[Closed] "1,400 children were subjected to "appalling" sexual exploitation in Rotherham"

devash - Member
Child A (2000)6 was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known....

...Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A.

They admitted statutory rape and just got a caution?

The responsible authorities failed to do their job properly and did not take the reports seriously. The BBC report does not suggest this was because of "political correctness".

you didn't watch BBC Newsnight where this was the main thrust of the questions to interviewee's

There were calls for Shaun Wright, the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire, to step down after it emerged that he was the councillor with responsibility for children’s services in Rotherham for part of the period covered by the report.

the depth of the interconnections of those involved in covering this up is disurbing

If you actually read the report it doesn't seem like a coverup, just pure incompetence mixed with some indifference.

Perhaps I missed my calling in life and should befriend Peter Mandelson.

Not the best idea under the circumstance... Links to Operation Ore and rumours abound about Lambeth care homes, not to mention close ties to Prince Andrew's mate Jeffrey Epstein.

the depth of the interconnections of those involved in covering this up is disurbing

Same story repeated again and again;

Jimmy Savile
Cyril Smith
Rochdale
Bryn Estyn (Bryn Alyn Community)
Dolphin Square
Elm Guest House
Lambeth
Islington
Jersey
Medomsley
Beechwood

I could go on... secrets society hides are truly vile; we need to get to the root of why this collusion in organized abuse takes place.

Not the best idea under the circumstance... Links to Operation Ore and rumours abound about Lambeth care homes, not to mention close ties to Prince Andrew's mate Jeffrey Epstein.

"Links"
"Rumours"
"Close ties"

That's enough "evidence" for one day jivebunny.

Back in your hutch now, there's a good lad..

It seems like there is some massive and systematic failure of social services ...

Meanwhile as hundreds of children were being abused and trafficked the social work dept was busy removing children from people who voted for the wrong party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

irc - Member

Meanwhile as hundreds of children were being abused and trafficked the social work dept was busy removing children from people who voted for the wrong party.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

Absolutely unbelievable.

These left wing lunatics are far more dangerous than the BNP etc.

That's enough "evidence" for one day jivebunny.

Back in your hutch now, there's a good lad..

Ah, Mr Glover, champion of the vulnerable.

Regarding Lambeth discuss the matter with the MP John Mann, he'll clear things up for you...

or if you're too lazy to contact him, you could spend the time reading the letter in this link:

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse

after all, it was only sufficient to spur national media coverage and a promise by the corrupt home secretary for a full inquiry; although for some reason, a suitable chair and acceptable Terms of Reference are yet to be finalized.

the case gets stronger every day, but denial isn't going to fix it.

[i]a promise by the corrupt home secretary[/i]

phrases like this really don't strengthen the case of people who are trying to get wider acceptance of their beliefs. It just makes it look like they see the whole of government as a conspiracy against their world view.

I'm still trying to get to grips how you can get a caution for admitting to sex with a 12 year old.

That points to orders from above somewhere that should be investigated, either for gross incompetence or actual involvement.

nealglover - Member
Not the best idea under the circumstance... Links to Operation Ore and rumours abound about Lambeth care homes, not to mention close ties to Prince Andrew's mate Jeffrey Epstein.
"Links"
"Rumours"
"Close ties"

That's enough "evidence" for one day jivebunny.

If I hadn't seen a "paranoid conspiracy theorist" proven right on this subject once before, I'd probably agree with you.

It is really unsettling how pervasive the paedophile networks are and how they seem to have people in just the right positions of power to derail any investigation, or worse still, actually conduct it.

Blaming the victim seems common.

[i]I'm still trying to get to grips how you can get a caution for admitting to sex with a 12 year old.[/i]

Given the police's view of the credibility of the witnesses I suspect that 'someone' decided to offer a caution in exchange for an admission of guilt rather than risk going to trial and ending up with no conviction.

although for some reason, a suitable chair and acceptable Terms of Reference are yet to be finalized.

the chair will help define the terms of reference, the problem is finding a chair with suitable experience who isn't tainted directly or indirectly

having said that arguably someone has written report about Rotherham which may be a very good job application

If you actually read the report it doesn't seem like a coverup, just pure incompetence mixed with some indifference.

incompetence and indifference imply the complete organisational culture failure of council, social services, and the police

the complicit should be purged from public service forever

So if I murdered someone, the evidence was flimsy, and I admitted it in an interview with the police, I'd get a caution? I thought an admission was evidence.

Sorry, I know that's reductio ad absurdem, but an admission of guilt?

I can understand a lighter sentence in return for making it easier on the victim by accepting a guilty plea, but a slap on the wrist with a feather?

Does this happen often and who makes the decision?

Just out of interest, what light does this cast on the Muslamic Ray Gun meme?

epicyclo - I don't know the details but I believe you can accept a caution without formally admitting guilt.

Police issue cautions, no need for CPS involvement.

Absolutely unbelievable.

These left wing lunatics are far more dangerous than the BNP etc.

There's perfectly good evidence based psychological reasons for taking those children away from those UKIPers, to do with the cultural background of the children etc.

Hardly evidence of some left wing agenda. I suppose you would be happy with immigrant children or the children of immigrants growing up with people who dislike immigrants? You're condoning the psychological abuse of children.

a promise by the corrupt home secretary

phrases like this really don't strengthen the case of people who are trying to get wider acceptance of their beliefs. It just makes it look like they see the whole of government as a conspiracy against their world view.

I see your point and perhaps that doesn't help my case; doesn't make it any less true though; of course, despite it being unlikely under the circumstance, the 114 lost files could be coincidental.

However, revoking the visa of a journalist who was going to investigate child abuse on Jersey shows complicity:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcgrath-goodman/david-miranda-uk-detention_b_3844480.html

Given that a number of sources report a network of abusers within the care system trafficking children between Jersey, Islington, Lambeth and North Wales amongst others, not to mention a stash of extreme abuse images turning up in Belgium which appear to have been taken on Jersey, is it not fair to be a mite suspicious?

Of course, the fact that Jimmy Savile tried to avoid association with Haut de la Garenne (the Jersey House of Horrors) may be a source of further suspicion.

Given that there are several children who appear to have been sent to Jersey and gone missing (an issue raised in Parliament by MP John Hemming) you really have to wonder what the **** was going on there:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trenches-filled-with-lime-found-at-jersey-house-of-horrors-care-home-6693782.html

So yep, I might be a nutjob, or I might have a case so hot that it could bring down the current government.

There's perfectly good evidence based psychological reasons for taking those children away from those UKIPers.

enables the social workers to relieve workplace stress.........?

by achieving targets whilst ignoring multiple reports setting out the longterm endemic horrific real abuse of children in choots with the police who failed to investigate allegations and "lost" evidence presented by victims and council officers who failed their city?

enables the social workers to relieve workplace stress.........?

by achieving targets whilst ignoring multiple reports setting out the longterm endemic horrific real abuse of children in choots with the police who failed to investigate allegations and "lost" evidence presented by victims and council officers who failed their city?

That's a rather long way of saying that they should ignore immigrant children at risk of abuse by white people and only concentrate on the ones being abused by muslims.

That's a rather long way of saying that they should ignore immigrant children at risk of abuse by white people and only concentrate on the ones being abused by muslims.

so all UKIP members are pathologically disposed to abuse immigrant children?

you have a very polarised view of the world

[i]you have a very polarised view of the world [/i]

UKIP membership beckons.

so all UKIP members are pathologically disposed to abuse immigrant children?

you have a very polarised view of the world

Placing children with foster carers with views that will damage the self image of the children in their care is tantamount to abuse by the social services as they should know better and indirect or unconscious abuse by the UKIPers in question.

Any shrink will tell you that, nothing to do with left wing ideology and everything to do with best practice. I suppose the psychiatrists are all left wing nutjobs with an agenda though.

Placing children with foster carers with views that will damage the self image of the children in their care is tantamount to abuse by the social services as they should know better and indirect or unconscious by the UKIPers in question.

so your view is that all UKIP members should be banned from fostering as their views will conciously or unconciously damage the self image of immgrant children in their care, or conciously or unconciously pass on their views to non-immigrant children in their care

Any shrink will tell you that, nothing to do with left wing ideology and everything to do with medical best practice.

so your view is that all UKIP members should be banned from fostering as their views will conciously or unconciously damage the self image of immgrant children in their care, or conciously or unconciously pass on their views to non-immigrant children in their care

Yup, in regards to immigrant children.

Seminars for elected members and senior officers in 2004-05 presented the abuse in the most explicit terms. After these events, nobody could say 'we didn't know'. In 2005, the present Council Leader chaired a group to take forward the issues, but there is [b]no record of its meetings or conclusions[/b], apart from one minute.

@ninfan If wilful neglect like that isn't grounds for a charge of misconduct in public office, then I don't know what is!

This is quite an interesting social experiment: perhaps there aren't any conspiracies after all...

given the abuse I take for airing my extensively researched knowledge on the subject, when I provide background to show my claims aren't just based on fantasy, everyone just carries on as if nothing happened:

[b]maybe it's just when things are too big and scary, people ignore them through disbelief and fear.[/b]

If we truly want change, open discussion and engagement is the only route to making things better.

I am surprised some here don't believe political correctness was an issue in this case. It seems very clear to me the council and the police where concerned about accusations of racism and so did not progress the investigations and take action as they should have done for fear of being labelled as "racist"

As an aside UKIP isn't against immigrants or immigration it's against uncontrolled immigration from the EU. Americans are allowed to adopt children and they have controlled immigration in their country.

If we truly want change, open discussion and engagement is the only route to making things better.

Americans are allowed to adopt children and they have controlled immigration in their country.

A controlled immigration that lets in a lot more poor folk from the third world than we do. They even give away green cards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_Immigrant_Visa

Imagine UKIP ever doing that?

I am surprised some here don't believe political correctness was an issue in this case. It seems very clear to me the council and the police where concerned about accusations of racism and so did not progress the investigations and take action as they should have done for fear of being labelled as "racist"

Do explain.

As an aside UKIP isn't against immigrants or immigration it's against uncontrolled immigration from the EU.

I reckon statistically UKIP members are more likely to be prejudiced, so they were making the right call in the interests of the children. Even if they weren't actually racist, the fact that these types constantly hark on about immigration is enough to take them out - when they could be placed with foster parents that will better suit the children.

But nooo, it's all about the poor little UKIPers....not the kids.

Tom_W1987 - Member

so your view is that all UKIP members should be banned from fostering as their views will conciously or unconciously damage the self image of immgrant children in their care, or conciously or unconciously pass on their views to non-immigrant children in their care

Yup.

Do you think if the foster parents were really racist they would be happily fostering foreign children?

Just because one of UKIP's policies is they believe there should be tighter controls on immigration doesn't mean it's supporters are racist or even against some immigration for that matter.

It's common sense, this country is full to capacity but unfortunately anyone who states the obvious is branded a racist by the PC lunatics. The irony is many of the most vociferous critics that the UK's immigration is out of control are the first wave immigrants themselves.

Do you think if the foster parents were really racist they would be happily fostering foreign children?

Just because they might not be racist, still doesn't mean they should keep the children. As I've already said, if they thought foster parents with cultural attitudes that better fitted the children could be found, then that is the best course of action.

It's common sense, this country is full to capacity but unfortunately anyone who states the obvious is branded a racist by the PC lunatics. The irony is many of the most vociferous critics that the UK's immigration is out of control are the first wave immigrants themselves.

No, you just have a case of unfounded feelings of persecution. You're trying to twist the welfare of children for you're own political agenda.

Tom_W1987 - Member

I reckon statistically UKIP members are more likely to be prejudiced, so they were making the right call in the interests of the children.

But nooo, it's all about the poor little UKIPers....not the kids.

Using your warped argument could we not also say that ****stani men are more likely to rape children therefore they should not be allowed to adopt white kids, or teach them or be within 100m of them etc.?

Using your warped argument could we not also say that ****stani men are more likely to rape children therefore they should not be allowed to adopt white kids, or teach them or be within 100m of them etc.?

The statistics say they aren't though....sorry.... .....you racist. (I'm deadly serious with the latter accusation btw, you walked right into it)

As I've already said, it's not about the risk of outright racism....it's about the cultural fit. This is an area of study that has received considerable attention over the years.

Evidence only suits you when it suits your own agenda doesn't it?

.....you racist.

Er, no.

I guess you're probably trolling on your lunch break at Rotherham council. Get back to your desk they'll be round shortly with your P45

I guess you're probably trolling on your lunch break at Rotherham council. Get back to your desk they'll be round shortly with your P45

Why else would accuse ****stani men of being more likely to rape, when the evidence points to that not being the case?

Let me think? Errrr.... racism?

wwaswas - Member
epicyclo - I don't know the details but I believe you can accept a caution without formally admitting guilt.

Police issue cautions, no need for CPS involvement.

That makes more sense. Thanks.

Why else would accuse ****stani men of being more likely to rape, when the evidence points to that not being the case?

Let me think? Errrr, racism?

I did say using [u]YOUR[/u] warped argument

I did say using YOUR warped argument

[img] [/img]

With an example of something that you thought was true.

My "warped arguments" are evidenced in peer reviewed literature, which I'm sure you'd understand if you went away and performed journal searches.

With an example of something that you thought was true.

My "warped arguments" are evidenced.

I was actually ridiculing your logic.

If you support UKIP (which I don't for the record) then you are a racist unfit to foster children is as ridiculous as if you are a ****stani man then you are a rapist.

There is no denying a small proportion are UKIP voters are racist and a small proportion of ****stani men are rapists but that doesn't mean you should tar them with the same brush.

****stani men are more likely to degrade women generally, I'm afraid that's a fact and none believers well I wouldn't think they'd worry too much what happens to them.

Interesting point on the radio though. One 'complaint' against Cliff Richard v 1400 complaints by homeless kids as far as reaction by our dearly beloved Police Force seems just a tad out of kilter.

But, there are also issues 'controlling' these kids at the homes they are in, they get out, they are vulnerable, want to be seen as worthwhile, some bastard buys them a drink tells them they're his girlfriend, it's a shoe in and very difficult for the actual social service types on the ground to deal with, until there is a complaint and in that case, it is squarely the fault of the police for not acting.

As for the cultural thing it's a nightmare, we have become the focal point for escapees from almost every trouble spot in the world, even my sleepy town as nightly inter factional fights between Afghans and Kosovans, presumably Sunni v Shia, I don't know, but you can bet your life they treat the opposite sect in every bit the same way they'd treat indigenous girls of any colour so it's not only racially motivated.

I was actually ridiculing your logic.

If you support UKIP (which I don't for the record) then you are a racist unfit to foster children is as ridiculous as if you are a ****stani man then you are a rapist.

Did I say it was to do with racism? It's all about the cultural fit of the family and the consequent mental health outcomes for the children.

You were the one who brought up racism, I never did.

Afghans

Oh well, you or your children will have to put up with more of it when climate change makes the equatorial regions uninhabitable.

Strewth - and still it goes on.

Tom_W1987 - are you a real person, or has someone finally worked out an algorithm to generate obtuse, blustering, yet seemingly (at face value) on-topic double-speak? If so, I particularly like the way this algorithm can respond to every question whilst eventually looping back to the same discredited opinion.

Maybe this algorithm has only just made it into the public domain having previously only been employed by politicians?

Whatever is going on here, you are obviously crystal clear in your convictions. This is (at least partly) to be admired.

The only problem is that your convictions, when applied to this example, are leading to you denying the bleeding obvious.

It would be funny in another context, but in this case it isn't. Not remotely.

Strewth - and still it goes on.

Tom_W1987 - are you a real person, or has someone finally worked out an algorithm to generate obtuse, blustering, yet seemingly (at face value) on-topic double-speak? If so, I particularly like the way this algorithm can respond to every question whilst eventually looping back to the same discredited opinion.

Maybe this algorithm has only just made it into the public domain having previously only been employed by politicians?

Whatever is going on here, you are obviously crystal clear in your convictions. This is (at least partly) to be admired.

The only problem is that your convictions, when applied to this example, are leading to you denying the bleeding obvious.

It would be funny in another context, but in this case it isn't. Not remotely.

More bluster and no supportive argument.

Snore, I've been spoiled by Ernie and Junkyards retorts.

P.S. I'm pretty happy that you've ended up resorting to the type of argument that religious types did whenever they encountered Hitchens on a debate panel, that argument being one of squawking "You're wrong" over and over again.