Jane Collins MEP (Ukip) sent death threats over Rotherham pedophile abuse scandal

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...therham-expose

UKIP MEP Sent Death Threats After Slamming Rotherham Council Over Child Abuse Scandal

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver...t%20113156.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breitbart London

UKIP's Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire, Jane Collins, has reported that she has been on the receiving end of death threats and warnings about her staying away from Rotherham after she attacked the local council for its negligence in the ongoing child abuse scandal.

Last month it emerged that over 3000 girls in the northern British town had been subjected to rape, grooming, and other forms of abuse over a period extending beyond a decade. Whilst a few members of the council have resigned over the matter, Collins and others pointed to the fact that many will have known about the abuse, mainly perpetuated by Pakistani, Muslim men – and failed to speak out.

Speaking exclusively to Breitbart London, Ms. Collins said last month: "The people of Yorkshire are rightly appalled to hear their Police and Crime Commissioner was so instrumental in covering up abuse of children in Rotherham. He should resign immediately because people like him have no place holding public office in a civilised society."

Now, Ms. Collins reports to the Daily Star that she has had threats against her life, leading to local police having to install a panic button in her home, with talks of a 'safe room' also being installed.

Collins said: “I didn’t get death threats before. The more we reveal and the more we push the nastier it’s going to get.”

She added: “I think every Labour member in Rotherham should tear up their membership card.

“Do they not care about the victims? People are saying they didn’t know the scale of it but surely one child is enough.”

Critics have argued that the scandal in Rotherham is the eventuality of an entrenched left-wing political establishment, with others noting that more scandals are due to be reported across the United Kingdom over the next few years.

---

I hope she and others keep pushing and digging at this, don't ever stop exposing these sick ******s and the people who protect them aka the Labour Party, the now-political Police and the extreme left social services. How have the got away with it?

If you think this is scale of abuse by Pakistani gangs of young children and women is confined to just Rotherham too, you are very much mistaken. I said when this story broke that I knew about this for years from the internet, it was general knowledge what was going on in the 'community' (as they always call them) and it's common knowledge out there that this is going on in multicultural 'diverse' ghettos up and down this country. Time will expose it all, you can find it all if you dig deep enough on the internet.

Thoughts?

Very scary, I wonder who the perpetrators who are sending the death threats are and what they have in common with the scandal.

From who!? Who on earth would be against someone for sticking by what is right? It can't be the general public. They're stupid, yes, but not that stupid.

Do you think anything should be done about the people sending death threats @-:Undertaker:-;?

From who? Well, we all know who will be sending these death threats. I'm 99.9% certain it'll be from adherents to the Religion of Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Do you think anything should be done about the people sending death threats @-:Undertaker:-;?

---

There's probably room for the state regarding that, although with such a law there should be restraits as you very well may end up with the crackpot Police purposely twisting what somebody has said in order to make an arrest. A case by case basis, in other words.

Why do you ask? And what do you make of death threats being sent to Mrs Collins?

I think the death threats are unacceptable and should be dealt with by the Police.

I'm surprised you believe it should be dealt with on a 'case by case' basis though, I thought you would be totally against any action taken against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I think the death threats are unacceptable and should be dealt with by the Police.

I'm surprised you believe it should be dealt with on a 'case by case' basis though, I thought you would be totally against any action taken against them.

---

Not sure why. I think I am pretty strong in my views on Law and Order whilst at the same time staunchly defending/protecting Civil Liberties.

In the fine old English tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Not sure why. I think I am pretty strong in my views on Law and Order whilst at the same time staunchly defending/protecting Civil Liberties.

In the fine old English tradition.

---

Well I thought your 'Freedom of Speech' would mean Freedom of Speech for absolutely everyone, not on a 'case by case' basis :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Well I thought your 'Freedom of Speech' would mean Freedom of Speech for absolutely everyone, not on a 'case by case' basis :P

---

If something is a direct threat and can be judged to be serious, then action should be taken by the state. My view is that you're confusing my strong defence of free speech such as the right to be racist, communist, sexist or anti-homosexuality with direct death threats.

So-called 'hate speech' and direct death threats are two entirely different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If something is a direct threat and can be judged to be serious, then action should be taken by the state. My view is that you're confusing my strong defence of free speech such as the right to be racist, communist, sexist or anti-homosexuality with direct death threats.

So-called 'hate speech' and direct death threats are two entirely different things.

---

So a death threat to a UKIP MEP is a direct threat, but someone saying they have a bomb in an airport isn't a direct threat?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...76#post8044276

Interesting to see how your views change when you need to defend a UKIP MEP :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So a death threat to a UKIP MEP is a direct threat, but someone saying they have a bomb in an airport isn't a direct threat?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...76#post8044276

Interesting to see how your views change when you need to defend a UKIP MEP :P

---

I don't see how my view has changed at all.

I've said pretty clearly that if a threat can be identified as a genuine threat (which would require investigation) then of course action should be taken - in the case of Jane Collins, if the Police have installed buttons then that would suggest that is the case. In the case of an idiot or drunken lout shouting it in an airport as a joke, of course they should be looked at: but I don't see why that should require a heavy handed arrest when they were just being idiotic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I don't see how my view has changed at all.

I've said pretty clearly that if a threat can be identified as a genuine threat (which would require investigation) then of course action should be taken - in the case of Jane Collins, if the Police have installed buttons then that would suggest that is the case. In the case of an idiot or drunken lout shouting it in an airport as a joke, of course they should be looked at: but I don't see why that should require a heavy handed arrest when they were just being idiotic.

---

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...65#post8044265

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

So yeah on reflection, i'm for all speech being allowed.

---

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post8266720

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If something is a direct threat and can be judged to be serious, then action should be taken by the state.

---

That's quite clearly a change of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...65#post8044265

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post8266720

That's quite clearly a change of view.

---

No it's not.

There's clearly a world of difference between a druken lout in an airport standing with his mates who shouts "BOMB" and laughs about it and phone calls and letters being addressed to a residence threatening to kill somebody for speaking out over something.

In the case with the airport, do I think it wise to have the airport go over and investigate? Sure. But do I think it correct and appropiate for a team of airport Police to go over with their machine guns and wrestle the man to the ground and detain under the Terrorism Act? No.

In the case with Jane Collins, do I think it wise for the Police to investigate? Absolutely. Do I think it is appropiate for the Police to make an arrest if they feel the threats are genuine and pose a risk to the safety of an individual? Yes.

Those are pretty clear differences to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

No it's not.

There's clearly a world of difference between a druken lout in an airport standing with his mates who shouts "BOMB" and laughs about it and phone calls and letters being addressed to a residence threatening to kill somebody for speaking out over something.

In the case with the airport, do I think it wise to have the airport go over and investigate? Sure. But do I think it correct and appropiate for a team of airport Police to go over with their machine guns and wrestle the man to the ground and detain under the Terrorism Act? No.

In the case with Jane Collins, do I think it wise for the Police to investigate? Absolutely. Do I think it is appropiate for the Police to make an arrest if they feel the threats are genuine and pose a risk to the safety of an individual? Yes.

Those are pretty clear differences to me.

---

Ignore the airport example. It's irrelevant now.

You said a year ago you think all speech should be allowed. All. You even italicised 'all' to emphasise it.

Now you are saying you think some speech should have action taken upon it. Some = Not All. Therefore your view has changed. It's pretty obvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Ignore the airport example. It's irrelevant now.

You said a year ago you think all speech should be allowed. All. You even italicised 'all' to emphasise it.

Now you are saying you think some speech should have action taken upon it. Some = Not All. Therefore your view has changed. It's pretty obvious.

---

No my friend, I just think you're disappointed because you thought you had me yet on hearing me explain the differences and circumstances you've realised that actually one can take a balanced view of civil liberties and law and order. Nice try though!

What I just said makes absolute sense and strikes a balance between a genuine threat (which FoS doesn't cover) and a non-threat (which FoS does cover) ... which is why you've dropped the airport example because my explanation was so good at explaining the differences to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

No my friend, I just think you're disappointed because you thought you had me yet on hearing me explain the differences and circumstances you've realised that actually one can take a balanced view of civil liberties and law and order. Nice try though!

What I just said makes absolute sense and strikes a balace between a genuine threat (which FoS doesn't cover) and a non-threat (which FoS does cover) ... which is why you've dropped the airport example because my explanation was so good at explaining the differences to you.

---

Are you reading my posts?

Let me explain this point by point.

I linked you to a post of you saying:

Quote:

---

So yeah on reflection, i'm for all speech being allowed.

---

Yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Are you reading my posts?

Let me explain this point by point.

I linked you to a post of you saying:

Yes?

---

It should be allowed, yeah because after all you can interpret many things as a death threat but as I said earlier (imagine two people arguing and one shouts in anger "I'LL KILL YOU IF YOU DO THAT AGAIN"), these things should be judged on a case by case basis as clearly some threats don't endanger life where as some threats are genuine and do. But if it's a genuine death threat where by somebody is about to take a life and act on that threat, and the Police have found that to be the case, then obviously that's where the state steps in.

Jesus F Christ, it's not that hard to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It should be allowed, yeah because after all you can interpret many things as a death threat but as I said earlier, these things should be judged on a case by case basis as clearly some threats don't endanger life where as some threats are genuine and do. But if it's a genuine death threat where by somebody is about to take a life and act on that threat, and the Police have found that to be the case, then obviously that's where the state steps in.

Jesus F Christ, it's not that hard to understand.

---

So your views have changed, you no longer think that all speech should be allowed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So your views have changed, you no longer think that all speech should be allowed?

---

All speech should be allowed, although when a genuine threat of murder can be identified via speech then the Police should of course act to pre-empt such violence taking place. The speech is merely the indicator of what may be about to happen, not the actual crime itself. I am worried about the genuine threat of violence taking place rather than the speech itself.

I'd have more luck debating this with a new-born chimp, I mean honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

All speech should be allowed, although when a genuine threat of murder can be identified via speech then the Police should of course act to pre-empt such violence taking place. The speech is merely the indicator of what may be about to happen, not the actual crime itself. I am worried about the genuine threat of violence taking place rather than the speech itself.

I'd have more luck debating this with a new-born chimp, I mean honestly.

---

Are you being serious? Do you realise when you say 'although' and say the exact opposite, that actually means something, right?

How can you say all speech should be allowed, and then say in the same thread that action should be taken on serious death threats?

I'm literally astounded.
@djclune; @Jellyfish; @FlyingJesus; @scottish; @buttons; - It's not just me, is it?

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

"I'm not racist, but..."

im not gay but i would give undertaker a good seeing to

punish all death threats regardless of where they come from. tis the only way!

It seems pretty obvious to me that what I object to isn't the speech, but the genuine potential of violence occurring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

"I'm not racist, but..."

---

Who is that supposed to be? Me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

It seems pretty obvious to me that what I object to isn't the speech, but the genuine potential of violence occurring.



Who is that supposed to be? Me?

---

No, but it's what you're acting like.

People that say 'I'm not homophobic, but...' always end up saying a homophobic sentence. Likewise with the racism. You're saying, 'I agree with free speech for all, but...'

You're just contradicting yourself completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

No, but it's what you're acting like.

People that say 'I'm not homophobic, but...' always end up saying a homophobic sentence. Likewise with the racism. You're saying, 'I agree with free speech for all, but...'

You're just contradicting yourself completely.

---

I don't see why you can't understand this.

I oppose hate speech or anti-free speech laws because they seek to punish speech for being speech. I don't oppose Police investigating a genuine threat against the life of an individual though because the speech is merely an indicator/evidence that violence (an actual crime, not merely uttering a word the government doesn't approve of) is about to occur. It's the violence or potential of violence itself which is the problem, not the speech. Hence why I oppose anti-free speech laws and support freedom of speech & expression.

And it's blindlingly obvious with the example that you brought up about airport security vs direct death threats.

So why have you said in the past that if someone is to threaten to rape/kill/torture a 2 year old girl, then they shouldn't be punished because it's a 'slippery slope'. Is that not an indicator that violence is about to occur?

You're full of contradictions, it's unbelievable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

So why have you said in the past that if someone is to threaten to rape/kill/torture a 2 year old girl, then they shouldn't be punished because it's a 'slippery slope'. Is that not an indicator that violence is about to occur?

You're full of contradictions, it's unbelievable.

---

I don't recall defending that. Have you got a link to that claim?

But again, you've not understood what I am saying. If a 2-year old was threatened like that, it wouldn't be the speech I wanted made illegal because it's just words: it'd be the fact that violence was about to occur to that 2-year old which would be what i'd be concerned about.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...=790098&page=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Are you being serious? Do you realise when you say 'although' and say the exact opposite, that actually means something, right?

How can you say all speech should be allowed, and then say in the same thread that action should be taken on serious death threats?

I'm literally astounded.
@djclune; @Jellyfish; @FlyingJesus; @scottish; @buttons; - It's not just me, is it?

"I'm not homophobic, but..."

"I'm not racist, but..."

---

Haha, don't worry it's not just you. Tom's already got a great quote of Dan saying he's for freedom as long as they're doing what he likes :P

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I don't see why you can't understand this.

I oppose hate speech or anti-free speech laws because they seek to punish speech for being speech. I don't oppose Police investigating a genuine threat against the life of an individual though because the speech is merely an indicator/evidence that violence (an actual crime, not merely uttering a word the government doesn't approve of) is about to occur. It's the violence or potential of violence itself which is the problem, not the speech. Hence why I oppose anti-free speech laws and support freedom of speech & expression.

And it's blindlingly obvious with the example that you brought up about airport security vs direct death threats.

---

Ah so you're only blindly following one way or the other in instances which you like. For example, I remember you calling people hypocrites when people were opposed to that christian couple that turned away the gay couple from their b&b saying that if we disagreed with that we must disagree with the free market. Yet here you're picking and choosing to suit yourself. It is amusing to watch.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...=790098&page=2

---

Caught red handed. Great work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

Haha, don't worry it's not just you. Tom's already got a great quote of Dan saying he's for freedom as long as they're doing what he likes :P

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djclune

Ah so you're only blindly following one way or the other in instances which you like. For example, I remember you calling people hypocrites when people were opposed to that christian couple that turned away the gay couple from their b&b saying that if we disagreed with that we must disagree with the free market. Yet here you're picking and choosing to suit yourself. It is amusing to watch.

---

Yeah..... and what is your point or comparison to prove me wrong there?

I stand by the rights of private property to turn away who they like, indeed I said in the thread Kardan quoted that if an airport (which should be properly private with private security) wanted to clamp down harshly on idiots who shout BOMB then that'd be completely up to them, even if I think that a drunken fool shouting it in an airport doesn't warrant a huge overreaction.

I mean, should Westboro Baptist Church be arrested for what they say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...=790098&page=2

---

So you believe troll comments on the internet should all be arrestable offences? So if somebody tweets Tom Daley and says something like "you ******* ****** you deserve to die" they should then be arrested by the Police?

There's a difference, which the Police look into, between genuine threats and non-genuine threats. In the case of that Tom Daley example, I would on the face of it take it as a non-threat where as say if he had letters sent to his address saying "IM GOING TO KILL YOU" then on the face of it that would be taken as a genuine threat.

But neither you or The Don have tackled what I have said about the speech being the crime as opposed to the potential violence.

My favourite part of your post is how you ignore the comments about the 2 year old girl but start to talk about Twitter and Tom Daley. Nobody has even mentioned that.

- - - Updated - - -

And I also forgot that genuine murderers have the decency to post a letter rather than tweeting their threats. /s