YouTube pianist arrested after making child abuse allegation against priest
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
Reminds me of another case where some parents complained about their daughter's school and got arrested for it[1].
Why are (British) police so happy to play attack dog for anyone with only even a modicum of social standing? To what reasonable officer of the law is escorting someone away in handcuffs ever an appropriate response here?
I'm really struggling to find nice words, but luckily I don't think there's any need to say the quiet part out loud: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Honestly I'd probably overall side with the police here and say that these kinds of allegations should not be made publicly and reported to the police quietly for them to investigate - if British police hadn't managed to completely obliterate public trust in their ability and willingness to investigate SA cases unless pressured publicly.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/29/parents-arre...
This has been the case since 1984, the necessity was only added because SOCPA got rid of the distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences.
"In 2021 he was found to have libelled a 15-year-old refugee at a school in Huddersfield and was ordered to pay £100,000 plus legal costs. After breaching an injunction about repeating the libel, Robinson was sentenced to 18 months in prison for contempt of court in October 2024"
Also:
"Robinson's criminal record includes convictions for violence, financial, and immigration frauds, cocaine possession with intent to supply, and public order offences.[135][136][137] He had previously served at least three separate custodial sentences: in 2005 for assault, in 2012 for using false travel documents and in 2014 for mortgage fraud."
However you frame it, that’s not “prison for libel”. That’s prison for contempt of court. He was ordered not to do a thing. He decided to do the thing. So the court sent him to prison.
Really if there is any part you should disagree with it's "Home invasion child rapists were given less time"
>Last year, Mr Kavanagh became embroiled in a row with a group of Chinese tourists who demanded he stop livestreaming at a public piano site at London St Pancras International station where he was playing.
>The tourists confronted the musician, asking whether their faces were visible before insisting he stop filming.
I remember seeing this altercation from Kavanaugh's livestream (there are many videos about it)[0]. Mr. Kavanaugh was in the right in that situation and the Chinese "tourists" clearly tried to twist the facts of the situation to gain advantage over Kavanaugh. The police confronted Kavanaugh when he was obviously the victim. Did the author of this article, Steve Bird, care to watch the videos?
There is a real possibility the police reaction here was exacerbated due the the events of that situation, possibly even due to some international/political motive.