“I don’t think the police made a sufficient effort to attempt and trace this cousin, if there even is a cousin.”
Yes, but not to have taken this man at his word would have been “Islamophobic.”
“Taxi driver accused of grooming girl won’t face action after blaming cousin who was never found,” by Ian Johnson, Gazette Live, January 18, 2018:
A grooming probe against a taxi driver was dropped by police after he blamed his cousin – even though the relative may not even exist.
The married man was investigated for allegedly sending explicit messages to someone he thought was a 12-year-old girl.
It was also claimed that a discussion about meeting was held.
It is understood the ‘girl’ was actually a paedophile-hunting vigilante group.
The messages were allegedly sent using the man’s home Wi-Fi, on his iPhone and were traced to his IP address.
But Cleveland Police said there was “insufficient evidence” to prosecute him after the man – whose identity was withheld – blamed it on a cousin.
However that cousin was never found.
Rejecting the man’s bid for his taxi licence back, a Stockton Council committee cast doubt over the cousin’s existence.
Now one of the councillors who waded through evidence – including redacted police reports and victim statements – is calling for police to take another look at the case.
“I don’t think the police made a sufficient effort to attempt and trace this cousin, if there even is a cousin,” said Stockton Council’s Chris Clough.
“I would fully support the case being reviewed.”
Minutes from a behind-closed-doors hearing reveal that when police swooped on the man’s home they found he was in Pakistan.
Officers from the Police Online Investigation Team (POLIT) ordered his wife not to reveal police had been.
However she ignored the request, tipping him off before he arrived back on Teesside.
Minutes from the hearing last November said the man alleged his cousin was responsible for the messages after he been given an iPhone 6.
It added: “(The driver’s) explanation that he had given away an iPhone 6 to his cousin, as he needed to contact a sick relative, was not believable.”
The papers also claim the man gave an Imam in Pakistan an iPhone 7, taken out in his wife’s name, for which he was continuing to pay the contract.
Cleveland Police was unable to find the cousin while the taxi driver was also unable to locate him.
The minutes added: “(The man) did not produce any evidence to prove that his cousin actually existed. “…
mortimer says
The police should do a thorough investigation and GET THEIR MAN.
Cleveland Police, please, NO EXCUSES. Protect the children! Do your duty.
Prabh108 says
Was cousin wearing ‘invisibility cloak’ of Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling?
Polygamy is extremely dysgenic, disgusting and utterly repulsive.
Emulate the Vedic deities: One Deva eternally wedded with One Divine Devi plus One Companion Animal Plus One Conveyance and Fully Armed – this constitutes a Family.
Lebensraum for our Ahimsa milk-producing mammals. Reject Malthus. Embrace Light of Good Teacher/Guru. Life is designed for pleasure, bliss, ecstasy and euphoria. Reject demented desert creeds. Life in human form is rare gift.
excuse any typos
Study a bit of Aristotle people. It is not enough to survive: we must THRIVE.
Z says
And they wonder why vigilante groups have appeared
Cheer Bear Girl says
UK Police are useless and corrupt!
WorkingClassPost says
But they have lovely painted nails and they can spot an islamophobe from 25 miles away.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“a paedophile-hunting vigilante group”
Nice 🙂
Jinn and Tonic says
The vigilante group should use the John Stossel technique. They would have him dead to rights. That requires the cooperation of law enforcement though.
Karen says
“It is understood the ‘girl’ was actually a paedophile-hunting vigilante group.”
I’m sure the police will staunchly refuse to give any credibility to the activities of what they are calling a “vigilante” group. So, whoops, we can’t find the cousin; case closed.
BTW, is this a “vigilante” group? Have they extracted vengeance, or doled out extra-judicial justice? No. The Guardians are luring pervs to an arrest situation, and nothing more. To tag them as a vigilante group goes too far and is pejorative. This term, in my opinion, is being used to smear them, and the work they have taken on after decades of police inaction.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Agreed.
gravenimage says
Yes–all they are doing is exposing these pedophiles, then they turn them over to the police.
Mockingjay says
– A “non-existent cousin”…?
– WTF?
– The excuses for letting muslim perverts go free are getting a bit ridiculous, aren’t they?
LeftisruiningCanada says
“The police investigation has been brought to a close due to the telling of one lie by a muslim”
Karen says
Ironic, isn’t it?
I hope all the UK citizens who are getting friendly little visits from the police regarding their Islam-related social media posts use the techniques this lying liar used.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yeah, see how far it gets you if your name isn’t Muhammad Aikillem al-Yehudi or whatever.
“Sorry Officer, all those posts on Jihad Watch were done by my…cousin,”
“Obstructing the course of an investigation are we sonny, why don’t you come down the station with us for a few days, and we’ll show you our hospital……ity.”
Karen says
LOL! Yup, you’re probably right! 🙂
gravenimage says
Grimly hilarious!
gravenimage says
UK: Police drop investigation of Muslim for grooming girl for rape gang because he blamed his nonexistent cousin
………………….
Do British police *want* to be conned?
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
“Sheila Gunn Reid: Edmonton Mall “refugee” sex assault trial (Day 1)”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMgoxNO2Ejk
James says
In this case, in order to convict, proving that the messages were posted from a particular IP address via a wifi access point belonging to the suspect is not sufficient evidence.
So, possibly the police made the right call.
The issue is that you can give multiple persons your wifi access code, and they can each be individual responsible for the postings.
As owner of an internet connection, you dont have to prove your innocence, the prosecution must prove who actually sent the message.
LeftisruiningCanada says
This is a good point.
But finding the cousin, if one exists, would have been a nice gesture to suggest they care about convicting sexual predators.
Laurence Wilkinson says
Apparently they do. It was the cousin So if they locate the accused cousin. They will solve the case. If the cousin does not exist. Then the accused is charged with obstructing justice, and the original crime.
As we send multi-£millions of foreign aid to Pakistan. I am sure a few rupees into the right palm. in the registrar of births will discover his family connection….
James says
@LeftisruiningCanada
Disproving the existence of the cousin would help the prosecution a lot, but maybe not.
If the owner of the internet connection did not claim that the cousin did it, but merely pointed to the cousin as one other individual having the access code, locating the cousin would not necessarily prove that the owner himself sent the messages.
Why? Because provided that multiple persons can access the internet connection, the owner retains plausible deniability unless
the police relatively quickly secure all the equipment from the premises.
Even if the Muslim could somehow be convicted in this case, it would still be easy for him to remote control his home connection while on holidy in Pakistan or set up his home connection in such a way that pinpointing individual responsibility would be very difficult.
In all cases concerning an internet connection and multiple parties, police usually expeditiously seizes all evidence, and interrogate witnesses. If they fail to do so,
the owner of the internet connection gets off the hook unless he confesses.
And for the sake of due process, that’s not a bad state of affairs.
In any case, compelling a close relative to rat out his predatory male family will likely be impossible in these cases, so whether or not the Muslim did it, or he merely allowed his extended family to use his internet connection, securing a conviction will be virtually impossible.
LeftisruiningCanada says
All good points, and duly noted.
The main issue would seem to be that the suspect himself pointed to the cousin…and only the cousin, from what we can learn in the news article.
If the cousin does not actually exist, then not only do we have a suspect who was lying to the police, but also a lack of other potential suspects for him to blame the messages on.
From what i see in the news article, it seems that they have determined that the messages came from a certain iphone in particular, which may lessen the importance of multiple persons being able to access the wifi network.
dunno…sure seems fishy to me.