Exposing the lies and half truths on Child exploitation

Having read some outlandish allegations against Rotherham Council and some Councillors on the now discredited blog RP  concerning child exploitation and the role of some taxi drivers alluded to in the select committee,  I sent a simple e mail to some of the Cllrs and below is the response from the Deputy Leader Cllr Jahangir Akhtar
The training session held on the 5th December was the first of a number which were due to be repeated early in 2013. Three more sessions have now been arranged for dates in February and March when its anticipated the remaining councillors will attend one of these sessions.
The sessions will be delivered jointly by the Manager of The RMBC sexual exploitation team and SY Police. The training is designed to be interactive and allow time for questions and debate so is best delivered in small groups of around 16 participants. There was never any intention of delivering this type of “training” to a room of 63 members at one go and it was always our intention to deliver this type of training in the way described above
Question Re licensing
We have considerably strengthened arrangements in Rotherham following concerns that some licensed private hire / hackney carriage drivers were associated with suspected Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE). We have required enhanced level checks from the Disclosures and Barring Service (and its predecessor organisation) as a matter of course for many years. However, in recent years we have strengthened the links between the Safeguarding Children Board and the Licensing Authority and the officers that support both, to ensure that information regarding any potential risks of harm to children or adults is shared between departments in an effective and expedient manner.
To supplement this, we also hold regular Responsible Authority meetings which engage all the appropriate responsible bodies including senior representatives from the Licensing Team and the Manager of the Safeguarding Children Board. Information regarding child protection issues is shared at this meeting if it relates to any licensed premises or individuals (including taxi and private hire drivers).
In addition, Rotherham MBC Licensing have been leading on a county wide initiative to introduce a training package that covers adult and child safeguarding issues, (including CSE). It is anticipated that this training will be delivered to all new hackney carriage / private hire driver licence applicants as part of the application process. The issuing of a licence will be dependent on the successful completion of this training.
In the last few years, there have been four cases where we had concerns relating to a child safeguarding or sexual exploitation matter. All four drivers had urgent action taken against them to prevent them acting as taxi drivers. On receipt of information, three drivers were immediately suspended. The fourth prospective driver had a licence application refused by the Licensing Board on the basis of historical information relating to CSE. None of these individuals now operate as taxi drivers in Rotherham. Of these four, one driver subsequently had his licence revoked by the Licensing Board, a second remains suspended pending further investigation, the third voluntarily surrendered his licence and the fourth driver appealed the Licensing Board’s decision at the Magistrate’s Court, however the Court dismissed the appeal.
Finally I challenge anyone to produce a single piece of evidence to support the outrageous allegations that ” certain aggressive cllrs stopped investigation” These allegations are total lies.

73 thoughts on “Exposing the lies and half truths on Child exploitation

  1. As you can see dear readers I have posted the response verbatim. Now I am happy for people to agree or disagree and if people disagree then hope it’s backed up with facts and not wink wink, nudge nudge innuendos like you know who.

    • It looks like the folk at RP are avid readers of this blog. They have re blogged the above article and then the usual idiots led by Rik have been making silly comments again tut tut. Come on chaps stop pinching our stuff!!!!

  2. Well done once again Rothbradpol, an excellent article dispelling the pile of horse manure we have seen by the fascist nutters and they’re conspiracy theories.

    • MB – That’s the vibe on the message boards plus I am told RP is that desparate that he has allowed you to start posting again after banning you for quite a while. I have also heard quite a number of people are annoyed that he only approves comments that fit in to his warped conspiracy theories. In fact one individual left about dozen comments but not a single one was posted.

  3. Maltbyblogger, the RP blog is widley known to be discredited, It’s a fact. Let this post be read to those many people who accused the council of a cover-up – pure opportunism, thats all it was. Yvonne Ridley accused the council of a cover – up whilst enlisting the help of those associated with the street-grooming case.

    But these accusations were just not harvested by the Respect party, they were in fact bred by the jobsworths on the RP blog, I am starting to think conspiracy is something they do quite well. And indeed RothBradpol, you made a clear and valid point in an earlier post (before this blog was blocked) and this point was that many right-wing jobsworth on the RP blog and rothpol himself were targeting Mahroof Hussain and Jahangir Akhtar to speak out, but why should they? there are alot more white paedophiles, would Rothpol and his orks ask white cllrs to speak out on all the cases involving white paedophiles, no they wouldn’t is the answer.

  4. I want to be the first to applaud this honest and open account from the council, This is true leadership and can’t be argued against in my view, many people won’t be happy untill if someone is portrayed to be bad or with bad intentions but if the person is good are has good intentions then they will not aknowledge it. Carry on the good work RMBC.

  5. Kashif
    Rothbradpol agrees with you. Its a very honest and transparent account from RMBC but I have to say everyone needs to take responsibilty for our childeren and hope the lessons learnt can be used to protect the childeren from the vile predators. All of the agencies need to work together with voluntary sector and community groups to root out this evil from society.

  6. Well done RothBradPOL, I must say Igree with you and Kashif, it is absolute craziness that yours is the first account that I have witnessed that takes a level headed approach to this issue, things went wrong, the council have aknowleged their faults and we have witnessed leadership from Jahangir Akhtar and others on this issue. Kashif pratically hits the nail on the head when he states that people on certain blogs and certain key-board warriors look for a scapegoat, instead of soaking the facts up first and evaluating based upon those facts; these certain ‘keyboard crusaders’ look to organise a stitch-up. And the Respect Party and Mrs Ridley took a hypocritical stance on this matter soley bred from poor sources of information. And I can also say that I agree with Mr Taylor (above) in his stance that there was some individuals on certain blogs that were calling for Jahangir Akhtar and Mahroof Hussain to come out instantly and condem the ‘groomers’ just because they are of the same race, whilst failing to call for White Cllrs to do the same. One would ask if this is fair, no it is not, it is actually a ignorant approach. This is because nobody ever calls for white cllrs, MPs or any official to speak out White Paedophiles, and as Mr Taylor points out there are far more White Paedophiles. Alot of people are quick consumers of our mainstream press, what I would advise those who are quick to accuse; is to fully read the facts before shooting off. Look forward to your next post 🙂

  7. I agree RothBradpol. They have stolen the above story of yourself and re-blogged it on RP blog. where you may lead, others will follow haha.

  8. It’s nice to get such a comprehensive response from Cllr Jahangir Akhtar.

    It’s very reassuring to have a senior public servant who wants to engage with citizens, and not like Dodger, Da Leedah, who runs away from media opportunities at each and every opportunity.

    As always, the devil will be in the detail, and RMBC and its “partners and stakeholders” will be judged by results, and not by how smartly they talk or promise.

    I trust, hope and pray that Cllr Jahangir Akhtar, as a man of honour and integrity, will hold to account those within RMBC who fail to ensure the welfare of Rotherham citizens, both young and old.

  9. I agree with Graldhunter, It is good to see responses from senior public servants or any public servant for that matter. I know alot of public servants and people from certain parties were hesitant to post comments on rotherham politics because of the witch-style hunt they harbour for these folk but I am glad that these people can post here, and I do say that as a Respect partymember but in saying that I have been contemplating recently wether to stay with this party or not, I am considering the TUSC, maybe. But back to the point, I agree with Grald-hunter in that these facts will come to surface and prove that the right measures were adopted.

    • Kashif
      Thank you for your contribution. We are not aligned to any political party so we are not in a position to advise you. Would welcome your views on any current issues either in Rotherham or Bradford.

  10. Thankyou for posting the comments below, Rothbradpol.

    ” Rothbradpol
    on January 24, 2013 at 8:00 pm said:
    MB – That’s the vibe on the message boards plus I am told RP is that desparate that he has allowed you to start posting again after banning you for quite a while. ”

    You have shown that what you publish here is complete fabrication from what you have “heard” and taken as “truth”. “Vibes on the messageboards” are not facts and and neither is “what you are told”.
    Perhaps you would be as well to distinguish between what is yours or someone else’s opinion and what you know and can prove to be true with evidence. 🙂

    “R Taylor on January 24, 2013 at 10:17 am said:
    Maltbyblogger, the RP blog is widley known to be discredited, It’s a fact.”

    R Taylor – For your information, something can be “widely known” or it can be ” a fact”
    It can’t be both. (see above for explanation of “fact”)

    Richardp – disappointed in you.

    • Gosh MB have you just been elected as the new head of the pedantic society? Lighten up for heavens sake. I bet Mr Richardp is traumatised that you are disappointed with him. But we will wait for his response.

      BTW- Are you saying that you were not banned from posting on RP ? Happy to put the record straight but my sources are adamant you were only allowed back on the site when RP found out that you were supporting the Respect party and had developed a liking for GG ( you know the chap who thinks some forms of rape is just sexual etiquette )

    • MB
      I have just received a factual piece of information that proveS you were banned from RP. I am happy to re produce the evidence on this blog if you dispute the accuracy of the information in my possesion. please let me know how you want me to proceed.

  11. Ha ha ! I would hardly “dispute the accuracy of the information” in your “possession” without seeing which information you are on about, now would I, Rothbradpol ? maltbyblogger is not interested in what you have been told (as above re fact) and as I have personally posted on maltbyblogger about rotherhampolitics not publishing my comments, I do not need any “evidence” from you. The situation as it was is there for all to see http://www.maltbyblogger.com 🙂

    Your “sources” are rather muddled with regards the Respect party. Maybe they have presumed because mb has discussed things on Twitter with Yvonne Ridley that this constitutes “support” for her party. Not a good idea to make presumptions RB – this is where the need for precise language becomes so very important. One word or phrase taken in the wrong context can make a big difference to how things are perceived 😉 Nothing pedantic about that.

    Quite laughable (if it wasn’t such unethical behaviour from those in power at RMBC ) that it is our dear Deputy Leader, Cllr Jahangir Akhtar who wrongly stated on his blog and on Twitter that I am a BNP supporter ! Not much difference is there ? 🙂
    Akhtar then promptly blocked me and doesn’t respond to emails.
    I shall reblog this thread on maltbyblogger to ensure everyone concerned has the full picture.
    Good luck with your future posts and comments RB. Anyone who takes the time to report on the antics of RMBC and it’s councillors and members ought to be congratulated – even if sometimes / often the information is incorrect.

    • MB I am not aware of you little dispute with RBP but all I can say is there is no way in hell that you would have been allowed to say your peice on Rothpol. There were a number of disgusting comments made on Rothpol about Muslims and Islam in which a poster called Malcontent stated the first pillar if Islam is claiming state benefits amongst other vile allegations. As soon as I took this pathetic excuse of a poster to task on his comment the t*** that is Rik Van Dick butted in saying oh we don’t discuss religion on this blog and failed to post my responses yet allowed the knuckle draggers like Malcontent and Jim Fletcher to respond by making further insulting remarks about Muslims and Islam. So the rule about discussing religion on his blog only applied to me who defended my religion but not to people who wanted to disrespect it??? If that’s not discredited I don’t know what is. Also I want to ask MB one question in relation to the tagging on blog sites. Every single article that is posted on Rothpol about the vile child sexual exploitation why are Cllr Hussain and Cllr Akhtar tagged in them? Neither of them were directly in charge of positions such as children services that was responsible for children unlike Shaun Wright the PCC, yet they are tagged in every article. I will tell you why, as some of the posters have said above, because they are Asian. They are being targeted on Rothpol because their colour of skin and ethnicity is the same as those people who committed the vile crimes. Now tell me a blog that targets people on those ground, if its not discredited then like I said I don’t know what discredited is!!

      • Amin Khan
        Your post is the very epitome of what RBP is trying to achieve in that its giving the opportunity to everyone to express their opinions irrespective of the fact whether we at RBP agree with them or not. Having said that its very hard to disagree with any of your previous comments or indeed this one which very eloquently describes the one sided blogs and posts on RP which seems to have become a haven for most of the shall we say less enlightened than the rest of us.

    • And Zebedee said “let’s get back on track, man” … 🙂

      As a long-time highly-critical friend of RMBC Corn Fed Grunters, Muppets and Clowns and Da Dodger n da Laybah Muckers I am aware of the RMBC media vacuum that occurred when the sexual exploitation and grooming scandal first surfaced in the media.

      I had been aware, through my contacts across the UK, for almost 12 months, that Andrew Norfolk of The Times was researching and planning the damning article which finally hit the news stands last year, and I was, and still am, highly critical for the failings (i.e. not doing what they should have done) on the part of RMBC and other statutory organisations.

      But, and this may come as a surprise, I am in no way critical, rather the opposite in actual fact, of the positive public statement, and other work lead by Cllr Jahangir Akhtar (and many others) to try and ensure that this cancer is rooted out for good and vanquished.

      Take it from me that there is nothing in Islam which promotes, encourages, condones or accepts child sexual exploitation and grooming. Indeed Islam is a most caring and compassionate religion, and so too are the many honourable Muslim brothers and sisters that I know across the world.

      I will condemn RMBC for its inactivity, but now it has, albeit may somewhat late, woken up to the full extent of its obligations to me, my family and the other citizens and residents of Rotherham Borough.

  12. amazing, I look back on this blog now and seem to have missed all the action lol. Maltbyblogger, I’m not sure why you are ‘dissapointed’ in me? I posted my view on the aboveI have alot of troubles and problems in my life so sorry, on this occasion, I am not able to add your ‘dissapointment’ in me onto my ‘worries list’. Amin Khan pretty much sumarises on the situation above

    • RP
      you are right not to be worried that BB is disappointed with you. RBP has been informed the said person has took umbrage at being to task and has posted on that silly blog RP that she is not playing with us.

      • Hi RothBradPol, Thanks and your only too right in the latter part, think this blog is rustling some feathers, or to quote from ‘dad’s army’ – ‘they don’t like it up ’em’. On a serous point though, this blog offers the fairest and biased blog out there.

  13. Hi Rothbradpol, you are most certainly right, on the RP blog they have taken the title of this discussion and basically trying to rubbish this, the Maltbyblogger has posted a comment there trying to rubbish this blog and says that they will not engage with this blog now, I cant understand maltbyblogers position on this because she is now trying to suck up to Rothpol when she was blocked for so long by the rik.

  14. 3 quick points

    1 – If we want have rules that forbid any dissing of Islam can we also not use the term THE Holy Trinity to refer to a threesome of bloggers – thanks

    2 – I notice the term “fascist” being deployed by junaid to ward off anyone whose views might not be the same as hers rather than listening, engaging and arguing with them on a rational basis. It’s like sticking your fingers in your ears and going “na na na”

    3 – In defence of rothpol – they also spend quite a bit of time having a bash at Dennis McShane, Shaun Wright, Kevin Barron, Martin Kimber and Joyce Thacker among others – all of whom, last time I looked were white (maybe it’s a Polish thing with DM!!!!). So their criticism is colour blind.

    4 -Using the accusation of racism as an excuse not to engage in a bit of humble self-examination falls into the same category as the usage of “fascist” (point 2) – ie: it won’t stand up in rational debate. I know little of the activities of JA and MH, being a newcomer to politics in Rotherham – but if they have acted with integrity as has been said then they don’t need any protection from the soggy cardboard “don’t question me, it’s racist” card

    • With the greatest of respect Reverend but all of your points are flawed. I would really like a response from you seem as though you are here to defend Rothpol. Yes you are correct that Kevin Barron, Dennis Macshane, Joyce Thacker have been criticised because they have all done something wrong. Macshane was a thief and deserves all that is thrown his way. Barron is a rent flipping cheat and also deserves his criticism. And we all know about Thacker and her epic failure. However Cllr Akhtar and Cllr Hussain were neither in direct positions responsible for the protection of our young children. Therefore their failure (if any) is the same as that of all other councillors. But we don’t see specific articles or tags on articles in relation to other councillors in relation to the grooming scandal. Why should JA and MH be singled out and not councillors such as, say, Emma Hoddinott, Peter Wutton, Ken Wyatt or any other councillor? Why are these two men singled out on Rothpol? When you look at it through this prism it does start to appear that Rothpol are racially motivated. Also Rothpol and its racist posters have time and time again stated that “certain aggressive councillors” stopped investigations. These certain councillors is reference to JA and MH. Can you please tell us that if Rothpol and its readers have proof of this? I doubt very much so. In my eyes this is extremely defamatory to the two councillors and if I was either them of them I would be searching for some defamation lawyer. Being accused of preventing investigations into the rape of young children is about as worse an allegation one can be accused of. If that doesn’t affect your reputation then I don’t know what does. I await you response.

    • Revsimcop

      Welcome to the blog and thank you for your first comment. As we have stated in earlier posts it is not our intention to stifle debate and thus we allow all shades of opinion unless its racist, offensive or slanderous.

      Although its up to individuals to respond to any criticism and as you can see they have but even you being a man of cloth couldn’t fail to recognise the racist tone of some contributors on RP like Jim Fletcher, Malcontent and of course the many identities that RP uses to post comments anonymously.

      Since your post I have done a bit of research to see if the 2 politicians in question have in your words used “don’t question me, its racist’ card and I have to tell you Sir I have not found a single ref of either of them using that or similar phrases to stifle debate.

      I have took the liberty of researching some of the comments you have made and conclude you are an honest individual who is very fair and balanced when discussing the issues at hand.

      By all means contribute to RP but remember the person behind it has a rabid hatred for certain individuals and uses the blog to attack, insult and demean them.

      look forward to receiving more comments/observations from you.

    • In welcome reply to the Sin Bosun (that’s a naval slang term for a chaplain in case you aren’t a current or ex-member of The Andrew), you’re on the wrong blog here vicar, you are very far from home here, you need to be on rik-da-dik’s RovPollll.

      P.S. The Holy Trinity is no reference to any Christian or other religion, but as mentioned, it refers to the Holier Than Thou Trinity, or Gang of 3, of BB-CC-RDD 🙂 So the reference stands without apology.

      P.S. I am a Christian, and I am very well aware of how pedantic some vicars, reverends, bishops et-al and parishioners can be in matters of language. JHC, it’s so hard to say owt these days wiiart offending sumdee awr uvva. 🙂

      • Thanks skipper! I am not really v pedantic tbh but I thought, as a point was being made about not didssing Islam I would cheekily point out how easy it is to trespass onto what some folk may consider to be hallowed ground – I like Holier than Thou Trinity better or maybe unholy trinity?!

      • Up Spirits!

        And make way for the Chaplain.

        Plentee a’rooim in this Mess for a guy like you with a sense of humour. Pull up a sandbag, take off thee tin hat, have a brew, and put world t’rayts wi t’rest o’ us 🙂

      • I like the cut of your gib sir and look forward to moving on to actually discussing the issues – not the fall out from the campaign and all this “who said what to whom” stuff etc etc

  15. You have left me perplexed with your reply the Vicar, JA and MH have not used the ‘racist card’ it is us discussing on here that have suggested some racial motivation behind Rik’s rothpol site, He singles out two aisan cllrs in almost brutish language to speak up on the issue of street grooming carried out by aisan men, only now has he started to call for other cllrs to do the same, that is very selective of him, secondly I have tried posting comments on there which were all fair but never got posted because they were from a left wing angle but rothpol still publishes comments from malconent and jim fletcher whic have been derogatory towards islam (and no i am not being politically correct, thats just the truth), if you were a true christian you wouldnt be defending rothpol’s dirty deeds so loyally. Also grald hunter, your right about the holy trinity and well said over-all. As a practising christian, you have left me perplexed by your defence of rothpol dear vicar. Also you say criticise others like denis macshane, martin kimber, yes they also criticise darren hughes, and pretty much anything labour, when do you hear them attacking the Govt, local opposition etc. And you’ll find their critisism is borderline abusive.

    • not defending rothpol per se sir – only that some (not JA or MH to be fair) but others on their behalf seem to be shouting “racism” when JA and MH are criticised by people on rothpol – I am merely pointing out that this is not a defence – it’s a shield. As for the allegations themselves, well I still await evidence etc etc.

      • Sir – You seem to be buying in to the silly notion that if someone tried to bring a balance in to a debate and speak out against which I see as a witch hunt of 2 respected Cllrs that somehow we are acting on they’re behalf which Sir is a load of codswallop. I too believe the attacks on JA / MH are racially motivated. Any reasonable person reading that other blog would come to the same conclusion. I think the evidence for this is in the brilliant comments by Amin.

  16. With the greatest of respect Reverend but all of your points are flawed. I would really like a response from you seem as though you are here to defend Rothpol. Yes you are correct that Kevin Barron, Dennis Macshane, Joyce Thacker have been criticised because they have all done something wrong. Macshane was a thief and deserves all that is thrown his way. Barron is a rent flipping cheat and also deserves his criticism. And we all know about Thacker and her epic failure. However Cllr Akhtar and Cllr Hussain were neither in direct positions responsible for the protection of our young children. Therefore their failure (if any) is the same as that of all other councillors. But we don’t see specific articles or tags on articles in relation to other councillors in relation to the grooming scandal. Why should JA and MH be singled out and not councillors such as, say, Emma Hoddinott, Peter Wutton, Ken Wyatt or any other councillor? Why are these two men singled out on Rothpol? When you look at it through this prism it does start to appear that Rothpol are racially motivated. Also Rothpol and its racist posters have time and time again stated that “certain aggressive councillors” stopped investigations. These certain councillors is reference to JA and MH. Can you please tell us that if Rothpol and its readers have proof of this? I doubt very much so. In my eyes this is extremely defamatory to the two councillors and if I was either them of them I would be searching for some defamation lawyer. Being accused of preventing investigations into the rape of young children is about as worse an allegation one can be accused of. If that doesn’t affect your reputation then I don’t know what does. I await you response.

    • Thanks for the respect Amin. I was really responding to some comments on rothpol re rothpol being racist in attacking JA and MH. As far as I can see they were ignoring fact rothpol has other targets he likes to pop at and the existence of these undermines the view that he is racially motivated. I take your point re singling out JA and MH as councillors (but that may be related to the offices they hold in council and pertinence to issues at stake here, although the leader of RMBC does get it in the neck as well). Also take point re having specific threads on JA and MH but there are also ones on Gerald S,
      Sean W, Roger S and Dennis M.

      • I note the point that you make but theres one thing singling people out when there is proof and evidence of their failings and misconduct. However Rothpol has not provided a single shred of evidence against either of these two councillors. He has accused them of being involved in a “dirty tricks” campaign during the by-election and that he was putting together a dossier to expose them. Where is this dossier of evidence that Rik so gleefully boasted about. All of the allegations were lies spread by the Respect activist against JA and MH and Rothpol jumped on the band wagon. Thats why there is no dossier because there was no evidence to go into it because neither MH or JA have done anything wrong. Have you read on Rothpol what these two councillors are “alleged” to have done? If not I will list them for your benefit:

        1) The Respect Party claimed both councillors threatened Chapel Walk mosque that the proposed planning application would be refused if they allowed George Galloway to speak there. The Mosque committee has come out and denied such threats were made but Rik is still banging on about them on Rothpol.

        2) Both JA and MH told taxi drivers that their taxi licence would be revoked if they voted Respect. Not a single taxi driver has come out and confirmed this to be true. Yet Rik still goes on about it.

        3) The Labour council cancelled a meeting venue for Respect and it was a council building where the meeting was due to take place. One Respect supporter was so adamant labour behind it would not shut up about it. It later transpired that the venue was privately owned and the owner, steve, who is a member of the Labour Party decided he did not want the venue to be used by another political party so chose to cancel it without any intervention of the Labour Party. How do I know this. Will Steve posted this in the comments section on Rothpol which I saw for myself. But Rik still bleats on about.

        4) MH apparently told people living in Broom to vote Labour because he was the candidate and had replaced Sarah Champion. This “story” was first broken on twitter by Respect supporters, name Yas Khalid and Amar Rafiq (if memory serves me correctly) and subsequently Rothpol has published a number of articles with this allegation in it. This is a complete and utter lie. It was just lies spread by Respect activist and Rothpol ran with it.

        5) MH and JA went around telling people that Sarah Champion had converted to Islam. This is another baseless lie spread by Respect because the lady door knocking for Respect when she knocked on my door told me that she had heard from someone that JA and MH has been saying Sarah Champion is a Muslim. You think MH and JA are that stupid or desperate to go around saying such stuff? It all hearsay, gossip and vapid tittle tattle.

        Do you see the common denominator in all of the points I have set out. Its the Respect Party. The Respect Party is full of vile thugs and liars and every lie they told Rik seeped it up as though it was the unbridled word of God and posted it on Rothpol. But no sign of an apology whatsoever. Now he and his band of merry men/women have accused “certain aggressive councillors” for blocking investigations into child grooming. It dont take a rocket scientist to work out who these councillors are. But Rik does not have a shred of evidence to back this up. As a man of God, Reverend, surely you can see that its wholly wrong to accuse people of something which you have no proof of and the damage it can do to people reputation and livelihoods? If there was evidence to back up any of the points that Rik makes, as there is when he criticises, Macshane, Thacker or Kimber (rightly so IMHO), then we would not be having this argument. Its the fact that his allegation are unsubstantiated and baseless that irks me. If there is evidence then present it and we will all shut up because I for one will never defend the indefensible. Do you accept the points I make Reverend? Also as we now know Rik reads this blog, Rik please feel free to defend yourself and have an open and honest debate. We just dont appreciate you personal vendetta without anything to back them up.

    • Hi Amin
      Thanks for going to all that trouble to reply. I am well aware that Respect and Labour are not bosom buddies and Respect in particular hype everything up. (they thought they were a shoe in for the by election (BEFORE the count) and actually did badly. Their candidate made lots of noise before and after every event in the campaign, but went very quiet after the radio debate where the two independents showed themselves more level headed and intelligent debaters. As for these allegations – Rest assured, I have not yet given credence to any of them vs JA and MH because, like you I await the evidence! I was simply making a point in my post that you can’t shout “racism” as a defence against genuine criticism. I am aware that rothpol is too pro-respect seeing them as the only alternative to Labour – they are not (and have pinted this out to Riki on occasions). PLease don’t think my appeaance on rothpol means I endorse everything rothpol says – I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate there. But I also think someone in Rotherham needs to hold Labour to account because no one is at the moment.

      • Reverend I truly respect you for taking you time out to respond to me. It in my nature to have an open and honest debate without it being censored so please dont take this personally. From you above comment one line stood out for me that I did not agree with and apart from that I endorse you whole comment. I agree 100% that JA and MH should ever be exempt from criticism. When you hold a public office you will and should be criticise. If either of these two councillors did anything wrong of failed in their jobs then I would be the first to condemn them. However as you allude to in your comment it must be genuine criticism. For example I can not go around saying that your service on a Sunday morning is rubbish or boring (though I’m sure it isn’t) if I’ve never stepped foot in your church or every heard you speak. I also accept that Rik does go after the likes of Mcshane, Thacker and Barron. And I agree 100% with Rik on those because they have either failed in their roles or done something wrong and therefore people like Rik have every right to make their failings and short comings public knowledge. However when it come to JA and MH the criticism is NOT genuine. Rothpol has accused them of doing two things:

        (1) The “Dirty Tricks” Campaign:
        This following is a passage from Rothpol latest article which, incidentally was posted yesterday evening after my post above in reference to the dirty tricks:

        “We all made the assumption back in November, that this was a Labour Party ‘dirty tricks’ campaign. Deniable, but nevertheless a party operation, all the same.

        Recent experience has revealed a different explanation. We were wrong, it was not a Labour operation, but a much smaller group entirely dedicated to defending the reputations of just a few, senior members of RMBC.

        This web ‘dirty tricks’ operation was inspired by Cllr ‘Moofy’ Hussain and Jahangir ‘ASBO’ Akhtar and a small cohort of supporters, nephews and others. They have been joined recently, by no less a person, than Don Buxton.”

        Reverend yesterday I dispelled all of these mistruths, half truths and dam right lies in regards to the “Dirty Tricks” during the by election. Yet still, and as recent as yesterday, Rik continues to go on about it. Do you think that this is genuine criticism??

        (2) Stopping Investigations in Pakistani grooming gangs.
        This is another baseless lie without a dot of evidence to back up the claims. Can you honestly, Reverend, say that Rothpol is fair in its criticism of these two councillors? Or do you think there is a more personal vendetta for no apparent reason?

        Also Reverend I am not sure if you saw the few articles on Rothpol about the xmas voucher scheme involving Pak Supermarket (An Asian Supermarket) in Wellgate. There was a real attempted by Rothpol to malign the scheme and make it appear that JA and in particular MH were helping fill the pockets of one of their “own”. If you missed it here are the links to the articles. Read them as well as the comments below:




        After some fantastic work by this Blog it was reported (though the articles have been removed disappointingly when the site went down last week. Would be great if RBP could republish it) that MH was not even present in the meeting or part of the group which came up with the scheme and approved of Pak Supermarket. It was a number of social and welfare groups in conjunction with the council who came up with the scheme. Yet there were a number of allegation made about MH and JA which turned out to be untrue but no apology from Rik. Do you still stand by the fact that Rothpol is objective in face of this towering mass of evidence placed before you Reverend? When I see such articles AND the comments below that line that when I sense some racial undertones in the stigmatisation and singling out of MH and JA. You get my drift??

        Before any one thinks that I am some relation to either of these two councillors, like paranoid Rik, I have no relation, friendship or link to either men. As a deeply religious person I hate and despise people who tell lies and try and ruin peoples reputation for no reason whatsoever. I would defend any person, black, white brown, male, female, Muslim, Chrisitan, Jew or of no faith, just as I am doing with JA and MH because that is the person I am.

        I also have seen your comment on Rothpol which refers to this blog as pathetic and because I contribute to this blog it also includes me. Do you stand by your comment Reverend?

      • Amin
        We at RBP are seriously considering inviting you to become part of the admin team. You’re posts are extreamly well researched and you make some excellent points. Very surprised to learn that our Reverend is making dispariging about us!!!! him being a man of cloth as well!!!! bless him he knows not what he is saying.

  17. I’ve seen rik’s post about this blog, very pathetic indeed, I think he is really bugged by someone having opposing views or even defying his status quo. The be all and end all is that he has evidence when it comes to MacShane and Thacker but his spurious allegations against JA and MH, some as did the Vicar see us as trying to attempt to defend with JA and MH but the fact of the matter is that some life is just being blown in and questioning rothpols allegations that his congregation accept like the holy communion. Personally I would encourage the scrutiny of any politician or any one that holds office but I for one won’t sit back and watch a witch-hunt. Te fact is reverend is that rothpol is no more and no less than our very own rotherham Joseph Goebbels, he is a master of spin and propaganda. If your not on his right side then he will launch a personal and dirty war against you, he did this to JA, he fell out with him and went at his hardest to tarnish the mans name and just because don buxton had the ‘balls’ to stand up to his spurious allegations and his hate campaign he subsequently was added to Gobbels list (sorry I meant rothpol), also rothpol blocked maltbyblogger for a long time, he denied her any communication and access to comments on rothpol, now he’s sucking up to her, why is she so foolish to think that rothpol is her friend?

    • @R.Taylor, thank you for your glowing reference to my goolleez, they are blushing with prickly embarrassment now with your publicity about them … 🙂

      I can’t answer your question about the deranged Maltby female as my clinical expertise doesn’t lie in psychiatry. When she rang me at home at 2330 hrs on a couple of occasions during a perceived personal crisis, or maybe due to a change of medication, I advised her to consult her GP in the morning and leave me well alone.

      Maybe her GP can supply her with an answer to your intriguing question?

      Who knows? Who cares? Who care who knows? Who knows who cares?
      All I know is that I don’t care 🙂

      • Steady on chaps, this is a family blog. lets not be shining our heirlooms in a public forum. Although I am grinning like a Cheshire Cat while I post this.

      • Ok before you quote me out of context – if you read my ORIGINAL and subsequent blogs (and my quote on rothpol) very carefully you will see that a) I, at no time affirmed or agreed, that the criticisms vs JA and MH are genuine – I still await the evidence. b) One initial point (my fourth original point) that I DID affirm and still affirm is that IF any criticism is genuine, it is not valid to shy away from a bit of honest self examination by trying to make out the criticism is motivated by racism – it may well be, you all seem to think it might be. I am yet to be convinced about Rikis motivation because I do not know his background or anything else that has happened in the past between him JA, maltybybloggger or anyone else. I would be happy to be enlightened. All i can say is, from the evidence of my own eyes, Riki puts the boot in to lots of people irrespective of their race (my second original point) and I think his motivation is anti Labour (pro Respect?) more than a personal vendetta c) by the way, I never said I thought JA and MH played the racism defence for themselves but their supporters looked like they were playing it on their behalf. d) I did not say this blog was pathetic – I said some of the points made on this blog were pathetic (that is a very different thing and that is true of all blogs – I have to say that Mr Amin’s contributions have raised the tone considerably ). One point I think falls into this “pathetic” category is the deployment of the “racism” defence for the reasons outlined above in point (b) and more notably the deployment of the “fascism” defence: ie: anyone who has a contrary view to yours must be “Right Wing Nutters”. It is just another way of failing to actually engage in debate, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “na na na”. I stand by that view (my third original point). If you have to resort to these tactics to convince yourself you have won an argument you are just not engaging in honest debate. It is prejudicial, small-minded and actually very insulting to use that term, demeaning the experience of those who have really suffered under real fascism in the past. – This was one of my my original points and and it is a point btw that I wait to hear refuted. e) I admit that I said this blog was “weird” as I was bemused at the implied axis of political interest between Rotherham and Bradford – I wonder if Respect is the common denominator here? Is this blog a Labour inspired riposte to Respect’s challenge in both cities? Do tell! So at the end of this lengthy blog I find I am back to the beginning. I have reiterated three of my four original points (My other one was a playful tease of Grald re possible blasphemy which I am happy to leave). Those points I made, those points I have restated over and over and out! Have a good day all…

      • Tease me all ya will Rev, my boundless self-confidence, scorching good looks, magnificent happy personality, and sheer awesomeness can deal with all teasing, criticism and praise and treat those imposters with the same equal disdain.

        I ain’t here for other people. I’m here for me. Yup, good ole selfish me. Self first, self last, and self once again.

        Pass the rum kettle, purleez 🙂

  18. You make some very valid points their Vicar but I can say honestly alot of us here are not refusing to take part in a debate with our fingers in our ears singing ‘na na na’. The truth is that alot of us tryed publishing comments on Rothpol that fairly argued some of his claims and he did not publish so hence this blog really.I know for one that I will engage in an honest and fair debate. The one thing I would pick out from what you have stated is the following:

    “I, at no time affirmed or agreed, that the criticisms vs JA and MH are genuine – I still await the evidence. b) One initial point (my fourth original point) that I DID affirm and still affirm is that IF any criticism is genuine, it is not valid to shy away from a bit of honest self examination by trying to make out the criticism is motivated by racism”

    I know you have put the ‘IF’ in capital letters to state if but I am slightly confused over this because rothpol scrutinises MacShane over his fagan antics, he scrutinises Shaun Wright over his position in the cabinet when the grooming went on, he scrutinises Joyce thacker over her failures but he has led a vendatta against JA and MH for nothing that he can supply evidence against, so you state that you still await the evidence but then you go onto say that people are in the wrong to flag up the race card also, that is fine, people shouldn’t flag up the race card without evidence but the fact that rothpol is making allegations about JA and MH without evidence also makes HIM as guilty as those who play the race card unfairly. So Vicar, seen as you have shown us stern dissaproval of those who play the race card without evidence, will you also condem those who make allegations without evidence. Oh please do Vic and re-store my faith in the C of E.

    • R Taylor
      An excellent point. IF and I am being completely hypothetical here, if it was established that JA and MH had in fact done what they are accused of, such as being behind the “dirty tricks” campaign during the by election and aggressively stopped investigations in to child sexual grooming. Then not only should they be forced to quit the council they should also be prosecuted by the CPS for being complicit in the rape of young innocent girl. IF such was the truth no one on here would even have the audacity to think of using the race card against Rik and Rothpol. I for one would be circling Broom and Masborogh like a vulture baying for the blood of MH and JA myself. However there is no evidence so support these allegations because they are dam right lies. Therefore we will not stop publicly lambasting Rik and Rothpol until he stops spreading lies and has the audacity to apologise and also stop his unfair and hostile attack on the Pakistani community. We would not have to resort to this blog if he published our comments because I would say all that I have said here to his face in public let alone his blog. Being the weasel of a man that he is, he doesn’t have the guts to publish our comments and for the truth to seen by his readers.

  19. Reverend I think you conflating some of the issues. I personally dont think the the singling out of JA and MH is because of racism. I think its just pure hatred and jelousy of the two men but I dont know what the hatred in bourn from. But I think the tone of the blog since the grooming scandal and the by election has been very hostile towards the Pakistani/Muslim community. When people refer to racism its not a card used to defend the two councillors but rather challenge some of the very hostile language of some people on Roth used against the Pakistani/Muslim community. For example last there was a posting of an article about the Sham Marriage Scam involving pakistani people. I mean what has that got to do with “robust scrutiny” of RMBC? I have never ever seen Rik put a link to an article about any other crime or not for as long as I’ve been following the blog for the last year or so. So why this specific article? There are hundreds of crimes committed by all people but was so special about this crime? Could it be because is involved Pakistani people?Whats worse, the comment below from Jim Fletcher asked MH and JA to condemn the crime. WHY??? Why should they be asked asked to condemn a crime committed by Pakistani people just because they happen to share the same ethnicity?? No person on Rothpol has ever asked for a White councillor to speak out against crimes committed by white people so what so different for these two councillors? And what is so different about this crime that it warrants being reported on Rothpol when it has nothing to do with RMBC? Reverend I honestly cant believe you cant see the racist undertones of the blog. Not racism against the councillors but rather vehement attacks on the Rotherham Pakistani/Muslim community. There certainly some crazy right wing nut jobs on Rothpol. They are racists not because the attack two councillors but because of their hate filled views towards Rotherham’s Pakistani community. Hope you can see there difference here. The race card is not used to defend the councillors, but rather is a statement of fact for all to see when it come to the views on Rothpol about the Pakistani community.

    • Not had time to reply to yesterday’s broadside – except I notice Amin (hitherto very balanced) has shifted his ground a bit and is now accusing Rothpol of racism vs Pakistani community in Rotherham in general not just 2 councillors in particular – what’s it to be? If attacks on JA and MH are to be construed as an attack on a particular community that is disturbing – surely you are not implying that these 2 councillors are only representing one particular community? If the evidence for your charge of racism is that Rothpol cites some high profile cases involving one ethnic group and not those involving another, could it be because these just happen to be the only high profile cases that are current? (need to look into that, please cite some cases involving gangs of white sex groomers and sham marriage arrangers or any other criminal activity that rothpol has failed to mention and I may accept the point ) I would hope rothpol would highlight cases that involved any ethnic group – whatever – Let’s wait and see. Btw in the sham marriage situation the perps come from several different ethnicities but actually I concede your point that I don’t see that cases political relevance – in fact job well done SY Police). The more salient point is that if you read the general tenor of posts on rothpol the issue is not the ethnicity of alleged perpetrators The sex-grooming case is highlighted precisely because of it’s political fall out. No the real issue here is that RMBc and others seem to have used “cultural sensitivities” as an excuse for inaction and failed to protect victims – that is what is so disturbing and it needs looking at. It would have been the same if the sex-groomers had been of any ethnic background methinks and allowed to get away with it for so long. I think Rothpols real bug bear is RMBC and JA and MH just happen to be a) prominent in RMBC and b) of a particular ethnicity. I agree if there is no evidence and never will be evidence of wrongdoing against those two then Rothpol needs to shut up now. But it’s an RMBC thing I think. I may be wrong, only rothpol can know and tell me. Perhaps I can sum up my opposition to the confusion of racism and morality with an eg from my school days. There was a guy in my class who was a total pain, always messing about and totally disrespectful and disruptive – he just happened to be afro caribbean. One day, he could stand the teacher’s attempts at disciplining him no longer: “You are picking on me because I am black, sir” he wailed. ” I am not,” replied the teacher..”I am picking on you because you are a pain in the a***.” btw grald you made me laugh yesterday!
      Still no comeback on whether this site was set up to pop at Respect? I am fed up doing their dirty work for them!!!

      • Revsimcop
        Thank you for your continued contribution on this blog. Your sabre rattling with Amin and Grald is very interesting and quite thought provoking.

        The answer to your question wheather this blog was “set up to pop at REspect” is an emphatic NO. There are are number of reasons why we set this up, one of which is that RP WAS blatantly abusing his position as its moderator and lots of people told us they were posting comments but were being ignored if they had an opposing view to RP and his merry men. We can assure you Sir this blog has posted every single comment that has been made and will continue to do so unless there the post contains abusive, racist, slanderous or character assassination of individuals. We are not perfect but we will use our best endeavours to be fair and inclusive as we can. In the event we get things wrong, we hope you will pray for forgiveness for us.

  20. Not sure where I should post this but oh well. I think I may have some news that could potentially discredit Rik Van Hagan and his blog Rotherham Politics if not already discredited. On 29th January 2012, 9:30pm, I received the following text message from a friend. Since enquiring about it many other people received the message too:

    Section 106 Town nd Planning Act 1990 contract was made by Rotherham NHS 2 pay 2 build a new multiple car park in Rotherham Hospital, the agreement was made by NHS to RMBC, NHS wud pay an extra £247,500 frm expenses trust, Cllr Mahroof influencd extra £247,500 on top of bill, The NHS cancelld the contract with RMBC due to cllr Maroof influence, it is worst kept secret in Rotherham as he wud b succeeding Denis Mcshane did, use it 4 his own comfort who wud influence nd had no undastanding of the way this luks at Bostan ward ppl, he wud pocket £247,500 in his bk pocket nt guranteed scheme wil b usd 4 healthcare funded by the “Trust”. Plz visit evidence on http://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/section-106-agreement-an-invitation-to-extortion/

    I asked my friend who had sent it him. He said he received it of a number that he did not have saved in his phone book but gave me the number. When I entered the number and dialled it in my phone the number came up as Shaykh Mohammad Omair. Then, curiosity got the better of me so I asked someone who is friends with Shaykh Mohammad Omair on Facebook (as I am not his friend) to check out his profile for me. He sent me a screen shot of his status (which I have as evidence) which stated the following:

    Can any please read that link
    Why has our Labour Council wanting £250,000 for a multiple car park been built on Rotherham General Hospital, the scheme was rejected by the Rotherham NHS to pay Rotherham Borough Council, as it was influenced by one of the councillors.
    please read this link.
    This meant the success of Denis Macshane (MP) would mean a councillor would get the same amount to him.

    I admit I struggled to make sense of the text or Facebook status as the English is so poor. So today I was casually browsing Rothpol after a good few days and came across this article which was posted on 30th January:


    For me the headline is very telling. “Fresh Interest- Old Story”. What this means is that Rik is very close to Shaykh Mohammad Omair and seem to be very pally. If not, then how else would he know that there was “fresh interest” in an article from 2011, which had been disseminated via text and Facebook, only the previous day? The only way he would know is if he is in regular contact with Shaykh Omair and knew of the text messages that were doing the rounds.

    This all seems rather benign and merely another example of Rik personal vendetta against MH and JA. Ahh but this is where is gets interesting. We all know that Rothpol has been extremely vociferous and had an overzealous ambition and desire to use the Child Grooming Scandal to try and bring about the downfall of JA and MH. If not their downfall, nonetheless, cause (IMHO unfairly and wrongly) lasting and permanent damage to the reputations of JA and MH. However it is also very well known, at least amongst the Pakistani community, that Shaykh Mohammad Omair was involved in the Child Sexual Grooming Scandal. He was arrested, questioned, bailed and eventually not charged due to a “lack of evidence”. Now I understand “innocent until proven guilty” and all that but I say there’s no smoke without fire. Also knowing, what we now know about South Yorkshire Police and their pathetic handling of this crime he could well have been one of many men who got away with such grotesque crimes, because of the incompetence of the police. Even Yvonne Ridley has stated and on Rothpol too, that some men got away with their crimes despite there being vast evidence against them. What’s not to say that once again Shaykh Mohammed Omair was not one of these men either? Even Kieth Vaz, quipped Joyce Thacker at the Home Affairs Select Committee hearing about the lack of prosecutions.

    Can you not see the sheer hypocrisy of Rik Van Hagan where he has lambasted RMBC council for their failings, but he has happy to jump in bed with a man who himself is knee deep in the grooming scandal just because they both happen to hate MH and JA. The idea that my enemies enemy, is my friend, has seldom worked. Rik Van Hagan cares nothing about the harm and pain suffered by the poor innocent girls and is more bothered about getting his own back on the Labour Party from where I believe he was booted out. He is a pathetic man who is using the suffering of these girls to get his own back. Have some shame man. How much lower will you sink?

    Even today Rik has been having a go about the grooming scandal:


    He has deliberately twisted the meaning of the headline of this article (https://rothbradpolitics.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/exposing-the-lies-and-half-truths-on-child-exploitation/#comments) and is trying to insinuate that RothBrad Politics is denying that the grooming scandal never happened. No Rik, you know very well what this article is implying. “Exposing the lies and half-truths on Child exploitation” is aimed as dispelling the lies mistruths told by vermin like you in relation to the grooming scandal and NOT the fact that there was no sexual exploitation of young girls. I feel so angry right now at Rik. The man has no morals. As the great Malcolm X said:

    “If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.”

    For me there are no words more apt than those to describe Rik Van Hagan.

    I must also add that Shaykh Mohammed Omair was one of the key figures of the Respect Party campaign during the by election. We all know what Yvonne Ridley had to say about the grooming scandal both before and after the by election, yet Respect has failed to disassociate themselves from Shaykh Mohammad Omair. Also two of Shaykh Mohammad Omair’s cousins were found guilty of child grooming. Honestly sometimes words just fail me.

    • Oh dear Amin – I thought your contributions were quality but I think you have let yourself down badly with this one. Your criticism of RikVH was precisely because you think he was accusing JA and MH “without any evidence/proof”. Yet now you are saying, that when it comes to Mr Omair there is “no smoke without fire” ie: you are doing the very same thing to MrO that you accuse Rik of doing to JA and MH! Point the gun away from your foot before you pull the trigger…

      • Theres a significant difference Reverend, between having sufficient evidence in order to prosecute someone, and evidence in order to make allegations against someone failing in their role as councillor. The reason Omair was not charged was because of a lack of evidence for a finding of a guilty verdict not that there was no evidence whatsoever. When the CPS is given a case there two considerations which they base their decision on whether or not to prosecute. 1) whether there is 51% chance of a guilty verdict; 2) whether its in the public interest do prosecute. Therefore they may have some evidence but not enough. There was evidence to connect Omair to the grooming scandal and as I said knowing what we now know about SYP, Omair could have been one of many men that got away, where normally they wouldn’t have. His arrest and so forth is not disputed in the slightest. Therefore in order for Rik to take the moral high ground on the grooming scandal he should not touch such people with a barge pole. Can you imagine what Rik would be saying and writing on his blog if we substitute Omair with MH nephews or JA sons or other close relatives? There would be total anarchy on Rothpol about “aggressive councillors” using power in influence to prevent their “own” from being prosecuted and the like.

        In the case of Rik, he has no evidence at all against MH and JA which is completely different to the point I make where is was some evidence, though not enough to prosecute; yet Rik still makes scurrilous allegations dreamed up in fairy land to fit his perverse mind. Give up defending the indefensible Reverend.

      • Hey Reverend- surprised to see you on here after your comment that this blog was “weird” !!!! Are you sure you’re a real vicar ? and not Father Ted off the telly ?

  21. Pingback: Riks’ duplicity | Rotherham Bradford Politics

  22. When the council were discussing individual cases they allowed young girls to be abused rather than cause racial tension which is sad considering people do not care what colour you are or what ethnic group you belong to as long as the abuse stops. This response is just a well thought out script. The victims need to take this further…

    • We have seen no evidence to support the allegation that the Council or the police allowed child abuse rather cause racial tensions.

      We are happy to publish any evidence that supports the allegations of what would be a terrible indictment of those who are there to protect us.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s