SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?
Discussion
Singlecoil seemingly ignores that parents can be incompetent and/or maliciously so, hence the requirement for social services departments in the first place (irrespective of third party criminality). Where social services and police have information pertaining to widescale child abuse they are not supposed to say "well, they have parents, they should deal with it, so what are we supposed to do?". That is not to remove parents from their duties, but to recognise that there might not be a binary reason for the abuse being allowed to take place, and that is why social agencies exist, to investigate and act as and when necessary and proportionate.
Any claim that 1400 victims and little action at all is somehow excusable is in itself, inexcusable.
Any claim that 1400 victims and little action at all is somehow excusable is in itself, inexcusable.
carinaman said:
grumpy52 said:
Having seen some accounts from some of those doing the earlier inquiries into the accusations in this area , it looks very sinister as to the extent of the shenanigans going on in all branches of the authorities involved. I feel we are just seeing the tip of a very toxic iceberg .
There was no money or votes in it was there?Just as there's no money or votes in the war against the motorist. Just as there's no money or votes in hospital car park fees.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 2nd September 18:51
That's the real toxic iceberg.
As an aside, there is apparently votes in hospital parking fees. The fees at my local (rural constituency) hospital are are comparable to on-street parking in central London - £3.50 per hour! - and the MP has made it a point to tackle Parking fees, distribution of the money and the PFI fiasco.
Edited by Mr Taxpayer on Wednesday 3rd September 08:57
tenpenceshort said:
Singlecoil seemingly ignores that parents can be incompetent and/or maliciously so, hence the requirement for social services departments in the first place (irrespective of third party criminality).
In a lot instances there aren't any parents in the lives of the children at all. They go through a carehome / foster-parent background. They often lack the care and affection a child should have, which makes them so easy to groom as the will-be offenders attend to their needs for the first time. La Liga said:
tenpenceshort said:
Singlecoil seemingly ignores that parents can be incompetent and/or maliciously so, hence the requirement for social services departments in the first place (irrespective of third party criminality).
In a lot instances there aren't any parents in the lives of the children at all. They go through a carehome / foster-parent background. They often lack the care and affection a child should have, which makes them so easy to groom as the will-be offenders attend to their needs for the first time. I agree that these children are indeed very vulnerable and it would be good if there was a better way of protecting them. I look forward to hearing suggestions as to how that could have been achieved without locking them up.
Obviously the men involved should be locked up and I understand some of them have been, but the solution starts with the children, not the myriads of men who want to abuse them. Locking up the ones that are caught will lead to others taking their place.
In any event,even assuming that some parents were feckless and irresponsible, that does not in any way excuse the abuse of their children by anyone, or the craven failure of the police and local authority to do their jobs. If a child's parents won't care for the child, it is all the more in need of protection by those charged by society to defend the vulnerable.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 3rd September 11:34
Of course society should protect the vulnerable. The problem comes when the vulnerable themselves don't want to cooperate, and any solution to this problem needs to take that into account. In effect it comes down to protection against freedom. Someone has to decide where to draw the line, others need to agree, and there will be negative outcomes whatever choices are made.
singlecoil said:
What were they arrested for, and what was the outcome?
AIUI, arresting people is still a fairly serious thing to do, and appropriate justification is necessary, otherwise the police involved are an easy target for legal action.
(1) I can't recall offhand, but it's in the report, and criticised there. AIUI, arresting people is still a fairly serious thing to do, and appropriate justification is necessary, otherwise the police involved are an easy target for legal action.
(2) You haven't been following the Aysha King case, then?
Breadvan72 said:
In any event,even assuming that some parents were feckless and irresponsible, that does not in any way excuse the abuse of their children by anyone, or the craven failure of the police and local authority to do their jobs. If a child's parents won't care for the child, it is all the more in need of protection by those charged with society to defend the vulnerable.
Your wasting your time I fear, the point I was making and he is blatantly ignoring is that the social work department left a list of names of men that they knew were involved with the grooming of children in a victims house and that had the authorities acted on the information they had been given hundreds of the later victims would not have been abused, to say that this was all about budgets is ridiculous, as is blaming the victims and their families, in a lot of the cases the kids were in care homes, therefore by singletrolls argument the council were actually the parents!!!Breadvan72 said:
singlecoil said:
What were they arrested for, and what was the outcome?
AIUI, arresting people is still a fairly serious thing to do, and appropriate justification is necessary, otherwise the police involved are an easy target for legal action.
(1) I can't recall offhand, but it's in the report, and criticised there. AIUI, arresting people is still a fairly serious thing to do, and appropriate justification is necessary, otherwise the police involved are an easy target for legal action.
(2) You haven't been following the Aysha King case, then?
(2) Is it relevant?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04fz6lq
They cited a case where a young girl, I think 11 was dealt with in a situation by the police. She next came to the notice of the police with another youngster in a derelict house with a group of older men. The police arrested the 11 year old for being drunk and disorderly. The panel questioning the Chief Constable of South Yorks. was incredulous that given the period this had been in the media that South Yorks. Police hadn't identified the officers that were involved or started to try to find out who they were. The answer was 'We're going to start an independent inquiry by an external constabulary', and the number of police officers employed and the time passed was mentioned.
They cited a case where a young girl, I think 11 was dealt with in a situation by the police. She next came to the notice of the police with another youngster in a derelict house with a group of older men. The police arrested the 11 year old for being drunk and disorderly. The panel questioning the Chief Constable of South Yorks. was incredulous that given the period this had been in the media that South Yorks. Police hadn't identified the officers that were involved or started to try to find out who they were. The answer was 'We're going to start an independent inquiry by an external constabulary', and the number of police officers employed and the time passed was mentioned.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 3rd September 16:38
The panel were poor and I fail to see what benefit they have other than to have the Q&A in public. Keith Vaz didn't even know how long the CC had been the CC when he tried to make out that he was partly responsible for what had occurred, which he isn't.
The knee-jerk time frames were a demonstration of the lack of questioning skills from the surrounding MPs - it's like they dragged anyone off the street to ask the first thing that came into their heads. What difference does it make if the Chief knows now who an officer who made an arrest in 2008 is in the last week? They were talking about "Child H", and the drunk and disorderly incident receives around 40 words in the report. How comprehensive, and what a thorough basis in which to be critical... What risk is there with not knowing, or at least what risk that didn't exist between now and then exists now? None is the answer.
In order to judge whether that action was inappropriate or not he'd have to launch an investigation... One in which he is in the process of doing so, except focusing on one minor head-line grabbing, emotive occurrence, it's appropriately one of much greater scope.
The knee-jerk time frames were a demonstration of the lack of questioning skills from the surrounding MPs - it's like they dragged anyone off the street to ask the first thing that came into their heads. What difference does it make if the Chief knows now who an officer who made an arrest in 2008 is in the last week? They were talking about "Child H", and the drunk and disorderly incident receives around 40 words in the report. How comprehensive, and what a thorough basis in which to be critical... What risk is there with not knowing, or at least what risk that didn't exist between now and then exists now? None is the answer.
In order to judge whether that action was inappropriate or not he'd have to launch an investigation... One in which he is in the process of doing so, except focusing on one minor head-line grabbing, emotive occurrence, it's appropriately one of much greater scope.
But haven't South Yorks. Police made some statement about the report? So they must have read it to come to be able to make a statement about it.
I am not sure it takes that much brains to identify the most shocking revelations that have a direct link to the police and then think of likely responses to those questions? Surely that's what people do before job interviews? 'What questions are they likely to ask me and what am I going to say?'
Perhaps a strategy was just to appear contrite and take the kicking?
I am not sure where that sits with former Chief Constable Mike Hedges being on Today this morning? Do they train police dogs to eat the homework of Chief Constables?
I am not sure it takes that much brains to identify the most shocking revelations that have a direct link to the police and then think of likely responses to those questions? Surely that's what people do before job interviews? 'What questions are they likely to ask me and what am I going to say?'
Perhaps a strategy was just to appear contrite and take the kicking?
I am not sure where that sits with former Chief Constable Mike Hedges being on Today this morning? Do they train police dogs to eat the homework of Chief Constables?
Yes, they can and have commented on it, but asking the CC to speculate over one alleged inappropriate instant that stands out to one MP is absolutely pointless.
He's recognised the scope and seriousness and is asking for it to be comprehensively investigated. This isn't something that can magically appear out of thin air. It needs planning, thought and consideration in order to be done correctly. Quality takes time.
There's no need to get caught up in the emotive knee-jerking we saw yesterday, especially when over the last 4 years the situation of managing similar abuses has improved no end (as noted by the report, and under the CC's tenure). So there's no current or future risk that requires any panic.
It pains me as I think having a panel who can call senior public figures to account is an excellent thing, but not when it was done like yesterday.
He's recognised the scope and seriousness and is asking for it to be comprehensively investigated. This isn't something that can magically appear out of thin air. It needs planning, thought and consideration in order to be done correctly. Quality takes time.
There's no need to get caught up in the emotive knee-jerking we saw yesterday, especially when over the last 4 years the situation of managing similar abuses has improved no end (as noted by the report, and under the CC's tenure). So there's no current or future risk that requires any panic.
It pains me as I think having a panel who can call senior public figures to account is an excellent thing, but not when it was done like yesterday.
La Liga said:
It pains me as I think having a panel who can call senior public figures to account is an excellent thing, but not when it was done like yesterday.
That's a valid point. South Yorks. were there to discuss the media involvement on the raid of a celebrity's pad in Berks. so additionally asking about what was going on in Rotherham could have been a slight ambush, but an entirely predictable one.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.
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.
I add that Public Inquiries usually have Counsel to the Inquiry, who does a lot of prep and asks most of the questions. The Chilcot Inquiry is a washout for many reasons, including the absence of Counsel to the Inquiry. Of course, sometimes having Counsel on board still produces a duff result. Robert Jay is a mate, but I think he fluffed Leveson.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff