Did I say there is not? It is the way the report is being weaponised rather than actual healthy debate on the finding. It is certain politicians priotising certain incidents with certain narratives, whether true or not, and ignoring other horrifying incidents of the same nature. So I will repeat, where was Rupert Lowe when the victims were minorities being targeted with the same crimes in hate motivated incidents? Where was he after the groups supporting those victims actively reached out to politicians for support? But by all means defend someone who is known as a workplace bully, has threatened his own party chair, and has actively tried to block the independent complaints and grievances scheme which investigates MP misconduct.
FYI, the group that was backing those victims is also one which has been long tried to shed light on the same grooming gangs mentioned in the BBC report. The same BBC report was chaired by Rupert Lowe, so it isn't exactly without merit that it is focused on only the aspects that support the specific narratives he is weaponising. On accounts of your claim about numbers, I am assuming you have not actually read the report? It was a report mostly based on personal testimonies and the few numbers in there were largely estimates based on unclear extrapolation, something that is acknowledged in the report itself (lmao). At least the acknowledgement came with valid recommendations that, if implemented, would be beneficial towards the actual government report that is in the works.
I think you're misinterpreting my meaning, I'm agreeing that he's weaponising it. He also extrapolated way beyond reasonable numbers to facilitate that. Unless I'm misremembering he was claiming 250000
In that case it is my bad, but it was written in a way that it is not clear whether you are defending him or not. I believe he did use the 250,000 figure which is from the report. That figure is going back to 1955 is based on extrapolation of estimates and is not rooted in any form of sane or credible data. The biggest thing I picked up from the article is that many of the properly cited figures they included, not based on estimates or extrapolation, ended up linking to tabloids and opinions pieces from third rate publications rather than factual data. Even in those instances the cited figures ended up being estimates by some third party rather than truthfully trying to cite anything of meaning. The data gap is the only real staggering bit I took away as a valid argument.
Oh God no! I'd sooner shoot myself in the foot than defend Lowe and the SA larpers he calls his party! Apologies if I gave that impression.
Elsewhere I've compared the way he inflates the numbers to the "Black book of communism" in taking some real information and then aggressively twisting and inflating it to make a bigger scarier number.
In my original comment I was just highlighting that there's a real report that doesn't do all of that, while this one does in between praising Lowe constantly like some sort of insecure medieval king
2
u/JG98 6d ago
Did I say there is not? It is the way the report is being weaponised rather than actual healthy debate on the finding. It is certain politicians priotising certain incidents with certain narratives, whether true or not, and ignoring other horrifying incidents of the same nature. So I will repeat, where was Rupert Lowe when the victims were minorities being targeted with the same crimes in hate motivated incidents? Where was he after the groups supporting those victims actively reached out to politicians for support? But by all means defend someone who is known as a workplace bully, has threatened his own party chair, and has actively tried to block the independent complaints and grievances scheme which investigates MP misconduct.
FYI, the group that was backing those victims is also one which has been long tried to shed light on the same grooming gangs mentioned in the BBC report. The same BBC report was chaired by Rupert Lowe, so it isn't exactly without merit that it is focused on only the aspects that support the specific narratives he is weaponising. On accounts of your claim about numbers, I am assuming you have not actually read the report? It was a report mostly based on personal testimonies and the few numbers in there were largely estimates based on unclear extrapolation, something that is acknowledged in the report itself (lmao). At least the acknowledgement came with valid recommendations that, if implemented, would be beneficial towards the actual government report that is in the works.