The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #155401   Message #3655056
Posted By: GUEST,Rahere
29-Aug-14 - 06:39 PM
Thread Name: BS: Rotherham 2014
Subject: RE: BS: Rotherham 2014
Ake, if you didn't have the track record you have, they might have been more generous. But you do, and the line you took was not neutral, so they really had no option - you were clearly foul of Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, I would suspect point (2)(c) in particular.
The fact you raise the point again is just begging for further action, this time against you. There is as yet little to debate, the data seems to be conclusive that the Council has much to explain about how the policy of paying for a taxi to be sure the girls get to school without bunking off got extended to paying for knowledge of a more carnal nature, and that the Police have to explain thier policy of oppression of those who complained. We don't know much about their customers, either, and it is to be noted that this is the same force investigating Cliff Richard for similar offences.
The Mods have to walk a fine line between suppression of debate and freedom of speech. Don't make it harder (or easier!) for them by promoting a hate agenda. You are neither judge nor jury in the question of whether the offenders may even have been racially profiling their victims themselves, a question which most obviously will be in the mind of the reviewers.