SPEEDOS or PEDOs - Should officials face the rap?

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil said:

Derek Smith said:

Breadvan72 said:

Oh whoopee, singlecoil apparently blames the underage girls for being plied with drink, threatened and cajoled into sex, and so on. Are you just being contrarian as a stance, sc, or do you really blame immature young girls for falling victim to men taking advantage of them?

The 'elephant in the room' is blaming victims for the offences.

Nope, the elephant in the room is the idea that teenage girls who are not from a strong family background can be prevented from doing whatever they want to do by anything other than locking them up.

You would have done well in Rotherham police, sc. Note that sometimes the police arrested the victims while letting the abusers walk free. These girls were easy prey. They need protection. Blaming the girls is an easy let out for those who preyed on them.

[Bigends]

Breadvan72 said:

singlecoil said:

Derek Smith said:

Breadvan72 said:

Oh whoopee, singlecoil apparently blames the underage girls for being plied with drink, threatened and cajoled into sex, and so on. Are you just being contrarian as a stance, sc, or do you really blame immature young girls for falling victim to men taking advantage of them?

The 'elephant in the room' is blaming victims for the offences.

Nope, the elephant in the room is the idea that teenage girls who are not from a strong family background can be prevented from doing whatever they want to do by anything other than locking them up.

You would have done well in Rotherham police, sc. Note that sometimes the police arrested the victims while letting the abusers walk free. These girls were easy prey. They need protection. Blaming the girls is an easy let out for those who preyed on them.

Its maybe the fact that the girls werent from a strong family background that actually made them vulnerable

[anonymous-user]

Often yes, but the fact remains that the girls were vulnerable and needed protection. Some of them complained, but were disbelieved and written off as trashy sluts.

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

The evidence of neglect and gross incompetence and spinelessness is clear. The story is plenty dark enough. No need to hunt for Illuminati.

One source refers to a target culture and statistics mattering more than anything. That rings true based on my experience in a public inquiry.

I can't vouch for the content that I found in the thread in NP&E:

https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/2014/08/28...

Maybe Derek has a point?

My 'problem'? I was bullied, intimidated and harassed. That goes on in the NHS too doesn't it? Look at NHS England's Lead on Diversity & Equality rigging a job for her daughter's boyfriend for one example. Bullying people is one way to try to get them to accept or tolerate things that are wrong isn't it?

Perhaps public sector bullying by people that are in positions they shouldn't be in is part of 'broken Britain'?

The difference between bullying these young girls into sexual exploitation and bullying in the workplace is?

[anonymous-user]

Carinaman, not everything is about you. I add my voice to the several others urging you to gain some perspective. Maybe take some professional advice from a doctor or counsellor. This is well meant.

[carinaman]

In your work with North Staffs. NHS Trust, was it for two years, you must have seen some bullying as well as chasing statistics?

We had the 'voiced by actor' Social Worker saying they were advised or encouraged not to allow vulnerable children onto the 'books'. It's possible such management guidance may have bordered on bullying.

BiB have alluded to officers being bullied from above.

We can comment on chasing stats, cooking the performance metrics books, and people in Rotherham being 'spineless' what's to say some bullying didn't play a part in what's been uncovered? Commentators have said that Rotherham is the 'tip of the Iceberg' so what's to say bullying hasn't happened in those cases?

Derek Smith made comparisons to the Cyril Smith child abuse. Bullying went on there to keep that quiet didn't it?

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 28th August 20:30

[Red Devil]

Breadvan72 said:

I do think that people should do the old fashioned thing and resign when they have presided over an organisation that has failed, even if they have no direct personal culpability for the failure, but I am probably just old fashioned.

Falling on your sword became distinctly unfashionable post John Profumo. Unlike most disgraced MPs/local councillors/other public servants, he atoned for his sins and maintained a steadfast public silence about the matter throughout the rest of his life.

A great pity most don't follow his lead.

[singlecoil]

Red Devil said:

Breadvan72 said:

I do think that people should do the old fashioned thing and resign when they have presided over an organisation that has failed, even if they have no direct personal culpability for the failure, but I am probably just old fashioned.

Falling on your sword became distinctly unfashionable post John Profumo. Unlike most disgraced MPs/local councillors/other public servants, he atoned for his sins and maintained a steadfast public silence about the matter throughout the rest of his life.

A great pity most don't follow his lead.

They might find it easier to do so if they were as wealthy as him and had a similar background. I'm not for a moment suggesting that he shouldn't be praised, I do so myself. But people who come from a less advantaged background might want to hold on to whatever well-paying job they've managed to blag their way into despite calls for their resignation.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

But people who come from a less advantaged background might want to hold on to whatever well-paying job they've managed to blag their way into.

That doesn't make it morally right to do so.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

singlecoil said:

But people who come from a less advantaged background might want to hold on to whatever well-paying job they've managed to blag their way into.

That doesn't make it morally right to do so.

Who is claiming that it does?

[carinaman]

Cookson isn't an Asian name is it?:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11061...

I bet he didn't record that crime.

[anonymous-user]

LucreLout said:

What that seems to show is that, for example, black people commit almost 3x the amount of crime per capita than other groups. Op Trident aside, why do the stop and search numbers not show them as being targeted by a similar over representation?

Black people are over-represented by stop and search, but like you say, commit proportionately more crime. It's a complicated subject and never gets discussed in any depth when the inevitable disproportional data is released.

Breadvan72 said:

One source refers to a target culture and statistics mattering more than anything. That rings true based on my experience in a public inquiry.

Agreed. "What gets measured get managed", as the saying goes. When the state centrally defines the be all and end all of performance as being simple, numerical reductions and detections, then they become the be all and end all. "Good and bad" doesn't become defined by risk, but by what looks good for political purposes i.e. "we oversaw a 20% reduction in burglary" etc. This reflects in HMIC inspections as they are partly there to identify whether or not the strategy defined for the police is being adhered to. It becomes very easy to not look at other areas.

It doesn't excuse some of levels of incompetence / neglect seen in instances here, and if there are criminal offences which can be realistically prosecuted, they should be, but there's a lot more depth and complication than people realise. If an organisations is told to and rewarded for focusing on specific areas, then they come at the expense of others. CSE no doubt came on the radar in terms of risk through intelligence and other indications, but where's the incentive to pursue / resource such matters when most of your performance structure is pre-defined around other areas?

Generally speaking about CSE. The victims are often very hard to "engage" with, especially at the grooming stage. Often from hard backgrounds and the men who groom them are the first people in their life who give them attention, "love" and attend to their needs. It can get a bit like "Stockholm syndrome" and they are very quickly in a psychological position where they will-be abusers make the police / social services / others are the enemies. It's obviously a different matter when they are coming up public workers and telling them about serious sexual offences.

There are some interesting comments that the report could have been written at most places by various people. It seems possible and likely this political, cultural, institutional and individual neglect isn't just going to be in one area.

[Mr Taxpayer]

XCP said:

I am surprised at the police reluctance to act. In my day they liked little better than banging up pervs.

That was before the Police were neutered by the diversity agenda and branded 'institutional racists'. Inspector Gadget frequently blogged on diversity awareness bks that he had to undertake.

Let's not forget that since the victims in Rotherham were selected base on their race than not only was this sexual abuse but racial abuse as well.

[jaf01uk]

singlecoil said:

Laughable that on BBC News this lunchtime there was a parent complaining that the council had failed to stop his daughter being abused.

I find that comment extremely distasteful, I watched the Panorama programme last night about this fiasco and if the guy interviewed was the same one you find "laughable" his daughter was abused by the very same people that social services and the police knew about years previously, so yes it is true that had they acted his daughter would not have been abused...

[anonymous-user]

singlecoil apparently thinks that the girls themselves are to blame for being abused, so having a go at the parents (some of whom were arrested for complaining about their daughters being abused) neatly follows on from that.

[singlecoil]

jaf01uk said:

I find that comment extremely distasteful, I watched the Panorama programme last night about this fiasco and if the guy interviewed was the same one you find "laughable" his daughter was abused by the very same people that social services and the police knew about years previously, so yes it is true that had they acted his daughter would not have been abused...

No, what I found laughable was the fact that the father should have been looking after his daughter and keeping her safe, not leaving it to the council to do for him and then complaining when they failed. Do you leave your daughter's care to the council?

Whether it was the same person as the one you saw I do not know.

[grumpy52]

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 .

[carinaman]

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

[jaf01uk]

singlecoil said:

No, what I found laughable was the fact that the father should have been looking after his daughter and keeping her safe, not leaving it to the council to do for him and then complaining when they failed. Do you leave your daughter's care to the council?

Whether it was the same person as the one you saw I do not know.

Wasn't just the council though was it? Social workers knew, police knew and none did anything! So by your logic(?) we don't need a sex offenders register then because the parents can look after their kids, grooming schmooming...

[singlecoil]

jaf01uk said:

singlecoil said:

No, what I found laughable was the fact that the father should have been looking after his daughter and keeping her safe, not leaving it to the council to do for him and then complaining when they failed. Do you leave your daughter's care to the council?

Whether it was the same person as the one you saw I do not know.

Wasn't just the council though was it? Social workers knew, police knew and none did anything! So by your logic(?) we don't need a sex offenders register then because the parents can look after their kids, grooming schmooming...

So, when I point out to you that the parents are, or at least should be, the primary carers, you start a list of other agencies who can be blamed instead? And you are asking about my logic

Who looked after you as a child, and kept you out of trouble?

Now of course there will be situations where there are no parents or parents who aren't capable of looking after themselves let alone their offspring, and in those cases the councils etc will do what they can within the budget and other limitations they have to work within.


What exactly would have been your solution to this situation, if you had been a senior person within one of the agencies that you are blaming? Would you have locked the children up 24/7? How would you have got them to school etc?

Your answer, if you provide one, and I will be surprised if you or anyone else does, needs to take account of the restrictions mentioned, there's no point in claiming that everything would have been ok under your control unless you can tell us where you would have got the money and the people from.