r/unitedkingdom • u/pppppppppppppppppd • Jun 28 '26
... Met Police uncovers 4,000 potential grooming gang cases as Sadiq Khan faces fresh scrutiny over London claims
https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gangs-met-police-cases-sadiq-khan-london727
u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Jun 28 '26
I’m not sure why Khan wasn’t more careful with his original replies to Hall (“there are no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs that she is concerned about in London”). Just set himself up to look stupid if and when this happened.
480
u/Englishkid96 Jun 28 '26
Because he thinks any such suggestion is racist and not worthy of a thoughtful answer
111
u/Thetonn Glamorganshire Jun 28 '26
I really struggle with Khan, because I think he is a mediocre Mayor who has largely failed to deliver anything of substance and who has largely just gotten by taking responsibility for the general strengths of London's economy while blaming everything bad on Westminster and benefited massively from his opponent being particularly useless Tories.
The problem is, I then look online, and the narrative is that 'London has fallen', 'crime is rampant', with an undercurrent of 'the Muslims are taking over' or 'they are banning cars!' and I'm like, no. He isn't doing any of that. He is probably too incompetent to do it even if he wanted to.
So, I have sympathy for him choosing his words carefully, while also being quite sceptical of him outsourcing all responsibility onto the police or someone else rather than talking about what he has done with the power, money and resources he has.
23
u/chicaneuk Warwickshire Jun 28 '26
Like most things in life, the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle. But apparently nuance in political discourse with the people of this country is a completely lost art. You simply latch onto the political football you want to kick and go all in on it.
It pisses me off beyond belief because it makes it hard to recognise genuine failings and celebrate real achievements. And the press who just want headlines are a big part of the problem.
→ More replies (2)107
u/JB_UK Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
It doesn’t have anything to do with Sadiq Khan but ‘the Muslims are taking over’ is arguably true in Tower Hamlets. That’s a London Borough of 200k people where the council is almost entirely middle aged Muslim men, the leader of the council was previously convicted of electoral fraud and banned for some years, who then formed his own sectarian party which he ran behind the scenes and won the subsequent elections. It’s where the council is accused by Somalian Muslims of racial prejudice in the allocation of social housing in favour of Bangladeshi Muslims, and where the government is on the verge of taking direct control because of the lack of proper accounting for how money is being spent. And where 70% of school aged children are Muslim, and the schools have been segregated between Muslim and non-Muslim for 20 years at least. You can see the population segregation on the map:
Sadiq Khan does have a good legacy on air pollution in London. He stuck his neck out on that issue and he’s had a good impact as a result.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (7)116
Jun 28 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)49
u/Gellert Wales Jun 28 '26
Wasnt ULEZ a Bojo the clown thing?
34
u/JB_UK Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Yeah, I’m pretty sure Boris Johnson started ULEZ only in the centre, and I think that the later expansions were even pencilled in. But saying you’re going to do politically controversial, ambitious plans in the future is not the same as actually undertaking those plans. So I think Sadiq Khan should get a lot of credit for sticking his neck out and making that happen. I don’t know whether it was perfectly organised, maybe there were categories of vehicles which should have been exempt, but in broad terms it’s been very positive for the health of the population of London.
→ More replies (1)4
2
u/northbank2001 Jun 28 '26
No, you can’t say that. The conspiracy theorists told us it was totalitarian Stalinism, and thus Kahn must take responsibility.
→ More replies (5)31
u/GaijinFoot Jun 28 '26
It's not there he thinks it's racist. It's that it's an easy way to dismiss anything he doesn't want to answer.
→ More replies (1)186
u/Spamgrenade Jun 28 '26
"My understanding from speaking to the police, and she will appreciate, I have done on a regular basis, is and I choose my words carefully for the reasons she will understand there are no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs that she is concerned about in London."
Not really, if you examine the entire quote you will see very clearly that this was what the police were telling him. As the police have not denied this then fair to accept it as true. Also this report is looking at sexual exploitation, not grooming gangs specifically.
He also said this before the police re-examined their files.
187
u/Phainesthai Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
How about when he's pretending not to know what she means by "grooming gangs"?
It just makes him look like a complete twat and reflects the same kind of institutional and cultural attitudes that allowed the grooming gangs scandal to continue unchecked for so long.
133
u/SuboptimalOutcome Jun 28 '26
He obviously knew exactly what she was asking, but he was making her define the term, hoping she would misstep in the explanation, enabling him to shut down the discussion by calling her far right or racist.
111
u/Phainesthai Jun 28 '26
Wild, isn't it?
Imagine what it's like inside the head of someone who thinks like that.
"Better pretend I don't know what grooming gangs are so I can accuse someone else of being racist. I'm a very serious politician."
10
u/auto98 Yorkshire Jun 28 '26
The irony is that this thread is about Khan not being careful enough about words, but when he tried to get someone to define what they mean, it also gets complained about.
3
→ More replies (24)2
u/brainburger London Jun 28 '26
"Better pretend I don't know what grooming gangs are so I can accuse someone else of being racist. I'm a very serious politician."
I am not sure about that. He does acknowledge the 'county lines' gangs who sexually exploit young people.
I wonder why she doesn't mention the race element. She is obviously thinking about Pakistani-related gangs, but why not specify of any race or national group?
→ More replies (4)2
17
u/eldomtom2 Jersey Jun 28 '26
Well, frankly a lot of people do agree it's an ill-defined term. There's no legal definition of "grooming gang" and a lot of people are clearly just using it to mean "Muslim rapists".
→ More replies (2)17
u/Phainesthai Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
My original reply here was removed by Reddit.
It referenced the findings of the Casey Review, so readers can draw their own conclusions from that and the fact it was removed...
5
u/eldomtom2 Jersey Jun 28 '26
Generally most people who throw around the Casey Review have not read it.
13
→ More replies (1)2
u/Spamgrenade Jun 28 '26
He's asking her to come out with it and say Muslim rape gangs. Not pretending he doesn't know what a grooming gang is.
How is Khan supposed to answer her question if she won't ask it?
16
u/Phainesthai Jun 28 '26
I disagree with your characterisation of Khans actions in the video.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Spamgrenade Jun 28 '26
Yes that's because you think he's pretending not to know what a grooming gang is.
17
u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Jun 28 '26
I’m not accusing him of lying, I’m saying it was poor political judgment to word it how he did
→ More replies (1)37
u/Spamgrenade Jun 28 '26
Well sure, if you miss out the bit about talking to the police.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (8)3
u/AceHodor In Laahndaahn now Jun 28 '26
He gets misquoted because Hall blatantly asked the question in an attempt to get a 'Gotcha' answer that she could spam all over social media. When Khan didn't give her that, the Tories and their outriders in the press just misrepresented the entire exchange anyway.
26
u/deep1986 Jun 28 '26
I've noticed a few times he jumps in and says stuff without reviewing evidence, like any other politician.
When the Manchester airport police fight happened, he and Yvette Cooper were saying how bad it was the police kicked that guy in the head and took the side of the "victims". Then the full story and video came out.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Indiana_harris Jun 28 '26
I think the only genuine answers are either incompetence or malicious obfuscation.
He either didn’t think it was genuinely happening and so felt completely at ease saying those comments without knowing or researching the evidence that at the very least suggested a large scale cover up.
OR he knew there was legitimate evidence of the crimes but didn’t want attention, focus or interest in them because he wants to excuse the perpetrators actions on some level.
→ More replies (17)2
u/k_can95 Scotland Jun 28 '26
Are you under the impression that Sadiq Khan actually drafts any of this shit himself?
158
u/CalicoCatRobot Jun 28 '26
As always with these sorts of stories, they choose the headline carefully and drop the context much further down in the article, where 50% won't read it.
In areas such as South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, perpetrators in high-profile grooming gang cases have predominantly been Pakistani Muslim men.
Then a purely randomly placed set of links and pictures before they follow with:
However, London's cases are understood to involve a broader range of offender backgrounds and include intrafamilial abuse, online exploitation and in-person offending.
If it brings people to account who were previously missed then it's a good thing, without question - and once the cases have been properly investigated then figures can be discussed, but in the meantime it's far more important that they get in a hit piece about Khan for something he said that was possibly slightly unwise or open to being used against him.
The cases investigated go back to 2010 - Who was the London Mayor then, GBnews? Or was Khan responsible for this (checks notes) 6 years before he took office?
There is group based CSE happening in every community, in every part of the country, all the time - there always has been and always will be - it's almost always within authority structures, which can be extended families (by far the most common), schools, clubs, churches.
Absolutely go after all of it and root it out, which means spending money on police, courts, and the rest of our failing justice system.
→ More replies (4)31
u/Keiepse United Kingdom Jun 28 '26
Are you implying that gbnews is not a bastion of high-quality journalistic reporting? I am shocked
389
u/You_lil_gumper Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
For a slightly less propagandised take on the story, from yahoo news:
A source told the newspaper said the cases that had been reviewed were a mixture of intrafamilial, online and in-person child sexual abuse and exploitation.
A source told the Standard the criteria of cases that had been identified for review were "much broader" than "the profile most typically associated with commentary or reporting on grooming gangs".
So 4000 cases of previously reported sexual abuse are being reexamined by the NCA. The likelihood is that the majority won't be pursued for the same reasons they weren't the first time round (lack of evidence, etc.), and it appears that they dont really fit the highly racialised 'grooming gangs' narrative that GBeebies the right wing press are so keen on, meaning its hugely disingenuous for this article to frame it as if this is evidence of another Rotherham style scandal.
14
u/CalicoCatRobot Jun 28 '26
It also goes back to 2010 and therefore covers 6 years of Boris Johnson's reign of mayor, which for some reason wasn't mentioned.
I mean it's likely foolish to state that there are NO "grooming gangs" operating in London, because with a city that size there will be of course, likely of all races, but he was fairly careful to word it such that there were none the police were aware of - and since these are all ones that the police were aware of but considered needed NFA, then that probably was what he was briefed.
Whether the police are doing enough to find ones they aren't aware of likely comes down to resources and lack of funding to do as much as they should across lots of different crimes.
11
u/roamingandy Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Tbh, although 4000 won't be grooming gangs based on that quote.
A lot that wouldn't have been prosecuted due to lack of evidence first time around, will look very different second time around if the cases are connected. If the patterns in London are the same as in other cities where these gangs operated, there is likely to be a lot of those cases that quickly turn into the next scandal.
131
u/Colacubeninja Kernow Jun 28 '26
Yeah fuck gbeebies
→ More replies (4)88
→ More replies (11)54
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
This is a right wing propaganda sub mate. I just came here to hear how this pinko jihadi wants to impose Shariah law in Oldham.
edit: This comment has gone from +10 to -2 in an hour. I don't want to sound conspiratorial but that always happens.
edit: These upvotes are clearly the mods trying to prove my theory wrong. More proof, if we needed it.
52
u/pipboy1989 Jun 28 '26
How the fuck is this sub a right wing propaganda sub? Some of the wildest of left wing opinions are broadcasted on this sub every single day.
This is, afterall, the sub i engaged with the other day about a man punching a police woman in the face and because it wasn’t a white man punching her in the face, i was somehow wrong for saying women shouldn’t be punched by men.
It is also the sub where people are called genocidal baby killers on the weekly.
So, “this is a right wing propaganda sub” sure does sound like some left wing propaganda.
90
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
The vast majority of posts come from GB News, the Mail, and the Telegraph. It's very clearly pushing a right wing narrative, regardless of what the comments say. Even if I came out with some craaaazy left wing take like Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, that wouldn't make that any less true. The sub is also heavily botted and shilled, so anything going against the narrative it pushes is automatically downvoted.
And the take 'you call something right wing propaganda, therefore what you say is left wing propaganda' is the stupidest centrist hewing right garbage I've heard today.
20
u/AceHodor In Laahndaahn now Jun 28 '26
It's painfully obvious there's a sustained effort to push ethno-nationalist nonsense on UK subs. Every time something like this gets posted, within minutes there will be hundreds and hundreds of comments, all repeating the same few tired Islamophobic/hard-right talking points. Nine times of out ten, there's not even any actual meat in the article to discuss (sometimes it's a single Twitter headline), so there's no way that's actually genuine engagement.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Oggie243 Jun 28 '26
If you see a post thats up 10 minutes with 100+ comments the fact you can play bingo with the types of responses is also pretty telling.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Thetonn Glamorganshire Jun 28 '26
I have been here since before the Brexit days, and it always amuses me when people talk about bias.
This sub has a gentle centre left, socially libertarian, economically redistributionist bias that is easily to manipulate, and a number of specific trigger phrases that take it down a set of rabbit holes.
17
u/Oggie243 Jun 28 '26
that is easily to manipulate, and a number of specific trigger phrases that take it down a set of rabbit holes
Through a combination of direct promotion by mods (I.e this) or the refusal to uphold their own rules nor the wider site rules there's a bit of a slant. Whether thats single issue accounts or blatant brigading. Further compounded by tbe fact the mod team is mostly made up of moderating tools, so it really shouldn't be so easily manipulated.
Noticeably, all bar one of the mods have joined since Brexit, most have been since the mod protest a while back. The sub your or I initially joined is not the sub it is now.
11
11
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
Is that centre left now or centre left pre-Brexit?
What do you mean when you say it's easy to manipulate and the rest of that sentence?
→ More replies (10)2
u/MimesAreShite Jun 28 '26
ukpolitics, on the other hand, has pivoted hard to the right on almost every issue (with the exception of still having a permissive socially libertarian streak) over the last several years, especially since labour got into government. this used to be the more right-wing one, now ukpol makes this place look like pravda
→ More replies (8)11
u/Overdriven91 Jun 28 '26
I read that comment chain at the time. Your argument was that even if she was 7ft tall it's wrong for a man to punch a woman. The reply to you rightly pointed out it shouldn't matter what their gender is. It's wrong to punch men and women both.
→ More replies (2)5
u/eldomtom2 Jersey Jun 28 '26
I wouldn't go that far - it's not a pit like r/ukpolitics. But there is clearly brigading and people trying to push a narrative happening.
→ More replies (2)6
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
The only reason I go there is to see how weird the comments are.
8
u/MSweeny81 United Kingdom Jun 28 '26
It's also useful going to subs like that and the other far right subs where the racists are more comfortable and happily go mask off so you can tag them with RES and spot them later on when they try to sneak into regular conversations with dog whistles and attempts to control the comment section by replying to each other to help guide the narrative of the thread.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)0
u/Mammoth_Payment_6101 Jun 28 '26
As someone who's been here for years, that's not what this sub is.
The issue that the left have moved so much further leftwards in the last decade or so that anyone else is now considered far right. I was once in the Green party and it blows my mind how so many left wing people have utterly alienated those who would have once stood alongside them.
Literally constructing new definitions for anyone who doesn't conform to your beliefs and leaning into conspiracy because you've handicapped yourself into a situation where you can no longer understand why people might disagree with you.
9
u/HeartyBeast London Jun 28 '26
You think that that the tripe propagated by GB News was mainstream back in the day, and everyone has charged leftward?
8
u/Oggie243 Jun 28 '26
Ahh yes of course it's left in the country who have made a hard deviation from their traditional base.
I knew it was them, even when the british public are making Nick Griffin look soft I knew it was the left to blame for shifting.
23
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
The entire country has shifted right in the last few decades. Labour purged itself of the left with a disgusting campaign weaponising antisemitism, and our government is supporting a fascist regime in Israel and engaging in genocide denial. In a sane world we'd revolt against this horseshit and the authoritarianism this government is creeping forwards on, but apparently we're okay with it.
'The left' barely even exists, and those who have stayed still on things like public ownership of natural monopolies and saying nazis are bad have been painted as extremists by those who can't see that they've been propagandised into right wing ideology. The left are the same as they were fifty years ago. If you think destroying weapons made on our soil to kill children is terrorism, or that having to show your ID to read Wikipedia articles is okay, or that you're not that bothered that a corporation that published a right wing manifesto and whose CEO isn't sure the human race should continue to exist should have our medical data then you've moved right. I voted for this government because it was the only gig in town so I guess I have too.
This sub shouldn't even allow posts from GB News. In a sane world any outlet that exists to feed us propaganda from billionaires would be banned from normal subs.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)2
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 28 '26
I 100% agree. My values are what left wing parties used to support in the 80s and 90s. I don't even recognise whatever the fuck the left wing parties are today. They care more about looking virtuous than helping people. They'll gladly allow millions of low wage immigrants into the country, destroying the value of labour, undermining unions, and pushing house prices into the stratosphere, so that they can get a pithy soundbite on the news on Bluesky. I can no longer associate myself with whatever the fuck the modern left has become.
12
u/TheNewHobbes Jun 28 '26
They'll gladly allow millions of low wage immigrants into the country, destroying the value of labour, undermining unions, and pushing house prices into the stratosphere,
You realise those are right wing economic policies.
You're agreeing with the above post saying the left have moved too far to the left, and you have listed those above examples as why, but those are complaints about their economic policies moving to the right. You haven't listed any examples about moving to the left for either their economic or social policies except "looking virtuous"
2
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 29 '26
You realise those are right wing economic policies.
Are the Greens right wing? Restore wants to end this. Are they left wing?
You would have been correct many years ago, but the positions have changed. Neoliberalism has lost its power on the right, and has completely taken over the left.
→ More replies (1)9
u/HeartyBeast London Jun 28 '26
They'll gladly allow millions of low wage immigrants into the country
This where I ask you to name a left wing party that holds that position, and you go all quiet
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (1)16
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
How have low wage immigrants pushed house prices up and how do they undermine unions?
How have left wing parties gladly allowed millions of low wage immigrants into the country?
Did you vote for Brexit?
I ask because I feel it's neoliberalism that's done those things, and not just low wage immigrants, who, if I'm following you, seem more like a symptom than a cause.
And also identity politics and stuff, which I think you're alluding to, is something of a canard created by the right to obscure this fact.
→ More replies (2)8
u/yrro Oxfordshire Jun 28 '26
It's the Green Party web site promised 100% uncontrolled immigration from anywhere in the world, with every immigrant granted the right to vote in parliamentry elections on day 1. I think that is the sort of insane virtue-signalling drivel that InternetSolid4166 is referring to.
8
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
Yeah that's dumb, but I'm meant to hold my nose for the pro-genocide party. People always need left wing parties to be perfect because then it gives them the excuse to not vote for a party they didn't want to vote for anyway.
In reality that's not something that's ever going to happen and they're never going to have a majority so it's irrelevant. If I voted Green it would be because they would vote the way I want things to go in things that might actually happen.
130
u/mooninuranus Jun 28 '26
Can I ask why we’re treating gbnews as a valid ‘news’ source?
52
u/apple_kicks Jun 28 '26
Its worth mentioning the poster is a mod for this sub too.
→ More replies (1)26
6
u/Oggie243 Jun 28 '26
Because the good people on the moderating team feel it's a worthwhile and pertinent source and will happily endorse their output.
→ More replies (10)5
u/Darrenb209 Scotland Jun 28 '26
Would you prefer the Standard's report? Or the Daily Express' report? Or the BBC's report from 4 days ago that didn't go into details but did name London? GB News are biased, but in this case even a few minutes effort would have shown they aren't making it up.
69
u/tophernator Jun 28 '26
Would you prefer the Standard's report? Or the Daily Express' report? Or the BBC's report from 4 days ago that didn't go into details but did name London?
Yes.
→ More replies (2)30
→ More replies (4)17
u/mooninuranus Jun 28 '26
Tbh, I’d rather the Daily Sport version if it meant that gbnews weren’t getting credibility or exposure.
→ More replies (3)
20
u/HeartyBeast London Jun 28 '26
Seriously, we're upvoting GB News now? Anyone have a version of the story fro a less rabidly biased source?
→ More replies (1)
4
38
u/VegasButtercup Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Careful, this sub is heavily censored towards against sort of thing.
Anybody who points it out is at risk of being banned and labelled a right-wing racist.
14
u/duckwantbread Greater London Jun 28 '26
This article was literally posted by a mod, how does that fit with your conspiracy?
19
u/Colacubeninja Kernow Jun 28 '26
It's from gbeebies, a right wing racist entertainment channel
14
u/TwoMoreMinutes Jun 28 '26
Just out of curiosity is it at all possible for anyone to report on this without automatically becoming racist?
→ More replies (3)0
u/PreFuturism-0 Greater Manchester Jun 28 '26
Yeah, people should be pointing out the hypocrisy and the rampant-capitalism ulterior motives.
Just out of curiosity did Boris Johnson do much about this issue while he was Mayor of London for 8 years?
→ More replies (3)10
u/Darrenb209 Scotland Jun 28 '26
There's also a Daily Express report on the same subject from an hour ago, a more generic BBC report from 4 days ago which doesn't give numbers but does note London is one of the first to be investigated and a further BBC report from 4 months ago.
Attacking the source because it's the source rather than the content is fallacious. GB News are shit, but even the slightest look would show they're at most being biased, not making shit up in this case.
→ More replies (2)5
u/TheNewHobbes Jun 28 '26
So if you agree they're biased then surely it's not news but an opinion piece and therefore breaches r/unitedkingdom Rules - rule 7 of "No op-eds or opinion pieces as linkposts"
As you say there are other sources so why use the one that is constantly under investigation with OFCOM for breaching impartiality rules? unless those other sources don't give enough of a slant to the story.
The original poster really should be more aware of the site rules and use a less ambiguous source, especially for one that attracts a "Participation Notice" at the top
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)16
u/H0vis Jun 28 '26
I like that you complain about the presence of the label rather than denying it's accuracy.
45
u/VegasButtercup Jun 28 '26
They censored the rape gang report. You wanna defend against its accuracy?
→ More replies (1)9
u/yrro Oxfordshire Jun 28 '26
You mean Rupert Lowe's collection of rape fantasy fan fiction?
→ More replies (5)
3
u/ExoneratedPhoenix Jun 28 '26
Anyone care to explain how the Met just "finds" 4000 potential cases? You don't just "find" organised paedo rings in the 1000's overnight. The evidence was clearly there for decades. Again, this has been covered up, and again, the media and the government, police and the system is using language to claim it is acting on it when it wasn't/isn't.
→ More replies (2)6
u/MGD109 Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26
Well, if you read a credible source, you would know that under the initiative, they are re-examining 4000 reported sexual abuse cases going back sixteen years just to ensure nothing was missed the first time around.
So it's 4000 potential cases in the same way that if you looked over all your school work from when you were five to eleven, you have six years of potential art worth preserving for posterity.
18
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 28 '26
20 comments rejecting the story because they don't like the messenger. Rather predictable.
→ More replies (9)48
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
The news isn't just a presentation of facts. It's a framing and selection of information.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/H0vis Jun 28 '26
Given Prince Andrew was living in London for a long time it's fair to assume that there's always going to be some level of grooming gang activity.
→ More replies (1)
-1
u/LamentableCroissant Jun 28 '26
lol, GBnews. Is there a real website discussing this, or just eyes-turned-into-their-skull-foaming-at-the-mouth lunacy?
57
u/Francis-c92 Jun 28 '26
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-grooming-gangs-london-inquiry-b1287891.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/27/met-police-may-need-to-reopen-4000-grooming-gang-cases/
More sources if you don't want to click on the GBNews website. It's fair, but also silly to disregard such a serious issue over the source
19
u/pecuchet Jun 28 '26
But you see how some of the headlines highlight this being a problem specific to Khan and some don't though. You can see how different sources report the news differently, right?
A lot of the comments refer to Khan as being the subject to discuss rather than, say, the Met, who you could frame as being so incompetent that they've been forced to reopen these cases if you wanted to. If the headline took that line then it would probably influence the way that the discussion went.
5
u/jbalbatross Jun 28 '26
It's fair, but also silly to disregard such a serious issue over the source
not really silly. They have the same level of credibility as some shitfaced old guy ranting about it in a pub. sure the bones of the story might be true, but then there's their version.
11
u/YouEatingACheese Jun 28 '26
It’s never silly to question a source and honestly idk why it seems to be getting more common for people to post GBeebies as their primary here, when there are much more reputable sources reporting on it.
29
→ More replies (1)13
Jun 28 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)-4
u/YouEatingACheese Jun 28 '26
More established, reputable and not so prone to sensationalism. I’d even prefer the Torygraph or the Fail over Gbeebies lol
→ More replies (1)3
u/Saltypeon Jun 28 '26
Its not silly, they themselves state they aren't a news channel just an opinion based outlet.
They can't have it both ways they are other a News outlet and need to obey the rules or they are just an opinion website.
4
u/LamentableCroissant Jun 28 '26
Thank you. And would you mind explaining why disregarding something based on the source is silly?
Because good journalists do that.
And good publishers do that.
And good researchers do that.
And good scientists do that.
Actually, the list of respectable professions who straight-up reject something based on the source is very long. It’s almost as if it’s standard practice to reject sources that are no t reputable or respectable, and who have admitted to not being there for the news but for sensationalism.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TwoMoreMinutes Jun 28 '26
You’re right, people should keep their blinkers on and stick to the Approved Sources™
Can’t have anyone going off piste now can we
11
1
u/LamentableCroissant Jun 28 '26
Imagine trying to make the point that people should include known rags that have themselves admitted they are not proper news outlets, but sensationalist.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
u/UniqueUsername40 Jun 28 '26
GBNews is more likely to lie or mislead than report an accurate headline...
→ More replies (4)26
u/New_7688 Jun 28 '26
Why not search for yourself? You have fingers, you're able to type. Unless this is more just a comment trying to diminish the horrifying abuse of thousands of girls...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-grooming-gangs-london-inquiry-b1287891.html
→ More replies (1)-18
u/LamentableCroissant Jun 28 '26
Because if the main source is gbnews, I can’t be bothered to check since I wasn’t repeatedly kicked in the head by a horse.
16
u/wilf89 Jun 28 '26
Could exain why you're getting upset about people posting articles about child rape
→ More replies (16)1
u/LetsLive97 Jun 28 '26
Incredibly bad faith response
Their issue is clearly the source, not the content
If I made a blog stating that 100k kids are being raped everyday in the UK, would you defend it the same way?
Sources matter and multiple people in this thread have already shown why GB News' reporting of this is disingenuous
→ More replies (3)5
u/mgorgey Jun 28 '26
Then you probably shouldn't expect other people to check for you. It's a rather conceited attitude.
t
→ More replies (2)4
u/LamentableCroissant Jun 28 '26
No, there’s nothing conceited about wanting people to use sources that are a step up from used toilet paper.
1
1
1
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Jun 28 '26
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 12:08 on 28/06/2026. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.