Saw the article headline in RothBradpol about an interview with Rik and was interested to know what he had to say to Akhar’s organ.
So had a look and was amazed to see that despite the title he has no comment from Rik. I pointed this out to the blog, but for some reason the refused to publish me, despite it being perfectly well written and without abusive terms.
I also noted the usual misogynistic rubbish we have come to expect from Akhtar, referring to the Yvonne Ridley as the “Dumpy Sorceress”.
Akhtar really has however got a thing from Sarah Champion and says, “Sarah is not called ‘Champion’ without good reason.” Given her general sensitivity to what she sees as abusive terms, I wonder how she feels about having a “Champion, champion” who is so quick to abuse her opponents? Will she have a word with Akhtar or is she too desperate for the biraderi vote?
For those who think it’s me being offensive about Akhtar being the driving force and de facto editor of RothBradPol I suggest you browse the blog and see some of the character assassinations of people we know he seriously dislikes, and the sycophancy from those we know to be his acolytes.
Also look at the article and the section from Akhtar:
Exposing the lies and half truths on Child exploitation http://goo.gl/d4JoCL
It is quite a denial and justification for child care in Rotherham. The quality of the writing is fairly good, but a little bureaucratic in style.
Those who know Akhtar will appreciate that he is probably using officers again to write his very personal press releases. He isn’t the Cabinet member responsible for talking about sex grooming, so the whole set up of this little gem is contrived to get him around Cabinet rules.
As RothBrad Pol is a contrivance to get him around the Labour Group decision to not allow members to contribute to RothPol, and his steaming temper which prevents him from keeping his mouth shut.
There is reason why he isn’t trusted as a spokesperson on this subject, indeed why he has now been forced to make his Twitter account for friends only is his ability to put his foot in in his mouth.
At the end of the “Exposing the lies and half truths on Child exploitation” article he states
“Finally I challenge anyone to produce a single piece of evidence to support the outrageous allegations that ” certain aggressive cllrs stopped investigation” These allegations are total lies”.
Well we now know of at least one occasion when someone who became a Councillor appears to have worked a deal to prevent a child abuser being arrested. Isn’t that awfully similar to stopping an investigation, after all for some years that was the result.