Trump’s Lies About James Comey Keep Unraveling

The president said his first FBI director lost the confidence of the rank-and-file. Newly released government documents prove otherwise.

BY SUSAN HENNESSEY, BENJAMIN WITTES-AUGUST 18, 2017

Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the White House claimed that it wasn’t only the president who had lost confidence in Comey but the rank and file of the FBI as well.

Whether this attack on Comey was accurate or not matters for reasons that are broader than defending Comey’s legacy. President Donald Trump and his staff put this claim forward as a primary reason for and defense of his firing of Comey — despite other statements that indicated that the firing had more to do with his anger about the Russia investigation. Evidence undercutting the notion of staffwide dissatisfaction would not merely implicate Trump in a smear of Comey; it would further suggest that this talking point was a pretext intended to cover up some other motive.

In June, one of us set out to determine whether any data existed to support or refute the White House’s claims. Ben posited that FBI email correspondence to staff following Comey’s firing, as well as employee satisfaction survey data, would reveal whether there was any basis for the White House’s claims. So he submitted a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the data.

Apparently others were thinking along the same lines. Some of that employee survey data has now been released, and, lo and behold, it suggests overwhelming support among the rank and file for former Director Comey. The release came in response to a New York Times FOIA request, and we are still waiting for a response to Ben’s broader inquiry, which should shed further light on the subject.

But based on this release alone, we can say pretty definitively: The White House was lying.
The day after Comey’s dismissal, then-Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said:

The president, over the last several months, lost confidence in Director Comey. The [Justice Department] lost confidence in Director Comey. Bipartisan members of Congress made it clear that they had lost confidence in Director Comey. And most importantly, the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their director.

At the time, a reporter challenged Sanders’s claim, reading her a quote from a special agent in the FBI who asserted, “The vast majority of the bureau is in favor of Director Comey. This is a total shock. This is not supposed to happen. The real losers here are 20,000 front-line people in the organization because they lost the only guy working here in the past 15 years who actually cared about them.” Sanders replied, “Look, we’ve heard from countless members of the FBI that say very different things.”

The next day, Sanders doubled down by claiming that she had personally “heard from countless members of the FBI that are grateful and thankful for the president’s decision.” Underscoring the apparent extent of dislike for Comey at the bureau, Sanders said, “I certainly heard from a large number of individuals — and that’s just myself — and I don’t even know that many people in the FBI.”

Trump also pushed the line that Comey had lost the confidence of the rank and file, telling NBC’s Lester Holt that the FBI was in a state of turmoil. “You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil — less than a year ago. It hasn’t recovered from that,” he said.

Even as the White House said these things, evidence to the contrary was pouring out of the bureau. After the firing, some FBI agents reportedly changed their social media profile pictures to images of Comey in a display of support typically shown to colleagues killed in the line of duty. Pictures later emerged from FBI Family Day of employees wearing T-shirts that read “#ComeyIsMyHomey.”
Less than 48 hours after Comey’s firing, FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe contradicted the White House’s claims in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does to this day,” he said.

McCabe’s assessment was borne out on op-ed pages and in statements by individual FBI agents and FBI alumni. Joshua Campbell, an FBI agent and former special assistant to Comey, wrote powerfully of his “servant leadership,” a “legacy of leadership and service [that] will permeate our great institution for generations to come,” and of the “sadness, anger and confusion” that swept the FBI upon his firing. On Lawfare, Nora Ellingsen, a former FBI counterterrorism analyst, wrote that “while Comey was a controversial figure in the larger political system and among Justice Department officials, he was not a controversial figure at the FBI at all.”

Comey himself addressed the White House’s accusations directly in his congressional testimony the following month, saying that after his unceremonious firing, “the administration then chose to defame [him] and more importantly the FBI, by saying the organization was poorly led.” Comey was blunt: “Those were lies, plain and simple.”

The annual survey numbers show that Comey was right. In order to understand the data, consider the scoring criteria. A score of less than 3 indicates “potential areas of concern which could worsen if not addressed”; a score between 3 and 3.8 indicates “positive feedback in these areas with potential for improvement”; and a score between 3.81 and 5 “indicates success in those areas.”
So how did Comey do?

When queried on level of respect for FBI senior executives, including the director, the average scores in FBI field offices — that is, among “rank and file” FBI employees — were 3.88 in 2014, 4.19 in 2015, 4.25 in 2016, and 3.97 in 2017. When asked whether the FBI’s senior executives, including the director, maintain high standards of honesty and integrity, the average scores in FBI field offices were 3.88 in 2014, 4.04 in 2015, 4.1 in 2016, and 3.96 in 2017. In other words, confidence in senior FBI leadership remained solidly in the “indicates success in those areas” category.

On his personal evaluation, Comey was scored on 72 distinct criteria. He scored above a 4 on 68 of them. He scored above a 4.5 on 33 indicators. In other words, confidence in senior FBI leadership remained solidly in the “indicates success in those areas” category. These aren’t the numbers of someone struggling to control an agency in turmoil.

In 2016, employees evaluating the statement “I’m on board with the Director’s vision and ideas” gave an average of 4.51. In 2017, when asked to evaluate the statement “I am inspired by the Director’s vision and leadership,” the average score was 4.16.

In 2017, in evaluations of the director by his immediate staff, they rated the statement “I have trust and confidence in this person as a leader” at 4.47.

From 2015 to 2017, Comey attained high scores in a dozen categories related to his integrity, fairness, and representation of the FBI.

From 2015 to 2017, Comey attained high scores in a dozen categories related to his integrity, fairness, and representation of the FBI. The data does reflect some of the controversy that marked the end of Comey’s tenure. In 2015 and 2016, employees rated Comey at 4.6 and 4.79 respectively for “acknowledges when he or she has made a mistake.” In 2017, following criticism of Comey’s public comments on the Hillary Clinton email investigation, his staff gave him a 4.02.

Of course, the survey could mask substantial pockets of discontent — those “countless” individuals Sanders claims spoke to her against Comey and in support of Trump’s actions. The rest of the data Ben requested in his FOIA will shed additional light on the matter.

But these numbers clearly indicate that it is worth asking the newly minted press secretary to revisit her statements from back in May. Can she be more specific on whom she spoke to and when? Might the White House now admit that the president formed a dramatically mistaken impression of the state of morale at the FBI under Comey’s leadership — or that the state of morale actually had nothing to do with his action against the director at all? And is the president prepared to go on the record to correct his attacks on Comey in light of the evidence they were false?

Or perhaps the answers are too obvious to even bother asking.

Photo credit: ANDREW HARRER-POOL/Getty Images

Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon fired

By Jeremy Diamond, Kaitlan Collins and Elizabeth Landers, CNN- Fri August 18, 2017

(CNN)President Donald Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon has been fired, multiple White House officials told CNN on Friday.

Sources told CNN that Bannon's ouster had been in the works for two weeks and a source said that while Bannon was given the option to resign, he was ultimately forced out. White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed Bannon's departure, but claimed the decision for him to leave was mutual.

"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day. We are grateful for his service and wish him the best," Sanders said in a statement.

The President has privately stewed over Bannon in recent days, including Thursday night from his golf course in New Jersey. He was furious with his chief strategist after he was quoted in an interview with the American Prospect contradicting Trump on North Korea and asserting that Bannon was able to make personnel changes at the State Department.

Bannon's exit comes just seven months after Trump took office and three weeks after retired Gen. Kelly took over as chief of staff, looking to instill order in a chaotic White House beset by internal divisions, staff infighting and a storm of controversies.

Bannon's exit meant one of the White House's most controversial staffers, the man generally perceived as the driving force behind Trump's "nationalist" ideology, would no longer be at the center of the Trump universe.

Bannon joined Trump's campaign last year, moving from the sidelines as one of Trump's top cheerleaders to a position atop his campaign apparatus.

He did not travel with the President during the first week of what White House officials described as a "working vacation" at Trump's golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey. Instead Bannon remained in Washington where he worked out of a temporary office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building as the West Wing underwent renovations.

Bannon was supposed to be fired two weeks ago, a White House official told CNN's Jeff Zeleny, but it was put off.

CNN reports the President equivocated after an initial plan was to fire Bannon and then-Chief of Staff Reince Priebus at same time, the official says, because Rep. Mark Meadows, the influential chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and others urged Trump to keep him on board.

The interview this week was enough for Meadows to change his view, a person close to him says.

What Bannon is thinking

After his firing Friday, Bannon spoke to The Weekly Standard, making a pointed case that the Trump presidency that his brand of populist, right-wing conservatives helped make possible is now "over."

"We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency," Bannon told The Weekly Standard. "But that presidency is over. It'll be something else. And there'll be all kinds of fights, and there'll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over."

The question now is whether Bannon will be an ally or a thorn in the side of the Trump administration outside the White House, where he has apparently already returned to his role as head of Breitbart, the right-wing news site he ran until he joined Trump's campaign a year ago.

However that unfolds, Bannon is expected to remain tightly connected to the billionaire conservative father-daughter pair Robert and Rebekah Mercer, who are major investors in Breitbart News and top Trump donors.

Bannon returned to the role of executive chairman of Breitbart News and chaired the evening editorial meeting, the publication's White House correspondent reported Friday evening.

Both Bannon and Trump spoke with the Mercers in recent days, a White House official said.

A White House ally who has talked to Bannon said the outgoing chief strategist does not want to go to war with Trump. Bannon is making that clear to close associates in response to Breitbart editor Joel Pollak tweeting #WAR.

"That's not where Steve's head is at," this source said. "He's been fighting for the exact same things that the President has been fighting for."

This source quoted Bannon as saying "I want (Trump) to succeed."

Still, as his firing appeared increasingly likely, Bannon downplayed concerns about being booted from the White House and argued that he would be a more powerful force from the outside, sources close to Bannon said.

He has privately told associates he would return to his "killing machine" -- Breitbart -- if he was forced to leave for the White House and has said he would be able to more easily target some of his White House rivals -- like chief economic adviser Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster -- from the outside, the sources said.

Bannon has also worked in recent weeks to put the pieces in place for his agenda to live on without him at the White House, working on hardline trade initiatives in his final weeks.

After pushing the President to start the process of investigating Chinese trade abuses, Bannon also laid the groundwork for a series of aggressive trade actions designed to impose a harder line against China, the sources said.

In his final days at the White House, Bannon was continuing to work up schedules for the rollout of trade initiatives that would come in September, long after he expected to be forced from the White House, the sources said.

"We're going to run the tables on these guys," Bannon told The American Prospect in an interview earlier this week.

A quick and contentious tenure

Bannon's turbulent White House tenure was marked by controversy.

In the administration, Bannon frequently butted heads with other advisers to the President, feuding with son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, chief economic adviser Cohn and other more moderate members of the President's administration whom Bannon branded as "globalists."

Bannon was often suspected by colleagues of badmouthing them to reporters and he rubbed colleagues the wrong way by attempting to ramrod his ideological positions.

"Steve was never a team player," a senior administration official said.

Bannon viewed himself as the populist defender of Trump's campaign promises in the White House, working daily to tick off items from the list of promises that hung on the walls of his West Wing office.

Bannon focused especially on pushing a hardline trade agenda, recently working to cue up a series of trade policies to aggressively target Chinese foreign trade abuses and work toward rebalancing the trading relationship between the US and China.

Bannon was an influential voice inside the White House, feeding and encouraging Trump's nationalist and populist instincts.

In the process, he garnered an infamous reputation as a puppet master pulling the strings in the Oval Office, with pop culture portrayals ranging from the moniker "President Bannon" to his depiction as the grim reaper on "Saturday Night Live." Those portrayals -- coupled with a Time Magazine cover that declared him "the great manipulator" -- often angered Trump, who chafes at being outshined.

But the reality is that while Bannon was an influential figure at Trump's side, he was hardly the all-powerful aide so many sought to portray him as.

He did not always come out victorious in his feuds with fellow White House aides and Trump did not always heed his counsel.

Still, Bannon served as a daily reminder to Trump of his populist campaign promises and his bellicose political instincts. Bannon's rivals in the White House argued that he encouraged the President's worst instincts, while his allies said he was keeping the soul of Trump's movement alive.

The fiery chief strategist also led the charge against proposals by national security officials to deepen US military involvement in Afghanistan, feuding vocally during meetings of the National Security Council with McMaster and working behind the scenes to water down hawkish proposals for troop increases and a longer-term US military commitment.

The President is meeting Friday with members of his national security team at Camp David to consider options for the future of the US war in Afghanistan as he nears a decision, but Bannon is not there -- and was not scheduled to be, based on a list of attendees the White House sent out Friday morning.

This story is breaking and will update with additional news.

CORRECTION: This graphic has been updated to reflect Shaub's duration on staff for the Trump administration. He was on staff 180 days.

CLARIFICATION: This graphic has been updated to clarify Scaramucci's and Comey's duration on staff based on the their start and end dates. They stayed on staff 11 days and 110 days, respectively.

CNN's Jim Acosta, Jeff Zeleny, Miranda Green, Gloria Borger and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.

Heather Heyer’s mother just brutally unmasked Trump’s racism and cruelty

Susan Bro, the mother of Heather Heyer, who was killed on Aug. 12 in Charlottesville while protesting white nationalists, urged others to fight injustice and speak up. (The Washington Post)

By Greg Sargent August 18 at 10:41 AM

THE MORNING PLUM:

In a remarkable new turn in the Charlottesville saga, the mother of the young woman who was murdered for protesting racism and white supremacy said on Friday morning that she will not speak to President Trump. In so doing, she shed a whole new light on Trump’s racism and cruelty — and on the profound abdication of basic decency and presidential duty at the core of Trump’s response to the racial violence that erupted last weekend and that could continue.

Speaking on “Good Morning America,” Susan Bro, the mother of Heather Heyer, said the White House had tried to reach her with “frantic” messages, presumably to set up a call with Trump, but added that she would refuse any communications now that Trump has suggested a moral equivalence between the racists, Nazis, and white supremacists in Charlottesville and those protesting them:

QUESTION: Have you talked to him directly yet? 

SUSAN BRO: I have not. And now I will not. At first, I just missed his calls. The first call looked like it actually came during the funeral. I didn’t even see that message. There were three more frantic messages from press secretaries throughout the day. And I didn’t know why. That had been on Wednesday. And I was home recovering from the exhaustion of the funeral. So I thought, ‘well, I’ll get to him later.’ And then I had more meetings to establish her foundation. So I hadn’t really watched the news until last night.
And I’m not talking to the president now. I’m sorry. After what he said about my child. It’s not that I saw somebody else’s tweets about him. I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters, like Ms. Heyer, with the KKK and the white supremacists. …You can’t wash this one away by shaking my hand and saying, ‘I’m sorry.’

On Monday, after Trump had read aloud a string of words that did call out white supremacy by name and denounced racism as evil, Bro released a statement thanking Trump for his comments. The next day, Trump held his now-infamous news conference, at which he reverted to blaming “both sides” for the racial violence and claimed that the white supremacists and Nazis had been treated “unfairly” by the media, conspicuously avoiding unambiguous condemnation of them. After watching the clip of Trump — and it’s key that she watched the video, which vividly displayed the depravity and stubborn megalomania coursing through his remarks — Bro now has rescinded her thanks and won’t take his call.

Bro’s emotional response to Trump is a reminder that his reversion to his current reprehensible posture didn’t have to happen. While his flat condemnation of white supremacy did not undo the damage caused by his initial statement on Saturday blaming “many sides,” it largely said the right thing. Republicans were pleased and relieved by it. The mother of the young woman who died had thanked him for it.

But then Trump just had to make a large show of returning to his original position, dividing blame between white supremacists, Nazis and Klansmen on one side, and those protesting their racism, hatred and belief in the inferiority of African Americans and Jews on the other. We know Trump did this at least in part because he did not want to be seen surrendering to pressure to single out racism and white supremacy for full blame. He was in a rage because he “felt he had already given too much ground to his opponents.” He didn’t want to deliver the statement condemning white supremacy because he was “loath to appear to be admitting a mistake.” It is utter madness that these sentiments played such an important role in shaping the presidential response at such a fraught moment of national tension and introspection.

Meanwhile, Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, is strutting around extolling the political brilliance of Trump’s Charlottesville response. Bannon did a media tour yesterday boasting that Trump’s escalating defense of Confederate statues is a political winner for him. Now Bannon adds to this in a  brash email to The Post:

“This past election, the Democrats used every personal attack, including charges of racism, against President Trump. He then won a landslide victory on a straightforward platform of economic nationalism.”

The idea that Trump won a landslide is an absurd lie, and the idea that Trump has any kind of agenda of “economic nationalism” to speak of is laughable. There are no trade or infrastructure plans (something progressives would actually like to see) in sight. The only real policies Trump has embraced that fit under what Bannon describes as “economic nationalism” are stepped-up deportations, slashing legal immigration and the thinly disguised Muslim ban. Indeed, it’s telling that Bannon defends Trump’s Charlottesville response by pointing to the alleged power of his alleged “economic nationalism” — it validates suspicions that this was always intended largely as a fig leaf for xenophobia and racism.

Bro’s appearance today throws all of this into even sharper relief. We expect presidents to recognize that their role carries with it obligations and duties to try to calm the antagonisms that are being unleashed at moments like this. That’s particularly true right now, with experts warning that Trump’s handling of Charlottesville’s aftermath could cause an escalation in white supremacist activity — meaning it could end up encouraging more violence and death. But Trump’s response at this critical moment is rooted largely in megalomania and a desire not to be seen capitulating, and his chief strategist is barely disguising his view that racial strife and turmoil are good for Trump politically.
As Bro’s new comments remind us, real people died in Charlottesville. Hopefully they will illustrate in a new way just how massive an abdication on the White House’s part all of this represents.

* TRUMP’S RACISM IMPERILS GOP AGENDA: The Post reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other senior Republicans are saying that Trump will make it harder to pass tax reform and other agenda items if he continues defending Confederate statues. This is a fun quote:

“It’s a pretty tough transition from ‘white supremacists aren’t so bad’ to ‘let’s do tax reform,’ ” Josh Holmes, a longtime McConnell ally, said in an interview.

Put that one in the time capsule.
* THE CONSTERNATION RUNS DEEP IN THE GOP: Politico reports that Republicans say Trump’s defense of Confederate statues comes at exactly the wrong moment, what with all the other important stuff that needs to get done right now:

Republicans are practically pulling their hair out … the party is gearing up for one of the most politically precarious legislative stretches in recent memory. In addition to the debt ceiling and tax reform, GOP leaders need to avert a government shutdown, strike a long-term spending deal with Democrats and pass a budget that appeases conservatives and moderate Republicans — all in the next couple months. There are also serious concerns about North Korean’s heightened aggression toward the U.S. 

And yet, rank-and-file Republicans have had to drop what they’re doing to repudiate Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville, as have Cabinet members and military officials.

But remember, chief Trump strategist Bannon keeps telling us how brilliant this strategy is.

* REPUBLICANS AGREE WITH TRUMP ON CHARLOTTESVILLE: A new Survey Monkey 
poll finds that 53 percent of Americans disagree with this Trump assertion about Charlottesville: “You had a group on one side that was bad, and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent.” Among independents, 59 percent disagree.

But 87 percent of Republicans agree with it, so the claim is having exactly its desired effect.
* GARY COHN IS STAYING — FOR NOW: The Post reports that Gary Cohn, a senior economic adviser to the White House, is “mortified” by Trump’s comments about Charlottesville. But he’s staying for the time being. Here’s why this matters:

The White House needs Congress to vote to raise the debt ceiling and clear the way for tax cuts in the next few weeks, measures that have split the Republican Party and could face cliffhanger votes. Without Cohn, “a very solid stabilizing force in the West Wing will be lost,” said Camden Fine, chief executive of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group in frequent contact with the Trump administration. “Bottom line — not good.”

Just what the White House needs right now — losing a “stabilizing” force at the moment when the deadline to raise the debt ceiling, and avoid default, looms.

* IT’S SINKING IN THAT TRUMP IS UNFIT: Paul Krugman notes that Charlottesville seems to have precipitated a recognition of Trump’s unfitness to serve that is broader than usual:

Journalists have stopped seizing on brief moments of not-craziness to declare Trump “presidential”; business leaders have stopped trying to curry favor by lending Trump an air of respectability; even military leaders have gone as far as they can to dissociate themselves from administration pronouncements. … Put it this way: “Not my president” used to sound like an extreme slogan. Now it has more or less become the operating principle for key parts of the U.S. system.

Of course, we’ve seen moments like this before, but Trump has (temporarily) quieted down and they have proven fleeting. Let’s hope we don’t see a similar reversion this time.

* TRUMP HIT BY BRUTAL MAGAZINE COVERS: Axios has graphics depicting three major magazine covers that all hit Trump’s racism: The New Yorker and the Economist both feature Trump alongside various depictions of Ku Klux Klan hoods. Time magazine’s cover blares: “Hate in America,” alongside an image that blends an American flag with a Nazi salute.

Of course, all this really means is that the weenie coastal media elite is in a tizzy about Trump, which only shows he’s doing something right.

* ROGER STONE EXPLAINS TRUMP’S REAL PROBLEM: Trump loyalist Roger Stone, explaining the chaos inside the White House, gives a remarkable quote to the Washington Examiner:

“If the president had surrounded himself with Trump loyalists who understand his constituency and the dynamics of the current political situation, instead of establishment types who are of the same mindset as Trump’s critics, perhaps he would not have these staff issues. When you hire gutless moderate Republicans, you shouldn’t be surprised when they act like moderate Republicans.”

Yeah, Trump’s real problem is that there aren’t enough sycophants around him who tell him he is always right, no matter how low he sinks. That’s the ticket!

What do we know about the ethnicity of sexual abuse gangs?

By Georgina Lee-18 AUG 2017

Sarah Champion, the Labour MP for Rotherham, resigned from her position as shadow women and equalities minister on Wednesday over what she called her “extremely poor choice of words” in an article she wrote for The Sun.

The piece was written after 17 men and one woman were found guilty of committing nearly 100 offences, including rape, against vulnerable women and girls in Newcastle.

Ms Champion’s article stated that “Britain has a problem with British Pakistani men raping and exploiting white girls”.
Is that a fair characterisation? FactCheck looks at the statistics relating to sexual abuse and grooming gangs.

The background

In recent years, there have been a number of high-profile cases in which groups of predominantly Asian men have been found exploiting girls and/or young women for sex.

In 2012, nine men were jailed for running an exploitation ring in Rochdale, abusing girls as young as 13. Eight of those men were of Pakistani origin; the remaining one was from Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, six men were convicted of abusing two girls in Rotherham between 1999 and 2001. All of the men convicted were British-Pakistani.

Types of sexual abuse by groups

In 2013, CEOP published a study looking at “contact sexual offending against children by non-related adults”. They found that there are two types of group-based abuse.

• “Type 1” group abuse involves targeting a victim, or victims, based on their vulnerability.

CEOP says: “The focus here appears to be on the sexual abuse of teenagers and young adults on the basis of their vulnerability, rather than as a result of a specific preferential sexual interest in children […]  CEOP assesses that type 1 offenders are unlikely to identify themselves as having a sexual interest in children, but molest children because they are vulnerable to sexual exploitation.”

• “Type 2” group abusers are defined as having “a longstanding sexual interest in children”.

Type 2 groups operate in a way that’s often characterised as a paedophile “ring”. In other words, these offenders are not simply targeting children because they are vulnerable, but because they are children.

What do we know about the ethnicity of group abusers?

The latest data we have on this is from the 2013 CEOP study. It reports 57 cases of Type 1 group abuse in 2012, and police provided ethnicity data on 52 of these.

Half of those Type 1 cases involved all-Asian groups. 21 per cent were all-white groups, and 17 per cent were groups containing multiple ethnicities.

75 per cent of recorded Type 1 group abusers, who target victims based on their vulnerability, were Asian. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5 per cent of the UK’s population are Asian.

17 per cent of Type 1 offenders were white, compared to 86 per cent of the UK population.
There were six recorded cases of Type 2 group abuse.

100 per cent of recorded Type 2 group offenders, who abuse children because of long-standing paedophilic interest, are white.

Type 1 groups tend to be larger: the majority involve groups of four abusers, compared to Type 2 abusers, who tend to act in pairs. That means in terms of raw figures, there are more Asian men carrying out group abuse than white men (229 compared to 70).

It’s worth saying that CEOP itself doesn’t believe this data is a comprehensive picture of group abuse and exploitation in the UK. They warn against drawing too many conclusions from this data.

What about exploitation by lone abusers?

Abuse by lone offenders is much more common than abuse by groups. According to CEOP, “25 [police] forces identified a total of 2,120 lone perpetrators involved in either suspected or confirmed cases of non-familial contact child sexual abuse in 2012. In comparison, all 31 forces reported a cumulative total of 65 group and gang associated offences.”

CEOP’s report doesn’t include data on the ethnicity of lone child abusers, and the government doesn’t publish comparable information.

But we do know that while Asian men are disproportionately represented among group abusers, this is not the most common type of child sexual abuse recorded in the UK.

FactCheck verdict

Self-evidently, sexual abuse of children and young people by groups of men – including Asian men – happens in the UK.

According to the best available data, Asian men make up 75 per cent of “Type 1” group abusers, who target children and young women because they are vulnerable.

But white men make up 100 per cent of recorded “Type 2” group abusers, who target children because of a longstanding paedophilic interest.

From the information available, we know that actual number of group abusers who are Asian is around three times higher than the number of group abusers who are white.


However, it’s worth remembering that child sexual abuse by lone offenders is more common than abuse by groups. What we don’t know is how many of those lone offenders are white or Asian. We should be wary of drawing too many conclusions.

India: 10-year-old rape victim denied abortion gives birth by C-section

(File) School students hold placards and march in a rally marking International Day on Prevention of Child Abuse in Bhubaneshwar, India, Friday, Nov. 19, 2010. Source: AP Photo/Biswaranjan Rout

18th August 2017

A 10-year-old rape victim in India, who was denied permission to have an abortion, has given birth to a girl.

The baby, weighing 2.5 kilograms, was delivered by Caesarean section in the northern city of Chandigarh on Thursday, a month after the Indian Supreme Court denied an abortion request.

According to the BBC, the young girl is not aware that she has given birth. During her pregnancy she was told her bulge was because she had a big stone in her stomach.

Both the mother and the newborn are healthy and in a stable condition.

The young girl was allegedly raped repeatedly over seven months by her uncle, who has been arrested. Her family only discovered she was pregnant after she complained of stomach pains and was taken to a local doctor.

By the time the pregnancy was discovered, the 20-week limit for a termination had already been passed.

SEE ALSO: Child sex crimes surge 70pc in India but topic remains taboo

A local court in Chandigarh turned down the abortion plea on the grounds that she was too far into her pregnancy after a doctors’ panel said that termination of the pregnancy would be “too risky”. Later, the Supreme Court also refused to allow an abortion for her on similar grounds.

Neither the 10-year-old or her parents, who have said from the beginning that they do not want anything to do with the baby, have seen the newborn.

The infant will be looked after by the child welfare committee until she is put up for adoption, an official told the BBC.

The case grabbed headlines in India where terminations after 20-weeks are outlawed unless the mother’s life is at risk.

Despite the mother’s young age – the youngest ever case of a child giving birth, according to officials – and the violent nature of conception, the abortion was still not permitted.

SEE ALSO: India: 10-year-old raped by stepfather allowed to abort child

There has been a several petitions issued to the Supreme Court in recent years from child rape survivors seeking to end their pregnancy after the 20-week cut off. In many cases, the young victims are not mature enough to be aware of their condition, resulting in pregnancies being discovered late.

In this case, the parents were unaware of their daughter’s situation as she was a “healthy and chubby child”, and they could never have imagined that their 10-year-old would be pregnant. The girl herself was very innocent and had no idea what was happening.

India has a grim record of sexual assaults on children, with a staggering 53 percent of children reporting some form of sexual abuse, according to a government study.

Save the Children India has found that 94.8 percent of child rape victims know their attackers; of those, more than 35 percent were raped by neighbours. 

How Marijuana May Treat Aggressive Brain Cancer

Successful treatment "reinforces the potential role of cannabinoids in the field of oncology."

brain-Photo Credit: Berkeley Lab
By Al Olson / The Fresh Toast-August 15, 2017,

In what is being heralded as a breakthrough for cancer research, GW Pharmaceuticals announced on Tuesday positive results from a study using a combination of cannabidiol and tetrahydrocannabinol to treat an aggressive form of brain cancer.

Glioblastoma multiforme, or GBM is a “particularly aggressive brain tumor, with a poor prognosis,” according to the British-based biopharmaceutical company focused on developing proprietary cannabinoid medicine.

• RELATED STORY: Can Marijuana Really Cure Cancer? Here’s The Science

According to the study, patients with documented recurrent GBM treated with THC:CBD had an 83 percent one year survival rate compared with 53 percent for patients taking a placebo.
Said Professor Susan Short, principal investigator of the study:

“The findings from this well-designed controlled study suggest that the addition of a combination of THC and CBD to patients on dose-intensive temozolomide produced relevant improvements in survival compared with placebo and this is a good signal of potential efficacy. Moreover, the cannabinoid medicine was generally well tolerated. These promising results are of particular interest as the pharmacology of the THC:CBD product appears to be distinct from existing oncology medications and may offer a unique and possibly synergistic option for future glioma treatment.”

The company has received Orphan Drug Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for THC:CBD in the treatment of glioma.

• RELATED STORY: Tell Us Your Story: How Marijuana Helped A Mother With Stage 4 Colon Cancer

GW Pharmaceutical’s glioma research demonstrates that THC and CBD appear to act via distinct signalling pathways. The combined administration of the two major cannabinoids led to a synergistic reduction in the viability of U87MG glioma cells when compared to the administration of each cannabinoid individually.

• RELATED STORY: Cannabis vs. Brain Cancer: What’s On The Horizon

Studies of patients with high-grade gliomas showed that headache was the most common initial presenting symptom. These headaches can be persistent lasting more than six months and are often associated with other symptoms, including seizures, visual disturbances, cognitive impairment and nausea and vomiting depending on the location and growth rate of the tumor.

Sri Lankan Army restoring IPKF tombstone in Koppay

Sri Lankan soldiers have begun clearing up the 30-year-old grave of an Indian army officer in Koppay, Jaffna.

 Army Chief dismisses allegations No ex-LTTE men involved in crimes in North

Expose` : Good governance commander in chief completes two years but MR ‘s control still within army !

17 Aug  2017

The grave, to a Major General killed in battle in August 1987 while heading an Indian Peacekeeping Force camp in Koppay South during Indian occupation, was left to ruin after the forces withdrew from the island.

The request to restore the tomb came at the request of the Indian Army’s Southern Commander, P. M. Hariz, who was a serving soldier during the IPKF occupation.

Sri Lankan army troops are preparing the tomb for a visit from Lt Gen. Hafiz planned for this weekend.

The IPKF are accused of perpetrating several atrocities while occupying the North-East including massacres, enforced disappearances and sexual violence during the disastrous 'peacekeeping' campain between 1987 and 1990.

Related Articles: 

04 May 2017 : Indian diplomat harangues Tamil media to downplay IPKF atrocities says TNA MP

19 April 2017 : Annai Poopathy remembered on 29th anniversary of death

21 October 2016 : Victims of 1987 IPKF attack on Jaffna Hospital remembered

09 December 2015 : IPKF deaths remembered by India and Sri Lanka...in Jaffna

University Accommodation Issues – Eastern University As Cross Roads

By T Mathiventhan and T Sathaananthan –AUGUST 18, 2017

The issues at the Eastern University raises many fundamental question in the administration of  a University in Sri Lanka its policy and Autonomy of the Universities.

Hostel and Accommodation

It is not far in history that the Universities had a policy of not giving hostels to students but promoting  admission to the closest university to overcome such problem. It was recently that the Ministry had announced that they will give 100% accommodation to all students by 2018. These being political slogans have little reality on the ground. Nearly 30,000 students are enrolled each year to the university and on ball park figure 120,000 would be at the university system at any given moment of time  assuming a 4 year course. This means on average a University should have at least  8000 students capacity at the Hostels of each university. At present none has it  and none will have it for the next decade given the ground values.  General principles have been to allow for first and final year accommodation  at each university and additional allowed subject to the availability of space at the hostels. When students demand hostels beyond this and additional houses and accommodation are sought from private owners which range from 2000-10000 rupees per student.  These have been given at some Universities including  Eastern University. But large numbers find their own accommodation and pay the rent on their own sqeezing the budget of their parents. Why should only some be given the hostel outside paying for private accommodation while others pay for their own is an issue which may trigger a FR application. University would have no option but to pay all students accommodation allowance as a right if the policy is to provide ‘Accommodation to all’ which would mean on average “120,000×5000=600,000,000” six hundred million a month and 7.2 billion a year  instead of accommodation. On the alternative if we only provide half then the value would be half of it, still considerable  and to an university this would mean around 20 million per month. We understand Eastern University has a bill around 40 million for the existing private accommodations plus services for the a year. If  the present crisis is resolved by additional accommodation it would warrant around another 50 million per year only catering to part of the students while others pay their  own. Such being the reality in financial terms. The  non availability of accommodation in large blocks is also an issue for the Universities to manage and smaller the house bigger the management needs trying to provide facilities.

On a different note, the reason for second year to  live with the community also adds value to a multicultural society and the social harmony the country is trying to build. People should know the values of different cultures and their values specially as potential graduates who would eventually become leaders of the country. This practice is available in all universities not only in  Sri Lanka but across the globe where Undergraduates live outside during their second years even working as their universities and not ‘free’. It is essential that under free education the values of education should not be traded for convenience. The inability of the students to live with the community may lead to looking at different alternatives other than provide hostel for all which is economically and administratively a nightmare  for university administration;

1. Outsource hostel accommodation where private accommodations are provided in the vicinity, as done in many countries
2. Only send students who do not require accommodation to Universities; even currently some universities do not provide accommodation for the first and second years too.
3. Revise the principles to allocate students closer to the university to avoid seeking accommodation
4. Increase the university accommodation rates (present rates are close to zero and the clamour for the hostel accommodation is also related to the ‘free’ accommodation)

Accommodation adds other responsibilities to the University from canteens, water, sanitation to electricity failure, travel etc. It is unfortunate that an average Vice Chancellor spends around 60-80% of time on Hostel related issues. This leaves no room for the planning of the development of the Universities and many indiscipline also arises from hostel based issues than others in general. For example Ragging is one that is the maximum heard in the hostel related  compounds than any other and eradication is not easy given the present context. This is one example.

Police and judiciary

When students  violate the regulation to the point that the University administration is unable to handle e.g occupation of the Vice Chancellors office or senate or blockade of a place  the University has only one option as a state institution report to the Police for assistance. The delay in action makes the university to paralyse as it has reached its maximum and cannot go beyond. In some cases the action had taken weeks for routine practice which needs to be considered. The University has no option than to close in such cases which needs to be avoided as it affects the entire  student community pay  for an offence of  a few students. The issue becomes more complex when the first years write letters stating that they are against the zero ragging policy or state that they are  operating on their own and with no interference from the seniors, options close for further actions. The usage of the anti-ragging  act no 20 of 1998 may be the only useful tool and if used would lead to severe punishment by court. Though there is a feeling that this may ruin a student’s life some of the offences committed justify this as this would benefit a larger population of today and tomorrow in hundreds.

Judiciary too should be considerate and also fast in providing orders for these matter as dragging causes many further issues.

There needs to be defined framework designed for the Universities to follow when it goes beyond them and for the state to expedite the actions so that the University system is not damaged as it involved thousands of students struggling to begin their career ahead, the best minds of the country.

Read More