UKC

Rotherham

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
> The majority of the perpetrators were described by victims as being Asian. The inquiry found that several staff described their nervousness talking about the race of the men "for fear of being thought racist". Others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-abuse-report-blata...

What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?
 Postmanpat 26 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

There has been no such "political correctness" in this country. Such issues have been openly
discussed and addressed for decades. I know this because when I raised examples of the opposite (eg.Honeyford, Oldham etc)spread over several decades and many places I was told that didn't demonstrate anything.
 Jon Stewart 26 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> There has been no such "political correctness" in this country. Such issues have been openly

> discussed and addressed for decades. I know this because when I raised examples of the opposite (eg.Honeyford, Oldham etc)spread over several decades and many places I was told that didn't demonstrate anything.

The crimes we're talking about here are described in the article:

> "They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated."

> She gives examples of children doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes, and told they would be next if they spoke to anyone. "Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators."

We're looking for an explanation for how these crimes weren't prioritised and addressed. It could because the responsible authorities were woefully inadequate, in myriad different ways, or they could have been completely competent, it's just that political correctness has gone mad and that's what prevented them fulfilling their duties.

Which do you honestly think is the compelling explanation?

To be a little less glib about it, one has to ask the question: how would being more open about the race of the perpetrators have altered the outcomes?

Stroppy's post paints the picture that political correctness prevented the crimes from being prevented or addressed. But there isn't any evidence of this. What there is is a suggestion that there was some unspecified hindrance through a lack of discussion of the racial characteristics of the perpetrators.

What Stroppy is proposing is that if the authorities had been "allowed" to say "they're all Pakistani" then the crimes wouldn't have happened. It's an absurd suggestion, and it smacks of someone with an agenda wildly misattributing causation.

I'm not saying that there was absolutely no hindrance to the work of the authorities from the taboos around race and crime. What I'm saying is that attributing the entire cause of failure in these cases to political correctness, rather than inadequacy, is ludicrous. The political correctness angle might be one of a thousand factors, and no one can untangle its influence because there is no counterfactual in which the same events happen with the same people involved but without the influence of political correctness. There might be a sensible point to be made about the unhelpful and perverse consequences of the taboos around race. But that point isn't that political correctness gone made prevented the authorities from addressing these awful crimes - how could it?
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> We're looking for an explanation for how these crimes weren't prioritised and addressed. It could because the responsible authorities were woefully inadequate, in myriad different ways, or they could have been completely competent, it's just that political correctness has gone mad and that's what prevented them fulfilling their duties.

Or could it be, as the Guardian, that bastion of right wing thought puts it

Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth" by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls.

Of course, the "racism" of Pakistani men targetting white girls, does not exist.
> Which do you honestly think is the compelling explanation?

This one perhaps?

Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth" by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls. .



> To be a little less glib about it, one has to ask the question: how would being more open about the race of the perpetrators have altered the outcomes?

How about this;

The issue of race, regardless of ethnic group, should be tackled as an absolute priority if it is known to be a significant factor in the criminal activity of organised abuse in any local community, wrote Jay. She suggested councillors can play an effective role in this, "especially those representing the communities in question, but only if they act as facilitators of communication rather than barriers to it. One senior officer suggested that some influential Pakistani-heritage councillors in Rotherham had acted as barriers."


>
> Stroppy's post paints the picture that political correctness prevented the crimes from being prevented or addressed. But there isn't any evidence of this. What there is is a suggestion that there was some unspecified hindrance through a lack of discussion of the racial characteristics of the perpetrators.

You choose to ignore all the evidence? It's people like you responsible for the rape, torture of white girls being so easily perpetuated.


> What Stroppy is proposing is that if the authorities had been "allowed" to say "they're all Pakistani" then the crimes wouldn't have happened. It's an absurd suggestion, and it smacks of someone with an agenda wildly misattributing causation.

Liar. I have never claimed anything of the sort. It would not stop the peadophiles and criminals you seek to mitigate from raping and toturing anyone.


> I'm not saying that there was absolutely no hindrance to the work of the authorities from the taboos around race and crime. What I'm saying is that attributing the entire cause of failure in these cases to political correctness, rather than inadequacy, is ludicrous. The political correctness angle might be one of a thousand factors, and no one can untangle its influence because there is no counterfactual in which the same events happen with the same people involved but without the influence of political correctness. There might be a sensible point to be made about the unhelpful and perverse consequences of the taboos around race. But that point isn't that political correctness gone made prevented the authorities from addressing these awful crimes - how could it?

Try debating what people post, not lying.
Post edited at 23:44
In reply to stroppygob:

> Managers who failed to protect 1,400 children from sexual abuse in Rotherham are now working in senior posts at other councils after escaping disciplinary action.

> A report into the abuse scandal does not name any of the culpable managers, meaning they are unlikely to face questions from their current employers over their “blatant” failings in the past.

Sounds like the Catholic Church scandals.

 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:


> I'm not saying that there was absolutely no hindrance to the work of the authorities from the taboos around race and crime. What I'm saying is that attributing the entire cause of failure in these cases to political correctness, rather than inadequacy, is ludicrous. The political correctness angle might be one of a thousand factors, and no one can untangle its influence because there is no counterfactual in which the same events happen with the same people involved but without the influence of political correctness. There might be a sensible point to be made about the unhelpful and perverse consequences of the taboos around race. But that point isn't that political correctness gone made prevented the authorities from addressing these awful crimes - how could it?

Maybe the media is overcompensating and focusing on a particular angle. More likely the report identifies the "taboos around race and crime" as a major cause of the failure to protect the victims properly and bring the perpetrators to justice. Quite likely they are not making it up. Quite simply the front line police and social workers were so afraid of being seen as racist and "politically incorrect" if they highlighted the nature of the crimes and the perpetrators, or so conditioned to ignore it, they didn't. Why are you so keen to bury your head in the sand? It's ok, the a Grauniad has sent out a memo to that effect.
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Or could it be, as the Guardian, that bastion of right wing thought puts it

> Jahangir Akhtar, the former deputy leader of the council, is accused in the report of naivety and potentially "ignoring a politically inconvenient truth" by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make, and you certainly haven't understood what I'm saying.

The issue is one of causation and blame. Were the crimes not addressed because of political correctness, or because the people involved were inadequate? How can you separate the two causes? Why did Jahangir Akhtar refuse to get to grips with this problem - "it's because of political correctness" doesn't provide an adequate explanation, there is obviously a lot more going on, a lot more factors at play and those factors can't be untangled. I'm not denying that the taboo around race was probably part of it, but the article doesn't explain exactly how that played out and amongst what other specific local and personal factors.

> Of course, the "racism" of Pakistani men targetting white girls, does not exist.

Where was that plucked from? What are you referring to?

> This one perhaps?

> Jahangir Akhtar...

But read it. There's no evidence of what would have happened in the absence of "political correctness" - we don't know. You can't attribute the cause of the failure to "political correctness", because the world is more complicated than that. There is an argument that the race taboo had an adverse impact on how the authorities dealt with the crimes - a very reasonable and important point. But does that mean that authorities' inadequacy, or the abstract concept of "political correctness" is to blame?

> How about this;

> ...that some influential Pakistani-heritage councillors in Rotherham had acted as barriers."

So this sounds like something a bit different to political correctness. That Pakistani councillors didn't want to admit problems in communities of their race. All a bit more complex, no?

> You choose to ignore all the evidence? It's people like you responsible for the rape, torture of white girls being so easily perpetuated.

I have no idea what you're blathering on about.

> Liar. I have never claimed anything of the sort. It would not stop the peadophiles and criminals you seek to mitigate from raping and toturing anyone.

> Try debating what people post, not lying.

Do we have to go through this again?

You wrote:

> What is more important, political correctness or child protection?

So you've set up a ludicrous, simplistic version of the world in which the authorities had a binary choice: that the authorities chose political correctness instead of child protection. Then when I respond on the basis of your ludicrous, simplistic interpretation of events and show that it's manifestly ridiculous, you blab on about me doing something or other...
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Maybe the media is overcompensating and focusing on a particular angle.

I'm not saying that, I'm agreeing that it's an important point, but that it's a complex one amidst a huge number of reasons why a system will fail. Apologies if you can't get to grips with that, but I don't see the problem.

> More likely the report identifies the "taboos around race and crime" as a major cause of the failure to protect the victims properly and bring the perpetrators to justice. Quite likely they are not making it up. Quite simply the front line police and social workers were so afraid of being seen as racist and "politically incorrect" if they highlighted the nature of the crimes and the perpetrators, or so conditioned to ignore it, they didn't. Why are you so keen to bury your head in the sand?

I'm not. I'm saying that the reluctance to face the race issue is surely one facet of their inadequacy. But I find the idea that they'd be more scared of "looking racist" than completely failing to protect children absurd.

"Oh, all these girls will get raped - better that than we get accused of being racist". Sorry, not compelling.


You're failing (deliberately?) to understand the point. If the authorities' fear from "political correctness" is a major cause of the failure to protect young girls, then what is to blame: the inadequacy of the authorities, or the abstract concept of "political correctness"?

Do you think the people involved were deeply inadequate, so much so that they couldn't handle the race taboo, or even, weren't prepared to admit to problems from their own ethnic community? Or was everything fine apart from the presence of the politically correct bogeyman?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> (In reply to stroppygob)
> I don't understand the point you're trying to make, and you certainly haven't understood what I'm saying.

The point is obvious to everybody, (apart from you.) A report is produced which points at the fear of being seen as "racist" and possibly probably managerial instruction to ignore the race dimension to crimes a contributing factor, nay a major factor in the abuse of young children over 16 years.


> The issue is one of causation and blame. Were the crimes not addressed because of political correctness, or because the people involved were inadequate?

Both.

> How can you separate the two causes?

Why do you need to?

> Why did Jahangir Akhtar refuse to get to grips with this problem - "it's because of political correctness" doesn't provide an adequate explanation, there is obviously a lot more going on, a lot more factors at play and those factors can't be untangled.> I'm not denying that the taboo around race was probably part of it, but the article doesn't explain exactly how that played out and amongst what other specific local and personal factors.

So why has your entire input been aimed at dismissing the race issue?

> But read it. There's no evidence of what would have happened in the absence of "political correctness" - we don't know.

There is stacks of evidence that this happened in the presence of political correctness is there not? "Professor Jay said “several council staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist”. She said: “Others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

So tell me, if we had a situation where gangs of white males in Rotherham were targeting vulnerable Pakistani girls due with them "gang-raped, doused in petrol and threatened with handguns by groups of men," would you be happy to ignore the race dimension in that?


> You can't attribute the cause of the failure to "political correctness", because the world is more complicated than that.

You can however highlight that the FACT that "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so, exacerbated and prolonged a terrible decade of abuse of children.



> There is an argument that the race taboo had an adverse impact on how the authorities dealt with the crimes - a very reasonable and important point. But does that mean that authorities' inadequacy, or the abstract concept of "political correctness" is to blame?

You are the only one talking about PC being "to blame" are you not?

>
> So you've set up a ludicrous, simplistic version of the world in which the authorities had a binary choice: that the authorities chose political correctness instead of child protection. Then when I respond on the basis of your ludicrous, simplistic interpretation of events and show that it's manifestly ridiculous, you blab on about me doing something or other...

I have done no such thing, show where I have claimed "the authorities had a binary choice: that the authorities chose political correctness instead of child protection," or admit you have lied .

Your inability to debate, without resorting to lies, is shocking.
Post edited at 00:46
In reply to Jon Stewart:



Seriously Jon, I've highlighted now two clear examples of where you have blatantly lied about what I have said or think, why do you need to do that?
 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I'm not saying that, I'm agreeing that it's an important point, but that it's a complex one amidst a huge number of reasons why a system will fail. Apologies if you can't get to grips with that, but I don't see the problem.

It is you who are treating the issue as binary. It is perfectly possible that for "political correctness" to be a major part of the problem without saying it is the exclusive cause.

> I'm not. I'm saying that the reluctance to face the race issue is surely one facet of their inadequacy. But I find the idea that they'd be more scared of "looking racist" than completely failing to protect children absurd.

Absurd it may be. I prefer the term "shocking" but either way it what the report apparently says happened.
Are you saying thee report is wrong?

>

> You're failing (deliberately?) to understand the point. If the authorities' fear from "political correctness" is a major cause of the failure to protect young girls, then what is to blame: the inadequacy of the authorities, or the abstract concept of "political correctness"?

Once again you are treating it as binary. The authorities were incompetent in a number of ways and one of those ways was to allow or encourage a dangerous form of "political correctness" to over-influence their behaviour.
Presumably on the basis of your argument you wouldn't blame the "abstract concept" of racism for "Paki-bashing" attacks?

> Do you think the people involved were deeply inadequate, so much so that they couldn't handle the race taboo, or even, weren't prepared to admit to problems from their own ethnic community? Or was everything fine apart from the presence of the politically correct bogeyman?

Why are you pretending that these things are mutually incompatible? I think you are displaying a knee-jerk reaction against the term "political correct". Replace it with "race taboo".

Let us suppose that (as seems likely) the/another main strand of institutional failure was an outdated view that the children were criminals as much as perpetrators or at very least responsible for their own victimhood. Of course we can describe this as "incompetence" or the "failure to handle" old fashioned and misplaced attitudes but it doesn't mean that such attitudes didnt' exist.
Post edited at 08:46
 Enty 27 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

>

> What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?

The inquiry found that several staff described their nervousness talking about the race of the men "for fear of being thought racist". Others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

Sounds like PC to me. A perfect example. Just like when my mate's wife was abused by some asian lads in Duke Bar in Burnley and the cop said we can't go looking for them because our boss told us not to go down there.

Anyone who thinks this doesn't go on, or who thinks this example of PC hasn't hindered the investigation in Rotherham is deluded .

E
 atrendall 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Enty:

In this case, as in so many others, political correctness has been put first.

"The majority of those behind the abuse were described as Asian, while the victims were young white girls."

Obviously there is a racial element here but in the modern day PC world racism seems to be a one sided affair. It's fine having equality laws but surely it has to be a two way thing applicable to everyone of whatever race or religion.
 Postmanpat 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

From the report published today:
"Several people interviewed expressed the general view that ethnic considerations
had influenced the policy response of the Council and the Police, rather than in
individual cases. One example was given by the Risky Business project Manager
(1997- 2012) who reported that she was told not to refer to the ethnic origins of
perpetrators when carrying out training. Other staff in children’s social care said that
when writing reports on CSE cases, they were advised by their managers to be
cautious about referring to the ethnicity of the perpetrators".
and;
"there was a widespread perception that messages conveyed by some senior people in the Council and also the Police, were to 'downplay' the ethnic dimensions of CSE. Unsurprisingly, frontline staff appeared to be confused as to what they were supposed to say and do and what would be interpreted as 'racist'.
 Enty 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

Shocking.

E
 Ridge 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Enty:

+1. Regardless of if the abuse was racially motivated, it's clear that both the council and police were unwilling to act purely because of the perpetrators ethnicity. That is absolutely disgusting.
 Ramblin dave 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

You're cherry picking a bit, though, aren't you. From the Grauniad report (haven't got time to go to the original):

"The scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers in Rotherham, and police gave no priority to child sexual abuse, regarding many victims with contempt and failing to act on their reports of abuse."

"Reports into the extent of child sexual exploitation in the borough were published by various bodies in 2002, 2003 and 2006. The report claims that these studies "could not have been clearer" in their description of the situation in Rotherham, adding that the first of these was "effectively suppressed" because some senior officers disbelieved some of its data."

No suggestion that this is because of what you're calling "political correctness". This isn't "downplaying the ethnic dimensions" or "being cautious about referring to ethnicity", this is out and out ignoring the problem.
 balmybaldwin 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Ridge:
It may be that this fear of being labelled racist may have obscured the investigation to the extent that what appears to have been an organised pedophile ring was instead treated as isolated cases, but what I don't understand is how this lead to victims being ignored and seemingly no real investigation to follow up these reports of abuse.

Surely if a 11 yearold girl is complaining about being forced to watch another girl be raped, or being raped herself, regardless of the perpetrator's race this should have been fully investigated. Worries about being seen to be racists don't seem to cause problems with other crime clear-up rates.

I heard a very sensible sounding woman talking about a culture of victim blaming being a root cause of this - i.e. Girls underage drinking being seen as the girls being wayward, and bringing on any abuse suffered whilst drunk themselves, rather than the blokes buying the drinks etc being seen as criminal.

From some of what I have read, there seems to be an implication that senior meembers of the council (is the Leader that's resigned Pakistani?)were actively covering up crimes within the Pakistani community. Perhaps using fear of being labelled racist as their main tool for this.
Post edited at 11:35
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> The point is obvious to everybody, (apart from you.) A report is produced which points at the fear of being seen as "racist" and possibly probably managerial instruction to ignore the race dimension to crimes a contributing factor, nay a major factor in the abuse of young children over 16 years.

I'm not denying that the fear of being seen as racist negatively impacted the way the authorities dealt with the cases.

Admitted I haven't been very clear about this, but what I'm objecting to is the implication (I know that's a concept you have great, great trouble with) in your and PP's posts that's is someone or something external to the failing authorities, this thing called "political correctness" that is the problem. Individual people or organisations fail to deal with the race taboo, and you seem to want to blame "political correctness" not them! I think it's just pushing an agenda against political correctness, it fails to see what the problem really is.

> So why has your entire input been aimed at dismissing the race issue?

Well it hasn't. My entire input has been aimed at dismissing the argument that the problem lies in some external "political correctness" concept, but lies internally with the inadequacy of the authorities. Your entire input seems to be aimed at saying that political correctness was the cause of the crimes going on. [Evidence that you imply this: "What is more important, political correctness or child protection?"]

> There is stacks of evidence that this happened in the presence of political correctness is there not?

Yes, but it doesn't show that they'd be any better if it wasn't for the bogeyman of political correctness that you seem to be blaming.

> So tell me, if we had a situation where gangs of white males in Rotherham were targeting vulnerable Pakistani girls due with them "gang-raped, doused in petrol and threatened with handguns by groups of men," would you be happy to ignore the race dimension in that?

What a dumb question. Nowhere have I argued that I'm in favour of ignoring the race dimension. Are you trying to tempt me into typing "liar" in bold?

> You can however highlight that the FACT that "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so, exacerbated and prolonged a terrible decade of abuse of children.

What's missing from the argument is the part where it can be shown that if the race element was faced up to, then everything would have been fine. I just don't believe that would be the case. The people involved here weren't up to the job - their bonkers treatment of the race issue, that it must not be mentioned, certainly wasn't helpful, but there's no evidence to say that the outcomes would have been different. You have to imagine how thick someone is who interprets "political correctness" - the intention of which is to promote equal rights - as "I'm not allowed to mention that these crimes are happening in the Pakistani community and the victims are white girls".

Plus, what you also seem intent on ignoring is that a good chunk of the issue was not white lefties being afraid of being seen as racist, but of the inconvenient of truth for Pakistani councillors that these crimes were going on in their own ethnic communities - communities that they were presumably trying to champion, to raise their status. The implication of your OP (do I need to quote it again?) is that "it happened because of political correctness". My argument is that that's a really stupid way to frame a complex issue, in which the fear of looking racist is but one part.

> You are the only one talking about PC being "to blame" are you not?

Back to your OP again, "What is more important, political correctness or child protection?"

> I have done no such thing, show where I have claimed "the authorities had a binary choice: that the authorities chose political correctness instead of child protection," or admit you have lied .

"What is more important, political correctness or child protection?"

> Your inability to debate, without resorting to lies, is shocking.

It's the same every single time, and I've been through this in great detail before. Your OP has a very strong implication of a particular political view: in this case, the implication of your OP is that the authorities were faced with a binary choice of obeying political correctness (a bad thing) - or protecting children (a good thing). Then when I discuss this very strong and clear implication, you say "I never said any such thing, you're lying". And then I quote you over and over again and explain how what you've written clearly implies what I say it does, and then you shut up.
Post edited at 12:04
 dale1968 27 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

It's exactly the sort of obfuscation that occurs on these forums that allows these sorts of problems to arise
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> From some of what I have read, there seems to be an implication that senior meembers of the council (is the Leader that's resigned Pakistani?)were actively covering up crimes within the Pakistani community. Perhaps using fear of being labelled racist as their main tool for this.

But that can't be right, because it doesn't fit the "political correctness is bad" narrative. There's only one story in town, and it's that the political correctness bogeyman caused the crimes to happen or continue.
Post edited at 12:08
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> From the report published today:

> "Several people interviewed expressed the general view that ethnic considerations...

So what's your take on that? Is it "the left's fault" for creating the fear of being seen as racist, or is the fault of those who used this as an excuse not to face up to an issue that would have harmed their interests?
Post edited at 12:14
 Jon Stewart 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

My binary treatment of the issue is a response to the idea that the authorities chose polictical correctness over child protection. Apologies for being dragged down this road.

> Are you saying thee report is wrong?

No. I'm saying that there's rather more in the report than blaming political correctness. Specifically, a massive issue seems to be the reluctance to admit problems in the Pakistani community by Pakistanis in charge.

> Once again you are treating it as binary. The authorities were incompetent in a number of ways and one of those ways was to allow or encourage a dangerous form of "political correctness" to over-influence their behaviour.

Agreed.

> Presumably on the basis of your argument you wouldn't blame the "abstract concept" of racism for "Paki-bashing" attacks?

Interesting point. The difference is that it is the concept of racism is held internally by the racist attacker, but the concept of political correctness is an external bogeyman, some vague thing created by "the left" that makes things go wrong. What I'm objecting to is externalising the cause of failure to some abstract concept that you don't like. But it's good to have to think that point through!

> Why are you pretending that these things are mutually incompatible? I think you are displaying a knee-jerk reaction against the term "political correct". Replace it with "race taboo".

Well "political correctness" is very vague, often applies to things like humour or calling blackboards chalkboards, which isn't what we're on about here. This is very specific to the fear of looking racist, but is also tied up with a very specific fear of exposing problems in the Pakistani community. I'm saying that to lump it together with the other things we call "political correctness" somewhat muddies the issue.

> Let us suppose that (as seems likely) the/another main strand of institutional failure was an outdated view that the children were criminals as much as perpetrators or at very least responsible for their own victimhood. Of course we can describe this as "incompetence" or the "failure to handle" old fashioned and misplaced attitudes but it doesn't mean that such attitudes didnt' exist.

True. But there's a whole load of motherhood and apple pie in your argument. Can we agree that the fear of looking racist shouldn't be prioritised over protecting children from horrific abuse? Errr, yes...?

 kipper12 27 Aug 2014
In reply to Enty:

Anyone who thinks this doesn't go on, or who thinks this example of PC hasn't hindered the investigation in Rotherham is deluded . Agree!!!

I heard a radio intierview with one of the victims (on BBC site too now) who was abused, and when she and her parents reported it were interviewed by he police said:

The attitude of the police changed when she told them the names of her abusers, but she stood her ground producing evidence in the form of clothes she had bneen atacked in.

The police called a couple of days later and said they couldn't follow the case up - teh evidence she had provided had gone missing.

Stupidity or conspiracy?
 off-duty 27 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?

Interestingly, recommendation 14 advises that race should be tackled as an absolute priority if it is a significant factor .....

On reading the report it suggests that the ethnicity of the suspects did not have any adverse impact on the investigation of offences.

I suspect there are a few heavily laden bandwagons lurching around the media at the moment, without actually looking at the reports findings.
 andy 27 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:



> I suspect there are a few heavily laden bandwagons lurching around the media at the moment, without actually looking at the reports findings.

Yep - just read the section on ethnicity and it says:

The Inquiry team was confident that ethnic issues did not influence professional decision-making in individual cases.

 Bob Hughes 27 Aug 2014
In reply to thread:


I read the report today and the question of ethnicity and its effect on how the situation was dealt with is complex.

The report found no evidence that the ethnicity of the perpetrators inhibited the investigation of individual cases. It did however find evidence that bureaucratic turf wars and an out-dated attitude to sex abuse impeded investigation significantly (reasons given for not investigating cases included, she was drunk so she was asking for it, she was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it, she didn't say no so she was asking for it...(I'm paraphrasing but not much)).

The report did find evidence that the ethnicity of the perpetrators affected the policy response. The example given is that a project manager giving training in how to deal with child who may be victims of sex abuse was instructed not to refer to the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The report also seems to indicate that those involved did not recognise the scale of the problem - many thought that individual cases were one-offs and, here I am giving my own interpretation, it may be that reticence to refer to the ethinicty of the perpetrators prevented the authorities from addressing it as a systemic problem. Nevertheless, the report does point out that there were good reasons to be nervous of making this a race issue. Some councillors worried about giving oxygen to extremist groups like the English Defence League who had targetted Rotheram.

So from the report, it seems that:

- Sensitivity around the ethnicity of perpetrators could well have hindered the councils detecting of the full scale of the problem but such nervousness was more than PCgonemad.
- Such sensitivity was indeed far from the only organisational failure. Indeed it was likely not even the most significant failure.


In reply to Jon Stewart:



> Admitted I haven't been very clear about this, but what I'm objecting to is the implication (I know that's a concept you have great, great trouble with) in your and PP's posts that's is someone or something external to the failing authorities, this thing called "political correctness" that is the problem.

Well then Jon, if you hadn't taken my initial question (here it is in its entirity)

> The majority of the perpetrators were described by victims as being Asian. The inquiry found that several staff described their nervousness talking about the race of the men "for fear of being thought racist". Others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

> What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?

The constructed a whole fantasy about my "implications", lied about what I have said, constructed castles of sand about what I mean, and generally gone into a frenzy of intellectual masturbation about what you think I intend, maybe, just maybe, we could have had a sensible debate.

Start by not lying about what other people write, that would be a good point.
In reply to stroppygob:

From the BBC:

> Professor Alexis Jay's report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, said: "Several councillors interviewed believed that by opening up these issues they could be 'giving oxygen' to racist perspectives that might in turn attract extremist political groups and threaten community cohesion."

> This has left the leader of a Muslim organisation in Rotherham furious. "In the name of what community cohesion and political correctness? Not in the name of my community," said Muhbeen Hussain, founder of British Muslim Youth.

> His words were echoed by Shoki Adbo, a bank worker from the town, who said: "I'm a Muslim and if I saw a Muslim person doing something like that then they would not be a Muslim to me." Mr Farid added: "We were lost for words when we saw this report.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28951612
 Ramblin dave 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
Nope, sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into the rest of the discussion but to me it looks like Jon picked up on the entirely obvious and natural interpretation of your rhetorical question. If you want to express yourself more clearly and precisely then feel free, but huffing and puffing and calling names isn't going to help.
Post edited at 00:10
 TobyA 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yep, Stroppy clearly has a thing about what he sees as political correctness. So stroppygob (I mean even your chosen nickname suggests you have no time for anything you see as pc), I also read your original post as exactly you saying that political correctness allowed this to happen, which isn't really what the report says. Perhaps that's not what you meant but it's how it sounded.
Post edited at 00:58
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Dave, I'm not calling names, I'm pointing out that debating Jon's fantasies about what I "believe" or "think", on no evidence, is not really useful. I can point out where he has blatantly lied, by putting words in my mouth which I have not uttered, again if you like.
 Dauphin 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob

Does anyone really believe this is isolated to one area of the u.k?

D
In reply to Dauphin:
The reports show it being widespread, with kids being transported and distributed like meat.


> According to an estimate from the Children's Commissioner for England three years ago, 2,409 children were identified as victims of exploitation by gangs over a 14-month period from 2010-11, while at least 16,500 were said to be at high risk over the course of a year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28953549

http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/content/press_release/content_486
Post edited at 02:14
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> You choose to ignore all the evidence? It's people like you responsible for the rape, torture of white girls being so easily perpetuated.

I suggest that you seek medical advice.
In reply to RomTheBear:

Oh come on Rom, fair is fair, if Jon can make up stuff about me.

I was just trying to give him a taste of his own.

Which brings me back to my long held obsession, why do some here need to personalise? Why not debate the point raised, rather than the person who raised it?
In reply to stroppygob:

South Yorkshire police were pretty hot on investigating an alledged child abuse claim from 30 years ago, even told the BBC about it and got the helicopters up as they searched the apartment. They probably didn't realise Harry Webb was born in India

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Nice one
 Enty 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> South Yorkshire police were pretty hot on investigating an alledged child abuse claim from 30 years ago, even told the BBC about it and got the helicopters up as they searched the apartment. They probably didn't realise Harry Webb was born in India

Preety bad when you look at it like that.

E
 off-duty 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Aside from misrepresenting what happened regarding the press coverage, you do realise that is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"
 tony 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> The constructed a whole fantasy about my "implications", lied about what I have said, constructed castles of sand about what I mean, and generally gone into a frenzy of intellectual masturbation about what you think I intend, maybe, just maybe, we could have had a sensible debate.

> Start by not lying about what other people write, that would be a good point.

So what did you mean when you typed:
What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?
In reply to off-duty:

Yep, damned if you do investigate one child abuse allegation from 30 years ago involving a celebrity. Damned if you don't investigte 1,400 child abuse claims including rape, trafficking and petrol dousing.

 off-duty 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Yep, damned if you do investigate one child abuse allegation from 30 years ago involving a celebrity. Damned if you don't investigte 1,400 child abuse claims including rape, trafficking and petrol dousing.

So you accept that both should be investigated then?
In reply to off-duty:

Of course, did you miss the point?
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to stroppygob)

> So what did you mean when you typed:
> What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?

Should “race” have been ignored when dealing with this incident. As in;

> The report stated: “Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

Let me clarify further, why were staff, staff charged with the protection of children, nervous about identifying the race of the abusers? Why would a manager direct a protection worker not to mention the race of the abuser?




My personal perspectives on this, even though I am a "mandatory reporter" are not the point of debate here, let's discuss the issue at hand, not me and Jon's fantasies about me.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm


 andy 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
Have you read the report? I didn't think it was very clear on what the effect of the pussyfooting around the race of the abusers was (whilst it clearly stated there was reluctance to mention the race I couldn't see anywhere that it said officers were reluctant to investigate because of the race issue) - in fact it says several times that the race issue had no effect on either the council or police officers' treatment of individual cases - the key issue seems to be that the girls were assumed to be consenting and "bringing it on themselves".

I've only read it once, fairly quickly, but the main issue with the racial origin of the abusers seems to be aimed at Asian councillors and community leaders not wanting to address the issue.
 tony 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> Should “race” have been ignored when dealing with this incident. As in;

> Let me clarify further, why were staff, staff charged with the protection of children, nervous about identifying the race of the abusers? Why would a manager direct a protection worker not to mention the race of the abuser?

So perhaps it might have helped if you had used slightly less loaded language when you expressed your original either/or options, particularly when the case is a long way from being the one-dimensional issue of race that you seem to be suggesting it is. There was an interesting piece on the radio this morning which discussed the failings of the police in this and in similar cases, in which it seems police failed to take the victims seriously. This appears to have been a repeated pattern in similar abuse cases in different parts of the country.

Simply shouting 'political correctness' does not adequately address the seriousness of the issues which extend well beyond the role of council workers. There were failings all round, across a whole range of public services. Your spotlight on the ethnicity of the abusers leaves the age and vulnerability of the victims in the shadows.
 andy 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Greenbanks:
Good link, ta. Interesting point about taxi drivers/takeaways etc and the "night time economy" - the Rotherham report specifically mentioned taxi firms and licensing - "So what's more important? Being able to get home from the pub at midnight for less than a fiver or child protection?"
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> So perhaps it might have helped if you had used slightly less loaded language when you expressed your original either/or options, particularly when the case is a long way from being the one-dimensional issue of race that you seem to be suggesting it is.

Fair enough. But that was not my intent.
>
> Simply shouting 'political correctness' does not adequately address the seriousness of the issues which extend well beyond the role of council workers. There were failings all round, across a whole range of public services. Your spotlight on the ethnicity of the abusers leaves the age and vulnerability of the victims in the shadows.

Ok, how about this then:

> Professor Jay states, “In Rotherham, the majority of known perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage including the five men convicted in 2010. The file reading carried out by the Inquiry also confirmed that the ethnic origin of many perpetrators was ‘Asian’.” This is despite the fact that, as Jay underlines, the perpetrators of crimes of this nature normally select victims of the same ethnic origin. In Rotherham the opposite occurred. Pakistani men targeted white girls so that they could rape them.

> Local youngsters confirmed to the Jay inquiry what had been reported to a previous inquiry, namely that ”young people in Rotherham believed at that time that the Police dared not act against Asian youths for fear of allegations of racism”. Jay herself states that “messages conveyed by some senior people in the Council and also the Police, were to 'downplay' the ethnic dimensions of child sex exploitation”

> Consider this. Imagine if it came to light that in another region of the country, organised gangs of white men had been systematically engaging in the rape and abuse of black children. The local white community knew about it, but shielded the crimes behind a wall of silence. Officers in the local authority were aware of it, but were told by their political masters to keep quiet about the racial element of the crime for fear of offending their local constituency. Police officers who attempted to investigate where specifically warned by their superiors to ignore any racial aspect to the offences.

> There would be a national outcry. The racism inherent in those crimes would not be pushed to the margins, but to the forefront of our enraged response. There would be a full public inquiry, along the lines of Lawrence. And that reaction would be wholly appropriate.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100284156/rotherham-sex-abuse-s...




 Postmanpat 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> So what's your take on that? Is it "the left's fault" for creating the fear of being seen as racist, or is the fault of those who used this as an excuse not to face up to an issue that would have harmed their interests?

It is the fault of both: those who have created an environment where their is an exaggerated fear of being seen as "racist" which means at worst that racism and and honesty and "non-racism" are regarded as mutually exclusive . It is also the fault of those who, either through misunderstanding or self interest, opt for the path of dishonesty.

"Political correctness" may be a much misused and abused phrase and because it means different things to different people you could regard it as "abstract" although no more than plenty of other attitudes. This doesn't mean it doesn't exist in peoples' minds and affect their behaviour. As far as they were concerned they were "obeying orders" which, as we know, may not be much of an excuse but does not make the creators of those orders or the attitudes behind those orders any less culpable.

I think you have have developed a knee jerk angry reaction to the phrase because you associate it with Clarkson et al which distorts your reaction.

But anyway, i think we've agreed that PC or "taboos about racism" or whatever term you prefer, was an important but by no means exclusive reason for for the failure of various authorities to properly address the criminal activity in front of them.
 tony 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Fair enough. But that was not my intent.

As I say, more careful choice of language might have helped you.

> Ok, how about this then:

What about it? I'm not denying there's a problem regarding the way such issues are dealt with. But what does it say about the police failings? Do you think it's right that the police should escape scrutiny for their failures? If the police had taken a different and more robust approach, the outcomes could have been very different. Don't try to pretend it's a one-dimensional issue and that a focus on race will solve everything.
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
>
> What about it? I'm not denying there's a problem regarding the way such issues are dealt with. But what does it say about the police failings? Do you think it's right that the police should escape scrutiny for their failures?

Definitely not, what on earth gave you that idea?

> If the police had taken a different and more robust approach, the outcomes could have been very different. Don't try to pretend it's a one-dimensional issue and that a focus on race will solve everything.

I'm not. I've never seen it as "solving everything", and have never indicated so, you're falling into the same mode of debate as Jon. I raised it as it is a primary point of interest nationwide, and cause of much debate.

Next time I start a subject of this nature I will only post; "Rotherham. Discuss" Maybe then people will focus on the issue, rather than their fantasies about me.

(Mind you then someone will tell me that; “focussing on Rotherham is too one dimensional, and what about Woolongong/Des Moines/Pluto?" )
 tony 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Definitely not, what on earth gave you that idea?

The fact that you launched into the issue with your first post: "What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?" Like it or not, your choice of words sets the tone of what follows.

If you thought there was an issue with anything other than the race of the abusers, you could have started quite differently, but you chose the political correctness line. Sticking to the notion it's all about race is insulting to the victims.
In reply to tony:

> (In reply to stroppygob)
>
> [...]
>
> The fact that you launched into the issue with your first post: "What is more important, political correctness or child protection? How did it come to this?" Like it or not, your choice of words sets the tone of what follows.

Ok, so why is it not possible to debate that, and what "tone" do you detect? The quote on race was directly taken from the hard right leaning Guardian newspaper, hence the link


> If you thought there was an issue with anything other than the race of the abusers, you could have started quite differently, but you chose the political correctness line. Sticking to the notion it's all about race is insulting to the victims.

Well you raise some interesting issues, but are wrong. I was more concerned about the restrictions, percieved or imposed, on those who were supposed to be protecting the kids. The issue of the race of the perpetrators was a direct quote from the hard right leaning Grauniad newspaper.

NOW whose predjudices are we seeing?
Post edited at 10:35
 off-duty 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Of course, did you miss the point?

Clearly. So I am to understand that by writing this : -

"South Yorkshire police were pretty hot on investigating an alledged child abuse claim from 30 years ago, even told the BBC about it and got the helicopters up as they searched the apartment. They probably didn't realise Harry Webb was born in India"

You meant -

"Well done to SYP who have clearly improved the way that they deal with child abuse allegations, as can be seen by how seriously they have taken the allegation against Cliff Richard"

 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
> Which brings me back to my long held obsession, why do some here need to personalise? Why not debate the point raised, rather than the person who raised it?

Says the guys who treats everybody who disagrees with him of being a liar.

BTW why every OP from you is systematically pointing the finger at minorities ?
Post edited at 10:50
 Ramblin dave 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Well you raise some interesting issues, but are wrong. I was more concerned about the restrictions, percieved or imposed, on those who were supposed to be protecting the kids.

So you seem to think that the answer to your original question is that (banging on about) political correctness is more important than (taking a balanced view of the failings of) child protection?

> NOW whose predjudices are we seeing?

Still yours, afaict...
 tony 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Ok, so why is it not possible to debate that, and what "tone" do you detect?

The tone is quite clearly on political correctness and the way in which it got in the way of child protection.

> Well you raise some interesting issues, but are wrong. I was more concerned about the restrictions, percieved or imposed, on those who were supposed to be protecting the kids. The issue of the race of the perpetrators was a direct quote from the hard right leaning Grauniad newspaper.

I don't really know what you're getting at by repeating bits of reports from the Guardian. The Guardian, and other newspapers, goes a bit further than you do and reports on police failings as well as those of councillors and council workers. You seem to be the only person with such a one-dimensional view of the issue.

(Oh, and "hard right leaning Grauniad newspaper" - just makes you look a bit of tw*t.)
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> So you seem to think that the answer to your original question is that (banging on about) political correctness is more important than (taking a balanced view of the failings of) child protection?

Not blaming a whole community for a crime is not political correctness. And it has nothing to do whatsoever with child protection.

Stop projecting you own prejudices on everything you see in the news.
Post edited at 10:55
In reply to off-duty:

Nope, you're still missing it. But of course you're not really. You're just being deliberately obtuse.
 off-duty 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Nope, you're still missing it. But of course you're not really. You're just being deliberately obtuse.

I'm at a loss.
You say your point was that the police should investigate every child abuse allegation.

You chose to illustrate that by making a comparison with the Cliff Richard case, including an allusion to his country of birth and a misrepresentation about the police involvement in the press coverage.

At best it is a facile and ill-thought out comparison which, ironically, also displays the poor attitudes criticised in the report and media coverage - overemphasis on the nature of the offender and a lack of any concern for the alleged victim (the added implication that he and the police are only doing it because Richard is a celebrity).
 Ramblin dave 28 Aug 2014
In reply to RomTheBear:

Is that meant to be a reply to me? Not sure I see how it relates to what I wrote...
 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Is that meant to be a reply to me? Not sure I see how it relates to what I wrote...

Sorry stuff got mixed up. It was meant for stroppy.
 TobyA 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Don't worry, it's swinging back. White men don't need to worry about getting caught for abusing kids so much anymore.

"On a recent field visit to a police force, Berelowitz was surprised to learn that the officers' top search on their internal computer profiling system was "Asian male". When she asked what would happen if the perpetrators were not Asian, the officer in charge replied that the force was "not looking for those". "I was astonished. I said: 'I think you better start looking.'"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/27/culture-denial-rotherham-sex...

Your original post seems to say that a pc culture allowed this abuse, but the report doesn't say that. And you often posted stuff criticising political correctness in the past, so it does look like you're missing the wood for your favourite tree.
 off-duty 28 Aug 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> "On a recent field visit to a police force, Berelowitz was surprised to learn that the officers' top search on their internal computer profiling system was "Asian male". When she asked what would happen if the perpetrators were not Asian, the officer in charge replied that the force was "not looking for those". "I was astonished. I said: 'I think you better start looking.'"

That quote makes absolutely no sense to me. What system is it searching? At what stage in an investigation is it used? It suggests to me more that the Dep. Commissioner doesn't understand what the cops are doing -regardless whether they are doing it right or wrong.

 abr1966 28 Aug 2014
In reply to Dauphin:
> In reply to stroppygob
>
> Does anyone really believe this is isolated to one area of the u.k?
>
> D

It occurs in lots of places and there is a wide range of organised sexual exploitation/abuse of children.
I sit on a Child Sexual Exploitation Panel in my work and also have some involvement with a multi-agencysafeguarding hub.
Listening to how the reporting of Rotherham is frustrating as there are plenty of efficient and effective services which has not
been communicated to the public. It's a difficult area to operate within as there is often a great deal of hostility to manage and a range of legal/ethical and practical considerations.
What happened in Rotherham was poor and unacceptable at many levels, however, what we don't need is knee jerk politically driven reorganistions.
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Says the guys who treats everybody who disagrees with him of being a liar.

Rom when I call someone a liar, I always ensure I can back it up by pointing out their lie.

> BTW why every OP from you is systematically pointing the finger at minorities ?

Here is a classic example of you lying ROM

Does the OP "systematically point the finger at minroities"? No.

Here are all the OP's I've started recently;

Lemonade scones
She'd make a great climber
Tales of Mystery and Imagination
The Destroyer
Boir of King's Bollege Bambridge*
A touch of cloth
Cabin Pressure
Faulty Dining Aus style
Small Town Boy 30 years on.
Dr Who and dad
Can someone explain please
Kookaburras
Nigel Farage MP?
Work for the dole initiative

Not one of which, including this one, "points the finger at minorities."

So not only are you easily proved to be a liar, but your rather a pathetic one too.

God, your parents must be so proud of you.

In reply to tony:

> The tone is quite clearly on political correctness and the way in which it got in the way of child protection.

Yes? That was the whole point of the discussion?

> I don't really know what you're getting at by repeating bits of reports from the Guardian. The Guardian, and other newspapers, goes a bit further than you do and reports on police failings as well as those of councillors and council workers. You seem to be the only person with such a one-dimensional view of the issue.

So why can we not discuss these? Where have I limited the discussion?



In reply to TobyA:


> Your original post seems to say that a pc culture allowed this abuse, but the report doesn't say that.

But it does highlight the OPC as part of teh problem, does it now?


> And you often posted stuff criticising political correctness in the past, so it does look like you're missing the wood for your favourite tree.

Well if people were more interested in discussing the topic, and not fantasising on me and what I think, we may have got somewhere.

 RomTheBear 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

You carefully avoided to mention the offending ones from your list. So much for honesty.
 aln 28 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

It's not you, it's them.
In reply to RomTheBear:

Ok, so I can openly call you a liar again.

Please Rom if you are going to make accusations, at least have the decency to back them up with evidence.

I posted every topic I have started recently.You are a pathetic lair.
 winhill 29 Aug 2014
In reply to andy:

> Have you read the report? I didn't think it was very clear on what the effect of the pussyfooting around the race of the abusers was (whilst it clearly stated there was reluctance to mention the race I couldn't see anywhere that it said officers were reluctant to investigate because of the race issue) - in fact it says several times that the race issue had no effect on either the council or police officers' treatment of individual cases - the key issue seems to be that the girls were assumed to be consenting and "bringing it on themselves".

> I've only read it once, fairly quickly, but the main issue with the racial origin of the abusers seems to be aimed at Asian councillors and community leaders not wanting to address the issue.

Yes, it doesn't seem very clear at all, recommendation 14 that stroppy and off duty have quoted looks more like it's aimed at addressing the problem of Asian victims, rather than Asian perpetrators. The way she claims confidence in the idea that no individual cases are prejudiced by the attitudes of police/officials is contradicted by some of the witness accounts, so if her confidence is high does it mean that she is also dismissing the witness accounts? If she thinks that it was correct to redact and protect Asian identity on the grounds of Community Cohesion, is she doing the same here? Given the timescales, the previous reports and local issues, the community cohesion excuse looks very weak.

One account from a muslim who helps girls avoid arrange marriages said that the police should be solving crime not relying on Imams and so-called community leaders (and that they shouldn't be restrained by racial concerns) whilst another from a children's charity claimed that by not engaging sufficiently the police were actually be racist towards the Asian community.

So it's clear that officials are struggling with the racial element, and the career-killing accusations of racism are dominating people's actions, I doubt they have a clear strategy now.

Simon Danczuk the Rochdale MP (L) who has seen this before was quite effective, although his quote was a stroppyesque 'community cohesion or rape' but I expect that is slightly less controversial than the PC thing for some people.

There are some echoes here surely, of the Trojan Horse thing and Birmingham's shame, where council officials were bullied and coerced by their inability to deal with some of the local identity politics, with widespread denial right up to the relevant reports being issued.

 Fredt 29 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
I've not read the report, or this thread in great detail, my concerns are based on what I see on the news and in the papers. Which seems to be 100% concerned with bringing the authorities to task for allegedly ingnoring the horrific crimes that have taken place. A typical example of the media's blame culture perpetuation.
Nowhere have I seen any story or account about any attempt to bring the actual perpetrators of the crimes to justice.
Or are they now immune from prosecution because all blame lies with the police?
I want to know what's being done now in investigating these crimes, but if the media are anything to go by, it's nothing.
 andy 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Fredt:



> I want to know what's being done now in investigating these crimes, but if the media are anything to go by, it's nothing.

SY police said yesterday they have 173 active CSE investigations ongoing - not sure if any of these are "old" cases. They were being urged to reopen cases though (can't remember who - could've been Theresa May).
 Timmd 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> It's the same every single time, and I've been through this in great detail before. Your OP has a very strong implication of a particular political view: in this case, the implication of your OP is that the authorities were faced with a binary choice of obeying political correctness (a bad thing) - or protecting children (a good thing). Then when I discuss this very strong and clear implication, you say "I never said any such thing, you're lying". And then I quote you over and over again and explain how what you've written clearly implies what I say it does, and then you shut up.

I think you're possibly letting your perception of stroppy's world view (which could well be accurate, I'm not qualified to say) affect how you respond to his posts on this thread.

In all the reports I've heard, the fact the perpetrators were Asian Pakistani was a factor in how much was done about the abuse, what steps were taken and how effectively.

It perhaps wasn't a binary choice, between PC and child protection, but not wanting to inflame community tensions/relations, was a factor.
Post edited at 09:35
 Simon4 29 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, not having read the whole of the thread, but there is a particularly sick irony in all this :

"In 2008, Rotherham won an award from the Local Government Chronicle for the performance of its children's services. Dr Sonia Sharp ('strategic director of children nd young childrens services'), bathing in the success, was headhunted by Sheffield city council to fill a similar post at £140,000 a year"

Courtesy Private Eye.

http://www.stourvalleyactiongroup.org.uk/FilesAppeal/PrivateEye20Sept2013.p...
 off-duty 29 Aug 2014
In reply to winhill:

> Yes, it doesn't seem very clear at all, recommendation 14 that stroppy and off duty have quoted looks more like it's aimed at addressing the problem of Asian victims, rather than Asian perpetrators.


Recommendation 14: The issue of race should be tackled as an absolute priority if it is a significant factor in the criminal activity of organised child sexual abuse in the Borough.

That is the recommendation in it's entirety. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that is is aimed at Asian victims rather than perpetrators, particularly considering the content of the report.

The way she claims confidence in the idea that no individual cases are prejudiced by the attitudes of police/officials is contradicted by some of the witness accounts, so if her confidence is high does it mean that she is also dismissing the witness accounts?

There was undoubtedly a perception that "the police won't do anything about it because they are Asian", however what could not be found were any examples of "the police didn't do anything about it because they were Asian".
I'm sure more could probably have been done to reassure "the community" that these crimes were taken seriously regardless, but ultimately that opinion appears to come down to an inbuilt prejudice, which is inherently hard to shift.



If she thinks that it was correct to redact and protect Asian identity on the grounds of Community Cohesion, is she doing the same here? Given the timescales, the previous reports and local issues, the community cohesion excuse looks very weak.

I wasn't aware that the offenders names had been specifically redacted in this report. Do you think adding the names of the offenders would have added anything to the content or conclusion?
The operational names are all listed and any convicted offenders (as well as those charged) could be found in mainstream media.

> One account from a muslim who helps girls avoid arrange marriages said that the police should be solving crime not relying on Imams and so-called community leaders (and that they shouldn't be restrained by racial concerns) whilst another from a children's charity claimed that by not engaging sufficiently the police were actually be racist towards the Asian community.

> So it's clear that officials are struggling with the racial element, and the career-killing accusations of racism are dominating people's actions, I doubt they have a clear strategy now.

As a result of the Macpherson enquiry there was a lot of knee jerk reactions, and with the best intentions various links were made with a wide array of community leaders.
As the report mentions these were almost exclusively men and in prominent postitions.
I would sugggest that this initial approach was wrong and it would be better to have made more contact with "the community" in general rather than going through these leaders/intermediaries, but it was a case of something is better than nothing, and these "leaders" were obvious points of contact especially in male-dominated or hierarchical communities which might contain many recent immigrants, or entrenched cultural practices - who were not open to communicating with the police.

As the report says this has produced all sorts of issues - not least when it comes to female victims from within those communities. In particular it highlighted difficulties with domestic violence and fleeing abused partners - when community leaders who might often be councillors would ask for details of where the victims had gone or press for these matters to be dealt with non-criminally. The report didn't show any evidence that this had happened - and we are not stupid (despite what many people think!) and disclosing victim details to irrelevant parties is not something that is taken lightly.


> Simon Danczuk the Rochdale MP (L) who has seen this before was quite effective, although his quote was a stroppyesque 'community cohesion or rape' but I expect that is slightly less controversial than the PC thing for some people.

> There are some echoes here surely, of the Trojan Horse thing and Birmingham's shame, where council officials were bullied and coerced by their inability to deal with some of the local identity politics, with widespread denial right up to the relevant reports being issued.

I think that the focus on the race of the offenders is a large red herring. The focus should be much more on how the victims were let down by the various services, and how these services can improve to engage better with vulnerbale potential victims.

It should be borne in mind that the victim's lifestyles led to them frequenting takeways and using taxis - areas of work that nowadays have a high proportion of Asian workers. There is a reasonable argument that the community involved isn't "the pakistani muslim" community but rather the "takeway shop worker" and "taxi driver" community. Indeed a secion of the report focusses on taxi drivers, and when you look at the wider spread of ethnicity in many of the prosecutions around the country then these professions are vastly over-represented.
 Postmanpat 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:

> I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, not having read the whole of the thread, but there is a particularly sick irony in all this :

> "In 2008, Rotherham won an award from the Local Government Chronicle for the performance of its children's services. Dr Sonia Sharp ('strategic director of children nd young childrens services'), bathing in the success, was headhunted by Sheffield city council to fill a similar post at £140,000 a year"

>
You'll have noted that the Head of children's' services for Rotherham, Joyce Thacker, was the same person who thought it important to remove children from their foster parents because the latter were UKIP voters.

You couldn't make this stuff up…...
thepeaks 29 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

One thing IMO that is a major factor is the increase in childrens "rights". 15 year old girls have probably always wanted to hang out with older men with cars but what is now different is that they have worked out that there is nothing that parents can do to stop them (and certainly nothing that care settings can do.) Their lack of life experience and often a need to feel "loved" for want of a better word leads them to make poor choices. This coupled with a reluctance for police to get involved in some areas has led to the current situation. I await the knee jerk multi agency initiative that will undoubtedly be foisted on underfunded and overworked teachers and social workers.
 seankenny 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> There has been no such "political correctness" in this country. Such issues have been openly discussed and addressed for decades. I know this because when I raised examples of the opposite (eg.Honeyford, Oldham etc)spread over several decades and many places I was told that didn't demonstrate anything.

The last time this was discussed you made similar comments, so I went and read the report on the failures in the Rochdale case to see what was actually written there.

I would suggest taking a look. The race issue doesn't occur until over 100 pages in (the Telegraph's coverage from their social affairs editor leads on it) and is pretty nuanced. Far from being a case of "they're Asian, better not investigate too deeply in case we get accused of racism", it's quite interesting to note that very few of the agencies involved actually had any contact at all with the abusers - most of them dealt with the kids.

The race issue should have come up in that the girls, many of whom came from openly racist families, were crossing stongly delineated social boundaries, not just of race but also age and class. One of the reasons for this being that Rochdale (according to the report, I don't know the town) is pretty ghetoised, so we're looking at another type of transgressive behaviour that should have been picked up. But then there are a whole bunch of much more serious allegations in the report, that the authorities expected poor teenage girls to go off the rails, get drunk, get raped, etc.

And aside from this fateful stereotyping of working-class young women, the vast majority of the problems lay in police, social workers and other professionals not believing the victims, not working effectively together, etc - all the stuff that's been said on this thread about this case.

Of course if your thesis of "political correctness hampers the police" is correct then surely young black men would get an easy ride from the police, be regularly ignored as suspects in case of racism accusations, and be vastly under-represented in the crime statistics.
Post edited at 13:42
 Simon4 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Joyce Thacker, was the same person who thought it important to remove children from their foster parents because the latter were UKIP voters.

She additionally was reliably claimed to have been more concerned with finding out who leaked internal documents to Andrew Norfolk, the Times reporter who was instrumental in ensuring this story was not buried than in stopping mass child gang-rape on her watch. The now Police Crime Commisioner for the area was "Child Member" for much of the relevant period, he is currently refusing to resign from that job on the basis that he resigned from Rochdale Council about it, so has no obligation to resign as PCC. "Fit and proper person" does not seem to have occurred to him as a concept, one resignation pays all apparently, like a Catholic confessing to sin wipes it away.

Incidentally, would any Guardianista care to defend the vile series of articles appearing in the cesspit that is the Guardian's comment section, packed with denial, diversion, red-herrings, false comparisons and whataboutery? One by a particularly despicable columnist came out the day the trial verdict was announced, saying how terrible it all was - not that tens or hundreds (as we now know, thousands), of children had been brutalised and gang-raped in the worst fashion possible, in Britain, in the twenty-first century, in a non-descript Northern town, but that "the BNP website is filled with triumphalist glee this morning, claiming that they were right all along". In fact of course the BNP WERE right all along in claiming that there was systematic gang-rape and grooming of vulnerable white children, so there claims were in fact correct. One of the worst, most loathsome pieces of "journalism" that I have ever seen.

Walter Duranty, thou shouldst be living at this hour! Guardianistas have seen the future, and it works.
Post edited at 14:05
 seankenny 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:

> One by a particularly despicable columnist c

Why don't you link to it so we can see what was actually written in this vile paper of hate, rather than just take your word for it?
 Simon4 29 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

Not that hard to find, but I will try to locate if for you presently, if you are keen on defending the indefensible.

In the meantime, how about this vile piece of evasion, obfuscation and deliberate muddying of the waters to be going on with :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/rotherham-abuse-politi...

Or the comment from this piece of work :

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/2014/08/hacked-off-bless-andrew-norf...
 The New NickB 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:
.

> In the meantime, how about this vile piece of evasion, obfuscation and deliberate muddying of the waters to be going on with :


Go on explain yourself. Seems like a pretty sensible article to me.
Post edited at 14:38
 seankenny 29 Aug 2014
In reply to The New NickB:


> To on explain yourself. Seems like a pretty sensible article to me.

But Nick, you're a well-known spluttering mentalist and all round green-inker!
 tony 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:

> In fact of course the BNP WERE right all along in claiming that there was systematic gang-rape and grooming of vulnerable white children, so there claims were in fact correct.

Oh look, Simon, creaming his jeans over the fact that the BNP were right. How very seemly.

I wonder what the BNP had to say about Operation Kern in Derby.
 Simon4 29 Aug 2014
In reply to The New NickB:
Here is the gem :

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-c...

The BNP forced Pakistani-heritage muslim men to rape at least 1400 children. The Times is to blame for investigating the matter.

Pravda or Der Sturmer would have been ashamed to run such a piece, yet the woman responsible is still a Guardian columnist.

Yes, 1400, it is also reliably rumoured that several girls have been murdered.

From the sanctimonious, self-admiring left, normally in paroxysm of rage about off-colour remarks shouted at a girl out running, tumbleweed. The silence is deafening.

We always knew the left were preaching hypocrites, but this is industrial strength hypocrisy, hypocrisy developed to a form of fine art.

"Be you ordained in God's own tears, you are a coward now".
Post edited at 19:32
 Postmanpat 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-c...

Apparently the racial/cultural aspect is largely a fiction anyway, although this journalist's head was so far up her arse it's unlikely she's alive to put her case anymore.
 elsewhere 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:
Guardianista, Pravda, BNP, Der Sturmer and the only thing missing is 'sheeple' - are you a parody?

On the topic of Rotherham, god knows how the individuals in social services and the police ignored the signs and the crimes in front of them.


 abr1966 29 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

Having read the report i agree, however, as a practitioner in this field things really are not simple or straight forward...
Jim C 29 Aug 2014


The men concerned are perhaps lucky not to be left to be dealt with by their own community under Sharia Law for rape.
 The New NickB 29 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:

You are now quoting a different article. I'll read it tomorrow, but what about the first one.
 felt 30 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> Rom when I call someone a liar, I always ensure I can back it up by pointing out their lie.

But these aren't lies, as the people you're accusing of lying are, it seems to me, being sincere. A lie is when someone knows the truth but maintains the opposite in order to deceive. Asserting something that's untrue is not always lying. In other words, if I believe that Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1972 and say that they did (they didn't), I'm not lying.

I think you need a vocab rethink.
 The New NickB 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon4:

> Here is the gem :


> The BNP forced Pakistani-heritage muslim men to rape at least 1400 children. The Times is to blame for investigating the matter.

> Pravda or Der Sturmer would have been ashamed to run such a piece, yet the woman responsible is still a Guardian columnist.

> Yes, 1400, it is also reliably rumoured that several girls have been murdered.

> From the sanctimonious, self-admiring left, normally in paroxysm of rage about off-colour remarks shouted at a girl out running, tumbleweed. The silence is deafening.

> We always knew the left were preaching hypocrites, but this is industrial strength hypocrisy, hypocrisy developed to a form of fine art.

> "Be you ordained in God's own tears, you are a coward now".

I am not sure how you take all that from that article, which is thought provoking at times, but seems to say none of the things you think it does.
In reply to felt:
> But these aren't lies, as the people you're accusing of lying are, it seems to me, being sincere.

Rom accused me of "BTW why every OP from you is systematically pointing the finger at minorities ?"

So he lied.

I then gave him a list of EVERY SINGLE topic I have started in the last months, none of which "is systematically pointing the finger at minorities".

He then compounded his lies further by claiming; "You carefully avoided to mention the offending ones from your list. So much for honesty".

There are, if anyone would claim to check, NONE whatsoever, which "is systematically pointing the finger at minorities".

Rom is an overt, and rather bad liar. Please feel free to examine my topics, and try to prove me wrong, if that is your wish.
Post edited at 09:16
 Postmanpat 30 Aug 2014
In reply to The New NickB:
> I am not sure how you take all that from that article, which is thought provoking at times, but seems to say none of the things you think it does.

Well, it clearly doesn't claim the BNP forced men of pakistani heritage to commit these crimes.But equally clearly it accuses the Times of misportraying the issue by saying that the crimes were overwhelmingly committed by men of Pakistani -muslim heritage, suggests that this was not the case ("has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry") , and that to suggest otherwise is part of "an ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country".

It is a disgusting, dishonest and counter productive exercise in denial. Obviously child sexual abuse in the UK is not unique to Pakistani muslim men but equally obviously in the cases being discussed they were overwhelmingly the perpetrators and not to recognise that is to hinder the chance of addressing the problem.

Should we deny that the Catholic priesthood had a problem with paedophilia on the grounds that it was unfair to the many innocent catholics and that most paedophiles are not catholic priests?
Post edited at 09:34
 seankenny 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:


> Apparently the racial/cultural aspect is largely a fiction anyway, although this journalist's head was so far up her arse it's unlikely she's alive to put her case anymore.


The problem with your "analysis" of the article is that the piece mainly, as I read it, quotes people like the chief exec of Barnardos and various organisations working on this issue, with the journalist taking a critical stance on the Times' reporting. She says local charities don't believe it's a race issue, for example. Perhaps the problem you have is with the experts who work in the area, rather than the journalism?
 Postmanpat 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

> The problem with your "analysis" of the article is that the piece mainly, as I read it, quotes people like the chief exec of Barnardos and various organisations working on this issue, with the journalist taking a critical stance on the Times' reporting. She says local charities don't believe it's a race issue, for example. Perhaps the problem you have is with the experts who work in the area, rather than the journalism?

No, the problem I have is that the official reports into the cases make it absolutely clear that the crimes were committed overwhelming by men of pakistani-muslim heritage and that there were particular cultural reasons why this could happen.
 seankenny 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Well, it clearly doesn't claim the BNP forced men of pakistani heritage to commit these crimes.But equally clearly it accuses the Times of misportraying the issue by saying that the crimes were overwhelmingly committed by men of Pakistani -muslim heritage, suggests that this was not the case ("has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry") , and that to suggest otherwise is part of "an ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country".

Well, do you have evidence that Pakistani men are disporportionately child abusers, more so than any other ethnic group?


> It is a disgusting, dishonest and counter productive exercise in denial. Obviously child sexual abuse in the UK is not unique to Pakistani muslim men but equally obviously in the cases being discussed they were overwhelmingly the perpetrators and not to recognise that is to hinder the chance of addressing the problem.

But when you read the reports, it's clear that the issues are extremely complex, and in fact concentrating on the race aspect misses out just about everything important. Social workers expected these working class 12 year olds to get drunk and have sex with older men - it's quite clear that the race of those older men is of a much lower order of importance compared to the fact that the people whose job is to protect those girls accepted their being raped.


> Should we deny that the Catholic priesthood had a disproportionate number of paedophiles on the grounds that it was unfair to the many innocent catholics and that most paedophiles are not catholic priests?

The point about Catholic priests is surely that the Catholic heirarchy didn't believe the allegations, had no mechanisms for dealing with it and actively obstructed the police enquiries. Lots of similarities with the current case.

But if you believe the issue is one of "disproportionality" then surely you have some figures to back this up...?
 seankenny 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, the problem I have is that the official reports into the cases make it absolutely clear that the crimes were committed overwhelming by men of pakistani-muslim heritage and that there were particular cultural reasons why this could happen.

Really? I've read one of the reports, the Rochdale one, and it doesn't actually say that there were cultural reasons for Pakistani men committing these crimes. Unless working in the night-time economy is a particuarly Pakistani/Muslim cultural trait.
 abr1966 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

I am somebody who works in this field and although there are issues relating to the organisation of abusers it is not exclusive to any racial or ethnic or cultural groups. I sit as a representetive on a sexual exploitation panel and know of groups of Pakisan/turks/afghan and also white British......abuse is abuse......as a practitioner a perpetrators ethnicity is less of a consideration than the complexity of trying to help stop it...
 Postmanpat 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:
> Well, do you have evidence that Pakistani men are disporportionately child abusers, more so than any other ethnic group?

No, of course not, because I'm not claiming that.
Are you suggesting that the cases under discussion i.e..those in northern towns such as Rotherham, Oldham , Keighley etc are not disproportionatly crimes by pakistani muslim men and have therefore particular characteristics which acknowledging would help address the problem?

> But when you read the reports, it's clear that the issues are extremely complex, and in fact concentrating on the race aspect misses out just about everything important. Social workers expected these working class 12 year olds to get drunk and have sex with older men -

Of course they were complex and of course, as I noted the day the report came out, one of the key problems was the blaming of the victims. That doesn't make the Grauniad article true in denying the racing the of the real criminals.

> The point about Catholic priests is surely that the Catholic heirarchy didn't believe the allegations, had no mechanisms for dealing with it and actively obstructed the police enquiries. Lots of similarities with the current case.

Eaxctly, so we acknowledge that the Catholic church had institutional failings which allowed the crimes to happen and to continue. Why can we not do that with the Pakiastini communities where these cries happened?

> But if you believe the issue is one of "disproportionality" then surely you have some figures to back this up…?

But, see above, I have not claimed, on a nationwide basis, that they are and I don't know why you think I am. I don't know and it doesn't matter. What matters is the how, why and who committed the crimes under discussion and how it is best stopped.
Post edited at 10:02
 Postmanpat 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

> Really? I've read one of the reports, the Rochdale one, and it doesn't actually say that there were cultural reasons for Pakistani men committing these crimes. Unless working in the night-time economy is a particuarly Pakistani/Muslim cultural trait.

I've read parts of both this week''report and the HofC report and they say that there were cultural elements as to why the crimes happened and continued to happen. Can you link to the Rochdale report?
 seankenny 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:


> Are you suggesting that the cases under discussion i.e..those in northern towns such as Rotherham, Oldham , Keighley etc are not disproportionatly crimes by pakistani muslim men and have therefore particular characteristics which acknowledging would help address the problem?

Well, I don't have the figures to hand for the total number of child abuse cases in those towns, so I can't judge. This is not me being weasly, but rather empirical. I'm all for further research on this topic, obviously, although it does seem to me - as an interested punter, rather than an expert like abr above - it seems that patterns of abuse are around power, misogyny, opportunity, are paramount.

What "particular characteristics" bedevil the Pakistani community here that make it markedly different from mainstream English culture?



> That doesn't make the Grauniad article true in denying the racing the of the real criminals.

I don't think anyone is denying that the criminals were Asian. What the piece is sceptical of is the claim that the race prism is the key one with which to view these crimes.


> Eaxctly, so we acknowledge that the Catholic church had institutional failings which allowed the crimes to happen and to continue. Why can we not do that with the Pakiastini communities where these cries happened?

Which institutions were failing?

> What matters is the how, why and who committed the crimes under discussion and how it is best stopped.

Indeed. So, given that experts on these issues such as Barnados don't believe race is a key part of doing this, why do you think it is?
 Postmanpat 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:
> What "particular characteristics" bedevil the Pakistani community here that make it markedly different from mainstream English culture?

You are making the mistake of grouping the "pakistani community" as one. It's origins, culture and class differ in different places.
Many of the communities in the North came from rural, poorly educated, often illiterate backgrounds. They brought with them customs such as "child" (in our terms) marriage, forced marriage, patriarchal dominance, sexual abstinence outside marriage.
Unlike, for example, Asian moslems from East Africa, they have generally not integrated well, have maintained many of these customs and feel "threatened" by the outside and thus very defensive. However, the local justice system that characterised their original communities, based on the idea that the "elders" could maintain order, has largely broken down.
Young, disaffected males, prey to the desires and aspirations-sex and money- of most young males, (probably heighten by the host culture) have limited outlets for either but also weak restrictions on finding outlets where they can and a society which would prefer to bury the problem.
Individually most of these characteristics are not unique but combined they create a toxic mixture.
>
> Which institutions were failing?

Are you trying to score silly points? I deliberately didn't use the term "institutional" with reference to the Pakistani communities.


> Indeed. So, given that experts on these issues such as Barnados don't believe race is a key part of doing this, why do you think it is?

Because numerous other people who have examined and written about the issue, including Pakistanis think it is. (cultural, rather than racial, to be more precise).

I'm going out now but listen to the interview with the Pakistani women interviewed by Richard Bacon. She was aware that a relative was active in a gang of abusers. Basically she was hounded out the community,largely by her own family, for complaining about it. Of course one can say this is an isolated example, or it could happen in any community. Probably it could, but that does not mean that this community has particular issues which make it likely to happen and need to be recognised.
The Rotherham report acknowledges much of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04f8997
Post edited at 10:41
 abr1966 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

> - it seems that patterns of abuse are around power, misogyny, opportunity, are paramount.

Absolutely...add to this.....vulnerable children due to abuse by parents/parental alcohol and drug use/complex social problems and the mix gets complicated.

I'm not denying the racial/etnic/cultural dimension to this (it's very apparent throughout)....but it wouldn't help with particular problems like...
(White British!) teenage girls being the most numerical group involved in grooming in one particular area i'm aware of or Dutch guys trafficing/exploiting under age Polish girls...

 seankenny 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You are making the mistake of grouping the "pakistani community" as one. It's origins, culture and class differ in different places.

I was merely quoting you I'm afraid. I've spent six months in Pakistan over the past decade, both for work and fun, I've worked with a lot of British Pakistanis and speak Urdu... so I appreciate that it's a hugely complex country.


> Many of the communities in the North came from rural, poorly educated, often illiterate backgrounds. They brought with them customs such as "child" (in our terms) marriage, forced marriage, patriarchal dominance, sexual abstinence outside marriage.

This is something you could of course say about Punjabis of all hues, as well as Bangladesh, large parts of India, etc.

> Unlike, for example, Asian moslems from East Africa, they have generally not integrated well, have maintained many of these customs and feel "threatened" by the outside and thus very defensive. However, the local justice system that characterised their original communities, based on the idea that the "elders" could maintain order, has largely broken down.

I would tend to regard a lot of this as economically rather than culturally driven. You could say something similar about a lot of poor white communities in terms of intergrating to our middle class ideas of what Englishness is.


> Because numerous other people who have examined and written about the issue, including Pakistanis think it is. (cultural, rather than racial, to be more precise).

> I'm going out now but listen to the interview with the Pakistani women interviewed by Richard Bacon. She was aware that a relative was active in a gang of abusers. Basically she was hounded out the community,largely by her own family, for complaining about it. Of course one can say this is an isolated example, or it could happen in any community. Probably it could, but that does not mean that this community has particular issues which make it likely to happen and need to be recognised.

Agreed, I read something similar (a woman in Skipton - maybe the same?) and agreed, the Rotherham report mentions this too - with respect to Asian grooming and abuse of Asian girls.

I figure the problem you're trying to get at is the shame culture, which as I'm sure you know exists far beyond the British Pakistani community and to some extent affects all South Asian communities. Of course, it's a huge problem and as the interview and Rotherham report say, it has affected the reporting of sexual abuse, and possibly hampered convictions too.

Clearly the shame issue and taboos of reporting sexual offences need to change. But having read the reports, it's clear that even if this happened, shame is not the principle driver of abuse, even if it does make it harder to uncover.




 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to abr1966:
The attitudes and responses to this type of sexual exploitation and grooming are an interesting contrast to those displayed in cases like the teacher Jeremey Forrest, where a substantial minority had the opinion that the underage child "knew what she was doing" or was in other ways somehow complicit in or bore some responsibility for, her grooming and sexual exploitation.


Hopefully that contrast will be borne in mind whilst everyone bombards the police/social services with criticism. As you say, these cases are complex.
Post edited at 11:32
 Offwidth 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
Thats well below your normal level of sensible input; this is a catastrophic failure of duty of care and there is no comparison with his case and mass organised abuse. Like Sean I think serial abusers will expliot every opportunity they can get and its little to do with race (even if PC behaviour and a shame culture made things worse, its less important than the main motives and main oversights).
Post edited at 11:49
 Postmanpat 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:
> I was merely quoting you I'm afraid.

Well, not really. The clear gist of my sentence was that these were characteristics associated with Pakistani communities in these cities not all pakistanis, but if you missed that so be it.

> This is something you could of course say about Punjabis of all hues, as well as Bangladesh, large parts of India, etc.

> I would tend to regard a lot of this as economically rather than culturally driven. You could say something similar about a lot of poor white communities in terms of intergrating to our middle class ideas of what Englishness is.

It works both ways. Most immigrant communities have done quite well economically but these particular Pakistani ones have not. No doubt that is partly bad luck in landing in declining old industrial towns but it seems unlikely that their cultural background, poor education, rural skillsets etc were irrelevant.

> Agreed, I read something similar (a woman in Skipton - maybe the same?) and agreed, the Rotherham report mentions this too - with respect to Asian grooming and abuse of Asian girls.

> I figure the problem you're trying to get at is the shame culture, which as I'm sure you know exists far beyond the British Pakistani community and to some extent affects all South Asian communities. Of course, it's a huge problem and as the interview and Rotherham report say, it has affected the reporting of sexual abuse, and possibly hampered convictions too.

Yes, that is part of it but mix it in with attitudes to women, non-believers, economic circumstance and alienation from the mainstream and it is more likely to happen amongst the pakistanis in Rotherham than an East African Asian doctors in Harrow.

> Clearly the shame issue and taboos of reporting sexual offences need to change. But having read the reports, it's clear that even if this happened, shame is not the principle driver of abuse, even if it does make it harder to uncover.

Well, obviously not. The drivers are presumably money and sex mixed in with bit of anger. The question is why these were acted upon and neither the Pakistani community nor the authorities stopped them.

I don't think any sensible person would pretend there numerous interlocking causes, not least the attitude of the "authorities" to troubled and troublesome kids, and to the Pakistani community, but denying that the culture of the perpetrators is an issue is dishonest.

"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown…"
Post edited at 11:58
 seankenny 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, that is part of it but mix it in with attitudes to women, non-believers, economic circumstance and alienation from the mainstream and it is more likely to happen amongst the pakistanis in Rotherham than an East Asian doctors in Harrow.

Well, given that if a doctor were raping his 12 year old neice or a 12 year old from the local care home, the evidence from the multitude of reports is that he'd probably get away it. So we really have very little evidence that this kind of abuse is "more likely" to happen with one community than another.

> Well, obviously not. The drivers are presumably money and sex mixed in with bit of anger. The question is why these were acted upon and neither the Pakistani community nor the authorities stopped them.

Actually the Rotherham report mentioned that the Pakistani community were scared of violent retribution from the perpetrators if they spoke out. Given that one of those convicted in Rotherham was also convicted for murder, that doesn't sound too unreasonable. To me this looks very similar to problems faced by lots of people from poor communities who might want to report a crime, ie. it's not a "Pakistani thing".



> I don't think any sensible person would pretend there numerous interlocking causes, not least the attitude of the "authorities" to troubled and troublesome kids, and to the Pakistani community, but denying that the culture of the perpetrators is an issue is dishonest.

Ah, but it's not being denied, just that lots and lots of people are saying it's way less important than you seem to think it is. The "PC conspiracy" may loom large in the right-wing imagination, but the explanation that police officers and others blamed a "PC culture" rather than their own failure to do difficult jobs properly is more convincing.

 Offwidth 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
I didn't see any denial of culture in sean's posts, it just seems his view is, like the reports', it's less serious than you seem to think it is. In the end helping the victims, prosecuting the abusers and investigating those who had powers to stop this but failed are surely more important issues.

Jumping to a white middle class culture, the serial abusers in the catholic church often escaped any punishment let alone prosecution as did those who we know covered up and the victims faced shattered lives for many decades....lets hope this time we don't repeat those mistakes.
Post edited at 12:19
 abr1966 30 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

> Well, given that if a doctor were raping his 12 year old neice or a 12 year old from the local care home, the evidence from the multitude of reports is that he'd probably get away it.


That's not my experience at all.....i think the problem is actually being able to get evidence. If there is evidence being able to do something is relatively straighforward but generally with organised exploitation there is often a lack of cooperation with authorities.

What was happening in Rotherham is seroius organised crime with all of the nastiness that goes along with it so i think you are spot on in identifying fear as the mainissue preventing communities coming forward and making statements to the police. We have had problems with Social Workers being threatened...a couple of whom had tobemoved with their families to safe houses for a while.

 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> Thats well below your normal level of sensible input; this is a catastrophic failure of duty of care and there is no comparison with his case and mass organised abuse. Like Sean I think serial abusers will expliot every opportunity they can get and its little to do with race (even if PC behaviour and a shame culture made things worse, its less important than the main motives and main oversights).

I think it is illuminating that the quite justified criticism of the police (and others) in the report highlights issues such as victims being seen as consenting/complicit in the offences, lifestyle choices etc..

It is very easy to sit in a comfy armchair and go - "Oh that's disgusting - how could they POSSIBLY believe that". By raising the comparison with the Forrest case I would hope that some might think - "Hmm - perhaps it is a bit more complicated".

As abr1966 has already said (from his own experience) these are complicated and tangled cases. The victims are not vulnerable because they fit some stereotypical image of a "poor little girl grabbed off the street by a merciless predator".
They are vulnerable often because their behaviour involves voluntarily placing themselves in dangerous situations, low self esteem issues screwing up the relationship between sex and love/affection/friendship, belief that they are not victims ("he's my boyfriend"), unwillingness to engage with many services including the police, etc...

That is not in any way to blame them for these offences - they are innocent victims. However they present significant challenges, to engage with them, to rescue them and (in reality the least important part) - to prosecute the offenders.
thepeaks 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:

So is it partly an issue around evidence gathering and the likelihood of a successful prosecution when the abused are unlikely to co-operate for one reason or another?

And WTF must Cliff Richard be making of all this
 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to thepeaks:

> So is it partly an issue around evidence gathering and the likelihood of a successful prosecution when the abused are unlikely to co-operate for one reason or another?

Yes. These girls are victims. They need to be treated as victims - and dealt with well. But on the other hand how long do we expect the police to continue to engage with them if they are not assisting?
As long as it takes would be the glib answer - but without unlimited resources sooner or later a case has to be filed "pending".

> And WTF must Cliff Richard be making of all this

I'm not sure. How do you think his alleged victim feels?
 abr1966 30 Aug 2014
In reply to thepeaks:

The whole point of having safeguarding boards, safeguarding hubs, sexual exploitation panels etc is that they are multi-agency....each professional group habe their own responsibility but share info, plans, stretegies etc....the police are their to secure convictions, social workers to safeguard etc...
 elsewhere 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
Individual cases may be complicated, but the bigger picture of the nature and scale of the problem could hardly have been simpler or clearer. 'Catastrophic failure of duty of care' is a good term for the lack of response.
 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> Individual cases may be complicated, but the bigger picture of the nature and scale of the problem could hardly have been simpler or clearer. 'Catastrophic failure of duty of care' is a good term for the lack of response.

Bear in mind that, sat in a unit, you deal with a "big picture" one case at a time.

It's probably worth looking at the reasons though, rather than just preaching from the pulpit.

Within the police it appears to have involved to different degrees, poor attitudes to victims, lack of effort in pushing prosecutions and investigations, under resourcing, overworking, under prioritising.

Personally I think that if you keep squeezing the budgets of the cops - decreasing the numbers and increasing the workload, things aren't going to improve.
When you set that against a target culture from "on high" that focuses on priorities like serious acquisitive crime (burglary/robbery) and violent crime - then you are not going to sufficiently resource the units that deal with this crime.
When you are also driven by priorities "set by communities" - ie dog fouling, antisocial behaviour, burglary, speeding - then you are going to shift focus further from this area.
When you add to the mix that these cases are hard and time consuming, and units dealing with them can swallow as many officers as you care to give them, then you have another significant resourcing problem.

 elsewhere 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> Bear in mind that, sat in a unit, you deal with a "big picture" one case at a time.

The social services, police and councilors were getting the bigger picture from reports and briefings. If the management levels don't get the bigger picture they're not doing their jobs.



 Jim Hamilton 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:

> I'm not sure. How do you think his alleged victim feels?

so is there nothing untoward about how the police (on the face of it) approached these cases ?

 felt 30 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

You misunderstand. He's not lying. He's mistaken, or incorrect, or wrong. They're very different things.
 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> The social services, police and councilors were getting the bigger picture from reports and briefings. If the management levels don't get the bigger picture they're not doing their jobs.

I don't think I ever suggested that management didn't get the big picture. It is what the report states.

Criticism is self-defeating if it is not directed - ie not just "the whole of the police are sh1t". It's also a bit pointless if it's not constructive.

I thought it might be worth raising some of the complexities both from an front-line operational level and from a more strategic position.

Apart from anything else - if you want this area of policing to become the priority then, in this age of austerity - you are going to have to accept cuts somewhere else.
 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> so is there nothing untoward about how the police (on the face of it) approached these cases ?

Which cases?

I think I've made it clear that I agree that the police failed the victims in Rotherham.
In the case of Cliff Richard - they have taken effective action, that has to be a good thing.
thepeaks 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:

What I find concerning (and I haven`t read the report so this might be bllcks) is that whilst one could just about understand cases not being followed up for 15 yr old girls who would be approaching the age of consent, this seems to have also been the case for under 13 yr olds which is another ball game entirely.
 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to thepeaks:

> What I find concerning (and I haven`t read the report so this might be bllcks) is that whilst one could just about understand cases not being followed up for 15 yr old girls who would be approaching the age of consent, this seems to have also been the case for under 13 yr olds which is another ball game entirely.


The stories being reported don't always include the full details summarised in the report.

Regardless of the age of the victim if they refuse to engage with the police and won't go to court to say what has happened then it is almost impossible to run any sort of trial - unless there is a witness who actually saw what happened and would give evidence, then hearsay evidence won't hold water at court (regardless of the fact "we all know" what has happened).
In addition if the victim does come onboard there are all sorts of beartraps on the way - if they give an account where they minimise their behaviour but are proved to have acted differently - eg by CCTV, then their entire account is undermined.
On occasion as mentioned in one example in the report, repeated contact with offenders was interpreted as undermining their account rather than recognised as placatory behaviour through fear/grooming.

Don't misunderstand me - many of these victims have been let down by frontline staff, but the criminal justice system is also designed around the presumption of innocence of the defendant and proving a case beyond reasonable doubt is a high hurdle to cross - with the CPS having to make a decision that it is "more likely than not" that the case can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, before they agree to charge.

This is a focus on the prosecution of offenders. The recommendations of the report largely focussed on resourcing and support, long and short term, for victims.
 elsewhere 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
It would be good to see directed criticism holding individuals to account.


 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> It would be good to see directed criticism holding individuals to account.

Here's some of those responsible being held to account :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11696508

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16293167
 elsewhere 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
Let's home there are many more such convictions.

That and disciplinary consequences for those who neglected their duties to an estimated 1400 kids would be a step towards rescuing the reputation of S Yorkshire Police.
In reply to felt:

> You misunderstand. He's not lying. He's mistaken, or incorrect, or wrong. They're very different things.

I have to disagree with you there mate, sorry.

If someone says;

> BTW why every OP from you is systematically pointing the finger at minorities ?

Then they must base that on some evidence, or they must have ignored the truth, ie lied.

I gave ROM the titles of all the OPs I have started over the last month. He then compounded his lies by claiming;

> You carefully avoided to mention the offending ones from your list.

Now, if ROM was NOT lying then he would have produced at least one example of what he claims I have done. He has not.

ROM has lied, he knows damn well he's lied, and he's been exposed as a liar.

I apologise to all who dislike me calling/exposing people as liars, but I have a strong diastase for being lied about.

 off-duty 30 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> Let's home there are many more such convictions.

> That and disciplinary consequences for those who neglected their duties to an estimated 1400 kids would be a step towards rescuing the reputation of S Yorkshire Police.

I don't know, some people will continue to tar a force of 2700 cops and 2000 staff with the same brush regardless of what they do :-

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/shooting-offic...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crime/south-yorkshire-gunman-shot-police-offi...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/south-yorkshire-police-officers-thanked-for-t...

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/brave-south-yorkshire-police-constable-...
 aln 30 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Are you bipolar?
In reply to aln:

No. Why do you ask?
 elsewhere 30 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
Do you think S Yorkshire Police responded adequately to sex abuse?

How many convictions should there be if there are 1400 victims?

Do you think many abusers were able to act with impunity?

Of course individuals and management as a whole will be tared if they spend 15 years of their careers failing to act.
Post edited at 23:59
In reply to stroppygob:

quite. what an odd question.
 off-duty 31 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> Do you think S Yorkshire Police responded adequately to sex abuse?

Read my posts. No - for a variety of reasons.

> How many convictions should there be if there are 1400 victims?

Read my posts. It is impossible to say. Consider the various difficulties in prosecution (that I have highlighted) even if the standard of police action is above exemplary.
Might be worth having also having a look at the ex-DPP's views here :-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/28/how-can-we-prevent-ano...

> Do you think many abusers were able to act with impunity?

Yes. Read my posts explaining a small fraction of the complexity of these crimes. How much of the responsibility for that can be laid at the door of the police is debatable. Definitely "some" but certainly far less than "all"

> Of course individuals and management as a whole will be tared if they spend 15 years of their careers failing to act.

It's a force of 2700 police. There were 11 officers specialist officers dealing with this type of crime prior to 2013, increased to 21. Something to bear in mind in criticisms of a whole force.

Given the weight which is being placed on one interpretation of the one recommendation (out of 15) - relating to race and given the weight (and spin) being placed on the case studies of graphic individual cases, then perhaps equal weight should be given to the conclusion in the executive summary :-

"There have been many improvements in the last four years by both the Council and the Police. The Police are now well resourced for CSE and well trained, though prosecutions remain low in number."

It is, as I have previously said, extremely easy to sit and criticise from an armchair. Undoubtedly the police need to continue to improve.
I just hope that some have gained some insight into the actual content of the report (rather than the various media spins) as well as the difficulties dealing with this type of criminality.
 aln 31 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

> No. Why do you ask?

Your posting style is rather erratic.
In reply to aln:

Explain more if you wouldn't mind, as I pride myself on my consistency.

Oh, and as someone who has worked in mental health for 30+ years, I have a reasonable understanding of bi-polar disorder, it's not something to be treated lightly.
 aln 31 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:
bi-polar disorder, it's not something to be treated lightly.

Dependant on context, anything can be treated lightly. I have personal experience of bi-polar.
You veer from rational intelligent discussion to frothing wildly against your perceived lefty enemies, to posting photos of kangaroos etc.
Post edited at 02:40
In reply to aln:



> Dependant on context, anything can be treated lightly. I have personal experience of bi-polar.

I'm sorry to hear that, I hope the treatment is enabling you to manage the condition.

> You veer from rational intelligent discussion to frothing wildly against your perceived lefty enemies, to posting photos of kangaroos etc.

I do, I happily admit, tend to get very irate when people lie about who I am, what I have said, or what they imagine I "think", so sue me.

I have no "lefty enemies", that, again, is one of YOUR fantasies not mine.

I post what and when I see fit, there's not harm in that is there?

 Postmanpat 31 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

> Well, given that if a doctor were raping his 12 year old neice or a 12 year old from the local care home, the evidence from the multitude of reports is that he'd probably get away it. So we really have very little evidence that this kind of abuse is "more likely" to happen with one community than another.

So you think this sort of wholesale grooming and abuse it as likely to happen amongst middle class doctors and lawyers in Harrow or academics in Oxford as amongst an alienated barely employed underclass?
This argument that wee don't have detailed academic research on something and therefore we can make no no judgements at all is obfuscation.

> Actually the Rotherham report mentioned that the Pakistani community were scared of violent retribution from the perpetrators if they spoke out. Given that one of those convicted in Rotherham was also convicted for murder, that doesn't sound too unreasonable.

Yes, and also that there were issues of ostracisation etc That there are inevitably overlapping characteristics with other communities and cultures does not mean that culture was not at play.

> Ah, but it's not being denied, just that lots and lots of people are saying it's way less important than you seem to think it is. The "PC conspiracy" may loom large in the right-wing imagination, but the explanation that police officers and others blamed a "PC culture" rather than their own failure to do difficult jobs properly is more convincing.

We can get into some ludicrous UKC discussion about the definition of "deny" but by any normal standards the Grauniad article I linked to and you reacted to "denies". What then happens is that when people highlight this denial they are accused of "blaming it all on political correctness". Speaking for myself, I'm not and I think many others are not. I am simply arguing that the reluctance to identify the background of the perpetrators and to examine the influence of this and possibly even to address the problem were significant strands in the failure to deal with it.

Having read the apparently relevant bits of the Rochdale report I can't agree with your interpration of it. Firstly, sating that "race" doesn't get addressed until p.100 is about as relevant as saying Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius until Act v. ie. not relevant at all.

Of course the report is focussed on the failings of the relevant institutions to protect the children so it is understandable that it focuses on this rather than the perpetrators and understandable that the authorities did that as well.
However,even the report highlights the almost bizarre and wilful reluctance of anybody involved to even identify the cultural background of the perpetrators, let alone discuss the implications of this. They are consistently described only as "Asians". The report seems curiously reluctant to question whether this might be partly the result of institutionalised training not to make such racial or cultural distinctions.

Even more strangely, the report itself wrongly identifies the perpetrators as "South East Asians".
To any normal person South East Asia denotes the area east of India e.g..Thailand, Malaysia etc.
That the report's writers can't even get this right actually implies to me either a lack of curiosity about the issue or yet more reluctance to address it openly. Indeed, they seem to think that the main danger was of regarding the "mere fact of being Asian as in itself explanatory of their behaviour" rather understanding that acknowledging their culture as one starting point for understanding the nature of the problem should be a sine qua non.

If you read the HofC Home Affairs Committee you will get a much more open, thoughtful and nuanced interpretation of this aspect of the scandal.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/68/68i.pd...


 Postmanpat 31 Aug 2014
In reply to abr1966:

> What was happening in Rotherham is seroius organised crime with all of the nastiness that goes along with it so i think you are spot on in identifying fear as the mainissue preventing communities coming forward and making statements to the police. We have had problems with Social Workers being threatened...a couple of whom had tobemoved with their families to safe houses for a while.

I'm quite surprised that none of the reviews seem to have raised the question of how the gangs might have gone about "hushing" the authorities up. Was it just bad luck that at least one girl who reported he rape to the police and handed over her clothes as evidence was a) asked "do you understand who you've got involved with?" and b) Called two days later to be told her clothes had been "lost".

Hmm…..
 elsewhere 31 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
A degree of criticism of the whole management is justified given that the problem was made clear in three reports from 2002 to 2006. If social workers, teachers and young people* knew about the dangers then local officers and their superiors must have known too.

The knowledge can't have been confined to specialist police teams when ordinary young people see what's happening.

*they avoided using taxis

After 10+ years of wilful neglect it's good to see improvements.

To deter current abusers the police will have to find more strong cases amongst the many victims.

I hope there are adverse career consequences for those who did not pursue the abusers to deter comparable neglect elsewhere.
Post edited at 12:00
 elsewhere 31 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
I wonder if the real motivation was that career progression rewarded those didn't present problems to their superiors and who made sure performance indicators were met by minimising rather addressing the problem.

It would be good if those who did rock the boat get the career progression they deserve, but that rarely happens.
Post edited at 12:21
 off-duty 31 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

Unfortunately it becomes almost pointless continuing this.

I agree there have been pretty appalling management failings, and some failings at an operational level too.

When you start throwing around conclusions like "local officers...must have known" - on the basis that victims, only 1/3 of whom engaged with the police or other agencies - were aware of eg "not using taxis", then you are projecting a level of telepathy that is not yet normal police issue.

Using terms such as "wilful neglect" and suggesting that the police "find more strong cases amongst the victims" make me wonder why I even bother trying to explain the difficulties of these cases, unless you are suggesting manufacturing evidence, coaching victims or beating confessions out of suspects.

There needs to be a cultural change within the police - something which the report says has happened and is ongoing. But it is hard - treating the non-co-operative, abusive, aggressive, persistent missing from home, who you regularly waste your entire shift searching for, as a vulnerable victim is difficult. Even more so when they will not engage with the police at any level without extreme persistence and very careful handling.
Doing that on top of a full caseload and setting it against every other demand on individual and team time that is a "force priority" , or "important local issue", or "todays National knee jerk" makes the job even harder.
Add to the mix austerity cuts and vast reductions in officers and support staff hugely increasing the workload involved in even the most routine job and you are diving towards the perfect storm for policing :-http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/update/2014-08-26/warning-that-police-f...

But in this case I guess I have to bow to your better knowledge of what the problem is and how to make things better - let's just line some cops up against the wall and shoot them, and then everything will be better. If we could also emphasise that the threat that their careers and jobs are on the line is hanging over the operational officers then that is probably a good way to encourage people to volunteer to come into this area of work already notorious for its levels of workload, stress and sickness.
 off-duty 31 Aug 2014
In reply to elsewhere:

> I wonder if the real motivation was that career progression rewarded those didn't present problems to their superiors and who made sure performance indicators were met by minimising rather addressing the problem.

> It would be good if those who did rock the boat get the career progression they deserve, but that rarely happens.

With both these points - I agree
 Postmanpat 31 Aug 2014
In reply to seankenny:

> The problem with your "analysis" of the article is that the piece mainly, as I read it, quotes people like the chief exec of Barnardos and various organisations working on this issue, with the journalist taking a critical stance on the Times' reporting. She says local charities don't believe it's a race issue, for example. Perhaps the problem you have is with the experts who work in the area, rather than the journalism?

Funnily enough, what the then CEO of Barnados,Martin Narey told the BBC was "Sex offenders are overwhelmingly white and I think there is evidence that those guilty of online grooming are overwhelmingly white but for this particular sort of crime, the street grooming and trafficking of girls in northern towns - Derby, Leeds, Blackpool, Blackburn, Oldham and Rochdale - there is disturbing evidence that Asians are overwhelmingly represented in the prosecutions for such offences."

"Most Asians would abhor what we have seen in the Rochdale trial," he added.

Mr Narey, who is also a former chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, said: "I spent my last two or three years in Barnardo's listening to people muttering about the reality of this but not wanting to say anything publicly."

Frankly as a CEO who came from a different background (the prison service) he was going to be divorced from the front line and dependent on information flowing up (which we knows a problem) to understand what was happening. Barnados, amongst others, is mentioned as having very limited interaction (quite rationally,it was not that job) with the perpetrators.
It sounds like nevertheless eventually the information did flow up even as far as Narey.
 off-duty 31 Aug 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think it's a bit more complicated than just saying "It's pakistani Muslims" - though they are currently over-represented as offenders.

As can be seen from the various trial around the UK, the offenders do come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. What they tend to have in common is that they work in the "night-time economy" - typically takeaway staff and taxi drivers.
They are those people that these victims will associate with when at their most vulnerable - ie drunk, away from home and understandably with little money.
They are also in a position of power in that situation - they have access to drink, food, transport and often accommodation as well.
 Postmanpat 31 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
> I think it's a bit more complicated than just saying "It's pakistani Muslims" - though they are currently over-represented as offenders.

>
So do I which is why I've not said it. See my post of 10.33 Saturday to summarise the "toxic mixture" of different aspects, probably none of them unique, that combined to create this disaster. It's even more silly to say "it's not pakistani muslims" or "even if it is pakistani muslims acknowledging this cannot help solve the problem (and is racist)". Not that you are doing this.

Basically what you have is two cultural underclasses, both of which create big and complicated problems (as you have eloquently described) for you and the social services, meeting up to create and even bigger problem.
Post edited at 15:44
 elsewhere 31 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:
I don't dispute the complexity of taking individual cases to court but I dispute that police officers would be less aware of the nature of the problem than teachers and social workers. No need for telepathy, I'm just assuming officers would develop suspicions when they spoke to teachers, social workers and the victims.

8.25, page 73 of Jay report
"Their parents and partners strongly discouraged, even forbade, them from being on their own at night in a taxi, unless it was a company they personally knew."

I don't see why local police would be less well informed than local parents.
 felt 31 Aug 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

Fair enough, I won't press the point...
 Rob Exile Ward 31 Aug 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I looked after naughty boys in the late 70s and the cooperation we got from the police, and the forbearance they showed to the kids, whose damage invariably manifested itself as aggressive total pains in the a*se, was astonishing.

In a good way, for the avoidance of doubt. The kids mostly knew it to, but wouldn't acknowledge it in front of their peers.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I looked after naughty boys in the late 70s and the cooperation we got from the police, and the forbearance they showed to the kids, whose damage invariably manifested itself as aggressive total pains in the a*se, was astonishing.

Ditto for me in the 80's. Also, working at the sharp end of mental health for the past 10 years in Aus, I have always been impressed with the professionalism, caring and kindness of Aussie cops when dealing with mentally ill people, in some quite extreme circumstances.

 Morgan Woods 01 Sep 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

I've just flicked through the report and find it a bit odd that it only devotes a few pages to the issue of ethnicity. Some of this is to emphasise that Pakistani girls were victims too but compare this:

"Pakistani-heritage girls were targeted by taxi drivers and on occasion by older men lying in wait outside school gates at dinner times and after school."

to the catalogue of serious abuse of young white girls making up the overwhelming majority of the 1,400 cases.

One might reasonably ask about the low levels of integration in such communities and if that was a contributing factor to the abuse. I don't think the report answers that well at all.
 Morgan Woods 01 Sep 2014
In reply to stroppygob:

And also odd it mentions this (p100):

"The UK Muslim Women's Network produced a report on CSE in September 2013 which drew on 35 case studies of women from across the UK who were victims, the majority of whom were Muslim."

I imagine that some of these cases might be child brides and forced marriages, a separate but no doubt related issue.
 Postmanpat 01 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:
> And also odd it mentions this (p100):

>
Several of the reports review to this aspect but not in much depth. Presumably the problem is even harder to unearth than "inter community" abuse.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/29/-sp-untold-story-culture-of-...
Post edited at 15:00
 blurty 01 Sep 2014
In reply to Postmanpat:
Blimey, I've just read through a lot of the comment made by contributors below the various article on this topic on the Guardian website.

The mental gymnastics the Guardianista will go through to avoid confronting the Pakistani Heritage sex offender point is pretty amazing.

Blame the police & courts

Blame a male dominated hierarchical value system

Blame the Tories (for pressuring Labour)

But whatever you do don't ask why the convicted perpetrators are all of Pakistani descent.

(Incidentally, does anyone know of any research as to why that group in our society seem to have a disproportionate propensity to abuse young girls?)
Post edited at 15:41
 andy 01 Sep 2014
In reply to blurty:



> (Incidentally, does anyone know of any research as to why that group in our society seem to have a disproportionate propensity to abuse young girls?)

Do they?
In reply to stroppygob:

> "I was collecting data on who the perpetrators were, what cars they were using, their grooming methods, their offending methods, and what I was also collecting, was information on professional responses." When the researcher began to share her findings with the council, she told them most of the perpetrators being named were from the British Pakistani community.

> She said she was taken aback by the response from one official. "They said you must never refer to that again, you must never refer to Asian men," she said. "And [the] other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29012571
In reply to stroppygob:

Aye, just seen this tweet. pretty damning I think

http://t.co/u0omcSLnwq
 Morgan Woods 03 Sep 2014
In reply to higherclimbingwales:

and seeing as we are speaking about cultural relativism maybe a good example is the outrage directed at what in some cases was a bit of groping from the likes of Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris is equal to stuff like:

"Child A (2000)6 was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults."

"Child H (2008) was 11 years old when she came to the attention of the Police. She disclosed that she and another child had been sexually assaulted by adult males. When she was 12, she was found drunk in the back of a car with a suspected CSE perpetrator, who had indecent photos of her on his phone"

"Child N (2013) was 12 when extremely indecent images of her were discovered on the phones of fellow students. There were suspicions that older men and one woman had groomed her via Facebook."

that's just a few of the 1,400. Interesting the report just talks about "older males" without being too specific. What a lovely problem to import.
 balmybaldwin 03 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:
> (In reply to highclimber)
> that's just a few of the 1,400. Interesting the report just talks about "older males" without being too specific. What a lovely problem to import.

If you think it is imported you should think again. This isn't some thing that has been going on for years abroad (in Pakistan or anywhere else) whilst little old Englanders sat around having tea anc cakes, blushing when accidentally catching sight of a girls ankles, this is endemic in human history across all races and states and has been in the UK as long as there have been children and adults (thankfully in very small numbers). There are years and years of prosecutions, convictions and cover-ups to prove this.
 seankenny 03 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:

> What a lovely problem to import.

You do know what Fagin's job was, right?
 johncook 03 Sep 2014
In reply to off-duty:

I thought that these cases were occurring prior to the present Conservative 'austerity' cuts, occurring under the cloak of the generous Labour govt, when all good things happened.
I live in Rotherham, have personal knowledge of a 'senior child care manager', and refused to let my child overnight at their house after what I saw at a party there, where there was a high percentage of that persons work colleagues.
I don't blame the SYP, it is Rotherham Council and it's workers who are to blame. They are the ones who should have been working carefully with the victims and getting them to supply the information/evidence the police force needed to convince the CPS. Surely that was/is their job in child protection.
Not enough emphasis is being placed on the 'socialist network of job allocation and oversight' of RMBC!
 Morgan Woods 03 Sep 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> If you think it is imported you should think again. This isn't some thing that has been going on for years abroad (in Pakistan or anywhere else) whilst little old Englanders sat around having tea anc cakes,

I'm not that naive but if the ethnicities had been reversed, people would have been shouting "racist hate crime" from the rooftops long before it had a chance to reach such a scale. You might even get a few Danish cartoon-style protesters threatening to cut off the stumps of us infidels.
 Morgan Woods 03 Sep 2014
In reply to johncook:


> I live in Rotherham, have personal knowledge of a 'senior child care manager', and refused to let my child overnight at their house after what I saw at a party there, where there was a high percentage of that persons work colleagues.


That's a bit cryptic, what exactly did you see? I lived in Haringay just after baby P and one of the criticisms of social workers there was the emphasis on them having loads of qualifications but no life experience eg of actually having children.
 balmybaldwin 03 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:

You mean like the white middle aged UK men that go to places like Thailand and the Philipines to abuse children?

It is a travesty that so many disadvantaged white girls were targeted, but it is probably more a case of white girls being disproportionally represented in the childrens homes and such that these kids were picked up from.... not to mention the tactic that seems to have been employed to get the girls "on-side" with their attackers i.e. "your parents don't like me because they are racist"
 Morgan Woods 03 Sep 2014
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> You mean like the white middle aged UK men that go to places like Thailand and the Philipines to abuse children?

> It is a travesty that so many disadvantaged white girls were targeted, but it is probably more a case of white girls being disproportionally represented in the childrens homes and such that these kids were picked up from.... not to mention the tactic that seems to have been employed to get the girls "on-side" with their attackers i.e. "your parents don't like me because they are racist"

Yes...I imagine that Pakistani girls in the UK are generally not allowed to socialise outside of the home with random blokes and a fair number of them would be married off at an early age as well. I think we are really talking about parallel communities with very little integration, and I'm not sure why anybody would find that satisfactory.
 johncook 03 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:

Shall we say social chemical enhancement?
 seankenny 03 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:

> I think we are really talking about parallel communities with very little integration, and I'm not sure why anybody would find that satisfactory.

Clearly it is time for you to make a start. To the mosque for a cup of tea and a chat!
 Morgan Woods 03 Sep 2014
In reply to seankenny:

How about the pub instead?
 seankenny 04 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:

> How about the pub instead?

Haha clearly the mosque is as far outside your comfort zone as the pub is out of theirs. Shisha bar or kebab house would be a suitable compromise. Get to it!
 Ramblin dave 04 Sep 2014
In reply to Morgan Woods:

> I think we are really talking about parallel communities with very little integration, and I'm not sure why anybody would find that satisfactory.

I've said it before, but after years of people banging on about how they've got nothing against immigrants but you wouldn't to live next door to them or have them marry your sister, there's a certain irony to people worrying about how immigrants haven't "integrated" properly...
cragtaff 06 Sep 2014
In reply to johncook:

> I thought that these cases were occurring prior to the present Conservative 'austerity' cuts, occurring under the cloak of the generous Labour govt, when all good things happened.

Its been well established for years and years, Rotherham today, where next? Blackburn?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...