is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?

[anonymous-user]

There's a difference between crime prevention measures making you less likely to be a victim e.g. don't walk home on your own at 03:00, and the often common undertone of "she was asking for it" with , "well she was really drunk / wearing a short skirt" type comments / thinking.

[Steffan]

Zeeky said:

Unfortunately people lose the ability to think realistically when discussing sex offences. It is expected to discuss ways of protecting oneself from being a victim of crime by removing opportunity and temptation from criminals unless the crime is a sex offence. Then it is forbidden to discuss crime prevention.

The reality is that crime happens and it is naïve and dangerous to think that it can be prevented by the existence of the criminal justice system.

La Liga said:

There's a difference between crime prevention measures making you less likely to be a victim e.g. don't walk home on your own at 03:00, and the often common undertone of "she was asking for it" with , "well she was really drunk / wearing a short skirt" type comments / thinking.

Indeed there is. I do think that Zeeky has a point: equally I do think that La Liga also has the point. Fact is that some behaviours militate towards increasing the risk of assault and equally no behaviour takes away the responsibility from the perpetrator of the assault.

Nothing can remove the responsibility from an aggressor be this in sexual misconduct of other criminal attack. However as various Judges have advised over the years, and still advise, wholly inappropriate and unwise displays of sexuality increase the dangers of being sexually assaulted. That does not remove the criminality from the conduct of the perpetarator of the assaulter. But it is information that every individual needs to be aware of or should at least be aware of and act appropriately in consequence.

With the cases of young children sexually assaulted below the age of full reasoning then there is nothing that reduces the seriousness of the crime and no child should be assaulted in any way orvat any time. The full force of the law should be administered against their attacker in every case without exception.

The cases currently being disclosed and brought into the view of the public are just appalling and utterly evil acts that should have been exposed and punished years ago, They were not and indeed perhaps the worst features in this have been the utterly sick and evil crafted conspiracies, hiding and denials of all these offences. Grooming for abuse is an appalling crime and the perpetrators should have been ruined and incarcerated for those crimes, at the time, years ago.

The fact that they have not is a disgrace which every employee within the failing sectors of public service at the time, ought to recognise and hang their heads in shame. Clearly most will not. Clearly many were in fact aware of much of what was happening and were either incompetant to the point of criminality or involved in some way. There is simply no otter explanation for such a massive level of undetected conspiracy and criminality.

It is impossible for 1500 cases of sexual abuse to have occurred in Rotherham without any competent person employed in that sector and funded by the taxpayer who ought to have been blindingly aware of and deeply concerned about these disgraces and clearly were neither, not to either be responsible by omission or commission.. Therefore wholesale incomepetance or deliberate involvement personally, or being so uninterested in the responsibilities of their work that they chose not to care in any way about what was being done by whom to whom can be the only plausible explanations.

I have no idea where to begin the attempt to seek redress and bring charges will lead. It shoud lead to criminal proseccitions in substantial numbers for the guilty bds who have collectivel raped, abused and assaulted children in the name of child care making this ethos the worst example of modern criminality and conspiracy in our times. The grooming for abuse, the conspiracy and length of time this took place over literally decades suggests to me that no reasonably effective employees of the authority responsible for the supervision of these children, all in dire straits, should not be held responsible for huge failures in the performance of their jobs at the very least.

Sadly the refusal of the Chief Executive of Rotherham to take any action against any and all of the individual's remaining in post in this sector in Rotherham, who were in post during this disgrace just serves most effectively to demonstrate the utter futility that running local authorities has become in recent years. No one gives a toss, no one is prepared to admit any wrongdoing, or failures, and unless the government act, no one will be brought to task for the worst case of criminal conspiracy and abuse I have ever heard about in the UK and I suspect there has been in the UK in recent years.

I personally believe that the system itself needs radical reform and NOT huge amounts spent on it trying to put right what has been failing for the last 50 years. Local authority administration has become, as this case clearly infers, wholly ineffective and self serving. Time for a fundamental change. The waste of taxpayers money is just ludicrous and the results as these 1500 cases clearly demonstrate, demonstrate that the only way forward is to scrap these nonsenses reduce the waste and largesse in the system and make the system actually produce the level of service that the taxpayers and the victims so clearly deserve.

Regrettably since these public services areas are controlled by more public servants (sic!) I am not at all hopeful. But if local authorities continue as they have been doing, as this case serves to demonstrate in an appalling way, this will go on hidden from the view of the unknowing taxpayers. That cannot be allowed.

[anonymous-user]

Those who feel that the recent schleb hunt is OTT may be interested in the outspoken comments of Barbara Hewson, a barrister of my acquaintance who is not afraid to be controversial. For example -

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13604

See also various youtubes of her on Newsnight and such like.

I don't know Barbara very well, but I find her spikily interesting. She's a passionate pro choice advocate, amongst other things.

[Variomatic]

Thanks for that, BV.

Been away for a week and just catching up. I've expressed my concerns already and it's nice to see that similar worries are held, and spoken of, within the legal profession.

My problem isn't with prosecuting old crimes per se, rather with the apparent lack of discourse regarding the dangers involved. The media impression, which is all most of us are exposed to, is that the current situation is entirely for the good, with absolutely no risks or repurcussions.

If that discussion is alive and well within the legal system (where we won't necessarily hear it) then I'm at least slightly reassured that we're not returning to the days of the dunking stool or trial by ordeal.

As they say, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!