised child abuse in future. Ultimately the punishments on offer for child rape and/or complicity in it have not matched the crime, and this will run and run unless and until it does.

As ever the British state sees a major problem and offers a minor, technical process-based committee made remedy, that still somehow takes years to implement it

There are a number of recommendations in the Jay Report - picking one and suggesting it won't make the impact you want is a bit unfair? Look at the whole package of recommendations, they are more than minor changes.. Another National Enquiry will merely extend the time taken to implement any changes required, we need to make a start.

Sentencing for crimes are determined by the Sentencing Council who issue guidelines for Judges.

[Biffer]

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

The Jay report includes recommendations such as having a cabinet minister for children and enhanced DBS checks - not sure that changes whether justice has been done in relation to the grooming gangs, or indeed that it will prevent organised child abuse in future. Ultimately the punishments on offer for child rape and/or complicity in it have not matched the crime, and this will run and run unless and until it does.

As ever the British state sees a major problem and offers a minor, technical process-based committee made remedy, that still somehow takes years to implement it

There are a number of recommendations in the Jay Report - picking one and suggesting it won't make the impact you want is a bit unfair? Look at the whole package of recommendations, they are more than minor changes.. Another National Enquiry will merely extend the time taken to implement any changes required, we need to make a start.

Sentencing for crimes are determined by the Sentencing Council who issue guidelines for Judges.

Exactly. Musk can implement some of these himself, without government action, such as "more robust" age-verification requirements for the use of online platforms and services, and mandatory online pre-screening by tech platforms for sexual images of children. But he won't.

[Kiwias]

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

The Jay report includes recommendations such as having a cabinet minister for children and enhanced DBS checks - not sure that changes whether justice has been done in relation to the grooming gangs, or indeed that it will prevent organised child abuse in future. Ultimately the punishments on offer for child rape and/or complicity in it have not matched the crime, and this will run and run unless and until it does.

As ever the British state sees a major problem and offers a minor, technical process-based committee made remedy, that still somehow takes years to implement it

There are a number of recommendations in the Jay Report - picking one and suggesting it won't make the impact you want is a bit unfair? Look at the whole package of recommendations, they are more than minor changes.. Another National Enquiry will merely extend the time taken to implement any changes required, we need to make a start.

Sentencing for crimes are determined by the Sentencing Council who issue guidelines for Judges.

Leading to the obvious questions of who sits on this Council, who appoints them, and how can new members be appointed.

[sockwithaticket]

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Sure, but 99% of outrage goes nowhere. For something to succeed and cut through on social media it has to tap into something real and already existing.

Do you mean real and existing prejudices, bigotry, racism, sexism or xenophobia?

I suspect all it does is support a vicious downward spiral of all the above, often against the majority view in that given population and evidence that shows the contrary. As George Orwell said “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

The issue as I see it isn't that social media exposes existing prejudices and divides, it's that it makes them worse. Those who hold abhorrant views and/or have a prediliction for insane conspiracy theory use to be isolated and discouraged, now they have access to reinforcement and perpetuation of their views. They can link up with others, validate each other and actively recruit. It's a function of the internet more generally - there are anorexia forums on the darkweb where people who previously never would have met egg each other on to engage in ever more unhealthy behaviour and encouraging resistance to the interventions of concerned family and friends. But social media is worse because it's more legitimised and more widely used. Social media platforms give loud minority views a megaphone.

This is then exacerbated by lazy journos amplify the importance of content because writing an article or recording a 2 minute piece based on some tweets is easier than proper research and reporting. Someone on Oh God What Now recently spoke about the state of freelance work, which is more prevalent than it once was, in the present where the going rate for a piece is often the same whether you knock it up based on a twitter exchange or a month of dedicated research into a meaningful topic.

[Paddington Bear]

HMG have now assented to some of the recommendations of the Jay report, and indeed one Alexis Jay thinks what's passed these last few days in terms of public debate essentially fails to meet the standards of debate, isn't helpful to implanting change, and we don't need another report at this point because that would merely delay any changes already in the pipeline. No doubt Musk will reflect on these considered positions and issue a suitable apology, or I suppose he could channel his inner Yeeb and just declare Alexis Jay a nonce

The Jay report includes recommendations such as having a cabinet minister for children and enhanced DBS checks - not sure that changes whether justice has been done in relation to the grooming gangs, or indeed that it will prevent organised child abuse in future. Ultimately the punishments on offer for child rape and/or complicity in it have not matched the crime, and this will run and run unless and until it does.

As ever the British state sees a major problem and offers a minor, technical process-based committee made remedy, that still somehow takes years to implement it

There are a number of recommendations in the Jay Report - picking one and suggesting it won't make the impact you want is a bit unfair? Look at the whole package of recommendations, they are more than minor changes.. Another National Enquiry will merely extend the time taken to implement any changes required, we need to make a start.

Sentencing for crimes are determined by the Sentencing Council who issue guidelines for Judges.

I picked two of their points not one and am aware of how sentencing works (it works poorly).

Returning to my post - what in the Jay report delivers justice? Financial redress is fine enough and no one can quibble, but this was a vile, organised and systemic crime, for which many rapists received a couple of years in prison. Hundreds, maybe thousands continue to walk free. The police and social services, who were in on it, barely have had a slap on the wrist. That’s not justice and no DBS check delivers it or indeed prevents it from happening again. How does a DBS check or a minister for children stop a taxi driver from seeing a girl who has been raped multiple times asking for help and deciding to rape her again? This is a criminal justice not a safeguarding issue. You stop it happening again by pointing out that the last bloke who did something like this will die in a cell.

Taking another recommendation of the report - mandatory reporting of abuse - wouldn’t you say even without it being a legal requirement it would have represented the absolute bare minimum you’d expect of a police officer or social worker anyway? The better question is *why* they didn’t and what the repercussions should be of their decision not to.

Taking your post, Biffer’s point about online verification and the report itself, it just reminds me of how within 24 hours of David Amess being murdered the political discussion was about online hate. We have made an art form out of skirting round major issues. People know it, and that’s why these issues won’t die and get social media attention. We could kill this off as a wedge for the far right if punishment fitted the crime.

Tommy Robinson would be howling into the wind if Starmer could turn around and say ‘the rapists got life sentences and the police who covered it up are in prison without their pensions’.

[robmatic]

Seems like it would be easy not to cede ground to far right loonies here but no, there will be a bitter fight to defend some clearly broken systemic issues instead.

[Paddington Bear]

Seems like it would be easy not to cede ground to far right loonies here but no, there will be a bitter fight to defend some clearly broken systemic issues instead.

Exactly this.

If you’re defending a system which doesn’t deliver economic growth, doesn’t allow ordinary people to buy houses and doesn’t throw the book at people who commit horrific crimes, how on earth are you surprised that people will 1) suggest the system needs to go and 2) look to both extremes for alternative solutions?

[Hal Jordan]

I don’t think social media has polarised society so much as revealing existing polarisation which has been exacerbated by a decline in living standards

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Yup, 100% agree

If you wanted to meet fascists in the good old days, you either had to go to a football match or join a golf club, and if you wanted to meet Communists you spoke to the SWP at the table they'd set up in the market, or visit that weird bookshop that sold the Little Red Book and self-published analysis of Shakespeare through the prism of Elizabethan feminists.

You had to put the effort in.

[tabascoboy]

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Yup, 100% agree

If you wanted to meet fascists in the good old days, you either had to go to a football match or join a golf club, and if you wanted to meet Communists you spoke to the SWP at the table they'd set up in the market, or visit that weird bookshop that sold the Little Red Book and self-published analysis of Shakespeare through the prism of Elizabethan feminists.

You had to put the effort in.

So much this, now those who would have been just pub bores with repressed anger issues have an outlet to get their bile out to potentially billions. And bots can generate auto responses and 'Likes' by the ton to inflate a commentary so it appears to be a universal thing

[_Os_]

Farage can maybe get 20% of the vote, but to have a shot at power he needs to get that over 30% and he can't do that if enough of middle England thinks he's a Tommy Robinson supporter. He already needs people to hold their noses and skip past there are a lot of UKIP/Reform who overtly or otherwise support Yaxley-Lennon, which is to say hold various extreme/racist/homophobic positions. Wanting to get that next 10-15% of the vote is what's driving frog face, but he's learning the nice way you can't just assume you'll keep your base. An interesting strategy from the man who says he wants to be PM mind, presented with a challenge from Musk he's opted for run silent, run deep in the hope the problem goes away without him needing to act

Bingo!

This Musk intervention is terrible for the Tories. Should absolutely not be focusing on historic sex crimes or people who aren't white or immigrants. Jenrick is now wading in against British Pakistanis/immigrants/"alien cultures", former-PM Truss is wading in against Philips basically saying she's fair game, Badenoch is saying she wants another inquiry into historic sex crimes. They should all be ignoring this.

The reasons the Tories lost in 2024 were: 1 they did an absolutely shit job, 2 their voters are dying (1 in 10 dead since 2019, dying at 3 times the rate Labour voters are), 3 apathy (sometimes confused with group 2), 4 people switching to Labour/Lib Dems/Greens. Reform was not the reason the Tories lost, there's about 1 million hardcore racist fascists to the right of the Tories who will never vote Tory, they really want the BNP/EDL/Tommy Ten Names but held their nose and voted Reform last time (probably about a quarter of Reform). There's a bloc of former Labour voters who are also upset about immigration/people who aren't white, they also will never vote Tory but voted Reform last time. Maybe half of the Reform voters could be reached by the Tories, but if they're won using toxic means the Tories will also lose voters on the other end of the scale. Basic facts like Lib Dems 72 seats and Reform 5 seats, have had zero impact on Tory thinking.

Jenrick's contribution is particularly awful for the Tories and excellent for Labour. Launching an attack on an entire ethnic community means not even trying to win those voters, which for British Pakistanis means about 30 to 40 seats (5%-ish of seats). If it looks dodgy and racial, which it does, everyone adjacent who isn't that ethnicity will eventually notice and become less likely to vote for that party. Will a British black person think when that party says they want "tougher policing" they really mean tougher policing of their community only and continued zero policing of rich whites doing drugs in Soho nightclubs? Will an immigrant who is white think it's likely that party will whip up outrage against illegal immigrants and people who aren't white, with the only actual legislative outcome being legal immigrants including themselves becoming targets?

20% of the UK isn't white even without immigration this will rise to about 40%. 2021 census found 16% of the UK is foreign born, that percentage hasn't decreased since. White British people are 74%. A party in the UK electoral system needs 30% to be competitive and 35% to have a strong chance of a majority. Perpetually calling large groups of people cunts based on their background isn't a winning strategy. If nothing changes and the Tories keep telling large groups of people they are cunts, it's the same as gifting Labour huge head starts every election, at the moment it's a 10%+ head start, not long from now it'll be 20%+. Throwing their hands up in the air and crying about "ethnic voting blocs" (which really means, people who aren't white and/or immigrants mostly don't vote Tory because it's demonstrably not in their interest to do so), will change nothing.

The Tories have two huge demographic problems: 1 Their voters are incredibly old, they need to offer people under 50 something (their big offer to young people in 2024 was forced conscription into the military to fight in a possible WW3), 2 They're perceived as racist and a super majority of people who aren't white do not vote for them, digging up historic sex crimes and attacking every British Pakistani will not change the perception many have that the Tories are an active threat to them.

All this Musk stuff is precisely not where the Tories need to be, should be ignoring it like Labour mostly are, they're doing the exact opposite.

[Sandstorm]

Tories need to offer people under 50 something (their big offer to young people in 2024 was forced conscription into the military to fight in a possible WW3),

[Hal Jordan]

Zuckerberg chowing down on Trump's mushroom as Meta moves to get rid of fact checkers in favour of Community Notes on Facebook and Instagram.

[Hugo]

Seems like it would be easy not to cede ground to far right loonies here but no, there will be a bitter fight to defend some clearly broken systemic issues instead.

Exactly this.

If you’re defending a system which doesn’t deliver economic growth, doesn’t allow ordinary people to buy houses and doesn’t throw the book at people who commit horrific crimes, how on earth are you surprised that people will 1) suggest the system needs to go and 2) look to both extremes for alternative solutions?

Agree with both you and robmatic here.

In looking at how the British state moves at a snails pace to reform and address these issues I was wondering what the outcomes would be if groups of mostly white men operated sexual gangs and victimised non white girls.

I've been trying to figure out whether there would be more urgency to address it? Would the sentences have been harsher? Would the communities of the paedophiles and rapists have turned them in or protected them with a wall of silence?

To me the truly sinister thing about these cases hasn't been the vile acts themselves but the aparatus that exists in society that enables them. It's the enabling that bothers me more than anything. The people who either overtly or more passively have given these men permission to terrorise these girls.

[I like neeps]

Seems like it would be easy not to cede ground to far right loonies here but no, there will be a bitter fight to defend some clearly broken systemic issues instead.

Exactly this.

If you’re defending a system which doesn’t deliver economic growth, doesn’t allow ordinary people to buy houses and doesn’t throw the book at people who commit horrific crimes, how on earth are you surprised that people will 1) suggest the system needs to go and 2) look to both extremes for alternative solutions?

Agree with both you and robmatic here.

In looking at how the British state moves at a snails pace to reform and address these issues I was wondering what the outcomes would be if groups of mostly white men operated sexual gangs and victimised non white girls.

I've been trying to figure out whether there would be more urgency to address it? Would the sentences have been harsher? Would the communities of the paedophiles and rapists have turned them in or protected them with a wall of silence?

To me the truly sinister thing about these cases hasn't been the vile acts themselves but the aparatus that exists in society that enables them. It's the enabling that bothers me more than anything. The people who either overtly or more passively have given these men permission to terrorise these girls.

You don't have to wonder, there have been numerous grooming gangs made up of white men in the UK. I think it gets far less coverage as it's not politically expedient to make a big deal out of it every few years.

Reality is in the UK if you're in a grooming gang convicted of rape you're getting likely 12-25 years. Is it long enough? A mandatory life sentence would be better I think but there's no evidence the punishments were soft. And there was an enquiry too, the Tories just never acted on the results. Starmer hasn't yet, he should do so.

[Hugo]

Exactly this.

If you’re defending a system which doesn’t deliver economic growth, doesn’t allow ordinary people to buy houses and doesn’t throw the book at people who commit horrific crimes, how on earth are you surprised that people will 1) suggest the system needs to go and 2) look to both extremes for alternative solutions?

Agree with both you and robmatic here.

In looking at how the British state moves at a snails pace to reform and address these issues I was wondering what the outcomes would be if groups of mostly white men operated sexual gangs and victimised non white girls.

I've been trying to figure out whether there would be more urgency to address it? Would the sentences have been harsher? Would the communities of the paedophiles and rapists have turned them in or protected them with a wall of silence?

To me the truly sinister thing about these cases hasn't been the vile acts themselves but the aparatus that exists in society that enables them. It's the enabling that bothers me more than anything. The people who either overtly or more passively have given these men permission to terrorise these girls.

You don't have to wonder, there have been numerous grooming gangs made up of white men in the UK. I think it gets far less coverage as it's not politically expedient to make a big deal out of it every few years.

Reality is in the UK if you're in a grooming gang convicted of rape you're getting likely 12-25 years. Is it long enough? A mandatory life sentence would be better I think but there's no evidence the punishments were soft. And there was an enquiry too, the Tories just never acted on the results. Starmer hasn't yet, he should do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Are you sure? This is from 2016 and at least half these sentences seem soft (5 years for sexual activity with a child, wtf!) and with good behaviour I'm sure they are not serving those sentences in full. A 12 year prison sentence is nothing when you are out in half that time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
^. From last year. The one at the bottom avoided jail despite penetrating the girl.

If my daughter was the victim in either one of these cases no way I'm satisfied with the sentences handed out.

[I like neeps]

Agree with both you and robmatic here.

In looking at how the British state moves at a snails pace to reform and address these issues I was wondering what the outcomes would be if groups of mostly white men operated sexual gangs and victimised non white girls.

I've been trying to figure out whether there would be more urgency to address it? Would the sentences have been harsher? Would the communities of the paedophiles and rapists have turned them in or protected them with a wall of silence?

To me the truly sinister thing about these cases hasn't been the vile acts themselves but the aparatus that exists in society that enables them. It's the enabling that bothers me more than anything. The people who either overtly or more passively have given these men permission to terrorise these girls.

You don't have to wonder, there have been numerous grooming gangs made up of white men in the UK. I think it gets far less coverage as it's not politically expedient to make a big deal out of it every few years.

Reality is in the UK if you're in a grooming gang convicted of rape you're getting likely 12-25 years. Is it long enough? A mandatory life sentence would be better I think but there's no evidence the punishments were soft. And there was an enquiry too, the Tories just never acted on the results. Starmer hasn't yet, he should do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Are you sure? This is from 2016 and at least half these sentences seem soft (5 years for sexual activity with a child, wtf!) and with good behaviour I'm sure they are not serving those sentences in full. A 12 year prison sentence is nothing when you are out in half that time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
^. From last year. The one at the bottom avoided jail despite penetrating the girl.

If my daughter was the victim in either one of these cases no way I'm satisfied with the sentences handed out.

They do seem soft sentences I agree. But, the sentences are nothing to do with Labour. The Tories never changed them in power. The Grooming Gangs scandal has been known and used as a political football for many years. It's not a taboo subject as suggested. Regrettably, the government's of the day haven't done much about it. But that's true of everything in British politics really.

[JM2K6]

I don’t think social media has polarised society so much as revealing existing polarisation which has been exacerbated by a decline in living standards

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Sure, but 99% of outrage goes nowhere. For something to succeed and cut through on social media it has to tap into something real and already existing.

That's clearly untrue, given how much bullshit cuts through.

Feed someone a diet of carefully curated content designed to make them angry, to make them feel part of a group pushing back, and to make them feel treated unfairly - day after day, year after year - and very few people are going to survive that and come out the other side able to discern what is outrage bait, what is real, and what is horseshit.

Just look at "walkable cities" as an example of this offer, or the way the yanks have successfully convinced their population that their government rules every part of their lives while barely regulated corporations piss all over them.

Propaganda works. Social media is several evolutions past that, essentially. Human beings are not designed to cope with this shit

[JM2K6]

One thing I will say about Musk (and I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing) but he is at least visible and open about what he does and what he advocates for.

I'm not a fan but most billionaires like him operate in the shadows and get others to do their dirty work behind the scenes. Him and Vivek have showed their hand, they are billionaires looking out for their business interests, anyone who thinks otherwise after their meltdowns on Twitter the past week is not paying attention.

He's not a free speech absolutist nor is he concerned about "saving countries", he's in it for himself.

He's repeatedly positioned himself as a free speech absolutist and has just written a column for a German newspaper saying that only AfD can save Germany, so I'm really not sure where you get that idea

I suppose we can add his championing of Tommy Robinson and his vile attacks on the UK Govt to the tally.

Not sure how someone misreads Musk this badly tbh

[Uncle fester]

Zuckerberg chowing down on Trump's mushroom as Meta moves to get rid of fact checkers in favour of Community Notes on Facebook and Instagram.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... dApp_Other

I love his comments re Europe not taking his shit.

Meanwhile, those radicalized by the far right will attack brown people and lefty politicians.

[Niegs]

That's clearly untrue, given how much bullshit cuts through.

Feed someone a diet of carefully curated content designed to make them angry, to make them feel part of a group pushing back, and to make them feel treated unfairly - day after day, year after year - and very few people are going to survive that and come out the other side able to discern what is outrage bait, what is real, and what is horseshit.

Just look at "walkable cities" as an example of this offer, or the way the yanks have successfully convinced their population that their government rules every part of their lives while barely regulated corporations piss all over them.

Propaganda works. Social media is several evolutions past that, essentially. Human beings are not designed to cope with this shit

And these people (or 'people' in the cast of bots, bot farms) don't even have to be where you're from to drive up the rage. A facebook announcement recently from my municipality had at least a couple of people in it raging about bike lanes who clearly weren't even from the region, let alone the local community. And they each had two posts with comments on many others'. In a history group, someone was going on about how this city is a dangerous hellhole and admitted he lives in another province (felt compelled to counter it to the two people who responded 'I moved away a few years ago and had no idea it's got so bad!').

I noticed someone elsewhere having a go at the CBC for not allowing comments under youtube or news stories any more. Without much evidence, I responded that it's usually full of nonsense anyway, so write them a letter if he really wants to be 'heard'. But popping into another news service's video about a hit and run near where my family lives, the comments section was FULL of racist suggestions that the driver was an immigrant (and, curiously, a lot of the accounts were name followed by four digit number... is that the sign of a bot, or at least someone who only has a youtube channel to rage? Because none of the five I clicked on had any content.) These sort of comments continued even after it was then reported that it was some white dude who nearly killed someone with his car over having high beams flicked at him.

I fully admit I spend too much time in these spaces, but at least I have the critical thinking skills to question, check alternative sources, and have good natured spirit that wants to see everyone's lives improve, not focus purely on selfish things like a lot of these rage baiters seem to. It's this sort of crap that's steering less-educated/critical people (like my brother ) to get angry about political stuff that doesn't affect him or that isn't that bad (like cost of living) compared to how we grew up (dude, you have two vehicles, ATV, boat, go on three vacations a year and have your kids in travel soccer... life isn't bad, ffs).

[Hugo]

You don't have to wonder, there have been numerous grooming gangs made up of white men in the UK. I think it gets far less coverage as it's not politically expedient to make a big deal out of it every few years.

Reality is in the UK if you're in a grooming gang convicted of rape you're getting likely 12-25 years. Is it long enough? A mandatory life sentence would be better I think but there's no evidence the punishments were soft. And there was an enquiry too, the Tories just never acted on the results. Starmer hasn't yet, he should do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Are you sure? This is from 2016 and at least half these sentences seem soft (5 years for sexual activity with a child, wtf!) and with good behaviour I'm sure they are not serving those sentences in full. A 12 year prison sentence is nothing when you are out in half that time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
^. From last year. The one at the bottom avoided jail despite penetrating the girl.

If my daughter was the victim in either one of these cases no way I'm satisfied with the sentences handed out.

They do seem soft sentences I agree. But, the sentences are nothing to do with Labour. The Tories never changed them in power. The Grooming Gangs scandal has been known and used as a political football for many years. It's not a taboo subject as suggested. Regrettably, the government's of the day haven't done much about it. But that's true of everything in British politics really.

I think we are talking at slight cross purposes here.

The village I grew up in I'm quite sure (by the law of averages) there were some deviants or predators lurking. However, there could never have been actual gangs operating in plain sight doing this type of stuff. Nevermind the men or the police, the women of the village, curious, strong willed and naturally protective would have chased them out.

For these guys to be doing this stuff to the scale and extent they did (and still are, since this stuff is ongoing) speaks to the fact that it is on some level tolerated. It like everything else is a product of culture.

So, you see with the case of the Syrian refugees who raped the girl in Newcastle, the ringleader was already in court in 2016 for a sexual assault case. That brush with the law did not seem to deter him since he subsequently raped another girl then was involved in BLM rioting in 2020.

All of this activity is enabled by people, either by their inaction, their indifference or their unwillingness to have tough conversations. The state just fails at it's basic duty to keep people safe and then adds insult to injury with sentences that serve neither as a punishment or as a future deterrent.

People need to be held accountable for this state of affairs, it is not normal.

[Paddington Bear]

Hmm

- Communicating with millions of people in almost real time but with a high degree of anonymity and depersonalisation
- Platforms designed to have a specific psychological impact on their users, from addictive behaviour to creating and promoting outrage as "engagement" is king
- Huge amounts of misinformation and outright manipulation by bad actors

Society has never faced anything like this before, and I can't agree that social media has just exposed existing rifts. It is a wildly successful outrage generator, lie spreader, and clique builder.

Sure, but 99% of outrage goes nowhere. For something to succeed and cut through on social media it has to tap into something real and already existing.

That's clearly untrue, given how much bullshit cuts through.

Feed someone a diet of carefully curated content designed to make them angry, to make them feel part of a group pushing back, and to make them feel treated unfairly - day after day, year after year - and very few people are going to survive that and come out the other side able to discern what is outrage bait, what is real, and what is horseshit.

Just look at "walkable cities" as an example of this offer, or the way the yanks have successfully convinced their population that their government rules every part of their lives while barely regulated corporations piss all over them.

Propaganda works. Social media is several evolutions past that, essentially. Human beings are not designed to cope with this shit

When I say real I mean what people already believe. Taking one of the examples you’ve raised, petrolheads who see anything that stops them driving where they want when they want and parking wherever have existed for as long as there have been cars

[Guy Smiley]

When I say real I mean what people already believe. Taking one of the examples you’ve raised, petrolheads who see anything that stops them driving where they want when they want and parking wherever have existed for as long as there have been cars

Of course there have always been prejudices and attitudes in society. You seem to be wilfully brushing off the amplification and distortion enabled by the rise of social media. I wonder why you are so determined to defend the role it plays.

[Paddington Bear]

When I say real I mean what people already believe. Taking one of the examples you’ve raised, petrolheads who see anything that stops them driving where they want when they want and parking wherever have existed for as long as there have been cars

Of course there have always been prejudices and attitudes in society. You seem to be wilfully brushing off the amplification and distortion enabled by the rise of social media. I wonder why you are so determined to defend the role it plays.

[JM2K6]

Sure, but 99% of outrage goes nowhere. For something to succeed and cut through on social media it has to tap into something real and already existing.

That's clearly untrue, given how much bullshit cuts through.

Feed someone a diet of carefully curated content designed to make them angry, to make them feel part of a group pushing back, and to make them feel treated unfairly - day after day, year after year - and very few people are going to survive that and come out the other side able to discern what is outrage bait, what is real, and what is horseshit.

Just look at "walkable cities" as an example of this offer, or the way the yanks have successfully convinced their population that their government rules every part of their lives while barely regulated corporations piss all over them.

Propaganda works. Social media is several evolutions past that, essentially. Human beings are not designed to cope with this shit

When I say real I mean what people already believe. Taking one of the examples you’ve raised, petrolheads who see anything that stops them driving where they want when they want and parking wherever have existed for as long as there have been cars

The "controversy" about walkable cities is not anything to do with petrol heads. It's a ludicrous conspiracy theory about government camps and open air prisons, tying into anti vaccination and climate conspiracy shit.

In olden times this would be the preserve of a handful of loons who would otherwise be muttering about contrails. Now it's something that has spread across the western world and has become a cause celebre, egged on by bad actors. The scale of such a blatantly stupid and fact-free conspiracy theory can only be achieved with something like modern social media.

And now thanks to generative AI, it's even easier to pump out this swill to whatever ends bad actors want. Just put that shit out there and watch it catch fire.

[fishfoodie]

That's clearly untrue, given how much bullshit cuts through.

Feed someone a diet of carefully curated content designed to make them angry, to make them feel part of a group pushing back, and to make them feel treated unfairly - day after day, year after year - and very few people are going to survive that and come out the other side able to discern what is outrage bait, what is real, and what is horseshit.

Just look at "walkable cities" as an example of this offer, or the way the yanks have successfully convinced their population that their government rules every part of their lives while barely regulated corporations piss all over them.

Propaganda works. Social media is several evolutions past that, essentially. Human beings are not designed to cope with this shit

When I say real I mean what people already believe. Taking one of the examples you’ve raised, petrolheads who see anything that stops them driving where they want when they want and parking wherever have existed for as long as there have been cars

The "controversy" about walkable cities is not anything to do with petrol heads. It's a ludicrous conspiracy theory about government camps and open air prisons, tying into anti vaccination and climate conspiracy shit.

In olden times this would be the preserve of a handful of loons who would otherwise be muttering about contrails. Now it's something that has spread across the western world and has become a cause celebre, egged on by bad actors. The scale of such a blatantly stupid and fact-free conspiracy theory can only be achieved with something like modern social media.

And now thanks to generative AI, it's even easier to pump out this swill to whatever ends bad actors want. Just put that shit out there and watch it catch fire.

Because quite frankly only a complete cretin wouldn't would want to live in someplace where they could access all their basic health, dentistry, socialization, grocery, media needs within a 15 minute walk of their home ..... what a hellhole eh ?

[Niegs]

It's all a WEF Schwab conspiracy to imprison us and restrict my freedums!!! Wake up! Do your own research!

(... something else I saw in a post about local bike lanes ... )

[robmatic]

You don't have to wonder, there have been numerous grooming gangs made up of white men in the UK. I think it gets far less coverage as it's not politically expedient to make a big deal out of it every few years.

Reality is in the UK if you're in a grooming gang convicted of rape you're getting likely 12-25 years. Is it long enough? A mandatory life sentence would be better I think but there's no evidence the punishments were soft. And there was an enquiry too, the Tories just never acted on the results. Starmer hasn't yet, he should do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Are you sure? This is from 2016 and at least half these sentences seem soft (5 years for sexual activity with a child, wtf!) and with good behaviour I'm sure they are not serving those sentences in full. A 12 year prison sentence is nothing when you are out in half that time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
^. From last year. The one at the bottom avoided jail despite penetrating the girl.

If my daughter was the victim in either one of these cases no way I'm satisfied with the sentences handed out.

They do seem soft sentences I agree. But, the sentences are nothing to do with Labour. The Tories never changed them in power. The Grooming Gangs scandal has been known and used as a political football for many years. It's not a taboo subject as suggested. Regrettably, the government's of the day haven't done much about it. But that's true of everything in British politics really.

You are right that it is not really a party political issue given the Tories having done sod all about it (even if Labour are being particularly dumb about it at this moment in time) but that is yet another thing that is opening the door to obnoxious anti-system political actors. You can't blame people for thinking that the mainstream parties are ineffectual when they keep on demonstrating it.

[I like neeps]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Are you sure? This is from 2016 and at least half these sentences seem soft (5 years for sexual activity with a child, wtf!) and with good behaviour I'm sure they are not serving those sentences in full. A 12 year prison sentence is nothing when you are out in half that time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
^. From last year. The one at the bottom avoided jail despite penetrating the girl.

If my daughter was the victim in either one of these cases no way I'm satisfied with the sentences handed out.

They do seem soft sentences I agree. But, the sentences are nothing to do with Labour. The Tories never changed them in power. The Grooming Gangs scandal has been known and used as a political football for many years. It's not a taboo subject as suggested. Regrettably, the government's of the day haven't done much about it. But that's true of everything in British politics really.

You are right that it is not really a party political issue given the Tories having done sod all about it (even if Labour are being particularly dumb about it at this moment in time) but that is yet another thing that is opening the door to obnoxious anti-system political actors. You can't blame people for thinking that the mainstream parties are ineffectual when they keep on demonstrating it.

Which is what I said...

The points I replied to Hugo on were that the elites don't care about the working classes - the state in this case are poorly funded councils and regional police who aren't anyone's definitions of elite.

And the race of the offenders was a reason it wasn't as big a talking point. When the race of the offenders is the reason it's talked about every few months.

[dpedin]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-35524340

Are you sure? This is from 2016 and at least half these sentences seem soft (5 years for sexual activity with a child, wtf!) and with good behaviour I'm sure they are not serving those sentences in full. A 12 year prison sentence is nothing when you are out in half that time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-68446855
^. From last year. The one at the bottom avoided jail despite penetrating the girl.

If my daughter was the victim in either one of these cases no way I'm satisfied with the sentences handed out.

They do seem soft sentences I agree. But, the sentences are nothing to do with Labour. The Tories never changed them in power. The Grooming Gangs scandal has been known and used as a political football for many years. It's not a taboo subject as suggested. Regrettably, the government's of the day haven't done much about it. But that's true of everything in British politics really.

I think we are talking at slight cross purposes here.

The village I grew up in I'm quite sure (by the law of averages) there were some deviants or predators lurking. However, there could never have been actual gangs operating in plain sight doing this type of stuff. Nevermind the men or the police, the women of the village, curious, strong willed and naturally protective would have chased them out.

For these guys to be doing this stuff to the scale and extent they did (and still are, since this stuff is ongoing) speaks to the fact that it is on some level tolerated. It like everything else is a product of culture.

So, you see with the case of the Syrian refugees who raped the girl in Newcastle, the ringleader was already in court in 2016 for a sexual assault case. That brush with the law did not seem to deter him since he subsequently raped another girl then was involved in BLM rioting in 2020.

All of this activity is enabled by people, either by their inaction, their indifference or their unwillingness to have tough conversations. The state just fails at it's basic duty to keep people safe and then adds insult to injury with sentences that serve neither as a punishment or as a future deterrent.

People need to be held accountable for this state of affairs, it is not normal.

Giselle Pelicot might disagree about your assumptions about your village? Nice, many professional, working and middle class men from all parts of society thought it ok to rape an older women whilst she was asleep. If they are capable of that then what else could/have they done - rape a sleeping 15 year old then claim they thought she was 16, 18? They walk amongst us! Midsummer Murders should have taught you something about nice middle class quiet villages.

The reality is that CSA and sex abuse more generally is predominately a male issue regardless of race or class. It has always been thus and will continue to be so. From buggery in posh private boarding schools (training grounds for pervert MPs and CoE ministers), sexual and physical abuse by priest and nuns in catholic homes for poor boys/girls, sexual abuse in private schools (ask R5 Nicky Campbell) to the Met police raping and killing women on the streets of London it is a huge issue for our society and I for one find it ironic that we are all in a tizzy about Muskieboy, father to 12 kids with 3 different women, tweeting crap about CSA whilst working for Trump who, is a convicted sex abuser!

This isn't a race issue - in England & Wales in 2022 88% of all CSA offenders were white British, 7% asian, 3% black, 2% other. Asians make up 9% of the population so their offending rate was below what was expected. White British make up 83% of the populations so they are over represented (Centre of Expertise on CSA Report 2022-2023). Yes the data is difficult and patchy but the overall picture is fairly clear. In terms of CSA gangs the Gov own report in 2020, requested by Savid Javid stated the majority of child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men under the age of 30.The report, which covers England, Scotland and Wales and summarised a range of studies on the issue of group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE), also known as grooming gangs, said there was not enough evidence to conclude that child sexual abuse gangs were disproportionately made up of Asian offenders.

As for the great USA as at June 2024, in the states that have set a marriage age by statute, 6 allow marriage between an adult and a girl/boy who is under 16 years old. Sounds like CSA to me and Muskie has a bit of work to do in his own back yard first?

The difficult thing to acknowledge about all this CSA and grooming gangs is that it isn't some dark skinned, illegal immigrant who is causing all the problems, it is essentially baked into our own white, christian, British society. The offenders are probably someone you and I know and possibly even count as a friend or workmate who is a perpetrator of CSA, probably in their own wider family or with someone youngster close to them. It has always been thus, as the Who called him your Wicked Uncle Ernie. You probably have a mate who seems to have lots of hard porn, who goes off to the Far East for his holidays every year with his mates, always boast about his sexual exploits over a drunken weekend night out or who thinks nothing of some 'harmless' visit to a local strip club. Ever wonder what else they get up to?

It is just too easy to blame some 'other' people in society preferably those of a different colour, race or religion for these heinous crimes rather than accept it is folk who are white, British and christian who make up the vast majority of perpetrators. The EDL seems to have a rather high % of sexual abuse offenders for example. Rather than looking at the facts and figures it is just easier to jump on an unfounded tweet from a jacked up megalomania which supports our own prejudices and biases, or even worse knowingly use it to pursue a political agenda whilst paying lip service for the victims! It is a very, very uncomfortable topic for individuals and our society to discuss and explore, so much easier to explain it away by blaming someone who doesn't look like us. I often wonder about those who shout most and loudest about CSA and asian grooming gangs and wonder why they ignore the evidence, reminds me of a mate at primary school who was always the first to dob us mates in it with the teacher whilst denying he had anything to do with it, despite being the ringleader!

[Paddington Bear]

They do seem soft sentences I agree. But, the sentences are nothing to do with Labour. The Tories never changed them in power. The Grooming Gangs scandal has been known and used as a political football for many years. It's not a taboo subject as suggested. Regrettably, the government's of the day haven't done much about it. But that's true of everything in British politics really.

I think we are talking at slight cross purposes here.

The village I grew up in I'm quite sure (by the law of averages) there were some deviants or predators lurking. However, there could never have been actual gangs operating in plain sight doing this type of stuff. Nevermind the men or the police, the women of the village, curious, strong willed and naturally protective would have chased them out.

For these guys to be doing this stuff to the scale and extent they did (and still are, since this stuff is ongoing) speaks to the fact that it is on some level tolerated. It like everything else is a product of culture.

So, you see with the case of the Syrian refugees who raped the girl in Newcastle, the ringleader was already in court in 2016 for a sexual assault case. That brush with the law did not seem to deter him since he subsequently raped another girl then was involved in BLM rioting in 2020.

All of this activity is enabled by people, either by their inaction, their indifference or their unwillingness to have tough conversations. The state just fails at it's basic duty to keep people safe and then adds insult to injury with sentences that serve neither as a punishment or as a future deterrent.

People need to be held accountable for this state of affairs, it is not normal.

Giselle Pelicot might disagree about your assumptions about your village? Nice, many professional, working and middle class men from all parts of society thought it ok to rape an older women whilst she was asleep. If they are capable of that then what else could/have they done - rape a sleeping 15 year old then claim they thought she was 16, 18? They walk amongst us! Midsummer Murders should have taught you something about nice middle class quiet villages.

The reality is that CSA and sex abuse more generally is predominately a male issue regardless of race or class. It has always been thus and will continue to be so. From buggery in posh private boarding schools (training grounds for pervert MPs and CoE ministers), sexual and physical abuse by priest and nuns in catholic homes for poor boys/girls, sexual abuse in private schools (ask R5 Nicky Campbell) to the Met police raping and killing women on the streets of London it is a huge issue for our society and I for one find it ironic that we are all in a tizzy about Muskieboy, father to 12 kids with 3 different women, tweeting crap about CSA whilst working for Trump who, is a convicted sex abuser!

This isn't a race issue - in England & Wales in 2022 88% of all CSA offenders were white British, 7% asian, 3% black, 2% other. Asians make up 9% of the population so their offending rate was below what was expected. White British make up 83% of the populations so they are over represented (Centre of Expertise on CSA Report 2022-2023). Yes the data is difficult and patchy but the overall picture is fairly clear. In terms of CSA gangs the Gov own report in 2020, requested by Savid Javid stated the majority of child sexual abuse gangs are made up of white men under the age of 30.The report, which covers England, Scotland and Wales and summarised a range of studies on the issue of group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE), also known as grooming gangs, said there was not enough evidence to conclude that child sexual abuse gangs were disproportionately made up of Asian offenders.

As for the great USA as at June 2024, in the states that have set a marriage age by statute, 6 allow marriage between an adult and a girl/boy who is under 16 years old. Sounds like CSA to me and Muskie has a bit of work to do in his own back yard first?

The difficult thing to acknowledge about all this CSA and grooming gangs is that it isn't some dark skinned, illegal immigrant who is causing all the problems, it is essentially baked into our own white, christian, British society. The offenders are probably someone you and I know and possibly even count as a friend or workmate who is a perpetrator of CSA, probably in their own wider family or with someone youngster close to them. It has always been thus, as the Who called him your Wicked Uncle Ernie. You probably have a mate who seems to have lots of hard porn, who goes off to the Far East for his holidays every year with his mates, always boast about his sexual exploits over a drunken weekend night out or who thinks nothing of some 'harmless' visit to a local strip club. Ever wonder what else they get up to?

It is just too easy to blame some 'other' people in society preferably those of a different colour, race or religion for these heinous crimes rather than accept it is folk who are white, British and christian who make up the vast majority of perpetrators. The EDL seems to have a rather high % of sexual abuse offenders for example. Rather than looking at the facts and figures it is just easier to jump on an unfounded tweet from a jacked up megalomania which supports our own prejudices and biases, or even worse knowingly use it to pursue a political agenda whilst paying lip service for the victims! It is a very, very uncomfortable topic for individuals and our society to discuss and explore, so much easier to explain it away by blaming someone who doesn't look like us. I often wonder about those who shout most and loudest about CSA and asian grooming gangs and wonder why they ignore the evidence, reminds me of a mate at primary school who was always the first to dob us mates in it with the teacher whilst denying he had anything to do with it, despite being the ringleader!

The statistics you are quoting from are misleading - a significant amount of their dataset is sexting and similar actions between two people who are both below the age of consent, and lumps in possession of indecent images with grooming gangs etc. The two offences I’ve listed (and don’t get me wrong particularly for the latter throw the book at them) give you the white proportions you’re quoting from. When it comes to mass grooming and rape the offences become disproportionately Pakistani and Bangladeshi.

In your own words you’ve bundled a hell of a lot of things together - going to a strip club or paying for sex off an adult in Thailand is not comparable to the mass rape of children in Oldham for example (again to be clear I find both vile, when I was travelling as a teenager I landed in Bangkok and hated what I saw so much I used a fair chunk of my dwindling cash to fly out early).

As for gangs themselves, there are of course white Brits involved in that sort of thing. But we know that for example the gang in Cornwall was prosecuted and received broadly appropriate sentences (again though for CSA I’d be pushing for life sentences). In the end covering up CSA has cost the Archbishop of Canterbury his job. The injustice of the Pakistani gangs comes from the cover ups, the obfuscation and the absolutely pitiful sentences handed down as and when someone actually got to court, not to mention that a lot of people involved in covering it up retain reasonably senior jobs in public life.