ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER “ASIAN” GROOMING GANG CONVICTED!

Last Friday afternoon the story broke in the mainstream media that 20 more, as the BBC called them “Asians”, had been convicted of horrific offences of “child grooming” from the Huddersfield area. 

Most of the offences occurred during the period of Labour Government in the Labour controlled area of Kirklees.  These had been systematically covered up by Labour Councillors and MPs, social workers, police and all the usual suspects that we are all too familiar with from the Rotherham, Rochdale, Manchester etc. “grooming gang” cases. 

Even now the BBC cannot bring themselves to admit that these men are of Pakistani heritage Muslims, and Chinese, Vietnamese, or any other “Asians”. 

After the murder of the internationalist Labour MP, Jo Cox, by the deeply disturbed Thomas Mair (actually more as a product of the failure of “Care in the Community” than of political extremism), the English Democrats decided we would stand in the ensuing by-election.   

The Constituency was of course exactly in the area affected by this case.  The local media, the local BBC and all the local politicians were in the know about what had been going on for many years in Kirklees.  Nevertheless claimed that it was disgusting of anyone to stand in that Constituency against Labour!

So, as soon as we announced that we were going to stand, that Establishment bastion of Remain, the Electoral Commission, decided to remove without any consultation or prior notice, our registered “Description” “England worth fighting for!”  This was said to be offensive!   

What is truly offensive is the way that the Establishment had closed ranks to try to pretend that nothing untoward was going on in Kirklees and their claims that our standing was damaging “social cohesion” between the “local communities”. 

The media, particularly in the shape of Channel 4, tried to do a hatchet job on us.  They not only secretly filmed at our conference to try to get people to say things that they could use against us. Also they tried to create a situation where there would be a fight by getting a probably drunken Labour Councillor to attack our campaign stalls. 

I had taken, as it turned out, the very sensible precaution of making sure that our stalls were in the square just outside the Batley police station, so the whole thing was witnessed by the police.  They, very reluctantly, had to get involved to prevent the Labour Councillor from doing any more criminal damage.  Needless to say that they didn’t actually prosecute her, despite the fact that several of our people gave witness statements which, if the boot had been on the other foot, would certainly have led to prosecutions! 

Channel 4 were looking rather depressed at the failure of their wheeze, but they nevertheless showed their hatchet job which was broadcast just before the by-election. They broadcast a clip with the Councillor saying that we shouldn’t be standing but didn’t mention, of course, her appalling conduct!

Whilst this was all truly offensive, nothing compares with the betrayal of vulnerable white English girls and their families by Labour, by police and by local officials, by the media and by the British Political Establishment generally.   

That is something which should live in infamy for generations to come and which should motivate anyone who cares for England and the English people to campaign all the harder to at least remove all the guilty from any positions of authority or influence!

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs

#FreeTommy; The Judge; The Law; Journalists; Islamist Grooming Gangs

On Friday, 25^th May, I happened to tune into Tommy Robinson’s live feed on Facebook not long before he was arrested by seven (yes seven!) West Yorkshire Police under the dishonest claim that he was inciting a “Breach of the Peace”. 

From what I saw at the time and from what I have seen since I stand by my assertion that that claim was dishonest.  As so far as I can see there was no basis for saying that he was inciting a Breach of the Peace. 

In fact the police’s actions afterwards suggest that that was always a lie.  At the time all we heard was that within two hours of his arrest he had been sentenced to 13 months imprisonment and taken off to Hull Prison. 

All we knew about the reason as to why this has happened was that His Honour Judge Marson QC had made an Order forbidding press coverage on the basis that it might prejudice “THESE proceedings”.

It probably is that this Judge’s Leftist background has led him to be far harder on Tommy Robinson than he would have been on a mainstream Leftist, fellow traveller and journalist.  Given the inevitable as time goes on increasing preponderance of Leftists, multi-culturalists in the judiciary would now be no real prospects of running that aspect of the argument in court but the sentence is still a severe one and the courts are supposed to take account of a quick plea of guilty in discounting by a third the sentence that they would otherwise have imposed.  

The Judgment in effect is therefore saying that the Judge thought that 15 months would have been appropriate to add consecutively to the 3 months that were triggered by the plea of guilty.  That strikes me as a wholly unreasonable sentence which should be possible to reduce quite significantly on appeal if Tommy Robinson is minded to do so.  How publicity could be relevant to proceedings against Tommy Robinson or even Stephen Yaxley-Lennon as he is properly described in the heading of the Court Order was one of the mysteries of the situation. 

I like many others that saw what happened or heard about it and then watched were amazed, appalled and outraged at what had apparently happened in our country to Tommy who is after all an heroic figure! 

It seemed clear that the politically correct British State had in the words of one commentator “gone too far this time”. 

There have since been a series of protests, on the quite understandable basis from what we knew, that Tommy Robinson seemed to have been arrested and then sent down for 13 months without any proper due process, trial etc. 

Many generous offers of help were also being made, particularly by Ezra Levant offering help with Tommy’s legal fees and also Lord Pearson offering payment of his legal fees.  General Batton and Lord Pearson of UKIP even both went so far as to threaten to prosecute the current Home Secretary, Sajid Javid.  I found this somewhat odd as I cannot think there would be any prospect of getting a magistrate even to issue the summons to prosecute the Home Secretary over injuries sustained in a prison. Whilst pursuing one part of his ministerial responsibility, he does not have any direct operational involvement with them.  I can however understand that in the heat of anger at the moment them making threats which in the cool light of day now look implausible. 

Another implausible call was of course for Habeas Corpus and Common Law.  Under Common Law judges did have a very wide discretionary power to punish for contempt of court.  Habeas Corpus is the traditional order of the court whereby a Judge orders and the name comes from the Latin recital to the order to the person who has the body of the prisoner who is to be produced to the court.  In a situation where the court has ordered a person to be imprisoned that of course has no relevance.  It was an historical order principally against officers of the Crown or the King himself who had wrongly imprisoned somebody. 

Reasonably sizeable demonstrations have been held and various speakers, including both UKIP’s and For Britain’s Leadership made speeches about how outrageous and unconstitutional the decision to imprison Tommy Robinson has been.  I suspect they all now feel a bit embarrassed.  No doubt they were acting from the best motives, but the facts that have now come out have delivered them over for ridicule by our collective multi-culturalist opponents.

What has now come out is that there was already a restriction order on further publication of any details about the trials of 29 defendants in yet another horrific example Muslim/Pakistani heritage pimping child prostitute gangs.  The facts include the all too normal use of extortion, violence and drugs against their victims, together with huge criminal profits.  Such orders are made against the media and against all journalists.  It is because Tommy Robinson, for some time now, has been saying publically on his website, on his output and where relevant in court that he is a journalist that he was clearly caught by this Order. 

In the circumstances I think it likely that he was correctly advised, by his very experienced Counsel, Matthew Harding, from a legal point of view to plead guilty to the charge of breach of this court Order i.e. contempt of court.  That Court Order was made to try to ensure that these criminals could be fairly tried.  The consequence of it being impossible to fairly try them means that they might go free.  The Order against the media was therefore a sensible Order to make, provided of course that once the criminals were convicted that the media were not only free to report on it but actually did so. 

Of course part of the reason why we are all so suspicious about the “Fake News” from the mainstream media is that they frequently choose to make a big fuss about historic cases against old white men rather than to report the real crisis that is going on around us at the moment of these Muslim child rape gangs.  Our suspicion was further raised by the treatment of Tommy Robinson who has been the key torch bearer throwing light on this issue to the embarrassment of the British Political Establishment.

Once it is understood that Tommy Robinson pleaded guilty to contempt of court it becomes obvious that this would automatically trigger his suspended sentence for 3 months imprisonment to which he was sentenced in Canterbury Crown Court last year.  Therefore Tommy would be going to prison for at least that 3 months sentence.  I think it would also be inevitable that any Judge would then add to that sentence.

I do however think that an immediate actual custodial sentence of a further 10 months was a very stiff sentence and it is there that we and Tommy Robinson himself should perhaps be directing attention, since that sentence is of course appealable. 

There is also the disparity of treatment between Tommy Robinson and other reporters whereby he has been singled out for punishment when usually mainstream media reporters are not punished.  There is also the fact that he is completely outside the self-censoring system which revolves around the Defence and Security Media Advisory whereby the mainstream media decide what they are going to report and what they are going to censor in the interests of their globalists/internationalist, multi-culturalist owner’s agenda. 

I came across a very good article explaining this system which I reproduce below. 

The other point to bear in mind is of course that the Judge that decided to sentence Tommy Robinson for an additional 10 months over and above the 3 months that were triggered by his pleading guilty, is His Honour Judge Geoffrey Marson QC who was one of the first products of the change to the judicial appointments under Tony Blair whereby a Judicial Appointments Commission was set up with rules, which Tony Blair’s friend, Lord Irvine, said would ensure that “nobody with reactionary views” could be appointed or promoted within the judiciary. 

Judge Marson was appointed by Tony Blair’s personal friend and former flatmate, Charlie Faulkner, who, as Lord Chancellor presided over the dismantlement of the ancient and traditional English office of Lord Chancellor.  Faulkner replaced it with the EUish institution of a “Ministry of Justice” which has since presided over the virtual implosion of the English Court system.  Judge Marson is I suspect a typical example of such appointment as his own old chambers proudly boasts of being multi-culturalist, Park Square Barristers of 6 Park Square East, Leeds, LS1 2LW say that they are “Progressive - … we have a strong balance of women and BME members.”  Here is a link to their website >>> https://www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk/about/

I mentioned above the control centre of Establishment spin the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee.  Here is that interesting article I mentioned:-

“D-Notices, State Censorship And The Cynical Collusion of Mainstream Media

By TruePublica: If you’ve been following the Skripal/Novichok/Chemical weapons/Syria drama unfold through TruePublica you’ll be up to date on most, if not all, the relevant information there is to know.

On several occasions, we have published news relating to the D-Notices sent out by the state to censor the mainstream media in both print and broadcast to ensure that their version of the story, one filled full of holes, didn’t go, well, mainstream.

One question raised a few times by our readers was, who is it actually decides when to issue a D-Notice and who sits on its committee.

Here is the explainer and an interesting one it is too.

Get Briefed, Get Weekly Intelligence Reports - Essential Weekend Reading - Safe Subscribe

Subscribe!

A DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) — formerly a DA-Notice (Defence Advisory Notice), and before that called a Defence Notice (D-Notice) until 1993—is an official request to news editors not to publish or broadcast items on specified subjects for “reasons of national security.”

In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association. Any D-Notices or DA-notices were only advisory requests, and so are not legally enforceable; hence, news editors can choose not to abide by them. However, they are today slavishly complied with by the media.

In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices, which gave general guidance on what might be published and what was discouraged; and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC). In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices (Defence Advisory Notices).

One of the recommendations resulting from the 2015 review of the DA-notice system, included the renaming of the system to the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee.  In 2017, the notices were reworded and then reorganized into the following categories:

• DSMA-Notice 01: Military Operations, Plans & Capabilities
• DSMA-Notice 02: Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon Systems and Equipment
• DSMA-Notice 03: Military Counter-Terrorist Forces, Special Forces and Intelligence Agency Operations, Activities and Communication Methods and Techniques
• DSMA-Notice 04: Physical Property and Assets
• DSMA-Notice 05: Personnel and their Families who work in Sensitive Positions

From here, it gets interesting because in 2015 the ‘committee’ from all accounts seemed to change shape, which beforehand had been made up of state officials, and some elements of the press, particularly in times of real national security such as the world wars. Nowadays it is made up of a few state officials and mostly – the mainstream media.

There are 15 senior media people who sit on this censorship committee. As well as the BBC, ITV, ITN and Murdoch’s Sky News, representing broadcasters, there are a variety of representatives from the broadsheet and tabloid press, regional and Scottish newspapers and magazines and publishing – including two News UK and Harper Collins, (both owned by Murdoch) as well as Trinity Mirror, the Daily Mail and the Guardian.

On the government side of the committee are the chair from the MoD and four intelligence connected representatives from the MoD (Director General Security Policy), Foreign Office (Director for National Security), Home Office (unspecified post) and Cabinet Office (Deputy National Security Adviser for Security, Intelligence, and Resilience).

The DSMA committee itself obviously likes to project the view that it is a rather dull and uninteresting meeting of minds and that there’s nothing going on to report. But these meetings are to discuss and agree what can and cannot be printed or broadcast in the mainstream media. Then, instead of going back to their respective places of work and simply passing on the message – the state then issues notices to the same people who just agreed not to print the scandals the government just asked them not to print in the first place.

SpinWatch makes an interesting point by highlighting exactly how much the mainstream media collude directly with government on controlling the output.

“as a former vice chair of the committee (a journalist) put it, ‘is emphatically not censorship… but voluntary, responsible media restraint’. Then working at Sky News, that vice chair, Simon Bucks, is now CEO at the Services Sound and Vision Corporation, the broadcasting service which says it is ‘championing the Armed Forces’. Bucks also wrote that the DSMA committee is ‘the most mythologised and misunderstood institution in British media… “Slapping a D-notice” on something the establishment wanted suppressed has been the stuff of thrillers, spy stories and conspiracy theories for more than a century”.

The reader should have gathered from that statement alone, that indeed, slapping a D-Notice on the media is not the stuff of conspiracy theories otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. The conspiracy is that that the mainstream media stand accused of colluding in important cover-ups with and for the state. That is not a theory – that is a fact.

The Labour party is currently attacking freedom of speech and the free press, if there was indeed one to speak of, with a Bill tabled by deputy Labour leader Tom Watson (known as Labour’s ‘bully boy’) this week. This Bill was described by the Financial Times thus: “it would force our hand and chill freedom of expression in this country. Investigative journalism – such as the FT’s expose of The Presidents Club this year – could well become too risky given the potential costs.” It would be handing rich individuals a licence to harass the press, free of charge.”

Thankfully this draconian measure failed.

No doubt being caught up in the expenses scandal that the Telegraph printed didn’t exactly help with Mr Watson’s general view that Britain should benefit from a free press. His proposal came a couple of days after the World Press Freedom report showing Britain is now languishing nicely in 40th place in a group of other countries who also despise free speech – by those who try to hold power to account.

Here is a link to the original article>>> http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdom/d-notices-state-censorship-and-the-cynical-collusion-of-mainstream-media/ … 

Here are the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee’s Media Members:-

Name: Organisation: Nominated By... John Battle Head of Compliance Independent Television News   ITN Paul Johnson Deputy Editor Guardian News and Media  NPA Joe Fay Group Editor The Register Charles Garside Assistant Editor Daily Mail NPA James Green Director IHS - Jane's News & Analysis   PPA David Higgerson Digital Publishing Director Trinity Mirror Regionals  NS Michael Jermey Director of News, Current Affairs and Sport ITV   ITV David Jordan Director of Editorial Policy and Standards BBC   BBC James MacManus Executive Director News UK NPA John McLellan Scottish Newspaper Society SNS Charles Redmayne Chief Executive Officer Harper Collins UK (B)PA Ian Murray Executive Director Society of Editors SoE Sarah Whitehead Head of Home News & Deputy Head of News Gathering Sky News BSkyB Laura Adams Editorial Director, Archant NMA Owen Meredith Head of Public Affairs PPA

Here is a link to their website>>> http://www.dsma.uk/committee/index.htm

There was also some interesting fall-out for the multi-culturalist British Political Establishment which I think was able to see that large numbers of traditionally minded patriots are now absolutely fed-up with the way things are going and are close to the point where there could be widespread civil disorder.  Whether they take any notice of that information we will see shortly.   So far it looks to me as if the official reaction is likely to be to try to clamp down still further which I suspect will be like sealing the lid on a pressure cooker! 

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?

On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-

Jeremy Corbyn:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“No she resigned.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack or did she resign”


Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned”.



BBC interviewer:-

“So you did not sack her?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned.”



BBC interviewer:-

“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“Well she resigned so that is the question.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-


“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”



BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”



Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”


(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame 'entire community' for abuse - BBC News).



This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked. 

The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.

The second deception in the interview was to claim:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.

What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.

Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-


“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!


Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.

The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is. 


But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that. 


So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?

What do you think?

Independent Press Standards Organisation and the Rotherham Advert

Following my correspondence with the Rotherham Advertiser I thought that I ought to see if the new Independent Press Standards Organisation would be any improvement on the Press Complaints Commission. Here is the correspondence. What do you think?


Letter dated 5.2.15

Sir Alan Moses

Independent Press Standards Organisation

Halton House
20/23 Holborn
London EC1N 2JD



Dear Sir

Re: Complaint against Rotherham Advertiser – Bias racial prejudice and inaccuracy

I recently tried to place an advertisement with the Rotherham Advertiser. There was then email correspondence from which it became clear that the “Editor” had an inappropriate attitude towards any matter arising out of the Jay Report. I would remind you that this is the report which was highly critical of Rotherham Council and the South Yorkshire Police. It also detailed extremely serious allegations of child gang rape and prostitution against by various Muslim/Pakistani gangs in Rotherham. Crimes in which the authorities had not only failed to properly investigate but had been complicit in at the very least the sense of covering up what was going on. Moreover instead of doing their duty they had persecuted anyone who tried to raise the subject.



I enclose the email correspondence and an article from the Daily Telegraph which I think is appropriate to consider and also refer to the recent Casey report on Rotherham.



I suspect that such a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy could not have been conducted without local journalists being aware of it. It would appear from the correspondence that the Editor of the Rotherham Advertiser is not only unwilling to mention the religion or ethnicity of the perpetrators, but even the likely culpability of Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police. In the circumstances I wish to make a complaint of bias and racial prejudice against the Rotherham Advertiser.



Yours faithfully





R C W Tilbrook



Enc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 11/02/2015 10:18:03 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15



Dear Mr Tilbrook



Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation.



Your complaint is currently being assessed, and we will be in touch with you again shortly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions.



Should IPSO decide that your complaint falls outside of our remit, or does not raise a possible breach of the Code, we will write to you to explain why and send a copy of our letter to the publication.



Alternatively, if we decide that the concerns you have raised fall within our remit and raise a possible breach of the Code, and you have not previously exhausted the publication’s internal complaints procedures, a copy of your complaint and any other correspondence you have sent to us, including contact information, will be sent to the publication to provide it with the opportunity to resolve the matter directly with you.



A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is administered by IPSO, can be found at https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html.



Please note, in addition, the following information about our confidentiality and data protection procedures:



Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation requires good faith on both sides. In order for us to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or newspaper/magazine, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation - most notably correspondence – without the consent of the other party. Publication, without consent, may affect our ability to continue to deal with a complaint or may be considered when we reach a decision as to whether the Code has been breached. Material provided by both complainants and publications during an investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint to us. This will not generally prohibit a publication from publishing details of any ruling.



Data protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided for the purposes of dealing with your complaint. You also consent to the publication of any decision in relation to the complaint, but may withdraw consent in writing.



Further information about complaining to IPSO, including a summary of the complaints procedure, can be found at: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/makeacomplaint.html.



With best wishes,





Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 11/02/2015 16:58:12 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15



Dear Mr Tilbrook,

I write further to our earlier email.

You have contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the new independent regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the requirements set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code.

It appears that the concerns you have raised do not relate to the editorial content of a newspaper or magazine, and it does not therefore appear that we will be able to assist you further.

If you do wish to make a complaint about editorial content, we would be grateful if you could provide a copy of any article about which you wish to complain, and explain how you consider the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached (https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html).

If we do not hear from you in seven days, we will assume you do not want to pursue a complaint through IPSO.

With best wishes





Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







From: RobinTilbrook
To: mel.huggett
Sent: 12/02/2015 15:37:56 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15



Dear Mrs Huggett

Thank you for your email of the 11th.

It is concerning that the Independent Press Standards Organisation does not think that the vetting of advertisement content by the Editor is “editorial content”. Clearly the Editor has decided on the content of my advertisement and by any normal attribution of those words an Editor having a role in the decision as to content is encompassed by complaints relating to editorial content. I would like to see any legal opinion you may have to the contrary.

Yours sincerely



R C W Tilbrook



---------------------------------------------------------------------------









From: mel.huggett
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 17/02/2015 15:35:18 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15



Dear Mr Tilbrook



Thank you for your email.



Disagreements about the text of advertisements do not amount to concerns about editorial content; therefore your concerns fall outside IPSO's remit, and I am afraid that we will be unable to assist you further.



IPSO's Regulations, which define its remit, are available in full on our website, at the following link: https://www.ipso.co.uk/assets/1/REGULATIONS__PDF_.PDF



Best wishes





Mel Huggett (Mrs)

Receptionist / Complaints Assistant

Independent Press Standards Organisation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------





From: RobinTilbrook
To: mel.huggett
Sent: 18/02/2015 09:41:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15



So Newspapers are allowed to discriminate about adverts and that is Okay with your organisation?







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------





From: simon.yip
To: robintilbrook
Sent: 19/02/2015 12:03:39 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15



Dear Mr Tilbrook,



Thank you for your email to my colleague, Mel Huggett.



As we previously explained, advertisements do not fall within IPSO's remit.



Best wishes





Simon Yip

Complaints Coordinator


-------------------------------------------------------------------

From: RobinTilbrook
To: simon.yip
Sent: 24/02/2015 09:22:37 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Independent Press Standards Organisation - Our reference 00654-15





Dear Mr Yip

Thank you for your email.

Please note that the Editor’s approach to my advert is, I believe, part of and indicative of his whole discriminatory approach to the reporting of the extremely serious child rape crimes that were going on in Rotherham and about which the whole local establishment closed ranks and refused to report or even acknowledge. That is the reason that I think that you should consider this an editorial matter.

I respectfully suggest that this is also something of a test case for the credibility of your organisation.

Yours sincerely



R C W Tilbrook

Rotherham – The creaking British Establishment shuffles into action 15 years late

Here is our PRESS RELEASE

Rotherham – The creaking British Establishment shuffles into action 15 years late

In Rotherham and many other towns and cities across England it appears that Labour’s “one party state” administrations have covered up a widespread problem of predominantly Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs being allowed to operate with impunity. 

Whenever anyone has sought to challenge this, the very authorities who are paid to act turned a blind eye. They not only refused to help but bullied and discriminated against the very people they were paid to help. This was done for reasons of political correctness. 

When the Creasy report was published on the 4th we saw from the BBC the same mentality displayed in their inadequate reporting of the issue. They tried to make out that there is no element of race or religion in the matrix of either these crimes or the widespread cover-up. This is an official cover-up which may well amount to offences of a “conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”.

The English Democrats demand not only that every member of the child rape gangs be prosecuted, but also that every client of theirs be prosecuted too. Those unfortunate girls were widely prostituted and trafficked so that the gangs could make huge profits (an estimated £200,000 per girl per year). 

We further demand that all those guilty of these crimes be, wherever legally possible, deported after serving lengthy jail sentences.

There should also be an enquiry in the case of each perpetrator as to whether the members of their family have a legally enforceable right to remain in this country. If not they should be deported too.

So far as the Police Officers, Labour Councillors and Labour supporting Council officials, social workers and care workers are concerned, all should be barred from holding any offices of public responsibility and wherever possible they should be prosecuted.

We also demand extra Legal Aid funding should be granted to enable every victim to sue every perpetrator and every conspirator and the guilty authorities to extract full compensation for the horror of their experience.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats, who is a Solicitor, said:- “The victims of these child rape gangs may be entitled to compensation of £50,000 for each and every rape. For those victims who endured hundreds of rapes, potential compensation may well run into millions of pounds. The scandalously inadequate British Establishment owes these victims justice and the funding of their quests for full compensation.”

He continued:- “This scandal, running to perhaps over a hundred thousand cases, which reached up into the highest levels of the Labour Government, is one of the worst scandals in the whole of the developed world.”

He added:- “Journalists who knew what was going on and who were involved in covering up are also complicit in these crimes and should be debarred from journalism”.

Robin Tilbrook

Chairman,

The English Democrats

The victims of Rotherham’s Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs to sue?

The victims of Rotherham’s Pakistani/Muslim child rape gangs to sue?

You may have seen in a previous Blog article what the English Democrats have tried to do politically in South Yorkshire as a result of the Pakistani/Muslim child rape gang scandal. (Click here >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/the-lessons-of-south-yorkshire-by.html

On reflection however I thought that, as a lawyer, there may well also be something more that I could do. Something which might even bring some much needed justice for the victims and against the guilty.

I therefore thought to put in a provocative advertisement proposal to South Yorkshire’s media!

You might think (but I couldn’t possibly comment!) that local journalists would be likely to have heard about what was going on. Yet the startling fact is that, with a very few honourable exceptions, there was extraordinary little reporting of these appalling crimes and the scandal of the authorities’ complicity.

In these circumstances I thought the exchange below might well be of interest as it does give an insight into the mind-set of a key local journalist; that is the Editor of the Rotherham Advertiser.

Below is the correspondence. See what you think.



From:RobinTilbrook
Sent: 08 January 2015 17:36
To: Advertising Department at Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: Placement of Advert



Dear Sir

Re: Placement of Advert

I may wish to place an advertisement with your newspaper. Please could you let me know how much this would cost?

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you may well be in a position to sue, not only the gang members but also all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This could amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.



Yours faithfully




R C W Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors





In a message dated 09/01/2015 14:34:51 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser writes:

Hi Robin,



Thank you for your enquiry regarding advertising in the Rotherham Advertiser. The text you have listed below would fit into a 7 x 2 box, or a 5 x 3 box, the cost of the 7 x 2 in the general run of paper would be £93.94 plus VAT, the 5 x 3 would be £100.65 plus VAT.



There are many other sizes available smaller and larger, however the 7 x 2 is the smallest that this amount of words would fit into and still have room to make the setting stand out. If you would like more information then please do not hesitate to give me a call.



Many thanks,


T.M.

From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 09 January 2015 17:17
To: Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: FW: Placement of Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am probably interested in placing this advert for £93.94 plus VAT. What more do you need from me?

Yours sincerely


Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 12/01/2015 09:15:40 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: FW: Placement of Advert



Hi Robin,

Because you have not used us before we do not have a credit account set up for you so I would need prepayment for the advert. I can email a proforma invoice and would need you to pay on a card or by bacs. Let me know how you would like to pay and I will email the invoice and details on how to pay. The deadline for this week’s paper is 3pm Wednesday.

Kindest regards, T.






From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 12 January 2015
To: Rotherham Advertiser
Subject: Re: FW: Placement of Advert



Dear T



Thank you for your email. Yes if you could send me the invoice that would be fine. However before you do so please could you check with your Editor that the paper will run it as it is a bit controversial?



Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: T.M.
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:19
To: A.M. Editor
Subject: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing



Hi A,

Can you check that we are OK to run this advert and let me know as I need to book and take payment.

Thanks, T

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you may well be in a position to sue, not only the gang members but also all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This could amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.


Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

In a message dated 12/01/2015 13:39:31 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk writes:

HI Robin,

Our editor has made some changes would the copy below be Ok with you? Let me know.

T.




From: A.M. Editor
Sent: 12 January 2015 13:38
To: T.M.
Subject: RE: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi T,

Maybe something like the below?

A.

If you are a victim of child sexual abuse or exploitation you could be in a position to sue the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.


Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

From: robintilbrook

Sent: 12 January 2015

To: TM





Dear T

The revised advertisement is good, but the purpose of my advertisement is to reach those who are victims of South Yorkshire’s Muslim/Pakistani child rape gangs not other types of cases so I would prefer:-



To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue, the gang members and all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This would amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.

Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors




In a message dated 13/01/2015 13:27:01 GMT Standard

Time, Rotherhamadvertisor writes:

HI Robin,

Please see below from my editor. Let me know if this is acceptable.

Many thanks, T



From: A.M. Editor
Sent: 13 January 2015 13:01
To: T.M>
Subject: RE: Grooming Gangs Advert

Hi T,

I’m uncomfortable about saying it would amount to tens of thousands of pounds as it might not. Equally, I don’t think we can name the council or the police. We are probably okay saying “grooming gangs” if that’s the bit he wants in to differentiate between those victims and the victims of abuse from, say, a family member.

Thanks,

A

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue

the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.




From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 13 January 2015 18:54
To: rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Subject: Re: FW: Grooming Gangs Advert

Dear T

Thank you for your email. I am a bit puzzled by your Editor’s comment about the amount as this is to be stated in my advert and is not something that he is expected to verify.

I am a Civil Litigation specialist and can specifically confirm that I expect that every finding of Rape would probably attract an award in excess of £50,000. So for one of those girls whose plight was reported on in the Jay Report who has been raped hundreds of times the damages may well exceed £1million.

So far as mentioning the Council and the Police, this is also a basic litigation position. Of course we would sue them whereever sufficient grounds exist as they probably will for the Council in every case where the child was in Care. Where the police were involved and failed in their duty to act, the same applies.

So yes given the significant sums involved I do want the Council and the Police mentioned. I am happy to keep it generic but of course I actually mean Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police. I would add I shall also be carefully considering whether individual Councillors and Council officials are worth 'powder and shot'!

Yours sincerely




Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 14/01/2015 09:31:43 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: FW: Grooming Gangs Advert



HI Robin,

I don’t think he meant that he would need to verify the amount it was more a case of mentioning large sums that may not be an achievable amount.

However if you are happy to go with the last version then the deadline is 3pm today to get into Friday’s Advertiser. Let me know.

Kind regards, T.




From: T.M. Rotherham Advertiser
Sent: 14 January 2015 10:22
To: A.M. Editor
Subject: FW: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi A

He wants to use this one is this OK?

Let me know. T.

To all under age victims of South Yorkshire’s “Grooming” Gangs

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue, the gang members and all their “clients” for damages for Rape. This would amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

You could also sue the Council for the gross negligence for having left you vulnerable to such exploitation.

Also if the police were involved and failed to act to help you, then you may be able to sue the police too.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.


Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.




 

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 14/01/2015 10:59:06 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Please check content is Ok for publishing



Hi Robin,

I am sorry my editor is still unhappy with the phrasing, he has suggested the text below. As you can see from his email he is unhappy with naming the authorities and promising amounts that at this stage cannot be guaranteed.

Let me know what you think.

Kind regards




From: RobinTilbrook

Sent : 14 January 2015

To: Rotherhamadvertiser



Dear T



Thank you for your email. I am surprised by your Editor's comments. We do not need there to have been any arrests for the victim to be able to sue. It is simply a legal fact that these types of cases will attract damages of tens of thousands of pounds. The relevant authorities are the Council and the police so why should I pussyfoot about?



It is very strange that your Editor has made his joke about my sentiments. This is one of the most appalling scandals ever and yet he is concerned about mere nuance!



Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors






From: A.M.
Sent: 14 January 2015 10:42
To: T.M.
Subject: RE: FW: FW: Please check content is Ok for publishing

Hi T.

He can’t say gang members as there haven’t been arrests, he can’t say tens of thousands of pounds and he needs to say relevant authorities rather than council or police.

The whole sentiment behind the advert and the way he’s phrasing things comes across as cheap and nasty.

I don’t think he can say much more than the below:

If you were a victim of the so-called “grooming” gangs then you could be in a position to sue the perpetrators and the relevant authorities you believe let you down and failed to help you.

You may also be able to claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

Tilbrook’s Solicitors is a specialist civil litigation firm which could help you make such claims.

Contact Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s on robintilbrook@aol.com or ring 01277 896000.




In a message dated 14/01/2015 15:08:31 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser writes:

Hi Robin,

Sorry to hassle you but we are on deadline now for this week’s paper so if you do want to go ahead I would need to know within the next half hour.

Kind regards,


T.

To: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 22/01/2015 15:35:56 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: Deadline



Hi Robin,

The editor is not happy for the authorities to be named, so you could put the relevant authorities but not Council or Police. The amount that they could get you said would be tens of thousands but you would have to put could be not would be as there are no guarantees. He is also not willing to print anything that points to any specific cultural group.

If you can word the advert around this then we would be happy to print it. Let me know if you do want to go ahead but I will have to run it by him again once the wording is submitted.

Kind regards,


T.



From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 22 January 2015 15:14
To: rotherhamadvertiser
Subject: Re: Deadline

Dear T

I am still interested in placing an advertisement in the Rotherham Advertiser, but of course it does have to be wording that is useful and meaningful to me as an advertiser. Please could you confirm with your Editor what the position is?

Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

-------------------------------------------------------------------




From: RobinTilbrook
Sent: 28 January 2015 09:22
To: T M
Subject: Re: Deadline



Dear T

Thank you for your email which I am surprised and puzzled at. Please remind your Editor that I have not asked to specifically identify Rotherham Council or the South Yorkshire Police – I have said the “Council” and the “Police”.

So far as ethnic/religious group is concerned, could you please remind your Editor that Professor Jay’s report was very clear that the perpetrators, with only one exception, were all Pakistani Muslims. The only exception was very much the “exception that proves the rule” as it was an Afghan Muslim of the same tribal group as most of the other perpetrators, i.e. Pathan/Pashtun. It would therefore in fact be wholly appropriate for my advert to be far more ethnic/religion specific than I have asked for.

So far as the money is concerned I actually anticipate, given the hundreds of rapes that many of these girls endured, that the money at stake may not merely amount to tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, but run into figures well above a million.

In the light of these comments I would request your Editor to reconsider his position on this advert.

Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors

_____________________________________________

From: rotherhamadvertiser
To: RobinTilbrook
CC: J.R.@rotherhamadvertiser
Sent: 28/01/2015 11:48:51 GMT Standard Time
Subj: RE: Deadline

Hi Robin,

I passed your email to my editor who discussed it with our MD and they are still unwilling to run the advert with the details you mention. The fact that you are only targeting your advert at people suffering abuse at the hands of certain ethnic groups, all victims of abuse deserve compensation whomever was the cause. Also they have reservations about running it as there have still been no arrests made for these acts of abuse.



As a sales person I am sorry to turn down the revenue but my hands are tied.



Kind regards, T

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent to Rotherham Advertiser 28.1.15

From : Robin Tilbrook

Dear Tina

Your reply is amazing and concerning. My proposed advertisement actually does not identify any “ethnic groups”. This is despite, as I have said, the fact that it could properly do so, given the clarity and strength of the evidence in the Jay Report.

Your Editor’s reaction suggests that the Rotherham Advertiser may have been complicit in the cover-up of the activities of Muslim/Pakistani child rape gangs prostituting under-age girls in Rotherham by failing to properly and truthfully cover the extent of the criminality involved. How does your Editor answer to this serious charge?

Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook

Tilbrook’s Solicitors








In a message dated 28/01/2015 16:43:48 GMT Standard Time,

rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk writes:

Hi Robin,



Again I have passed your comments to the Editor and forward any reply.




Kind regards, T

From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Sent: 28/01/2015 17:08:11 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Deadline



Thank you T.




Robin







From: A.M.@rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
To: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
Sent: 29/01/2015 16:16:24 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Are you really a solicitor?



Robin,

I would expect a solicitor to at least know that what you state below is an accusation (a pretty silly one at that) rather than a charge. A charge is made when police have enough information to make one (at least that’s the idea).

Your advert comes across as a crass and desperate attempt to profit from the misfortunes of others in a town hundreds of miles away from where you actually operate. Is local business so bad? Also, it gives what is likely to be false hope to most would-be claimants.

A

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To: A.M. @rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk
Sent: 30/01/2015 20:30:38 GMT Standard Time
Subj: Re: Are you really a solicitor?



Dear A



Thank you for your email. The words "charge" and accusation" mean very much the same thing.



I notice that your response has been the classic diversion strategem rather than answering the question. Use of this usually implies guilt. If I were cross examining you in court, I would probably leave it at that and invite the court to draw its own conclusions from your evasion when the question had been put to you.



Nevertheless I shall ask again are you one of those who is guilty of not reporting what you know and so helping the cover up? Viz: One that is part of the conspiracy of silence? Was this done for the politically correct appeasement of "community relations"?



Yours sincerely



Robin Tilbrook