mikeymike100

As of February 28, 2025, the Associated Press (AP) is not banned from White House press briefings in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. They retain their credentials to enter the White House complex and can still attend and participate in the daily briefings open to credentialed press. However, they are banned from other exclusive presidential events, specifically Oval Office ceremonies, Air Force One travel, and similar pooled press opportunities outside the briefing room.

There was a huge cover up, to try and stop the police and judiciary from doing their job in Rotherham and other places. It was done to stop the police and judiciary from being called racist and not offend the Pakistani muslim communities. There’s also evidence of deliberate suppression to protect political or social interests. In Rotherham, Louise Casey’s 2015 report found a council culture of silencing whistleblowers and covering up abuse to avoid damaging the town’s reputation or sparking riots. A senior officer reportedly admitted the abuse had been ongoing for 30 years but was ignored because "with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out." Similar patterns emerged elsewhere, suggesting a systemic reluctance to confront the scale of the problem. Now somebody is going to ask 'what evidence' no doubt, so....... Louise Casey’s 2015 Report on Rotherham Source: The report, titled Inspection into the Governance of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, was commissioned by the UK government following the 2014 Alexis Jay report, which exposed the scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham—over 1,400 victims abused between 1997 and 2013. Findings: Casey documented a pervasive culture of denial and suppression within Rotherham Council and, to an extent, its police force. The report explicitly states that council officials and senior leaders were aware of the abuse but actively avoided addressing it due to fears of damaging the town's reputation and stoking community tensions. Key Evidence: Interviews with council staff revealed a "culture of silencing" where whistleblowers were discouraged or punished for raising concerns about grooming gangs. For instance, one unnamed official reported being told to "keep quiet" about the ethnicity of perpetrators to avoid "rocking the multicultural boat." Casey cited evidence of files and reports on CSE going missing or being deliberately suppressed. A notable example was the disappearance of a 2002 draft report by a council researcher, which identified Pakistani heritage men as the primary perpetrators but was never published after senior officials intervened. The report quotes a senior officer (anonymized but implied to be from South Yorkshire Police) admitting that the abuse was known for "30 years" but was deliberately ignored because "with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out." This reflects a calculated choice to prioritize social cohesion over victim protection. Testimonies from Whistleblowers and Victims Jayne Senior: A youth worker in Rotherham who managed the Risky Business project, Senior provided evidence to both the Jay and Casey inquiries. She reported submitting detailed logs of abuse—naming perpetrators and linking them to Pakistani Muslim networks—to police and council officials from the late 1990s onward. She testified that her warnings were repeatedly dismissed, and she faced intimidation to stop her work. In her 2016 book Broken and Betrayed, she claims police told her explicitly that pursuing these cases could "upset the Pakistani community." Victim Accounts: Survivors like "Emma" (a pseudonym used in media reports) told the BBC and The Times that police refused to act on their complaints in the early 2000s, with one officer allegedly saying, "We don’t want to cause a race riot." These accounts suggest a pattern of suppression driven by fear of public backlash. South Yorkshire Police Admissions Operation Stovewood: Following the scandal, the National Crime Agency’s investigation into historical Rotherham abuse uncovered internal police documents showing awareness of grooming patterns as early as the 1980s. A leaked 2010 memo from a senior officer acknowledged "systematic abuse by a small group of Asian males" but advised against public disclosure due to "potential community unrest." Chief Constable Testimony: During a 2016 parliamentary inquiry by the Home Affairs Select Committee, former South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable David Crompton admitted that officers had been instructed to tread carefully around ethnicity issues, citing "reputational risk" to the force and the town. Similar Patterns Elsewhere Rochdale: The 2023 independent review into Rochdale grooming scandals found that Greater Manchester Police (GMP) shelved a 2009 investigation (Operation Augusta) into similar gangs despite identifying 97 suspects, many of Pakistani descent. GMP later admitted this was partly due to "concerns about community relations" during a period of heightened racial tension post-2005 London bombings. Telford: A 2021 inquiry by Maggie Oliver, a former GMP detective turned whistleblower, revealed that West Mercia Police ignored intelligence about grooming by Pakistani men in the 2000s, with one officer reportedly stating, "We can’t be seen to target them—it’ll look bad." The inquiry estimated over 1,000 victims in Telford alone. Oldham: A 2022 review found that council leaders instructed police to downplay abuse reports in the early 2000s to avoid "provoking the far-right," according to internal correspondence cited in the report. Broader Context from Media and Investigations The Times Investigation (2011): Journalist Andrew Norfolk’s groundbreaking exposé linked the cover-up to a "fear of racism" among authorities. He cited confidential police sources who admitted that political pressure from Labour-led councils—dominant in northern towns like Rotherham—pushed for silence to maintain voter support in diverse constituencies. Home Office Suppression: A 2014 leaked draft of a Home Office report (later heavily redacted in its 2020 public version) allegedly contained a section on "political sensitivities" influencing police inaction, according to whistleblower claims reported by The Guardian in 2019. This evidence collectively points to a systemic reluctance—driven by political and social interests—to confront the grooming gang issue head-on. The fear of riots, reputational damage, and accusations of prejudice created an environment where suppression became a default response, delaying justice for victims and allowing the abuse to persist unchecked for years. While some argue this reflects incompetence rather than a coordinated conspiracy, the pattern across multiple towns suggests a deliberate choice to prioritize optics over accountability.

Correct, the war has been going on for three years now, all Biden did was support the war, by sending money and arms and eat his ice cream. Hundreds of thousands of people dead and no end in sight until Trump won the election and now the end is in sight!

Yes Red. The WH press room has 49 seats, for major outlets, but up to 70 people can get in standing room only. AP are allowed to attend. The Oval Office is considerably smaller. The Oval Office, located in the West Wing of the White House, is relatively small for a presidential workspace, measuring about 35 feet long and 29 feet wide. If it’s a standing event, such as a bill signing or a photo op, it can squeeze in more—maybe 30 to 40—though it’d feel packed. Press events often show this, with people shoulder-to-shoulder around the edges. AF1 has 13 seats reserved for the press. So having said that its up to President Trump and possibly Karoline who get to decide who can attend. As far as the 'exclusion' is concerned The White House, led by figures like Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, argued that AP’s stylebook—which shapes language for countless newsrooms—has been “weaponized” to push a partisan agenda, justifying the exclusion on AF1 and the Oval Office!

Infantile comment, from, ...you guessed it..an infant...😂,,a blind one....

Quit right, just Ignore the neanderthals, they are still sore that Trump won and is doing a fantastic job!!

Quite so , even though Biden was obviously in mental decline CNN commentators and contributors used the phrase "sharp as a tack" to describe Joe Biden at various points. During a June 2024 segment on CNN News Central, former Republican strategist Ana Navarro, a Biden supporter, described him as "sharp as a tack" while defending his mental acuity ahead of the presidential debate. Similarly, in an April 2024 interview on Fareed Zakaria GPS, actor Michael Douglas, prompted by Zakaria, said he’d heard from people that Biden was "sharp as a tack," a claim Zakaria did not challenge. Earlier, in February 2024, Democratic strategist Paul Begala told Anderson Cooper that people who’d worked with Biden found him "totally focused" and "very sharp," aligning with the narrative CNN often platformed.

AP have not been banned from the WH press briefings!

AP reporters can still attend press briefings in the White House briefing room, their exclusion is only from key presidential events, like the Oval Office or on board AF1. There is still freedom of the press!

That is some huge investment $500 Billion, excellent news!

They allow CNN in?

It's a privilege, not a right, to attend the press briefings or be on the Oval Office/AF1. President Trump, or Karoline, can invite or dis-invite who they like!

Well maybe you need........👓.

You are obviously getting confused with Michelle....Mike Obama...

Certainly the best looking First Lady ever!

You are correct, death penalty is mandatory in Singapore!

Once again the BBC 'bias' coming into question, this is happening regularly now with the BBC, must be on a par with CNN, thing is the BBC is supposed to impartial according to its charter, obviously its not!

0.05% is 1 person in 2000, so in the USA, that's around 165,000 people

IT is very suspect! It's much closer to 0.05% - 0.07%

Lexicographers write dictionaries, this guy is just writing common sense and is sad, that he has to!

2% is a highly inflated figure..........A more moderate range often cited by medical and advocacy groups, based on noticeable genital ambiguity at birth requiring specialist input, is 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 2,000 births (0.05% to 0.07%). This would suggest between 172,500 and 241,500 intersex individuals in the U.S. today. The Intersex Society of North America (now succeeded by InterACT) supported this range for clinically significant cases, though it acknowledged subtler variations might push the number higher.

It's sad that they have to define what 'man', or 'woman', or 'sex' is, everyone used to actually know it!

And or Indians....??

Yes, also airplanes and mob/cell phones!

Talking of ignorance, did you actually read the title and the article? Maybe you should at least try?