SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

It's abundantly clear that a great many people are very unhappy with the performance of the various agencies involved. It's evident that not all that should have been done was done.

But I have yet to hear in specific terms how the agencies should have prevented the abuse from taking place. Why is that? It's easy to criticise but not so easy to propose practical remedies, and that is very evident from this thread.

Such measures that have been hinted at are based on intervening once the abuse has already started, for instance, prosecuting abusers. Stable door syndrome?

I can't see any way of stopping these children from being abused without keeping them under lock and key, a solution that I am sure many would find unacceptable. So lets hear some practical alternatives, instead of the constant 'they should have protected them'. Protection, when the protectees have some freedom of movement, starts with the cooperation of those protectees, especially when resources are limited. If that cooperation is not there then solutions are either going to be ineffective or unpopular.

A reasonable certainty of the (alleged) culprits being questioned at the local police station would be a good start.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

It's abundantly clear that a great many people are very unhappy with the performance of the various agencies involved. It's evident that not all that should have been done was done.

But I have yet to hear in specific terms how the agencies should have prevented the abuse from taking place. Why is that? It's easy to criticise but not so easy to propose practical remedies, and that is very evident from this thread.

Such measures that have been hinted at are based on intervening once the abuse has already started, for instance, prosecuting abusers. Stable door syndrome?

I can't see any way of stopping these children from being abused without keeping them under lock and key, a solution that I am sure many would find unacceptable. So lets hear some practical alternatives, instead of the constant 'they should have protected them'. Protection, when the protectees have some freedom of movement, starts with the cooperation of those protectees, especially when resources are limited. If that cooperation is not there then solutions are either going to be ineffective or unpopular.

A reasonable certainty of the (alleged) culprits being questioned at the local police station would be a good start.

No, it wouldn't. It would be a terrible start, and a stable door solution. Can you not see that it is already too late by then!

Surely we should all be looking for a solution that doesn't involve these children have sex first before remedial action can be taken?

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

It's abundantly clear that a great many people are very unhappy with the performance of the various agencies involved. It's evident that not all that should have been done was done.

But I have yet to hear in specific terms how the agencies should have prevented the abuse from taking place. Why is that? It's easy to criticise but not so easy to propose practical remedies, and that is very evident from this thread.

Such measures that have been hinted at are based on intervening once the abuse has already started, for instance, prosecuting abusers. Stable door syndrome?

I can't see any way of stopping these children from being abused without keeping them under lock and key, a solution that I am sure many would find unacceptable. So lets hear some practical alternatives, instead of the constant 'they should have protected them'. Protection, when the protectees have some freedom of movement, starts with the cooperation of those protectees, especially when resources are limited. If that cooperation is not there then solutions are either going to be ineffective or unpopular.

A reasonable certainty of the (alleged) culprits being questioned at the local police station would be a good start.

No, it wouldn't. It would be a terrible start, and a stable door solution. Can you not see that it is already too late by then!

Surely we should all be looking for a solution that doesn't involve these children have sex first before remedial action can be taken?

Reasonable certainty means that - in the mind of someone considering raping an underage girl - there is a reasonable certainty that if they go through with the act then they will be questioned by plod at the nick. The "reasonable certainty of being nicked and questioned by plod" prevents the offence occurring in the first place. How is that a stable door? Peel.

I had written another para about generally sacking incompetent public sector employees but it turned into rant.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

Reasonable certainty means that - in the mind of someone considering raping an underage girl - there is a reasonable certainty that if they go through with the act then they will be questioned by plod at the nick. The "reasonable certainty of being nicked and questioned by plod" prevents the offence occurring in the first place. How is that a stable door? Peel.

There's two problems with that- first that it involves the girl having sex, or being raped, which is a very bad thing. Prevention is what we should be looking at here, not cure.

Second problem is that such acts tend to take place unobserved, so the only way the police are going to know about it is if the girl tells them. Now I understand that there have been occasions when that has happened and no action has been taken, but I think you will find that the police being told by the girl will be the exception rather than the rule, and that those girls who aren't telling, for whatever reason, need protection too. Where is their protection going to come from?

My position is that we should stop concentrating on catching the rapists and start working on preventing the rapes in the first place. That seems bleeding obvious to me, but it's something that most here are silent on.

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

Reasonable certainty means that - in the mind of someone considering raping an underage girl - there is a reasonable certainty that if they go through with the act then they will be questioned by plod at the nick. The "reasonable certainty of being nicked and questioned by plod" prevents the offence occurring in the first place. How is that a stable door? Peel.

There's two problems with that- first that it involves the girl having sex, or being raped, which is a very bad thing. Prevention is what we should be looking at here, not cure.

Second problem is that such acts tend to take place unobserved, so the only way the police are going to know about it is if the girl tells them. Now I understand that there have been occasions when that has happened and no action has been taken, but I think you will find that the police being told by the girl will be the exception rather than the rule, and that those girls who aren't telling, for whatever reason, need protection too. Where is their protection going to come from?

My position is that we should stop concentrating on catching the rapists and start working on preventing the rapes in the first place. That seems bleeding obvious to me, but it's something that most here are silent on.

The offence is less likely to occur if the potential offender considers that it is reasonably certain that he will be questioned by plod down the nick should he actually commit the offence. Therefore the offence is less likely to occur. Peel and deterrence.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

The offence is less likely to occur if the potential offender considers that it is reasonably certain that he will be questioned by plod down the nick should he actually commit the offence. Therefore the offence is less likely to occur. Peel and deterrence.

We are starting to go over the same ground here. My position is that it is a lot better to prevent the offence in the first place, than to arrest, prosecute and convict the offender ( all of which require to cooperation of the child, which is quite likely not to be forthcoming).

Most of the offenders will be relying on that lack of cooperation, so the majority of these offences will continue, if you have no other suggestions.

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

The offence is less likely to occur if the potential offender considers that it is reasonably certain that he will be questioned by plod down the nick should he actually commit the offence. Therefore the offence is less likely to occur. Peel and deterrence.

We are starting to go over the same ground here. My position is that it is a lot better to prevent the offence in the first place, than to arrest, prosecute and convict the offender ( all of which require to cooperation of the child, which is quite likely not to be forthcoming).

Most of the offenders will be relying on that lack of cooperation, so the majority of these offences will continue, if you have no other suggestions.

The deterrence of "reasonable certainty" prevents the offence in the first place. You probably need a flowchart to understand, but failing that, try this:

From the reported evidence, the scum thought process is something like:

Scum sees underage girl, scum considers raping underage girl, scum risk assesses likelihood of being nicked by plod and taken down the station for questioning (possibly leading to jail time), scum decides that risk of being nicked is minimal, scum commits rape.

What should be happening is:

Scum sees underage girl, scum considers raping underage girl, scum risk assesses likelihood of being nicked by plod and taken down the station for questioning (possibly leading to jail time), scum decides that risk of being nicked is reasonably certain, scum doesn't commit rape due to reasonable certainty of being nicked. Hence deterrence.

Have you studied Peel yet, as I suggested?

[anonymous-user]

Also, even if deterrence fails and crims do crimming, society should still pursue them if it is proportionate to do so, and it was here.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

The deterrence of "reasonable certainty" prevents the offence in the first place. You probably need a flowchart to understand, but failing that, try this:

From the reported evidence, the scum thought process is something like:

Scum sees underage girl, scum considers raping underage girl, scum risk assesses likelihood of being nicked by plod and taken down the station for questioning (possibly leading to jail time), scum decides that risk of being nicked is minimal, scum commits rape.

What should be happening is:

Scum sees underage girl, scum considers raping underage girl, scum risk assesses likelihood of being nicked by plod and taken down the station for questioning (possibly leading to jail time), scum decides that risk of being nicked is reasonably certain, scum doesn't commit rape due to reasonable certainty of being nicked. Hence deterrence.

Have you studied Peel yet, as I suggested?

Peel is quite a common name, and Google produces quite a lot results, but whoever your Peel is, I daresay he won't have come across a situation quite like the one we are discussing.

But as I continue to point out, your solution requires the girl to cooperate with the authorities. Did you really not see the reports about the girls that were tying sheets together and climbing out of second floor windows in the middle of the night to meet these men? Does that sound like cooperation to you?

[V8 Fettler]

Breadvan72 said:

Also, even if deterrence fails and crims do crimming, society should still pursue them if it is proportionate to do so, and it was here.

Certainty of pursuit adds to deterrence. It appears that the only certainty in Rotherham was that plod (and others) would do nothing meaningful.

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

The deterrence of "reasonable certainty" prevents the offence in the first place. You probably need a flowchart to understand, but failing that, try this:

From the reported evidence, the scum thought process is something like:

Scum sees underage girl, scum considers raping underage girl, scum risk assesses likelihood of being nicked by plod and taken down the station for questioning (possibly leading to jail time), scum decides that risk of being nicked is minimal, scum commits rape.

What should be happening is:

Scum sees underage girl, scum considers raping underage girl, scum risk assesses likelihood of being nicked by plod and taken down the station for questioning (possibly leading to jail time), scum decides that risk of being nicked is reasonably certain, scum doesn't commit rape due to reasonable certainty of being nicked. Hence deterrence.

Have you studied Peel yet, as I suggested?

Peel is quite a common name, and Google produces quite a lot results, but whoever your Peel is, I daresay he won't have come across a situation quite like the one we are discussing.

But as I continue to point out, your solution requires the girl to cooperate with the authorities. Did you really not see the reports about the girls that were tying sheets together and climbing out of second floor windows in the middle of the night to meet these men? Does that sound like cooperation to you?

You don't know who Peel was?! I'm lost for words. Nothing personal, but did not your school at least teach you some British history?

Edit: try Robert Peel

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

You don't know who Peel was?! I'm lost for words. Nothing personal, but did not your school at least teach you some British history?

I'll expect the rest of your answer later, shall I?

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

You don't know who Peel was?! I'm lost for words. Nothing personal, but did not your school at least teach you some British history?

I'll expect the rest of your answer later, shall I?

Study Peel, then have some understanding re: importance of likelihood of detection with regards to deterrence.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

You don't know who Peel was?! I'm lost for words. Nothing personal, but did not your school at least teach you some British history?

I'll expect the rest of your answer later, shall I?

Study Peel, then have some understanding re: importance of likelihood of detection with regards to deterrence.

So you consider it acceptable that all the uncooperative girls should continue to be abused and those that do cooperate be raped first, in order that the certainty of detection will rise to the point at which the men concerned will decide not to take the risk.

How many rapes do you think will be necessary to achieve that?

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

You don't know who Peel was?! I'm lost for words. Nothing personal, but did not your school at least teach you some British history?

I'll expect the rest of your answer later, shall I?

Study Peel, then have some understanding re: importance of likelihood of detection with regards to deterrence.

So you consider it acceptable that all the uncooperative girls should continue to be abused and those that do cooperate be raped first, in order that the certainty of detection will rise to the point at which the men concerned will decide not to take the risk.

How many rapes do you think will be necessary to achieve that?

Bizarre question, there has been more than enough underage raping in Rotherham. The question you should be asking is why did plod fail so dismally, South Yorks plod has already admitted failure:

District Commander for Rotherham Ch Supt Jason Harwin said:

Firstly I'd like to start by offering an unreserved apology to the victims of child sexual exploitation who did not receive the level of service they should be able to expect from their local police force. We fully acknowledge our previous failings.

One example (if the reported evidence is correct) of plod failing to act

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11064...

Three historical reports were ignored

Professor Jay said:

Three reports on the problem were ignored, and the first was suppressed because some senior officers did not believe the data it contained.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/29-august/news/uk/authorities-failed-rotherham-abuse-victims,-report-finds

I thought that the "Church Times" would make a change from the Flail.

I would think that many victims and their parents did not report the rapes to plod because of dismal previous responses from plod, they (parents and victims) had probably given up.

[jaf01uk]

singlecoil said:

So you consider it acceptable that all the uncooperative girls should continue to be abused and those that do cooperate be raped first, in order that the certainty of detection will rise to the point at which the men concerned will decide not to take the risk.

How many rapes do you think will be necessary to achieve that?

I'll bite, you seem to think you are the one with all the answers and smart comments, instead of burying your head in the sand regarding the catalogue of inactions that went on in Rotherham by the very people tasked with the protection of kids (I note also while you are on your "answer the question" you did not reply to the fact that a lot of these kids were under the councils care in homes that I pointed out when you were on "the parents should take responsibility" slant earlier) why do you not give us the benefit of your perceived wisdom on the matter and tell us what the answer is? The previous poster has explained that like all crimes the deterrent from committing the crime is the likelihood of being caught, you cannot actually arrest people for crimes until they commit them?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

Breadvan72 said:

Also, even if deterrence fails and crims do crimming, society should still pursue them if it is proportionate to do so, and it was here.

Certainty of pursuit adds to deterrence. It appears that the only certainty in Rotherham was that plod (and others) would do nothing meaningful.

I agree with both of your observations.

[singlecoil]

V8 Fettler said:

I would think that many victims and their parents did not report the rapes to plod because of dismal previous responses from plod, they (parents and victims) had probably given up.

That would certainly apply in many of the cases, if what we hear is true.

It wouldn't, of course, apply in the cases where the girls were not reporting the rapes, and especially not to the girls who were climbing down the knotted sheets in the middle of the night.

[V8 Fettler]

singlecoil said:

V8 Fettler said:

I would think that many victims and their parents did not report the rapes to plod because of dismal previous responses from plod, they (parents and victims) had probably given up.

That would certainly apply in many of the cases, if what we hear is true.

It wouldn't, of course, apply in the cases where the girls were not reporting the rapes, and especially not to the girls who were climbing down the knotted sheets in the middle of the night.

I don't know why they were climbing down the knotted sheets. Was it as a result of grooming? Was it the result of threats? My limited understanding is that the law does not recognise any contributory element where the victim is under 16, so "She was asking for it by climbing down the knotted sheets" has no validity whatsoever.

There's a bigger picture here which you are seeking to avoid: plod and other authorities were demonstrably aware of the criminal activities for a substantial period of time, and yet they did very little. Had they acted when first alerted then their actions would have been a deterrent to prevent a large proportion of the subsequent abuse.

[Fab32]

The thing is the senior managers, especially in social services, are responsible for strategic management. They have the data its just a case of connecting the dots and then strapping on a pair and doing something about it.

From the moment a report to social services is made and is screened to the moment it is closed, they harvest a huge amount of data. It is clear front line social workers were raising concerns about these individuals but for well debated reasons nothing was done. That reluctance to act led to more children becoming victims of these horrible crimes. The blame lies completely with those committing the crimes and those responsible for the strategic management for there continued failure to act.