SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?

SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?

Author
Discussion

Mill Wheel

Original Poster:

6,149 posts

195 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-27/pcc-has-...

In the light of the revelations in Rotherham, should those who failed to act face prosecution?
The law prosecutes drivers who speed and then attempt to pervert the course of justice, and yet here we have officials who apparently openly looked the other way rather than reveal the ethnic origins of perpetrators, and instructed others to do the same to avoid being branded as racists!
Much of this has taken place before the PCC was in place, and HE is being targeted and urged to resign. I think this exposes those who were high up in the chain of command to a much better cause to be brought to book - in the same manner as which speeders and PtCoJ are.

Any thought from the PH panel??

SV8Predator

2,102 posts

164 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
The Labour Police Commissioner for South Yorkshire spent a decade as councilor in charge of Children's Services whilst all the abuse was going on. The council and he received 3 reports detailing abuse but did nothing. He has apologised and said more should have been done. Resign? Hell no.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
I think the idea of sack one person and everything's alright is one of the major causes of lack of improvement in the way such things are dealt with.

The offenders here are the gangs who abused the children and those who supplied the children. The intent should be to stop such abuse happening again and to investigate whether the crime is continuing. If there has been malfeasance then this is also a crime and should be prosecuted in the same manner. But to suggest the PCC should go, as has been demanded by some outlets, is farcical.

On top of that, if, for instance, the person in charge of the social services unit is sacked/required to resign then you have to ask why this person, who presumably joined the job because they wanted to do it well, didn't. Look into anything like this and you discover pressures and limitations.

If the government refuses to fund social services sufficiently then blaming the individual for failings due to a high case-load is rather harsh. If you read the report in full you will find a good deal on workload.

I phoned a DC in what I would call a regional crime squad about a job I was given a full witness order for. In my day a detective inspector would have had been the SIO and would be overseeing an albeit small team of detectives. Yet this DC was in sole charge although she had access to a non-dedicated typist.

She told me that some serious cases, where there were easy to identify/known offenders, were being filed as there was no one to deal. So when that story breaks and the DM demands that heads should roll, who should be sacked? The DC for not breaking the law by telling the public of the scandal? The person in charge of her unit who allowed serious crime to be ignored? Various chief constables for not supplying the RCS with sufficient staff and expecting it to bear its fair share of the cuts? Or some PCC who hasn't got a clue what's going on?

The only reason people are sacked at more or less random is that this gives the impression that something is being done when it is the same old going on and the same problems are left to fester.

Off with his head and the world is a better place. It is a panacea for those who have no idea.

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
I think the idea of sack one person and everything's alright is one of the major causes of lack of improvement in the way such things are dealt with.

......

Off with his head and the world is a better place. It is a panacea for those who have no idea.
Very true. Sacking anybody at this stage is not going to put the clock back. There are however a few points that occurred to me that are unlikely to be covered by the media.

Police and Social Services are two professions where getting it wrong is, in an ideal world, not an option. But they are staffed by people, and people get things wrong from time to time.

In the Rotherham case it seems clear that things went on that various authorities knew about and nothing was done. This begs the question why was nothing done, and the obvious reason that springs to some people's mind is that the ethnicity of the suspects made them in some way above the law. However, applying a bit of devil's advocacy:

What would happen if a case was brought against a group of Pakistani men for paedophilia, the case went to court and ended up unproven, and the suspects "walked" with their Not Guilty verdicts metaphorically in their hands? How do you think the press conference would go afterwards?

"This proves that the Police were trying to stitch us up because we are of Asian descent"

"If we were a group of white Europeans this case would never have got to court"

"The Police/ Society treat us as second class citizens"

"Anyone for Jihad?"

Whose head would be being called for on a plate if that happened?

Having said all that, we do appear to be in an interesting position where if you systematically kiddie-fiddle for 20+ years you stand a good chance of getting away with it, presumably because the authorities have far more important crimes to solve by putting camera vans on bridges to look out for people doing 80 on the M1.

Just my take on the issue

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.

People at the head of institutions should be aware that if the institution they are responsible fails badly enough in ways they could and should have prevented they will be on the hook for it. Whether that is the case here, I don't know.

over_the_hill

3,185 posts

245 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
On top of that, if, for instance, the person in charge of the social services unit is sacked/required to resign then you have to ask why this person, who presumably joined the job because they wanted to do it well, didn't. Look into anything like this and you discover pressures and limitations.
Or they blagged their way into a job they were neither suited to or capable of, then did everything possible to hang on to it, the power and the doubtless high salary.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
What would happen if a case was brought against a group of Pakistani men for paedophilia, the case went to court and ended up unproven, and the suspects "walked" with their Not Guilty verdicts metaphorically in their hands? How do you think the press conference would go afterwards?
Very good points I think.

I worked with a detective inspector I admired. He was highly intelligent, had a phenomenal memory for detail and was a grafter to an extraordinary extent. So you can guess how senior officers feared him. Further he made it look so easy. His failures included not giving a damn who he upset. He could be brief - especially to briefs. That said, you always knew where you stood with him.

He was politically adept as well and brave. So you can see why I was not alone in admiring him.

A chap was prosecuted for a double murder of children. Many of those who saw the disclosure of the case were more than convinced beyond a reasonable of his guilt but he had the advantage of a famous Sunday paper, now defunct, paying for one of the country's best legal teams as a defence. I'm not criticising the CPS but he was out of their league.

There was much talk of the force being sued - although all the excluded evidence, and there was a lot of it, would have been allowable in such a case so it was felt unlikely - and there was a lot of criticisms of the force, including a rather farcical book, highlighting various failures. The powers that be wanted to turn their back on the incident.

There was an attempt murder of a child of the same age - lovely kid, really brave - and this detective inspector was put in charge of the case. It was an inspired choice so he must have been the only one available. The first 'Action' (these are recorded tasks given to the staff of the incident room) was to send a DS and DC to the proven innocent of double murder non-previous offender and arrest him. The only evidence was the identical MO.

The fact that they found the bloke washing out the boot of his car, the one he had transported the child in, was not really a piece of luck in the circs and it helped condemn the animal. All down to the bravery of the DI.

I'm not totally without political knowledge of the service, having been the victim of it on occasion, and I felt obliged to phone him a couple of days later to say how impressed I was with the decision. He obviously knew the likely fall-out should the chap not be convicted.

He said: 'What's the worst they could do to me? Post me to Newhaven I suppose.'

It was a backwater and would provide no interest for a DI of his mental ability and desire for work.

So when the offender was found guilty, and after the order that the traditional end of case p-up was banned in order not to give the press any suggestion the prosecution was vindicative (surely doing something different did just that) can you guess where the powers that be posted him?

These politics go in in every job, private and public bodies, and people have to cope with them. If a bloke at the coal face thinks that the bosses have got it all wrong and are not concentrating on the right jobs, what are the chances of them being heard?

Further, and by way of excuse I suppose, those at the top are under pressure from budgets, from the threat of a newspaper picking on them, of losing their job because someone under them did something wrong. Despite no blame being attached to them, as in the case of the PCC, they could forfeit a £100,000 job (some suggest sinecure).

I bet everyone on here wold look at that and suggest that they would have enough backbone to risk it, their home, their kid's schooling, their marriage perhaps, their posh car, their comfortable office, on the say-so of some half-educated, easily replaced minion. But for most, if not all, they would be kidding themselves.

I stuck my neck out for a WPC but, despite enjoying being a bit of a nuisance and knowing how to be so, I got nowhere. I saw a DCI I worked with (I was a sergeant, two levels below) and put all my evidence to him and he pushed it, all the way to the Chief Constable. He retired some years later as . . . DCI.

I stuck my neck out but it was his that got chopped off.

Two lessons learned there: get someone else to take the risk, and politics can be nasty.

So you know that you could be sacked if there was a suggestion of being racially motivated, let alone saying that 1400 children were being abused, mainly by youths ethnically Pakistani. Are you feeling lucky, punk?

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.
Such behaviour encourages admirals to concentrate on protecting themselves. Or perhaps those with ability, but a bit of sense, decide to remain a captain.

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Next time I get stopped I may say 'Haven't you got some Paedos to protect?'

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Am I the only one to find this linkage between speeding enforcement and the Rotherham scandal a bit of an insult to the victims in Rotherham, as well as an illustration of the sad fixation of the middle class motorist with being so terribly put upon by speed limits?


Mill Wheel

Original Poster:

6,149 posts

195 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
The neglect of duty, and all the blaming and buck passing going on is surely akin to PtCoJ, and a similar penalty should apply.

The PCC is exhibiting all the signs of avoiding blame for which he knows he should face

tenpenceshort

32,880 posts

216 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Am I the only one to find this linkage between speeding enforcement and the Rotherham scandal a bit of an insult to the victims in Rotherham, as well as an illustration of the sad fixation of the middle class motorist with being so terribly put upon by speed limits?
No.

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
SV8Predator said:
The Labour Police Commissioner for South Yorkshire spent a decade as councilor in charge of Children's Services whilst all the abuse was going on. The council and he received 3 reports detailing abuse but did nothing. He has apologised and said more should have been done. Resign? Hell no.
1. A nail in the coffin for PCCs and jobs for the boys. PCC scam busted.

PCCs are supposed to be about Accountability and Transparency. Not denial and cover up.

2. A nail in the coffin for Theresa May's Modern Slavery Bill, that she could need as a little victory as there was no way the coalition could achieve what they promised with regard to immigration.

Kids being traded for sex in Rotherham is not consistent with Britain setting the standard with regard to People Trafficking and Slavery and how can she proclaim to care about them when three reports from John Vine QPM, who may have expressed concerns about how asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are being treated, are stuck on her desk as politically for her and her party they're not good news.


It's not just Rotherham. We need to keep pushing so we can make a Wicker Man from the dead wood in all three political parties. 'Space Lizards'? Or just self serving scum?

V8forweekends

2,481 posts

123 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Am I the only one to find this linkage between speeding enforcement and the Rotherham scandal a bit of an insult to the victims in Rotherham, as well as an illustration of the sad fixation of the middle class motorist with being so terribly put upon by speed limits?
No you aren't, I was just composing such a post when I read yours.

I find the OPs linkage of these offensive and pathetic.

Purely on a point of logic (if forced) the analogy would surely be a situation where a passenger knew a driver was habitually speeding and/or driving dangerously, but took no action (although, as I say I hesitate to go along with the wrong-headed link in the first place)

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
tenpenceshort said:
Breadvan72 said:
Am I the only one to find this linkage between speeding enforcement and the Rotherham scandal a bit of an insult to the victims in Rotherham, as well as an illustration of the sad fixation of the middle class motorist with being so terribly put upon by speed limits?
No.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

'You can't speed along here as vulnerable kids could get killed by your driving you selfish, planet killing motorist you!'

But nevermind all the vulnerable kids that aren't going to get run over as they're drugged and abused senseless in two up, two downs and in taxis and seedy B&Bs eh?


Running over kids is bad? Drugging and raping them is less bad?

So the Great and the Good that want to lecture to me about driving and transport and congestion and pollution are too busy doing that to notice the sexual expolitation of minors and ignore the three reports about it? They can go and get screwed. Hypocrites!

The police work hand in hand with partner organisations like councils. How do they get to meetings with these partners and councils? How do they get there? In a car? What makes it difficult? All the traffic making 'projects' they implement to engineer congestion to make public transport seem more attractive and justify congestion charging and enforcement by cameras.

If I drive into town to collect a relative from a public transport 'hub' and that public transport solution is late am I the scum of the earth if I resent or refuse to pay 50p or a £1 to park for 5-10 minutes? In many councils they're more interested in getting that £1 for me parking for a few minutes to collect someone using public transport than they are kids being raped.

Their priorities are all wrong. There's no money to made from protecting kids from being raped is there?


On PM now, it's more difficult to get rid of a PCC than an MP. The local Police Panel can only get rid of them if they've committed an offence that would get a sentence of more than 2 years. 'Jobs for the boys'?


Another reason to link the issues is Dorset's PCC is looking into SACs as someone pointed out their rules on attendance and offences could make it seem that SACs are a way of making money. So persecuting motorists is a way to make money, where as there's no money to made protecting kids from being press ganged into prostitution.

'Weasel word' excuses are being trotted out on PM now, about the reports and who failed to act. The weasel words sound like the same stuff they use to mess around with roads and transport and public liberty.

Nevermind watching everything with ANPR and tracking our every journey what are they doing about organised gangs or child rapists and traffickers? Why be so interested in those of us that are not kiddie fiddlers like those being protected by Councils and the Police?

The Bottom Inspectors are more interested in the law abiding then they are the kiddie fiddlers and those that take from the public purse protecting the kiddie fiddlers. 16 years of the Bottom Inspectors not doing anything in Rotherham.

More public sector platitudes from some Scottish woman on PM.

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 27th August 17:19

Mill Wheel

Original Poster:

6,149 posts

195 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Am I the only one to find this linkage between speeding enforcement and the Rotherham scandal a bit of an insult to the victims in Rotherham, as well as an illustration of the sad fixation of the middle class motorist with being so terribly put upon by speed limits?
My point was NOT that motorists are put upon; rather that cases are pursued with apparent enthusiasm against speeders and alleged pedeophiles, while the people in authority whose neglect of duty led to vulnerable people suffering abuse appear to be going unpunished.
If we can see the courts punishing Huhne and Hall years after the offence, then SURELY these clowns must be brought to book, not allowed to continue in enjoyment of their present salaries.

rs1952

5,247 posts

258 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Am I the only one to find this linkage between speeding enforcement and the Rotherham scandal a bit of an insult to the victims in Rotherham, as well as an illustration of the sad fixation of the middle class motorist with being so terribly put upon by speed limits?
Whilst you clearly have got some support for this view, and indeed I wouldn't go as far as carinaman, I think the only insult being dished out is towards the Great British Public by the authorities.

"Oh dear Sir, so your house has been burgled? I am sorry - now here's a Crime Number and fk off"

"Oh dear Sir, so you've been mugged. What do you expect us to do about it - we don't know who did it. We'll offer you some counselling. NEXT!"

"Oh dear Sir, your lad has been buggered by a well-known paedophile? More than my job's worth to do anything about that"

"You, you barsteward, were seen by one of our vans doing 85 on the motorway. Here's a bill for £100, and can I have your licence please - I need to put some points on it"

This is the true insult. The fact that a perception has been allowed to grow up that the law is only interested in the easy pickings, and even then only doing the easy bits.

Now, I must get off this forum because the grass needs cutting and the ashtrays need emptying. I think I'll just empty the ashtrays again because there might be an elephant hiding in the grass, given the length of time since I last cut it.

Get the analogy? wink

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
In my younger days, when I thought the police had some integrity and could be trusted I handed myself in at a police station. I am not sure I would do that now.

I've admitted to a speeding offence. Took my medicine etc.

I am now listening to some chap on PM that's making excuses. It's a male Sheffield Social Worker reciting getting told off for visiting a vulnerable kid at 6pm, as it was outside some protocol what he says is consistent with some of the stuff I know the police get hung up about, technicalities rather than what was done.

When I get stuff wrong I admit to it. Meanwhile these people that did nothing make excuses and hide in the woodwork 'systems', 'procedures'.

He's saying it's not PC, it's not concerns about race, it's more importance placed on the paper chase. It's like my police beef. Following the rules legitimises BS.

I'll have to listen to this social worker on PM on iplayer later.

carinaman

21,224 posts

171 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Dealing with paedos doesn't make cheap advertorial TV like Traffic Cops and Road Wars does it? Where's the good news for the brand to be had from tackling paedos and the police and councils that protect them?

'Paedos in cars' - I'll think up some ideas for the 45 minute pilot. It may involve several mini cabs. Perhaps we could get James May to front it? 'Paedo's Cars'?

James May gets a former soldier to empty an AK47 into a car belonging to a Paedo protecting Council employee?

What car does PCC Shaun Wright have and are there any quarries near Rotherham?

Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 27th August 17:56

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
I was waiting for the classic 'lessons will be learnt' !! Seem to have heard that quite a few times already. And I wouldn't mind betting that somewhere along the line, government fund cutting is a root cause of this. Think back to the last care home scandal. Workers at the sharp end under funded and overworked.