A Home Office report into 'grooming gangs' says 'it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending'. So where does that leave @thetimes and its rogue reporter Andrew Norfolk? 1/6 bylinetimes.com/2020/12/17/hom…
The Times insisted there was 'overwhelming evidence' of 'a deeply rooted pattern of criminal behaviour with a clear ethnic component'. But 2 years of effort by Home Office officials (plainly under pressure to prove the paper right) produced no credible evidence at all. 2/6
So there is no 'clear ethnic component'. No one can claim it is disproportionately 'a Muslim thing'. Reporter Andrew Norfolk's creation, beloved of the extreme right, turns out to be just as flawed as his discredited 'Christian girl forced into Muslim foster care' story. 3/6
There have been appalling sexual exploitation cases in which men of Pakistani heritage have been convicted, but there are many, many other cases that get less publicity and that involve other ethnicities. In fact most offenders in this area are white, says the Home Office. 4/6
Will @thetimes now withdraw its claim that there is 'overwhelming evidence' of a 'clear ethnic component'? Will it apologise to Britain's Muslims? Will it investigate the anti-Muslim journalism of Andrew Norfolk that was exposed in this report? 5/6 inforrm.org/2019/06/28/unm…
Important to give credit here to Dr Ella Cockbain of University College London (@DrEllaC), who has been debunking claims about ethnicity and 'grooming gangs' in the academic literature for years. Her work is vindicated by the Home Office findings. 6/6

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brian Cathcart

Brian Cathcart Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BrianCathcart

19 Jun
Thread.
You often see references on Twitter to 'the inevitable inquiry into Covid-19'. Why does anyone think that under this government a meaningful public inquiry into the pandemic is inevitable? @DavidLammy @JolyonMaugham @mikegalsworthy @EdwardJDavey @joannaccherry 1/
Johnson, Gove, Hancock, Raab etc have never shown any wish to be accountable for anything. (Re Cummings, for example.) In the case of Covid they will surely move heaven and earth to avoid effective, independent scrutiny. 2/
And since it is governments that set up inquiries they have the power simply to block an inquiry into the Covid response. You might say the demand from the public will be too strong. Well maybe, but they have already shown significant willingness to defy the public will. 3/
Read 13 tweets
19 Apr
The Sunday Times's alarming 'sleepwalking into a pandemic' report says an inquiry into what went wrong is 'inevitable'. But we need a proper inquiry – open, impartial, with full powers and with a guarantee its report will be published. And that's not inevitable, as we know. 1/
Governments can rig these things. And they can bury them. We can't let that happen with #Covid19. We need the truth about preparedness and response – if only because we will surely face more pandemics in the future and lessons need to be learned. 2/
There is a proposal on the table for a timely, impartial, powerful public inquiry outside government control. It comes from Lord Kerslake, who chaired the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry. It needs support. Political leaders should commit to it now. 3/
Read 9 tweets
15 Mar
With #coronavirus #COVID19, journalism confronts a historic challenge. It's a matter of life and death. More than ever, therefore, journalists have an obligation to inform the public accurately and responsibly. More than ever, people need trustworthy information. 1/6
Put it another way: the requirements of readers and viewers must come first. Nothing else matters – not politics, not agendas, not rivalries, not sales, not clicks, not old scores, not careers. Because getting it wrong may kill. 2/6
This does *not* mean that journalists should slavishly promote government policy. Even if that policy was in line with consensus it would have to be questioned. But given that UK policy is aberrant in international terms, journalists must force ministers to justify it. 3/ 6
Read 6 tweets
10 Jan
A short thread on bad royal journalism. One of the 'givens' of the reporting on #meganandharry has been that they 'blindsided' the Queen by failing to give her notice of their plans. This allegation seems to have come from unnamed 'palace sources'...
While this was certainly news, it was only a claim made anonymously on behalf of one party in the story. It was not a fact. Fairness demanded that the claim should be put to the Sussexes and only if they confirmed it would it be right for journalists to state it as fact...
It can't be argued that because it came from the palace it was holy writ and must be true. First, it apparently came from unnamed sources unwilling to take responsibility for what they said, and second, on many other occasions the press is happy to question a palace line...
Read 6 tweets
9 Jan
A general warning on this day of #HarryandMeghan fuss: take everything you read that comes from the UK national press with a pinch of salt. They are not impartial or honest observers in this; they are determined to break this royal marriage to a woman of colour... (Thread)
We are told that the couple refuses to accept legitimate scrutiny, but what they have faced has not been legitimate. It has been a sustained campaign of vilification routinely relying on innuendo and falsehood and often laced with racism...
We are also led to believe that rough stuff from the UK press is only to be expected, and it's part of the royal job to accept it. Don't believe it. Real journalism isn't about dishing out rough stuff. It's about truth and fairness. No journalist anywhere should be asserting...
Read 10 tweets
1 Oct 19
You might just be saying to yourself, well I've got bigger things to worry about than Harry and Meghan. You would be wrong. It's about you. These papers will treat you like they treat them. Their mission is to divide and sow hate. If it takes royalty to stop them, so be it... 1/6
If the country is divided by Brexit, these papers did it. More than any other group – more even than politicians – they are responsible. They make perfectly normal people hate the poor, Muslims, foreigners, trans people, women, black people and, yes, a princess... 2/6
They lie, they distort, they fabricate. And they are normally totally unaccountable. They have bent the law their way. They regulate themselves. They cover up for each other. The Guardian, the BBC, ITV will never call them out. So if it takes a royal lawsuit... 3/6
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!