Did they not completely destroy a BMW garage and all the new cars in it?

"Everybody Knows" A rather sweeping generalisation don't you think? The level of debate to be heard in a school playground perhaps? if you take the time to actually read my OP, I prefaced it with the words "As I recall" which should indicate that I was indeed speculating about a written Media article, and not offering up some definitive proof that it was indeed your club, rather than a pub. I should of course, have simply said a licensed premises, but that would have denied you the chance to exhibit your rather strange provincial and pedantic mindset.



I think you'll find I described the club as being attacked by an Asian mob and then set on fire. Something you described in your delightful way as "pig ignorant speculation." An unfortunate reference given the ethnicity of the rioters. However, as you had already legged it, leaving all those members you claim to know personally to their fate, one wonders does one not, how you could assert with any authority, that in one post it was simply the actions of a solitary Asian male, despite the accusations being made by that Lady who remained trapped in the Club, "THEY", note the plural, "tried to burn us out," and in your next post above, agree that it was in the middle of the worst racial rioting in Yorkshire.
You appear, not for the first time on these boards, to be a tad confused.



Would I be wrong in assuming that you are a cross between Victor Meldrew and Zack Dingle, with a touch of Arthur Scargill's bon homie mixed in there somewhere?

No, I think you'll find you said:

HTH

Wasn't that Lister Park BMW dealership?

The city has never, & will never recover from those events.

That is nothing compared to the money that left Bradford and went to Leeds in respect of the Iestyn Harris crisis.

This Wright chap is still brassing it out. He appears to think that resigning from the Labour party is sufficient taking of responsibility for his failures.

Surely Theresa May has to put the infamous South Yorkshire force in some sort of special measures & remove this man.

Legally it can't be done. PCCs are her baby and she agreed the employment terms.

Unless convicted of a criminal act that carries a prison sentence, the only way he can be fired is through the ballot box.

FWIW, I reckon he'll be gone soon enough, once the size of his bung has been agreed

He seems to be putting forward the argument that he should only be judged on his time as PCC & that he is helping to fix the problems he ignored when he was cabinet member for children's services. I don't think he will go.

The idea of PPC may be a good one in principle, but the flaws in the T's & C's show they were very poorly implemented.

Plenty of political capital to be made from this next May. UKIP will accuse Labour of protecting itself at the expense of the victims, with Labour then accusing UKIP of exploiting the victims for political gain.

In the meantime, no one in the ranks of the responsible will be punished.

I don't agree with PCC's, I think they're at best unnecessary and at worst put amateurs interfering with policing and politicise the police.

But if we've got them then the principal of public election to office has to be maintained. You can't have an election and then have the person elected removed from office just because some people don't like them or don't approve of a decision.

As said, unless he's committed a serious crime then the only way he should be kicked out is via the next election.

Although I kind of agree, what happens if he (or anyone elected) is utterly useless at the job? Do we then have to wait to the next election with a potentially weakened criminal justice system in certain areas?

Bottom line is that May cocked up the rules for this, and has been hoist by her own petard. She would love to get rid of Wright (as many would as he is so damaged) but can't. Unless she wants to risk a massive claim for unfair (and possibly illegal) dismissal.

same with MP's though, can't sack them for being garbage!

I am a little surprised that no one has sought a judicial review of Sean Wright's original appointment, given the revelation that he was in charge of Children's Services before becoming the PCC

12 people arrested with 7 of them charged at this weekend's EDL march in Rotherham. That's more than in the whole 16 year duration of the highlighted abuse period.

And in other news: apples are not oranges

Wright has quit apparently

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... c-end.html Two years ago it was merely an honour killing that killed her daughter. But she's been all over the media since the Rotherham report saying that her daughter was a child abuse victim. If she can't decide whether the guy who killed her was her first love or just one of the guys who were sexually abusing her, how are the police supposed to know about it?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... c-end.html Two years ago it was merely an honour killing that killed her daughter. But she's been all over the media since the Rotherham report saying that her daughter was a child abuse victim. If she can't decide whether the guy who killed her was her first love or just one of the guys who were sexually abusing her, how are the police supposed to know about it?

Yeh, let's have a pop at a bereaved mothers whose daughter was murdered in appallingly heinous way.

Look, I haven't seen deatils of the case previously but surely it's possible to be both, and having googled a different report also in your publication of choice, it seems she almost certainly WAS groomed and a victim of child sex abuse AS WELL as being a murder victim:

A rather unpleasant story has come to light in Bradford, where the council has had to pay £160k for failing to protect a young girl raped by her own father. The news paper report skirts around the race/religion of those involved. Political correctness?

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29220535Done the right thing, finally[/url

Call me irrational if you like but I keep getting this feeling that I'd probably never invite you to a dinner party at mine.

You do seem like a particularly odious individual, probably a re-incarnation of a former poster

Why do you feel it is necessary to state what race/religion it is? Does it somehow increase the gravity of the crime if the perpetrator is from a particular section of society?

Do you mean [url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11475337.Council_agrees___160_000_payout_for_failing_to_protect_girl_who_gave_birth_to_rapist_dad_s_child/?ref=var_0this story[/url, which doesn't skirt around anything. It simply doesn't mention it. Or are you implying "Bradford must mean darkies" to suit your ridiculous agenda?

You have no idea whatsoever of the race/religion of this man.

Nor does his race nor religion have anything even remotely to do with the offences of serial rape.

That aside, you either somehow fail to grasp that the press are prohibited from publishing anything that might identify the victim, so cannot publish any such irrelevant details even if there were a point in doing so, or more likely you do know this, but are just attention seeking.

I suppose he could've linked to [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-29206727This Story[/url but although it doesn't state the accused's religion, he does look a bit white to me.

Mind you, I don't reckon "White, professional paedophile" would fit his agenda

Agree in principle but taking Rotherham alone 1400 is an extraordinary number and suggests a series of interlocking social phenomena over and above a predisposition within a community, a tacit silence within that community plus a murky explicit/implicit conspiracy between community 'leaders' councillors, social services and police, overlaid with huge dollops of incompetence.

This looks like 2 sides of a perfect storm. A huge group of white working class girls, uniformly classed as 'vulnerable'.

A breathtakingly large group of predominantly Pakistani Muslim men disposed to 'groom' them and in a significant number of cases, sold them, threatened to kill them, beat them, raped them and then taken them to other towns where other men had sex with them.

There are huge research questions here over and above the conduct of the police and social services. We have stumbled across a disturbing subcultural phenomena whereby girls are behaving in an extraordinary way, despite many of them almost certainly having prior knowledge of the behaviour of these men. Rotherham isn't that big. I heard white boys calling white girls 'w*g meat' as early as 2000.

This isn't merely about failing apparatchiks or certainly isn't victim blaming. Something deeply profound in respect of the identity of these girls has mutated. Simply saying they are vulnerable to somebody paying them attention and buying them a kebab is hopeless. 13 year old working class girls are bright, feisty, complicated and in some cases very difficult. This is reckless, oppositional behaviour and must be seen as a statement of some sorts be it to parents or whoever.

In my experience 'vulnerable' invariably means very very very angry. What's happened to them before they meet these men is as important as the cultural coda of Pakistani Muslim men, and any predisposition to regards certain females as utterly disposable.

It is deeply, deeply disturbing.