Member Info for asimpleinvestor

Which casey report are you referring to as there have been two. The National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation (2025) and The Rotherham Council Inspection Report (2015) which was completed in the wake of the 2014 Alexis Jay report.

@troublesome - can't access the link due to forum censorship of words

"not today im afraid very busy today."

Unless the moderators decide to remove the thread, the posts will still be there tomorrow. That’s the thing about forums like this you can come back anytime, day or night, and reply to a post. It doesn’t require instant responses, and if the moderator does remove the thread, it gets you off the hook, doesn’t it? Probably why you report them so often along with another miscreant on here.

Quote "I believe there's discussions within govt/police to remove the written bias treatment towards ethnic groups be removed from the police procedure..why was it there in the first place.."

It’s worth clarifying that police procedures regarding 'cultural considerations' aren't designed to give special treatment to one group; they are part of a framework intended to ensure the law is applied fairly to everyone.

Under the Equality Act 2010, the police have a legal duty to eliminate discrimination, advance equality, and foster good relations. This applies to every citizen, regardless of their background. The reason officers are trained to understand different cultural or religious practices is to ensure that they can perform their duties effectively without causing unnecessary conflict or misunderstanding, which benefits everyone.

Furthermore, it is a common misconception that 'ethnicity' only refers to minority groups. Under UK law, 'White British,' 'White European,' and 'Christian' are all legally recognized as ethnic or racial groups. The law doesn't differentiate in its application it protects the rights of a person of any background to be treated with respect and professionalism.

If procedures were to be 'removed,' it wouldn't make the police 'neutral'; it would likely make them less effective, as they would be stripping away the training that helps them navigate the diverse reality of modern Britain. The goal of these procedures isn't to create 'two-tier' justice, but to ensure that the justice system actually functions for the entire public it serves.

"@StickyToffeePudd, you hit on a common contradiction. I hear arguments about bank closures constantly, with many people claiming they are essential, yet when I ask when they last visited a branch in person, they often fall silent, eventually admitting it’s been years. When pushed, they confirm that even when they do have an issue, they prefer to call or use an app because driving into town is a hassle.

The reality is that footfall has been diminishing for decades, and banks are simply responding to that data, just as any other retailer would. Keeping a branch open for a small minority is not a sustainable business model unless we were to adopt a US-style 'pay-for-service' account model, which doesn't fit the UK's long-standing preference for free at the point of use banking.

Online and app based banking is the inevitable replacement for the high street branch because it reflects how people actually live their lives today. The 'high street' is being replaced by the 'digital street,' and clinging to physical branches that aren't being used is a form of nostalgia, not a viable economic strategy.

@Eightyeight88, when you suggest 'let the electorate decide,' could you clarify exactly what it is you believe they should be deciding on? I’ve asked this before and haven't received a specific answer, only the general sentiment of a singular voter - You and even then your approach has been veiled rather than in the open and with no solution you would like to see or how it would benefit the nation as a whole.

We are several years away from the next scheduled general election in 2029, and the irony is that the current government which you describe as 'headless' and 'inept' is the exact result of the electorate having 'decided' only recently. If you believe the electorate is currently unhappy with its own previous decision, it raises a difficult question: on what basis should we trust the electorate’s decision-making process if, by your own assessment, the choices it makes are consistently found wanting?

If you are calling for a change, what specific mechanism or policy direction do you actually want to see, rather than just waiting for an electoral cycle that hasn't even reached its midpoint yet?

I predicted this would happen, but everyone dismissed it, saying the number of shares in issue didn’t matter clearly, the company thinks otherwise. Trading should be smoother afterward, as long as they’re not planning another placing that would increase the share count again.

"As I said at the time, the woke brigade still mention Saville, Hindly, Sutcliffe and Glitte but few could name one member of the gangs, not a gang but gangs of rapists targeting white children."

Regarding your point about the 'woke brigade' supposedly ignoring certain perpetrators: I think it is important to be precise with the facts. Operations such as Voicer (2015), Cathedral (1998), and ongoing efforts like Operation Locket are clear examples of large-scale paedophile networks, and in the case of Voicer and Cathedral, the perpetrators were predominantly white British.

To be specific about Operation Voicer: the seven convicted members John Denham, Matthew Stansfield, Adam Toms, Christopher Knight, Robin Hollyson, David Harsley, and Matthew Lisk were found guilty of 29 offences, which included the horrific abuse of a baby, a toddler, and a pre-school aged child, as well as administering drugs with the intent to facilitate abuse.

We need to keep things balanced. Paedophile rings and grooming gangs are not exclusive to Rotherham, Rochdale, or Swindon, and they are certainly not exclusive to any single ethnic community. There were, as you correctly noted, white British perpetrators in many of these groups as well. If we look at the broader, evidence based reality rather than just high-profile media headlines, Ministry of Justice data from 2020 shows that of approximately 12,774 convicted sexual offenders with an associated child sexual abuse (CSA) offence, 10,475 were white. This reflects the demographic reality of the UK, but it serves as an essential factual counterpoint to the idea that these crimes are 'exclusive' to, or solely perpetrated by, any single community.

If child protection is our shared priority, surely the focus should be on the systemic failures that allowed any of these groups to operate regardless of their background rather than using these tragedies to fuel a political narrative that ignores the wider reality of these crimes

@Birdsong - You state that free speech should be accepted by all sides and that we should avoid banning discussion. I agree. However, there is a clear difference between 'free speech' and the weaponisation of a tragedy to promote a political narrative.

You argue that the 'woke brigade' ignores crimes against white children, but by doing so, you are doing exactly what you accuse them of: cherry-picking specific cases to construct a 'two-tier' narrative. You mention the Stephen Lawrence case to suggest a disparity in how we remember victims, but that case is a household name precisely because it exposed systemic institutional racism a historical reality that forced a change in how we address equality under the law for everyone.

Regarding Henry Nowak: his death was not a result of 'woke rules' or 'two-tier' policing. It was a failure of basic procedure, a failure to believe a dying man who told officers he had been stabbed. Blaming this on 'race rules' or 'political correctness' is a massive leap that ignores the incompetence revealed by the footage. If we want to solve these problems, we need to focus on why officers failed to perform their basic duties, not on hypothetical 'cities ablaze' scenarios that serve only to inflame.

You say you want 'common sense,' but 'common sense' is looking at the facts of the case, the evidence of the stabbing, the initial police error, and the sentencing of the murderer rather than using a young man’s final, harrowing moments to argue for a political agenda. If we are to have a 'normal life,' as you put it, we need to be able to identify objective failures in our public services without immediately defaulting to a culture war.

It is interesting how your threshold for 'shocking' seems entirely dependent on the background of the perpetrator. You are quick to cite crimes by minorities as evidence of systemic failure or to express extreme outrage, yet when a White British individual commits a violent or racially motivated crime against someone from an ethnic minority, that same analytical rigor and 'shuddering' concern never seems to materialise.

If you were truly concerned about crime, justice, or the 'two-tier' nature of our society, you would be as vocal about the latter as you are about the former. Instead, you seem to be using tragedy as a tool for a specific political narrative. That is the definition of virtue signalling, and it does absolutely nothing to help victims of any background.

Take, for example, the tragic murder of Mohammed Saleem by a white supremacist, which remains a stark example of a racially motivated killing, or the racially motivated rape of a young Sikh woman in Oldbury where suspects reportedly used xenophobic language while attacking her. I don’t recall seeing your claims of being 'extremely upset' over those cases. That in itself exposes your own version of 'two-tier' justice—or perhaps, 'two-tier' virtue signalling

What 'massive issue' are you referring to, if not the aging population, our mounting pension bill, and the shrinking working-age base required to sustain our tax revenues? If you are implying immigration is the sole cause, the economic reality is that we require a larger, not smaller, working-age population to address these structural deficits. That may not fit your preferred narrative, but it is the arithmetic of our current economy. You are correct about 'turning a blind eye' it is precisely what happens when political rhetoric is prioritised over the demographic and fiscal realities, we are currently facing.

As for your claim that I prefer to stifle opinion: I am fully open to debate, provided it is grounded in common sense and realism. Rhetoric and fantasy do nothing to find solutions. If you believe there is a path forward that ignores these demographic and fiscal constraints, I’d be genuinely interested in seeing how the arithmetic supports it.

Reform promises something new every other day and, just as with Labour, often backtracks on proposed policies when reality sets in. Regarding deportations, the rhetoric frequently ignores the economic necessity of immigration that the party itself has acknowledged when pressured on the details. Much of what was originally touted as an immediate fix has been quietly sidelined as the complexity of logistics and the actual needs of the economy have become apparent.

Actually, Eightyeight88, there are. A local hotel here was condemned by the council, yet it was utilised to house asylum seekers for over 12 months before public outrage gotto fever pitch and had them moved to more habitable accommodation. Since you mentioned 'virtue signalling,' I am curious: would you argue that British families in need should be housed in such condemned buildings instead, or is there a distinction in your view? It is worth noting that while this specific building was condemned, the press coverage often omits those details, simply labelling such sites as 'former 4-star hotels'.

Similar situations occurred in Liverpool and Manchester, where former high-rated hotels with official orders against them were still used, despite structural issues, environmental problems and poor maintenance. This raises the question: should vulnerable individuals or families in need ever be placed in buildings that fail to meet basic health and safety standards. s you're of course not a virtue signalling coward you would of course suggest this should be made the highest priority.

By the way, it is worth noting that asylum seekers do not arrive 'illegally'; in fact, many who are later categorised as illegal immigrants arrive here through legal channels, such as on visas, and then overstay them.

Now for the latter part of your post in which an AI response required to give context.

The "zebra" camouflage mentioned is a modern attempt to counter AI-assisted target recognition, specifically relating to Ukrainian FPV drones.

The tactic, as reported, involves painting vehicles with high-contrast black-and-white stripes, effectively reviving First World War "dazzle camouflage." Originally designed to distort a ship's silhouette to make it harder to judge speed and direction, the application here is intended to confuse the algorithms in automated target-recognition systems.

Military analysts, however, remain sceptical about its effectiveness against drones for several reasons:

Operator Oversight: Most FPV drone strikes still involve a human operator in the loop who can visually identify a target regardless of its paint scheme.

Sensor Variety: Many drones utilise thermal imaging cameras, which identify targets based on heat signatures, rendering traditional visual camouflage patterns largely ineffective.

Context: This is one of many unorthodox measures seen in the conflict, alongside "turtle tanks" (corrugated metal structures) and "dandelion" armour (metal rods designed to trigger drone fuses early), reflecting the ongoing struggle to adapt to the prevalence of low-cost, AI-enabled aerial threats.

While the zebra pattern is commonly used in the automotive industry to mask the lines and features of prototype vehicles from cameras, its utility on the battlefield appears to be limited more to psychological impact than true technical obfuscation.

In relation to potential 'kill switches' proposed this video will explain it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwCV2uTO51E

@Gunsup over 38% of the population on benefits and you pick one family of eight as an example. Here is a government report to help answer your question though I'm afarid I don't use one off cases as the brunt of my argument.. **No AI was used in this post**.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10545/#:~:text=On%2025%20February%202026%2C%20ITV,by%20denying%20families%20emergency%20accommodation%E2%80%9D.

I think with all the possibilities we are in for a news rich few months but as Bo has already stated to those that need hand holding with updates every other day he won't be issuing an update every time they change the loo roll in the washroom or replace a sink plug, as these aren't worthy of an RNS.

@VarnaOAP While it is true that the overarching Defence Investment Plan is still pending, your characterisation of the sector as being "left dangling" contradicts the reality of ongoing procurement activity.

In truth, the Ministry of Defence has been anything but idle this year. We have seen a steady stream of new contracts issued throughout 2026, demonstrating that Whitehall is not waiting for a final, singular document to begin allocating funds. For instance, just yesterday, the MOD signed a £36 million contract with Thales for hundreds of Lightweight Multirole Missiles, following similar orders placed as recently as April and May.

Furthermore, the government has launched specific initiatives to accelerate funding for smaller firms, such as the recent announcement in June 2026 where thirteen British companies secured contracts of up to £4 million each to drive innovation in defence technology. These are not future promises; they are tangible, active contracts being delivered through mechanisms like the MOD's "Commercial X."

The government has also introduced reforms to Single Source Contract Regulations, tying profit rates directly to timely delivery to clear the procurement backlog you mentioned. While the debate over the wider £18 billion allocation continues, the pipeline of actual contract awards for SMEs and larger defence partners is moving, not stalled. Attributing the sector's health solely to the publication of a single plan overlooks the significant volume of business that has already been transacted in the last five months.

Probably too many syllables for you @Onlyif

@troublesome,

I may have mentioned following certain Druidic philosophies, just as I heavily integrate the core 12 pillars of permaculture into how I live. If we are playing the label game, you could probably argue I identify as a self-sustaining food forest.

On your other point: we are in complete agreement on equality of opportunity and equality under the law. True permaculture is about creating an efficient system where everyone has the baseline environment to thrive what happens after that is down to the individual.

@ZagEgypt I think you owe an apology to several posters you’ve accused of having an obsession with Stephen Lunn. The 25th September 2025 RNS shows that, contrary to what was suggested, the possibility of Lunn continuing in a consultant or non-board role was publicly documented and specifically requested by the RMD Group as a condition of their support. The records make it clear that the connection between Lunn, RMD, and the company after the AGM was an explicitly stated expectation.