So rare, so rare these false claims

The father of three spent six hours in custody and faced possible sex assault charges as part of the “devastating impact” of claims made by Claire Morgan.

Morgan, 35, alleged she was sexually assaulted three days after she took a five-minute fare from the driver in Bridgend, south Wales in May last year.

She lied the man had taken her to an adventure playground, grabbed her breast and put his hand down her underwear.

The victim, a treasurer at his local mosque, was the sole source of income for his family but was forced to hand over his badge during a six-week investigation, the court heard. Police spent 60 hours investigating Morgan’s allegations as well as £450 on forensics.

A judge said the man avoided charges because of “diligence” from investigators while CCTV also proved inconsistencies in her account.

After reporting the fake offences, Morgan later set up a fake Facebook profile under the name Sarah Jenkins to answer a police appeal in which she claimed she witnessed the attack. She also made an anonymous call to Crimestoppers to provide further bogus details.

We must, but must, simply believe the claimant, always, eh?

16 thoughts on “So rare, so rare these false claims”

  1. The rule is simple Tim.

    If it is a white accused then it doesn’t matter if the tale is 50 years old with zero evidence and/or corroboration–the principle is “I believe her”.

    Nor does any of that “fair trials” bollocks the Secret ( state’s) Barrack-Room Lawdog poncetificates about apply. Journoholes can camp on your lawn, front you on the court steps repeatedly while media shlls all but accuse you of being Jack the Ripper–nobody will give a shite. Even as the media films Plod in the act of ransacking your house as with Cliff R. Indeed they will try and round up as many dodgy allegations against you as they can pay for via compo.

    If you are a bearded import however they ( the femmi-freaks) will declare victims assaulted two days before to be “unreliable witnesses”. Conflict exist between the leftscums earlier adaption of feminist bullshit ( still useful against white males) and the custom and practice of the left’s new besties.

    Ian B back in the day shared my belief that claims against old white slebs –including Savile– were either entirely false or massive exaggeration deliberately promulgated by Marxist-feminist liars and media parasites .

    However we differed in that he thought the same exaggeration was also prevalent against our imported buddies whereas I do not. Because the same Marxian liars trying to promote hatred towards and false prosecution of white men are the very same group doing everything they can to supress all evidence of RoP wrongdoing.

    This bloke being acquitted seems likely a rare case of false accusation against the RoP being proven the case. Rather than the usual whitewash of real crimes being ignored.

  2. If she hadn’t been as thick as mince in setting up the false identities then I doubt she’d have been jailed. It was the perverting the course of justice which sank her, not the vile accusation.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    A White woman versus a Muslim man? That must be what the Guardian calls intersectionality. Who wins out in the victim’s bingo on that one?

    We must stay tuned I guess.

  4. “A White woman versus a Muslim man? Who wins out in the victim’s bingo on that one?”

    Thats easy. Muslim (of either gender) trumps white woman. You can see that in the recent nice little example of a mosque organising their community outreach meal in a church in Birmingham (I think) – its men only, but the usual suspects (local councillors/plod etc) are falling over themselves to attend. Feminist ideals don’t count you see when confronted with a nice bit of patriarchal Islam.

    I’d bet a pound to a penny that if that taxi driver had been white, he’d still be on bail now, maybe on remand, and it would have taken months, maybe years for him to be cleared, if he even was and not fitted up by the biased police/CPS system. Bear in mind the accusation only took place last May, and the police/CPS have found time since then to not only investigate and exonerate the driver, but bring charges against the woman and for her to be tried and found guilty. There’s blokes who’ve sat as long under suspicion of a false accusation that are still waiting for the police to admit its all made up. I’ll bet the local plod were running around like mad to make sure that driver was exonerated – I’m just surprised she wasn’t accused of making a racially motivated complaint as well.

  5. @ Jim
    I’m still *very* happy for plod to get it right for once.
    Complain all you like about their failure to protect the innocent in other cases but *just this once* they protected the innocent. You should give two cheers.
    The third cheer can wait until the guy and his wife and familly are *fully* compensated, at the expense of the culprit – i.e. for loss of income, including on-going loss from customers who think “there’s no smoke without fire”, for stress-related illness, emotional suffering and physical abuse (likely to happen to kids of someone accused of rape), interest on borrowings while deprived of earnings, etc – with the lump sum and interest thereon gradually reclaimed from the culprit’s earnings/benefit payments.

  6. “Complain all you like about their failure to protect the innocent in other cases but *just this once* they protected the innocent. You should give two cheers.”

    For entirely the wrong reasons.

    I’ll bet the local plod were ecstatic once they found a bit of an inconsistency in the woman’s story, they’d have been sh*tting themselves at the thought of having to charge a Muslim with the rape of a white woman in the current climate. Anything to get him off the hook would have been manna from heaven. Yet in other cases detailed recently they can’t even be bothered to look through an accusers phone records to check if there’s any evidence on it that she was lying. Because the accused are white and deserve to be banged up for rape, guilty or not.

    In my book if you achieve a positive result by accident from nefarious motive you don’t get any credit for it.

  7. @ Jim
    You do NOT know their motives – you sound as crazy bigoted as the “feminazis” about whom you complain.
    Old-fashioned guys like me who use wet razors have to look in the mirror every morning – try it!

  8. Morgan, 35

    That should be all South Wales’ finest needed to know the bloke was innocent. She’s at least 25 years too old for a Muslim taxi driver.

  9. Tommy receives 13 months jail on trumped up charge. This guy assaults and injures plod, found guilty and at liberty – vid on youtube.

    Equal and fair justice for all?

  10. I’m catching-up and frankly, Tom, I’m surprise this thread did not go ballistic. A manipulative, lying harpie vs a Mohammedan. What was not to like?

  11. Pcar

    I think Javid might be personally somewhat careless right now to allow any harm to come to Mr Robinson.

    UKIP leader, Gerard Batten confirmed the letter had been sent: “Tommy Robinson latest: UKIP Peer Malcolm Lord Pearson has written to Home Secretary Sajid Javid today saying: if Tommy is murdered or injured in prison he and others will mount a private prosecution against Mr Javid as an accessory, or for misconduct in public office.”


    An excellent move by Pearson. I’m not sure that being prosecuted as an “accessory for murder” is something that Javid would be looking to add to his CV just at this point in time..:)

  12. @ PF
    Back in my early youth Ministers were held accountable for the actions of the civil servants in their depatments, but that ceased after Wilson won the 1964General Election. If Lord Pearson is able to reinstitute Ministerial Responsibility that will be very welcome – although I don’t think that Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka Andrew McMaster aka Paul Harris is a good choice of poster-child.

  13. If the government can pull strings to have him moved to a prison where he’ll be murdered, then it can presumably lean on the DPP to quash the private prosecution – which the DPP has the power to do under section 6 of the 1985 Prosecution of Offences Act. So unfortunately I doubt Javid is quaking in his loafers.

  14. John / Lud

    I don’t doubt any of that for a second. I was thinking more of “process”? That’s the tool of the left?

    If Javid did allow harm to come to Mr Robinson (appalling example of a poster child or not) – and let’s be clear that harm would only come from our jailed Jihadi friends – and Lord Pearson took up his threat, it would be sensoble for Pearson to ensure maximum media controversy, all aimed directly at Javid.

    As a recently appointed Home Secretary / current rising star, and a Muslim to boot (albeit he’s admitted he pretty much apostate), I can’t see that being career enhancing right now?

    In response to Pcar, that was why I don’t think he will be deliberately put in harm’s way, at least not on this occasion (we know he has been in the past). It would be extraordinarily careless on Javid’s part?

  15. @PF, June 13, 2018 at 11:42 pm

    Informative. Thanks.

    Re: June 14, 2018 at 11:48 am

    Anger, vindictive and hate “red mist” can as easily overcome rationality in Javid as it did the judge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *