Ship of Fools: Fiasco in Rotherham

Thread: Fiasco in Rotherham Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027745

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I have waited in vain for someone to post something about the awful situation in Rotherham. Child abuse on an industrial scale has taken place yet not a mention that I can find on the Ship.

Why did it happen? And why was it allowed to happen for 15 years?

I put much of it down to an irresponsible liberalism which always sees evil as being 'systematic' and never attributes it to individuals. The answer therefore is always to tinker with the system and for individuals always to refuse responsibility. That, of course, never applies when some notable success is achieved.

An irresponsible liberalism also refuses to face facts. It is racist in that it refuses to acknowledge the racist element which is Rochdale and Rotherham was to the fore. Fear of disrupting 'social cohesion' tolerates such evils especially when minorities are involved. And, in Rotherham at least, Councillors were more interested in votes than confronting the evil

What an indictment upon society today.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Well, since local MPs, care/social workers, police and local government, and presumably several therapists and doctors in the NHS would have been aware, I would guess that the only way this gets held in is that either a powerful group up at the top of the ladder suppresses it because they don't like to hear it, or a number of people in authority positions are taking part in the thing, or most likely, both - a few people involved and playing all their colleagues off in a game of ostriches. I can't imagine incompetency + suppression on that scale without some form of participation or other interest.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Actually, it happened because some men raped and abused children. These are the sort of scum who need some proper pitchfork justice.

It perpetuated because those in positions of responsibility would not do what they were supposed to do, for fear of being called racist. At the time, I can understand this fear - they would have been. It doesn't mean they should not have done something.

It is a condemnation of our society that, at one time at least, racism was seen as a more serious crime than child abuse. I think that time is passed.

In the end, however, the issue is not the race of those involved - in abuse or covering up. Their gender, maybe. Their sickening degredation of young children definitely. All of those involved in abuse should be named and jailed. All of those involved in covering up should get out of any role in public life.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

There's been a desultory discussion of the matter on the Islamic State thread in Hell.

My daughter is a big fan of the Tracy Beaker books, which are set in a care home. There is a reason that the inmates invariably refer to it as the "dumping ground" and wish that a fairy godparent will whisk them away from it all. There is, quite clearly, a horrible Islamic subculture which holds that the molestation of white girls, like the murder of a blackmailer in golden age detective stories "doesn't count". But there is clearly a wider convention that the molestation of teenage girls in care "doesn't count" among law enforcement, social services and so forth. Both are horrible and need to be tackled.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat
It perpetuated because those in positions of responsibility would not do what they were supposed to do, for fear of being called racist. At the time, I can understand this fear - they would have been. It doesn't mean they should not have done something.

Could you please clarify what you are saying by the phrase "they would have been".

Are you saying that those in positions of responsibility would have been racist to investigate this abuse and take action against it?

Or are you saying something else?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's reasonable to point out it's more an un-Islamic sub-culture amongst some members of the Muslim community, rather than an Islamic one.

There's a good article about this "political correctness" angle here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/rotherham-abuse-political-correctness-ludicrous

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's reasonable to point out it's more an un-Islamic sub-culture amongst some members of the Muslim community, rather than an Islamic one.

There's a good article about this "political correctness" angle here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/rotherham-abuse-political-correctness-ludicrous

Well, it's Islamic given the religion and culture of the perpetrators just as, say Fred Phelps' mob are Christians. I agree that there are better manifestations of either faith.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Gildas is spot on - there has been a collusion between grooming gangs, council staff, and police, that some young girls are trash, and don't deserve any attention really. There are stories that the police actively were trying to disprove some young girls' stories.

I have no idea how pervasive this trashing of young girls is; we are seeing it also in other cases, such as Savile, where girls were disbelieved, and even punished for reporting abuse! It is very alarming, if it is actually present in 'authorities' such as council staff and police.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Gildas is spot on - there has been a collusion between grooming gangs, council staff, and police, that some young girls are trash, and don't deserve any attention really. There are stories that the police actively were trying to disprove some young girls' stories.

I have no idea how pervasive this trashing of young girls is; we are seeing it also in other cases, such as Savile, where girls were disbelieved, and even punished for reporting abuse! It is very alarming, if it is actually present in 'authorities' such as council staff and police.

I'd suggest it's endemic. Especially around here. Rotherham has a bit of a reputation; anywhere from Chesterfield to Leeds folk'd understand the joke "what do you call a 25 year old Rotherham woman?" "Gran". I can imagine that feeding into a "they're just sluts" narrative.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Gildas is spot on - there has been a collusion between grooming gangs, council staff, and police, that some young girls are trash, and don't deserve any attention really. There are stories that the police actively were trying to disprove some young girls' stories.

I have no idea how pervasive this trashing of young girls is; we are seeing it also in other cases, such as Savile, where girls were disbelieved, and even punished for reporting abuse! It is very alarming, if it is actually present in 'authorities' such as council staff and police.
I'd suggest it's endemic. Especially around here. Rotherham has a bit of a reputation; anywhere from Chesterfield to Leeds folk'd understand the joke "what do you call a 25 year old Rotherham woman?" "Gran". I can imagine that feeding into a "they're just sluts" narrative.

I think it is probably endemic, and not confined to Yorkshire or the north. The last time I checked the stats, about 1 in 20 children report sexual abuse.

And historically, children and adolescents were not believed, when they reported abuse. But these kids in homes are probably seen as disposable rubbish, by everybody.

I suppose they are bottom of the pile.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

That's exactly it. The conversations in the police stations would probably have gone along the lines of "she probably went along with it then changed her mind; these slags are all like that. Anyway you'd never get it to stand up in court. Not worth the effort. She'll be claiming off the social for four kids by different fathers by the time she's 24 anyway, you know the type. Problem family."

[ 29. August 2014, 16:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I have two thoughts.

1) I don't believe the police were worried about being thought racist, but that might seem like a handy excuse for them now. The report hints at actual police collusion and I think this should be looked into properly. Certainly, I think individual police officers involved should face consequences. It seems to me that a police officer who arrests a child for being drunk and disorderly, while merely cautioning the adult who is having sex with the child, is a danger to children. People have gone on the sex offenders register for much less.

2) It seems to me that the children thought their parents were powerless to help. And in fact, in the cases referred to in the report, this was borne out. We have created a society where the lowest socio-economic group *are* powerless over many things in their life, instead of one in which all parents have choices about their lives - and their children grow up to believe that their parents have choices, have power - and they will have that power themselves. I feel really sad about this. I think we all have moments in life when we don't feel in control, when we're not sure that we own ourselves. If I feel that way sometimes, even though I have - relatively speaking - a huge amount of social and economic power, how are the most defenceless people in society meant to feel in control, or actually exercise that control?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's exactly it. The conversations in the police stations would probably have gone along the lines of "she probably went along with it then changed her mind; these slags are all like that. Anyway you'd never get it to stand up in court. Not worth the effort. She'll be claiming off the social for four kids by different fathers by the time she's 24 anyway, you know the type. Problem family."

I think changing people's thinking about this stuff is very difficult - that is, changing deep thinking. You are going against centuries of misogyny, patriarchy, ill-treatment of children - I don't know how the hell it is going to change. In many ways, we are just scratching the surface with Savile and cases like this. There is also massive abuse in families, which is very difficult to access.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If the police and other bodies excuse a lack of action because they didn't want to damage community relations then it has truly turned and bitten them, as any independent advisor could have told them.

What we have now is damaged and abused children, poorer community relations and discredited police, social services, health services and local government.

What the heck is it about that area? It isn't a lot better down in South Wales, but it is usually reckoned to be in the family.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Nobody yet seems to have addressed the question of whether those who were complicit ( police and council officers) should be sacked forthwith

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I am interested have you ever actually been involved in achild protection process ? Do you know how they work ? Likewise, have you ever tried to support a vulnerable person to make a legal allegation ?

What would you normally expect to happen. For example, the BBC have reported from a careworker a typical scenario.

A child has been abused by their birth family, and been taken into care. They now have massive attachment issues.

They meet a youngish man outside the care home, that initially they view as a boyfriend. They maintain contact on a mobile phone. They escape from the care home at night, sometimes by making sheet ropes and climbing out of the window, in response to phone messages or text messages - to be with said boyfriend.

Said girl then rings care staff wanting taxi fare home after being stranded at three am in the middle of town. This is authorised, for safety reasons.

At this point what do you do ? Do you put the child in a locked secure unit ? Do you carry out a rape kit without her consent or co-operation ?

Maybe you take the phone, what happens when she comes back with another one ? Maybe you pursue the 'boyfriend' but without her testimony, how do you prove an offence ?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's reasonable to point out it's more an un-Islamic sub-culture amongst some members of the Muslim community, rather than an Islamic one.

There's a good article about this "political correctness" angle here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/29/rotherham-abuse-political-correctness-ludicrous

Here is a better one from the same newspaper.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

KLB, Gildas and quetzalcoatl are spot on here. Just from my own experience of living in homeless hostels/B&Bs with the kind of vulnerable young women being discussed here - this kind of thing is endemic generally, and still happens where there is no significant Muslim population. When I was living in hostels, white British men were by far the most likely to be grooming young women (this was in Sussex in a mostly-white area).

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's Cat
It perpetuated because those in positions of responsibility would not do what they were supposed to do, for fear of being called racist. At the time, I can understand this fear - they would have been. It doesn't mean they should not have done something.
Could you please clarify what you are saying by the phrase "they would have been".

Are you saying that those in positions of responsibility would have been racist to investigate this abuse and take action against it?

Or are you saying something else?

They would have been accused of being racist. Not that they would have been.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

It perpetuated because those in positions of responsibility would not do what they were supposed to do, for fear of being called racist.

Here, in America, I first heard the outline of the abuse and, "racism is suspected in the cover-up."

I thought racism? How could that be? The British aren't racist, if anything, they bend over backward not to be. Then I heard the whole story and realized the racism charge was pretty much the opposite of what it would be here.

I think America is heading in the same direction, where police might start looking the other way for fear of being charged with racism.

It's a dilemma. Racism is terrible but nothing should get in the way of protecting children.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's exactly it. The conversations in the police stations would probably have gone along the lines of "she probably went along with it then changed her mind; these slags are all like that. Anyway you'd never get it to stand up in court. Not worth the effort. She'll be claiming off the social for four kids by different fathers by the time she's 24 anyway, you know the type. Problem family."

This, but wider than this I think. The 'no sex before sixteen' rule was pretty much ignored, if a girl was willing she was seen as fair game. Groupies who followed the bands were often young teens.

Unless a young girl was beaten up so that it was obvious she had been attacked it would be very unlikely that anyone would take her word for it, one word against another after all. If she was out on the streets at night, especially if wearing revealing clothes, she would be thought of as a 'slag' anyway.

People are trying to apply today's attitudes to a past era.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
KLB, Gildas and quetzalcoatl are spot on here. Just from my own experience of living in homeless hostels/B&Bs with the kind of vulnerable young women being discussed here - this kind of thing is endemic generally, and still happens where there is no significant Muslim population. When I was living in hostels, white British men were by far the most likely to be grooming young women (this was in Sussex in a mostly-white area).

I remember 50 years ago, living in Manchester, there were respectable working class girls, and non-respectable ones. The latter were known as the easy shags, although I don't think we used the word 'slag' then. I don't remember rape happening, but they were basically treated like meat. It's just an extension from that, I think, but with children's homes today you have a disgusting dimension, that the home becomes a kind of quasi-official brothel, sanctioned by the council and the cops.

There are also gangs in many big cities, where the girls are also treated like meat, and are raped, I believe.

As I said, I can't see a solution really, as all this is embedded in a matrix of misogyny and dehumanization - how do you change that?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

What I have heard on the radio included parents who tried to get the police to act, and were not able to do so, a brief reference to one father being arrested when he tried to do something (not sure what - I didn't hear the start of the item so don't know the whole of it), care home workers who tried to stop things, and were stopped by their superiors (sounds familiar) and an incident in which offices were raided and case notes destroyed. There was also an interview with a Muslim woman from the area pointing out that there were Muslim victims as well, who were constrained by their families to keep quiet, and the men had been brought up to expect to be dominant over women.

A very articulate woman told how she had been first approached by secondary school boys who then handed her on to very nasty adults, who threatened her family would be harmed, and she went on with them to protect them. Her parents had eventually moved out of the country to get away from them. The men were criminal in other ways.

One radio programme suggested that difference between this case and others was that here the men knew that if they told others what they were doing, the others would ask to join in rather than snitching on them.

There was a nasty link I have not seen picked up with a video from one of those pathetic individuals in ISIS who was enthusing about the cheapness of buying slave women and how that would attract men to join jihad. Same attitude to women.

It looks as though these sub-men have grown up with a sense of entitlement to an out-of-date life and found that Muslim women here have grown to something new. So they go after children or captives.

What the explanation for the white taxidrivers and so on who have this attitude in other areas is I don't know.

The dark side of my mind is toying with the idea that the punishment imposed on Alan Turing would be appropriate, with implants that couldn't be got at.

[ 29. August 2014, 20:10: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The last time I checked the stats, about 1 in 20 children report sexual abuse.

According to the BBC, it is closer to 1 in 10.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The last time I checked the stats, about 1 in 20 children report sexual abuse.
According to the BBC, it is closer to 1 in 10.

I do remember the overall figure for abuse, sexual and non-sexual (physical violence, emotional neglect, and so on) - the NSPCC used to quote a figure of 16%, that is, 1 in 6. They used to use a graphic of a school bus taking kids home, with the slogan, that 5 or 6 of them were going home to abuse. And I still know people who refuse to believe it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

posted by shamwari

quote:
Why did it happen? And why was it allowed to happen for 15 years?

It happened for a variety of reasons, many of which can be directly traced to a misplaced laissez-faire attitude - some would say knee-jerk liberalism - which has become widespread under the misused term of 'multiculturalism'.

To look at the perpetrators first: to describe the attitude of an influential metropolitan elite towards immigrant communities, especially muslims, as being multicultural and tolerant is entirely wrong. The reality has been that immigrant communities have to a large extent remained mono-cultural.

Worse, as abuses have been highlighted - arranged marriage, inter-marriage, so-called honour violence, FGM, etc - a blanket label of 'cultural heritage' has been applied to obscure behaviours that not only run counter to the ethos of our society but in many cases disguise practices which are against the law of the land. To compound that, anyone who has tried to speak out about these abuses or the isolation of communities has immediately been labelled racist.

As far back as 1982 Ray Honeyford tried to draw attention to the isolation of muslim communities and was hounded from his job and labelled a knuckle-dragging red-neck. When Ann Cryer tried to draw attention to honour crime, and forced marriage and failure of immigrants to learn English she too was howled down, with many Labour politicians at both local and national level queueing up to put the boot into one of their own who dared to question the official multicultural line.

To turn to the victims: some came from homes best described as chaotic and had been involved with social services for years. But others came from loving homes with parents who were deeply concerned and trying to do their level best to keep their children safe.

The tragedy is that in more than a few cases, children were removed from loving homes and placed in so-called 'care' where no attempt at all was made to control the movements of the children or even to question where they were.

For is we can blame misplaced multiculturalism for some of the attitudes of police and politicians, we should also look at the garbage spouted by some of the people into whose tender care - although clutches might be a better word - these troubled children were placed.

How any moderately sensible person can decide that an 11 or 12 year old girl is making a 'life-style choice' to choose to have sex with multiple partners beggars belief. That such an attitude can appear in a report on that child and not be questioned - not even by the police who should, at the very least have pointed out that the child in question was 4 or 5 years below the age of consent - highlights that there is something very wrong with an institution which can have within it people with such a warped view of childhood, autonomy and responsibility.

That this problem is not unique to Rotherham is well known. What is perhaps less well documented is the steps that other authorities have been taking to try to put in place children's services staffed by people with common sense, free of the liberalist clap-trap spouted in Rotherham other places when trying to explain yet another 'lesson to be learnt' horror story. In one area (I can't give details, sorry) children's services have been removed from the social services umbrella altogether so that a fresh start can be made; the largely educational staff who have been taking over for the past 2 years have uncovered widespread failures to visit, to document meetings, failure to intervene, ignorance of the law pertaining to drug abuse, sexual consent, etc, etc, etc.

As for South Yorkshire Police - words fail. The latest HMIC report found that something approaching 40% of all sexual crimes are still going unrecorded - either pressure is brought to bear on the complainant or it is just left uninvestigated in the hopes that the victim will go away.

As to where we go from here: hard decisions have to be made regarding public officials and culpability. It is not unreasonable to suggest that those who have moved on from Rotherham could be dismissed from current posts on the grounds that the information given by them when applying for the current post was inaccurate - after all, would you want to consider someone who'd so manifestly failed at their previous job?

Police should be made to record all crimes reported to them and then follow them up. All telephone calls into police stations should be taped and the tapes held for at least a year so that HMIC inspectors can check them. Similarly, all public areas of police stations should have CCTV with sound, and police cars should also have recording equipment as standard.

As for the communities that have chosen to isolate themselves - much, don't forget, to the detriment of their womenfolk - a zero tolerance approach must be taken towards crimes of domestic violence, bullying and intimidation. Intensive language lessons must be made available to adult members of such communities.

Perhaps most importantly, the acceptance by civic authorities of self-appointed 'community leaders' must be rigorously challenged. Ask yourself, could you instantly say who should be appointed the (white) 'community leaders' in your area? So where's the difference.

The UK needs to wake up to the inverted racism that inherent in a multi-cultural lobby that refused to acknowledge that quasi acceptance of all the nastier habits of some of our muslim immigrants (FGM, forced marriage, 'honour' crime, etc) was in reality saying to some immigrant communities that they could do as they liked so long as they kept their unpleasantness within their own sphere.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
anyone who has tried to speak out about these abuses or the isolation of communities has immediately been labelled racist.

As far back as 1982 Ray Honeyford tried to draw attention to the isolation of muslim communities and was hounded from his job and labelled a knuckle-dragging red-neck. When Ann Cryer tried to draw attention to honour crime, and forced marriage and failure of immigrants to learn English she too was howled down,

Which are examples of what someone upthread said, if you tried to oppose it you would be called racist. Being called that was not just word, it was losing your job and being socially scorned, meaning you can't find a new job.

When the choice appears to be - speak up and lose my job and no one does anything about the problem, or stay silent and keep my job and no does anything about the problem, which do most people do?

quote:
As for the communities that have chosen to isolate themselves - ... the acceptance by civic authorities of self-appointed 'community leaders' must be rigorously challenged.

Good point. In my experience, those who try to appoint themselves "leader" over a gathering or community are usually loud mouths, self-satisfied power hungry, not the kind of people who care about the welfare of all members of the community.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

In addition to Ray Honeyford and Ann Cryer, didn't Jack Straw get shouted down when he claimed that some Asian men regarded British women as 'white meat' and that this was a problem?

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am interested have you ever actually been involved in achild protection process ? Do you know how they work ? Likewise, have you ever tried to support a vulnerable person to make a legal allegation ?

What would you normally expect to happen. For example, the BBC have reported from a careworker a typical scenario.

A child has been abused by their birth family, and been taken into care. They now have massive attachment issues.

They meet a youngish man outside the care home, that initially they view as a boyfriend. They maintain contact on a mobile phone. They escape from the care home at night, sometimes by making sheet ropes and climbing out of the window, in response to phone messages or text messages - to be with said boyfriend.

Said girl then rings care staff wanting taxi fare home after being stranded at three am in the middle of town. This is authorised, for safety reasons.

At this point what do you do ? Do you put the child in a locked secure unit ? Do you carry out a rape kit without her consent or co-operation ?

Maybe you take the phone, what happens when she comes back with another one ? Maybe you pursue the 'boyfriend' but without her testimony, how do you prove an offence ?

I thought I'd repeat myself and see if anyone has any practical suggestions.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Yes - I can see that happening - and the police etc becoming so numbed out with all the stuff they deal with day in day out that in the end if it's borderline they have difficulty being bothered with individual cases you describe. But this isn't just one case, and it's been systematic abuse from a group of adults over a decade.

Family patterns - if you talk to a psychotherapist, the likelihood is that the girls are acting out a pattern that has been in the family for at least 3 generations. That isn't something that can be stopped overnight - and if it's so endemic in the community then there isn't a baseline behaviour that would regulate much of it.

But.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

What I want to know is, will all the perpetrators be tracked down in 40 to 50 years time and jailed as old men for historic sex abuse ?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
What I want to know is, will all the perpetrators be tracked down in 40 to 50 years time and jailed as old men for historic sex abuse ?

They could have been prosecuted now, if the police had listened to working class girls, who are treated as trash by everybody.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
What I want to know is, will all the perpetrators be tracked down in 40 to 50 years time and jailed as old men for historic sex abuse ?

I think our society has a slightly different view of dirty old men compared to dirty young women. Or, in other words, sometimes it's easier to trash the victims than to trash the perpetrators.

[ 30. August 2014, 11:41: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QBthe NSPCC used to quote a figure of 16%, that is, 1 in 6. They used to use a graphic of a school bus taking kids home, with the slogan, that 5 or 6 of them were going home to abuse. And I still know people who refuse to believe it. [/QB]

I tink that includes physical as well as sexual abuse, and I believe it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Doublethink

Many, though not all, of the girls in care homes in Rotherham and other northern towns were from out-of-area - some from as far away as London.

So a precedent had been set that it was OK to remove vulnerable children from their home neighbourhood.

In the instance you describe, apart from taking the obvious actions - regular after-dark checking that children were in their room, making the building secure with alarms on windows, removal of mobile 'phone, etc - a visit to the GP the next morning would not be unreasonable.

If the child escaped a second time then an immediate relocation a long way away, after confiscation of the mobile, would be called for.

Plus, of course, going with the cared-for child to the police and backing them up - or if they were being bolshy making it clear to police that an offence was suspected or had taken place and that you wished it to be recorded. Since the child was under 18 the care workers were in loco parentis and therefore had every right to represent them in situations like this.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Listening to the radio Any Answers discussing this issue - it's now going on to social mobility and inequality. And just before I started to listen I had started reading a piece in the Guardian Review contrasting the feather bedding of bankers with the atrocious sanctioning culture in the world of those who really need benefits. (Family man sanctioned just before Christmas because he missed a signing on while on a mandatory course. Disabled woman sanctioned because she had not told about her dependent daughter when asked if she had someone living with her, thinking they meant a partner.)

I heard, or read, something recently, but can't place where - O yes, a novel by Phil Rickman about a neo-Nazi group among the class which harboured Mosley (is it neo-Nazi if they never stopped being that way?) about people who regarded a lower class of society as Detritus, disposable, better off lost. There seems to be a flavour of that attitude in the way those on benefits (that was once a good word, as was welfare, with the linguistic elements of good things) and the girls and boys abused in these cases are regarded by those who have the care of society.

I have also read a novel by Jill Paton Walsh in which the McGuffin was a manuscript which might, or might not, have been annotated by Alfred the Great. From what I can make out, he did not have the attitude that there was a disposable class beneath his notice. From what I can make out, the writers of obituaries in the Dark Ages were much taken by the concept that "In his (name of subject) reign, a maiden could cross the kingdom carrying gold openly in her hand (sometimes a baby) without being harmed." I wonder what they would make of our realm now.

[ 30. August 2014, 13:37: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I am interested have you ever actually been involved in achild protection process ? Do you know how they work ? Likewise, have you ever tried to support a vulnerable person to make a legal allegation ?

What would you normally expect to happen. For example, the BBC have reported from a careworker a typical scenario.

A child has been abused by their birth family, and been taken into care. They now have massive attachment issues.

They meet a youngish man outside the care home, that initially they view as a boyfriend. They maintain contact on a mobile phone. They escape from the care home at night, sometimes by making sheet ropes and climbing out of the window, in response to phone messages or text messages - to be with said boyfriend.

Said girl then rings care staff wanting taxi fare home after being stranded at three am in the middle of town. This is authorised, for safety reasons.

At this point what do you do ? Do you put the child in a locked secure unit ? Do you carry out a rape kit without her consent or co-operation ?

Maybe you take the phone, what happens when she comes back with another one ? Maybe you pursue the 'boyfriend' but without her testimony, how do you prove an offence ?

DT the numbers of threads we would need to start to even begin to cover some of the ground in your post/question is huge. As a first pass:

Parenting course/Schooling, what values do we teach?

The over sexualisation of Society by a rampant capitalist regime.

Can we financially afford to NOT address attachment disorders?

Should children in Care be locked up?

What punishments for men who rape children will effectively cut down the incidents of child rape?

At what point does "the system" cause more harm to children in care than leaving them in abusive family situation?

Who is responsible for children achieving emotional, intellectual and spiritual maturity?

Can we take responsibility away from children, regarding consent to collect forensic evidence.

In the end how do we approach the truth that given a slight opportunity many men will step beyond legality and "normal" morality into abusive sex?

I could go on. The cause of the symptoms you are describing are deep. Maybe there is no real answer to your main question because the real answers are not about your question. I think I empathise with the direction you are going (I can answer yes to your first three question and more) but the answers are deeper.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I guess my point is, that there are reasons other than - all the professionals involved couldn't be arsed - that things go wrong. It is always difficult to get people to testify against criminal gangs. Though I grant there was poor practice in Rotheram as well.

In most cases social services handle regarding child abuse, upto and including removing a child from their family, do not result in criminal prosecution. Civil cases can be decided on the basis of the balance of probabilities, criminal cases can not. Most cases of child abuse just can not be proven to the level required by a criminal court. It is much the same with the abuse of vulnerable adults.

You can have care staff restraining someone face down on the floor (which is extremely dangerous), corroborated, get them dismissed and put on the vetting and barring list - and still not be able to get a criminal prosecution for assault.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Doublethink

Many, though not all, of the girls in care homes in Rotherham and other northern towns were from out-of-area - some from as far away as London.

So a precedent had been set that it was OK to remove vulnerable children from their home neighbourhood.

In the instance you describe, apart from taking the obvious actions - regular after-dark checking that children were in their room, making the building secure with alarms on windows, removal of mobile 'phone, etc - a visit to the GP the next morning would not be unreasonable.

If the child escaped a second time then an immediate relocation a long way away, after confiscation of the mobile, would be called for.

Plus, of course, going with the cared-for child to the police and backing them up - or if they were being bolshy making it clear to police that an offence was suspected or had taken place and that you wished it to be recorded. Since the child was under 18 the care workers were in loco parentis and therefore had every right to represent them in situations like this.

Are you prepared to use physical intervention to get the children to co-operate ? Because there are massive issues with the escalation and frequency of physical intervention.

The Winterbourne scandal shows a whole other set of risks that go with sending people a long distance from those responsible for reviewing their care.

If a child is vulnerable in this way, they are likely to be vulnerable wherever you send them, taking the move them every time route would result in multiple placements - also known to be very damaging - even if you could find the vacancy and get the monies agreed each time. The moves would also disrupt any positive attachments the child had each time.

I have worked with eighteen year olds coming into adult services who have had over 20 placements - that has a ***very*** poor outcome.

If you contact the police and say you suspect an offence has happened but you can produce no evidence of it - they won't do anything about it. Been there, done that, have no t-shirt.

The Rotheram situation was dire, but there are no simple solutions.

[ 30. August 2014, 16:08: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I think our society has a slightly different view of dirty old men compared to dirty young women. Or, in other words, sometimes it's easier to trash the victims than to trash the perpetrators.

Quite so .
It wasn't so long ago when the savile business began to emerge that many of us were muttering about precocious young girls putting it about, you know six of one an half a dozen of the other and all that.
Then the anger strikes with the gnawing realisation that an adult has taken blatant advantage of a situation , taken premeditated action that has got them what they wanted over and over again, with little or no regard for their victims .

With savile it became clear that his celebrity status and charity work was the shield against being brought to justice . In this Rotheram case it seems political correctness ,(whatever that is), has provided the perpetrators with protection.
What is equally disturbing is the woeful inaction
of those in positions of authority whose job it is to prevent this kind of stuff from happening at all . I mean how crazy is it that, whilst all this was going on, certain authorities have spent energy banning parents from merely photographing their children at sports activities.

Re OP I wonder if the reluctance to set up this thread ,and comment on it, isn't down to some of us beginning to wonder just what the heck is going on with this issue, and just how high up the echelons of power it actually goes.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

A ring (small gang) providing kids for other men to -

What bugs me, who are all these men who gladly pay the ring for the right to sex on an unwilling female, and a child at that?

There had to be a lot of "customers" for the ring to afford all the "candy" to entice so many girls. A lot of customers, not just a few immigrants from some other culture.

Something's terribly wrong with our culture if this kind of behavioral interest is common enough to require such numbers of girls.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A ring (small gang) providing kids for other men to -

What bugs me, who are all these men who gladly pay the ring for the right to sex on an unwilling female, and a child at that?

There had to be a lot of "customers" for the ring to afford all the "candy" to entice so many girls. A lot of customers, not just a few immigrants from some other culture.

Something's terribly wrong with our culture if this kind of behavioral interest is common enough to require such numbers of girls.

Well, you can read about this in the Victorian age, which was very prim and proper, but which is supposed to have seen large numbers of girls on the streets, working as prostitutes. Thus, the journalist W. T. Stead bought a 13 year old girl, in 1885, just to show how it could be done.

Of course, improvements were made in relation to this trade, for example, the age of consent was raised, and children discouraged from it, but it has probably always existed. Today we see a new form of it, but not all that new.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Something's terribly wrong with our culture if this kind of behavioral interest is common enough to require such numbers of girls.
...it has probably always existed. Today we see a new form of it, but not all that new.

True, not new. Is it common in all cultures? Or is there something about Western culture? As you point out, not just 21st century Western culture.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think the Victorian phenomenon of mass prostitution is often linked with poverty and unemployment; of course, there was no welfare state then, so if you had no job, you might be driven to prostitution.

I don't know if this occurred in other countries, but it would seem likely, in similar conditions.

But I think until recently paedophiles were also travelling abroad to pick kids up, for example, Thailand, although I think they have been cracking down on it.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Something's terribly wrong with our culture if this kind of behavioral interest is common enough to require such numbers of girls.
...it has probably always existed. Today we see a new form of it, but not all that new.
True, not new. Is it common in all cultures? Or is there something about Western culture? As you point out, not just 21st century Western culture.

I won't be posting any links, but you can do a wikipedia search on "lolicon" to see an example of the interest manifesting itself in Japan.

Granted, I don't know to what extent that interest overflows into actual practice, or if it generally remains in the realm of fantasy, among the Japanese.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I won't be posting any links, but you can do a wikipedia search on "lolicon" to see an example of the interest manifesting itself in Japan.

Granted, I don't know to what extent that interest overflows into actual practice, or if it generally remains in the realm of fantasy, among the Japanese.

I remember reading news articles some years ago about Japanese businessmen who jumped at the chance to have sex with girls wearing school uniforms.

Moo

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I won't be posting any links, but you can do a wikipedia search on "lolicon" to see an example of the interest manifesting itself in Japan.

Granted, I don't know to what extent that interest overflows into actual practice, or if it generally remains in the realm of fantasy, among the Japanese.
I remember reading news articles some years ago about Japanese businessmen who jumped at the chance to have sex with girls wearing school uniforms.

Moo

Yeah, you hear a lot about that particular fetish over there. But I don't know how much of it involves sex with actual minors, or just adult prostitutes dressed up as such.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by shamwari
quote:
Why did it happen? And why was it allowed to happen for 15 years?
It happened for a variety of reasons, many of which can be directly traced to a misplaced laissez-faire attitude - some would say knee-jerk liberalism - which has become widespread under the misused term of 'multiculturalism'. [...]

That issue may have factored in, but undergirding it is the same dark rationale that undergirds all cases of abuse, which is touched on above: the victims were powerless and marginalized, the authorities indifferent to their plight. It was easier to do nothing, so nothing was done.

One of the great truths of Christianity is original sin: not the concept, but the observation. We're not naturally good; goodness leads to unnecessary conflict, which millions of years of evolution have wired us to avoid. Ethics are counter-intuitive in the extreme.

If it ever got its own house in order, this where the church could be radically counter-cultural to good purpose.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What an awesome middle paragraph.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Victorian phenomenon of mass prostitution is often linked with poverty and unemployment; of course, there was no welfare state then, so if you had no job, you might be driven to prostitution.

Mothers would sell their own 14 yr old daughters to top-hatted gents with bushy side-burns just to put bread on the table. Some of the girls were unlucky enough to pick up syphilis into the bargain.
Most of us would like to think we've moved on somewhat since those dark distant days.

What troubles me, given the present age, is that young people in care are still clearly sitting targets where abuse is concerned.
I also notice that, as with the savile business it's easy to get side-tracked onto the phenomena school-girl fantasy . TMM actual abusive behaviour goes way way beyond anything like that . These perpetrators know they are crossing the line, they know it's wrong, and what properly rancours is that they seem to be doing it while escaping the full weight of the law.

Having said all that, I do sometimes think there are different aspects to this news item, some of which are deliberately presented in a way to get people like me waving lighted torches and pitchforks around.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Victorian phenomenon of mass prostitution is often linked with poverty and unemployment; of course, there was no welfare state then, so if you had no job, you might be driven to prostitution.
Mothers would sell their own 14 yr old daughters to top-hatted gents with bushy side-burns just to put bread on the table. Some of the girls were unlucky enough to pick up syphilis into the bargain.
Most of us would like to think we've moved on somewhat since those dark distant days.

What troubles me, given the present age, is that young people in care are still clearly sitting targets where abuse is concerned.
I also notice that, as with the savile business it's easy to get side-tracked onto the phenomena school-girl fantasy . TMM actual abusive behaviour goes way way beyond anything like that . These perpetrators know they are crossing the line, they know it's wrong, and what properly rancours is that they seem to be doing it while escaping the full weight of the law.

Having said all that, I do sometimes think there are different aspects to this news item, some of which are deliberately presented in a way to get people like me waving lighted torches and pitchforks around.

Sadly, regarding child prostitution (and it is not only girls who are sold, hence the use of 'child') we've gone somewhat backwards - possibly due to the earlier age of puberty nowadays, the average age of a child sold into prostitution is now around 10. Kyrie eleison.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Its not just the earlier onset of puberty but the hugely increased sexualisation of children.

One of the most obvious signs of this is in the clothes little girls wear: a friend shopping for her 8 year old some years ago was horrified to find that the only 'party' clothes available in M&S in December (other than fancy dress) was a series of items which she described as being questionable for a 14 year old. She refused to buy but when discussing it with friends was told 'well you have to buy them because there's nothing else available and its what all the girls want because everyone else is wearing it.

As she said, would YOU expect to see an 8 year old in skin tight leggings, crop top trimmed with feathers and sparkly make-up in a sensible world?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

What is now troubling me is that a woman researcher employed by the Home Office, but working in Rotherham, was threatened by council officials/members when she made her report; the report was annotated by four people who demanded that she rewrite, removing references to failures by those in child protection; and the office where she worked was then entered and all her data removed. She contacted her Home Office department, was told that it would be sorted out, felt relief, and then it wasn't.
Hidden in the morass seems to be that the councillors were concerned about the loss of votes from a particular community - in other places this sort of community has been found to massage votes in various ways*. I am disgusted to say that the party concerned was the one which had its seedbed in Methodism, and caring for the community.
I think anyone involved in reporting on this sort of thing from now on needs to save data in multiple places, and lie about where copies are.
*Misuse of the postal vote system to make votes group rather than individual was one. Think that may have been Birmingham.

[ 02. September 2014, 13:34: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its not just the earlier onset of puberty but the hugely increased sexualisation of children.

One of the most obvious signs of this is in the clothes little girls wear: a friend shopping for her 8 year old some years ago was horrified to find that the only 'party' clothes available in M&S in December (other than fancy dress) was a series of items which she described as being questionable for a 14 year old. She refused to buy but when discussing it with friends was told 'well you have to buy them because there's nothing else available and its what all the girls want because everyone else is wearing it.

As she said, would YOU expect to see an 8 year old in skin tight leggings, crop top trimmed with feathers and sparkly make-up in a sensible world?

I wouldn't see a particular problem with that? They're just clothes. Leggings as trousers is normal in childrenswear and has been for decades, crop tops are in at the moment generally, and makeup is fun to wear.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Leggings, crop top, and sparkly makeup can all be fine for a little child. It was the t-shirt I saw which said FUTURE PORN STAR on the front which took me aback. It was on a three-year-old. And don't anybody say 'At least the word 'future' was in there.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Going a little further down tangent road -- because I take it no-one here is suggesting that a female under 16 ,(or any other age), wearing sexualised clothing is in any way linked to being raped and abused !?

Anyway, in the small rural town where I work there has been something of a sea-change in the way secondary school females seem to dress in recent years . Out have gone the loose fitting smart trousers , similar to what the boys wear, and in has come the neo-St. Trinians look . Namely black tights and above the knee hem-lines.
Just struck as a little odd, considering all the stuff in the news since the savile thing broke .

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I wouldn't mind St Trinians, if it were the 4th form. Take on girls like that? "Let our motto be broadcast, get your blow in first, He who draws the sword last always comes off worst."

And I'm not exactly trivialising. Those girls were empowered, not going to be groomed and abused, not pinkified and girlified and made to feel worthless.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Doublethink asked about involvement in child protection. May I give a Canadian prairie perspective.

The Child and Family Services Act, titled different things and renamed occasionally, but all are much the same has specific procedures with force of law. They require and authorise disclosure by all of any risk towards children who are defined as under the age of 16. The requirement portion is important. There is no "optional", and it is an offence to not report and it is punishable to not report. Thus, someone from "child protection" will be informed about child abuse. A child under the age of 14 having sex is generally considered to be in need of protection, and an investigation will be conducted. The child is usually interviewed without any other adults ever being informed, often at school, or otherwise apprehended (it is not an arrest I suppose unless the police have to be called to make it occur).

The thing proceeds criminally if when the child protection file is reviewed by a supervisor who must document obtaining an in-house legal opinion, and in our jurisdiction then meets with members of the police and prosecution (some places just pass the file along, which is in my view not as good). The issues are only "is there enough evidence to reasonably expect a conviction if this goes to court?".

On the child protection side, the social workers via in-house lawyer review then apply for a voluntary or involuntary custody order for a set term, reviewable by court. But they will heavy handedly show up with the police and apprehend the child under the act. Placement will occur if they judge it appropriate, including in a locked facility.

There are "internal audit" steps along each step to ensure compliance. When the case is reviewed the steps have to be shown to be proper. Further the Office of the Children's Advocate, which here is appointed by the provincial legislature has the power to compel information and further review. A member of the public can apply directly by phoning or emailing for a review.

The Family Court here is at the second level, called Queen's Bench, and is reviewed by the Court of Appeal, which is a panel of judges in most cases. It has extensive power, and can make orders about child protection matters (and does) which can result in orders without an hearing (ex parte). I am not a lawyer, but I have yet to see that a report of child abuse does not proceed through investigation and a "child care plan" reviewable internal audit by court is not in place. I see heavy handed decisions without due process in some cases, where an accusation is as good as conviction it seems.

Dunno. But I cannot see something as terrible as this case occurring here. I would not have said this before about 1990 when we tuned up our processes.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

What constitutes enough evidence ? How do you think that would play out for the scenario I sketched out earlier ?

"She escaped from the carehome, we think to see a man she thinks is a boyfriend, we think they had sex, she won't tell us anything, and she won't let us do a physical examination ?"

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
What constitutes enough evidence ? How do you think that would play out for the scenario I sketched out earlier ?

"She escaped from the carehome, we think to see a man she thinks is a boyfriend, we think they had sex, she won't tell us anything, and she won't let us do a physical examination ?"

Generally, if she was less than 16 here, they'd apprehend her enough at least to interview. Enough data would be social workers having enough info that they'd fill out the child protection form: the worker and supervisor. -- so the first thing would be the child protection -- If the man is more than 2 years older than she, the police must be notified and show that they followed due process. If the child is less than 14, then she can't give consent even if she consented. Though psychological consent might be an issue for them and modifies the understanding. Parents have limited rights during this, and lawyers don't have a role yet. Neither are informed about this at this stage.

They would undoubtedly have the girl in your scenario return to the same or another home and have constant supervision with a social worker, who'd develop the relationship with her so as to get the story from her. They'd probably not insist on an exam for criminal purposes right then, but would likely have her see one of the physicians they contract with to explain things, and the social worker would observe.

These situations are ones of developing relationship and not of coercing, and the social context developing the situation to one where the girl would go along with at least the non-medical exam parts.

Of course if she were in a care home, there would be the required counselling with a social worker and development of the relationship from the prior contact would help the post-incident issue to be developed.

The police would interview the man and there may be an order issued to him. There are several possible ways this can occur, to restrain his conduct. The likelihood of him being charged right away are low, but may increase over time as things develop. One last week here was charged for an incident in February, earlier this year. I'm told "similar fact" evidence and past records are often part of these scenarios.

-- I'm not clear on the Rotherham ethnicity issues and how they are thought to have influenced the authorities. Here the issue would be First Nations (North American Indians) who make up perhaps 50% of some communities. The accusations of racism are made sometimes about the "system" as a whole, and in individual cases, but there is a complete insensitivity to cultural and social issues in situations of personal violence. We see a similar complete insensitivity to personal demographics in traffic violations, e.g., intoxication, cell phone use when driving, certain speeding offences. and a similar "summary justice" approach at the start: they impound the vehicles.

[note: I wish I knew much less about this!]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

So you are assuming you can prove who the man is, and that they had sex ?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

No, just that the child is at risk. That is the threshold to intervene.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its not just the earlier onset of puberty but the hugely increased sexualisation of children.

One of the most obvious signs of this is in the clothes little girls wear: a friend shopping for her 8 year old some years ago was horrified to find that the only 'party' clothes available in M&S in December (other than fancy dress) was a series of items which she described as being questionable for a 14 year old. She refused to buy but when discussing it with friends was told 'well you have to buy them because there's nothing else available and its what all the girls want because everyone else is wearing it.

As she said, would YOU expect to see an 8 year old in skin tight leggings, crop top trimmed with feathers and sparkly make-up in a sensible world?
I wouldn't see a particular problem with that? They're just clothes. Leggings as trousers is normal in childrenswear and has been for decades, crop tops are in at the moment generally, and makeup is fun to wear.

Yes, but there's a question about the overall effect of the combination, isn't there?

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its not just the earlier onset of puberty but the hugely increased sexualisation of children.

One of the most obvious signs of this is in the clothes little girls wear: a friend shopping for her 8 year old some years ago was horrified to find that the only 'party' clothes available in M&S in December (other than fancy dress) was a series of items which she described as being questionable for a 14 year old. She refused to buy but when discussing it with friends was told 'well you have to buy them because there's nothing else available and its what all the girls want because everyone else is wearing it.

As she said, would YOU expect to see an 8 year old in skin tight leggings, crop top trimmed with feathers and sparkly make-up in a sensible world?
I wouldn't see a particular problem with that? They're just clothes. Leggings as trousers is normal in childrenswear and has been for decades, crop tops are in at the moment generally, and makeup is fun to wear.
Yes, but there's a question about the overall effect of the combination, isn't there?

The point is about early and unhealthy sexualisation of young children.

I am currently looking for flower-girl dresses for two small friends of mine (aged 8 and 4). At that age, the whole point of being a bridesmaid is getting to wear a poofy, sparkly, froofy dress, so I am looking for something appropriately frilltastic and besequinned (The younger one especially hasn’t done this before and doesn’t quite get the concept. Her understanding of the event is pretty much “la vie en rouge is going to buy me a pretty dress”. [Big Grin]

).

Many of the available designs appal me. They are basically scaled-down wedding dresses or ball dresses for adult women. To my mind they are much too sexy for children. I don’t want my flower-girls looking like sexy mammas. I want them to look like little girls. Because they are little girls.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I fear you're going to have to make a couple of frocks. We had eight bridesmaids so two ought to be a doddle!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

<tangent> Have you tried Monsoon? They had some nice flower-girl-type dresses when my friend was shopping for one... <\tangent>

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Years ago I remember an 11 year old girl turning up for the junior school party in animal print leggings and a totally innappropriate top I can't remember. Teacherly discussion was on the lines of what was her mother thinking of and that she looked much older than her age (she was a tall wellbuilt girl). The word jailbait passed someone's lips.

There was an influence of the local dance school, from some performances done in assembly (show and tell stuff). The teacher is nationally known. I am not convinced he had a secure grasp of what waa appropriate for prepubertal children.

[ 03. September 2014, 14:51: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Its not just the earlier onset of puberty but the hugely increased sexualisation of children...
Leggings as trousers is normal in childrenswear and has been for decades, crop tops are in at the moment generally, and makeup is fun to wear.
Yes, but there's a question about the overall effect of the combination, isn't there?

I sometimes do a doubletake at a 6 year old because of how she is dressed; and some of the teens - a decade or so ago only a prostitute advertising for business dress that way.

Anyway this opinion article observes "You can tell she had been vacationing somewhere warm, because you could see her deep tan around her midriff thanks to the halter top and the tight sweatpants that rested just a little low on her waist. The icing on the cake? The word "Juicy" was written on her backside. Yeah, that 8-year-old girl was something to see all right." The article also quotes an American Psychological Association report "linking early sexualization with three of the most common mental-health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression."

But also, yesterday watching a 5 year old clomp in oversized sparkly high heals at the grocery, I was sorry for her. We don't have puberty "welcome to adulthood" rituals, but some substitutes were the teenage first pair of high heels, the arguing with the patents when is it OK to start wearing a little makeup. Where are the milestone thrills of gradually becoming an adult if you've been doing them since you were 3? Get drunk and laid?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Penny wrote:

quote:
The word jailbait passed someone's lips.

The use of "jailbait" in that context is telling, given that it implicity suggests sympathy for any male who gets himself arrested for having sex with the girl in question. Basically, the guy is seen as too dumb and helpless to resist the "bait" of illegal sex acts.

I realize that it might be one of those terms that people use nowadays without breaking down the meaning. However, if you are someone professing concern for the welfare of prematurely sexualized children, calling them "jailbait" does not enhance your humanitarian credentials.

{"You" and "your" above being used in the general sense, not addressing the author of the quoted post.)

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Stetson, I could not give the whole of the context of the conversation. We were deeply concerned about the effect of the dress style on any passing male of the sort who would be affected by that sort of thing. As some obviously are. The word was used at several removes from saying that the child actually was that, wondering whether the parents realised how the style could be interpreted, and how some people might use the word of the child. It isn't actually local usage, but culled from film and TV. It wasn't a word that would have occurred to me. What she was wearing was not just more appropriate for adolescents, it was tarty. And completely unexpected in the particular person, an intelligent and well behaved girl, who, I believe, hadn't the slightest idea of the unsuitability of her clothing or why it would be unsuitable. And believe me, none of us would have had the slightest sympathy for any man who had taken advantage of her. That wasn't the way the word was used at all.

[ 03. September 2014, 20:53: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
She refused to buy but when discussing it with friends was told 'well you have to buy them because there's nothing else available and its what all the girls want because everyone else is wearing it.

So, there's nothing else available because it's what all the girls want, all the girls want it because everyone else is wearing it, and everyone else is wearing it because there's nothing else available.

Sounds like the whole argument just goes round in circles, whilst the people selling the clothes clean up.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Stetson, I could not give the whole of the context of the conversation. We were deeply concerned about the effect of the dress style on any passing male of the sort who would be affected by that sort of thing. As some obviously are. The word was used at several removes from saying that the child actually was that, wondering whether the parents realised how the style could be interpreted, and how some people might use the word of the child. It isn't actually local usage, but culled from film and TV. It wasn't a word that would have occurred to me. What she was wearing was not just more appropriate for adolescents, it was tarty. And completely unexpected in the particular person, an intelligent and well behaved girl, who, I believe, hadn't the slightest idea of the unsuitability of her clothing or why it would be unsuitable. And believe me, none of us would have had the slightest sympathy for any man who had taken advantage of her. That wasn't the way the word was used at all.

Fair enough. If the speaker was saying something like "That's the kind of outfit that a predacious old lout is gonna interpret as a come-on", it's an acceptable usage.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thanks, Stetson.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Just watched a panorama special on the Rotherham scandal . The whole thing is so very very odd . Strange that there still seems no real urgency to track down and prosecute the, (what must be numerous), perpetrators, despite some identities being known to the Police.

The finger of blame appears to be leveled squarely at the authorities who failed to protect the young people . Yet we heard tales of groomed youngsters so eager to abscond it was almost impossible to stop them without using a locked cell .

This has all the hallmarks of the 'blame and claim' culture as opposed to the enforcement of justice in the way many of us used to regard it as being enforced . Tell you what , why don't we forget all about the penal system and just hand out the dosh.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Just watched a panorama special on the Rotherham scandal . The whole thing is so very very odd . Strange that there still seems no real urgency to track down and prosecute the, (what must be numerous), perpetrators, despite some identities being known to the Police.

and a similar tale seems to be unfolding regarding the allegations surrounding the Elm Guest House.

The dynamics in both cases seem to be that at least some of the perpetrators have managed to exercise the levers of power in some way - and anything else is very much a proximate cause.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

As a cartoon in this week's Private Eye points out, in all fairness to the South Yorkshire Police you have to remember that for much of the period in which they were apparently not noticing all this abuse, they were terribly busy having to cover up their role in the Hillsborough disaster...

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
As a cartoon in this week's Private Eye points out, in all fairness to the South Yorkshire Police you have to remember that for much of the period in which they were apparently not noticing all this abuse, they were terribly busy having to cover up their role in the Hillsborough disaster...

Bear in mind too that the same Police "Force" received a real beating in Court over the Orgreave Mass Rally during the miners strike. None of their convictions stuck on appeal and a large amount of compensation was paid out. It's a 30 year record of cover ups, failures, sheer incompetence and, I suggest, friends in high placed who took the heat off as necessary.

It would be interesting to investigate whether the rotten apples from every Police force in the UK were sent to S Yorks or perhaps the problems there are symptomatic of wider issues in the Police including perjured miscarriages of justice that have yet to come to light?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
South Yorkshire Police ... Hillsborough disaster...
Orgreave Mass Rally during the miners strike.

But the police did nothing wrong in either of these. I know, I read it in the Sun.

Someone aught to remind Sun journalists of what paragons of virtue they said the South Yorkshire Police were at this time and take this into account in their coverage.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

As someone living in S Yorks at the time of Orgreave, and who personally knew a lot of people who went to protest there - that was the first time I realised that a) police were happy to exceed their legal powers if given a political nod and a wink, and b) the media is capable of being run as a propaganda machine.

And quite a few arrests were made by police with no numbers on their uniforms (!) and by plain clothes police who had infiltrated the protest buses. And the level of violence (mainly from police with no numbers) made quite a few protesters think that there were squaddies dressed up in different uniforms. But there was some pretty awful behaviour from C Yorks police too. One of the things I just didn't understand at the time was how a local police force could be so prepared to alienate the population that it would have to live with when all the dust had died down. I still don't understand it.

However, maybe relevant - the local government culture at the time was definitely beggar thy neighbour. I complained about surface water drainage on the road I lived on, and fortunately sold my house 3 months later - fortunately because Doncaster council proceeded to persecute the person I sold the house to until 18 months later the house owners were taken to court and fined for causing the drainage problems. The message was quite clear.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
And quite a few arrests were made by police with no numbers on their uniforms (!) and by plain clothes police who had infiltrated the protest buses. And the level of violence (mainly from police with no numbers) made quite a few protesters think that there were

The police have been proven in court to be institutionally racist and sexist. I've seen institutional violence from them at first hand too: numberless arrests are still made.

Always but always film or record any interaction you have with the police with your mobile. They aren't pleased but they can't stop you doing it.

Why do think that violent and street crime has declined in towns with street pastors? It's partly their influence but also their presence allied to CCTV : it's stopped the Police winding people up to generate a fight. In my old town, the Police admitted them came in on a Friday foe a fight: if there wasn't one, then they started it by pushing a few people about and waving metal poles (batons I think) around.

It's destroyed any respect I might have had for them. Too many shaven headed oafs I'm afraid.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

It would be interesting to investigate whether the rotten apples from every Police force in the UK were sent to S Yorks or perhaps the problems there are symptomatic of wider issues in the Police including perjured miscarriages of justice that have yet to come to light?

The problem wasn't that rotten apples existed or were sent to South Yorkshire. The barrel was rotten in the first place and any apples that weren't rotten already soon turned.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I was told several times some years ago by someone who was a reliable source on this sort of thing that right back in the thirties and forties, the old Sheffield force was widely known for being rough in comparison with other forces, and sitting lightly on the concept of integrity.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I was told several times some years ago by someone who was a reliable source on this sort of thing that right back in the thirties and forties, the old Sheffield force was widely known for being rough in comparison with other forces, and sitting lightly on the concept of integrity.

Do you mean that the old radio Spoonerism was deliberate then? I believe it went:

"There now follows music by the Seffield Shitty police band".

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I was told several times some years ago by someone who was a reliable source on this sort of thing that right back in the thirties and forties, the old Sheffield force was widely known for being rough in comparison with other forces, and sitting lightly on the concept of integrity.

When will we finally realise that this is true of every constabulary?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
When will we finally realise that this is true of every constabulary?

No. That is simplistic. There are many failings in many police forces, and there are other flaws that tend to be prevalent in police cultures, but the person in question was making the point that the Sheffield force was different from most others in the wrong direction .

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Northumbria are pleasantly incompetent most of the time, but we've had a few incidents, present and historical that indicate the presence of a few bad apples.

I lived in Sheffield during the mid-80s. The police had a bloody awful reputation - thuggish, stupid and corrupt. Pretty much like the Met is now.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0